Pakistan did not oppose US-India deal, says Zardari

[nForce]

@nForce,
Thank you for the reply. I am still not convinced that the nuclear energy is the best 'bang for the buck' for Pakistan? I mean Pakistan has nuclear power plants for 3+ decades but their contribution to the national grid seems very low. May be a lot of nuclear fuel goes into making weapons which, in my opinion, is not really needed.
There is massive power theft in Pakistan. There is need to line up canals to lessen loss. There are a number of ways Pakistan can address its energy requirements and I am not convinced at all that nuclear energy is the best route to go.
My main argument is that that, having witnessed the proverbial $500 hammer in America I think there is enormous wastage in Pakistan. There needs to be more debate about the role of nuclear power and nuclear weaponry in Pakistan and that does not seem to exist.

You are getting it wrong here...

I am not suggesting that nuclear power plants may be the best bang for the buck.the actual costs for operating a nuclear power plant,the fuel costs,maintenance ,let alone the development may be very high.It also depends upon a lot of volatile factors.What I am suggesting is right now,considering the present desperate situation in Pakistan,so far as the power issue is concerned,any hydel power project cannot be any immediate solution.

As I have said before in my previous post,Pakistan is going to face an estimated shortage of around 4000 MW in this coming winter.Power shortage also goes high during the peak summer.Now it is this very time when the power generation from the the Hydro power plants is the lowest.You just cannot generate power at one part of the year and store it to use later.(Though there is one U.S. town/city,which has backup source as batteries I think,but anyways,thats not the norm,practically too expensive to be feasible).

Pakistan used to have an excellent network of dams and canals back in the 1960s,one of the best in the World.At that time,it was just more than enough to cater its needs.
But the situation has deteriorated.Pakistan’s water woes are compounded by silting at the Tarbela and Mangla dams, with an internal official assessment admitting that it has lost 32 per cent of its storage capacity due to the problem.
Pakistan still has huge surplus of unused water,but the unavailability of proper management systems has led to water loss.Its documents show about 30 MAF as "available surplus" with a very high escapage to the sea.
With the present condition,the Gov. of Pakistan has to considerable work on its water channels before it can actually generate power from it profitably.

While hydro power is definitely a good solution,but as I have said in my previous post,that right now Pakistan needs some source that will ensure steady supply,through out the year,the requirement is urgent,unlikely to be catered by any Hydel power system,which will take many years to mature.

Having said that,there is enough room for development of Hydro power in Pakistan.The country is using just 12% of its total hydel power potential that can produce 55,000MW electricity as against 30% by China and India and 70% by developed countries.Pakistan has 7 hydel projects under construction.It has 3 major dams having 6,38MW capacity already installed.

 

[Sudesh Lahri]

Pakistan did not oppose US-India deal, says Zardari

Its very foolish of a person to think that since he has been a vegeterian all his life, he wont be attacked by a lion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no intent to bash Pakistan. I do not question the right of Pakistan to oppose the deal in its national interest. Only the contention that it did not.

Almost all plausible reasons have been highlighted in the letter. From the deal being unfair, discriminatory to the timing of the deal, the fact it will allow India to manipulate the fuel, allow India to conduct tests in future and the fact that India is not promising to sign the NPT.

To term the objections as just based on the discriminatory nature of the deal is purely an being selective in comprehension. Its just that at that time, it was an instinctive reaction from Pakistan to oppose anything that set India apart. Now that Pakistan is going for a similar deal, the intent of all the statements coming out of Pakistan is to color its earlier objections as some thing more benign and honorable..

The Pakistani argument on the deal being 'discriminatory' and in essence 'arbitrary' serves as the context for the Pakistani objections. Were the NSG exemption to India have been provided under a set of standards and rules that applied to all NPT non-signatories, Pakistan would have had little to complain given that all for the 'loopholes' that exist in the safeguards agreement negotiated with India would also apply to the other States that might wish to fulfill the conditions necessary to get a similar exemption. Pakistan would itself love to keep a similar number of its nuclear reactors related to its nuclear weapons program separate from the civilian side - the problem was that the NSG was pretty much making it clear that this was a 'one time deal'.

Since it was obvious that far from 'reforming' the NSG charter to reflect this changed position and standardizing it with respect to all nations, the US, France and Russia were going to bulldoze the agreement through the NSG as a 'one time exemption for India alone', there was no hiding the fact that Pakistan would be discriminated against, and would not have any 'standard set of conditions similar to the Indian ones'. Therefore Pakistan had to object to all the issues and loopholes the NSG exemption for India presented. But the context of those objections remained the fact that the exemption was discriminatory and arbitrary.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its very foolish of a person to think that since he has been a vegeterian all his life, he wont be attacked by a lion.

A clearer analogy would be that of an individual who follows the law at all times and supports the progress of others, expecting not to get back-stabbed and shoved down by the very same individuals he supported.

Misjudged the petty and discriminatory nature of same nations for sure.

 

[karan.1970]

A clearer analogy would be that of an individual who follows the law at all times and supports the progress of others, expecting not to get back-stabbed and shoved down by the very same individuals he supported.

Misjudged the petty and discriminatory nature of same nations for sure.

Actually no.. IMHO, your analogy is incorrect as well. Its more like, Because I missed when I took a shot at you, you should miss as well..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually no.. IMHO, your analogy is incorrect as well. Its more like, Because I missed when I took a shot at you, you should miss as well..

For the reasons I gave earlier in response to your posts, it is not.

 

[karan.1970]

The Pakistani argument on the deal being 'discriminatory' and in essence 'arbitrary' serves as the context for the Pakistani objections. Were the NSG exemption to India have been provided under a set of standards and rules that applied to all NPT non-signatories, Pakistan would have had little to complain given that all for the 'loopholes' that exist in the safeguards agreement negotiated with India would also apply to the other States that might wish to fulfill the conditions necessary to get a similar exemption. Pakistan would itself love to keep a similar number of its nuclear reactors related to its nuclear weapons program separate from the civilian side - the problem was that the NSG was pretty much making it clear that this was a 'one time deal'.

Since it was obvious that far from 'reforming' the NSG charter to reflect this changed position and standardizing it with respect to all nations, the US, France and Russia were going to bulldoze the agreement through the NSG as a 'one time exemption for India alone', there was no hiding the fact that Pakistan would be discriminated against, and would not have any 'standard set of conditions similar to the Indian ones'. Therefore Pakistan had to object to all the issues and loopholes the NSG exemption for India presented. But the context of those objections remained the fact that the exemption was discriminatory and arbitrary.

As I said, you have latched on to one part of the objections (that seems more honorable than the rest) and are retro terming that as the main essence of the objection. In a letter covering 20+ distinct points, alleged discriminatory nature of the agreement was just 1 point. Pakistan raked up every single objection under the Sun in a hope that atleast 1 would stick. But it didnt. The objections were

1. Less time provided to study the agreement
2. It will set the precedent for non NPT states (actually being termed as a precedent contradicts the allegation that its discriminatory)
3. Objection on India being called Advanced Nuclear technology owner
4. Acceptance of India's Nuclear weapons Power status
5. Facilities to be covered not liisted
6. Possibility of nuclear proliferation
7. Ambiguous terming of termination agreement
8. Possibility of India obtaining fuel and then terminating the agreeemnt
9. Agreement encourages further testing and proliferation


etc etc..

Discriminatory nature seems to be nothing more than a footnote in a long letter filled with any and all possible objections. Again, not questioning the validity of those objections. Just that its hilareous when Pakistan today comes out and claims that it never objected to India getting the Nuke deal..

 

[Mauryan]

I know. Double Standards. Pakistan supported the India-US nuke deal but India opposes the China-Pakistan Civilian Nuke deal.

lol.....
its not about double standards,its all about ones proliferation standards. You called this khan a national hero when he stole some blue prints of centrifuges,and now you put him in prision under proliferation acts.

Should the world be put at risk from people hailing from pakistan who wishes to sell nuclear bombs as like groceries in wall mart?

think about it before you type.And you might get a grasp of your own standards.period

 

[KS]

The Pakistani argument on the deal being 'discriminatory' and in essence 'arbitrary' serves as the context for the Pakistani objections. Were the NSG exemption to India have been provided under a set of standards and rules that applied to all NPT non-signatories, Pakistan would have had little to complain given that all for the 'loopholes' that exist in the safeguards agreement negotiated with India would also apply to the other States that might wish to fulfill the conditions necessary to get a similar exemption. Pakistan would itself love to keep a similar number of its nuclear reactors related to its nuclear weapons program separate from the civilian side - the problem was that the NSG was pretty much making it clear that this was a 'one time deal'.

Since it was obvious that far from 'reforming' the NSG charter to reflect this changed position and standardizing it with respect to all nations, the US, France and Russia were going to bulldoze the agreement through the NSG as a 'one time exemption for India alone', there was no hiding the fact that Pakistan would be discriminated against, and would not have any 'standard set of conditions similar to the Indian ones'. Therefore Pakistan had to object to all the issues and loopholes the NSG exemption for India presented. But the context of those objections remained the fact that the exemption was discriminatory and arbitrary.

AM, it is not the perceived legitimacy and the genuine concern regarding the proliferation of nuclear technology arbitarily (ironic..isnt it..?) of Pakistan that is being discussed here.....rather it is whether the Pakistan govt raised objections (legitimate or illegitimate)to the Indo-US nuke deal .

And it is very obvious that ur arguments saying that the Pakistani objections were valid have conviniently put Zardari's claim to rest in a shallow graveyard.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As I said, you have latched on to one part of the objections (that seems more honorable than the rest) and are retro terming that as the main essence of the objection. In a letter covering 20+ distinct points, alleged discriminatory nature of the agreement was just 1 point. Pakistan raked up every single objection under the Sun in a hope that atleast 1 would stick. But it didnt. The objections were

1. Less time provided to study the agreement
2. It will set the precedent for non NPT states (actually being termed as a precedent contradicts the allegation that its discriminatory)
3. Objection on India being called Advanced Nuclear technology owner
4. Acceptance of India's Nuclear weapons Power status
5. Facilities to be covered not liisted
6. Possibility of nuclear proliferation
7. Ambiguous terming of termination agreement
8. Possibility of India obtaining fuel and then terminating the agreeemnt
9. Agreement encourages further testing and proliferation


etc etc..

Discriminatory nature seems to be nothing more than a footnote in a long letter filled with any and all possible objections. Again, not questioning the validity of those objections. Just that its hilareous when Pakistan today comes out and claims that it never objected to India getting the Nuke deal..

AM, it is not the perceived legitimacy and the genuine concern regarding the proliferation of nuclear technology arbitarily (ironic..isnt it..?) of Pakistan that is being discussed here.....rather it is whether the Pakistan govt raised objections (legitimate or illegitimate)to the Indo-US nuke deal .

And it is very obvious that ur arguments saying that the Pakistani objections were valid have conviniently put Zardari's claim to rest in a shallow graveyard.

Again, all of Pakistan's 'objections' were precisely that, 'objections' to certain aspects of the NSG exemption and safeguards agreement, with respect to loopholes and discrimination in terms of the arbitrary nature of the exemption. Objections to aspects of the exemption and safeguards agreement is not equivalent to 'opposition' to the entire deal itself.

So no, the letter and my arguments in no way contradict the position Zardari has articulated.