Pakistan and the FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty) - Conference on Disarmament

[lionheart1]

i am from Karnataka, atleast 2 day a week i will be hosur in Tamil-Nadu
i never seen separatist movement there

 

[muse]

oH yeah india is a ***** in the middle of roaring tigers rite??water comes from china they donot favor us have no treaty on it for sharing but when the same water flows from india we will have to have treaties with hostile nations or else the tigers will kill this little ***** cat..

Friends, fact of the matter is that India is a cage, mostly of it's own making - you may be satisfied by engaging in emotional compensatory behavior but Indian government types acknowledge what I have written yesterday and what Indian minister confirms today, even as her government talks the talk but cannot walk the walk -- I encourage you to think more and feel less, your adversaries, your enemies, your problems, your challenges, your insecurities are related to a unwillingness to take the steps you know you have to take to emerge out of your cage - don't be angry, think, you cannot afford to be angry, it's later than you think and every day that you fail yourself, the cage becomes tighter, the hile you have dug for yourselves, deeper :

India ready to discuss ‘all issues’ with Pakistan: Rao

* Indian foreign secretary calls for ‘ameliorative action’ against terrorism directed at India

* Says New Delhi wants to create economic environment with neighbours

Daily Times Monitor

LAHORE: India is prepared to “discuss all outstanding issues” with Pakistan, including the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, but it has to take “ameliorative action” to eradicate terrorism directed against the country, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said on Monday.

“The issue of Jammu and Kashmir comes up in our relationship with Pakistan and we’ve said very clearly, very confidently and very transparently that we are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues with Pakistan,” Rao said in Boston on Monday. Noting that India’s relationship with Pakistan had been “complicated” due to terrorism, Rao said “terror groups implacably opposed to India continue to recruit, train and plot attacks from safe havens across our borders”. She stressed “the need for Pakistan to take ameliorative action to eradicate terrorism against India.”

The foreign secretary made these comments just before a likely meeting between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan on the sidelines of the forthcoming UN General Assembly’s annual meeting in New York. Rao, who was delivering a lecture at the Harvard University, said, “We understand well the Kautilyan advice that a great power loses stature if it remains bogged down in neighbourhood entanglements.”

She said India wanted to create an economic environment with its neighbours since a peaceful neighbourhood is mandatory for the “realisation of our own vision of economic growth”. She added that India wanted to “persevere in our dialogue with Pakistan to resolve outstanding issues so that our region will be stable”.

Rao said India wanted to discuss all outstanding issues, including the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. She, however, reiterated traditional Indian stance that Kashmir was its internal matter. “It is an internal affair because it (Kashmir) is an integral part of India.” Referring to the Mumbai attacks, Rao said it was an issue that India wanted to talk to Pakistan about. She said Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik was in touch with the Indian Home Ministry about the Mumbai trials.

The foreign secretary asserted that India’s vision for development in South Asia through enhanced cooperaiton was challenged by violent extremism and terrorism which originates in “our region and finds sustenance and sanctuary there”.

 

[su-47]

Do you have the official policy issued by the NCA of Pakistan which states first use policy ?? And just like why India got WMDs to counter someone else with WMDs, Pakistan had to have them after its arch rival got the tech. So, we both have the same reason, India got it due to China as they say, we got them due to India, had India not gone for WMDs, we wouldn't have, so its pretty obvious why we had them.

Yes, Taimi my point was not about WHY nuclear weapons were needed, but that Pakistan is more desperate for it. As you said yourself, Pakistan needs them more. Let me ask you this: do you think Pakistan will think of giving up its nuclear program if India does? I dont think so. But India, with her no first use policy, can give it up if other nations do.

And as said, plzzz do provide the link to Pakistan officially stating that it has the first strike policy.

Ok, here are a few links that establish Pakistan nuclear policy revolves around first strike.

Pakistan does not abide by a no-first-use doctrine, as evidenced by President Pervez Musharraf's statements in May, 2002. Musharraf said that Pakistan did not want a conflict with India but that if it came to war between the nuclear-armed rivals, he would "respond with full might." These statements were interpreted to mean that if pressed by an overwhelming conventional attack from India, which has superior conventional forces, Pakistan might use its nuclear weapons.
Pakistan Nuclear Weapons

This one is by a defence.pk Think tank. Worth a read.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/27733-pakistans-nuclear-doctrine.html

And also answer me, lets suppose, saying it again, just assume, India has no first strike policy, and God forbid somehow during war, its defences are broken and the enemy is on the move inside Indian territory and about to capture a large chunk of it, or wishes to dismember India by capturing some specific area, what are Indians gonna do, sing the no first strike policy or say to hell with it, India is at stake so lets use it on the incoming forces to halt their advance and regain what we have lost. Don't say it will never gonna happen or we India are very superior to have something like that happen to us, i just said, just assume the situation, would you keep the nukes stored at their silos or use them against the enemy who is about to capture good part of India.

I honestly don't know. I am serious here. Because nuclear attack on forces in Indian soil will definitely kill millions of Indians and leave those areas unihabitable. Plus, if the enemy has nukes, we will be finished for good. So i really don't know, but i do feel that India will react by nuclear arms rattling, and possibly a banning of the first use policy, as a 'warning shot'.

So as per above scenario, implement it on this Indo-Pak region, we all know Pakistan can never overrun Indian defences or capture a big part of India, while on the contrary, India has the capability, the will, the ambition and the resources to overrun large part of Pakistan and capture large part of Pakistan and do whatever it wants to do with it, that being the reason India as no-first strike policy with respect to Pakistan as it knows Pakistan poses no threat, while Pakistan can not gamble with no first strike policy as it knows India has the wish and resources to overrun large part of it, thus it will have to use the nukes God forbid something like that happens and this is very logical, which i am regretted to state the Indian members don't understand. The superior one can say the no-first strike policy, while the inferior one can't as it knows it has the nukes for a specific reason.

USA, UK, NATO all have first strike policy, but as defensive measure, Pakistan's is no different then theirs. Simple reason as they know if someone superior invaded, they can't hold them off for long, one of the reasons why USSR used to think twice before thinking about any invasion of the Europe knowing they have overwhelming superiority over NATO.

Again, I have to disagree. India has neither the will nor the ambition to overrun Pakistan. The main concern for India is terrorism emanating from Pakistan. So any Indian attack will always focus on taking out terrorist centers, not Pakistani cities. Even a very ambitious Indian General might only go so far as to try capture Azad Kashmir (even then, unlikely) not overrun Pakistan. Even in 1971, Indian army did not try pushing into West Pakistan, despite the capability and lack of a nuclear threat.

Taimi, Inida (and increasingly, the rest of the world) are concerned about Pakistan's (and North Korea's) nuclear weapons for one main reason: likelihood of usage. Its simply higher than that of other nations. And you have to admit, the pakistani public does have a much more trigger happy attitude towards nukes than the other nations. Its frankly quite alarming to see some idiots rant off about, "They have more to lose, so nuclear war is an option to us." Its this almost suicidal hatred that causes the world to be concerned. You will be hard pressed to find Indians talking like that. Even when we discuss a possible Sino-Indian war, we dont usually bring up the topic of nukes, though they have conventional superiority over us. I hope you get my point.

 

[A.Muqeet khan]

Yes, Taimi my point was not about WHY nuclear weapons were needed, but that Pakistan is more desperate for it. As you said yourself, Pakistan needs them more. Let me ask you this: do you think Pakistan will think of giving up its nuclear program if India does? I dont think so. But India, with her no first use policy, can give it up if other nations do.



Ok, here are a few links that establish Pakistan nuclear policy revolves around first strike.

Pakistan does not abide by a no-first-use doctrine, as evidenced by President Pervez Musharraf's statements in May, 2002. Musharraf said that Pakistan did not want a conflict with India but that if it came to war between the nuclear-armed rivals, he would "respond with full might." These statements were interpreted to mean that if pressed by an overwhelming conventional attack from India, which has superior conventional forces, Pakistan might use its nuclear weapons.
Pakistan Nuclear Weapons

This one is by a defence.pk Think tank. Worth a read.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/27733-pakistans-nuclear-doctrine.html



I honestly don't know. I am serious here. Because nuclear attack on forces in Indian soil will definitely kill millions of Indians and leave those areas unihabitable. Plus, if the enemy has nukes, we will be finished for good. So i really don't know, but i do feel that India will react by nuclear arms rattling, and possibly a banning of the first use policy, as a 'warning shot'.



Again, I have to disagree. India has neither the will nor the ambition to overrun Pakistan. The main concern for India is terrorism emanating from Pakistan. So any Indian attack will always focus on taking out terrorist centers, not Pakistani cities. Even a very ambitious Indian General might only go so far as to try capture Azad Kashmir (even then, unlikely) not overrun Pakistan. Even in 1971, Indian army did not try pushing into West Pakistan, despite the capability and lack of a nuclear threat.

Taimi, Inida (and increasingly, the rest of the world) are concerned about Pakistan's (and North Korea's) nuclear weapons for one main reason: likelihood of usage. Its simply higher than that of other nations. And you have to admit, the pakistani public does have a much more trigger happy attitude towards nukes than the other nations. Its frankly quite alarming to see some idiots rant off about, "They have more to lose, so nuclear war is an option to us." Its this almost suicidal hatred that causes the world to be concerned. You will be hard pressed to find Indians talking like that. Even when we discuss a possible Sino-Indian war, we dont usually bring up the topic of nukes, though they have conventional superiority over us. I hope you get my point.

well u see its this happy trigger attitude what kept us safe in mumbai scene the parliament scenario

 

[su-47]

well u see its this happy trigger attitude what kept us safe in mumbai scene the parliament scenario

Wouldn't it have been much safer not to encourage anti-India terrorists in the first place?

 

[A.Muqeet khan]

wouldnt it be safer if u just dont provide the terrorist with an issue (kashmir) rest assured these are non state actors and pakistan dont endorse them

 

[muse]

This is for the Indian forum members wondering about my comment with regard to misconstruing in Lanka of Tamil events:

Tamil Nadu justifies ban on LTTE
J. Venkatesan

Lifting the ban will let the outfit operate fully from India, it says

Vaiko wants to be heard as one of the parties

‘LTTE is against Union and State governments and leaders'


NEW DELHI: The Tamil Nadu government on Tuesday strongly defended the ban on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which was extended on May 14 for two more years.

Delhi High Court judge Justice Vikramjit Sen is the one-man tribunal set up by the Centre to go into the validity of the ban, which was clamped under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

Tamil Nadu said lifting the ban at this juncture would imply allowing such a deadly foreign terrorist organisation to operate fully from India, and this would give the outfit a tremendous psychological boost. Counsel for the State S. Thananjayan prayed for its continuance.

Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK) general secretary Vaiko made a fervent plea before the tribunal that he be heard as one of the parties. When the judge pointed out that under the provisions of the Act, only an office-bearer or a member of a banned organisation could challenge the ban, Mr. Vaiko said that according to the Centre, the LTTE was decimated. The LTTE could not represent itself before the tribunal as it had no office-bearers, and it was banned in India.

He said the MDMK was cited as one of the political parties supporting the LTTE, and this was cited as the reason for the ban. Therefore, he was entitled to make his representation on behalf of the Tamils.

Mr. Vaiko said there was not a single valid reason for imposing the ban. In view of the ban, innocent boys and girls coming from Sri Lanka were branded LTTE sympathisers and they were facing problems. No unlawful activity had taken place warranting the ban, he argued.

Mr. Thananjayan, however, said that under the Act, Mr. Vaiko could not represent the banned organisation as he was not the affected party. The judge said Mr. Vaiko could make his submissions through a lawyer and posted the matter for Friday.

The tribunal directed the Centre to file its response by September 24 and posted the matter for further hearing on that day.

In its response, Tamil Nadu said: “The LTTE is against both the Union and State governments and the leaders, viz. Congress president Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul Gandhi and daughter Priyanka Gandhi; Prime Minister Manmohan Singh; Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi; the National Security Advisor; and the Foreign Secretary.”

It said:

“Pro-LTTE activities in Tamil Nadu continue. They [the sympathisers] believe that the LTTE supremo Prabhakaran is still alive and will lead Eelam War V to achieve separate Tamil Eelam, which will affect the nation's unity, integrity and sovereignty.

“The pro-LTTE/Tamil chauvinist forces extended support to the LTTE by conducting public meetings, processions and demonstrations and delivered speeches in support of the unlawful activities of the LTTE, which went against the sovereignty, security and integrity of the nation, causing disharmony among various sections of people of India.

“Unless the ban continued for a further period, as stipulated in the Government of India's notification, the very purpose of the ban enforced initially for two years in 1992 and subsequently extended would be defeated.”

 

[GUNNER]

Treaty banning only future production of fissile material 'unacceptable': Pakistan

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 13, 2010


Pakistan told the world community Tuesday that its opposition to the start of talks on a treaty to ban production of fissile material used as fuel for nuclear weapons stemmed from the actions of "some powerful states" that have changed the strategic environment of South Asian region.

"Over the past few years, some powerful countries, in pursuit of their commercial interests as well as dubious notions of balance of power, have embarked upon an unfettered and discriminatory nuclear cooperation arrangement in gross violation of their international commitments," Ambassador Zamir Akram told the General Assembly's Disarmament and International Security Committee.

"This has accentuated our security concerns as such nuclear cooperation shall further widen the asymmetry in stockpiles in our region," he added.

Ambassador Akram, who is Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN's European offices in Geneva, did not name any country in his speech, but he obviously had in mind mainly the U.S.-India nuclear deals.

Also, it is well known that India has a larger stock of fissile material than Pakistan does, and a greater capacity to build warheads.

"Thus, an FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty) that purports only to ban future production of fissile material, will permanently freeze a strategic disadvantage for Pakistan, and is therefore unacceptable to us," the senior Pakistani diplomat said.

"Clearly it is not through choice but necessity that Pakistan is opposed to negotiations on an FMCT," he added.

Since January, Pakistan's has been blocking the launching of negotiations on the proposed treaty at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on the ground that it prejudicial to its national security interests.

With the introduction of the treaty into the agenda of the Conference in 1994, Ambassador Akram said Pakistan had called attention to the fact that a treaty to cut off future production of fissile material would freeze the existing asymmetries in fissile material stockpiles, which would be detrimental for its national security.

Accordingly, Pakistan had been advocating a treaty that not only banned future production, but also aimed at reducing existing stockpiles of fissile material.

A growing asymmetry in military capabilities between major Powers and medium and small States had further increased insecurity among States, and in crucial regions, the pursuit of great power politics had destabilized tenuous regional balance, Zamir Akram told delegates from around the world.

The Pakistani delegate asserted, as the committee’s general debate came to a close, that some States had been denied the right to peaceful nuclear cooperation, while others were helped in promoting unsafeguarded nuclear programmes and building and upgrading strategic weapon systems, including anti-ballistic ones, thereby accelerating vertical nuclear proliferation.

He pointed out that the current hiatus in the Conference on Disarmament was not unprecedented. That body had not undertaken negotiations for any multilateral instrument since it last concluded the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1995.

Yet, Akram pointed out it was only now, after more than a decade, that certain countries had questioned its relevance, seeking ways to revitalize its functioning and even proposing to seek alternative venues. By undermining it in that way, those countries would open the Conference up to the possibilities of negotiating other of its agenda items in alternative venues as well.

That grim situation undermined the efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation, he said. Instead of nuclear disarmament, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons had become the only goal, and even that goal was pursued selectively.

Attempts to forge a new consensus on arms control and disarmament required the convening of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. That alone could ensure genuine and complete ownership of the outcome by all States.

In discussing that issue, Pakistan had been puzzled when some powerful nations argued that such a session had been overtaken by events, yet they opposed its convening.

Pakistan, he added, was also dismayed by arguments from some States that the United Nations disarmament machinery, in particular the Conference on Disarmament, had become dysfunctional, owing to its rule of procedure, he said.

In reality, the decade-old stalemate in that Conference and the overall international disarmament machinery had nothing to do with rules of procedure; it was the lack of political will on the part of some major Powers to pursue disarmament negotiations on the basis of equal security of all States, as accepted in the first special session devoted to disarmament.

The United Nations disarmament machinery and the Conference on Disarmament, in particular were not handmaiden to the whims of the major Powers or a device to confer legitimacy on their pursuit of discriminatory policies, the Pakistan delegate said.

 

[Arsalan]

Treaty banning only future production of fissile material 'unacceptable': Pakistan

UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 13, 2010


Pakistan told the world community Tuesday that its opposition to the start of talks on a treaty to ban production of fissile material used as fuel for nuclear weapons stemmed from the actions of "some powerful states" that have changed the strategic environment of South Asian region.

"Over the past few years, some powerful countries, in pursuit of their commercial interests as well as dubious notions of balance of power, have embarked upon an unfettered and discriminatory nuclear cooperation arrangement in gross violation of their international commitments," Ambassador Zamir Akram told the General Assembly's Disarmament and International Security Committee.

"This has accentuated our security concerns as such nuclear cooperation shall further widen the asymmetry in stockpiles in our region," he added.

Ambassador Akram, who is Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN's European offices in Geneva, did not name any country in his speech, but he obviously had in mind mainly the U.S.-India nuclear deals.

Also, it is well known that India has a larger stock of fissile material than Pakistan does, and a greater capacity to build warheads.

"Thus, an FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty) that purports only to ban future production of fissile material, will permanently freeze a strategic disadvantage for Pakistan, and is therefore unacceptable to us," the senior Pakistani diplomat said.

"Clearly it is not through choice but necessity that Pakistan is opposed to negotiations on an FMCT," he added.

Since January, Pakistan's has been blocking the launching of negotiations on the proposed treaty at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on the ground that it prejudicial to its national security interests.

With the introduction of the treaty into the agenda of the Conference in 1994, Ambassador Akram said Pakistan had called attention to the fact that a treaty to cut off future production of fissile material would freeze the existing asymmetries in fissile material stockpiles, which would be detrimental for its national security.

Accordingly, Pakistan had been advocating a treaty that not only banned future production, but also aimed at reducing existing stockpiles of fissile material.

A growing asymmetry in military capabilities between major Powers and medium and small States had further increased insecurity among States, and in crucial regions, the pursuit of great power politics had destabilized tenuous regional balance, Zamir Akram told delegates from around the world.

The Pakistani delegate asserted, as the committee’s general debate came to a close, that some States had been denied the right to peaceful nuclear cooperation, while others were helped in promoting unsafeguarded nuclear programmes and building and upgrading strategic weapon systems, including anti-ballistic ones, thereby accelerating vertical nuclear proliferation.

He pointed out that the current hiatus in the Conference on Disarmament was not unprecedented. That body had not undertaken negotiations for any multilateral instrument since it last concluded the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1995.

Yet, Akram pointed out it was only now, after more than a decade, that certain countries had questioned its relevance, seeking ways to revitalize its functioning and even proposing to seek alternative venues. By undermining it in that way, those countries would open the Conference up to the possibilities of negotiating other of its agenda items in alternative venues as well.

That grim situation undermined the efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament, arms control and non-proliferation, he said. Instead of nuclear disarmament, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons had become the only goal, and even that goal was pursued selectively.

Attempts to forge a new consensus on arms control and disarmament required the convening of a fourth special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. That alone could ensure genuine and complete ownership of the outcome by all States.

In discussing that issue, Pakistan had been puzzled when some powerful nations argued that such a session had been overtaken by events, yet they opposed its convening.

Pakistan, he added, was also dismayed by arguments from some States that the United Nations disarmament machinery, in particular the Conference on Disarmament, had become dysfunctional, owing to its rule of procedure, he said.

In reality, the decade-old stalemate in that Conference and the overall international disarmament machinery had nothing to do with rules of procedure; it was the lack of political will on the part of some major Powers to pursue disarmament negotiations on the basis of equal security of all States, as accepted in the first special session devoted to disarmament.

The United Nations disarmament machinery and the Conference on Disarmament, in particular were not handmaiden to the whims of the major Powers or a device to confer legitimacy on their pursuit of discriminatory policies, the Pakistan delegate said.

sounds like a great debat by Mr. ambassador.

the man made be proud by being bold enough to stand there are deleiver out point of view regardin the balance of powere and the drams created by our great neighbour nation.

regards!

 

[Awesome]

Why should Pakistan stop producing nukes, while other countries will not start reducing their own stockpiles.

 

[Nahraf]

US has no qualms about nuclear weapons in Israel and India but wants to stop Pakistan developing its nuclear capability. Pakistan should not start FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty) negotiations and let it be in the cold storage for another decade.

 

[Man of Thoughts]

USA have done around 1045 nuclear experiments, Russia 900+, UK 700+ and other countries like France have done suffiecent experiments to get enough data that they handle any difficulties regarding nuclear programme and also they have produced enough fissile material for them like USA and Russia have 5000-8000 warheads so for them this treaty is not a big deal.

But a country like Pakistan who have only 80 warheads and have done only one time experiment the data required for our Programme is not satisfactroy.

If US want so badly us to sign this treaty they should share there all experimental data with us

Otherwise this is not possible as we have the enemies like INDIA and ISRAEL

 

[Arsalan]

Why should Pakistan stop producing nukes, while other countries will not start reducing their own stockpiles.

why should Pakistan stop producing nuclear energy when you are signing deals across the border

baised approach of the west..

 

[TechLahore]

Zindabad! Love the way the ambassador framed our decision in the context of the South Asian dynamic and the "dubious" notion of balance of power adopted by some quarters. While attention remains focused on things that tend to make better tidbits for the media (NWA, floods, Zardari etc.) Pakistan continues to progress very rapidly in this really critical area. I think it is smart to pose such a significant strategic counter to any foreseeable opponent that no one can seriously consider crossing our "red lines".

 

[somebozo]

I applaud the bold and open stance on FMCT!