What's new

China gets its Pakistan reactors through NSG

Since the deal was general, can Pakistan ask for assistance from China in making 1000MW reactors without any international barking?
Supposedly the US was trying to get China to offer assurances that the Chashma 3 and 4 reactors would be the last ones Chine would try to argue as being 'grandfathered', and the US and other Western nations would then allow the deal to go through, as a smaller price to pay in exchange for China refraining from providing any more nuclear technology to Pakistan.

Whether that turned out to be the case or not remains to be seen.
 
.
What would China gain by not assisting it's ally and neighbour, and take foreign dictation?
 
.
The Chashma deal with Pakistan in 1991, according to nuclear experts was a "general" one, which did not specify the number of reactors that would be supplied to Pakistan. When China joined the NSG in 2004, it did not mention any new reactors under the agreement.

domain-b.com : NSG clears Sino-Pak n-deal
 
.
The Chashma deal with Pakistan in 1991, according to nuclear experts was a "general" one, which did not specify the number of reactors that would be supplied to Pakistan. When China joined the NSG in 2004, it did not mention any new reactors under the agreement.

domain-b.com : NSG clears Sino-Pak n-deal

Can this argument be used to supply further reactors?
 
.
Can this argument be used to supply further reactors?

I dont see why not. In international relations a very wide interpretation is allowed. look at the no fly zone permitted over libya. That has been extended to do anything the west wants to do so. We can use similar contextual interpretations. lol
 
. .
Oh no, say it aint so -- Indian friends are paying attention to the role of the US, one presumes.
 
.
Oh no, say it aint so -- Indian friends are paying attention to the role of the US, one presumes.

Mixed messages from the US for Pakistan as well ....

Full scale propaganda campaign against the PA/ISI on one side, and allowing the reactor deal to go through on the other ..

Of course the latter may be more of a reflection on US-China dynamics, and a lack of desire on the part of other NSG members to confront China on the issue on behalf of the US.
 
.
The PA/ISI thing is a given -- some of the stuff is outrageous but but God help us with these ISI types - By the way did you see the najam Sethi thing in Times or newsweek or whatever -- picked him up in 99, didn't mention that Nawaz had him picked and Musharraf kept the hounds at bay
 
.
Great going! Is it possible request more plants (i.e Chashmas 5 and 6) near future without seeking approval of NSG?

:pakistan::china: (love these flag UNITED) :P

According to nuclear experts, the 1991 agreement with Pakistan was a "general" one, which did not specify how many reactors would be given to Pakistan. When China joined the NSG in 2004, they did not mention any new reactors under the agreement.
"Which did not specify how many reactors" means the number can be any number?:cheers:
 
.
ET Bureau

The Indo-US relationship may be more important, but the Pak-US relationship is more urgent, and that matters more right now. This is the best way of understanding Pakistan's clearance from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for the supply of two additional Chinese nuclear power reactors. During his recent visit, President Barack Obama assured India that the US would oppose the Sino-Pak nuclear deal.

This should have been decisive, since NSG clearance requires a unanimous vote. But the US apparently remained silent at the June 23-24 NSG meeting, when China got clearance on the dubious and hotly contested ground that the deal preceded Beijing's entry into the NSG in 2004, and so was 'grandfathered' . India had to go through several hoops to get its nuclear reactors: it had to amend its laws, separate its civilian reactors and put them under IAEA safeguards , sign the 123 agreement with the US, supplementary agreement with the IAEA and so on. But Pakistan will get its two new reactors without any such commitments.

Clearly, euphoria in India over the Indo-US relationship has been excessive. The Bush-Manmohan Singh agreement viewed the nuclear deal as just part of a larger strategic relationship. But India said this did not mean it would not seek strategic ties with others too. The US has taken the same line. It holds a strategic dialogue every year not only with India but with China and Pakistan too. The Afghan imbroglio means that Pakistan is far more central than India to US politics. The Pak-US relationship is a very troubled one: Obama knows Pakistan backs some Islamist groups even while combating others, and this is a dangerous double game.

Yet, Pakistan provides essential logistics for moving supplies into Afghanistan , so the US cannot do without Pakistani cooperation, no matter how double-edged . US silence at the NSG looks like part of a bigger game of placating Pakistan over drone attacks and violating Pakistani sovereignty in killing Osama bin Laden. In the medium run, the US relationship with India will prove more important. But for now, the relationship with Pakistan is more urgent. That's why Pakistan triumphed at the NSG meeting.

My understanding of this is that america told india one thing but when push came to shove let india down. What a great friend the US makes. lol
 
.
China must have done a lottt of job getting through NSG. Thanks.

and it justify Pakistan's nuclear nations status, which the Indians buttered up the US heavily to get.

so good news.
 
.
Since the deal was general, can Pakistan ask for assistance from China in making 1000MW reactors?
Why hasn't Pakistan started making 1000MW reactors?

I hope it will occur infuture with Chinaz help.....Insha-Allah......:woot:
 
.
CHINA IS GIFT TO PAKISTAN FROM ALMIGHTY ALLAH.

Some times tears comes to eyes when i see how China standing with Pakistan in it's bad times when even Muslim countries left us.

:pakistan::china::cry:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom