China red-flags India’s entry into NSG, may push for Pakistan

[MilSpec]

You are not talking about your uncle sam's proliferation record.

Uncle Sam is not asking for NSG Waivers for itself, is it?

 

[NaMaloom]

Joining the camp means improving relations with one at the cost of other...if you think this is not what you did then good for you...however if it is just a matter of diplomatic relations then Jeez even US and USSR had diplomatic ties...so now are we going to call them natural allies or not an example of zero sum game?? Look India also went that slope and never recognized Israel...then we course corrected ourselves way back in 1991...and today relations with Israel have been very fruitful...we manged that without impacting relations with palestine and Arab world...can you claim the same?? Don't call it zero-sum game if is such an irritant for you..but atleast acknowledge the obvious..

You have muddled the argument with self contradictory statements. You first claimed, India never joined any camps but Pakistan did as in the case of close US-Pakistan relations during the Cold War. When it was demonstrated to you that Pakistan maintained good relations with the Soviet Union even during the Cold War and at other times much like India which maintained relations with both USSR and USA; therefore if your argument that India never joined any camps is tenable, so will be the case with Pakistan as well going by your theoretical outlook. Then you changed tack and posted the above statement agreeing with me that it is NOT a zero-sum game and India did behave similarly to Pakistan. And then you cough up another term 'natural allies' to muddle the argument more.

There are no 'natural allies' in the diplomatic world. It is a marketing gimmick to sell enhanced diplomatic relations with another country to one's own electorate. History is riddled with examples of many a natural allies turning on each other.

In your own worlds earlier, you stated,

...Joining camps means siding with USA(one power center) at the cost of USSR(another power center)...getting engulfed into WOT which was against your national interests ...Joining camps means "No relations with Israel" as compared to your neighbour having relations with both Palestine and Israel...

You doled out flawed examples of Pakistan's relations or the lack thereof with Israel (a policy that is based on domestic issues, not foreign influence) and Pakistan joining WoT (Bush said, 'you are either with us or against us', I do NOT recall India saying 'We are against you Mr Bush' which shows that India jumped on the same coalition bandwagon which Pakistan did because the United States did not leave middle ground as a choice for anyone, not even India).

Now similarly, once again, you dole out another flawed example of India maintaining good relations with Israel and Arab world at the same time while Pakistan not being able to do the same. I'm hoping you are aware that Egypt and Jordan have alliance treaties with Israel with Saudis in de-facto alliance with Israel via the United States. Pakistan being Major non-Nato Ally of the United States and conducting past unofficial business with Israel clearly shows there is NO foreign compulsion on Pakistan to not have relations with Israel. I reiterate again if you are finding it hard to digest, but Pakistan-Israel issue is based up on domestic factors, not foreign.

A simple understanding of history of Pakistan's geo-political and diplomatic relations shows that Pakistan has largely been able to have amicable relations with ALL countries of the world except India (Israel is not counted because no 'formal' relations exist due to domestic politics). So yes, I can very much claim that Pakistan enjoys fruitful relations with different countries without impacting its relations with their opposing counterparts.

Your refusal to accept what is being written amazes me!! Not once have i used waiver and membership interchangeably..so plz just don't imagine stuff...In fact i have acknowledged that getting mebership will be difficult like getting a waiver was...

Sorry but this is plain lie...Pakistan wanted a similar waiver to what was given to India....and all this talk of setting bad precendent is an eye wash...You were going on the right path earlier i.e. national interests..not sure why bringing this point now...we were following ours...Pakistan theirs...nobody gives 2 hoots about bad precendent and blah blah...this is all for consumption sake...

Yes you did. You stated,

There is virtually nothing on the table that Pakistan can bring which will drive country like USA to get them NSG waiver....period!!

You stated this in response to my post,

Its far more than a moral cry. Its about NSG's and NPT's credibility. If you grant membership to a non-NPT state in the NSG which was itself created as a reaction to India's ironically titled 'peaceful nuclear test' in 1974 then you cannot hold back Pakistan and Israel asking for the same. Bringing up Pakistan's past 'proliferation' is a diplomatic gimmick & smokescreen for Indian fanboys to harp about on forums such as this since Pakistan, like India is a non-NPT state and therefore cannot be charged with 'proliferation' under any definition of criminal liability.

What did I talk about? NSG MEMBERSHIP. Can you read the above statement of yours where it says WAIVER, not MEMBERSHIP?

So either admit you used the terms interchangeably or apologize for making a simple mistake of typing erroneously or apologize for outright lying to me just now or apologize for your intellectual dishonesty. Your choice.

You see the effort I just put in to show you how you used two terms interchangeably? This is called babysitting. I am not trying to insult you; its just is what it is. Unless you change the way you haphazardly post your comments here.

Anyhow the bold part is crap....Let's try may be an example this time...Both of us were not signatories to NPT yet heavily santioned during our nuclear blasts in late 90's...plz tell me under what particular criminal liability was it done?? And now plz tell me how will that be different in proliferation case...I have clearly said in internation geo-politics "Might is Right"..so if US proliferate or today's China then nobody will make noise...You or I do it..we will be simply killed...

b/w Signatory to NPT was a pre-condition also for NPT members to trade with us yet we got it...Please tell me if i am wrong here..

Incoherent statements. Being a signatory to the NPT is a requirement for FULL NSG MEMBERSHIP. There is nothing that says you have to be a NPT-signatory to get a WAIVER because there exists NO CLAUSE in NSG rules allowing for anything other than FULL membership, let alone a 'waiver'. This WAIVER thing was invented by the United States for India so to argue that just because you got a 'waiver' based on non-NPT signatory, that it should also be the case for FULL MEMBERSHIP is a leap of logic since RULES EXIST for FULL NSG MEMBERSHIP while they did NOT exist for the 'waiver'. I do not see any other humanly possible way to explain this simple issue.

During Mubai, handful of terrorist take down the entire city irrespective of the grown up count....TTP choose a school because they wanted to target kids...not because they were afraid of grown up unarmed mens or have been weakened by Pak offensive that they can't target unarmed grown ups...Now seraiouly is it that hard for us to crack??

That's why precisely i gave you Mumbai example...just because there is no serious attack on India post mumbai..it simply doesn't mean that we have defeated terrorism or on the verge of kicking them out... It is but obvious that when you take fight to terrorist they will get involved there...however given they have the capability to still strike with punity gives a clear reason for anyone with a unbiased mind to conclude that Pakistan is in for a long haul....

Again, I don't know if I am speaking martian lingo here. TTP chose to attack kids based on the degradation of their capabilities as evident by the Zarb-e-Azb operation being conducted by Pakistani forces in N. Waziristan and the huge amount of money, explosives, weapons, ammunition, etc seized by our jawans.

Lets not bring up Mumbai, Indian force's response to that attack was horribly lacking compared to Pakistani forces response to similar attacks in Pakistan such as the police academy one.

India doesn't have spectacular terrorist attacks because India does not border Afghanistan, there is no flow of weapons, explosives to India like there is in Pakistan from Afghanistan. This is evident by those poor Maoist insurgents in your red belt who fight Indian security forces with largely outdated weapons.

There is NO statement from me in any of my posts that says terrorism as a whole has been defeated by Pakistan definitively. My statement has been restricted to TTP as an organization. Sure, there is always a chance for the remnants of TTP might mutate and coalesce under a different banner but TTP itself is on the run, as evident by many of its important leaders having run to Afghanistan for refuge.

And yes the website you gave did not prove what you say you wanted to prove

My intention of sharing the link was to show that throughtout this offensive Taliban has been striking and in fact have manged to hit highly secured(atleast supposed to be) military targets of yours...

This is because the website only tracks suicide attacks and drone attacks. Non-suicide attacks have not been counted by the website which is what the attacks on 'secure' military targets usually are as is evident by the attack on PNS Mehran on 22nd May 2011 not being counted by the website. So you ended up proving NOTHING.

The website, however, does back up my claim and show that Pakistan has largely been able to overcome TTP, particularly suicide bombing by conducting operations such as Rah-e-Nijat and Zarb-e-Azb. Its forces have largely dismantled TTP's suicide bombing infrastructure thereby degrading its capabilities putting TTP on the run as evident by the sharp fall in suicide bombings shown by the website's analytics section and TTP leadership hiding in Afghanistan.

I would atleast know about my country that much, no?? Yes indeed 2008 finacial crisis hit everyone..however gloom continued for 6 years because of Retrospective tax, Mother of scams(Common wealth, 2G, Coal Allocations) and what not...On top of that weak leadership and decision paralysis..Why would anybody invest in India in such an environment...this is why 2009-2014 was very difficult phase for us...Look the seeds of Indo-US relations were actually sown by Clinton..Civilian nuclear deal was first floated by Vajpayee and finally nail in the coffin by Bush/MMS in 2005...However then came the liability clause pushed by Indian Parliament which a weak MMS couldn't do jack about..This complemented with India's lost economic momentum brought India-Us to a slippery slope...With a strong govt. in center things have started going back to where they were...

In short my original point is that "It's all in the economy"...Strategic equation viz-a-viz China was always there...yet 2009-2014 was an era where India-US relations were on a very steep slippery slope...

No definitive proof that Washington ignored Delhi between 2009-2014 because of its lacklustre economic performance which was still almost always second or third best performing economy particulary in 2011 when its GDP grew 6.6% making it second best growth after China. You are seriously trying to spread misinformation at this point.

Washington's strategic equation vis-a-vis China was always there, yes, BUT it gathered sense of urgency following Japanese purchase of Senkaku islands which altered the equation and China responded aggressively; in addition to Chinese maneuvers around islands that Vietnam and Philippines call their own. That is when the 'pivot' happened, major policy shift which you keep ignoring in your responses because it doesn't fit in your narrative of 'Washington coming to Delhi because of its economy, not because of the larger Asia-Pacific strategic equation'.

On one side you say two wrongs don't make it right...and they you say China started ignoring NSG and started providing reactors to Pakistan who like india is not a signatory to NPT...Honestly if NSG has lost credibility and China has anyways ignored it then what's the fuss about India joining NSG??

Seems like you barely read my previous posts before launching off. China ignored NSG because it weakened itself by granting India the waiver. FULL NSG membership is a different issue altogether, as I have explained many times and this is the last time I am stating that. India joining as a 'full' member is different from the waiver because it is a discriminatory move - this is Pakistan's stance. Funny how India does not want to sign up to NPT based on its similar stance that NPT is discriminatory but when it comes to itself, it wants to jump at the first chance to become full NSG member, ignoring the fact that such a move is discriminatory to both Israel and Pakistan - the other two non-NPT nuclear armed states. The hypocrisy is clear, plain and simple.

Fact is China can't push your case...No-one is going to agree to it...because your track record won't help and more importantly China doesn't enjoy the same clout that USA have...China didn't block our waiver because they didn't find any mileage in antagonizing India on that particular matter...China won't do things just to please Pakistan...This was a prime example of diplomatic victory for India..hope you can see it as well...

This only time will tell...India's UNSC seat is a distant dream anyways because we want the veto power.leave aside China i believe no-one would like to give us that..so we are for a long haul there..however about China being the road-block you never know...

Will support India's UNSC bid, says China | Business Standard News

China doesn't have to push Pakistan's case. As stated before in my previous post, China's diplomacy practices are different from the United States. Having 'clout' is different from arm twisting. China did not block India's waiver because the situation did not demand it to act disruptively, not because it 'wanted India' to get the waiver as evident by China abstaining from the vote. This was an example of Washington's diplomatic victory, not India's. But you are entitled to your delusional sense of entitlement I suppose.

Oh yeah, goodluck with that Chinese support for the UNSC bid, as the Chinese condition for it according to the article means it ain't happening.

"We will support India's seat in the UN Security Council. But neighbours might encounter problems. There has to be a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the border issues. I am confident China and India have the wisdom to embark on good neighbourly relations," Chinese President Xi Jinping said.

Clear reference to Pakistan there including China itself. And then he emphasized China's own border issues with India that need to be resolved BEFORE any support is lent.

So yeah, GOODLUCK!

 

[deckingraj]

Again will cut some lines..plz do point out if you think i missed the context

You have muddled the argument with self contradictory statements. In your own worlds earlier, you stated,...Joining camps means siding with USA(one power center) at the cost of USSR(another power center)...getting engulfed into WOT which was against your national interests ...Joining camps means "No relations with Israel" as compared to your neighbours having relations with both Palestine and Israel...

Please read my point once again...not sure what are you infering from it..in fact i even asked you to dump "joining camps" term because i felt this term was putting you off from my larger point....my suggestion, just compare our relations with Israel, Russia and compare yours...May be that will give you some inclination........let me use a more apt(hopefully) word here..."Strategic Space"...Can we say that Pakistan has lost lot of strategic space viz-a-viz India because of her foreign policy decisions?? You relied heavily on US and Saudi's and paid the price in terms of Russia and Israel..

You doled out flawed examples of Pakistan's relations or the lack thereof with Israel (a policy that is based on domestic issues, not foreign influence) and Pakistan joining WoT (Bush said, 'you are either with us or against us', I do NOT recall India saying 'We are against you Mr Bush' which shows that India jumped on the same coalition bandwagon which Pakistan did because the United States did not leave middle ground as a choice for anyone, not even India).

When you put such comments it kind of put bad taste...AF was not our strategic backyard..In fact we were barely holding ground via Northern Alliance whereas Pakistan was enjoying relations with Taliban...and then comes US roaring in..Of-course we welcomed it with both hands because our interest was there...not yours...Bush pushed you into WOT is a clear acknowledgment that Pakistan doesn't have independent foreign policy....not sure if you are realizing it or not...

I reiterate again if you are finding it hard to digest, but Pakistan-Israel issue is based up on domestic factors, not foreign.

Ah i see...let me articulate it more....I will use an example of India's diplomatic way of handling foreign affairs...Before 1991 we were of the opinion that recognizing Israel will put our case against Arab world in jeopardy...In short we never wanted to be seen cozying to Israel...however we course corrected ourselves...From your perspective it was actually done to give weightage to Muslim Brotherhood concept which Pakistan was championing like Nehru's NAM...In short reasoning was same for both of us..don't piss of Arabs..with one difference...we course corrected ourselves...Anyhow you want to call it domestic issue...fine...Still it puts Pakistan foreign policy makers looks like an idiot....foreign policy should not be governed by domestic issues...we have lost lot of strategic space in Sri Lanka because of it...hopefully we will win it back...

Yes you did. You stated,You stated this in response to my post,What did I talk about? NSG MEMBERSHIP. Can you read the above statement of yours where it says WAIVER, not MEMBERSHIP?So either admit you used the terms interchangeably or apologize for making a simple mistake of typing erroneously or apologize for outright lying to me just now or apologize for your intellectual dishonesty. Your choice.You see the effort I just put in to show you how you used two terms interchangeably? This is called babysitting. I am not trying to insult you; its just is what it is. Unless you change the way you haphazardly post your comments here.

Look how much effort you and I have put for something which is a non-issue...My suggestion ask for clarification if you find something not right...now allow me to explain...There are two things..NSG waiver and NSG membership..When India got waiver Pakistan asked for same from US which was denied..My larger point there was(in the post you pasted) Paksitan will not get waiver because she doesn't bring anything on the table..in some other reply i also said China will not be able to get you membership because they don't enjoy the same clout as US and your personal records also make it difficult...Please go with the theme and let's not cherry pick...i hope now we can move on atleast on this part...

Just because you got a 'waiver' based on non-NPT signatory, that it should also be the case for FULL MEMBERSHIP is a leap of logic since RULES EXIST for FULL NSG MEMBERSHIP while they did NOT exist for the 'waiver'. I do not see any other humanly possible way to explain this simple issue.

Just think if there is no rule that NSG members can't trade with non NPT signatories then may i humbly ask what was the reason for this waiver?? Look i have already acknowledged that it(membership) is going to be difficult...however given the clout US have we are confident we will get it..not sure what else i can write here to pass on my message...

Again, I don't know if I am speaking martian lingo here. TTP chose to attack kids based on the degradation of their capabilities as evident by the Zarb-e-Azb operation being conducted by Pakistani forces in N. Waziristan and the huge amount of money, explosives, weapons, ammunition, etc seized by our jawans. Lets not bring up Mumbai, Indian force's response to that attack was horribly lacking compared to Pakistani forces response to similar attacks in Pakistan such as the police academy one.

Your point that they attacked kids and not adults as an evidence to support TTP dwindling fortunes is beyond me...I brought in mumbai just to draw a point that a handful of terrorists literally brought a city down..so unarmed adults don't make much of a difference...As far as seizing of weapons etc is concerned then good luck over that...the kind of funding these organizations have, not sure how devastating it would be...

There is NO statement from me in any of my posts that says terrorism as a whole has been defeated by Pakistan definitively. The website, however, does back up my claim and show that Pakistan has largely been able to overcome TTP, particularly suicide bombing by conducting operations such as Rah-e-Nijat and Zarb-e-Azb. Its forces have largely dismantled TTP's suicide bombing infrastructure thereby degrading its capabilities putting TTP on the run as evident by the sharp fall in suicide bombings shown by the website's analytics section and TTP leadership hiding in Afghanistan.

Terrorists are always on the hiding when offensive is on them...and then return with full zeal...However it seems you are convinced that TTP has been defeated or at best on the verge of it...So i will simply say Good Luck and my best wishes..Let's agree to disagree here and move on...

No definitive proof that Washington ignored Delhi between 2009-2014 because of its lacklustre economic performance which was still almost always second or third best performing economy particulary in 2011 when its GDP grew 6.6% making it second best growth after China. You are seriously trying to spread misinformation at this point.

Alright let's do it your way then..please give me a proof that India/US relations were not hit during 2009-2014 era...Funny everyone from India to America is acknowledging how relations were badly hit yet here you are lecturing me how i am spreading misinformation...

Washington's strategic equation vis-a-vis China was always there, yes, BUT it gathered sense of urgency following Japanese purchase of Senkaku islands which altered the equation and China responded aggressively; in addition to Chinese maneuvers around islands that Vietnam and Philippines call their own. That is when the 'pivot' happened, major policy shift which you keep ignoring in your responses

I have not ignored it and in fact have replied way back that Policies are not formulated post an aggression...Policy and its urgency in such matters won't change because it is not as if US will come today and India will send her war planes tomorrow..this is exactly what was predicted "Rising China will become more aggressive" and that's why the engagement way back by Clinton in search of another power center to check China's rise.....Now here is the Mantra...India needs a robust economy and strong government to deliver on things that are required in such context....without them there can't be any delivery...without delivery there can't be engagement or shall i say no use of it.....

it doesn't fit in your narrative of 'Washington coming to Delhi because of its economy, not because of the larger Asia-Pacific strategic equation'.

No, i am not saying the bold part...both the points are there...however driving factor is the India's success story...Look, there are just signs that our economy will come back roaring...and with powerful government all the required recipee is there...This is what is catching world powers like magnet...Now if you can't get this point then i am sorry won't be able to help more...

Seems like you barely read my previous posts before launching off. China ignored NSG because it weakened itself by granting India the waiver.

Please read it couple of times before you hit the reply button....If NSG is weakened by giving New Delhi a waiver then china is equally responsible for it....China could have blocked the waiver however she choose not to...so let's not be hypocritical here...

FULL NSG membership is a different issue altogether, as I have explained many times and this is the last time I am stating that. India joining as a 'full' member is different from the waiver because it is a discriminatory move - this is Pakistan's stance.

Pakistan's stance was same even during waiver...it is discriminatory....what's new here...

Funny how India does not want to sign up to NPT based on its similar stance that NPT is discriminatory but when it comes to itself, it wants to jump at the first chance to become full NSG member, ignoring the fact that such a move is discriminatory to both Israel and Pakistan - the other two non-NPT nuclear armed states. The hypocrisy is clear, plain and simple.

...ignoring...

China doesn't have to push Pakistan's case. As stated before in my previous post, China's diplomacy practices are different from the United States. Having 'clout' is different from arm twisting. China did not block India's waiver because the situation did not demand it to act disruptively, not because it 'wanted India' to get the waiver as evident by China abstaining from the vote. This was an example of Washington's diplomatic victory, not India's. But you are entitled to your delusional sense of entitlement I suppose.

India got NSG waiver...I am fine even if you want to call it Pakistan's diplomatic victory...and thanks for proving my point..China could have stopped it however didn't...In short China didn't find any benefits in stopping India from getting the waiver....even though Pakistan wanted it and was denied yet China didn't block it...If you ponder over above thought you may hit a question...Like waiver can China be convinced not to block membership as well?? why do you think the same can't be achieved for membership?? I admit it is difficult however as said multiple times so was waiver...

Oh yeah, goodluck with that Chinese support for the UNSC bid, as the Chinese condition for it according to the article means it ain't happening.Clear reference to Pakistan there including China itself. And then he emphasized China's own border issues with India that need to be resolved BEFORE any support is lent.
So yeah, GOODLUCK!

As said we want Veto...forget China not sure if others would want that...and yeah thanks for the wishes...

 

[T-Rex]

Uncle Sam is not asking for NSG Waivers for itself, is it?

But uncle sam is the one always lecturing others and blabbering about the dangers of proliferation.

 

[IND151]

Pakistan never engaged in proliferation, AQK did, his network was shut. Lets not talk about proliferation, we all know who provided nukes to Israel.

Who???

 

[Bilal.]

Even with the proliferation track record?

Yes, what happened 20 years ago cannot be made a reason anymore. Otherwise, digging into history nearly every member of NSG would be found to have a proliferation record.

 

[My-Analogous]

They kind of forget their hero AQK and his affairs....

AQK is not the first case and you still find lot of individual in this business from Europe and US. If this is the only thinks then Russia, France, US and others should also banned from NSG group.

 

[MilSpec]

Yes, what happened 20 years ago cannot be made a reason anymore. Otherwise, digging into history nearly every member of NSG would be found to have a proliferation record.

Nuclear powers outside the gambit of NPT are essentially India, Israel and Pakistan. If you could point me to proliferation of nuclear technology by these three nations to other nations, it would be helpful to understand your PoV

 

[Bilal.]

Nuclear powers outside the gambit of NPT are essentially India, Israel and Pakistan. If you could point me to proliferation of nuclear technology by these three nations to other nations, it would be helpful to understand your PoV

The point being just a decade earlier(from the time of Pakistan's proliferation incidents) many major countries(or entities within those countries) were involved in proliferation. So what happened 20... 30 years ago cannot be used as an excuse to withhold nuclear energy from a country when it has shown broad range of changes and improvements in support of the international anti proliferation efforts and when as a result there are no incidents of proliferation what so ever.

 

[MilSpec]

The point being just a decade earlier(from the time of Pakistan's proliferation incidents) many major countries(or entities within those countries) were involved in proliferation. So what happened 20... 30 years ago cannot be used as an excuse to withhold nuclear energy from a country when it has shown broad range of changes and improvements in support of the international anti proliferation efforts and when as a result there are no incidents of proliferation what so ever.

Few points to make here: You claimed all of the nations were guilty of proliferation, I am not sure about that, hence I would like to have some clarity on that topic, especially w.r.t to non - NPT nuclear powers like India and Israel.

Presidential Pardon of prime accused of Nuclear proliferation by pakistan shows how seriously the pakistani government takes Nuclear proliferation, this absolutely implies tacit approval from the pakistani government. In my opinion that is where the problem lies.

Compared to India and Israel, pakistan is relatively newer nuclear power, but has a dabbled in nuclear proliferation to dictatorships like Libya and North Korea. and assisted Iran's enrichment programs (which would have resulted in Irans violation of NPT too). India and Israel's withstanding trackrecord of not proliferating the nuclear technology to other countries give them btter credibility as it's programs have existed for longer periods.

Pakistan's role with quid pro quo with North Korea of nuclear proliferation for MCTR violation shows utter disdain for international norms for sensitive technology regulatory authorities, then why would pakistan want any concessions from the same protocols which it doesn't respect at all. And why should these protocols entertain any pakistani requests for special concessions.

 

[Bilal.]

Few points to make here: You claimed all of the nations were guilty of proliferation, I am not sure about that, hence I would like to have some clarity on that topic, especially w.r.t to non - NPT nuclear powers like India and Israel.

I am talking of NPT signatories, who despite signing an international accord have had a history of proliferation. That is far worse than Proliferation done by a country not signatory of such a regime.

Presidential Pardon of prime accused of Nuclear proliferation by pakistan shows how seriously the pakistani government takes Nuclear proliferation, this absolutely implies tacit approval from the pakistani government. In my opinion that is where the problem lies.

Sorry but that's your conclusion and calling it absolute evidence is ridiculous. The pardon was due to political consideration and the man was put pretty much under house arrest and removed from all positions he held with his access removed.

Compared to India and Israel, pakistan is relatively newer nuclear power, but has a dabbled in nuclear proliferation to dictatorships like Libya and North Korea. and assisted Iran's enrichment programs (which would have resulted in Irans violation of NPT too). India and Israel's withstanding trackrecord of not proliferating the nuclear technology to other countries give them btter credibility as it's programs have existed for longer periods.

Pakistan's role with quid pro quo with North Korea of nuclear proliferation for MCTR violation shows utter disdain for international norms for sensitive technology regulatory authorities, then why would pakistan want any concessions from the same protocols which it doesn't respect at all. And why should these protocols entertain any pakistani requests for special concessions.

Again did so without signing a binding treaty unlike some who did so despite being NPT signatory. In any case, since long (around 20 years) all such activities have been curbed and no proliferation is taking place. So what happened about 2 decades ago cannot be kept as a reason to deny Pakistan's energy requirement indefinitely. There comes a time when the old incidents become irrelevant.

 

[MilSpec]

I am talking of NPT signatories, who despite signing an international accord have had a history of proliferation. That is far worse than Proliferation done by a country not signatory of such a regime.

There are protocols for dealing with NPT signatories. The point here is Non- Npt members like pakistan pleading for concessions?

Sorry but that's your conclusion and calling it absolute evidence is ridiculous. The pardon was due to political consideration and the man was put pretty much under house arrest and removed from all positions he held with his access removed.

Ok answer a simple question. Did A.Q Khan commit treason?

Again did so without signing a binding treaty unlike some who did so despite being NPT signatory. In any case, since long (around 20 years) all such activities have been curbed and no proliferation is taking place. So what happened about 2 decades ago cannot be kept as a reason to deny Pakistan's energy requirement indefinitely. There comes a time when the old incidents become irrelevant.

true... but who will decide the timeline, surely it will not be pakistan's prerogative.

 

[Bilal.]

There are protocols for dealing with NPT signatories. The point here is Non- Npt members like pakistan pleading for concessions?

True. So what protocols were followed say against Germany whose companies provided components for centrifuges to Pakistan and probably also to Libya and others. But again that's not my main argument.

Ok answer a simple question. Did A.Q Khan commit treason?

It's not relevant. We dealt with him to completely curb his activities and put measures in place to stop proliferation which has since stopped.

true... but who will decide the timeline, surely it will not be pakistan's prerogative.

Of course, but we are pushing for it and our allies are backing us. Hopefully people will understand that after almost a quarter of a century those incidents of proliferation are irrelevant.

 

[ashok mourya]

The NSG was founded in response to the Indian nuclear test in May 1974 and first met in November 1975. The test demonstrated that certain non-weapons specific nuclear technology could be readily turned to weapons development. China became a part of NSG only in 2004.
During a state visit to India in November 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama announced U.S. support for India's participation in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Wassenaar Arrangement, the Australia Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime, "in a phased manner," and to encourage the evolution of regime participation criteria to that end, "consistent with maintaining the core principles of these regimes."[4][5][6]

During a visit to India in December 2010, French President Sarkozy also expressed his country's backing for India's inclusion in Nuclear Suppliers Group.[7]

The United Kingdom has for a long time been a supporter of India's inclusion in the Nuclear Suppliers Group.[8]

During Republic Day visit of India in January 2015, Obama said that India was ready and capable of becoming an NSG member. He also offered a full hand support to the Indian Prime Minister Modi. Following this statement of Modi Chinese president also extended a support for Indian membership in NSG.[9]

 

[MilSpec]

It's not relevant. We dealt with him to completely curb his activities and put measures in place to stop proliferation which has since stopped.
.

Relevance can be argued upon, but according to your national prerogative and judicial system, Is proliferating sensitive defence technology without the approval of the government, considered as Treason in accordance with the constitution and state mechanism's of pakistan?