Pakistan Tells MTCR That India's Missile Program Is 'A Danger To Regional Peace And Stability'

[Surya 1]

Pakistan should have complained when India tested missiles with a capability of regional range. Pakistan is complaining when India tests long range missile. How is it a regional threat? IS A 5 going to target sub continent nations?

 

[Khanate]

This is what Zamir Akram has to say

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/repor...to-india-s-nsg-membership-zamir-akram-2226592

Seems to me Pakistan has already pre-determined that the only criteria that is 'fair' is one by which both countries can qualify. In other words it will oppose any criteria under which is will not qualify but India will.

What to call that - but to say it opposes India's application

Did you actually read the article?

Quote from your own article (DNA India),

Pakistan's former Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva Zamir Akram has said that Islamabad is the only country opposed to giving "exclusive membership" to India in the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).​

Meanwhile,

Foreign Office Spokesperson Nafees Zakaria, to a question on Islamabad lobbying against New Delhi's bid, said: "The Foreign Office has urged the NSG to consider entry applications of Pakistan and India simultaneously, and in an even-handed manner, keeping in view the region's strategic stability. It has been our consistent position that the NSG membership for the non-NPT states must be dealt with in accordance with a single, uniform, non discriminatory and a fair criteria."

Source: The Week (Indian News Outlet)
​

 

[hussain0216]

lol , India never Cry like baby and do Rona dhona ....

Even a nursery fail UK /US kid understand Agni is all about China.... But it take more then PHD education level to understand the same in PAK.

PAK become laughing stock in World forum , when World diplomat get bored then do meeting with PAK.


Yes very True ... that why Lathe Machine, Steel for missile come from NK etc.......

out of 80+ tech which is used in missile , PAK only made less then 50% of it. rest everyone knows how hard work you do for remaining lefts ones.

All india ever does is cry, whine and do randi rona.

Dealing with india is like dealing with a teenage drama queen on her first period!

Calm down and analyse this claim dispassionately.

What has worked 'perfectly'? The same people to whom these complaints are made - i.e. the western countries continue to name Pakistan adversely with regularity. Have they made any adverse statement about the Indian missile programme? If they have not on what basis can you say this silly approach works?

Till the perception of Pakistan changes complaints of this nature will simply not be taken seriously.

I repeat it has worked perfectly and to its purpose

India is not the only country butt hurt about our nuclear and missile expansion

So we are not expecting any better

Do you know our worst case scenario is that they listen and try to limit nuclear and missile expasion in South Asia

We are going to expand come what may and India is a good as excuse as any
So whilst certain countries are lets say miffed they can only do so much because we are only responding to India's belligerence and we have made repeated statements for restraint which have gone unheeded so what can we do but respond

We will also oppose you on any international forum simply because we hate you

 

[schoolboy]

We will also oppose you on any international forum simply because we hate you

That's the only truthful thing you've posted so far.

Did you actually read the article?

Quote from your own article (DNA India),

Ha! I knew you'd stress on 'India article'.

Guess what - It's not an India article - it's originally Dawn story - published by arrangement also by DNA.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1266477

Jokes aside, Pakistan is insisting on 'fair / reasonable / etc. criteria but opposes exclusive membership for India. Short story: either both get or nobody gets.

So the corollary is that the 'fair criteria' must be tailored to be such that either both qualify or both do not qualify.

That's why Pakistan opposed the Grossi formula.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1305297

So Pakistan foreign policy on one hand is a cry for a 'fair criteria' Yet when draft criteria is prepared it objects unless it also qualifies. With such a poor (and contradictory) approach no wonder it finds no takers to champion its cause.

 

[Khanate]

Ha! I knew you'd stress on 'India article'.

Guess what - It's not an India article - it's originally Dawn story - published by arrangement also by DNA.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1266477

Jokes aside, Pakistan is insisting on 'fair / reasonable / etc. criteria but opposes exclusive membership for India. Short story: either both get or nobody gets.

So the corollary is that the 'fair criteria' must be tailored to be such that either both qualify or both do not qualify.

That's why Pakistan opposed the Grossi formula.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1305297

So Pakistan foreign policy on one hand is a cry for a 'fair criteria' Yet when draft criteria is prepared it objects unless it also qualifies. With such a poor (and contradictory) approach no wonder it finds no takers to champion its cause.

Delusions intensify.

Pakistani Headline:
Dawn: ‘Pakistan only opposed to exclusive membership of NSG for India’ (True statement)

Indian Headline:
DNA India: Pakistan only nation opposed to India's NSG membership: Zamir Akram (Untrue statement)

In reality,

Tribune: Six nations oppose India’s NSG membership

The facts speak for themselves, i.e., Pakistan is not opposed to India's NSG bid. Pakistan seeks a fair criteria-based approach for *all* non-NPT states to join the NSG.

If you're trying to find contradictions, the biggest is India's entry into the NSG. India's misuse of nuclear technology triggered the creation of the NSG and now India seeks to join the NSG.

 

[schoolboy]

Delusions intensify.

Pakistani Headline:
Dawn: ‘Pakistan only opposed to exclusive membership of NSG for India’ (True statement)

Indian Headline:
DNA India: Pakistan only nation opposed to India's NSG membership: Zamir Akram (Untrue statement)

In reality,

Tribune: Six nations oppose India’s NSG membership

The facts speak for themselves, i.e., Pakistan is not opposed to India's NSG bid. Pakistan seeks a fair criteria-based approach for *all* non-NPT states to join the NSG.

If you're trying to find contradictions, the biggest is India's entry into the NSG. India's misuse of nuclear technology triggered the creation of the NSG and now India seeks to join the NSG.

So Mr Delusion (I love the way you keep parroting that word - does it make you feel powerful?), why then did Pakistan object so intensely to the Grossi draft? Was it not 'fair'? Or must 'fair' be what 'Pakistan' thinks is fair?

My guess is that if a 'fair' formula proposed by Pakistan was adopted even North Korea would get NSG membership tomorrow.

 

[Khanate]

So Mr Delusion (I love the way you keep parroting that word - does it make you feel powerful?), why then did Pakistan object so intensely to the Grossi draft? Was it not 'fair'? Or must 'fair' be what 'Pakistan' thinks is fair?

My guess is that if a 'fair' formula proposed by Pakistan was adopted even North Korea would get NSG membership tomorrow.

I'm starting to find your ramblings amusing.

On one hand, you claim Pakistan's diplomatic outreach bears no fruit. If that was true, you wouldn't be crying here.

As for Grossi's suggestions, they have criticised by many responsible NSG states:

The formula outlined in Grossi’s draft note sets an extremely low bar on NSG membership and its wording is vague and open to wide interpretation.

Furthermore, this formula would not require India to take any additional nonproliferation commitments beyond the steps to which it committed in September 2008 ahead of the NSG’s country-specific exemption for India for civil nuclear trade.

For example, the proposed criteria for membership would simply require that India or Pakistan describe their plan for separating civilian and military nuclear facilities, which is a step that does not necessarily guarantee civil nuclear technology transfers will not benefit the military sector, and it is a step India has already taken.

It is no wonder that responsible NSG states have lodged comments and objections to both the substance of the proposed membership criteria and the process for trying to forge a meaningful consensus on the criteria for membership for non-NPT states.

Source: Arms Control​

 

[schoolboy]

I'm starting to find your ramblings amusing.

On one hand, you claim Pakistan's diplomatic outreach bears no fruit. If that was true, you wouldn't be crying here.

As for Grossi's suggestions, they have criticised by many responsible NSG states:

The formula outlined in Grossi’s draft note sets an extremely low bar on NSG membership and its wording is vague and open to wide interpretation.

Furthermore, this formula would not require India to take any additional nonproliferation commitments beyond the steps to which it committed in September 2008 ahead of the NSG’s country-specific exemption for India for civil nuclear trade.

For example, the proposed criteria for membership would simply require that India or Pakistan describe their plan for separating civilian and military nuclear facilities, which is a step that does not necessarily guarantee civil nuclear technology transfers will not benefit the military sector, and it is a step India has already taken.

It is no wonder that responsible NSG states have lodged comments and objections to both the substance of the proposed membership criteria and the process for trying to forge a meaningful consensus on the criteria for membership for non-NPT states.

Source: Arms Control​

Glad you like it. Maybe you should ask the foreign office if they find it amusing as well.

Ah yes, the - the fallback on 'responsible NSG states'. No doubt such words send many a cheer in Islamabad where the NSG crusade continues. [Off topic, is it correct terminology to say that an Islamic Republic is on a 'crusade'?].

My response:

1. No conflict - my point re the Pakistani approach to the NSG question in fact demonstrates the poor strategy employed. India's is poor as well but a notch above Pakistan - insofar as no rants have been issued making it a all-or-none application.

2. Pakistan's problem, I conjecture, is that at this stage (meaning today - 2016/17) it will likely not qualify on any truly fair criteria. I say this not only because of some of Pakistan's problems - historical military rule, proliferation issues, no nuclear doctrine, explicit statements to use n-weapons - but also because a heavier price was extracted from India in 2008 for the waiver (more important than the membership) and the NSG states are unlikely to relax that for Pakistan.

India's membership is not really much of a issue for the same reasons - it has already legally agreed to several obligations at the time of the 2008 waiver, plus, of course, it has taken care not to up any nuclear ante explicitly.

So even if you ignore all the issues I mentioned - and let's say I agree that Pakistan is the posterchild of n-energy use, it cannot aspire to get any benefit from NSG membership till a similar (for non-NPT countries) waiver is made - which is unlikely to happen as that cannot happen by veto

3. Pakistan's foreign office has simply not applied their mind on the points I wrote at para (3). They are so obsessed with the membership that they object to any criteria that Pakistan cannot also meet.

This is like a candidate for admission to a college who says he wants a 'fair' Question Paper - but each time a Question paper is prepared it is objected on grounds that he will not pass. Only a Q paper that permits the candidate to pass is regarded as 'fair'

No wonder Pakistan objects to the Grossi formula.

4. Anyway, the 'responsible' NSG states are not interested in favouring a particular country. They will either come around to the Grossi draft (it's actually an excellent piece of legal analysis - go read it) or some other criteria which will not be too dissimilar. When that happens it will be interesting to see how 'unfair' Pakistan terms it.

5. In the end, assuming Pakistan gets a stash of diplomatic capital and nobody advances the cause for India or Pakistan - what happens? India loses face but continues getting fuel and tech under the 2008 waiver. Pakistan loses face - and more importantly, does not get the ability to trade in n-fuel. A battle won but a war lost. A tactical victory but a strategic loss.

 

[Khanate]

Ah yes, the - the fallback on 'responsible NSG states'. No doubt such words send many a cheer in Islamabad where the NSG crusade continues. [Off topic, is it even ok for an Islamic Republic to 'crusade'].

The phrase, "responsible NSG states", is quoted as-is from Arms Control article. If you feel triggered by the phrase, you should consider writing your feeling to the author.

1. No conflict - my point re the Pakistani approach to the NSG question in fact demonstrates the poor strategy employed. India's is poor as well but a notch above Pakistan - insofar as no rants have been issued making it a all-or-none application.

All Pakistan did was apply for the NSG which is within our rights.

2. Pakistan's problem, I conjecture, is that at this stage (meaning today - 2016/17) it will likely not qualify on any truly fair criteria. I say this not only because of some of Pakistan's problems - historical military rule, proliferation issues, no nuclear doctrine, explicit statements to use n-weapons - but also because a heavier price was extracted from India in 2008 for the waiver (more important than the membership) and the NSG states are unlikely to relax that for Pakistan.

India's membership is not really much of a issue for the same reasons - it has already legally agreed to several obligations at the time of the 2008 waiver, plus, of course, it has taken care not to up any nuclear ante explicitly.

So even if you ignore all the issues I mentioned - and let's say I agree that Pakistan is the posterchild of n-energy use, it cannot aspire to get any benefit from NSG membership till a similar (for non-NPT countries) waiver is made - which is unlikely to happen as that cannot happen by veto

Conjecture? Delusions.

The grand delusion here is that NSG, an organisation created as a result of India's misuse of civil nuclear technology for military purposes, should blindly accept India as a non-NPT state without the NSG member states expressing their concerns/reservations. Worse still, India has deceived the world community repeatedly in the past when it comes to military use of nuclear technology.

Listen to this hilarious 1974 interview of India's Ambassador to United Nations explaining the detonation of a "peaceful" nuclear bomb: https://soundcloud.com/aredpill/india-nuclear-bomb-1974

This is an India-centric argument for India's NSG bid. Your counter?

3. Pakistan's foreign office has simply not applied their mind on the points I wrote at para (3). They are so obsessed with the membership that they object to any criteria that Pakistan cannot also meet.

This is like a candidate for admission to a college who says he wants a 'fair' Question Paper - but each time a Question paper is prepared it is objected on grounds that he will not pass. Only a Q paper that permits the candidate to pass is regarded as 'fair'

No wonder Pakistan objects to the Grossi formula.

Delusions intensifying, again.

Again,

Read: Six nations oppose India’s NSG membership (Tribune)

To blame Pakistan for all of India's shortcomings is delusional. Perhaps you should accept the evidence for the sake of your sanity.

As for Grossi's suggestions, it is being criticised by, I quote, "responsible NSG states".

4. Anyway, the 'responsible' NSG states are not interested in favouring a particular country. They will either come around to the Grossi draft (it's actually an excellent piece of legal analysis - go read it) or some other criteria which will not be too dissimilar. When that happens it will be interesting to see how 'unfair' Pakistan terms it.

Rant.

No coherent argument.

 

[schoolboy]

.

Sigh. Your analysis skills are obviously no match for your gif-hunting skills. My fault for not recognising this sooner.

My wait for a Pakistani on PDF with whom I can have a meaningful academic discussion - my chief reason for joining actually - continues.

 

[Khanate]

Sigh. Your analysis skills are obviously no match for your gif-hunting skills. My fault for not recognising this sooner.

You poor victim!

My wait for a Pakistani on PDF - my chief reason for joining actually - continues.

You are yet to find a Pakistani on this forum? Okay.