Pushing India into NSG at Pakistan’s expense counterproductive

[maximuswarrior]

India is going into NSG

Sure, but after we get what we want.

The NSG will require Pakistan to do accounting and continue to classify which reactors are civil and open for IAEA inspectors who'll cross check the books.

You get where i'm going with this?

No doubt and the same applies for India.

 

[Spectre]

You're right about masters not having rules. But you can't just sweep it under the rug just to bar one country, that itself can't seem to state this fact....

As for the SCS, the "arbitrary court" can only hand out judgement if both parties to a conflict agree to it. China did not, so the "Court" acted outside of it's boundaries, nullifying it's claim. The Philipines, the neighbors of the SCS, know not to dare take unilateral steps to bring this before the ICJ, which actually will have jurisdiction on the matter.

Pakistan offers peripheral sigh. NSG members have to catalog pretty much every nut and bolt. Anything necessary for a nuclear program is written down cataloged, and checked up on biannually, at a minimum.

You pose as a US citizen but certainly dont post as such.. Good Luck!

 

[maximuswarrior]

WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s perspective on US efforts to help India join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), while shunning Islamabad, finally echoed in the US Congress on Thursday where the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee learned from witnesses that this policy could worsen the nuclear race in South Asia.

Witnesses, and some lawmakers, noted that sanctions imposed on Pakistan in the 1990s increased the country’s dependence on nuclear weapons and the same would happen again if those restrictions were reintroduced.

“The policy of the current US administration to support an unconditional and exceptional NSG membership path for India is problematic,” Toby Dalton, a co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the committee.

Mr Dalton, who heads the Nuclear Policy Programme at this key Washington think tank, pointed out that the Obama administration’s current policy required no commitments from India to bring its nuclear weapons practices in line with those of other nuclear states in return for membership of this 48-nation group.

“It also opens no pathway to membership for Pakistan that would incentivise it to consider nuclear restraints,” he added.

Read: India's membership of Nuclear Suppliers Group 'not merited', says NYT

Both India and Pakistan had applied for NSG membership earlier this summer but were rejected. The group requires consensus of all member nations to admit a new member and both failed to meet this criterion, although the United States and several other powers strongly supported India. China, however, opposed India’s application, arguing that it was a mistake to leave Pakistan out.

Veterans covering congressional hearings noticed a new, conciliatory tone towards Pakistan during Thursday’s proceedings, although in June the Senate had suspended $300 million of military aid to Pakistan over its failure to eliminate the Haqqani network.

But on Thursday some key senators, as well as witnesses, agreed that withdrawing money would not force Pakistan to change its policies. Some observers saw the hearing as “a baby step” towards restoring the suspended aid.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, asked Mr Dalton what interests did Pakistan have in protecting its nuclear facilities.

“They have a strong interest in doing so,” said the congressional witness while explaining how there’s an almost complete consensus in Pakistan to retaining the nuclear option.

“Perhaps, nukes and cricket are the only two things that they have a consensus on,” he said, calling the nukes Pakistan’s “crown jewels”.

“They have taken significant measures to ensure that the nukes are well-protected,” he said. “They understand the challenges and threats and have put in place as good a system as they can.”

He explained how Pakistan screened the people selected to protect their nuclear installations to ensure that militants do not penetrate those facilities.

Senator Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, asked if the relationship that Pakistan had developed with North Korea during the A.Q. Khan network still existed.

Mr Dalton said that after the AQK episode, Pakistan had moved away from that relationship and there was nothing substantial, except some media accounts, to suggest that it (the network) still existed.

“They have demonstrated a desire to make sure it (the AQK episode) does not happen again and they understand the damage AQK has done,” he said.

Robert L. Grenier, the chairman of another Washington think tank, ERG Partners, noted that Pakistan reached out to North Korea and Iran in the 1990s, when the United States “sanctioned as heavily as it could”.

He noted that Pakistan wanted to retain its nuclear programme to deal with a possible threat from India. “They could, in no way, match India in conventional weapons, so they chose to get help where they could find it.”

Mr Grenier urged the United States to be “very, very careful” and “maintain some relationship with Pakistan” despite differences over the Haqqani network.

“If we treat them as a pariah, they are likely to behave as a pariah,” he warned.

Most exciting thing
Another witness, Daniel Markey of the Johns Hopkins University, described the proposed economic corridor as the “single most exciting thing” that has happened in Pakistan in a long time, “in a semi positive way”.

He noted that most Pakistanis were excited about it, not just because it would strengthen their relationship with China but because they think it would open up international trade routes for them.

Dr Markey noted that the current instability in Pakistan was linked to the country’s economic instability and anything that strengthened economy was good for Pakistan.

For the United States, he said, it was “partly positive” and partly a cause of concern. Positive because it would bring stability to Pakistan and worrying in the long run because “we have questions about what it means for China’s profile in the region”.

Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, asked if removing the shackles on India’s nuclear programme could worsen the nuclear race in South Asia.

“Yes, absolutely, it would,” said Mr Dalton, adding: “It will make the situation more dangerous”.

Senator Markey recalled that Pakistan had recently offered to India a bilateral arrangement on non-testing of nuclear weapons and asked the witnesses if it was a sincere offer.

Dr Markey said that such offers got diplomatic mileage for Pakistan as Islamabad knows India will never accept this offer and would justify its refusal with its concerns about China.

Mr Dalton said such an agreement was possible but difficult.

Published in Dawn, September 9th, 2016

There is a clear divide on the Indian NSG membership inclusion. What seemed like a matter of days has now become a pain in the butt. The Obama administration is hurt and red faced. Despite their frantic efforts to include India into the fold , things haven't gone so smoothly. It has also laid bare the divide among the nations of the world. The analysts are more reserved and cautious because they understand the consequences of including countries on political motives. The article clearly outlines the differences.The consequences are indeed very grave if India is included without proper merit and justification. Worse, such sensitive treaties can be tossed into the bin if nations are going to be selected on the basis of political motives. The US accuses other nations of picking and choosing. Yet, here it is guilty of the same crime.

 

[wiseone2]

Sure, but after we get what we want.

It is more like after China gets what they want

 

[f444ran]

Not even sure why Pakistan and India are linked in this regard. Both are completely different stories.

 

[AnnoyingOrange]

Pakistanis should understand that the days of parity between India and Pakistan are over... The world sees both countries differently ... and the differential will continue to grow....there is no point in making so much noise... it will yield nothing.

 

[wiseone2]

Pakistanis should understand that the days of parity between India and Pakistan are over... The world sees both countries differently ... and the differential will continue to grow....there is no point in making so much noise... it will yield nothing.

Pakistan never had parity. but i do not think they are accepting the lack of parity

 

[kabooter_maila]

WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s perspective on US efforts to help India join the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), while shunning Islamabad, finally echoed in the US Congress on Thursday where the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee learned from witnesses that this policy could worsen the nuclear race in South Asia.

Witnesses, and some lawmakers, noted that sanctions imposed on Pakistan in the 1990s increased the country’s dependence on nuclear weapons and the same would happen again if those restrictions were reintroduced.

“The policy of the current US administration to support an unconditional and exceptional NSG membership path for India is problematic,” Toby Dalton, a co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the committee.

Mr Dalton, who heads the Nuclear Policy Programme at this key Washington think tank, pointed out that the Obama administration’s current policy required no commitments from India to bring its nuclear weapons practices in line with those of other nuclear states in return for membership of this 48-nation group.

“It also opens no pathway to membership for Pakistan that would incentivise it to consider nuclear restraints,” he added.

Read: India's membership of Nuclear Suppliers Group 'not merited', says NYT

Both India and Pakistan had applied for NSG membership earlier this summer but were rejected. The group requires consensus of all member nations to admit a new member and both failed to meet this criterion, although the United States and several other powers strongly supported India. China, however, opposed India’s application, arguing that it was a mistake to leave Pakistan out.

Veterans covering congressional hearings noticed a new, conciliatory tone towards Pakistan during Thursday’s proceedings, although in June the Senate had suspended $300 million of military aid to Pakistan over its failure to eliminate the Haqqani network.

But on Thursday some key senators, as well as witnesses, agreed that withdrawing money would not force Pakistan to change its policies. Some observers saw the hearing as “a baby step” towards restoring the suspended aid.

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, asked Mr Dalton what interests did Pakistan have in protecting its nuclear facilities.

“They have a strong interest in doing so,” said the congressional witness while explaining how there’s an almost complete consensus in Pakistan to retaining the nuclear option.

“Perhaps, nukes and cricket are the only two things that they have a consensus on,” he said, calling the nukes Pakistan’s “crown jewels”.

“They have taken significant measures to ensure that the nukes are well-protected,” he said. “They understand the challenges and threats and have put in place as good a system as they can.”

He explained how Pakistan screened the people selected to protect their nuclear installations to ensure that militants do not penetrate those facilities.

Senator Cory Gardner, a Colorado Republican, asked if the relationship that Pakistan had developed with North Korea during the A.Q. Khan network still existed.

Mr Dalton said that after the AQK episode, Pakistan had moved away from that relationship and there was nothing substantial, except some media accounts, to suggest that it (the network) still existed.

“They have demonstrated a desire to make sure it (the AQK episode) does not happen again and they understand the damage AQK has done,” he said.

Robert L. Grenier, the chairman of another Washington think tank, ERG Partners, noted that Pakistan reached out to North Korea and Iran in the 1990s, when the United States “sanctioned as heavily as it could”.

He noted that Pakistan wanted to retain its nuclear programme to deal with a possible threat from India. “They could, in no way, match India in conventional weapons, so they chose to get help where they could find it.”

Mr Grenier urged the United States to be “very, very careful” and “maintain some relationship with Pakistan” despite differences over the Haqqani network.

“If we treat them as a pariah, they are likely to behave as a pariah,” he warned.

Most exciting thing
Another witness, Daniel Markey of the Johns Hopkins University, described the proposed economic corridor as the “single most exciting thing” that has happened in Pakistan in a long time, “in a semi positive way”.

He noted that most Pakistanis were excited about it, not just because it would strengthen their relationship with China but because they think it would open up international trade routes for them.

Dr Markey noted that the current instability in Pakistan was linked to the country’s economic instability and anything that strengthened economy was good for Pakistan.

For the United States, he said, it was “partly positive” and partly a cause of concern. Positive because it would bring stability to Pakistan and worrying in the long run because “we have questions about what it means for China’s profile in the region”.

Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts, asked if removing the shackles on India’s nuclear programme could worsen the nuclear race in South Asia.

“Yes, absolutely, it would,” said Mr Dalton, adding: “It will make the situation more dangerous”.

Senator Markey recalled that Pakistan had recently offered to India a bilateral arrangement on non-testing of nuclear weapons and asked the witnesses if it was a sincere offer.

Dr Markey said that such offers got diplomatic mileage for Pakistan as Islamabad knows India will never accept this offer and would justify its refusal with its concerns about China.

Mr Dalton said such an agreement was possible but difficult.

Published in Dawn, September 9th, 2016

While Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is a prestigious think tank and US Administration and Congress take their opinion seriously, the US policies are defined solely to serve US interests. Indians, due to their hallow mentality, might be bragging for the US pats they are getting on their back, US simply cannot write-off Pakistan much to the chagrin of Indians. The recent US policies have been blindly based on deep US desire for containing Chinese. It is good that different US quarters have finally started having a touch with sanity. As for Indian acceptance into the NSG fold, the grapes are still sour for them. It is almost impossible for India to get the NSG membership in foreseeable future. It's not just the Chinese who want to keep Indians out. A dozen or so countries, including Turkey, New Zealand, Austria, Russia, etc. are unwilling to accept Indians in that forum. Indian, as their nature compels them, have already renegaded upon their promises made a few years ago. One crucial requirement was the separation of military and civilian nuclear facilities and then opening up of the civilian ones to the international community. Indians are trying to cheat the civilized world. And opposing countries are unwilling to get blindfolded by the US animosity towards China.

 

[shah1398]

Dammmmmn....Didnt expect that much intense of a reaction from Indian members. I mean WT

 

[OrionHunter]

Witnesses, and some lawmakers, noted that sanctions imposed on Pakistan in the 1990s increased the country’s dependence on nuclear weapons and the same would happen again if those restrictions were reintroduced.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/pushing-...pense-counterproductive.448484/#ixzz4JlDtCYcA

Utter bullshit! There are no sanctions now on Pakistan and yet it has the fastest growing nuke arsenal in the world! And it can't get any faster than this!

Epic brain farts by the these Yanks!

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

You pose as a US citizen but certainly dont post as such.. Good Luck!

Pakistani-American.

I try to be fair in my posts, do I really seem bias?

 

[Indika]

There are repercussions to withdrawing for a treaty. The repercussions depend on the treaty and whether or not it has a clause to deal with such and issue, some treaties are signed until death.

But you can see the ramifications of one treaty that provides free trade/use of nuclear technology, isn't going to be a slap on the wrist. Leaving a treaty calls into question the entirety of a State's commitments.

When N Korea left the NPT, it had to reiterate that it just left only the NPT, but member States of some organizations threw N Korea out of them.

There is no such thing as permanent problems , pakistan can withdraw and get away with it. Sanctions imposed after nuclear test is a testimony to that fact. It will be there for few years or months and then be back to normal. As they say prevention is better than cure.

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

There is no such thing as permanent problems , pakistan can withdraw and get away with it. Sanctions imposed after nuclear test is a testimony to that fact. It will be there for few years or months and then be back to normal. As they say prevention is better than cure.

Your forgetting the core reason States want to be in the NSG than outside it. The access to nuclear technology, fuel, and knowledge.

Pakistan will gain more being inside than outside. It's why India wants to be included. The US-India honeymoon will only last so long before the White House comes to the determination that India is just milking the US for cooperation with other nations while leaving it out to dry.

Having Nuclear Weapons for Pakistan set it on equal deterrence footing against not only India but regime change. The Pakistani establishment isn't going to give that up, they know they can claim "we'll disarm when India does" because India isn't going to.

And your logic willfully excludes India. You seem to not know Pakistan was never a signatory or ratified a nuclear weapons ban, but they did offer India the option of keeping S. Asia free of nuclear weapons, which also got away with introducing nuclear weapons to a hotspot.

The NSG was created in response to India going nuclear, using a peace promoting nuclear-research reactor given by Canada on the basis it wouldn't create a nuclear weapon.....

Sanctions impacted Pakistan a lot more than India... but the cure is on the table, disarm India's nuclear weapons, or well begin to and the ball will be in Pakistan's court to follow thru with their public statements of disarming for a nuclear weapons free S. Asia. Perhaps create a blueprint for expanding disarmament?

 

[wiseone2]

There is a clear divide on the Indian NSG membership inclusion. What seemed like a matter of days has now become a pain in the butt. The Obama administration is hurt and red faced.

what clear divide ?? 38 yes. 8 countries want clarifications.
2 no's - China and Turkey who fall eventually fall in line

Unless you change your policies Pakistan would be hard pressed to get 10 votes

 

[Indika]

Your forgetting the core reason States want to be in the NSG than outside it. The access to nuclear technology, fuel, and knowledge.

yes but for what , nuclear power not for making bombs. Can you tell me the share of nuke power in pakistan or nuclear power plants it has? pakistan sole interest is to advance its weapon program unlike India which is inking deals for nuke reactors for power. Let pakistan ink similar deals with western powers for reactors then they will let it into NSG.

The US-India honeymoon will only last so long before the White House comes to the determination that India is just milking the US for cooperation with other nations while leaving it out to dry.

ditto holds good for pakistan too, with pakistan coming under china's influence they can do a la north korea.

And your logic willfully excludes India. You seem to not know Pakistan was never a signatory or ratified a nuclear weapons ban, but they did offer India the option of keeping S. Asia free of nuclear weapons, which also got away with introducing nuclear weapons to a hotspot.

The Pakistani establishment isn't going to give that up, they know they can claim "we'll disarm when India does" because India isn't going to.

well you provided the answer urself.
knowing very well that India will refuse citing china , so the proposal is non-starter to begin with whatever the merits be.

The NSG was created in response to India going nuclear, using a peace promoting nuclear-research reactor given by Canada on the basis it wouldn't create a nuclear weapon.....

partially true, we had reactor even before that. It was nehru's whose beliefs in non violence stopped India from developing the nuke . India had TIFR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Institute_of_Fundamental_Research) even before Independence by 1947 , India was already in nuke research. To say that it was possible only with western help is half truth.

India's and Asia's first nuclear reactor was the Apsara research reactor. Designed and built in India, with assistance and fuel from the United Kingdom, Apsara reached criticality on August 4, 1956 and was inaugurated on January 20, 1957.[10][11] A further research nuclear reactor and its first nuclear power plant were built with assistance from Canada.[12][13] The 40 MW research reactor agreement was signed in 1956, and CIRUS achieved first criticality in 1960. This reactor was supplied to India on the assurance that it would not be used for military purposes, but without effective safeguards against such use.[12][13]

Sanctions impacted Pakistan a lot more than India... but the cure is on the table, disarm India's nuclear weapons, or well begin to and the ball will be in Pakistan's court to follow thru with their public statements of disarming for a nuclear weapons free S. Asia. Perhaps create a blueprint for expanding disarmament?

lol, India is the not first nuke country but well be last country to dismantle its nukes. Even if India forgoes nuke pakistan will never do, thats a known fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India#cite_note-Fuhrmann_93.E2.80.9395-13