Nuclear deal

Discussion in 'Pakistan's Strategic & Foreign Affairs' started by Awesome, Jul 24, 2010.

Share This Page

  1. Awesome
    Offline

    Awesome RETIRED

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    22,719
    Ratings:
    +5 / 20,542 / -0
    -copyright violation-
  2. KS
    Offline

    KS ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    12,519
    Ratings:
    +0 / 13,235 / -0
    It would be interesting to see China's reactions.:pop:
  3. Hawk Eyes
    Offline

    Hawk Eyes FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    121
    Ratings:
    +0 / 70 / -0
    U.S. to oppose Chinese reactor sale to Pakistan


    By Eli Lake
    6:48 p.m., Thursday, July 22, 2010

    The Obama administration's point man for countering arms proliferation said Thursday that the administration will vote against China's sale of nuclear reactors to Pakistan in the international Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

    The announcement follows the visit of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to Pakistan, where she said the United States would be willing over time to discuss the prospect of U.S.-Pakistani nuclear cooperation.

    Pakistan, India and Israel are the only three countries that have never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a pact that promises nuclear cooperation in exchange for a pledge to forgo nuclear weapons. All three of those states have nuclear weapons, though Israel has not declared its nuclear arsenal.

    During a hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Vann H. Van Diepen, the acting assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, said the United States will vote against any exemption for China to sell two civil nuclear reactors to Pakistan.

    In response to a question from Rep. Ed Royce, California Republican, asking whether the United States would vote against the exemption for China, Mr. Van Diepen said, "Yes sir, by definition, we do not support any activity that goes against the guidelines."

    The 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group is an international forum designed to limit sales of nuclear technology.

    Earlier, Mr. Van Diepen said, "Based on the facts we are aware of, it would occur to us that this sale would not be allowed to occur without an exemption of the NSG."

    However, Mr. Van Diepen added that while the United States can vote against an exemption, it cannot stop China if that nation decides to sell Pakistan the reactors without special permission from the NSG.

    In 2008, India and the United States signed a nuclear cooperation agreement that would give India access to reactors and other nuclear technology without having to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan and India are archrivals.

    Earlier this week in Pakistan, Mrs. Clinton told Pakistani journalists, "In our dialogue with the Pakistani government, we have clearly said we will work with them on civil nuclear energy."

    She added, "It took years to do it with India. But we are committed to pursuing it and trying to overcome the obstacles that might stand in the way, because we think it is important to get as much of a varied source of energy all connected to the grid."

    China last spring signed a $2.4 billion agreement with Pakistan to supply two 340-megawatt reactors to Pakistan.

    Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters in Beijing June 24 that China's nuclear cooperation with Pakistan is for peaceful purposes and in line with international obligations of both countries.

    China in the past was a major supplier of nuclear technology to Pakistan, and U.S. intelligence officials said its bomb design is modeled after China's nuclear weapons.

    A senior State Department official said, "Pakistan has profound energy needs, and we are working with Pakistan to try to increase its energy production and the diversity of its energy resources."

    The official said, "In the abstract, nuclear power at some point can be part of that mix; in the near to midterm, we are focused on nonnuclear sources of energy."

    The official said the United States is "willing to have a conversation about civilian nuclear power, but there is a lot that Pakistan is going to have to do, given its past record" - a reference to the covert nuclear supplier group led by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan that supplied nuclear bomb designs and material to Iran, Libya and Pakistan.

    Henry Sokolski, director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said it is not clear when and how the United States would open the door to nuclear exports to Pakistan.

    "Is Washington blocking China so the Obama administration can be in control of the terms under which it will allow a Chinese sale to Pakistan?" Mr. Sokolski asked. "Or is it that only the United States wants to be the one making the reactor sale? I think it's the former; the mystery is what we will ask for in exchange."

    In the hearing, Mr. Van Dieppen also said Chinese entities continue to sell arms to rogue states in violation of anti-arms-proliferation controls.

    He said that while China has made some progress in establishing arms-export controls, Chinese companies continue to engage in dangerous sales to countries they should not.

    "Our most persistent problem is that individual Chinese entities continue to engage in proliferation activities," he said.

    U.S. to oppose Chinese reactor sale to Pakistan - Washington Times
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2010
  4. Awesome
    Offline

    Awesome RETIRED

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    22,719
    Ratings:
    +5 / 20,542 / -0
    I thought a fresh clean start to the Nuclear Deal is needed, now that the issue is going to probably start taking some pace over the next year or so.

    China has already stated that it does not need the NSG's approval. Enforcing Sanctions on China would cripple the US's own economy. No amount of bullying can work in this issue - Pakistan needs power and the US is repeatedly flip flopping on its commitments to Pakistan.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. KS
    Offline

    KS ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    12,519
    Ratings:
    +0 / 13,235 / -0
    China has still not come to the position of directly challenging the US.
    And maintaining US bonds doesnt give China a hold on US's throat as many believe - or to put it in a better way..the effect of the hold is over-hyped.

    Till the moment oil trade and majority of the international trade goes on with Dollars - US can afford to print more dollars and the money in China's hands will be just paper.

    thats Y i said...China's reaction to this will now be interesting.How they go about their business w/o directly taking on the US.
  6. sparklingway
    Offline

    sparklingway PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,880
    Ratings:
    +0 / 5,037 / -0
    Shame on the US.

    [​IMG]
  7. fatman17
    Offline

    fatman17 PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    17,870
    Ratings:
    +16 / 17,738 / -1
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    a thread already exists - why start a new one???
  8. Awesome
    Offline

    Awesome RETIRED

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    22,719
    Ratings:
    +5 / 20,542 / -0
    Searching for some sanity in the issue, too messed up, old info, thats it. No special reason.
  9. Jet Li
    Offline

    Jet Li FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    142
    Ratings:
    +0 / 83 / -0
    Its funny how the NSG came into existance as a result of India's misadventures in the nuclear field.

    www-nuclearsuppliersgroup-org/Leng/01-history.htm


    Ensuing comments can be put here______.
  10. KS
    Offline

    KS ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    12,519
    Ratings:
    +0 / 13,235 / -0
    India is growing ...aint it..?

    A cartel that was created specifically to keep nuclear items out of Indian hands today gives specific exemption for India alone to use them.:lol:
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  11. Awesome
    Offline

    Awesome RETIRED

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    22,719
    Ratings:
    +5 / 20,542 / -0
    Unfortunately hypocrites who sold out their non-proliferation ideals for India's money are also shaming the US, but for not pressing upon the issue harder

    T.P. Sreenivasan: The Nuclear Suppliers Group's Shameful Silence - WSJ.com

    Non-nuclear New Zealand was an unusual chairman to guide the 46 nuclear bigwigs at the contentious meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Groups this weekend in Christchurch. An army of nonproliferation enthusiasts descended on the event to press for nuclear-trade guidelines to be observed by all concerned. Yet China's blatant violation, in the form of two new nuclear reactors to Pakistan, was on everyone's mind, but on nobody's lips.

    China didn't elaborate publicly on its plans to provide new reactors to Pakistan, having announced its intention to have a nuclear deal by proxy with Islamabad earlier this month. Two state-owned firms agreed to build two more reactors at the Chashma atomic complex in Punjab.

    Beijing justified the deal on historical grounds, citing its grandfatherly obligations to Pakistan, and also on the logic of restoring nuclear balance in South Asia. The only assurance the Chinese gave was that its nuclear commerce with Pakistan would be in accordance with China's international obligations.

    Meanwhile, the United States was nowhere to be found. "India imitates China, Pakistan imitates India. What can we do to stop their nuclear activities?" a senior White House official lamented to a group of nonproliferation experts earlier this month, as though he was speaking for a weak state, not a superpower. He added the U.S. did not want to displease China or Pakistan at this juncture. American priorities today are the economy and the war on terror; two more peaceful reactors will not make much of a difference to the world. And how could the U.S. object, having agreed to supply reactors to India?

    Neither did India protest, even though Chinese nuclear sales to Pakistan are a fundamental nonproliferation issue of concern to Delhi and to the NSG, more broadly. In fact, the Indian government has hardly uttered a word in public since the deal was announced.

    The NSG already has guidelines for nuclear trade by its members and should decide whether the Chinese move violates those rules or not. China obviously wants to present a fait accompli rather than invite the group to impose conditions on the supply of the reactors to Pakistan. Beijing argues that the twin reactor deal was agreed before Beijing formally joined the NSG, and thus, isn't subject to current NSG rules. Beijing also points to the exception made for India in its 2008 civil-nuclear deal with the U.S.

    To draw a parallel between a specific exemption given to India and the unilateral action by China is to ignore the three years of agonizing negotiations based on India's record of responsible behavior and its pressing energy needs. India separated its military reactors from civilian stations, agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency-led safeguard inspections of the latter, applied for a waiver of NSG guidelines and gave various assurances to the international community.

    Pakistan, which sold nuclear-weapons technology to clients in North Korea, Libya and Iran, can hardly be equated with India. Islamabad is compiling a nuclear arsenal far in excess of the minimum deterrent that the country is supposed to possess. Pakistan is also blocking negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in Geneva precisely to gain time to accumulate more fissionable material. This is hardly an opportune time to signal acceptance of the peaceful nature of Pakistan's nuclear program.

    China's own credibility as a disciplined member of the NSG has often been called into question. Even while China has been using Pakistan as a conduit for supply of nuclear technology, it has directly assisted Iran in developing missile technology and supplied missiles to Saudi Arabia. Its nuclear activities reveal a clear strategy to use their nuclear assets to secure economic and political concessions in South Asia and the Middle East.

    Placing additional nuclear capability in the hands of Pakistan, even peaceful nuclear reactors, will fly in the face of NSG guidelines. China's silence is no indication of its willingness to change its behavior. In fact, if past experience is any guide, neither China nor Pakistan can be expected to further the cause of nonproliferation. If the NSG doesn't speak out now, its very credibility will be undermined. And what will happen then?

    Mr. Sreenivasan is Director General of the Kerala International Centre in Trivandrum and a Member of the National Security Advisory Board in New Delhi.

    Of course, written by an Indian - but endorsed by an American publication. How effin retarded and of the American publication that would allow an Indian to ***** about Pakistan and still hold their credibility.

    The US is not ready to help Pakistan with its energy needs - only lip service. The US's help in our energy sector is as good as the help that was coming during the 71 war.
  12. Awesome
    Offline

    Awesome RETIRED

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Messages:
    22,719
    Ratings:
    +5 / 20,542 / -0
    Personally I can't believe how the US is objecting to this deal with a straight face, days after the secretary of state was in town talking up the possibility of a US-Pakistan nuclear deal herself.

    Power shortages are the biggest economic problem for Pakistan and so this makes it a truly hostile act on the part of the US.

  13. Dr sim
    Offline

    Dr sim BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    272
    Ratings:
    +0 / 175 / -0
    Well Pakistan's track record with nuclear technology is pretty bad. A Q Khan sold it to several countries. So, I do not think that Pakistanis should compare it India's nuclear deal coz India has a clean track record regarding this
  14. Zulfiqar
    Offline

    Zulfiqar FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    385
    Ratings:
    +0 / 226 / -0
    So much for the so called "friendship".:tdown: This ain't the first time and it certainly won't be the last.
  15. laiqs@mi
    Offline

    laiqs@mi FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,571
    Ratings:
    +0 / 3,962 / -0
    A Single point where I Agree 100% with you. :tup: