US objects to China-Pakistan nuclear deal

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

China says it needs no waiver for N-reactors​

By Anwar Iqbal
Sunday, 04 Jul, 2010


WASHINGTON: China believes that its agreement to install two new nuclear reactors in Pakistan does not violate international obligations, says the Chinese Embassy in Washington.

In a statement to the US media, the embassy’s spokesman Wang Baodong told the US media that Beijing was convinced the reactor agreement “goes along well with the international obligations China and Pakistan carry in relation to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime”.

A US expert, Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, endorsed the Chinese position but urged Beijing to be careful.

“The US doesn’t really have any options.....the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s guidelines are voluntary. There is nothing the US can do to prevent China from going ahead with this deal,” he said.

“Unless Washington comes up with a very, very attractive offer, the history of Chinese-Pakistani relations is such that it is unlikely that this deal will not go through,” Heritage Foundation researcher Dean Cheng told the US media.

A State Department official disagreed with the suggestion but did so rather meekly.

The United States “suspects” that China would need a waiver from a nuclear export control group to move ahead with the sale of two atomic energy plants to Pakistan, a department official told the Washington Times.

Beijing is one of the 46 member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which seeks to block access to nuclear technology and materials by nations that have not joined the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

Its guidelines prohibit any deal with the countries that have not yet signed the NPT, such as Pakistan. But last year it gave a waiver to India under US and international pressure.

Beijing contends that because it built two nuclear reactors in Pakistan before becoming a member of the NSG, the new atomic deal should be allowed.

“The United States has reiterated concern that the transfer of new reactors at Chashma appears to extend beyond cooperation that was ‘grandfathered’ when China was approved for membership in the NSG,” US State Department spokesman Noel Clay said.

Mr Clay said if the new reactors did not fall under the ‘grandfather exception’ then Beijing needed a waiver from the nuclear export body, similar to the 2008 allowance that has allowed India — another nuclear-armed, non-NPT country — to sign atomic trade deals with the United States and other nations.

The Nuclear Suppliers Group operates on consensus so all member nations must agree on granting the exemption.

“We are still waiting for more information from China to clarify China’s intended cooperation with Pakistan, in light of China’s NSG commitments,” Mr Clay said.

DAWN.COM | Front Page | China says it needs no waiver for N-reactors

 

[TechLahore]

The way I read the following was, "We're going ahead with this and aren't about to ask for permission. Come stop us if you will."

Sino-Pak N-deal meets int’l obligations: China

Updated at: 1020 PST, Sunday, July 04, 2010

WASHINGTON: Chinese Embassy in Washington said Sunday, China believes that its agreement to install two new nuclear reactors in Pakistan does not violate international obligations, Geo news reported.

In a statement to the US media, the embassy’s spokesman Wang Baodong told the US media Beijing is convinced the reactor agreement “goes along well with the international obligations China and Pakistan carry in relation to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime”.

A US expert, Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, endorsed the Chinese position but urged Beijing to be careful.

“The US doesn’t really have any options.....the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s guidelines are voluntary. There is nothing the US can do to prevent China from going ahead with this deal,” he said.

“Unless Washington comes up with a very, very attractive offer, the history of Chinese-Pakistani relations is such that it is unlikely that this deal will not go through,” Heritage Foundation researcher Dean Cheng told the US media.

A State Department official disagreed with the suggestion but did so rather meekly.

The United States “suspects” that China would need a waiver from a nuclear export control group to move ahead with the sale of two atomic energy plants to Pakistan, a department official told the Washington Times.

Sino-Pak N-deal meets int’l obligations: China

 

[Nahraf]

Now the reality is dawning on Indians. US cannot and will not not do anything about Pakistan-China nuclear deal. All the Indian temper tantrums did not produce any results. It was much ado about nothing. Now Pakistan has smooth sailing into all international nuclear clubs in next few years.

US all but gives up on stalling Sino-Pak nuclear agreement - Oneindia News

US all but gives up on stalling Sino-Pak nuclear agreement

Washington, July 4 2010 (ANI): China has reiterated that its nuclear agreement with Pakistan to set up two new reactors in Punjab's Chasma region is in accordance with all international obligations, while on the other hand the United States, which has until now objected to the deal, appears to have kneel down over the issue.

A statement issued by the Chinese Embassy here said that the Sino-Pakistan nuclear deal "goes along well with the international obligations that both countries carry in relation to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime".

Embassy spokesperson Wang Baodong also rejected the US' stand that Beijing
would need a waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to go ahead with the project.

Beijing is one of the 46 member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which seeks to block access to nuclear technology and materials by nations that have not joined the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

The United States has been objecting to the deal, but the objection has apparently gone 'meek' in the recent days which was evident form State Department spokesman's statement.

"The United States has reiterated concern that the transfer of new reactors at Chashma appears to extend beyond cooperation that was 'grandfathered' when China was approved for membership in the NSG," The Dawn quoted Noel Clay, as saying.

"We are still waiting for more information from China to clarify its intended cooperation with Pakistan, in light of China's NSG commitments," Clay added.

Experts also believe that Washington has got little option to counter Beijing's nuke overture to Islamabad.

"The US doesn't really have any options. The Nuclear Suppliers Group's guidelines are voluntary. There is nothing the US can do to prevent China from going ahead with this deal," said Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,

"Unless Washington comes up with a very, very attractive offer, the history of Chinese-Pakistani relations is such that it is unlikely that this deal will not go through," added Heritage Foundation researcher Dean Cheng. (ANI)

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

I don't know why U.S. is objecting to this deal. Pakistan is a nuclear armed state. This deal or the U.S. giving a nuclear deal to Pakistan won't do any harm.

I have a sneaking suspicion that U.S. has done this to appease India's temper tantrums. But since the U.S. has given up on this issue it shows the U.S. never had the true intent on interfering with this deal, because when U.S. wants to accomplish something it never gives up and 95% of the time gets it accomplished.

 

[Nahraf]

Even the US military defends Pakistan's nuclear weapons and the Obama administration had no choice but to accept Pakistan-China nuclear deal. The Pakistani posters already knew this scenario few weeks ago but Indians could not believe that Pakistan nuclear will be accepted as fait accompli.

US military chief defends Pakistan's nuclear arsenal-Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

US military chief defends Pakistan's nuclear arsenal
2 Jul 2010, 0328 hrs IST,ET Bureau

NEW DELHI: The top US military chief has defended Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal while making a distinction between Pakistan and others like Iran and North Korea.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said Islamabad makes “extraordinary efforts” to protect its nuclear weapons’ and termed the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programmes as destabilising the region.

Validating Islamabad’s argument for a nuclear arsenal, Admiral Mullen said that Pakistan sees its nuclear programme as a deterrent against India. “I have raised this issue with the Pakistani military since Day 1,” he said.

“As much as we are focused on this (terrorism) threat — and the Pakistanis are more than they used to be -- they see a threat in India and (having nuclear weapons) is their deterrent. They see this as a huge part of their national security.”

Admiral Mullen further said that Pakistan believes that nuclear arsenal is its most important weapons. “These (nuclear weapons) are their crown jewels.

These are the most important weapons in the Pakistani arsenal. That is understood by the leadership, and they go to extraordinary efforts to protect and secure them,” he was quoted as saying in an interview with a US newspaper.

He further criticised the efforts by Iran and North Korea to build up their nuclear weapons. “There isn’t any reason to trust (Iran),” he said, adding. “There is an uncertainty associated with Iran that is very consistent with Iran for a long time.”

North Korea’s desire for nuclear weapons and its increasing aggressiveness were cause for concern, the US military chief said. He further said that he would put North Korea “at the top of the list” of nuclear proliferation concerns. But the fact is that it was Pakistan which shared nuclear knowhow with Iran and South Korea through the A Q Khan proliferation network.

Also, the US assessment of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal puts a question mark on whether the US will make a move to stop the Sino-Pak nuclear deal. Last month two Chinese nuclear companies signing a contract to cooperate with Pakistan to construct the two reactors at the Chashma in Punjab province.

There are concerns that China is trying to ``grandfather’’ two additional nuclear reactors to an agreement that Beijing had with Islamabad before 2004.

It was only in 2004 that China became a member of the NSG. Pakistan has defended the deal saying it is in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) rules and regulations. China has also maintained that civilian nuclear trade with Pakistan would not violate its international commitments as per the 2004 agreement.

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

I must reiterate that this is an Indian news source so remember they like to make things up just to make news, so I don't know if we should take this seriously. I did a search to find any reliable western source and none were found.

 

[Nahraf]

Now Pakistan achieved two important victories on its economic and power needs. We have got Pakistan-China nuclear deal and Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline deal. Other than symbolic protests US will not do much against these two deals.

 

[k!ng_0f_(~)3@rt$]

now What I should say on this?

US Diplomacy is just...........

 

[Nahraf]

If pictures say a 1000 words:

Is it any different for Pakistan?

There should be another cartoon where these three powers are underhandedly giving nuclear technology to Zionazi entity. they give nod and wink to Zionazi nuclear weapons while deny to others.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nuclear doublespeak​

Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Dr Maleeha Lodhi

The writer is a former envoy to the US and the UK, and a former editor of The News.

As India was signing its eighth civilian nuclear deal with Canada on the sidelines of last month's G20 meeting, its officials were voicing concerns about China's sale of two power reactors to Pakistan. India's deal with Canada follows similar agreements with a number of other countries including France and Russia since the exemption it received from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in the wake of the US-India nuclear accord that entered into force in 2008.

There cannot be a more telling example of nuclear doublespeak than the objections to Sino-Pakistan cooperation raised by India and a cast of familiar characters in the western media and think-tank community. These ostensible concerns are devoid of either moral or legal basis because Pakistan-China civilian nuclear cooperation is of longstanding nature and the supply of reactors was 'grandfathered' under the agreement dating back to the 1980s that provided for an understanding in 2003 for further long-term collaboration. This predates China joining the NSG in 2004.

So why all the fuss over nuclear power reactors being provided under full international safeguards? The answer might lie in the timing of the orchestrated campaign. Although plans for the third and fourth reactors at Chashma were publicly known years before, opposition to them surfaced at the time of the review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in May. This seemed a rather transparent bid to distract attention from the US-India nuclear deal, a fundamental violation of the Treaty and for that reason the source of continuing misgivings among many NPT members.

Different lobbies with a mix of motives seemed to lie behind the efforts to ignite a controversy. The aims may have included the following: pre-empt and deflect criticism of the US-India nuclear accord, mount pressure on Pakistan to modify its position in the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty talks at Geneva, and put pressure on China in other contexts as well ( for example tougher sanctions against Iran). Feeding into this campaign were right-wing critics of President Barack Obama who sought to use the issue to depict his administration as being soft on China and Pakistan.

A spate of analyses emanated from think tanks in Washington calling attention to Sino-Pakistan nuclear cooperation. Some 'experts' even urged the US to use its assistance to Pakistan as leverage to block the 'deal'. One analyst made this case in an article on the basis of the farcical claim that US aid would be subsidising the "dangerous deal"!

Much of this comment aimed at building a momentum of opinion to urge the US to take a tougher position on the issue. While Washington said it would seek "clarification" from Beijing about the two new reactors, it has – thus far – avoided pressing the issue. American officials did not raise the issue with Pakistan in last month's unpublicised talks on nuclear safety and security. Nor has the issue figured in the strategic dialogue underway in Islamabad which has a specific track dedicated to nuclear issues.

The reason the US has taken this stance is not hard to fathom. Having concluded a sweeping civilian nuclear deal with India, which was finalised this March, the US is hardly in a position to make a big deal out of this and actively oppose such cooperation between China and Pakistan. In fact the more Washington protests the more its own double standards are exposed to the non-nuclear weapons states. Moreover as some in the nuclear non-proliferation lobby in Washington have acknowledged the US may object but it "cannot prevent China from exporting these reactors".

A section of the American media highlighted Washington's "uncomfortable" position by asking how it could oppose China's plan "while dodging charges of nuclear hypocrisy, given that the administration only last year sealed a US deal to supply India with civilian nuclear equipment."

So while the Obama administration continued to be accused by its detractors of allowing the need for vital cooperation from Pakistan and China (on a range of issues including currency revaluation ) trump its non-proliferation commitment, it desisted from going beyond seeking "clarifications" from China.

The sense of disappointment this produced in Indian official circles as reflected in their media has been palpable. Delhi has made no secret of its opposition to the deal. Its behind-the-scenes lobbying has also been evident from a spate of leaked stories. Mimicking the US stance, Indian officials have been publicly saying they are calling for "clarifications" from Beijing. This provoked a rebuke last week from the spokesman of Pakistan's Foreign Office in which he said Indian demands for clarifications are unwarranted and invalid, considering India has signed civilian nuclear deals with the US and many other countries.

According to Indian press reports Delhi has questioned Pakistan-China cooperation on several recent occasions. During the May visit of Indian President Pratibha Patil to Beijing Indian officials are reported to have conveyed their objections to China's foreign minister during a formal banquet, only to be tersely told that the cooperation was for peaceful purposes.

Attempts in the Indian media to depict China-Pakistan civilian nuclear cooperation as a "counter" to the Indo-US pact and equate the two are deliberately misleading and spurious. The latter deal has global scope and enables India to gain global access to nuclear material and technology as well as assured fuel supply from whichever supplier nation lines up for commercial advantage. The NSG waiver in fact opened the way for a veritable nuclear souk with eight countries signing agreements with India and Japan about to begin negotiations.

While Pakistan-China cooperation is bilateral and consistent with international legality, the US-India deal undermined the legal norm set by the NPT and violated the NSG's very raison d'etre by making a country-based exemption.

Pakistan-China cooperation rests on solid legal ground. It is part of continuing collaboration under an agreement that was general and generic. And as it predates China joining the NSG it does not in any way compromise its international obligations.

Moreover the two additional power plants will be under full International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and supervision. This makes the proliferation argument advanced against the supply patently specious. Much of the comment in the western press seems to have deliberately omitted this fact.

It is because these objections lack legal and moral validity that China and Pakistan have reacted coolly to them. In a series of statements the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman has said plainly and pithily that the nuclear energy cooperation between Pakistan and China is for peaceful purposes in line with international obligations and under IAEA safeguards.

Meanwhile efforts were made last month to turn an NSG meeting concerned with technical issues into one focusing on the China-Pakistan 'deal'. The meeting in New Zealand of the 46-nation cartel that monitors nuclear transactions did not take up formal consideration of the matter. But the issue was apparently raised informally by the US, Switzerland and Norway by way of "seeking information." China simply reiterated at the meeting that its civilian cooperation with Pakistan was in accordance with its international commitments. The NSG statement made no reference to any China-Pakistan agreement, saying only that "the group took note of briefings on developments concerning non-NSG states… (and)… agreed on the value of ongoing consultations and transparency".

Disappointment over this was evident from reports in the Indian press and from the reaction of familiar lobbies in the west. Leaks that Indian officials are "wary" of the stance taken by the NSG have been accompanied by indications that Delhi will continue to try and build up diplomatic momentum and make "quiet representation" to "friends".

These efforts are unlikely to go anywhere. And if there is any expectation on Delhi's part or among well-known lobbies in the US and Europe that pressure by leaks and flanking manoeuvres will urge Beijing to revise its position then they understand the Chinese even less than they think they do.

Nuclear doublespeak

 

[MarkTheTruth]

By Sajjad Shaukat

While rejecting US objections, China has once again clarified that it will supply two nuclear reactors to Pakistan under the old nuclear deal.

As regards the legitimacy of Pak-China nuclear deal, Qin Gang, the spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry has already made it clear, saying: “the nuclear cooperation between the two countries is for peaceful purposes and is totally in consistent with its international obligations and safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA).”

On the other side, Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit also said, “Pakistan’s civilian nuclear deal with China is in accordance with the international norms and is strictly in line with the principles set out by the International Atomic Energy Agency. To a question about the Indian prime minister’s statement that Pakistan would have to clarify the position regarding the Pak-China nuclear cooperation, he elaborated, “Pak-China cooperation in the civilian nuclear technology sector is not a sudden development, as both countries had been running the programme successfully for the last many years and any demand of clarification in this regard is unjustified.”

Without any logic, America also objects that Pak-China nuclear deal will violate “the guidelines of the 46-country Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which bars nuclear commerce between Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) members like China and non-member states like Pakistan.”

The fact of the matter is that Pak-China Nuclear deal was concluded in 1986 when Beijing was neither the member of NSG nor it had signed the NPT. China signed the NPT in 1992 and became the member of NSG in 2004. By 2004, almost 90 percent progress had already been made on the deal between Pakistan and China. Hence, neither of the two is applicable to this deal.

It is notable that the Indo-US nuclear deal of 2005 which was finalized in 2008, provides the precedent, and in fact, has opened the door for any similar sort of nuclear deal in the future. Indeed, after setting precedent by themselves, both India and the US have no legal and moral grounds to challenge the legality of the Pak-China nuclear deal.

It is mentionable that the United States is not in a position to force Beijing and Islamabad to cancel their nuclear cooperation as it has lot of stakes attached to China and Pakistan. In this regard, Chinese consent is necessary for imposing the enhanced sanctions on Iran. The issue of North Korean nuclearization and security threats it is posing to other regional countries, especially South Korea cannot be resolved without the assistance of China. Besides, economists opine that the falling US economy has largely been sustained by Bejing because Washington is the biggest trade partner of China at the global level.

So far as Pakistan is concerned, United States cannot fight a ‘different war’ in Afghanistan without the active support of Islamabad, while it is already loosing the Afghan war and needs Pakistani assistance to a greater extent.

Regarding Pak-China civil nuclear deal, it is noteworthy that a comprehensive nuclear cooperation agreement between Pakistan and then Foreign Minister Sahibzada Yaqub Khan and his Chinese counterpart in the presence of Chinese prime minister and PAEC chairperson Dr. Munir A. Khan was signed on September 15, 1986 at Beijing. The salient clauses of the agreement include that Beijing would construct four nuclear plants in Pakistan namely; Chasma 1, 2, 3 and 4 by 2011.

It is worthmentioning about the mandate and origin of NSG that it was created after the nuclear test of India in 1974, once New Delhi diverted the fuel meant for the atom for peace to its weapon programme. If India, the main proliferator could be given such a concession by the NSG as to why Pakistan be deprived from it. Indeed, India got it by America to counterbalance China. Concerning its legality of NSG, it was created in 1975 to regulate and standardize the nuclear trade in reaction to Indian misuse of nuclear material. Its creation was not through an international treaty, but it is a global cartel of nuclear technology suppliers.

American officials are of the opinion that countries that have not signed the NPT so far cannot be granted this nuclear facility. These officials are indeed overlooking the aspects that India has also not signed the NPT. Washington also considers that additional nuclear cooperation with Islamabad beyond those specific projects that were grandfathered in 2004 would require consensus approval. However, Pakistan and China rejects these unjustified and baseless observations. While the US had not only violated the NPT, but also violated the Hyde Act 2006 by finalising a civil nuclear deal with India under the pretext of cooperation on nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

As a matter of fact, both IAEA and NSG are under the pressure of the United States in order to ease their clauses for the Indo-US nuclear agreement, but are now creating obstacles for Pakistan in this respect. Nevertheless, particulary IAEA exempts Indian nuclear reactors, providing safeguards—allowing sufficient fissile material to make around 280 warheads per year. Following the 123 Agreement, US and India has signed another agreement on nuclear fuel reprocessing to further augment the deal. According to the deal, New Delhi will be allowed to recycle the US spent nuclear fuel. It would enable the participation of the US firms in India’s rapidly expanding civil nuclear energy sector. Without any doubt, US-India civil nuclear deal is in fact US-Indian collusion in relation to nuclear weapons proliferation programme.

On the other hand, Pak-China nuclear deal is meant for the power generation only and it would be completely under the IAEA safeguards, therefore, there must be no legal hurdle in its finalization. It is in accordance with the international law, therefore Indian and American objections are baseless.

Notably, on the issue of Indo-US Nuclear deal, China did not oppose the same being a member of NSG. Now, once China is providing only a friction of that to Pakistan, why should US obstruct it?

Again, Pak-China nuclear deal is under the IAEA safeguards and thus has nothing to do with the proliferation of nuclear material. It is purely meant for the production of nuclear energy as Pakistan’s energy shortages are well-known to the international community. Our country is facing worst energy shortages of its history. So being a traditional ally, US should have catered for the Pakistan’s energy needs. Regrettably, instead of itself providing the facilities to Pakistan like India, Washington has been becoming an obstactle in the provision of this facility by China. Question arises that in its entire history, Islamabad has been doing everything for the US and West, but what had they done for Pakistan?

Moreover, both China and Pakistan are responsible nuclear powers. And in this context, their cooperation is totally according to their respective international responsibilities.

Returning to our earlier discussion, the Pak-China nuclear deal is purely for peaceful objectives and is legitimate.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations.

Legitimacy of Pak-China Nuclear Deal

 

[theboss]

What about American nuke deal with India. In principle America is preping indians for its upcoming Sino-US conflict and would like to curb any Sino influence in its infancy. Americans lots the war at korea and vietnam in the hands of Chinese trained gurellias and defeat always calls for a comeback. The sad factor is that Indian will not be able to strategically compete with China and may drain its own economy in fancy to do so. Even recent US arms sales to Taiwan is part of same Chain. Curbing the dragon. US sucessfully contained Russia by pawning Pakistan as its proxy and will not hesitate to do so with China.

 

[nomi007]

why Pakistanis not using a strong language against US objection.

 

[Chanakyaa]

India the 'main proliferator' ?? And that too Just for using Fuel Installed in its own country which was NOT under any safeguards???

Does Sajjad Shaukat know a person called A Q KHAN?

Pakistan has vital everny needs and an immediate solution is a must.

If NSG is ready Pakistan should get it.

But there is no such 'legal or moral ground' that India 'having a clean prolifertaion record' [ as mentioned a million times by Condolizza Rice.. ] getting the Nuclear Bypass will do any good for a country that Nurished and Hosted the Biggest Nuclear Black Market.

Guess what US too allowed Khan to pursue the 'illegal' theft from Holland as long as they thought the bomb was only for pakistan.

Nuclear Material, Designs etc. Were given to Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, and Libya.

This makes a strong possibility that nuclear material from the new reactors could alos be 'shared' or used for 'bomb'..

My Point is 'as u sow.. So u reap' Please dont count India into It.

The Logic 'India got it so we too Want it' wont hold given the 'Day and Night' difference between our Proliferation Records.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Logic 'India got it so we too Want it' wont hold given the 'Day and Night' difference between our Proliferation Records.

This has been addressed already - there are worse proliferators than Pakistan (the European and Asian nations responsible for the Israeli and Pakistani weapons programs) that are members of the NSG.

So the proliferation argument is a weak one.

And yes, the logic that international agreements and incentives should follow certain standards and rules (which did not exist in the case of the NSG waiver for India, and in fact violated the NSG's own charter) is an extremely valid argument to make, and Pakistan will continue to make it.

Notice that even many Western experts accept that the NSG waiver for India was a 'wrong', that opened a whole 'Pandora's box' of issues in terms of the credibility of the NSG - their whole point behind denying a waiver to Pakistan is that 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

In other words, the argument by Pakistan that 'India obtained an NSG waiver and therefore so should Pakistan' is a valid one that even the West cannot deny.