US objects to China-Pakistan nuclear deal

[Capt.Popeye]

NSG meet steers clear of China-Pakistan nuke deal - India - The Times of India

The NSG seems to be waffling. But they will have to take a call eventually. Let's wait and see what happens.
p.s. on a lighter note; you quote TOI, judging from so many comments on this forum, is'nt that anathema?

 

[Parashuram1]

Is there any morality left in American Govt? Not to mention that this will further increase Anti Americanism in our country.On one hand they try to reduce Anti Americanism and on the other hand they will do everything to harm us. Net result ZERO.

PS. Real test is for our friend China. Let's see what they do?

Dear lady, the test is not for anyone but yourself. As long as your politicians and top brass endorse American alliance, the opinion of your public means nothing at international stage. This might not be in your liking but currently Pakistan as a nation has few options on the table.

I hate to be negative about a prospective and a high-potential country like yours but there are very few countries equivalent to United States in size and your rulers know that very well what it means to get on their wrong side. You can prefer to be a neutral country in all aspects or you have to at least at this stage align on one side to stay afloat. Iranians are able to stay afloat despite sanctions due to their fuel economy and their occasional favours that Russians give them.On the other hand Russians don't have such a consideration for you and Chinese are still getting there.

The Americans and Chinese share the largest bilateral trade that you and Chinese could ever do. They are entwined with each other in such a way that neither can push the other too much especially one being more influential. Therefore, this deal in my perspective depends on what Americans offer Beijing and how Beijing takes this in response without your involvement in the scenario at all.

It does sound unethical that you don't get a nuclear deal similar to your neighbours but the Chinese haven't proposed a waiver either. The deal is about two reactors especially after the notorious revelation of your nuclear chief rumoured to have deal with the North Koreans (I am not sure or knowledgeable on this enough to argue so I am merely highlighting what the world in general knows, please don't launch yourself at me).

The deal still rests totally on what Washington can offer compensatory to Beijing. Please remember that the Chinese had been extremely warm to the North Koreans all these years whereas their decision faltered towards South Korea more simply because they saw better prospects in that judgement.

The only way Pakistan can counter this possibly is through offering something more than money in exchange for the reactors. Chinese have no interest in military bases and therefore your leaders might have to think of something that makes the Chinese consider your offer more beneficial as compared to what the Americans offer them.

There is no pressure in my opinion between United States and China; it is solely what the former can offer the latter to make it follow its wish.

 

[r3alist]

i dont think washingotn are opposed to this at all, i think they are sighing a huge relief because if we got one with the us the indians would be bitching non stop and it puts the us in a difficult position

 

[RollingStones]

Dear lady, the test is not for anyone but yourself. As long as your politicians and top brass endorse American alliance, the opinion of your public means nothing at international stage. This might not be in your liking but currently Pakistan as a nation has few options on the table.

I hate to be negative about a prospective and a high-potential country like yours but there are very few countries equivalent to United States in size and your rulers know that very well what it means to get on their wrong side. You can prefer to be a neutral country in all aspects or you have to at least at this stage align on one side to stay afloat. Iranians are able to stay afloat despite sanctions due to their fuel economy and their occasional favours that Russians give them.On the other hand Russians don't have such a consideration for you and Chinese are still getting there.

The Americans and Chinese share the largest bilateral trade that you and Chinese could ever do. They are entwined with each other in such a way that neither can push the other too much especially one being more influential. Therefore, this deal in my perspective depends on what Americans offer Beijing and how Beijing takes this in response without your involvement in the scenario at all.

It does sound unethical that you don't get a nuclear deal similar to your neighbours but the Chinese haven't proposed a waiver either. The deal is about two reactors especially after the notorious revelation of your nuclear chief rumoured to have deal with the North Koreans (I am not sure or knowledgeable on this enough to argue so I am merely highlighting what the world in general knows, please don't launch yourself at me).

The deal still rests totally on what Washington can offer compensatory to Beijing. Please remember that the Chinese had been extremely warm to the North Koreans all these years whereas their decision faltered towards South Korea more simply because they saw better prospects in that judgement.

The only way Pakistan can counter this possibly is through offering something more than money in exchange for the reactors. Chinese have no interest in military bases and therefore your leaders might have to think of something that makes the Chinese consider your offer more beneficial as compared to what the Americans offer them.

There is no pressure in my opinion between United States and China; it is solely what the former can offer the latter to make it follow its wish.

Lets take a look at the cards on the table, shall we?

- American policy is to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011. So, no leverage here for Pakistan. Negative for Pakistan.
- China needs to continue its trade with America, or else all its debts will come to the fore. Negative for Pakistan.
- China needs Pakistan to potentially contain Uighur separatists. Positive for Pakistan.
- China wants to trade more with India. Negative for Pakistan.
- China potentially supports India for a permanent UNSC seat and is part of the annual Russia-India-China dialog. Negative for Pakistan.
- China potentially wants to check mate India and keep a power balance. Positive for Pakistan.
- China thinks that it has arrived on the world economic scene and supports relationships that will piss off the US. Positive for Pakistan.
- The US is slowly weaning away from an aggressive foreign policy and winding up its interests including military bases overseas. Positive for Pakistan.
- NSG nations were not all that happy with the India deal, to begin with. Positive for Pakistan.
- NSG nations dont want nations to repeatedly break the NSG rules. Negative for Pakistan.
- India has the capacity to award China a powerful economic incentive including possibly an FTA even to China. Negative for Pakistan.
- Israel could vehemently oppose Pakistan's nuclear power plant policy. Negative for Pakistan.
- Kashmir issue has become more peaceful. That means the world can no more say that Kashmir is a nuclear flash point. Positive for Pakistan.
- Pakistan has a democracy today (good or bad, I dont know) as perceived by the developed nations. Positive for Pakistan.
- China suggesting that they can grand father the transfer under older NSG rules. Positive for Pakistan.
- NSG's opposition to China's interpretation of the grandfathering rules and India's heavy lobbying to get members to wake up. Negative for Pakistan.
- India is not a member of NSG and can only influence members so much. Positive for Pakistan.
- pakistani citizens arrested all over the world, including recently in places such as zimbabwe and south africa, on terrorism related changes. Negative for Pakistan.
- Pakistan has precious few to offer China in return for this deal. Negative for Pakistan.

We'll see if the negatives outweigh the positives. China is not a stupid country and past moves have shown that they deal their cards well and are good at playing bluff. But many countries are good at calling their bluff as well. That's what the spy agencies are there for.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Lets take a look at the cards on the table, shall we?

- American policy is to withdraw from Afghanistan in July 2011. So, no leverage here for Pakistan. Negative for Pakistan.

U sure abt the date????

US needs Pakistans support to withdraw frm Afghanistan in a respectful manner?
We saw a news tht Karazai meet Sirajudin haqqani for a deal???

POSITIVE FOR PAKISTAN.

- China needs to continue its trade with America, or else all its debts will come to the fore. Negative for Pakistan.

Who so?how does trade between us and china effect Pakistan?

- China wants to trade more with India. Negative for Pakistan.

It already has india as its bigger trade partner still it supports Pakistan???

- The US is slowly weaning away from an aggressive foreign policy and winding up its interests including military bases overseas. Positive for Pakistan.

Not our problem we arent usas enemy nor its opponent...

- NSG nations dont want nations to repeatedly break the NSG rules. Negative for Pakistan.

NSG nations can they tolerate DOUBLE STANDARDS?

- India has the capacity to award China a powerful economic incentive including possibly an FTA even to China. Negative for Pakistan.

Economic partnership isnt everything... china trades with Taiwan and still is its opponent???

Not negative for Pakistan

- Israel could vehemently oppose Pakistan's nuclear power plant policy. Negative for Pakistan.

Israel itself being bashed coz of its secret Nuclear issues??

- NSG's opposition to China's interpretation of the grandfathering rules and India's heavy lobbying to get members to wake up. Negative for Pakistan.

Dont care...

- Pakistan has precious few to offer China in return for this deal. Negative for Pakistan.

Stategic location?untapped worlds largest mineral reserves?trade with central asia and middleast,Sea ports?Gwadar is an example.

We'll see if the negatives outweigh the positives. China is not a stupid country and past moves have shown that they deal their cards well and are good at playing bluff. But many countries are good at calling their bluff as well. That's what the spy agencies are there for.

And ours are one of the best.

 

[M8R]

Guys nothing to worry about.Contracts have been signed with Chinese firms and work will start soon.China did not take it to NSG because Pakistan would not require fuel from NSG.We have plenty of uranium deposits and can get the rest of it from China - China like has said before and in NSG Meeting to its peaceful.

 

[RollingStones]

U sure abt the date????

US needs Pakistans support to withdraw frm Afghanistan in a respectful manner?
We saw a news tht Karazai meet Sirajudin haqqani for a deal???

POSITIVE FOR PAKISTAN.




Who so?how does trade between us and china effect Pakistan?



It already has india as its bigger trade partner still it supports Pakistan???



Not our problem we arent usas enemy nor its opponent...



NSG nations can they tolerate DOUBLE STANDARDS?




Economic partnership isnt everything... china trades with Taiwan and still is its opponent???

Not negative for Pakistan




Israel itself being bashed coz of its secret Nuclear issues??



Dont care...



Stategic location?untapped worlds largest mineral reserves?trade with central asia and middleast,Sea ports?Gwadar is an example.




And ours are one of the best.

1. The US is out of Afghanistan in July 2011, according to the new general. End of story there for any sort of Pakistan leverage. I dont think the US needs Pakistan for an orderly withdrawal. That's why they are training the ANA in India.
2. Pakistan is NOT a strategic location and the US or China, I think, are not bothered about Pakistan's mineral reserve. Trade with central asia, middle east can all be accomplished completely bypassing Pakistan. Which country needs Pakistan to trade with Central Asia? Not sure here. Pakistan is certainly not the gateway to Central Asia. How do you reckon this?
3. Gwadar unfortunately, as well know, is a non-starter. The required money to build and commission this port is just not there.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Nuclear Suppliers Group's Shameful Silence​

Not one of 45 nations could muster the nerve to condemn China's sales to Pakistan.

By T.P. SREENIVASAN

Non-nuclear New Zealand was an unusual chairman to guide the 46 nuclear bigwigs at the contentious meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Groups this weekend in Christchurch. An army of nonproliferation enthusiasts descended on the event to press for nuclear-trade guidelines to be observed by all concerned. Yet China's blatant violation, in the form of two new nuclear reactors to Pakistan, was on everyone's mind, but on nobody's lips.

China didn't elaborate publicly on its plans to provide new reactors to Pakistan, having announced its intention to have a nuclear deal by proxy with Islamabad earlier this month. Two state-owned firms agreed to build two more reactors at the Chashma atomic complex in Punjab.

Beijing justified the deal on historical grounds, citing its grandfatherly obligations to Pakistan, and also on the logic of restoring nuclear balance in South Asia. The only assurance the Chinese gave was that its nuclear commerce with Pakistan would be in accordance with China's international obligations.

Meanwhile, the United States was nowhere to be found. "India imitates China, Pakistan imitates India. What can we do to stop their nuclear activities?" a senior White House official lamented to a group of nonproliferation experts earlier this month, as though he was speaking for a weak state, not a superpower. He added the U.S. did not want to displease China or Pakistan at this juncture. American priorities today are the economy and the war on terror; two more peaceful reactors will not make much of a difference to the world. And how could the U.S. object, having agreed to supply reactors to India?

Neither did India protest, even though Chinese nuclear sales to Pakistan are a fundamental nonproliferation issue of concern to Delhi and to the NSG, more broadly. In fact, the Indian government has hardly uttered a word in public since the deal was announced.

The NSG already has guidelines for nuclear trade by its members and should decide whether the Chinese move violates those rules or not. China obviously wants to present a fait accompli rather than invite the group to impose conditions on the supply of the reactors to Pakistan. Beijing argues that the twin reactor deal was agreed before Beijing formally joined the NSG, and thus, isn't subject to current NSG rules. Beijing also points to the exception made for India in its 2008 civil-nuclear deal with the U.S.

To draw a parallel between a specific exemption given to India and the unilateral action by China is to ignore the three years of agonizing negotiations based on India's record of responsible behavior and its pressing energy needs. India separated its military reactors from civilian stations, agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency-led safeguard inspections of the latter, applied for a waiver of NSG guidelines and gave various assurances to the international community.

Pakistan, which sold nuclear-weapons technology to clients in North Korea, Libya and Iran, can hardly be equated with India. Islamabad is compiling a nuclear arsenal far in excess of the minimum deterrent that the country is supposed to possess. Pakistan is also blocking negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty in Geneva precisely to gain time to accumulate more fissionable material. This is hardly an opportune time to signal acceptance of the peaceful nature of Pakistan's nuclear program.

China's own credibility as a disciplined member of the NSG has often been called into question. Even while China has been using Pakistan as a conduit for supply of nuclear technology, it has directly assisted Iran in developing missile technology and supplied missiles to Saudi Arabia. Its nuclear activities reveal a clear strategy to use their nuclear assets to secure economic and political concessions in South Asia and the Middle East.

Placing additional nuclear capability in the hands of Pakistan, even peaceful nuclear reactors, will fly in the face of NSG guidelines. China's silence is no indication of its willingness to change its behavior. In fact, if past experience is any guide, neither China nor Pakistan can be expected to further the cause of nonproliferation. If the NSG doesn't speak out now, its very credibility will be undermined. And what will happen then?

Mr. Sreenivasan is Director General of the Kerala International Centre in Trivandrum and a Member of the National Security Advisory Board in New Delhi.

T.P. Sreenivasan: The Nuclear Suppliers Group's Shameful Silence - WSJ.com

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The objective of posting the above article was to point out the lack of action taken by the NSG on the Sino-Pak Nuclear deal, I don't agree with the author that somehow China is the guilty party here. The guilty party are primarily the Western powers that broke/bent the NSG rules to serve their own economic and strategic interests by granting an exemption to India, and therefore opened the door for various other actors to argue their own 'exemptions', either overtly or covertly.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Chinese 'stonewalled' nuclear supply queries​

By DAVID WILLIAMS - The Press
Last updated 05:00 29/06/2010

Christchurch

China has stonewalled questions on a deal to build nuclear reactors in Pakistan, arms-control experts say.

Christchurch last week hosted the annual meeting of the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which was formed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear material and technology.

Arms-control and disarmament experts say the meeting's failure to take a strong position on two crucial issues means the group risks becoming irrelevant.

Sources at the meeting confirmed that questions were raised about the controversial Chinese deal, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, a pro-disarmament pressure group.

"The Chinese essentially stonewalled this ... because they argued it was consistent with earlier agreements," he said from Berlin.

An agreed statement issued after the meeting did not mention the Pakistan-China deal or resolve a six-year wrangle over guidelines to restrict the sale of enrichment and reprocessing technology.

Kimball said the meeting's "unsurprising and disappointing" outcome raised questions about the group's relevance and credibility.

"The NSG has been very important over the decades in preventing the spread of sensitive nuclear technology, but in recent years it has been crumbling from within because of decisions taken by major suppliers to ... ignore NSG guidelines, to make a profit on nuclear sales."

He named the "guilty parties" as Russia, China, the United States, Britain and France. "The NSG risks irrelevance if it does not stand up to the challenges it is faced with."

A spokesman for Christchurch's Disarmament and Security Centre, Robert Green, said the outcome "did not look very pretty". "They (the powerful nuclear states) will do what they want and they don't care too much for the rules," he said.

"They're [the NSG] continuing to keep the lid on what is an extremely dangerous industry."

Attempts to reach the Chinese embassy for comment last night failed. The Chinese deal is thought to involve the building of two additional nuclear reactors in Pakistan.

The NSG statement, described as "bland" by Kimball, made no mention of it. It said participating governments exchanged information on nuclear non-proliferation developments and focused on regions of concern. It called on nations to "exercise vigilance" and reaffirmed adherence to the group's guidelines.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesman David Courtney said New Zealand was "very pleased" with the outcome of the meeting.

Chinese 'stonewalled' nuclear supply queries | Stuff.co.nz

 

[RollingStones]

Chinese 'stonewalled' nuclear supply queries​

By DAVID WILLIAMS - The Press
Last updated 05:00 29/06/2010

Christchurch

China has stonewalled questions on a deal to build nuclear reactors in Pakistan, arms-control experts say.

Christchurch last week hosted the annual meeting of the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which was formed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear material and technology.

Arms-control and disarmament experts say the meeting's failure to take a strong position on two crucial issues means the group risks becoming irrelevant.

Sources at the meeting confirmed that questions were raised about the controversial Chinese deal, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, a pro-disarmament pressure group.

"The Chinese essentially stonewalled this ... because they argued it was consistent with earlier agreements," he said from Berlin.

An agreed statement issued after the meeting did not mention the Pakistan-China deal or resolve a six-year wrangle over guidelines to restrict the sale of enrichment and reprocessing technology.

Kimball said the meeting's "unsurprising and disappointing" outcome raised questions about the group's relevance and credibility.

"The NSG has been very important over the decades in preventing the spread of sensitive nuclear technology, but in recent years it has been crumbling from within because of decisions taken by major suppliers to ... ignore NSG guidelines, to make a profit on nuclear sales."

He named the "guilty parties" as Russia, China, the United States, Britain and France. "The NSG risks irrelevance if it does not stand up to the challenges it is faced with."

A spokesman for Christchurch's Disarmament and Security Centre, Robert Green, said the outcome "did not look very pretty". "They (the powerful nuclear states) will do what they want and they don't care too much for the rules," he said.

"They're [the NSG] continuing to keep the lid on what is an extremely dangerous industry."

Attempts to reach the Chinese embassy for comment last night failed. The Chinese deal is thought to involve the building of two additional nuclear reactors in Pakistan.

The NSG statement, described as "bland" by Kimball, made no mention of it. It said participating governments exchanged information on nuclear non-proliferation developments and focused on regions of concern. It called on nations to "exercise vigilance" and reaffirmed adherence to the group's guidelines.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade spokesman David Courtney said New Zealand was "very pleased" with the outcome of the meeting.

Chinese 'stonewalled' nuclear supply queries | Stuff.co.nz

Maybe the NSG is going the UN way. Maybe the NSG wont work.

 

[RescueRanger]

If pictures say a 1000 words:

Is it any different for Pakistan?

 

[sivadreams]

Nuke deal with Pak needs NSG nod US tells China Source: Times of India

WASHINGTON: The US has sought more information from China on its agreement to supply two nuclear reactors to Pakistan, saying the deal would need an agreement of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

"We as a first step are looking for more information from China as to what it is potentially proposing," State Department spokesman P J Crowley told reporters at his daily press briefing.

He was responding to a question on last week's meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in New Zealand, wherein China informed the group about its decision to supply two additional nuclear power plants to Pakistan.

"We did raise the issue during last week's Nuclear Suppliers Group. We continue to seek information from China regarding its future plans," Crowley said.

He said there was no unanimous consensus at the meeting of the NSG, which operates by consensus.

"We have a view that this initiative as it goes forward would need the agreement of the Nuclear Suppliers Group," Crowley said.

 

[Hafizzz]

well indian always get on fire when they hear that pakistan buys something than indian says that pakistani get jelous when theu buy something but see the proof today india finalized the deal for new SU 3o no pakistan got on fire

India ,one day, will explode because of all the hate and jealousy trapped inside her.

 

[sivadreams]

Chinese Reactors; NSG and US Duplicity

Thursday July 01, 2010 (1742 PST)

Facing a staggering crunch of energy shortage, the reported Pakistan China Deal for provision of two Reactors [Chasma3&4] for the Chashma Nuclear Power Plant is very reassuring. But will the deal go through has become a knotty issue; thanks to the duplicitous double standards of the USA and the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG). The matter will come under deliberation during the plenary session of the NSG being held in New Zealand under the chairmanship of Hungary during the third week of the current month. This is a moment of truth for 46 member nuclear trade regulatory body whose guidelines are voluntary and not legally binding. Following the NSG bending of rules and violation of its own charter by allowing nuclear trade with India, a non NPT signatory, how it will prevent fully safe guarded nuclear reactor’s sale to Pakistan remains a moot point.
Pakistan contracted China for construction of Chashma Nuclear Reactor [Chashma 1] in 1991, which was finished and began operating in 2000. In 2004, China joined the NSG and formalized its ongoing nuclear cooperation. A longstanding framework agreement with Pakistan committed China to provide a second reactor [Chashma2], more research reactors plus supply of all fuel in perpetuity for these units; it notified the NSG. The construction for the second reactor commenced in 2005 and is likely to finish in 2011. So far so good but it is the planned expansion of the Chashma Project by Pakistan by adding two more reactors with a power generation capacity of 650 MW [Chashma 3&4] that has raised the heckles in US and by extension in the NSG community. Pakistan had enlisted China in 2004 for the extension of the Chashma Project by addition of two reactors and being a commitment prior to China’s joining of the NSG cartel enjoys exemption from its guidelines. The Chinese position on the issue was articulated by a spokesman of its Foreign Ministry. “The cooperation is subject to safeguards and the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).It is in compliance with respective international obligations of the two countries,” said the spokesman.

US’ double standards in allowing the nuclear trade with India while the country stays outside the ambit of NPT and preventing a transparent IAEA covered Pakistani deal of a restricted nature with China has knocked the authenticity from under the US attempts to block the sale of the two Chinese reactors to Pakistan. Daryl G. Kimball , executive director of the Arms Control association , said the China – Pakistan deal “is some of the fallout of the India – US civil nuclear agreement” – which included the special exemption for nuclear trade. It is worth recollecting that even as the Indo US Deal was a Bush Administration initiative it was strongly supported by then Senators Barack Obama, Joseph R. Biden Jr and Hillary Rodham Clinton; all of whom are now pivots of the power structure in US.

US opposition to the sale of reactors to Pakistan and its pressure bearing tactics on China appear highly discriminatory. When the US made its own “NSG rule suspending deal with India” in 2008, it wouldn’t have been possible without a tacit acquiescence of the Chinese Government. As highlighted by Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; “Beijing could have blocked the NSG exemption for India but accommodated the pressure of the United States and it allies on this issue. Now, the bill is coming due as Islamabad demands equal treatment. It would be reasonable for China to expect reciprocity from the United States in the NSG, given that it was Washington that started changing the rules”.

There is a growing perception in Pakistan that it is fully entitled to a Nuclear Deal that would allow it to trade in nuclear technology on the lines of the Indo US Nuclear Deal made possible through back bending US endeavors. US diplomats beginning in 2005 held out to Pakistan a distant promise that it would be exempted from the NSG safeguards. Among heightened expectations The issue was raised at the first round of strategic dialog held in Washington on Mar 24-25 and would certainly continue to re-emerge in any Pak-US interaction even as the US response has remained non committal and evasive. US arguments that it held protracted dialog with India following the May detonation of nuclear device by India before reaching a nuclear understanding don’t hold to reason. India refused to commit to any of the bench marks demanded by the US interlocutors like signing the NPT and reaching an understanding on the FMCT, and even then was rewarded with the Indo US Deal that lifted all restrictions on nuclear trade and technology for India. In fact the Deal has helped India in speeding up its production of fissile material and capability to produce nuclear weapons. In this backdrop why US should object to the sale of IAEA covered nuclear reactors, for energy generation by Pakistan, remains an enigma to comprehend.