What's new

Pakistan should persuade world to sign nuclear deals

Any civil nuclear deal given to Pakistan will come with full IAEA safeguard, what more guarantee do we need if we provide full access and supervision to IAEA observers?

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.
Pardon my French but this is crap! US, UK, France all are guilty to proliferation to some level, who are they to judge wether we're worthy of this technology or not.

Nuclear technology is the future...denying access to the technology means denying future!
 
Any civil nuclear deal given to Pakistan will come with full IAEA safeguard, what more guarantee do we need if we provide full access and supervision to IAEA observers?

What they need is some confirmation that Pakistan is capable of complying with the safeguards.

Pardon my French but this is crap! US, UK, France all are guilty to proliferation to some level, who are they to judge wether we're worthy of this technology or not.

Sure they are guilty, but I'd rather have an nuclear France than a nuclear Sudan, if you get my drift.
Since they were the first to get the tech, it is there responsibility to decide who is capable of handling the tech without endangering themselves and others.
The issues are purely practical, and such statements like "who are they to judge" are of no use. Clearly, somebody or the other has to judge.

Nuclear technology is the future...denying access to the technology means denying future!

As I said, there is nothing wrong in principle with what you are saying. However, it takes two to tango. Pakistan would need to raise its game before being adjudged worthy of the tech. I hate to sound so condescending, but that's how I see it.
 
What is responsible behavior?

If dumping nukes over two densely populated cities, repeatedly bringing the world on the brink of nuclear war, threatning to nuke a whole nation, allowing bombers loaded with nukes to fly freely over the country, losing nuke in international waters, passing nuclear technology to an ilegal state hostile to her neighbors etc is to resposible way than I'm sure we'll never qualify to be called 'responsibe nation'. :crazy:
 
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.

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.

Threads merged.
 
What is responsible behavior?

If dumping nukes over two densely populated cities, repeatedly bringing the world on the brink of nuclear war, threatning to nuke a whole nation, allowing bombers loaded with nukes to fly freely over the country, losing nuke in international waters, passing nuclear technology to an ilegal state hostile to her neighbors etc is to resposible way than I'm sure we'll never qualify to be called 'responsibe nation'. :crazy:

Which state would that be?

Neo, nobody can say with a straight face that Pakistan can handle nuclear technology as well as western countries, or even China.
I mean, you do realize that most of these incidents by the US were investigated and revealed by the US itself, and not by a third country.
 
Which state would that be?
Obviously I'm referring to Israel.

Neo, nobody can say with a straight face that Pakistan can handle nuclear technology as well as western countries, or even China.
I mean, you do realize that most of these incidents by the US were investigated and revealed by the US itself, and not by a third country.

Nobody can say with a straight face either that US will not nuke another country, even electoral hopefuls have made dubiuos statements about nuking Mecca and other places.

What if Modi becomes next president of India?
 
Last edited:
Nobody can say with a straight face either that US will not nuke another country, even electoral hopefuls have made dubios statements about nuking Mecca and other places.

LOL....you think so? I don't see the US or EU dropping nukes on any country in the near future.

What if Modi becomes next president of India?

Modi may be a right-winger, but he is no fool.
 
Obviously I'm referring to Israel.



Nobody can say with a straight face either that US will not nuke another country, even electoral hopefuls have made dubiuos statements about nuking Mecca and other places.

What if Modi becomes next president of India?

With due respects Mr.Neo, Modi is quite responsible though the gujrat riots will be an obvious point for you, considering the amount of wealth he created in gujrat (right now one of the top states in India with respect to economy) and even with that much of riots there are still loads of muslims still there which in itself is a testimonial that they are safe.

coming back to the topic,

I have always maintianed in the thread and elsewhere that our huge populations need energy security. and hence denying nuclear tech is not a good idea. The reasons cited by agencies not to give the nuclear fuel is that Pakistan is 'not responsible'. A few words of caution here.

Pakistan does have a history of coups and military dictatorships whiich are not in principle answerable to intl laws. which is exactly why dictatorships and tyranny are looked as potential threats anywhere in the world.

However with a civilian govt now at the center, and Pak in a clear rebuilding state after the ousting of another Military Coup leader (mushy), things are looking straight.

You are saying US almost got the world to a nuke stand off with russia and hence they are also 'irresponsible'. Pakistan leadership also made irresponsible statements during the kargil war of using statements like 'we will use any weapon in our arsenal'. Dont you think that was an irresponsible statement even by a civilian govt?

I belive Pak people should get the energy security. But yes the glitches are there and they can all be cleared with confidence building activities which will take a little while. I do not see why Pak should not get the deal in similar lines in the near future when these conditions are met.
 
No need to do so, nuclear chantage does it all!

Depends on who chants?

And all of Pakistan is? :what:

No, but all of Pakistan doesn't have the institutions to ensure non-proliferation and safety. With that we have come a full circle.

Remember, it was India's Anil Kakodkar, a scientist of repute, who thrashed out the details of the agreement and presented India's case before the world.

Its all about credibility.
 
Pakistans case is different. And modi cannot be compaired to AQ Khan.

Modi was a political leader and did not breach the nuclear security.

1.You cannot say that only AQ Khan did it, can you ?

2.If GoP had the proper security for nuclear weapons and designs, how could one man send the nuclear designs to Libya and N.Korea. This is not a one man operation - there are many involved in it, possibly the Army also.

3.Even if you argue that it is a one man operation, it shows serious flaws in the security of nuclear designs where a single man can steal and export nuclear designs.

Nothing of this scale can happen in Pakistan without the consent of the Pak army, which is the power center of pakistan no matter which government is installed.
 
exactly even i find megatron argument of modi as odd means how you can compare nuclear proliferation with a riot. There are people killed but that's an internal matter. Judiciary is working on that. But nuclear proliferation is a crime to humanity because if the bomb gets in to the wrong hands, the destruction caused will be enormous. If pakistani government is saying that the so called "network" is dismantled then who and all are involved in that why don't expose there names also? What are the actions taken against them. So nuclear deal for pakistan a big NO.
 
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.



Democratic or non-Democrtic, US never gonna have such a deal with Pakistan primarily for the reasons that such a deal is not going to help US economically in the first place and secondly Pakistan being a Muslim State is not much of US intrest.



Above all i believe its silly on the part of our leaders to demand such a deal with US.

Demanding such a deal means that Pakistan have to surrender its nuclear programme and nuclear weapons to US.

US, CIA is already using different tactics to pressurize Pakistan and are lookign for ways to sieaze our nuclear weapons. That is the sole aim at moment.
In such a situation the idiot PPP leaders are demanding such a deal which will be having drastic negative consequences.
 
Does Pakistan want to " have it too" coz India has it or Pak needs it too.

If it needed it, wonder why was it not broached independently instead of waiting for India to have it any then "wanting it too" .
 
Does Pakistan want to " have it too" coz India has it or Pak needs it too.

If it needed it, wonder why was it not broached independently instead of waiting for India to have it any then "wanting it too" .

Not Pakistan but the PPP jiyalas and PPP is not Pakistan.

simple as that.
 
Back
Top Bottom