US objects to China-Pakistan nuclear deal

[Ras]

Looks like Adm Mullen thinks that Osama is in Pakistan too

Welcome to The Pakistani Newspaper

 

[toxic_pus]

But is there a provision explicitly against amending those guidelines? If not, then amendment of guidelines through consensus is an inherently valid process.

[…]

Amendment of guidelines, in the absence of any thing specifically prohibiting those amendments, is inherent. But exemption from a central tenet of the NSG (in the absence of any process for exemptions) is inherently a violation, and arbitrary exemption as in the case of India is discriminatory and hypocritical, whatever the nature of the group.

For a moment I thought you got my point, but then, it’s back to square one. NSG can amend its guidelines because of the nature of its constitution i.e. voluntary association that operates through consensus, and not because of absence of prohibition of amendments. Even if there was such a prohibition, nothing stops them from reaching a consensus to remove such prohibition.

The problem is that you can't quite grasp the difference between a body that operates under a statute and a body that operates on volition.

You are, however, entitled to call it ‘hypocritical’ and ‘discriminatory’, being on the wrong end of their discretion, but it will continue be not so.

I agree with you that they are not 'laws' or 'binding', but it has to be pointed out that 'guidelines were violated' (in the absence of amendments to those guidelines) in the case of the NSG exemption, and therefore the US nor anyone else no longer has reason to criticize or contest a nation engaging in nuclear trade with Pakistan, even if that trade is in 'violation of NSG guidelines' of 'no nuclear trade with NPT non-signatories'.

The question is not if the guidelines – they are trade guidelines after all – have any clause for such amendment or exemption; the question is not if any amendment is made in those guidelines for such waiver; the question is if NSG can make such exemptions or if they have followed the correct administrative procedure to grant such exemption. The answer, unfortunately for you and fortunately for us, is an emphatic yes, for reasons that have already been explained.

The ones who made those guidelines, are the same ones who chose to exempt those guidelines, following the same process of consensus. Under no circumstances and in no court of law, except for the ones loosing out, will it be considered as ‘violation’. Had US gone ahead and made the deal with India without such exemption, something which China might do, then, and only then would it have been violation of guideline. Well, actually even then it wouldn’t have been violation, since the guidelines are not binding. It would have been a violation of commitment though.

The French and Chinese are the obvious examples. Even you know that the French would pretty much sell to anyone (though given adequate IAEA safeguards). The Turks under the current government would likely also not have any issues.

Again, all of it is your opinion based on your understanding of international politics. There is nothing in the public domain that indicates that, except for China, any other country, including France and Trukey, refused to deal with Pakistan out of fear of US and not out of their sense of commitment to NSG.

Then the NSG should outline metrics to gauge movement on perceptions - its a nonsensical and unverifiable argument otherwise.

I do not know if there is any way to quantify perceptions, but there seems to be something that does deal with perceptions.

INFCIRC 254/Part 2, Para 4 requires that ‘in considering whether to authorize transfers, suppliers should exercise prudence in order to carry out the Basic Principle and should take relevant factors into account’ and requires, among other things, to factor in, if ‘the recipients have been engaged in clandestine or illegal procurement activities’ (sub-para 'f') and subsequently if ‘there is reason to believe that there is a risk of diversion to acts of nuclear terrorism’ (sub-para 'h')

On the contrary, inherent to the NSG charter of 'no trade with NSG non-signatories' is a 'criteria' governing trade with other nations.

You were effectively recommending criteria for discretion and my reply was addressed to that recommendation.

 

[Renegade]

Pleas provide the stats substantiating all of your claims, in terms of the fact that these are all Pakistanis that immigrated to other nations and not people born there, otherwise your comments are nothing but nonsense denigrating Pakistanis. And stats and evidence substantiating the rest of the blubber you expelled as well.

This is bodering on the ridiculus now. Anyone who watches the news will know what i am talking about. People of Pakistani origin of either British or American nationality compared to other people have been found to be indulging in terror activities more often than not.

Just opposition for the sake of opposition serves no purpose. Refusing to accept the truth by hiding behind technicalities and asking people to publish statistics has no merit. My inference here can be easily confirmed by watching the news, if you choose not to thats simply your problem.

My argument has complete merit, you just cannot see through your bias. I'll point it out one more time. The 5 individuals arrested in Pakistan were, AFAIK, American born and raised citizens, not Pakistanis. Two of them were not Pakistani origin. In addition, the 911 hijackers, Richard Reid, Major Hassan, Christmas bomber, the Somali arrests, Zazi etc. etc. all neither Pakistanis or American born citizens of non-Pakistani origin. So no, your rant is just that, distortion and obfuscation of the facts in an attempt to denigrate Pakistanis..

Ok i stand corrected, about the nationality of the two of the five. But for the few non-Pakistani names that you have provided a lot of Pakistani names can be provided. Plus also refer to the statement of Gordon Brown in my last post. A British prime minister making a statement like that is quiet extraordinary. Imagine the seriousness of the problem when usually countries prefer to downplay such issues lest it may effect relations.

They were American born citizens who got radicalized in the US, what would you call them other than an 'American export of terror' to other nations, since Indians love to use that phrase when cases like Faisal Shehzad occur?.

They got radicalised on the internet and came to Pakistan for terror training. For there are no radical madrassas in the US or lawless regions like FATA yet, so they had to make do with the net.

As for Fiasal Shehzad he did both in Pakistan itself.

The aid doesn't even come close to the economic losses borne by Pakistan as a result of a hasty and flawed US invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent insurgency sparked in Pakistan - what is there to be grateful about it that?.

Could you please explain in economic terms about the economic losses borne by Pakistan because of the US attack on the Taliban.

By the way, Musharraf does not stop gloating about the fact how all this aid helped Pakistan economically.

Instead of just ranting and distorting the facts to denigrate Pakistan, take a breath and do some objective analysis of events and read some more.

As trying to attempt to denigrate Pakistanis i am aftraid Pakistanis themselves have done a marvelous job at it, even if i tried i would simply fade in comparison.

But i am more than willing to read more, do provide some credible sources.

BTW, if some Pakistanis are indeed having to hide their identity in the US (I know of only one, but I am sure there are others) then that is a reflection of the fact that they expect to be discriminated against in the US, and that is a poor reflection on America, not on Pakistanis.

Yes, on this point i am in absolute agreement with you.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

By having the US sit against the deal the chances of a full NSG waiver is negligible. Pakistan will cement its ties with China but it is unlikely to go down well with many other countries. You can make the most effective argument to debunk everything under the sun but it is clear that India got the deal with France, Canada, US and Russia in its team. Not because of anything else.

If Pakistan cannot have a power packed team on its side, all Pakistan can do is ... Having A deal with China is not the start you would wish for under such circumstances.

A deal with China is precisely the start Pakistan would want, since the Chinese are offering long term financing, extensive technological cooperation and transfers, and a lower cost overall. Given Pakistan's financial issues currently, Pakistan would likely not be able to afford the more expensive (though more advanced) NPP's from France for example. Going with the Chinese allows us to expand our civilian nuclear program at a reasonable cost, and obtain technology transfers for indigenous research and development of various aspects of civilian NPP's, which can later be exploited to gain access to the NSG by virtue of the NSG wanting to regulate Pakistan's nuclear trade with other nations.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

True, but neither West not China is looking for buying/borrowing Nuclear technology. Same thing as my credit score / past borrowing record has no relevence if I never need to borrow any money. Also in this area, the NSG members belong to the Have group of nuclear know how. They dont need a certificate of acceptable behaviour to be a part of the NSG.

Actually the Chinese are looking to 'buy' technology, since the larger Chinese NPP's are not 100% indigenous. Their latest designs of 1.08GW are 80% indigenous, with Western and Japanese companies providing the remaining critical technology and components. Similarly, aside from the major Western nations such as US, Canada, France etc. others will require assistance from those with established civilian nuclear programs. Even the US and French firms bidding for Indian NPP contracts depend upon Japanese suppliers for certain critical technologies.

So in essence almost everyone in the NSG is dependent on 'buying/borrowing' nuclear technology from other nations, and therefore my point about various Western NSG members and China allegedly being past proliferators (to a greater extent than Pakistan) and yet being part of the NSG, as a hypocritical position taken by the NSG, remains a valid argument.

On metrics, its a futile arguement. Every discretion does not need to be backed by metrics that are made public. Its a lose organization of Nuclear suppliers that use a set of guidelines (not rules/laws/commandments) to guide their trade with other countries. By definition, these guidelines are not binding...

Yes, but without measurable metrics in NSG guidelines there is no way to establish whether Indian eligibility is greater than Pakistan's.

Can you point me to a charter that says NSG members are prohibited from trading with non NPT signatories under all circumstances?? And again.. you violate laws, not guidelines...Guidelines by nature are to guide not enforce...



My stress was not on PAST per se. Today, Pakistan is going to USA and asking for a nuclear deal. The West is telling Pakistan about its proliferation record and hence implying that Pakistan does not deserve a nuclear deal. Now understand that its Pakistan needing something from USA and not hte other way round. Highlighting USA's participation in the same crime does not make the activity all right. Unfortunately, USA does not need this deal from anyone and hence their record on proliferation does not come into picture. Pakistan does, and its record (which is not good at all) is spoiling the party..

Its like my earlier example of borrowing. Your logic of USA being involved in proliferation is parallel to a rejected loan applicant calling bank a hypocrite, because just like the rejected applicant, the bank also is in a bad financial position...Tell me, would that help the applicant with a bad score if the bank deciding on the loan itself has had financial trouble. Actually a bank with financial issues will be even more strict..

Also, if you read the purpose of guidelines clearly on the peaceful use, it qualifies it with a condition of avoiding proliferation and that is the biggest stumbling block for Pakistan. The confidence level of the the countries you are going to ask a waiver from is extremely low in the case of Pakistan. Like it or not, they are the ones to decide if Pakistan gets a formal approval to use this technology.

This goes back to the point I have already made, that if proliferation is a concern, then entities in Western nations and China were just as complicit in contributing to outward proliferation through the AQ Khan network. Since these nations are NSG members, then obviously the proliferation argument can only be used against Pakistan if there is evidence that Pakistan has not acted against the AQ Khan network and not strengthened its oversight, export controls and overall command and control. Since all available evidence indicates that Pakistan has cooperated extensively with the IAEA and the US on export controls, domestic controls and security, the proliferation argument is technically invalid now, just as it is for the proliferators that are currently NSG members.

 

[karan.1970]

^^ Thats an incremental improvement that you are refering to which does not have a make or break impact on either of these nations. At the end of the day, its Pakistan asking this group of nations to give it the deal it gave India. Its immaterial what this group did, since in this transaction its Pakistan that needs to prove its credentials and not the group. Had this been a trial, you could have moved to recuse the judge, but unfortuanately its not. And understand that the burden of proof in this is on Pakistan and not rest of the world. Its Pakistan that needs to prove that its worthy of a deal. And acting against AQ Khan network doesnt automatically absolves Pakistan of the past sins. And there are still theories (propogated by Pakistanis only) that AQK did what he did as per the GoP's directions... So your simply saying that Paksitan is now absolved of its past deeds on this front doesnt cut it..

About measurable metrics and establishment of India's credentials being better than Pakistan's.. Well its not for you to decide what the NSG needs to do to come to a decision. There are no metrics when a judge decides on a case or the UNSC members vote on an issue or for that matter, when you go to the ballot to cast your vote. Its a judgement call. Pakistan may crib all it wants about discrimination, but its a futile arguement and has no buyers...

 

[jeypore]

muse

I'm not quite sure what you are pointing to, perhaps it maybe a problem of imprecise language - if I understand you correctly, you may be pointing to refugee communities as talib (Afghan) camps, if this is what you are rfeferring to, then certainly from a particular point of view we can refer to these communities as "Talib camps", however, I would suggest that this is at best misleading and we should try to be more precise so that we are all on the same page when it comes to basics.

Maybe, I am misleading, but The term of "Talib Camps" orginated from the Afgan Refugees, during the Russian Invansion, but the sole purpose was to Trane, educate, and to defeat the invasion. So what I am saying is that those Talib camps where not closed after the war, but still exist and thrive, and the educationies have become more diverse.. Of not closing begs a question?

I have offered that you may want tostudy Guistozzi with regard to how Pakistani Talib and their Afghan cousins are similar and dissimilar - additionally, may I offer that you also examine how the Talib phenomenon fits into the notion of Pashtun nationalism.

I have not read Guistozzi, So I cannot put much emphases on this book or the author.

Regarding "Talib phenomenon fits into the notion of Pashtun nationalism",Maybe it does or not, but for me that is what they only know, from my perspetive. History has clearly shown that the Talib Phenomenon, with there idealogy, could not clearly create a funtional government or there state. Which you are proposing that would be possible (By Glancing at Guistozzi).

 

[Hyde]

Pakistan to renew bid for nuclear deal with US: Report​

NEW YORK, Oct 14 (APP): Pakistan is to renew it’s bid to seek a civilian nuclear deal similar to one the U.S. concluded with India at the top-level “strategic dialogue” between the two countries next week, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, citing Pakistani officials. But the newspaper said that the move “threatens to further strain relations that are already tense over Islamabad’s refusal to attack Taliban havens on its soil.” Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi is scheduled to hold the dialogue with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington on Oct 22.
“Islamabad views a civilian nuclear deal with the U.S. as a key compromise to show Pakistan is on a level with its rival India in the eyes of the U.S. Such a deal would assuage fears here that Washington has any intention of dismantling Pakistan’s nuclear programme,” the Journal said in a dispatch from Pakistan’s capital.
“The U.S. is unlikely to give in to the demands, Pakistan officials acknowledge, adding a further level of mistrust to a relationship already bedeviled by frustration in Washington over Pakistan’s failure to crack down on Taliban militants that attack U.S. troops over the border in Afghanistan”.
The Wall Street Journal said Washington was concerned about Pakistan’s previous history of proliferation—an obvious reference to A Q Khan network—and continued ramping up of its military nuclear arsenal, which it is developing as a deterrent to India, possibly with Chinese aid. The dispatch pointed out that US had turned down Pakistan’s requests for a civilian nuclear deal in the past.
The dispatch said, “The US views next week’s talks as key to getting Pakistan to move against militancy in return for billions of dollars in civilian and military aid.” Help with civilian nuclear power, a role China currently fulfills, could help improve ties, some analysts say.
It will be the third such meeting since March, underscoring the pivotal role relations with Pakistan plays in U.S. foreign policy.
A U.S. official said the issue wasn’t on the official agenda for the meeting but could easily be raised.