US accepts Pakistan as a responsible nuclear state.

[SAUD-404]

what is the diffrence between us civil nuclear deal and chinese or french civil nuclear deal????????

 

[Justin Joseph]

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration has implicitly accepted Pakistan’s status as a declared nuclear weapons state, countering conspiracy theories that the United States is secretly plotting to seize the country’s nuclear assets, says a US media report.

Another media report says that President Barack Obama plans to host talks between Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh next month when they will be in Washington on April 12 for a nuclear security summit.

David Ignatius, a Washington Post associate editor, wrote in his newspaper on Thursday that the Obama administration had recently taken several steps to address Pakistani security concerns.

“One is to implicitly accept Pakistan’s status as a declared nuclear weapons state and thereby counter conspiracy theories that the United States is secretly plotting to seize Pakistani nukes.”

Mr Ignatius wrote that President “Obama made an early move in that direction when he told Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper last June, ‘I have confidence that the Pakistani government has safeguarded its nuclear arsenal. It’s Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal’.”

While this move aims at allaying Pakistan’s fears that the United States may secretly try to undermine its nuclear programme, the hosting of talks with India reflects the US belief that improved relations between India and Pakistan will benefit the war against terror.

Diplomatic observers in Washington, however, say that since the Pakistani and Indian prime ministers will be meeting against the backdrop of the nuclear summit, “it is only natural that they will also discuss nuclear issues”.

Both India and the United States have expressed concern that any further deterioration in Pakistan could allow non-state actors to seize nuclear weapons.

Pakistan dismisses such concerns as unfounded and has urged the United States to offer it a nuclear deal like the one it concluded with India in 2008.

Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s former ambassador to US, said that America’s ‘explicit recognition’ could be useful “only if stops such propaganda otherwise Pakistan is already a nuclear weapons state, with or without America’s recognition”.

She suggested that instead of stopping at the recognition, the Obama administration should negotiate a nuclear deal with Pakistan, as it did with India.

Last month, a US scholar wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal, backing this demand. “More so than conventional weapons or large sums of cash, a conditions-based civilian nuclear deal may be able to diminish Pakistani fears of US intentions while allowing Washington to leverage these gains for greater Pakistani cooperation on nuclear proliferation and terrorism,” wrote C. Christine Fair, an assistant professor at Georgetown University.

The US media links new US efforts to improve ties with Pakistan to progress in anti-terror war, resulting in arrest of several Taliban leaders since late last month.

Until recently, the US-Pakistan alliance against terror has been marked by mutual distrust and lack of confidence in each other, with American officials often claiming that Islamabad has retained its links to the Taliban to use them as a back-up to counter Indian influence in Afghanistan after the US and Nato forces withdraw.

On Friday, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters at Forth Leavenworth’s army college that the United States had to continue to work at restoring trust among the Pakistanis after tensions caused by sanctions placed on the nation in the 1990s.

“If you don’t trust each other we’re not going to work together well,” he said.

Pakistan’s ambassador Husain Haqqani, after his meeting with Admiral Mullen, said the two nations were cooperating and had mutual interests in defeating the extremists, but relations would not be perfect with the United States just because of battlefield successes.

Mr Ignatius wrote that the US was also trying to combat Islamabad’s fears about covert US military or intelligence activities inside Pakistan.

“Ambassador Husain Haqqani has been negotiating measures for greater transparency, such as clearer labelling of official cargo. And the administration has repeated Mr Obama’s assurance last June (in his interview to Dawn) that “we have no intention of sending US troops into Pakistan,” wrote the Post’s associate editor.

The US media, however, noted that both sides still had some worries. The Pakistanis were now concerned that the United States might negotiate a peace deal with the Afghan Taliban that cut them out as an intermediary.

“In reconciliation talks, Pakistan must have a seat at the table,” said one Pakistani official. We should all be so lucky if this proves to be the biggest problem.
I hope next time indians dont qustion our Diplomacy.......


DAWN.COM | World | US accepts Pakistan as a declared nuclear state

sir

why are u shouting??????????

1. Majority of Pakistani members were blaming zardari and pak govt. for diplomacy not Indians. So correct ur statement.

2. Show us any other source of news other than pakistani media.

Till than my 2 cents

thanks

 

[Justin Joseph]

what is the diffrence between us civil nuclear deal and chinese or french civil nuclear deal????????

There is very huge difference just do some Google search.

 

[Yusuf]

US being the sole super power has to be got on board to get a deal. Until you don't sign with them, you can't go to the NSG for a waiver on regulations. Otherwise you have to sign the NPT. Which means give up nuke weapons and roll back weapons program and open all reactors to international inspectors.

Once india sealed the deal with the US, it then cut deals with the french and russians. It will now get fuel from the members of NSG. Even then australia has decided not to give uranium to india. So there you go.

 

[SAUD-404]

US being the sole super power has to be got on board to get a deal. Until you don't sign with them, you can't go to the NSG for a waiver on regulations. Otherwise you have to sign the NPT. Which means give up nuke weapons and roll back weapons program and open all reactors to international inspectors.

Once india sealed the deal with the US, it then cut deals with the french and russians. It will now get fuel from the members of NSG. Even then australia has decided not to give uranium to india. So there you go.

thanks thats made alot of sence now.

 

[IceCold]

US accepts or does not accept, does not make much of a difference because no matter what they believe in, reality is Pakistan is a nuclear power and will remain so. Any attempts by anyone to seize those assests will have catastrophic consequences.
Coming to the topic I believe other then mere words there should be some action attached to these words. Pakistan like anyother nuclear nation is a responsible nuclear country and so should be treated as such. We are energy strived and any help in this regard by the US can help alot in changing US perception in Pakistan. Mere speeches will fall on deaf ears.

 

[IceCold]

I would like to ask you guys, why is it that Pakistan want a nuke deal like the one India got? Just because we have it or because it gives you a higher status or what? India has huge energy needs to fuel its big and fast growing economy. Whats more it has to the money to invest on such technology. India plans to invest more than a $150 dollars on civil nuclear reactors that will be bought from various countries the sites of which have already been decided.
With the current economic situation of Pakistan, i dont think Pakistan can go in for such an expensive capital investment. If not the 150 bills like India, say even a third. Its a lot of money. Pakistan had to very recently borrow money from the international banks just to avoid default. So where is the money to go for this?

You dont have to worry about where we will get our money from. Pakistan has a severe shortage of energy and our nuclear reactors are not running 100% because the fuel used is not of that quality. Any deal with the US and NSG will enable Pakistan to get that highly enrich nuclear fuel for our reactors to run 100%.
Our economy has been struck because of the on going war on terror, does not mean it will remain the same and there are no chances of growth. Infact if you go a bit further back(2005) our GDP was even higher then India, so i dont see the point why you Indians keep on bringing up our economy issue every time there is a discussion of a nuclear deal or perhaps some military purchase. Seriously we know ourselves better so get over it.

 

[Yusuf]

" In 2005 our GDP was higher than india".
I think you mean growth rate because your GDP was no where near indias.
Anyways, apart from that, the US and the world at large is jittery about nuke deal with pakistan because of the history that exists. I mean you can get Obama to sing praises about pakistans Nukes, but the fact remains that they don't trust pakistani record on Nukes. That is the biggest hurdle to get a nuke deal. No matter how hard you try, its pretty difficult to drop the historical baggage.

 

[Materialistic]

I would like to ask you guys, why is it that Pakistan want a nuke deal like the one India got? Just because we have it or because it gives you a higher status or what? India has huge energy needs to fuel its big and fast growing economy. Whats more it has to the money to invest on such technology. India plans to invest more than a $150 dollars on civil nuclear reactors that will be bought from various countries the sites of which have already been decided.
With the current economic situation of Pakistan, i dont think Pakistan can go in for such an expensive capital investment. If not the 150 bills like India, say even a third. Its a lot of money. Pakistan had to very recently borrow money from the international banks just to avoid default. So where is the money to go for this?

Pakistan has been looking for civilian nuclear energy from ages it is just that we are not provided with it yet, it has nothing to do with Indian deal.

What we want it for is that we are also going through a huge energy crises. Our industry is badly affected one by terrorism and other by this energy crises which has resulted in shutter down of hundereds of factories and industries.

Also water plays a big role in development of electricity and water levels do not always present good figures so rather than ending up natural resources for electricity generation using nuclear technology is efficient, reliable and cheaper in long term.

And money thats not a big issue its not that Pakistan has no money at all, either it can be arranged by itself fully or partially accompanied by a loan.

 

[Yusuf]

Fueling the Future: Meeting Pakistan's Energy Needs in the 21st Century

This is a 2006 report.

Pakistan’s economy is growing, and with this growth comes higher energy consumption and stronger pressures on the country’s energy resources. At present, natural gas and oil supply the bulk (80 percent) of Pakistan’s energy needs. However, the consumption of those energy sources vastly exceeds the supply. For instance, Pakistan currently produces only 18.3 percent of the oil it consumes, fostering a dependency on imports that places considerable strain on the country’s financial position. On the other hand, hydropower and coal are perhaps underutilized today, as Pakistan has ample potential supplies of both.

The need to address Pakistan’s present and prospective energy requirements was a topic of discussion during President Bush’s visit to Pakistan earlier this year. The joint statement issued by the U.S. and Pakistani presidents at the conclusion of the Bush trip committed the two countries to working together “to develop public and private collaboration on a broad range of energy sources.”

On June 23, the Asia Program hosted a day-long conference to consider Pakistan’s energy needs over the next 25-30 years, and to promote a more informed discussion on how Pakistan might succeed in meeting its energy requirements. In the conference’s opening address, Mukhtar Ahmed, energy adviser to the Pakistan prime minister, noted that 40 percent of Pakistani households are not even connected to the electric grid. Over the next 20 years, he warned, the country’s overall demand for energy will increase by 350 percent. During this period, the percentage of Pakistan’s total energy needs met from indigenous sources will fall from 72 to 38 percent. Ahmed spoke of the need to develop an integrated energy development plan combining energy imports, the development of indigenous energy resources, and programs emphasizing greater energy efficiency and better management. Pakistan can no longer afford to regard renewable energy as “a curiosity,” he asserted. The government also plans to give high priority to tapping the energy resources of Pakistan’s neighbors; several projects for the import of natural gas from the Middle East and Central Asia and of power from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan are under consideration. The “cornerstone” of the government’s long-range policy involves a shift from a predominantly state-controlled industry to an arrangement where the private sector plays a leading role in the development and management of the country’s energy program. Text of Keynote Address

Shahid Javed Burki, former finance minister of Pakistan, led off the first panel by arguing that Pakistan should treat energy as a “contributor to economic growth rather than reacting passively to the energy demands of economic growth.” He emphasized the east-west energy divide in Pakistan, noting that energy demand is predominantly located in the eastern portions of the country while the west possesses the majority of energy resources. Burki cautioned against aggravating existing regional conflicts by an inequitable sharing of the wealth generated from the resource-rich west. Robert Looney laid out seven alternative investment scenarios that would, by 2035, produce dramatically different energy situations in Pakistan. Choices made today, he asserted, will have a major impact on whether Pakistan succeeds in generating high GDP growth rates a generation hence. Bikash Pandey drew from his extensive experience in South Asia to provide an overview of alternative clean and renewable energy initiatives in rural areas across India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Pakistan, he observed, can learn from the successful projects of its neighbors. Consultant Dorothy Lele stated that social and human development should be the ultimate objective of Pakistan’s energy development, not just a by-product. Lele stressed the significance of biomass, as it comprises 30 percent of total energy consumption in Pakistan and is the primary low-income household fuel, and asked whether the neglect of biomass in commercial energy planning is linked to the predominance of women in biomass energy use.

The next panel featured perspectives from the business communities of the two countries and explored the role of the private sector in helping Pakistan address its energy needs. Pakistani businessman Asad Umar emphasized four roadblocks keeping private enterprise from playing a larger role in the energy sector: the unstable political situation in Baluchistan; the slow rate of deregulation and privatization; the political controversy and provincial disagreements associated with storage-based hydroelectric power generation projects; and overlapping responsibilities of the Private Power Investment Board and the National Electricity Power Regulatory Authority. John Hammond of the U.S. Energy Association detailed some of the barriers to U.S. investment in Pakistan’s energy sector, including a lack of knowledge on the part of American businesses about Pakistan’s market and regulatory structure; a U.S. preference for sales of goods and services instead of investments; and financing difficulties due to political and financial risks. Pakistan needs to demonstrate to the investing world a “show me element”—successful, unaltered private power investment projects that operate without government interference in contractual agreements. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Aram Zamgochian listed eight criteria foreign investors look for before deciding to do business in Pakistan’s power sector, and emphasized that smaller, less risk-averse companies in particular are interested in working in Pakistan. It all depends on what one’s tolerance for risk is, he declared. Like Umar and several other conference speakers, Zamgochian insisted that the U.S. government must reconsider its aversion to a Pakistani nuclear energy program.

The conference’s final panel offered perspectives from the U.S. government, the World Bank, and the International Finance Corporation (IFC). Pakistan’s rising energy demand, according to the U.S. Department of State’s Paul Simons, creates opportunities for regional cooperation. To this end, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency recently convened a meeting in Istanbul that produced an agreement on examining options for exporting Central Asian electricity to Pakistan. Vladislav Vucetic of the World Bank provided a troubling assessment of the state of Pakistan’s electricity sector—demand is approaching maximum production capacity, while institutional capacity for policy development and implementation remains low. Worse, failing to resolve these problems may cause investment delays and hamper Pakistan’s economic growth. Sanjeev Minocha of the IFC, a major source of private sector financing, noted the paucity of domestic private sector initiatives in Pakistan. The IFC has sought to raise investor confidence through its funding of private Pakistani energy companies, including the new firm Dewan Petroleum. Ultimately, stated Minocha, it is crucial that investment projects take into account the interests of local communities.

In brief concluding observations, Pakistani business executive Zaffar Khan re-emphasized the centrality of secure and affordable sources of energy for Pakistan’s future. Energy, job generation, economic growth, and political stability in Pakistan go hand in hand, he averred. Pakistan, by virtue of its location and natural endowments, has many technologically feasible options to meet its growing energy requirements. The challenge lies in establishing the commercial and political feasibility of the various options, and in utilizing the country’s limited capital and execution capacity optimally. One would expect all who are friends of Pakistan and who have an interest in stability in South and Central Asia to assist the country in developing its energy options.

By Robert M. Hathaway, Bhumika Muchhala, and Michael Kugelman
Ph: (202) 691-4020

 

[mjnaushad]

" In 2005 our GDP was higher than india".
I think you mean growth rate because your GDP was no where near indias.
Anyways, apart from that, the US and the world at large is jittery about nuke deal with pakistan because of the history that exists. I mean you can get Obama to sing praises about pakistans Nukes, but the fact remains that they don't trust pakistani record on Nukes. That is the biggest hurdle to get a nuke deal. No matter how hard you try, its pretty difficult to drop the historical baggage.

Alrite they are not happy with us. They dont trust us. They wont give us the Nuclear deal. If thats what you think fine with me.
But I think everything have its time. According to peoples thinking we were suppose to be divided in 6 parts by now. But we are here in one part. we still have our nukes. And who knows we get the nuclear deal as well.

We've recovered from worse situation. This is nothing. We can deal with circumstances far worse than this.
Regards.

 

[Yusuf]

Oh come on. This is your worst phase. There was nothing worse than this. Pakistans economic growth rate was for 50 years much faster than India, but then some ill conceived policies put paid to that growth. And policies are not just economic, but political and strategic too.

 

[fatman17]

WASHINGTON: The Obama administration has implicitly accepted Pakistan’s status as a declared nuclear weapons state, countering conspiracy theories that the United States is secretly plotting to seize the country’s nuclear assets, says a US media report.QUOTE]

only a matter of time to recognise the reality!

 

[Yusuf]

Its been 12 years since both India and Pakistan made the bang. So implicit or explicit doesnt matter now. It is a fact for the world and they cant do crap about it. But then thats not the point here. What is the point is energy.

 

[TechLahore]

we dont have 2 . u are masters at messing up on yr own. unlike us and the russians u and the US can never be friends. u are a declared islamic republic while the usa talks abt a crusade. yr frndship will always be temporary and filled with distrust. u dont need us 2 help u there

1. The US has never talked about a Crusade; George Bush, in his usually illiterate manner, used that word and got a lot of crap for it. I doubt he understands the historical context of the Crusades.

2. Saudi Arabia is also a "declared Islamic Republic" as is the UAE. Any doubts on whether the US is friendly towards them? It is not Islam or Christianity, but real politik that influences relationships between states.

3. The analogy of India/Russia is not Pakistan/America, but Pakistan/China. Which of these two relationships do you think is stronger? Please be honest... at least to yourself.