Pakistan should persuade world to sign nuclear deals

[Neo]

Let Pakistan have it, too​

EDITORIAL (July 29 2008): Pakistan wants a nuclear deal with the United States, like the one Bush administration has signed up with New Delhi. If justification for the deal, which grossly violates the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, is to supplement India's energy requirements, Pakistan too "is energy deficient as India and we are as responsible a nuclear power as India", said Foreign Minister Shah Mehmud Qureshi in London last week.

But that is not likely to happen, at least during the Bush presidency; for, in the words of President Bush, "Pakistan and India are two different countries with different needs and different histories". Nonetheless, Pakistan is determined to oppose endorsement of the controversial deal by the International Atomic Energy Agency and 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Pakistan's representative to the Vienna-based IAEA has already informed the members of the suppliers' Agency and the Group of his government's reservations about the deal. But that is essentially a diplomatic move and may not cut much ice with the IAEA governors except for Ireland which is the most steadfast adherent to the NPT's pristine objectives. Given the strong support given by the Bush Administration and the nuclear commerce lobbies, the deal is expected to get through.

In fact, the biggest hurdle to the deal was expected from the Indian political opposition - and it did come up in a big way throwing up the ugly side of the world's largest democracy - but for all practical purposes the Indo-US nuclear agreement is a done thing.

Pakistan's stand on the Indo-US nuclear deal is tentative, in that the deal vindicates its position on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that this piece of international law does not stop proliferation while it acknowledges Pakistan's right to harness nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

However, what makes the deal suspect in the eyes of Islamabad is its text: in the name of helping India's civilian nuclear programme the deal helps its weapon-building capacity. By keeping some 14 of India's 22 nuclear reactors uncovered by international safeguards the agreement would free them up for exclusive production of military-oriented materials.

Strangely, it is not the United States but India who will decide what facilities would remain beyond the scope of the deal and continue in producing military-oriented materials. Of course, both Pakistan and India, despite being NPT non-signatories have behaved as responsible nuclear powers, by securing a number of bilateral agreements that avert accidental use of their nuclear arsenals.

But it is also a fact that with additional un-safeguarded nuclear material available India's nuclear programme would take on a new aggressive posture. That may be the beginning of new round of a nuclear race in South Asia.

Having said this one cannot overlook the fact that nuclear technology as a source of cheap clean energy has staged a dramatic comeback world-wide. Many countries that were giving up on this source, often under pressure of their non-governmental lobbies, have dusted up their closed plants and brought them on line. With various technological advancements nuclear reactors have become far safer to run and their waste disposal more easily manageable.

The recent steep rise in oil prices has made nuclear energy an all the more attractive option. So if the Indo-US nuclear deal gets through it would certainly trigger an international debate for a serious rethink on the presently truncated nuclear non-proliferation regime and bring into play forces for freer international trade in nuclear materials. A nuclear-energised world community operating within clearly defined legal framework is a possibility, and the Indo-US deal may be one step towards that destination.

Business Recorder [Pakistan's First Financial Daily]

 

[Goodperson]

Ignoring all other factors it will be very difficult for Pakistani Democratic govt to negotiate the deal, In current Pakistani scenario it requires Military to approve the deal however US congress would then object signing such deal with non-democratic govt one should also ponder over this.

 

[muse]

"we are as responsible a nuclear power as India"

That's justification?? Pakistani nuclear program and it's ambition and scope have meaning only in relation to India??

If the answer to any of these is "yes", then forget about it.

"We are energy deficient, we need it " -- that's it? we need it give it to us?

This editorial and others like it prepare Pakistani public opinion for playing "victim" --

So long as Pakistani mindset is India centric, so long as Pakistani intellectuals can think no further than India, Pakistan cannot and ought not be considered a serious power. If nuclear power is what Pakistan need they can have as much of it as they can stomach, they know what they have to do, North Korea and Libya are examples.

So what is that Pakistan want? "Just like India" is a non-starter -- Now what??

Critical readers will ot have failed to note that Pakistani diplomacy, such as it is, has been ineffective on this issue, why is that? Is it because the rest of the world think India is responsible? Have readers missed the reaction of Australians?? Reality is that the Pakistani position is irresponsible, worrisome -- always it's capablity and culture, institutional in this case -- keep India out of the equation and just look at Pakistani nuclear Institutional culture, what's making headlines - who makes headlines not for achievement and innovation but the personailty problems, irregularities, legal problems political problems?

Now, the point is not that only the Pakistani program or Pakistani culture or institutions suffer from such, but rather rhe way in which Pakistan chooses to solve or not solve the problem, these cause sleep nights and now a deal that can alter the destiny of not just Pakistan but Muslims in general?? Why should others be interested in such a outcome?

Lets not be in a hurry, we are no one's victim. If we are decided that we ought not be a independent nuclear power, lets not be, on the other hand if we are decided that, that is exactly what we will be, then lets not do this victim or silly comparison game. Either way, make a decision, any decision will not be without consequence, decide if you can accept it and move on with our view of ourselves and our priorities.

 

[Goodperson]

Pak can't expect pact similar to Indo-US nuke deal: Nicholas Burns

WASHINGTON: Nicholas Burns, one of the architects of the Indo-US nuclear deal, has said that Pakistan cannot expect a similar pact. The statement comes a day after its Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani openly demanded such a deal from the US.

Burns also pressed for the speedy approval of the nuke deal ahead of the IAEA taking up the India-specific safeguards pact on Friday for approval saying it was “good” for both the countries besides helping strengthen the non-proliferation regime.

“India's trust, its credibility, the fact that it has promised to create a state-of-the art facility, monitored by the IAEA, to begin a new export control regime in place, because it has not proliferated the nuclear technology, we can't say that about Pakistan,” said Burns when asked whether the US will offer a nuclear deal with Pakistan on the lines of the Indo-US nuke deal during a panel debate on nuclear agreement at the Brookings Institution.

After meeting US President George W Bush, Gilani demanded from the US a nuclear deal similar to the one Washington has forged with New Delhi, assuring that the nuclear proliferation network of its scientist A Q Khan was broken and will not be repeated.

“There should be no preferential, there should be no discrimination. And if they want to give civilian nuclear status to India, we would also expect the same for Pakistan too,” Gilani said at a gathering here under the aegis of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Middle East Institute.

On the Indo-US nuke pact, the former Under Secretary of State of Political Affairs, who was the US pointsman for the deal, said: “My conviction is that this deal strengthens the non proliferation regime...it makes India a stakeholder.”

Pak can't expect pact similar to Indo-US nuke deal: Nicholas Burns-USA-World-The Times of India

 

[nitesh]

Isn't this line says that pakistan accepts that it was/is involved in proliferation?

After meeting US President George W Bush, Gilani demanded from the US a nuclear deal similar to the one Washington has forged with New Delhi, assuring that the nuclear proliferation network of its scientist A Q Khan was broken and will not be repeated.

No way the deal should be given.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Isn't this line says that pakistan accepts that it was/is involved in proliferation?

No way the deal should be given.

Individuals were involved in proliferation, not the state, and many more countries, including India, have had individuals or organizations who have proliferated.

 

[nitesh]

Individuals were involved in proliferation, not the state, and many more countries, including India, have had individuals or organizations who have proliferated.

Am, my point is that isn't that line is acceptance that something was seriously wrong. So what is the guarantee that this will not repeat.

 

[megatron_404]

There was a report in indian media that Pak is likely not to oppose the deal. In fact, chances are Pak can actually support it.. or at the worst, abstain. this is what the reports are saying...

here s the full report:


Pak may not vote against Indian safeguards pact
Thursday, 31 July , 2008, 14:44
Last Updated: Thursday, 31 July , 2008, 14:47


IAEAVienna/New Delhi: India feels Pakistan might abstain even if it does not vote against the Indian safeguards agreement that comes up for approval by the 35-member board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna on Friday.

But confident of a smooth run at the IAEA board meeting, irrespective of Pakistan's support, India has already started consulting with other countries on scheduling the next stage — the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG). Indications are the crucial meeting of the NSG will also be held in Vienna between Aug 21 to 23.

"We are looking at a 34-0 result at tomorrow's meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors," an official of India's Ministry of External Affairs, who did not wish to be identified, told IANS in New Delhi.


"The best-case scenario for us obviously is if there is no voting and the agreement is supported by the IAEA board unanimously," he added.

The official, however, pointed out that though there has been intense pressure on Pakistan from the United States and others not to block the finalisation of the Indian safeguards agreement, the likely scenario for Friday will be for Pakistan to abstain.

"We will be pleasantly surprised if after making its opposition to the agreement public, Pakistan does not seek a voting, even if to abstain. It may not vote against the agreement but it may still abstain to record its position," the official added.

What might Friday is that many countries might express their views, including some of their misgivings, on certain provisions of the draft agreement. After it is debated and discussed the IAEA chair will ask the members whether they wanted a vote on it. Pakistan may then seek a vote to put on record that it had abstained and not voted for the agreement.

India has already briefed the other members of the board about the safeguards agreement it wanted to sign with the IAEA. On Wednesday, Department of Atomic Energy chairman Anil Kakodkar met the IAEA director-general Mohammed el-Baradei and discussed the proposed agreement.


But officials in pointed out that while they are confident that the "overwhelming mood" in the IAEA board was for India, the only area of worry is whether there was any meaningful opposition from other members. India's worry is particularly over the 19 members of the board who are also in the NSG. If they oppose the safeguards agreement at the IAEA meeting, there is every chance that they may carry this position when the NSG meets.

Importantly, the 45-member NSG takes all their decision through consensus and unlike the IAEA board there is no provision for voting on a crucial issue.

India is not a member of the NSG, but its forthcoming meeting will be crucial for it since the waiver from the Group is required before the India-US agreement on civilian nuclear energy cooperation can be taken up to the US Congress for final approval.

Pakistan is a member of IAEA's Board of Governors that prefers to take decisions by consensus, although it has a provision for vote by simple majority. Pakistan is not part of the NSG where decisions are taken only by consensus.

"Pakistan will abstain," predicted a retired Pakistani diplomat in Vienna.

Earlier this month, Pakistan circulated a letter among the board members registering its opposition to the proposed safeguards agreement. It has described the agreement draft as "discriminatory and dangerous".

It has argued that access to civilian nuclear technology should be available to countries without discrimination. Pakistan says it too would like to participate in the nuclear technology trade and enjoy similar opportunities offered to India to build its civilian nuclear facilities.

Sources close to the agency said on Thursday that the agreement has been carefully negotiated by the IAEA secretariat and that it recommends it for approval. ElBaradei has stated that India is a valued partner and a trusted contributor to international peace and security.

According to ElBaradei, the agreement is a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety.

Gregory L Schulte, America's ambassador to the IAEA, insists that it is a solid agreement and deserves full endorsement by the board on Friday.

Pakistan is a member of IAEA's Board of Governors that prefers to take decisions by consensus, although it has a provision for vote by simple majority. Pakistan is not part of the NSG where decisions are taken only by consensus.


Link:
Pak may not vote against Indian safeguards pact - Sify.com

 

[megatron_404]

However, in my opinion, power is an ever dwindling and ever 'in-demand' product so it should be made available to the masses.Denying it to Pak because of one person's mistake is not a good example.it is like blaming the whole of india because of Modi.

On the other hand, Pakistan should not be India centric. They need to get fuel for nuclear reactors, because they need the power and also they can pay for it. As simple as that. This game by the NSG of denying the nuclear fuel to 'countries with bad proliferation background' is akin to the G-5 keeping the nuclear bomb tech to themselves as if its their personal property and then dictating the terms on other countries. They do not have any right to control it and use it only for themselves.

I would say both India and Pak should support each others concern for stable electricity generation for their masses. We are not new to politics of divide and rule. US is very very good at it!!

 

[Neo]

However, in my opinion, power is an ever dwindling and ever 'in-demand' product so it should be made available to the masses.Denying it to Pak because of one person's mistake is not a good example.it is like blaming the whole of india because of Modi.

Well said!

On the other hand, Pakistan should not be India centric. They need to get fuel for nuclear reactors, because they need the power and also they can pay for it. As simple as that. This game by the NSG of denying the nuclear fuel to 'countries with bad proliferation background' is akin to the G-5 keeping the nuclear bomb tech to themselves as if its their personal property and then dictating the terms on other countries. They do not have any right to control it and use it only for themselves.

Demanding equal treatment doesn't make Pakistan India centric, we too have a robust economy and face burden of huge oil imports; Pakistan consumes approx. 400.000 bpd of oil, only 15% is produced locally. Inorder to sustain 7-7.5% growth we'll have to generate additional 16.000MW electricity in next decade. We need cheap nuclear energy as much as any other country.

I would say both India and Pak should support each others concern for stable electricity generation for their masses. We are not new to politics of divide and rule. US is very very good at it!!

I agree.

 

[megatron_404]

Demanding equal treatment doesn't make Pakistan India centric, we too have a robust economy and face burden of huge oil imports; Pakistan consumes approx. 400.000 bpd of oil, only 15% is produced locally. Inorder to sustain 7-7.5% growth we'll have to generate additional 16.000MW electricity in next decade. We need cheap nuclear energy as much as any other country.

The title 'Let Pakistan have it too' gives an impression like that. It could have been interpreted in other way as well. but my bad I guess.

 

[megatron_404]

"we are as responsible a nuclear power as India"

That's justification?? Pakistani nuclear program and it's ambition and scope have meaning only in relation to India??

If the answer to any of these is "yes", then forget about it.

"We are energy deficient, we need it " -- that's it? we need it give it to us?

This editorial and others like it prepare Pakistani public opinion for playing "victim" --

So long as Pakistani mindset is India centric, so long as Pakistani intellectuals can think no further than India, Pakistan cannot and ought not be considered a serious power. If nuclear power is what Pakistan need they can have as much of it as they can stomach, they know what they have to do, North Korea and Libya are examples.

So what is that Pakistan want? "Just like India" is a non-starter -- Now what??

Critical readers will ot have failed to note that Pakistani diplomacy, such as it is, has been ineffective on this issue, why is that? Is it because the rest of the world think India is responsible? Have readers missed the reaction of Australians?? Reality is that the Pakistani position is irresponsible, worrisome -- always it's capablity and culture, institutional in this case -- keep India out of the equation and just look at Pakistani nuclear Institutional culture, what's making headlines - who makes headlines not for achievement and innovation but the personailty problems, irregularities, legal problems political problems?

Now, the point is not that only the Pakistani program or Pakistani culture or institutions suffer from such, but rather rhe way in which Pakistan chooses to solve or not solve the problem, these cause sleep nights and now a deal that can alter the destiny of not just Pakistan but Muslims in general?? Why should others be interested in such a outcome?

Lets not be in a hurry, we are no one's victim. If we are decided that we ought not be a independent nuclear power, lets not be, on the other hand if we are decided that, that is exactly what we will be, then lets not do this victim or silly comparison game. Either way, make a decision, any decision will not be without consequence, decide if you can accept it and move on with our view of ourselves and our priorities.

A very well written piece. A similar kind of approach by everyone in the sub continent on all issues will pave way for better relations. We have a consortium here of Pakistani, Bangaldeshi and Indian students who discuss political issues relating to our trilateral issues and global issues. and it is talks like these that break any flame war that sometimes occurs between our talks.

I could have just said a 'thanks' but that would have not carried the appreciation. I apologize to mods as I have posted something that deviates from the subject.

 

[GHATAK]

Vienna: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) secretariat may have deflected Pakistan’s criticisms of the Indian safeguards agreement last week by suggesting Islamabad could follow a similar approach but most members of the IAEA Board say their biggest worry in approving India’s draft would be the danger of setting a precedent for its neighbour.

These fears have been amplified by the recent remarks made by Pakistan Prime Minister, Yusuf Raza Gilani, when he said “there should be no discrimination” and that “if [the IAEA wants] to give such nuclear status to India, we expect the same for Pakistan.”

“This is a safeguards agreement for India,” said a Board member from a Western country when asked about Pakistan, “and we are backing it because we see India as a unique case.” The board member said Pakistan would benefit from the Indian agreement not by seeking to copy it but because it would lead to the safeguarding of nuclear facilities that are currently beyond international scrutiny.

“As this agreement gets implemented, I think you will see plenty more Indian facilities coming under safeguards and this is good for the non-proliferation regime and good for Pakistan.”

But others are less sanguine about the Indian draft not setting a precedent.

“If you ask me, the one big thing which worries everyone is that this could be a precedent for other countries to come some day before the IAEA and ask for a similar agreement, including your neighbour,” Mexican Ambassador Alejandro Diaz told The Hindu. “I think Pakistan will argue that the Secretariat should include similar provisions in any safeguards agreement it negotiates with them.”

Though the July 25 briefing held by the IAEA secretariat’s experts for IAEA members helped turn the small tide that could have built up against the Indian deal in the wake of Pakistan’s opposition, some Board members continue to have doubts about the nature of the “corrective measures” mentioned in the preamble.

A few Western members are also unhappy at the lack of automaticity in the agreement in terms of facilities coming under safeguards. “India may argue that the conditions for placing an indigenous nuclear reactor under IAEA inspections have never arrived and none of its own facilities may then come under safeguards for years,” one Western diplomat said.

In briefings the U.S. has conducted, American officials say the voluntary principle has been enshrined in the safeguards agreement as far as homegrown facilities are concerned but “India is offering its facilities for safeguards and the decision is its own.” But will have no choice about accepting safeguards on imported facilities. But some Western critics say they had been led to believe since July 2005 that India had committed to place its civilian reactors under safeguards. “I am not saying the Indians are going back on that offer. But then why have a safeguards agreement which is structured in such a way as to give them a way to back out should they so desire,” a Western diplomat said.

Every board member is aware of the fact that the safeguards agreement is being rushed through in order to meet the requirements of the American domestic political clock but few share Pakistan’s initial concern about there not being enough time to study the Indian draft. “Look, when you want to block something, you can always raise a procedural objection,” said Mr. Diaz. “May be, it would have been better to have had another 15-20 days but I think we’ve all had enough time.” He said the problem with the draft was not its technical complexity but the fact that “some of the shades of the agreement are not so nice” because India was being accorded a status not in keeping with the strict categorisations of the NPT.

 

[GHATAK]

Pak may not get nuke deal like India

Pakistan's hopes to scuttle the Indo-US nuclear deal at the IAEA has taken a U turn after America's chief negotiator on the deal Nicholas Burns said Pakistan had no chance of making a similar deal with the US.

Also former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas burns minced no words when he said, Pakistan's track record on non proliferation was not one to be trusted.

Pakistan's Prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had told America that they are expecting a nuclear deal on their own from the Americans and Pakistan had threatened to vote against the Safeguards Agreement that's expected to be passed by the IAEA's board of governors in Vienna on Friday.

But after America cleared it's view on Pakistan's eligibility as a candidate for a nuclear deal, sources say that Pakistan will not press for a vote on the Safeguards Agreement.

Nicholas Burns said, "We had to make this an exceptional agreement for India because of India's trust, its credibility, the fact that it has promised to create a state of the art reprocessing facility monitored fully by the IAEA because it has an export control regime in place because it has not proliferated its own nuclear technology. We can't say that about Pakistan."

After the IAEA, the Nuclear Suppliers group will have to unanimously waive all restrictions on nuclear trade with India.

Despite some diplomatic bumps along the way getting the consensus of all countries at the IAEA is expected.

The bigger hurdle though may be getting the go ahead from the NSG where India seeks a 'clean, clear and unconditional' waiver to start nuclear commerce with the world.

 

[Flintlock]

However, in my opinion, power is an ever dwindling and ever 'in-demand' product so it should be made available to the masses.Denying it to Pak because of one person's mistake is not a good example.it is like blaming the whole of india because of Modi.

On the other hand, Pakistan should not be India centric. They need to get fuel for nuclear reactors, because they need the power and also they can pay for it. As simple as that. This game by the NSG of denying the nuclear fuel to 'countries with bad proliferation background' is akin to the G-5 keeping the nuclear bomb tech to themselves as if its their personal property and then dictating the terms on other countries. They do not have any right to control it and use it only for themselves.

I would say both India and Pak should support each others concern for stable electricity generation for their masses. We are not new to politics of divide and rule. US is very very good at it!!

I agree on principle too.
However, the practical difficulties of India supporting Pakistan and vice versa are far too great at the moment. Even the current trust-building seems to be faltering badly with accusations being hurled across the table.

What I do not agree with, is your idea of "let everybody have nuke tech". Nuclear technology is a pretty dangerous thing, even while it is being used for simply generating electricity. It needs a well organized and professional setup to operate successfully, and to just hand it out to anybody asking for it is endangering the human race.
There are very obvious reason why nuke tech is being kept as restricted as possible.

Pakistan will have to prove that it is worthy of the tech by putting in place a
stringent nuclear policy and following through with it for a period of time.
It also needs to build academic institutions which can advise the government on nuclear matters, and lend credibility to the Pakistani nuke program.