Super Falcon
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2008
- Messages
- 15,815
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
welll first time that happened that with pakistan's gain india is happy i dont bellieve on this man
Pakistan becomes new chair of IAEA board
- Thread starter GUNNER
- Start date
Kinetic
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 11,200
- Reaction score
- -33
Congrats to Pakistan. I think Pakistan will lead other countries well to move forward with civil nuclear cooperation for future needs.
As usual!!!
Both India and Pakistan held such position earlier. No one can block others. The position is held by the countries one after another in a pre-programmed manner.
As usual!!!
Both India and Pakistan held such position earlier. No one can block others. The position is held by the countries one after another in a pre-programmed manner.
justanobserver
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 0
Holy Crap!
wtf is happening to this forum
wtf is happening to this forum
SEAL
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,267
- Reaction score
- 0
justanobserver
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2010
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 0
^^
He could be just a perv you know...
He could be just a perv you know...
ARSENAL6
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,676
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
FreeKin could explain excatly in details is to Why pakistan should only focus on Iran and N.Korea ?
muse
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 13,006
- Reaction score
- 0
- but in the meantime readers may want to review the kinds of ideas informing the Pakistani establishment:
Strategic engineering
Asif Ezdi
The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service.
Several American officials and legislators have recently been complaining in public that generous US assistance for economic development and flood relief is not getting enough recognition from the Pakistani public. This is odd, because Washington is not providing assistance to Pakistan for altruistic reasons but because it expects to get something in return which is more valuable to it: Pakistan’s support for the US war in Afghanistan.
In fact, it is Pakistan that should be complaining about US “ingratitude”, because despite the vital logistic and intelligence support it is giving to the US in this war and the supportive action the Pakistan army is taking within its borders, Washington continues to penalise the country for pursuing its nuclear programme on which its national security rests.
A considerable part of the hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 23 for the confirmation of Cameron Munter, Ambassador-designate to Pakistan, was about what Senator Casey, who chaired the meeting, called the “ingratitude” of the Pakistani people for the munificence shown by the US to Pakistan.
Another Senator, James Risch by name, lamented the failure of the Pakistani people to show a “modicum of appreciation” for the sacrifice that the Americans are making — “sacrificing their children’s and grandchildren’s future” — in order to build infrastructure in Pakistan. Risch was evidently either ignorant of, or insensitive to, the sacrifices that the Pakistani people have made since the country joined the US-led fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: the thousands of soldiers and civilians who have lost their lives, not to speak of the billions of dollars in economic loss.
It would be unfair to say that the views expressed by Casey and Risch about the “ingratitude” of the Pakistanis represent informed opinion in the US in general. Rather, the widespread mistrust of the US in Pakistan is taken as a failure to sell effectively a policy which is essentially sound. Expressing this opinion in an editorial on 28 May this year, the New York Times wrote, “The US still does not have a good enough strategy for winning over Pakistan’s people, who are fed a relentless diet of anti-American propaganda. ...The State Department also needs to move faster to implement its public diplomacy plan for Pakistan.”
In his confirmation hearing, Munter promised a more effective public diplomacy through better communication with diverse sections of the society. In other words, if the Pakistanis are unhappy or angry with US policies and actions, such as the attack last Thursday by US helicopters on a Pakistani border post at Teri Mengal, it is because they do not understand that what the US is doing is actually good for them and all that is needed is a better effort to sell US policies.
Munter also repeated another misconception: that Pakistani scepticism about US motives in South Asia arises mainly from historical doubts about America’s staying power and long-term commitment in the region. That might have been true at one time, especially in the immediate aftermath of Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. But Pakistani scepticism over US policies is founded today not so much on the past “fickleness” of the US (as Shuja Nawaz wrote in a recent article in the Washington Post) but its present and future geostrategic plans for the region.
Central to these plans is the policy, started under the Bush administration and continued under Obama, of making India a global power as a potential counterweight to China.
The keystone of this policy was the nuclear deal under which India was granted exemption from NSG guidelines restricting nuclear trade with non-NPT countries while leaving the country free to build up its nuclear arsenal. In addition to the nuclear waiver, India is also being offered highly advanced conventional weaponry. The two sides are discussing the easing of the remaining restrictions on the export of high-technology US items. While India has been assured that any weapons sold to Pakistan would be used only for counter-insurgency operations, there is no restriction on the use of weaponry sold to India against Pakistan.
But there is more to US plans than just building up India’s nuclear and conventional capabilities. The policy of “de-hyphenation” announced by Bush as an accompaniment — and continued by Obama — also entails a downsizing of Pakistan, especially in the nuclear field. This is not being done because a nuclear Pakistan poses a threat to any vital US security interest but mainly to enable India to turn its strategic attention away from Pakistan and assume a wider regional and global role.
Washington’s policies towards Pakistan’s nuclear programme are manifested in (a) US opposition to the lifting of the NSG ban on nuclear trade with Pakistan; (b) US opposition to Chashma-3 and -4 nuclear power plants; (c) US pressure on Pakistan on the proposed treaty to ban the production of fissile material.
The A Q Khan network was used as a convenient excuse to keep the nuclear embargo on Pakistan when it was lifted from India. However, a major reason why Washington remains opposed to lifting it against Pakistan is to avoid offending Delhi. As a Reuters news story in March this year noted, Pakistan’s request to Washington for a civilian nuclear arrangement “has consistently been refused because of a fear of angering New Delhi, an arch-rival of Islamabad.”
Washington has tried to keep the A Q Khan issue alive in order to maintain pressure on Pakistan. It was also brought up at Munter’s confirmation hearing. He told the Committee that as Ambassador he intended to again raise the question of US officials interviewing Dr Khan. So far, there has been no public reaction from Islamabad to this statement.
Washington has also hardened its opposition to the building of Chashma III and IV nuclear reactors by China. A day after the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry indicated it saw no need to seek approval from the NSG, Thomas D’Agostino, US Under Secretary for Nuclear Security suggested that the NSG should address the issue. The group will be meeting next month but it is unlikely to be able to stop China from going ahead with the project.
It is no secret that the main purpose of the “High-level Meeting on Revitalising the Work of Conference on Disarmament” held in New York on September 24 was to heap pressure on Pakistan to unblock the commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT) at the Conference on Disarmament (CD). Pakistan has been opposing these negotiations since the beginning of this year unless the proposed treaty also adequately addresses the question of asymmetries in existing stockpiles of fissile material, in which India enjoys a sizeable advantage over Pakistan.
At the New York meeting, US and other Western powers sharply attacked “one country” (Pakistan) for blocking the work of the CD. US, Australia and Britain suggested that negotiations on FMCT might have to be shifted elsewhere. But Russia and China opposed the idea. The meeting ended with a statement by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that there was broad agreement on the need to start FMCT negotiations immediately. The Secretary-General warned that a continued impasse could result in states going outside the CD to negotiate the treaty. But that is unlikely to happen, not least because it would make the task of getting Pakistan’s adherence even more difficult. Pakistan did not speak at the New York meeting and has indicated it would not attend any negotiations on a fissile material treaty outside the CD.
At his confirmation hearing, Munter used strong language, bordering on the undiplomatic, to criticise Pakistan’s position on the fissile material treaty, saying it did not “make sense” and urged Pakistan to be “constructive.” The pressure on Pakistan on the FMCT will now mount further. Pakistan must show that it has the necessary resolve to defend its national interests. Pakistan should also not sign any treaty to halt the production of fissile material unless it covers existing stockpiles and until Pakistan gets access to peaceful nuclear technology at par with India.
The first part of this article appeared on September 6, 2010.
Email: asifezdi@yahoo.com
Strategic engineering
Asif Ezdi
The writer is a former member of the Pakistan Foreign Service.
Several American officials and legislators have recently been complaining in public that generous US assistance for economic development and flood relief is not getting enough recognition from the Pakistani public. This is odd, because Washington is not providing assistance to Pakistan for altruistic reasons but because it expects to get something in return which is more valuable to it: Pakistan’s support for the US war in Afghanistan.
In fact, it is Pakistan that should be complaining about US “ingratitude”, because despite the vital logistic and intelligence support it is giving to the US in this war and the supportive action the Pakistan army is taking within its borders, Washington continues to penalise the country for pursuing its nuclear programme on which its national security rests.
A considerable part of the hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 23 for the confirmation of Cameron Munter, Ambassador-designate to Pakistan, was about what Senator Casey, who chaired the meeting, called the “ingratitude” of the Pakistani people for the munificence shown by the US to Pakistan.
Another Senator, James Risch by name, lamented the failure of the Pakistani people to show a “modicum of appreciation” for the sacrifice that the Americans are making — “sacrificing their children’s and grandchildren’s future” — in order to build infrastructure in Pakistan. Risch was evidently either ignorant of, or insensitive to, the sacrifices that the Pakistani people have made since the country joined the US-led fight against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: the thousands of soldiers and civilians who have lost their lives, not to speak of the billions of dollars in economic loss.
It would be unfair to say that the views expressed by Casey and Risch about the “ingratitude” of the Pakistanis represent informed opinion in the US in general. Rather, the widespread mistrust of the US in Pakistan is taken as a failure to sell effectively a policy which is essentially sound. Expressing this opinion in an editorial on 28 May this year, the New York Times wrote, “The US still does not have a good enough strategy for winning over Pakistan’s people, who are fed a relentless diet of anti-American propaganda. ...The State Department also needs to move faster to implement its public diplomacy plan for Pakistan.”
In his confirmation hearing, Munter promised a more effective public diplomacy through better communication with diverse sections of the society. In other words, if the Pakistanis are unhappy or angry with US policies and actions, such as the attack last Thursday by US helicopters on a Pakistani border post at Teri Mengal, it is because they do not understand that what the US is doing is actually good for them and all that is needed is a better effort to sell US policies.
Munter also repeated another misconception: that Pakistani scepticism about US motives in South Asia arises mainly from historical doubts about America’s staying power and long-term commitment in the region. That might have been true at one time, especially in the immediate aftermath of Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. But Pakistani scepticism over US policies is founded today not so much on the past “fickleness” of the US (as Shuja Nawaz wrote in a recent article in the Washington Post) but its present and future geostrategic plans for the region.
Central to these plans is the policy, started under the Bush administration and continued under Obama, of making India a global power as a potential counterweight to China.
The keystone of this policy was the nuclear deal under which India was granted exemption from NSG guidelines restricting nuclear trade with non-NPT countries while leaving the country free to build up its nuclear arsenal. In addition to the nuclear waiver, India is also being offered highly advanced conventional weaponry. The two sides are discussing the easing of the remaining restrictions on the export of high-technology US items. While India has been assured that any weapons sold to Pakistan would be used only for counter-insurgency operations, there is no restriction on the use of weaponry sold to India against Pakistan.
But there is more to US plans than just building up India’s nuclear and conventional capabilities. The policy of “de-hyphenation” announced by Bush as an accompaniment — and continued by Obama — also entails a downsizing of Pakistan, especially in the nuclear field. This is not being done because a nuclear Pakistan poses a threat to any vital US security interest but mainly to enable India to turn its strategic attention away from Pakistan and assume a wider regional and global role.
Washington’s policies towards Pakistan’s nuclear programme are manifested in (a) US opposition to the lifting of the NSG ban on nuclear trade with Pakistan; (b) US opposition to Chashma-3 and -4 nuclear power plants; (c) US pressure on Pakistan on the proposed treaty to ban the production of fissile material.
The A Q Khan network was used as a convenient excuse to keep the nuclear embargo on Pakistan when it was lifted from India. However, a major reason why Washington remains opposed to lifting it against Pakistan is to avoid offending Delhi. As a Reuters news story in March this year noted, Pakistan’s request to Washington for a civilian nuclear arrangement “has consistently been refused because of a fear of angering New Delhi, an arch-rival of Islamabad.”
Washington has tried to keep the A Q Khan issue alive in order to maintain pressure on Pakistan. It was also brought up at Munter’s confirmation hearing. He told the Committee that as Ambassador he intended to again raise the question of US officials interviewing Dr Khan. So far, there has been no public reaction from Islamabad to this statement.
Washington has also hardened its opposition to the building of Chashma III and IV nuclear reactors by China. A day after the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry indicated it saw no need to seek approval from the NSG, Thomas D’Agostino, US Under Secretary for Nuclear Security suggested that the NSG should address the issue. The group will be meeting next month but it is unlikely to be able to stop China from going ahead with the project.
It is no secret that the main purpose of the “High-level Meeting on Revitalising the Work of Conference on Disarmament” held in New York on September 24 was to heap pressure on Pakistan to unblock the commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cutoff treaty (FMCT) at the Conference on Disarmament (CD). Pakistan has been opposing these negotiations since the beginning of this year unless the proposed treaty also adequately addresses the question of asymmetries in existing stockpiles of fissile material, in which India enjoys a sizeable advantage over Pakistan.
At the New York meeting, US and other Western powers sharply attacked “one country” (Pakistan) for blocking the work of the CD. US, Australia and Britain suggested that negotiations on FMCT might have to be shifted elsewhere. But Russia and China opposed the idea. The meeting ended with a statement by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that there was broad agreement on the need to start FMCT negotiations immediately. The Secretary-General warned that a continued impasse could result in states going outside the CD to negotiate the treaty. But that is unlikely to happen, not least because it would make the task of getting Pakistan’s adherence even more difficult. Pakistan did not speak at the New York meeting and has indicated it would not attend any negotiations on a fissile material treaty outside the CD.
At his confirmation hearing, Munter used strong language, bordering on the undiplomatic, to criticise Pakistan’s position on the fissile material treaty, saying it did not “make sense” and urged Pakistan to be “constructive.” The pressure on Pakistan on the FMCT will now mount further. Pakistan must show that it has the necessary resolve to defend its national interests. Pakistan should also not sign any treaty to halt the production of fissile material unless it covers existing stockpiles and until Pakistan gets access to peaceful nuclear technology at par with India.
The first part of this article appeared on September 6, 2010.
Email: asifezdi@yahoo.com
I didn't mean pay close attention to them. I meant, when Pakistan is looking at them, they shouldn't give them a lenient and allowing attitude just because Iran is our neighbor and NK helped us get missiles and whatnot.
But North Korea and Iran is a nuclear hot topic arent they?
ARSENAL6
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,676
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
Hmmmmmmmmmmm
YOu got a point there
but things have changed and the US is increasingly targeting Pakistan
do you think it should have some allies when the US attack Pakistan ?
Similar threads
- Article
