Napalm
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 0
US undecided on offering nuke deal to Pak:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/N-deal-for-Pak-US-denies-India-remains-anxious/articleshow/5713789.cms
ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI: The US on Monday denied it was considering offering Pakistan a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one it signed with India, refuting purported remarks of Anne Patterson, its ambassasdor to Pakistan, to the contrary.
"The US has not entered (into) negotiations on a civil nuclear agreement with Pakistan," a PTI report said, quoting the spokesperson of the US embassy in Islamabad.
The denial came even as ambassador Patterson's remark suggesting that the US was trying to establish parity between India and Pakistan on the nuclear energy issue triggered concern in New Delhi. Foreign minister S M Krishna reacted to Patterson's remarks by reminding the US of Pakistan's notorious proliferation record. A similar stand was taken by the principal Opposition, BJP, with Yashwant Sinha, chairman of the standing committee on external affairs, criticising any attempt to establish parity between India and "a rogue state like Pakistan with the worst proliferation record".
The apprehension of a shift in stand came from Patterson's interview to a Pakistani American magazine which quoted her as saying that the US and Pakistan would have "working-level talks" on civilian nuclear energy as part of the strategic dialogue between the two countries beginning Wednesday.
On Monday, however, the US spokesperson in Islamabad sought to rebut the perception of a policy shift. "The US is committed to helping Pakistan address its real and growing energy needs, and we look forward to cooperating with Pakistan in ways that are compatible with Pakistan'e economic, environmental and security needs and with the US' international commitments and policies," the spokesperson said.
In a swift response, foreign minister Krishna said, "I think, the US would always look into the track record of every country with which they are going for certain understanding or signing a treaty. I am sure the US will remember that the proliferation of nuclear weapons was because of certain indiscretions of certain countries and more particularly Pakistan and the clandestine activities which they carried on."
Congress party said it would only comment after official US announcement on the subject, but the BJP described reports as "disturbing". Yashwant Sinha, chairman of Parliament's standing committee on external affairs, said, "The US has established parity between a nuclear rogue and India at a time when they are accusing Iran of proliferation. It is perverse and brings back the hyphenation that was supposed to be over."
He further said that Patterson's remark seems to undercut the US's claim that the Indo-US nuclear deal was an exception which could not be extended to any other country, leave alone Pakistan, "the worst proliferator".
G Parthasarathy, former diplomat, said the US move was a "violation" of the July 18 agreement, because it was premised on US and India sharing commitment against terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
In her interview, Patterson appeared to be downplaying concerns over Pakistan's proliferation record. "Earlier on, non-proliferation concerns were quite severe. I think we are begining to pass those and this is a scenario that we are going to explore."
Officials said India would keep a close watch on the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue starting in Washington this week because of the assessment that the US is looking for more ways to "accommodate" Pakistani demands, to "do more" for them to incentivize them to act against terror groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Daniel Markey, senior fellow Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, said, "I think the Obama administration is trying to be responsive to Pakistan's requests as a means to demonstrate its commitment to bilateral partnership. But there is zero chance that Pakistan will get a nuclear deal of the sort that we have with India. They cannot get it through Congress or the NSG."
On a more realistic level, Pakistan has a small nuclear programme, with three reactors -- Chashma 1 & 2 and Khushab (all built with Chinese assistance). While they produce a small amount of power, they are also the source for Pakistan's uranium-based nuclear weapons programme. Incidentally, both are run by Pakistan's powerful military. So there cannot be a separation of civilian and military nuclear sectors in Pakistan.
Anupam Srivastava of University of Georgia said, "Pakistan has not completed the process of strengthening its export control systems following the A Q Khan scandal, nor has it provided access to A Q Khan. On the other hand, US has worked with Pakistan's Special Plans Division on programmes including personnel reliability programme to shore up security of nuclear weapons facilities." This is a reference to George Bush spending $100 million to train Pakistanis to make their nukes more secure -- the overriding concern being that they should not fall into the hands of terrorists or guarding against "leakage" by insiders of the system.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/N-deal-for-Pak-US-denies-India-remains-anxious/articleshow/5713789.cms
ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI: The US on Monday denied it was considering offering Pakistan a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one it signed with India, refuting purported remarks of Anne Patterson, its ambassasdor to Pakistan, to the contrary.
"The US has not entered (into) negotiations on a civil nuclear agreement with Pakistan," a PTI report said, quoting the spokesperson of the US embassy in Islamabad.
The denial came even as ambassador Patterson's remark suggesting that the US was trying to establish parity between India and Pakistan on the nuclear energy issue triggered concern in New Delhi. Foreign minister S M Krishna reacted to Patterson's remarks by reminding the US of Pakistan's notorious proliferation record. A similar stand was taken by the principal Opposition, BJP, with Yashwant Sinha, chairman of the standing committee on external affairs, criticising any attempt to establish parity between India and "a rogue state like Pakistan with the worst proliferation record".
The apprehension of a shift in stand came from Patterson's interview to a Pakistani American magazine which quoted her as saying that the US and Pakistan would have "working-level talks" on civilian nuclear energy as part of the strategic dialogue between the two countries beginning Wednesday.
On Monday, however, the US spokesperson in Islamabad sought to rebut the perception of a policy shift. "The US is committed to helping Pakistan address its real and growing energy needs, and we look forward to cooperating with Pakistan in ways that are compatible with Pakistan'e economic, environmental and security needs and with the US' international commitments and policies," the spokesperson said.
In a swift response, foreign minister Krishna said, "I think, the US would always look into the track record of every country with which they are going for certain understanding or signing a treaty. I am sure the US will remember that the proliferation of nuclear weapons was because of certain indiscretions of certain countries and more particularly Pakistan and the clandestine activities which they carried on."
Congress party said it would only comment after official US announcement on the subject, but the BJP described reports as "disturbing". Yashwant Sinha, chairman of Parliament's standing committee on external affairs, said, "The US has established parity between a nuclear rogue and India at a time when they are accusing Iran of proliferation. It is perverse and brings back the hyphenation that was supposed to be over."
He further said that Patterson's remark seems to undercut the US's claim that the Indo-US nuclear deal was an exception which could not be extended to any other country, leave alone Pakistan, "the worst proliferator".
G Parthasarathy, former diplomat, said the US move was a "violation" of the July 18 agreement, because it was premised on US and India sharing commitment against terrorism and nuclear proliferation.
In her interview, Patterson appeared to be downplaying concerns over Pakistan's proliferation record. "Earlier on, non-proliferation concerns were quite severe. I think we are begining to pass those and this is a scenario that we are going to explore."
Officials said India would keep a close watch on the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue starting in Washington this week because of the assessment that the US is looking for more ways to "accommodate" Pakistani demands, to "do more" for them to incentivize them to act against terror groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Daniel Markey, senior fellow Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, said, "I think the Obama administration is trying to be responsive to Pakistan's requests as a means to demonstrate its commitment to bilateral partnership. But there is zero chance that Pakistan will get a nuclear deal of the sort that we have with India. They cannot get it through Congress or the NSG."
On a more realistic level, Pakistan has a small nuclear programme, with three reactors -- Chashma 1 & 2 and Khushab (all built with Chinese assistance). While they produce a small amount of power, they are also the source for Pakistan's uranium-based nuclear weapons programme. Incidentally, both are run by Pakistan's powerful military. So there cannot be a separation of civilian and military nuclear sectors in Pakistan.
Anupam Srivastava of University of Georgia said, "Pakistan has not completed the process of strengthening its export control systems following the A Q Khan scandal, nor has it provided access to A Q Khan. On the other hand, US has worked with Pakistan's Special Plans Division on programmes including personnel reliability programme to shore up security of nuclear weapons facilities." This is a reference to George Bush spending $100 million to train Pakistanis to make their nukes more secure -- the overriding concern being that they should not fall into the hands of terrorists or guarding against "leakage" by insiders of the system.
Last edited:
