US objects to China-Pakistan nuclear deal

[karan.1970]

The NSG has a very specific charter and guidelines - it is not just a voting bloc that takes decisions through consensus on any issue under the sun. Under the NSG charter and guidelines are very specific provisions banning trade with NPT non-signatories. Without amending the NSG charter and those guidelines to cover 'exemptions' or extend nuclear trade to all nations, any exemption is quite clearly a violation of the NSG charter and guidelines.

Where are those amendments to the Charter and guidelines that allow exemptions and outline the process that led to the Indian exemption?

The UNSC also functions within its charter - it votes on issues because under the UN charter it is authorized to vote, issue resolutions etc. There is no blatant violation of the UN Charter when a P-5 member exercises the right to veto - so your analogy simply does not work.

Where does it say in the NSG charter that every exception that will be made require a change to the charter. The change itself is that India has been given an exception. Creating an elaborate process around it makes sense if they see this granting of excpetion as a more regular phenomenon. May be they dont at this time. And just like UN is allowed to vote, so is NSG.. And its not an elected body that is responsible to all the nations of the world on its activities. Broadly its a group of Nuclear suppliers trying to prevent Nuclear proliferation.

No matter how you spin it, Pakistan has a big skeleton in the (open) cupboard in the form of the AQ Khan case. Call it hypocracy or double standards, but at this point, the our 2 countries have very different standing on the record of nuclear proliferation. And it doesnt need a metrics driven process to realize why Pakistan has a tough time getting a similar exception.

 

[jeypore]

What'll they do? Put Sanctions on China? I think the NSG would sooner put sanctions on the US. Also the US will be asked on every corner "Dude aren't you being a total hypocrite?"

That will be the day, isn't it!!!!

 

[oceanx]

Actually I stand corrected. I was just doing my google diligence on this "Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty" as Toxie Pusy brought it up. It strikes me as some highly fishy, inherently "discriminatory", albeit somewhat well-intentioned concept...

Amrika itself was opposed to it not that long ago. Now no one knows whether Obamba will be around after 2012, and if not whether the next head honcho will be some go-it-aloner again keen to renege on any "multilateral" obligations ...

All Pakistan needs to do is to agree to enter negotiations on this high-minded "Fissile Material Cut Off" business, with realistic expectations that such negotiations could easily drag on for years, and years, and perhaps decades ...

Look at the CTBT.

But by agreeing to enter "talks", everybody scores points and everybody "saves face"... And Pakistan gets options and may score something tangible from the likes of Toshiba-Westinghouse.

Most importantly, Obama gets to add to his "nuclear disarmament street cred" ... lest we forget, the poor man won the Nobel Peace Price "pre-emptively" for work not yet done. Give him a chance - he is just trying to earn it.

I would like to hear the heavy weights on this forum discuss this beast (or rather unicorn) known as FMCT and how this is related to this feigned "veto".

I realize that General Majid had said that the FMCT was "unacceptable and Pakistan-specific". This concern is not unfounded if one just takes a cursory look at what is being proposed.

But the goal here is to "humour" Obama ... who knows, it doesn't hurt to negotiate ... just my 2 cents.

 

[jeypore]

The NSG has a very specific charter and guidelines - it is not just a voting bloc that takes decisions through consensus on any issue under the sun. Under the NSG charter and guidelines are very specific provisions banning trade with NPT non-signatories. Without amending the NSG charter and those guidelines to cover 'exemptions' or extend nuclear trade to all nations, any exemption is quite clearly a violation of the NSG charter and guidelines.

Where are those amendments to the Charter and guidelines that allow exemptions and outline the process that led to the Indian exemption?

The UNSC also functions within its charter - it votes on issues because under the UN charter it is authorized to vote, issue resolutions etc. There is no blatant violation of the UN Charter when a P-5 member exercises the right to veto - so your analogy simply does not work.

For US to hold some regional powers!!!!

But NSG will not be so favorable to the same results that you are expecting, Chino-Pak deal....

 

[jeypore]

muse

However; lets also deal with the question of Talib bases in Pakistan - first are there Talib "bases" in Pakistan? No there are not, there are without a doubt refugee camps and communities that sustain the Talib, would it be unfair to ask whether the Talib would continue to exist without funding from the Gulf countries and from the Opium trade which is allowed to flourish in Afghanistan??

Hon. Mr. Muse,

The Talib camps in Karachi has been there since the Russian Invasion in Afganistan? I am really puzzle that you would make that sentence, when there are clear proof of those same school existinting today....

 

[jeypore]

Actually I stand corrected. I was just doing my google diligence on this "Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty" as Toxie Pusy brought it up. It strikes me as some highly fishy, inherently "discriminatory", albeit somewhat well-intentioned concept...

Amrika itself was opposed to it not that long ago. Now no one knows whether Obamba will be around after 2012, and if not whether the next head honcho will be some go-it-aloner again keen to renege on any "multilateral" obligations ...

All Pakistan needs to do is to agree to enter negotiations on this high-minded "Fissile Material Cut Off" business, with realistic expectations that such negotiations could easily drag on for years, and years, and perhaps decades ...

Look at the CTBT.

But by agreeing to enter "talks", everybody scores points and everybody "saves face"... And Pakistan gets options and may score something tangible from the likes of Toshiba-Westinghouse.

Most importantly, Obama gets to add to his "nuclear disarmament street cred" ... lest we forget, the poor man won the Nobel Peace Price "pre-emptively" for work not yet done. Give him a chance - he is just trying to earn it.

I would like to hear the heavy weights on this forum discuss this beast (or rather unicorn) known as FMCT and how this is related to this feigned "veto".

I realize that General Majid had said that the FMCT was "unacceptable and Pakistan-specific". This concern is not unfounded if one just takes a cursory look at what is being proposed.

But the goal here is to "humour" Obama ... who knows, it doesn't hurt to negotiate ... just my 2 cents.

Fantastically Gayesh!!!!

 

[KS]

Rubbish - conspiracy theories without any substantiation.

the one phone call from Bushy to Mushy saying "ur with us or against us"and the subsequent U-Turn on Pakistan's most valuable asset is proof enough for my allegation.

Absolutely the US has to be called out for what it is, and the blatant hypocrisy and double standards of its position illustrated for everyone.

Silence and a lack of an opposing voice is after all what led to a war on Iraq by the US on the basis of lies and duplicity.

Sorry, but I have no compulsions to 'let the world function' on the basis of double standards and hypocrisy, and neither does any State that is at the receiving end of such double standards and hypocrisy. If nothing else, as I alluded to earlier, pointing out how the US violates 'guidelines' and 'principles' when it suits her opens the door to justifying a restart of policies on the part of States that may not be to the liking of the global community, using the same argument as the US that, 'its in our interests'.

See this is wat i said - U can call the US with any name u like regarding double standards,hypocrisy,blah blah(as if they give a damn) but that is how the world functions and no amount of crying from Pakistan is gonna change it - atleast for now or in the near future.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In your view PA does not have the capability to expand operations...a lot of people here think it is a cop out.The fact being that Pakistan does not want to destroy all parts of the Taliban. This is a view shared by top parts of the American administration as shown by Mrs Clinton's statement that she is pretty sure that parts of the Pakistani establishment know where known terrorists are.And she is as inside the "loop" as anyone can be.

The US was also 'pretty sure' that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - Clinton's statements don't even come close to those assertions, that atleast provided distorted and manipulated intelligence information to back them up. Here Clinton offers nothing but her 'belief - see this statement by Sec. Gates:

"When asked if Pakistan was doing enough to apprehend the United States' most wanted criminal, Gates answered: "Well, we don't know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is. If we did, we'd go get him."

Asked when was the last time US intelligence had a fix on the master criminal's whereabouts, Gates said: "I think it's been years."​

No good intelligence on Bin Laden for years, United States Terrorism - Maktoob Business

So how can any one in the US claim anything about OBL's whereabouts when your own Sec. Defence is admitting they have not had intelligence on him for years?
Obviously someone is lying when Clinton pronounces with such certainty her 'belief' that OBL is in Pakistan and 'someone' in the Pakistani Government knows where he is. Just more of the usual US duplicity and lies in foreign affairs I'd say. And if the US is lying about this, through such a high profile figure as Clinton, then what else are they lying about?

It is kind of difficult to destroy cowards who attack and then run away into another country without standing and fighting. NATO can never win in Afghanistan unless the bases in Pakistan are destroyed.

Muse has addressed most of this in his post - but let me remind you that American military officials have themselves admitted that the Afghan insurgency is primarily Afghanistan based and Afghan driven. Yes there is cross border movement and attacks, but those also occur in the reverse, from Taliban based in Afghanistan into Pakistan, and there have been several high profile and large attacks on Pakistani positions in Bajaur and elsewhere led by Taliban based in the Eastern Afghan provinces.

Sure American citizens have the right to protest but the American govt is not a separate entity from the American people. The American people have elected the govt who makes the foreign policies some people in the "world" hate so much. ..as said before the biggest example of hypocrisy is shown by people who use every single method possible to enter a country whose policies they despise so much.

Governments are not 'black and white' - talk to most liberals now and they will express a lot of disappointment with how Obama has conducted not just his foreign policy, but also how he has pushed certain domestic issues, and they feel he has let them down. However, come election time, if it is a choice between a disappointing Obama who has not delivered on various issues, and who may in fact on certain issues take a stance strongly opposed by liberals (Afghan war), and a Republican and staunchly conservative candidate, liberals will likely still vote for Obama - not because they agree with everything he has to offer in terms of policy, but because he is the 'better of two evils'.

So no, it is not reflective of hypocrisy, it is reflective of reality that with so many positions and views amongst the electorate on a multitude of issues, certain issues are prioritized and people grimace and have to accept the rest, while continuing to protest on those issues.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

the one phone call from Bushy to Mushy saying "ur with us or against us"and the subsequent U-Turn on Pakistan's most valuable asset is proof enough for my allegation.

And why hasn't that 'phone call' worked in the case of the FMCT or an immediate attack on NW?

See this is wat i said - U can call the US with any name u like regarding double standards,hypocrisy,blah blah(as if they give a damn) but that is how the world functions and no amount of crying from Pakistan is gonna change it - atleast for now or in the near future.

Whether the US cares or not is irrelevant, but US actions must be exposed for what they are globally (and they are being exposed, since background comments by diplomats at the NSG and even US analysts and Think tanks were clear that they had little sympathy for the US opposition to the China-Pak nuclear deal since they believed, correctly, that the US was responsible for opening this particular 'Pandora's box'.).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Added Later:

Mr. Van Diepen added that while the United States can vote against an exemption, it cannot stop China if that nation decides to sell Pakistan the reactors without special permission from the NSG.

U.S. to oppose Chinese reactor sale to Pakistan - Washington Times

Excellent

Actually, all 'selecting of nations' by NSG is 'arbitrary' because the NSG itself is a discretionary body, operating solely on consensus. What it means in layman terms is that any member may choose to deal with any other non-member country and if the group is convinced they will let it pass. Such deal may be made in accordance with the guidelines, which are themselves representative of previous consensus arrived at by the members at earlier dates, or it may require a fresh consensus if it deviates away from the previous consensus, as represented by the guidelines. In case of Indo-US deal such fresh consensus was arrived at vide INFCIRC/734(corrected).

If there was a new consensus on the NSG guidelines in trading with NPT non-signatories, on the basis of 'exemptions', then where is is reflected in the NSG guidelines? INFCIRC/734 only points out what the NSG intended to do, after it had already violated its own guidelines on not allowing nuclear trade with NSG non-signatories.

And there certainly was no 'discrimination' against 'others'. (As of now, there is only one country which thinks it is entitled to the same treatment as India.) unless you consider 'discrimination' to be an inherent part of discretion.

Actually you think that apparent refusal of US/NSG to grant waiver to Pakistan is 'discrimination', because you assume that Pakistan is on equal footing with India and is therefore entitled to be treated similarly. The problem is, the world doesn't appear to think it that way, if Hillary Clinton is to be believed.

I don't think that the 'world' thinks that way. In fact were it not for the pressure from the US on NSG states and in fact the existence of the NSG many, though not all, nations would have no problems engaging in nuclear trade with Pakistan. Clinton's comments were really a circular argument to deflect away from the fact (in front of a Pakistani audience) that is is in fact the US that is primarily opposing Pakistan in the NSG, and to make the case for an NSG exemption (satisfy the NSG members to allow an exemption i.e. satisfy the international community), and hiding the fact that with the US deciding to 'vote no' on any such exemption, consensus would not be achieved and therefore there is no question of 'satisfying the international community'.

Pakistan's nuclear salvation lies not in trying to prove that Pakistan is equal to India and hence deserves a nuclear deal like India, or crying 'discrimination' when refused, but in genuinely addressing the real issues that are putting impediments.

What impediments? Unless the NSG officially decides to adopt a criteria based approach towards NPT non-signatories and outlines what those criteria and 'impediments' are, nothing can be resolved. Which is the point Pakistan has been making since the Indian exemption was being negotiated and which I have repeated here.

On issues of acting against proliferation networks, export controls, C&C and safeguards, Pakistan has already cooperated extensively with the West and IAEA and on the issue of safeguarding its nuclear assets has taken a lot of US assistance. So given all this work, one would like an 'official' NSG outline of criteria that would govern nuclear trade with NPT non-signatories, so Pakistan and other States know what else to do.

 

[KS]

And why hasn't that 'phone call' worked in the case of the FMCT or an immediate attack on NW?

NW - the US understands ur position regarding the inavailability of manpower resources.

And not working on FMCT doesnt exactly imply that the "phone call effect" is not there.

Whether the US cares or not is irrelevant, but US actions must be exposed for what they are globally (and they are being exposed, since background comments by diplomats at the NSG and even US analysts and Think tanks were clear that they had little sympathy for the US opposition to the China-Pak nuclear deal since they believed, correctly, that the US was responsible for opening this particular 'Pandora's box'.).

We seem to be going in circles here.
Background comments by "unnamed diplomats" doesnt reflect the official position of their governments which still tow the US line and will continue to do so for the near future.

And yes my friend it is totally relevant if the US cares or not.If the US really thinks that u should not get the deal..believe me..U will not..

No amount of Chinese posturing is going to change that.

 

[Ras]

The US was also 'pretty sure' that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - Clinton's statements don't even come close to those assertions, that atleast provided distorted and manipulated intelligence information to back them up. Here Clinton offers nothing but her 'belief - see this statement by Sec. Gates:

"When asked if Pakistan was doing enough to apprehend the United States' most wanted criminal, Gates answered: "Well, we don't know for a fact where Osama bin Laden is. If we did, we'd go get him."

Asked when was the last time US intelligence had a fix on the master criminal's whereabouts, Gates said: "I think it's been years."​

No good intelligence on Bin Laden for years, United States Terrorism - Maktoob Business

So how can any one in the US claim anything about OBL's whereabouts when your own Sec. Defence is admitting they have not had intelligence on him for years?
Obviously someone is lying when Clinton pronounces with such certainty her 'belief' that OBL is in Pakistan and 'someone' in the Pakistani Government knows where he is. Just more of the usual US duplicity and lies in foreign affairs I'd say. And if the US is lying about this, through such a high profile figure as Clinton, then what else are they lying about?

You don't know Clinton is lying...perhaps Gates just does not want the world to know what information they do have on Laden.Is that out of the world of probability?

Muse has addressed most of this in his post - but let me remind you that American military officials have themselves admitted that the Afghan insurgency is primarily Afghanistan based and Afghan driven. Yes there is cross border movement and attacks, but those also occur in the reverse, from Taliban based in Afghanistan into Pakistan, and there have been several high profile and large attacks on Pakistani positions in Bajaur and elsewhere led by Taliban based in the Eastern Afghan provinces.

The huge no of drone attacks on Pakistan soil puts paid to the theory that militants are attacking from Afghanistan into Pakistan and not the other way around. The officials can say anything to protect the Pakistani administration but actions on the ground suggest otherwise.

Governments are not 'black and white' - talk to most liberals now and they will express a lot of disappointment with how Obama has conducted not just his foreign policy, but also how he has pushed certain domestic issues, and they feel he has let them down. However, come election time, if it is a choice between a disappointing Obama who has not delivered on various issues, and who may in fact on certain issues take a stance strongly opposed by liberals (Afghan war), and a Republican and staunchly conservative candidate, liberals will likely still vote for Obama - not because they agree with everything he has to offer in terms of policy, but because he is the 'better of two evils'.

So no, it is not reflective of hypocrisy, it is reflective of reality that with so many positions and views amongst the electorate on a multitude of issues, certain issues are prioritized and people grimace and have to accept the rest, while continuing to protest on those issues.

Your post applies to Americans not foreigners....I would call hypocrites populations who hate America but stand in lines in front of our consulates begging to be let in and once in continue to hate our policies,our government,our way of life while continuing to enjoy the opportunities and life given by the country they hate so much. Now that is blatant hypocrisy if you want an example.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I would call hypocrites populations who hate America but stand in lines in front of our consulates begging to be let in and once in continue to hate our policies,our government,our way of life while continuing to enjoy the opportunities and life given by the country they hate so much. Now that is blatant hypocrisy if you want an example.

You keep repeating this, but do you have even a single scrap of evidence to back it up?

Firstly, what "populations" in your words, "hate" America?

And how do you know that these "populations" that supposedly "hate" America, actually end up wanting to immigrate there?

The only way I can see you backing up this claim is if you have survey data on all recent immigrants, specifically asking them if they hate America or not. Do you have such data?

 

[Ras]

You keep repeating this, but do you have even a single scrap of evidence to back it up?

Firstly, what "populations" in your words, "hate" America?

And how do you know that these "populations" that supposedly "hate" America, actually end up wanting to immigrate there?

The only way I can see you backing up this claim is if you have survey data on all recent immigrants, specifically asking them if they hate America or not. Do you have such data?

There have been numerous surveys done on where the populations hate America and where they do not.No need to rehash it here.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

There have been numerous surveys done on where the populations hate America and where they do not.No need to rehash it here.

So basically you have no evidence at all, to support your claim that people who hate America are desperate to immigrate there?

And your other claim that these new immigrants continue to hate America, even while "enjoying the opportunities" they get from America?

It seems like a massive generalisation to me, since you don't seem to have survey data on recent immigrants.

You seem to be judging them on which "populations" they come from, instead of judging them as individuals with their own opinions. Why do you think an "individual" who "hates" America would be desperate to immigrate there? Why not just immigrate to Europe or Australia?