US objects to China-Pakistan nuclear deal

[Ras]

So basically you have no evidence at all, to support your claim that people who hate America are desperate to immigrate there?

And your other claim that these new immigrants continue to hate America, even while "enjoying the opportunities" they get from America?

No I have a lot of evidence...you can get it to.a simple google search will do. I suggest start with a pew poll done some months back.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

No I have a lot of evidence...

Where is it then?

What percentage of new immigrants to the USA... in your own words... "hate" America?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You don't know Clinton is lying...perhaps Gates just does not want the world to know what information they do have on Laden.Is that out of the world of probability?

If Clinton was not lying then she would have offered some evidence to back up her claims - that she has not done so, despite several months having passed since her first comments to that effect on her first visit to Pakistan, quite clearly suggests that she is indeed lying while Gates' comments are more in line with known facts.

The huge no of drone attacks on Pakistan soil puts paid to the theory that militants are attacking from Afghanistan into Pakistan and not the other way around. The officials can say anything to protect the Pakistani administration but actions on the ground suggest otherwise.

The huge number of US and NATO soldiers deployed in Afghanistan and carrying out COIN operations in Afghanistan puts paid to your theory that the insurgency is Pakistan based. If that was in any way the case then all those soldiers would be deployed along the Afghan-Pakistan border, and not all across Afghanistan engaged in local COIN operations.

Your post applies to Americans not foreigners....I would call hypocrites populations who hate America but stand in lines in front of our consulates begging to be let in and once in continue to hate our policies,our government,our way of life while continuing to enjoy the opportunities and life given by the country they hate so much. Now that is blatant hypocrisy if you want an example.

My post applies to both - in both cases they are people that recognize the benefits the domestic political system offers, while also in many cases resenting the foreign policy of the US. Your comments about 'hate our way of life, opportunities' is just a rant an ugly stereotyping along the lines of what most US conservatives like to blather about, and is self-evidently wrong, since immigrants generally immigrate precisely because of the 'way of life and opportunities' offered by a nation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There have been numerous surveys done on where the populations hate America and where they do not.No need to rehash it here.

Yes, and most of those surveys reflect animosity towards the US based on perceived US hostility, double standards and unethical and immoral foreign policies.

Take for example the Muslim world - the US's blind support for xenophobic and racist Israeli policies and the occupation of millions and continued usurpation of their land plays a large role - so to the fact that the US waged war against Iraq on the basis of lies.

In Pakistan specifically, along with the above, the perception that the US waged war against Afghanistan and the Taliban without cause, and continues to attempt to discriminate against, undermine and harm Pakistan and break it apart continues to play a large role in animosity towards the US.

None of the surveys suggest this 'hatred of American opportunities, way of life blah blah blah' nonsense that has become the standard line for neo-cons in the US.

 

[Renegade]

Where is it then?

What percentage of new immigrants to the USA... in your own words... "hate" America?

Dude. Ras is right here. You just have to look at the likes of Faisal Sahzad to understand what he is saying. And to add to that there is also the case of 5 American citizens of Pakistani origin travelling to Pak to get terror training, so that they could get back to the US and kill Americans.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Your comments about 'hate our way of life, opportunities' is just a rant and ugly stereotyping.

That's what I thought as well.

 

[toxic_pus]

Excellent

Apparently.

If there was a new consensus on the NSG guidelines in trading with NPT non-signatories, on the basis of 'exemptions', then where is is reflected in the NSG guidelines? INFCIRC/734 only points out what the NSG intended to do, after it had already violated its own guidelines on not allowing nuclear trade with NSG non-signatories.

Guidelines are what they are – guidelines. Guidelines are not law unto themselves. In any case, these guidelines are trade guidelines not administrative guidelines. The NSG has amended its own guidelines a number of times, although there isn’t any provision for amendments within those guidelines. Does that mean that those amendments were in violation of the previous guidelines?

NSG is independent, non-statutory body, formed through voluntary association of members, answerable to no one, except to each other. If tomorrow they feel like trashing all the guidelines and draw up entirely new guidelines they can do that. They can make their own guidelines at their own discretion. They can change those very guidelines at their own discretion. They can exempt their own guidelines at their own discretion (as they have done with India).

I don't think that the 'world' thinks that way. In fact were it not for the pressure from the US on NSG states and in fact the existence of the NSG many, though not all, nations would have no problems engaging in nuclear trade with Pakistan. Clinton's comments were really a circular argument to deflect away from the fact (in front of a Pakistani audience) that is is in fact the US that is primarily opposing Pakistan in the NSG, and to make the case for an NSG exemption (satisfy the NSG members to allow an exemption i.e. satisfy the international community), and hiding the fact that with the US deciding to 'vote no' on any such exemption, consensus would not be achieved and therefore there is no question of 'satisfying the international community'.

That’s your opinion. I haven’t seen any indication that many NSG states ‘would have no problems engaging in nuclear trade with Pakistan’, were it not for ‘the pressure from the US’.

What impediments? Unless the NSG officially decides to adopt a criteria based approach towards NPT non-signatories and outlines what those criteria and 'impediments' are, nothing can be resolved. Which is the point Pakistan has been making since the Indian exemption was being negotiated and which I have repeated here.

On issues of acting against proliferation networks, export controls, C&C and safeguards, Pakistan has already cooperated extensively with the West and IAEA and on the issue of safeguarding its nuclear assets has taken a lot of US assistance. So given all this work, one would like an 'official' NSG outline of criteria that would govern nuclear trade with NPT non-signatories, so Pakistan and other States know what else to do.

What impediments? Perception – that of an unpredictable, irresponsible and untrustworthy state.

NSG doesn’t require any ‘criteria based approach’ (although that is desirable) since, by the very nature of their association, they are entitled to conduct their business at their own discretion.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Where does it say in the NSG charter that every exception that will be made require a change to the charter. The change itself is that India has been given an exception.

The NSG very specifically states that there will be no trade with NPT non-signatories. Anything counter to that would automatically be a violation of the NSG charter. Given that the NSG exemption for India violate that very clear cut guideline, the onus is on providing evidence that the NSG guidelines were amended to cater to the very specific 'no trade with NPT non-signatories.

Creating an elaborate process around it makes sense if they see this granting of excpetion as a more regular phenomenon. May be they dont at this time. And just like UN is allowed to vote, so is NSG.. And its not an elected body that is responsible to all the nations of the world on its activities. Broadly its a group of Nuclear suppliers trying to prevent Nuclear proliferation.

If no process governing exemptions is created and the NSG guidelines not amended, then the Indian exemption is in violation of the NSG charter and guidelines.

Yes the NSG is allowed to vote just like the UNSC is, but the votes must be in accordance with the charter of both, and in the case of the NSG exemption the NSG charter and guidelines (AFAIK) were not amended and the vote was in violation of that charter and guidelines.

No matter how you spin it, Pakistan has a big skeleton in the (open) cupboard in the form of the AQ Khan case. Call it hypocracy or double standards, but at this point, the our 2 countries have very different standing on the record of nuclear proliferation. And it doesnt need a metrics driven process to realize why Pakistan has a tough time getting a similar exception.

A lot of NSG member states have skeletons in their closet when it comes to proliferation. Many entities in Western states and China were after all allegedly key suppliers in Khan's network, and allegedly responsible for making Pakistan a nuclear weapons State, so if anything the proliferation out of the West and China to Pakistan is far more serious than anything Khan did with Libya, Iran or North Korea.

So this argument of 'proliferation' by the West is inherently a hypocritical and discriminatory one given the NSG membership of States that have been the source of far greater proliferation than Pakistan.

Finally, as pointed out to Toxic, Pakistan has acted comprehensively to address issues related to the AQ Khan network, export controls, command and control of its nuclear assets and safeguards. So I fail to see how proliferation is an issue anymore, nor can events from years ago, events that have been addressed, be used to discriminate against and hold hostage a nation indefinitely.

Even if proliferation was a concern (its not, its just an excuse to discriminate), then addressing proliferation concerns could have been made part of the metrics that governed exemptions for States - but not even an attempt was made in that direction.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Guidelines are what they are – guidelines. Guidelines are not law unto themselves. In any case, these guidelines are trade guidelines not administrative guidelines. The NSG has amended its own guidelines a number of times, although there isn’t any provision for amendments within those guidelines. Does that mean that those amendments were in violation of the previous guidelines?

But is there a provision explicitly against amending those guidelines? If not, then amendment of guidelines through consensus is an inherently valid process. But was there an amendment made to the guidelines to govern exemptions (or even 'an' exemption) to such a central guideline as 'no trade with NPT non-signatories'?

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'.

NSG is independent, non-statutory body, formed through voluntary association of members, answerable to no one, except to each other. If tomorrow they feel like trashing all the guidelines and draw up entirely new guidelines they can do that. They can make their own guidelines at their own discretion. They can change those very guidelines at their own discretion. They can exempt their own guidelines at their own discretion (as they have done with India).

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.

That’s your opinion. I haven’t seen any indication that many NSG states ‘would have no problems engaging in nuclear trade with Pakistan’, were it not for ‘the pressure from the US’.

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.

What impediments? Perception – that of an unpredictable, irresponsible and untrustworthy state.

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

NSG doesn’t require any ‘criteria based approach’ (although that is desirable) since, by the very nature of their association, they are entitled to conduct their business at their own discretion.

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

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dude. Ras is right here. You just have to look at the likes of Faisal Sahzad to understand what he is saying. And to add to that there is also the case of 5 American citizens of Pakistani origin travelling to Pak to get terror training, so that they could get back to the US and kill Americans.

Ras is not right, and nor are you, since to use your example would be to take the example of a handful of individuals to generalize and stereotype against millions of immigrants.

And the 5 American citizens were born American citizens (AFAIK) not naturalized immigrants, so that example does not apply in any way to his argument, but rather reflects on failures in US society (in some cases) in not controlling extremism.

In fact those 5 Americans could be argued to be an example of the US 'exporting' terrorists/extremists to other nations.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Ras is not right, and nor are you, since to use your example would be to take the example of a handful of individuals to generalize and stereotype against millions of immigrants.

Exactly, it's just blatant stereotyping and generalisations.

I'm still waiting on survey data on recent immigrants to the USA, to show what percentage of them supposedly "hate" America.

I'm not going to stereotype based on where they come from, or on the actions of a few people. They are individuals, they have their own opinions.

 

[Renegade]

Ras is not right, and nor are you, since to use your example would be to take the example of a handful of individuals to generalize and stereotype against millions of immigrants.

For the few who actually end up comitting a crime there are hundreds more who have actually been nipped in the bud or could not carry out their desired activity due to limitations on their part, to access the material and knowhow to do so.

MI-5 in Britain had to go for a substanital increase in their survellance capability, both material and human to cope with the rise of Islamic radicalism in Britain (somehow Bagladeshis who are also Muslim are seldom involved in such activities and there are quiet a few of them in Britain). Needless to say nearly all the terrorists caught were either Pakistani or of Pkaistani origin. Gordon Brown went to the extent to say that nearly 2/3rd's of all the terror acts in Braitain originated in Pakistan. Scores of Pakistanis have been arrested in Britain for terror related activities, these numbers are matched by the Pakistnis in the US now.

Is this coincidence?

Even if you take a raito of total population to number of terrorits, Pakistanis top the charts from Braitain to the USA, no other ethnic group comes even close.

The situation is so bad in the US that it is normal for Pakistanis to pose as Indians to get jobs and other stuff.

Still coincidence? or am i plain wrong?

And the 5 American citizens were born American citizens (AFAIK) not naturalized immigrants, so that example does not apply in any way to his argument, but rather reflects on failures in US society (in some cases) in not controlling extremism.

Had this been the case with Pakistanis in just the US, your argument could have been considered as having some merit. But as we all know that throught Europe, specially in Britain and Netherlands, Pakistanis have failed to integrate with the mainstream society. So much so that you see the rise of cities like Bradford in England and the ghetto mentality elsewhere. They dont want to integrate, instead holding on to policies and practies as if they were back home.

Other ethnic communities have had a much better record in this regard, the opportunities are there, only that some people are unwilling to take them.

The failure of Pakistanis to integrate in the US (though the situation is better there than Europe) is not just an isolated example but the common trend with Pakistanis as a whole.

I

n fact those 5 Americans could be argued to be an example of the US 'exporting' terrorists/extremists to other nations.

Its like the pot calling the kettle black. I find it amusing that you expect people to buy such a naive argument.

The only things that the Americans seem to be exporting to Pakistin effectively at the moment are Drone Attacks and a good amount of Aid. Somehow the people of Pakistan are ungreatful for both.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Even if you take a raito of total population to number of terrorits, Pakistnis top the charts from Braitain to the USA, no other ethnic group comes even close.

Had this been the case with Pakistnis in just the US, your argument could have been considered as having some merity. But as we all know that throught Europe, specially in Britain and Netherlands, Pakistnis have failed to integrate with the mainstream society. So much so that you see the rise of cities like Bradford in England and the ghetto mentality elsewhere. They dont wnat to integrate, instead holding on to policies and practies as if they were back home.

Other ethnic communities have had a much better record in this regard, the opportunities are there only that, some people dont want to take them.

Judging people by their "ethnic background" is a VERY slippery slope.

This is starting to go beyond stereotyping, into something worse.

 

[Renegade]

Judging people by their "ethnic background" is a VERY slippery slope.

This is starting to go beyond stereotyping, into something worse.

No one passed a judgement here. Pointed out the inference of mere statistics.

By the way, you seem to have totally side stepped the main issue raised by my post!? Can you contridict any of the facts rised by me? That would contribute to the discussion, not side stepping the main issue.

 

[karan.1970]

The NSG very specifically states that there will be no trade with NPT non-signatories. Anything counter to that would automatically be a violation of the NSG charter. Given that the NSG exemption for India violate that very clear cut guideline, the onus is on providing evidence that the NSG guidelines were amended to cater to the very specific 'no trade with NPT non-signatories.

If no process governing exemptions is created and the NSG guidelines not amended, then the Indian exemption is in violation of the NSG charter and guidelines.

Yes the NSG is allowed to vote just like the UNSC is, but the votes must be in accordance with the charter of both, and in the case of the NSG exemption the NSG charter and guidelines (AFAIK) were not amended and the vote was in violation of that charter and guidelines.


A lot of NSG member states have skeletons in their closet when it comes to proliferation. Many entities in Western states and China were after all allegedly key suppliers in Khan's network, and allegedly responsible for making Pakistan a nuclear weapons State, so if anything the proliferation out of the West and China to Pakistan is far more serious than anything Khan did with Libya, Iran or North Korea.

So this argument of 'proliferation' by the West is inherently a hypocritical and discriminatory one given the NSG membership of States that have been the source of far greater proliferation than Pakistan.

Finally, as pointed out to Toxic, Pakistan has acted comprehensively to address issues related to the AQ Khan network, export controls, command and control of its nuclear assets and safeguards. So I fail to see how proliferation is an issue anymore, nor can events from years ago, events that have been addressed, be used to discriminate against and hold hostage a nation indefinitely.

Even if proliferation was a concern (its not, its just an excuse to discriminate), then addressing proliferation concerns could have been made part of the metrics that governed exemptions for States - but not even an attempt was made in that direction.

As I said.. No matter how you spin it, you can not lay the claim about the eligibility of India and Pakistan being same for getting a waiver and Pakistan not getting it due to discrimination.

To top it all Pakistan hasnt even approached NSG for a waiver and is already cribbing discrimination.

Also your comment about skeletons in West or China's closets, well some caught stealing can not point a finger at the victims past record of theft and ask the victim to let the present thief's crime slide because of that.

About violation of NSG charters, I dont think they care about Pakistan's opinion on that. Its a group of countries that work together to prevent nuclear proliferation while encouraging peaceful use of nuclear technology. And thats the purpose of the guidelines...

The NSG Guidelines aim to ensure that nuclear trade for peaceful purposes does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices which would not hinder international trade and cooperation in the nuclear field. The NSG Guidelines facilitate the development of trade in this area by providing the means whereby obligations to facilitate peaceful nuclear cooperation can be implemented in a manner consistent with international nuclear non-proliferation norms.

Keeping in mind the objective and not just the process (spirit and letter), they as a consensus believed that trade with India does not violate their purpose and bingo..


btw, is there a charter/document that says that NSG guidelines mandates only dealing with NPT signatories??