US objects to China-Pakistan nuclear deal

[Ras]

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.

Everyone acts the same way..is it not hypocrisy that Pakistan refuses to crack down on parts of the Taliban network who could be useful to them but acts on others?..affairs of the world are mainly run on "interests" not on morality. It has never been run on morality not since human beings started thinking on their own. I am amazed that you seem to single out the US on this.

Perhaps Pakistan would get the exemption if they do what is supposed to be done and destroy ALL Taliban...not just the "bad" ones? That would be in American interests.

As far as hating America is concerned... tomorrow if we open the doors half the population of all these countries who hate us so much will fly,jump or burrow their way in here.So much for hate..and maybe another example of hypocrisy?

 

[KS]

Everyone acts the same way..is it not hypocrisy that Pakistan refuses to crack down on parts of the Taliban network who could be useful to them but acts on others?..affairs of the world are mainly run on "interests" not on morality. It has never been run on morality not since human beings started thinking on their own. I am amazed that you seem to single out the US on this.

Perhaps Pakistan would get the exemption if they do what is supposed to be done and destroy ALL Taliban...not just the "bad" ones? That would be in American interests.

Nail on the forehead....especially the bolded parts

 

[toxic_pus]

NSG is formed by voluntary association and operates on consensus rule. It has a couple of guidelines meant to 'introduce a degree of order and predictability among the suppliers and harmonise standards and interpretations of suppliers' undertakings'. It is not binding beyond what a voluntary commitment is considered to be binding. If any member wishes to engage in any nuclear trade, not sanctioned by the guidelines it can do so, unilaterally or through a consensus.

If it is done unilaterally, the member will have to decide if it is politically and economically viable to go solo. Earlier, in 2001 (IIRC) Russia had supplied India nuclear fuel even when 32 of 34 NSG members had voted against such supply.

So China can still go ahead and do what it intends to do, giving US and NSG the middle finger. All this hoo-has about 'violation', 'duplicity', 'double standard' etc are just whines and will vanish once Chin-Pak nuclear deal goes through.

And it will go through, if China decides that all this trouble is worth it.

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

True. But then you have make your own case. No one is going to hold the candle for you.

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.

Security is not the same thing as proliferation. There isn't a country with nuclear plants that hasn't had security breaches in one form or the other.

In any case, it is not us, the Indians, that you have to convince. It is the Big Brother that you have to convince. To get a glimpse of what Big Brother thinks, here is Hillary Clinton's response to a query. (Town Hall, July 19, 2010)

QUESTION: Madam Secretary of State, welcome to Pakistan once again and I am meeting you for the second time. My name is Sameer Cader and I’m a business man from Islamabad. My question to you is that you have announced hydropower projects amongst others for Pakistan, which are commendable and laudable, but nothing on the civil nuclear power plants. As we expand our nuclear ties with China, you have reservations to have these deals closely inspected and monitored.

There seems to be a mistrust in your mind about an energy-hungry country like ours. How can we remove these mistrusts to benefit from your civil nuclear technology accessible to India and not to ours? (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, we recognize the desperate need that Pakistan has for more energy. And we support a comprehensive approach to meeting those energy needs. With regard to civil nuclear power, there is a process that everyone has to go through to obtain the support of the international community, the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Everybody, including India, had to go and get permission to go forward. And our view is that Pakistan does as well. There was a recent meeting in New Zealand where a number of questions were asked of both the Chinese and the Pakistani officials who were there and people are looking for those answers.

Now, I just want to be very candid with you, because that’s the nature of our relationship, and I want to be sure that we are openly communicating. The request by the Pakistani Government that we explore civil nuclear power was received and we are beginning the kind of intensive discussions that are necessary that we carried on with India over many years. And there are certain issues that will have to be addressed. They cannot be overlooked or put under the carpet. They have to be addressed. Export controls, and just very frankly, the problem with Mr. A.Q. Khan raises red flags for people around the world, not just in the United States, because we can trace the export of nuclear information and materiel from Pakistan through all kinds of channels to many different countries. That is an issue. So anyone who is dealing with Pakistan as we are, with the hope of reaching an agreement that could support civil nuclear power, has to answer these questions.

Pakistan right now is the only country standing in the way of the Conference on Disarmament of the World pursuing something called the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty – even to get into the negotiations. And it’s an international body that acts by consensus, which means everyone has to agree. Pakistan’s the only country not agreeing. So people say, “Why? Why would Pakistan be the only country not agreeing?” So I just want you to understand that we are fulfilling our commitment to pursue this and we are doing it with great seriousness. We’ve already teed up our team of experts to meet with their Pakistani counterparts.

But it is not a one-way street, as most of life is not. And therefore, there has to be some awareness on the part of not only the Pakistani Government, but the Pakistani people that certain questions that people have in their minds – not just Americans, but others as well, and the IAEA, which would have to be satisfied, must be answered. And now, we are going to do everything we can to try to facilitate those answers, but ultimately, the decision lies with the government and people of Pakistan.

 

[jbond197]

Everyone acts the same way..is it not hypocrisy that Pakistan refuses to crack down on parts of the Taliban network who could be useful to them but acts on others?..affairs of the world are mainly run on "interests" not on morality. It has never been run on morality not since human beings started thinking on their own. I am amazed that you seem to single out the US on this.

Perhaps Pakistan would get the exemption if they do what is supposed to be done and destroy ALL Taliban...not just the "bad" ones? That would be in American interests.

As far as hating America is concerned... tomorrow if we open the doors half the population of all these countries who hate us so much will fly,jump or burrow their way in here.So much for hate..and maybe another example of hypocrisy?

Very good point and I believe though America might not be willing to oppose the deal but they will try to milk it. US supported Indo-Us nuke deal as India voted in favor of sanctions on Iran as well as American companies are going to bag good share of business so those were American interest in our case and the reason why we got support.

For Pakistan to get the deal, honestly I think they will need to bow down to some of US interests viz a viz Afghanistan. That will be a win win situation for all.

India should not be bothered much about China-Pak deal as Pak already have enough nukes for us addition of few more wouldn't have much of an impact. Rather with more reactors at the complex we will have good target in case Pakistan tries Nuke option anytime.

 

[CardSharp]

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.

Try again please

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

Rubbish - conspiracy theories without any substantiation. The GoP will accede to US demands on the WoT to a certain extent in order to get US support for lending from multilateral institutions and US aid, but to argue that 'US has GoP in its hands', especially on an issue such as the civilian nuclear program, is ludicrous.

Remember that the US (and China - officially at least) have not been able to budge Pakistan from its position to not let talks on the FMCT advance, despite all sorts of pressure. Clinton even mentioned this in one of her speeches in Pakistan. Had the 'US got the GoP in its hands' this would have been resolved to the liking of the US long ago.

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"

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'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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...

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.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Everyone acts the same way..is it not hypocrisy that Pakistan refuses to crack down on parts of the Taliban network who could be useful to them but acts on others?..affairs of the world are mainly run on "interests" not on morality. It has never been run on morality not since human beings started thinking on their own. I am amazed that you seem to single out the US on this.

Pakistan has deployed 100,000 troops in FATA and continues to fight from agency to agency as it attempts to put down the TTP and initiate reconstruction. The Taliban in the mean time continue to retain some capacity to continue to carry out terrorist attacks in Pakistan. The PA has repeatedly pointed out that it does not have the resources or manpower to expand simultaneously into NW and open yet more fronts. I have yet to see any one from the West provide a credible argument debunking the Pakistani one, in fact Sec. Gates, McChrystal (before he got canned), Petraeus, and Mullen have all issued statements indicating that the PA has valid constraints on that count, though they would still like to see NW attacked sooner than later.

Pakistan is therefore not questioning the necessity of attacking NW, but pointing out its constraints in doing so any time soon, given its other fronts. Pakistan's position therefore does not in any way compare to the blatant US hypocrisy and double standards in arbitrarily ramrodding an exemption through the NSG to favor one nation from whom it stands to make billions in nuclear and weapons trade, and then provide flimsy excuses to deny the same to other nations.

Perhaps Pakistan would get the exemption if they do what is supposed to be done and destroy ALL Taliban...not just the "bad" ones? That would be in American interests.

When you can destroy all the Taliban in Afghanistan let us know how to do it on our side. Till then, Pakistan has shown a far better ability to control the Taliban on the Pakistani side, with far fewer economic and military resources, than NATO has in Afghanistan.

As far as hating America is concerned... tomorrow if we open the doors half the population of all these countries who hate us so much will fly,jump or burrow their way in here.So much for hate..and maybe another example of hypocrisy?

Don't conflate the hate for American foreign policy and its morally and ethically bankrupt conduct on the foreign stage with a hate for all things American in general.

There are many Americans who dislike US conduct on the global stage, oppose its wars, oppose its support for insurgent and terrorist groups (recall the decades in Latin America), oppose its hypocritical and morally bankrupt foreign policies, yet they continue to take advantage of the domestic US system that offers enormous benefits, and continue to be vocal in arguing against every thing they oppose, as responsible citizens.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

NSG is formed by voluntary association and operates on consensus rule. It has a couple of guidelines meant to 'introduce a degree of order and predictability among the suppliers and harmonise standards and interpretations of suppliers' undertakings'. It is not binding beyond what a voluntary commitment is considered to be binding. If any member wishes to engage in any nuclear trade, not sanctioned by the guidelines it can do so, unilaterally or through a consensus.

If it is done unilaterally, the member will have to decide if it is politically and economically viable to go solo. Earlier, in 2001 (IIRC) Russia had supplied India nuclear fuel even when 32 of 34 NSG members had voted against such supply.

That of course is not the position the US is taking publicly - while not making the case explicitly that the NSG guidelines and binding, the case is being made through its coterie of 'think tanks and analysts' that a Chinese move to supply reactors to Pakistan could signify the 'end of the NSG'. A lot of noise is being made about China abiding by its 'NSG obligations', without reference to the fact that those obligations are non-binding.

So China can still go ahead and do what it intends to do, giving US and NSG the middle finger. All this hoo-has about 'violation', 'duplicity', 'double standard' etc are just whines and will vanish once Chin-Pak nuclear deal goes through.

Violations, duplicity and doubles standards they are, and the 'hoo-has' will not vanish since a Chinese sale to Pakistan does not address the underlying issue of the US and other nations attempting to control international nuclear trade through the NSG, and arbitrarily selecting nations to favor, while openly discriminating against others.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

For Pakistan to get the deal, honestly I think they will need to bow down to some of US interests viz a viz Afghanistan. That will be a win win situation for all.

Given Hillary's comments, the US is likely to tie cooperation on the nuclear front to progress on the FMCT, and not Afghanistan.

India should not be bothered much about China-Pak deal as Pak already have enough nukes for us addition of few more wouldn't have much of an impact. Rather with more reactors at the complex we will have good target in case Pakistan tries Nuke option anytime.

1. I believe there is an agreement between India and Pakistan that civilian nuclear infrastructure will not be attacked.

2. The proposed reactors are Light Water reactors, so they will not be producing Plutonium as a by-product to be reprocessed into fuel for nuclear weapons. Light Water NPP's use low enriched Uranium, which is a process separate from the reactor itself, and which Pakistan already has.

Therefore these proposed reactors do not add to Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability.

 

[oceanx]

...
Pakistan right now is the only country standing in the way of the Conference on Disarmament of the World pursuing something called the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty – even to get into the negotiations. And it’s an international body that acts by consensus, which means everyone has to agree. Pakistan’s the only country not agreeing. So people say, “Why? Why would Pakistan be the only country not agreeing?” So I just want you to understand that we are fulfilling our commitment to pursue this and we are doing it with great seriousness. We’ve already teed up our team of experts to meet with their Pakistani counterparts.
...

So that's what it's all about. Amrika knows better than any that Pakistan has a dire energy need. They are just upping the ante to extract a certain "commitment" ...

So it looks to me that Madame Clinton is all but making it explicit that "if you sign the 'fissile material cut-off agreement', then we will do business ..."

So this "refusenik" posturing is nothing but poker. It's far from the "final word".

 

[Ras]

Pakistan has deployed 100,000 troops in FATA and continues to fight from agency to agency as it attempts to put down the TTP and initiate reconstruction. The Taliban in the mean time continue to retain some capacity to continue to carry out terrorist attacks in Pakistan. The PA has repeatedly pointed out that it does not have the resources or manpower to expand simultaneously into NW and open yet more fronts. I have yet to see any one from the West provide a credible argument debunking the Pakistani one, in fact Sec. Gates, McChrystal (before he got canned), Petraeus, and Mullen have all issued statements indicating that the PA has valid constraints on that count, though they would still like to see NW attacked sooner than later.

Pakistan is therefore not questioning the necessity of attacking NW, but pointing out its constraints in doing so any time soon, given its other fronts. Pakistan's position therefore does not in any way compare to the blatant US hypocrisy and double standards in arbitrarily ramrodding an exemption through the NSG to favor one nation from whom it stands to make billions in nuclear and weapons trade, and then provide flimsy excuses to deny the same to other nations.

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.

When you can destroy all the Taliban in Afghanistan let us know how to do it on our side. Till then, Pakistan has shown a far better ability to control the Taliban on the Pakistani side, with far fewer economic and military resources, than NATO has in Afghanistan.

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.

Don't conflate the hate for American foreign policy and its morally and ethically bankrupt conduct on the foreign stage with a hate for all things American in general.

There are many Americans who dislike US conduct on the global stage, oppose its wars, oppose its support for insurgent and terrorist groups (recall the decades in Latin America), oppose its hypocritical and morally bankrupt foreign policies, yet they continue to take advantage of the domestic US system that offers enormous benefits, and continue to be vocal in arguing against every thing they oppose, as responsible citizens.

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.

 

[Jackdaws]

It is a fact that the USA is the sole global power. But you look at the rest of the former global powers - the Soviets, the British, the Romans etc. and the Americans come across as the most likeable and fairest of the lot. I would rather have a world with no superpower - but if it had to be just one - I would much rather have the Americans incharge than anyone else.

 

[muse]

In your view PA does not have the capability to expand operations...a lot of people here think it is a cop out

Perhaps the US will lead by example here, or will reasonable and well intentioned persons such as the author quoted above, be left to conclude that the US has opted to "cop out" so to speak?

NATO can never win in Afghanistan unless the bases in Pakistan are destroyed.

That's rather emphatic -once again it seem NATO starts things it cannot seem to finish and prefers to pass responsibility upon others for it's failures - some would argue that's rather unfair to suggest that NATO is not living up to it's responsibility, such individuasls are not aware of facts on the ground --

NATO cannot prevail in Afghanistan so long as it's majority ethnic group is not persuaded that NATO is not biased against them and their interests - instead of pointing fingers at others for it's failure NATO must resolve to tackle this question squarely and within this question is the role of the GIRoA -- fact of the matter is that NATO is out of it's depth in Afghanistan and throwing money at the problem is not a solution. There is a deep suspicion and rivalry in Afghanistan, among rival ethnic groups, about what this new Afghanistan ought to be - The Pashtun generally feel threatened that their traditional space and privelages within Afghanistan has changed, other ethnic groups who also sacrified in the Jihad against the soviet want a different political, social and economic compact, all these should be open to discussion and negotiation, instead NATO has simply chosen victors and victims, not realizing that it fits into these categories as well.

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?? What is the alterbnative to the opium economy? whay has the US and NATO not acted in the ten years to effect a change to that economy?? More than likely some Pakistani conspiracy, no doubt. But aren't the Afghan and Pakistani Talib the same movement? yes and no - see Guistozzi for exposition

Blame Pakistan? sure, it's emotionally satisfying, but serious observers realize we are in a period of diminishing returns with regard to that proposition. Interesting and influential observers and analyst now talk of the "Turkic" roots of the "Afghan nation", one wonders if the Pashtun hear of this talk and reflect on their "turkic" origins or consider that Afghanistan is more the label of a landmass than anything else - a proposition that should cause considerable discomfort in Islamabad, no doubt.

 

[toxic_pus]

That of course is not the position the US is taking publicly - while not making the case explicitly that the NSG guidelines and binding, the case is being made through its coterie of 'think tanks and analysts' that a Chinese move to supply reactors to Pakistan could signify the 'end of the NSG'. A lot of noise is being made about China abiding by its 'NSG obligations', without reference to the fact that those obligations are non-binding.

US public position is irrelevant. It means diddly squat at the NSG meetings.

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.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/us-to-oppose-chinese-reactor-sale-to-pakistan/

On the other hand, China selling nuclear reactors to Pakistan, which the West considers to be a known proliferator, would certainly mean 'end of the NSG'. Metaphorically, of course. Not physically - not unless the members decide to dissolve the group, which is highly unlikely.

Violations, duplicity and doubles standards they are, and the 'hoo-has' will not vanish since a Chinese sale to Pakistan does not address the underlying issue of the US and other nations attempting to control international nuclear trade through the NSG, and arbitrarily selecting nations to favor, while openly discriminating against others.

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).


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.

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.