Pakistan should persuade world to sign nuclear deals

[GHATAK]

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" .

Interesting question.

 

[IceCold]

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.

I too agree with that. Pakistan will never be able to make such a deal with the US. Funny it is how GOP doesn't get it. IMO the government is well aware that we will not get this deal no matter what we do, the far cry is all political.
I think we cannot argue over this issue with the west. Reason is that its their property, and their decision alone to whom they think worthy of offering such a deal and whom not. What we can do however is that the next time US raises concern over Pakistan's nuclear program be it civil or weapons, a simple shut up and mind your ******* own business will do the trick. We will have to adopt the policy similar to that of Iran "No Comprises". Getting nuclear energy there are only two ways, one China and the second your own self. No third option. IF we would have not been such a jack *** in our foreign policy towards Russia, we could have seen a different result. Even now if our political leaders could just stop going to the US every now and then for yes sir no sir and instead can turn their jets towards Moscow we might see some output in years to come.

 

[Neo]

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" .

Pakistan is less India centric than you may have been tought. Unlike your government we don't have a history of hindering progressive industrial deals offered to you.

India brought nukes to South Asia and initiated arms race, we have no choice but to follow suit. And yes we demand parity, specially when the balance of power is to be disturbed in nuclear arena.

But to answer your question, We need civil nuclear energy regardless what India does, period!

 

[cactuslily58]

Pakistan is less India centric than you may have been tought. Unlike your government we don't have a history of hindering progressive industrial deals offered to you.

India brought nukes to South Asia and initiated arms race, we have no choice but to follow suit. And yes we demand parity, specially when the balance of power is to be disturbed in nuclear arena.

But to answer your question, We need civil nuclear energy regardless what India does, period!

That's just the point I am making, if Pak needs Nuc Energy regardless of India's requirements how come this was not broached / initiated before India's 123 deal ?

I am questioning the title of this thread. To me GOP's approach seems like Oliver Twist..( please Sir,may I have some more..)

As regards getting Nukes to South Asia, India did what it did in 1974 coz we felt we needed it ( the 62 war war & presence of 7th Fleet in Bay of Bengal was still fresh) ,what Pakistan or any other country did or felt was of no consequence.If Pak chose to follow suit the choice was entirely Pak's , it did not alter anything with regards India's perspective on any issue.

Parity in international relations is not demanded.. it is obtained by your actions, track record, consistency & own intrinsic strength which includes what you can offer to the world in exchange of what you hope to get.

Lastly as regards being or not being India centric....no comments.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

That's just the point I am making, if Pak needs Nuc Energy regardless of India's requirements how come this was not broached / initiated before India's 123 deal ?

Until the US brought it up with India, I do not think very many people would have thought that two nations sanctioned for conducting nuclear tests would have had a chance.

 

[megatron_404]

Pakistan is less India centric than you may have been tought. Unlike your government we don't have a history of hindering progressive industrial deals offered to you.

India brought nukes to South Asia and initiated arms race, we have no choice but to follow suit. And yes we demand parity, specially when the balance of power is to be disturbed in nuclear arena.

But to answer your question, We need civil nuclear energy regardless what India does, period!

Sir, Pakistan's ask for the deal has come at a stage where it is easy to thin that 'India got it, so should Pak'. If Pak had needed it, being an ally to US in WoT, it could have asked for it much before all this.

India got nukes to region so Pak had to follow suit to maintain deterrent - agreed

We demand parity - this should be with respect to military might, why even with civilian accords? pakistan has its own place and its own sphere of influence and no one can stop it from going ahead with similar deals. But dont you think the timing of such a request can make eye brows to twitch??

Pakistan and India need energy because we have the largest concentration of humanity. while the masses at our end suffer endless power cuts and water shortage and what not, every citizen in US,UK and such countries enjoy uninterrupted supplies.

Pakistan's credibility is at a question. Pak has come out of a military regime and with so many military coups, its a doubt whether there will be continuity in the civilian authority. This is not to undermine your strengths. it will take a few more years to prove that Pak has indeed become stable with recurring elections and civilian govts.

once that has been proven, there is no question if stopping the flow of energy to the masses. it is criminal to do so.

 

[Bushroda]

Pakistan is less India centric than you may have been tought. Unlike your government we don't have a history of hindering progressive industrial deals offered to you.

India brought nukes to South Asia and initiated arms race, we have no choice but to follow suit. And yes we demand parity, specially when the balance of power is to be disturbed in nuclear arena.

But to answer your question, We need civil nuclear energy regardless what India does, period!

Neo!!

Can you tell me what did Pakistani establishment do to end its nuclear appartheid after nuclear tests in 98? Why is it that Pakistan realized that it needs nuclear energy for its growing economy only after the deal was offered to India?

It isn't that one day George Bush gets up & decides to offer nuclear deal to India sipping on his morning coffee. Indian establishment got into negotiations with Washington straight after PokhranII. Several rounds of discussions happened between Jaswant Singh & US foreign secretary Strobe Talbott both in New Delhi & Washington and where NDA leftover after the end of their term UPA government picked up from there. It was a sincere concerted effort of eight years on both diplomatic & political level that got India the deal.

I don't think Pakistan made any effort to get into diplomatic negotiations with US. OTOH, it always kept giving apologetic explanation that it was forced to carry out nuclear tests to reply to India.

 

[Neo]

That's just the point I am making, if Pak needs Nuc Energy regardless of India's requirements how come this was not broached / initiated before India's 123 deal ?

Quite conveniet reasoning since India got it first. Please tell me what India would do if Pakistan was offered same deal by China prior to US approaching India? Would India just let it go and do nothing? Would we still have this conversation?

Pakistan and Indian both have suffered the satus of nuclear pariah's since NPT came into affect, its just unthinkable that US would ever approach Pakistan first to bypass NPT regardless our past. But since the deal offered to India will afect us its very much our right to demand the same.

India-centric hawks in Pakistan’s establishment are concerned by the government’s apparent caving in to US pressure to not resist the deal, arguing that the deal jeopardises Pakistan’s long-term security. The pragmatists recognise that the deal is a seismic shift in the power equation in South Asia.

Pakistanis long used to seeing a binary, zero-sum game between India and Pakistan have to adjust to the reality of US realignments in the neighbourhood as India and China hurtle towards the status of economic powers. Changes in the status quo always worry states, especially those whose policies are reflexive, reactionary and eschew creative strategic thinking. Ofcource I'm referring to Pakistan here.

One only hopes that our strategists will not succumb to grandiose notions of great power status for Pakistan and use the deal to trigger off a nuclear arms race in South Asia. What should be more worrying are the negative implications the agreement may have for global nuclear disarmament.

Think about that instead of who got it first and why the other needs it now.

 

[Neo]

India-IAEA accord precedent for Pakistan, says FO​

* Sadiq says Pakistan interested in seeking access to civilian nuclear energy​

ISLAMABAD: The India-International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguard agreement had set a precedent for other countries including Pakistan to enter into similar agreements to meet their energy needs, the Foreign Office said on Thursday.

“The statement of IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and of other IAEA officials confirm the precedent setting nature of the Indian safeguards agreement, and the agreement could serve as a model for other states, who may wish to conclude similar agreements,” FO spokesman Muhammad Sadiq said.

Addressing a weekly briefing, the spokesman said that Pakistan was interested in seeking international co-operation to access technology for civilian nuclear energy. He said criteria-based approach would enable Pakistan to access civil nuclear energy under safeguards to meet its growing energy needs.

Governors of the United Nations nuclear watchdog approved India’s draft plan for inspections of its civilian atomic reactors on last Friday, a precondition for launching a deal to obtain US nuclear fuel and technology.

To questioning on Dr Aafia Siddiqui, Sadiq said Pakistan had asked for consular access and medical assistance to Dr Siddiqui. “The consular access will be granted at the earliest,” he said, adding the government was committed to bringing back all Pakistani detainees including Dr Siddiqui.

He said the US authorities informed Pakistan about Dr Siddiqui’s custody on July 17, and she was transferred to the US on August 3. “I do not know if Dr Aafia Siddiqui was kept at Bagram. On our approach we were assured by the US that she was not in Bagram. Bagram, as you know, is a US army facility.” He said the government was still unaware of where her children were. “We are still trying to find these facts,” he said.

The spokesman said the proposed $ 15 billion US aid would not affect military assistance to Pakistan. “I do not see any link between this assistance and the position of 18 new F-16s,” he said.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[cactuslily58]

Quite conveniet reasoning since India got it first. Please tell me what India would do if Pakistan was offered same deal by China prior to US approaching India? Would India just let it go and do nothing? Would we still have this conversation?

Pakistan and Indian both have suffered the satus of nuclear pariah's since NPT came into affect, its just unthinkable that US would ever approach Pakistan first to bypass NPT regardless our past. But since the deal offered to India will afect us its very much our right to demand the same.

India-centric hawks in Pakistan’s establishment are concerned by the government’s apparent caving in to US pressure to not resist the deal, arguing that the deal jeopardises Pakistan’s long-term security. The pragmatists recognise that the deal is a seismic shift in the power equation in South Asia.

Pakistanis long used to seeing a binary, zero-sum game between India and Pakistan have to adjust to the reality of US realignments in the neighbourhood as India and China hurtle towards the status of economic powers. Changes in the status quo always worry states, especially those whose policies are reflexive, reactionary and eschew creative strategic thinking. Ofcource I'm referring to Pakistan here.

One only hopes that our strategists will not succumb to grandiose notions of great power status for Pakistan and use the deal to trigger off a nuclear arms race in South Asia. What should be more worrying are the negative implications the agreement may have for global nuclear disarmament.

Think about that instead of who got it first and why the other needs it now.

Firstly possession of Nukes without the economic strength to back it up will make countries end up like N Korea.

The point I wish to make is the same , did Pak leaders including the Gen / ISI who is or were known as the custodians of national interests think of the option mentioned in the portion highlighted above or is it simply a " I want it too" situation. If they did , it would be worth while considering / knowing if China would or can have agreed or been allowed to agree by the world.

The deal in no way impinges upon Pak Nuc capability. It surely must have a stockpile based on its threat perceptions. It retains the option to increase it, so where is the seismic shift ?

No relations or equations remain the same. The zero - sum game will change when one of the players sees itself differently as compared to how the other player sees itself.

Lastly, as regards global nuclear disarmament, none of us ( India & Pak) are in a position to pontificate having broken the rules ourselves.

 

[bhangra12345]

Neo,

It is all about realpolitick and money. One simple question, does Pakistan have the money to BUY reactors and more importantly do others believe you have?

As you can see the nuclear diplomacy required involved a lot of political capital and some nations brought on board using economic ties. The other countries like US are putting their own political capital, they are controlling their domestic and international friends, because US, France, Russia & others sees gain from this.

Pakistan is using its political capital for getting aid. Hell, your military is being subsidized by the US, the F-16s and stuff. Many foreign diplomats call your diplomacy as diplomacy with a gun pointing at your own head. Why would anyone think of spending their political capital (except China - not economics though), when at the end the nuclear deal, they will have to gift the reactors to you. and with the spectre of AQ on your back, the amount of political capital required is much much more for Pakistan, what is the gain you present to them for spending their political capital. There are no free lunches anywhere, if you want it, Pakistan has to earn and spend on it- which Pakistan doesnt have the capability to do.

Make them an offer which they cant refuse. Today your offer falls way way short.

 

[Neo]

Neo,

It is all about realpolitick and money. One simple question, does Pakistan have the money to BUY reactors and more importantly do others believe you have?

As you can see the nuclear diplomacy required involved a lot of political capital and some nations brought on board using economic ties. The other countries like US are putting their own political capital, they are controlling their domestic and international friends, because US, France, Russia & others sees gain from this.

Pakistan is using its political capital for getting aid. Hell, your military is being subsidized by the US, the F-16s and stuff. Many foreign diplomats call your diplomacy as diplomacy with a gun pointing at your own head. Why would anyone think of spending their political capital (except China - not economics though), when at the end the nuclear deal, they will have to gift the reactors to you. and with the spectre of AQ on your back, the amount of political capital required is much much more for Pakistan, what is the gain you present to them for spending their political capital. There are no free lunches anywhere, if you want it, Pakistan has to earn and spend on it- which Pakistan doesnt have the capability to do.

Make them an offer which they cant refuse. Today your offer falls way way short.

Interesting views but not without flaws. Firstly Pakistan already operates three reactors, two purchased (Kanupp, Chasnupp) and one locally built (Khushab), none of these was gifted and yes we have money to buy more.
Learn from the past, we've spent more than est. $30 billion on our nuclear programme since 1969 with much much weaker economy and less resources.
Current economy crisis will eventually settle down, our market is strong enough to deal with ongoing issues. Nuclear infrastructure has our top priority, money will not be an issue.

As far as the political capital is concerned I think we're spending it wisely. There's a reason why USA hasn't attacked Pakistan, not will it ever come sofar. Pakistan is gradually shifting to Chinese Camp, thats the best political investment we've ever made, should have been done decades ago.

US trippling non military aid, clearing sanctions for military hardaware and praising Pakistan for her support in WoT etc indicate that US is not ready to let Pakistan go into Chinese Camp yet, if we play our cards right we can cash in support from both parties.

 

[bhangra12345]

Interesting views but not without flaws. Firstly Pakistan already operates three reactors, two purchased (Kanupp, Chasnupp) and one locally built (Khushab), none of these was gifted and yes we have money to buy more.

How many are you going to buy in the next 5-10 years? Do you have the capacity to buy from Russia, China(for India, put France) and US all the same time satisfying all of them? and at the same time have the ability to provide economic carrots to the rest?

Dont count in single digits unless you are ready to buy them in dozens. The economic carrot which India dangled is a minimum of $20 billion. If at the end of the whole diplomacy you are going to buy 1-2 from each, they do not have the enough incentive to do the heavy diplomacy for you. Simply put, scale matters.

Learn from the past, we've spent more than est. $30 billion on our nuclear programme since 1969 with much much weaker economy and less resources.
Current economy crisis will eventually settle down, our market is strong enough to deal with ongoing issues. Nuclear infrastructure has our top priority, money will not be an issue.

Your top priority has been nuclear infrastructure for military needs and not for civilian needs. there is a huge difference between these needs.

The difference is like this, for the military, you had to go for nuke, till today no other solution to that. But for economic, alternatives like coal, gas etc exists and unless you grow to a level where these alternatives are not sustainable, nuke is not the only choice. It is a good to have choice but not the only one.
The diplomacy lifting will also only take place whenever your economic crisis settles down eventually.

As far as the political capital is concerned I think we're spending it wisely. There's a reason why USA hasn't attacked Pakistan, not will it ever come sofar. Pakistan is gradually shifting to Chinese Camp, thats the best political investment we've ever made, should have been done decades ago.

I did not pass a judgement whether you are using it wisely or not. but the point remains you are using diplomacy not for your strengths but for covering your weakness - aid.

US trippling non military aid, clearing sanctions for military hardaware and praising Pakistan for her support in WoT etc indicate that US is not ready to let Pakistan go into Chinese Camp yet, if we play our cards right we can cash in support from both parties.

Cash for survival yes, but political support for what they feel you dont need to survive, not until you expend your political capital for that. It is a "you scratch my back, and I scratch yours" world and you have only two hands to scratch, i.e. political capital is limited. You can either use it for cash as you are using right now or for something else, and carrying the resulting results there of.

 

[Spring Onion]

Now, China wants N-deal for Pakistan?
7 Sep 2008, 1731 hrs IST,Times Now

NEW DELHI: The Chinese government on Saturday not only nearly toppled India's Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) bid in Vienna, but went a step further by advocating a similar nuclear deal for Pakistan. ( Watch )

China made the case for Pakistan in a veiled statement, saying it hoped the NSG would ‘equally address the aspirations of all parties.’ A number of analysts have taken the phrase ‘of all parties’ to mean a reference to its ally Pakistan.
Chinese Foreign Minister, Cheng Jingye, head of Chinese delegation scheduled to visit on Sunday said, “It is also China's hope that the NSG would equally address the aspirations of all parties for the peaceful use of nuclear power while adhering to the nuclear non-proliferation mechanism.”

Now, China wants N-deal for Pakistan?-India-The Times of India

 

[Goodperson]

Why not !!! China should push Nuclear deal for Pakistan hope NSG agrees too.