US objects to China-Pakistan nuclear deal

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Deciding not to trade with one country and trade with another does not require anyone to publish a set of metrics based on which they took that decision.

When the nations establish a set of guidelines governing trade, and specifically exclude nations meeting a particular criteria, and have no provision for exemptions for those excluded nations, then granting an exemption without any adjustment to the established guidelines is a violation of those guidelines, which in turn renders the entire initiative (of setting guidelines) irrelevant. Therefore the nations that entered into that agreement to follow certain guidelines can either

a. Not protest when those guidelines are violated by other members, since everyone violated them already.

b. Establish set criteria formalizing a system of exemptions based on the template of the original exemption, in order for the original exemption to not be a violation of guidelines.

On a bilateral level nations can restrict or pursue trade with whomever they wish based on their interests, nations then have the option to trade with others that might wish to do so. That argument however is not a good one to make at a multilateral level in case of an entity governing global trade in a particular product, since there are no 'alternate avenues' available to nations to trade in (except for resorting to black markets). A lack of uniform standards and equal rules for all States then creates an atmosphere under which States do in fact start ignoring other established standards and agreements.

There is an exception process requiring consensus they followed for India and every one agreed. Now if some nations in the same consensus process dont think Pakistan deserves that exceeption, you cant force them to justify their stand thru publishing a set of metrics..

The NSG guidelines do not state 'no trade with NPT non-signatories except by exemption'. They do not establish a process or metrics for such an exemption, nor was such introduced to provide cover for the Indian exemption. It was an arbitrary decision ramrodded through the NSG by the US, Russia and France in order to make billions off Indian nuclear business, in violation of the NSG guidelines.

Therefore either the NPT non-signatory condition no longer applies, or the NSG has to introduce criteria governing exemptions to validate its first exemption - so yes, for a body that controls global nuclear commerce, nations interested in that commerce have a legitimate position to demand clarification and transparency on the NSG's exemption process, and that includes establishing uniform metrics governing exemptions such as the one granted to India.

Now if Pakistan doesnt get an opportunity to ask for that exception, then yes, you can call it discriminatory.. But not getting that exception because some of the members dont think Pakistan deserves it, is not. Thats discretionary.

Since there are no established metrics and criteria for exemptions, and the NSG charter and guidelines continue to prevent nuclear commerce with NPT non-signatories, Pakistan is indeed prevented from asking for an exemption.

Can you point me to the part of the NSG guidelines that outline the process a nation like Pakistan is to follow to obtain an exemption?

 

[Ras]

The key words are in fact 'arbitrary exemption in violation of the NSG guidelines'.

There is no provision in the NSG for 'exemptions to NPT non-signatories', nor was any criteria introduced to govern such exemptions, and therefore the Indian exemption, consensus or not, is a violation of the NSG and against 'non-proliferation' efforts.

With such blatant double standards and disregard for agreed to guidelines, Iran is justified in pursuing nuclear weapons, as is Pakistan in re-activating black market networks to fulfill technological gaps denied her due to double standards.

And given the clout of the US globally, the need for consensus in the NSG, and the blatant double standards and hypocrisy on the part of the US, it is obvious that lobbying on the part of Pakistan and China will not work, even if everyone other than the US is convinced. But since the US led the way in violating the NSG guidelines in any case, why should any other nation adhere to guidelines and treaties?

Pointing out US hypocrisy, deceit and double standards is therefore essential to expose the US for the duplicitous State it is and to build a case for not adhering with NSG guidelines or for that matter other treaties or agreements governing proliferation.

If the US can waltz around, violate rules and do what it wishes, then other nations will attempt to do the same.

I do not know how to put it diplomatically so I will do so bluntly...other nations are not the US.Being the lone superpower has advantages.

You can talk about US hypocrisy all you want..it does not change the "way of the world".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

THe same works for every single vote in UNSC. Its a decision of 5 countries.. There are no metrics published to justify every vote and why the 5 members went a particular way

Incorrect analogy - the guidelines on how the UNSC functions are clearly established.

There are however no guidelines on how NPT non-signatories are to obtain an exemption, in fact the NSG charter and guidelines continue to specifically prohibit such trade.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I do not know how to put it diplomatically so I will do so bluntly...other nations are not the US.Being the lone superpower has advantages.

You can talk about US hypocrisy all you want..it does not change the "way of the world".

Yes, being the lone superpower allows the US to act as a 'Global Dictator' (to quote A-jad, who got it dead right this time) and a 'Global Bully' (and as I pointed out, Americans should stop whining about why so many people around the world don't like them, when Americans such as yourself freely admit what US policies essentially boil down to).

Now will mere 'talk' change things? No. But at the same time public perceptions, in many societies globally, are built on 'talk', and such 'talk' is therefore essential to expose the US, and in democratic societies build up opposition towards the US through elected representatives.

And such 'talk' is essential in pointing out why actions, condemned by the US in some instances, by States at the receiving end of the 'Global Dictator/bully', can be completely valid and necessary.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Yes, being the lone superpower allows the US to act as a 'Global Dictator' (to quote A-jad, who got it dead right this time) and a 'Global Bully' (and as I pointed out, Americans should stop whining about why so many people around the world don't like them, when Americans such as yourself freely admit what US policies essentially boil down to).

You are right.

Don't worry, this attitude will backfire on them.

Look how their global popularity ratings sunk like a brick, after launching two wars and making up lies about WMD.

 

[Renegade]

Not even close the the 'spin' put on the NSG exemption for India, in blatant violation of the NSG charter and guidelines, by the US and other proponents of the deal.

Its just as legal as an entity that has 'no nuclear cooperation with NPT non-signatories' as a central part of its charter, violating that charter and guidelines to arbitrarily hand out favors (nuclear cooperation waivers) to some entities without any process or criteria governing them.

Only you seem to see violation all around the Indo-US nuclear deal. But lets also remeber that the NSG gave a "Clear Exemption" to India and every NSG member voted in its favour. Countries like Canada, France, Britain, Russia and even Japan now have signed nuclear cooperation agreements with India. This clearly shows the broad acceptance India enjoys even as a non-signatory to the NPT.

Its ironical that NSG members dont see a violation and you keep shouting violation. Its akin to a hypothetical robbery victim insisting that he has not been robbed but his neighbour keeps insisting that he has been robbed.

Please show me where in the NSG charter criteria for nuclear cooperation with NSG non-NPT signatories is. If there is not any set criteria, and the argument against Chinese cooperation with Pakistan STILL is that it is a non-NPT signatory, then obviously the Indian exemption was a violation of the NSG charter and guidelines.

I can show you the "Clear Exemption" that the NSG granted to India. and not a single member objected, not even China. Now do you want to hold the Chinese in contempt of violating the NSG charter?

However, if the NSG chose to insert some 'criteria' that would govern such exemptions, that would apply to all NPT non-signatories, then and only then is the Indian exemption not a violation of the NSG charter and guidelines. .

The NSG exemption was India sepecific and is simply not applicable to other non-signatories of the NPT. Much that Pakistan would have liked that happen. Your proliferation record simply rules out any possibility at all of any such thing happening to Pakistan.

Show me where the NSG included criteria for such exemptions in its rules, under which India qualified.

This years budget already has several billion allocated towards CHASNUPP III, IV. In fact , there are also amounts allocated for KANUPP II. Chinese firms have already announced contracts, and Pakistan and China continue to take the same position.

I'd say the deal is in the process of being implemented at this point.

Budgets in Pakistan are more a statement of intent and not achievemnt. If this butdgetary allocation does not materalise, it would not be the frst time that it is happeneing in Pakistan. So just a statement in the Budget des not mean that it will be reality within this fiscal year itself.

 

[sparklingway]

I can show you the "Clear Exemption" that the NSG granted to India. and not a single member objected, not even China. Now do you want to hold the Chinese in contempt of violating the NSG charter?

Why would China want to stick out when the major force i.e. the US was not only okay but the main party behind the deal? Why would China risk being called the bully and inflating its tense relations with India?

The NSG exemption was India sepecific and is simply not applicable to other non-signatories of the NPT.

Exemptions for one country simply mean that exemptions can be made for other countries as well.

Much that Pakistan would have liked that happen. Your proliferation record simply rules out any possibility at all of any such thing happening to Pakistan.

Should I start with your troubles with security? That would be useless. However, Pakistan has never been accused of exporting nuclear fuel to any other country. The deal is a civilian nuclear and our FM has stated that all reactors built under Sino-Pak cooperation are open to IAEA inspection. Come, see and address your concerns to your heart's desire.

Budgets in Pakistan are more a statement of intent and not achievemnt. If this butdgetary allocation does not materalise, it would not be the frst time that it is happeneing in Pakistan. So just a statement in the Budget des not mean that it will be reality within this fiscal year itself.

Here are the figures of Expenditure from the PSDP 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.

Name of Project :- Chashma Nuclear Power Project (C3 &C4)
Revised Estimated Cost :- Rs 189918.290 million
Expenditure as of June 2009:- Rs 5171.497 million
Allocated Expenditure from FY 09-10:- Rs 4550.000 million
Expenditure as of June 2010:- Rs 12728.240 million

As of June 2010 expenditure should have been Rs 9721.497 million but actually is Rs. 3006.743 million above the originally allocated expenditure. It therefore means that we've actually allocated more for the project than we envisaged at the start of the year, suggesting an acceleration in the project timeline and that the project is moving forward.

Your point about budgetary allocation not materializing falls apart for this issue.

 

[notsuperstitious]

I understand Pakistan's frustration and the deal may go through after all.

However, had Pakistan acted more responsibly in case of the AQ Khan episode instead of whitewashing it, they would have a better moral stand today.

 

[CardSharp]

I do not know how to put it diplomatically so I will do so bluntly...other nations are not the US.Being the lone superpower has advantages.

You can talk about US hypocrisy all you want..it does not change the "way of the world".

Yeah because this policy has worked great so far and didn't result in universal resentment, international terrorism and two war that can only be described as calamitousness where the US did not achieve any of its strategic goals.

 

[Renegade]

Why would China want to stick out when the major force i.e. the US was not only okay but the main party behind the deal? Why would China risk being called the bully and inflating its tense relations with India?

Maybe China didn't want to stick out or maybe they didn't want to piss off the Americans or they were smart enough to realise the futility of opposing the deal and though why no ride the bandwagon instead.

Having legally voted for the deal China is a party to the agreement, it shows compliance and that is good enough. India got the deal and the Chineese vote played a major part in helping us get it.

Exemptions for one country simply mean that exemptions can be made for other countries as well.

Very true. But given Pakistans record i somehow dont see that happening. Aslo given the fact that the NSG exemption for India was a huge effort by the US, the Americans literally rammed it through the NSG using their clout. But now that they (the US) have decided to oppose it, i think it will be next to impossibel for Islamabad to get the deal through the NSG.

Should I start with your troubles with security? That would be useless. However, Pakistan has never been accused of exporting nuclear fuel to any other country. The deal is a civilian nuclear and our FM has stated that all reactors built under Sino-Pak cooperation are open to IAEA inspection. Come, see and address your concerns to your heart's desire.

To say that the security of Pakistans nuclear programme is simply my concern would be a gross understatement, globally everone worries about it. Some are vocal about it some prefer to prod the Pak Govt in private about it but concerned thay all are.

Even before the A.Q.Khan episode blew up in the face there were concerns voiced about the security of Pakistani nukes, and even the the Pak Govt had given assurances about their safety. Those assurances since seem to have fallen flat, how do you expect the globe to take your assurances at their face value now?

This is not to say that the security might have improved. Some visible steps seem to have been taken and the PA has since stopped it's proliferation activities, but the efficacy of these steps will only proven if they are successful. Till then it is anybody's guess.

Here are the figures of Expenditure from the PSDP 2009-2010 and 2010-2011.

Name of Project :- Chashma Nuclear Power Project (C3 &C4)
Revised Estimated Cost :- Rs 189918.290 million
Expenditure as of June 2009:- Rs 5171.497 million
Allocated Expenditure from FY 09-10:- Rs 4550.000 million
Expenditure as of June 2010:- Rs 12728.240 million

As of June 2010 expenditure should have been Rs 9721.497 million but actually is Rs. 3006.743 million above the originally allocated expenditure. It therefore means that we've actually allocated more for the project than we envisaged at the start of the year, suggesting an acceleration in the project timeline and that the project is moving forward.

Your point about budgetary allocation not materializing falls apart for this issue.

First good research. You seem to have gone to the trouble of quoting figures from the actual budget.

Secondly my point about budgetary allocations materalising meant in terms of visible progress on the ground. Like getting the reactors and kick starting the plant. The allocation would have materalised when this happens.

Till then its just wait and watch. Though i do remain doubtful on that front but your optimism is also not misplced. Only time will tell.

 

[KS]

Yes, being the lone superpower allows the US to act as a 'Global Dictator' (to quote A-jad, who got it dead right this time) and a 'Global Bully' (and as I pointed out, Americans should stop whining about why so many people around the world don't like them, when Americans such as yourself freely admit what US policies essentially boil down to).

With all due respect do u honestly think that the US gives a damn as to wether ppl in Pakistan or any other country like it or not.

They ve got the Pak Govt in their hands which will do anything at the American's request and thats wat they care.

Now will mere 'talk' change things? No. But at the same time public perceptions, in many societies globally, are built on 'talk', and such 'talk' is therefore essential to expose the US, and in democratic societies build up opposition towards the US through elected representatives.

And such 'talk' is essential in pointing out why actions, condemned by the US in some instances, by States at the receiving end of the 'Global Dictator/bully', can be completely valid and necessary.

Global Dictator,Bully,World Police..watever u call ultimately they(US) will have their way no matter wat.
And as far as the titles go they are as much worth to them as Zimbabwean dollars.

This is how the world functions..Pls learn to live with it.No use complaining

As some wise man said "Some people are more equal than the others"

 

[KS]

Exemptions for one country simply mean that exemptions can be made for other countries as well.

Which country gets the exemption....That only the US decides in todays world.

Mayb after some 30 years China can get to decide..Not now.

 

[somebozo]

NSG terms are voluntary and non-binding. Whitewestinghouse which is an american company collaborated with China to develop their 4th generation reactor design. The whole of NSG can nod NO NO like holycow but it wont have any affect on China neither violation of any treaty. In any case, Pakistan has the US-India nuke deal card to play.

Though, it is sad that all of our nuclear programme efforts have been wasted by our so called "nuclear hero". We have our fingerprint all over the nuclear profiltration ring of of the world. And many countries have outright geniune concerns. Most of our profiltrated material is now in hands of rougue regimes some of them not too good for future of Pakistan itself.

as of now, the only possibility of USA thawrting this deal is by offering a bigger and better reactor to Pakistan, training Pakistani scientest and guranteeing fuel for few decades.
If US growling become too much for China, they will simply work under cover. Rather than constructing reactor by themselves, they would traing and assist the Pakistani engineers to "do it yourself". You cannot restrict or copyright intellactual.

 

[karan.1970]

Incorrect analogy - the guidelines on how the UNSC functions are clearly established.

There are however no guidelines on how NPT non-signatories are to obtain an exemption, in fact the NSG charter and guidelines continue to specifically prohibit such trade.

I dont think so.. Both bodies work on consensus. Which means a single vote can veto a proposal. And you are comparing apples and oranges in your post above. UNSC also does not have a set of guidelines on how a country can get UN to do a particular deed. The guidelines are on the process of a country proposing something, the governing body debating and deliberating on the same and then based on the pre decided guidelines of acceptance/rejection (consensus/veto/majority) a decision gets taken..

The guidelines are on the process to be followed to ask for a decision.. Not an algorithm based on which the decision needs to be arrived at...

 

[Ras]

Yeah because this policy has worked great so far and didn't result in universal resentment, international terrorism and two war that can only be described as calamitousness where the US did not achieve any of its strategic goals.

Really universal resentment and international terrorism...is that why most countries in the world are comfortable with the US in the numero uno compared to any other nation say China?

The war was bought to the US on 9/11..foolish to think that there would be no consequences.