US-Pak negotiations on nuclear cooperation?

[Nahraf]

nuclear blackmail?? when did that happen???

any reliable link to substantiate your words???/

www rediff com/news/1998/may/23bomb9.htm (Put periods and http to link)


Sharief accuses India of nuclear blackmail

Sharief accuses India of nuclear blackmail
Accusing India of nuclear blackmail and saying that Pakistan will not be deterred from nuclear testing by threats of sanctions, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharief warned the West today that its feeble response has emboldened New Delhi to greater belligerence.

However, Sharief, in his first press conference since India's nuclear tests, gave no indication of whether Pakistan would test a nuclear device of its own.

Sharief railed against the complacency of the industrialised nations, in particular Russia and France, who refused to impose sanctions against India.

Pakistan's warnings that India was moving toward nuclear development was ignored by the industrialised world and Sharief said he feared the West was ignoring the latest signs of a possible confrontation on the Asian subcontinent.

''Overt Indian aggression has upset the balance of power in the region and emboldened India to make a naked assertion of hostile intentions toward Pakistan,'' Sharief said. ''Pakistan has to contend with Indian threats which may materialise any moment.''

But so far Pakistan has neither seen nor heard anything from Western leaders to convince it that its security will be safeguarded. US President Bill Clinton has telephoned Sharief three times since India conducted five nuclear tests last week.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair also telephoned Sharief urging restraint.

There have been threats of sanctions should Pakistan follow India's lead, but Sharief said Pakistan was not worried.

''Threats of sanctions do not rattle us, we have learned to live with these punitive measures,'' said Sharief. Pakistan has been living with sanctions by Washington since 1990 when the US cut off all military and humanitarian aid to this mostly Muslim nation, because it had developed a nuclear weapon.

Pakistan had hoped for a strong reaction from the industrialised world in the form of security guarantees against an aggressive and nuclear-capable India, he said.

But so far, they haven't received any guarantees and the reason why, he said, ''is a question I need to know the answer to.''

''The balance of power in the region has been violently tilted... Our security cannot be ignored,'' he said.

In New Delhi, the Indian government today downplayed Sharief's aggressive stand against New Delhi on the nuclear issue, saying that India "is not in the habit of making misadventures".

Talking to newsmen, Pramod Mahajan, the prime minister's political advisor, said India is a peace loving country and no one should be afraid of it. ''We want the best of relations with our neighbours, particularly Pakistan and China."

Reacting to Sharief's speech, Mahajan said it was baseless. "We have time and again stated our intentions of forging friendly ties with our neighbours," he added.

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has stated during his visit to Pokhran -- the site of the nuclear tests -- that his government will favourably respond to Pakistan's initiative for a dialogue.

UNI

 

[Hyde]

US open to discuss Pakistan's request for nuclear energy ​

WASHINGTON (March 24 2010): Pakistan has submitted a wish list to Washington ahead of high-level talks this week, asking for pilotless drones and helicopters as well as economic and other aid, said US and Pakistani officials on Tuesday. The 56-page document, set to be discussed in talks in Washington on Wednesday and Thursday, covers a range of demands including a request for more help on water and energy as Pakistan struggles with daily power cuts across the country.

-- 56-page document submitted

-- Drones, military sales, trade incentives on the list

-- India's growing role in Afghanistan likely to figure in talks

Speaking after talks with US lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said his country's civilian government and the military had a "very clear plan" for what needed to be done. "We articulated that collectively, you know, what the Pakistani priorities are," said Qureshi, who met Senator John Kerry, one of the authors of landmark legislation last year for a five-year, $7.5 billion aid package for Pakistan.

The Pentagon played down the chance of any big announcement of fresh aid at the end of the talks this week, saying the dialogue focused on the bolstering long-term bilateral ties. "I would not look to this, at the end of it, for there to be some great announcement about any hard items that are being produced as a result of the conversations," Geoff Morrell, Pentagon press secretary, told reporters.

"This is a dialogue designed to produce a better long-term strategic relationship between our two countries. This is not simply about asking and receiving items." US officials said the Pentagon was reviewing the 56-page document outlining Islamabad's needs, which include items long publicly sought by Pakistan.

INDIA Pakistan is also interested in a civilian nuclear arrangement with Washington, much like India has, a request that has consistently been refused because of a fear of angering New Delhi, an arch-rival of Islamabad. A US official also pointed out that discussions on a nuclear deal would also require consensus approval from the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) as well as US congressional approval, which had been a lengthy process with the Indians.

Another area Pakistan wants to cover in the talks this week is India's growing role in Afghanistan. Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, said Islamabad wanted to be certain that its own security concerns were addressed in the region. A US defence official said the comprehensive document was seen as a concrete sign of progress in bridging once gaping mistrust between Washington and Pakistan, a key ally in the US fight to topple al Qaeda and to stabilise neighbouring Afghanistan.

It was also an indication that Islamabad, whose delegation this week includes Army General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, was taking this week's talks in Washington seriously. Washington has ramped up its military aid for Pakistan, and the Pentagon announced in January plans to supply 12 unarmed "Shadow" drones to boost Pakistan's surveillance operations.

The latest request is believed to repeat Pakistani pleas for "shoot-and-kill" drones being used by the United States to target militants, closely-held technology that Washington is reluctant to share. Earlier this year, Washington also approved the delivery of 18 F-16 fighter jets and a thousand laser-guided bomb kits, a US defence official said. Qureshi and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton jointly chair a day of meetings on Wednesday which will include security issues, water, electricity, communications strategy, agriculture and other economic priorities.

Qureshi said the goal was to have a "partnership" with the United States. "The dialogue that I am going to lead tomorrow is very important to bring about a qualitative difference in our relationship." US and Pakistani officials said there would likely be greater details given of security help for Pakistan, with timetables on when funds and equipment would be delivered, as well as specifics on water, agriculture and energy projects.

 

[HAIDER]

US may offer India-like nuke deal to Pak


WASHINGTON: Amid reports of massive 16-20 hour power outages across Pakistan causing public unrest, the Barack Obama administration has indicated it is open to Islamabad's plea for a civilian nuclear deal akin to the US-India agreement, notwithstanding continued disquiet about Pakistan's bonafides on the nuclear front.

The first indication of a possible policy shift by US, which had till now rejected Pakistan's entreaties for a nuclear deal, came in an interview the US ambassador to Islamabad, Anne Patterson, gave to a Pakistani-American journal in which she said the two sides were going to have "working level talks" on the subject during a strategic dialogue on March 24.

Patterson confirmed the claim of her Pakistani counterpart in Washington Hussain Haqqani, which were initially denied, that the two sides had had some initial discussions on the subject. Acknowledging that earlier US "non-proliferation concerns were quite severe", she said attitudes in Washington were changing.

"I think we are beginning to pass those and this is a scenario that we are going to explore," she told a LA-based Pakistani journal.

Another top US official, ****** envoy Richard Holbrooke, was a little more circumspect. "We're going to listen carefully to whatever the Pakistanis say," he replied, when asked about Islamabad's demand for a civilian nuclear deal.

The Pakistani establishment, ahead of a wide-ranging strategic dialogue with US on March 24, has made parity with India, including a civilian nuclear deal, the centerpiece of its ramped-up engagement.

Intimations of a change in US policy came even as new reports emerged about the extent and scope of government-backed Pakistani nuclear proliferation in a book by former weapons inspector and non-proliferation activist David Albright. Successive US administrations, in an effort to absolve Islamabad and save it from embarrassment from past misdemeanors, have suggested that the country's nuclear mastermind A Q Khan acted on his own without permission from the Pakistani government or the military, but this assessment is strongly challenged by the non-proliferation community.

Talk of a nuclear deal with Pakistan also comes on the heels of the country signing a gas pipeline deal with Iran last week even as Washington was bearing down on Tehran.

The idea that Pakistan deserves its own nuclear deal to overcome a trust deficit with the United States was first proposed by Georgetown University academic Christine Fair. "More so than conventional weapons or large sums of cash, a conditions-based civilian nuclear deal may be able to diminish Pakistani fears of US intentions while allowing Washington to leverage these gains for greater Pakistani cooperation on nuclear proliferation and terrorism," Fair argued in a newspaper article earlier this year.

However, aside from Pakistan's proliferation footprints and ties with Iran, there is also the small matter of getting such a nuclear deal past the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, which made an exception for India but might find Pakistan more unpalatable. The US-India deal itself remains to be fully implemented more than five years after it was first conceived.

Some experts also question whether Pakistan has the capacity to buy or absorb any nuclear power reactor given that the country is broke. But then, even signaling a shift in US policy is something that might mollify Pakistan for now. In fact, even Fair's recommendations of a conditional nuclear deal was seen in some Pakistani quarters as a conspiracy to penetrate and neutralize the country's nuclear assets.


US says it is open to nuke deal with Pakistan - US - World - The Times of India

If this energy issue resolved then it huge step toward defeating terrorism in Pakistan. All industry works, people find jobs. People pay less attention toward what India is doing against Pakistan..lolz

US already made a move toward the sale of civil reactor when it recognize Pakistan has nuclear power last month. But movement will be slow or America will ask any Western country to come forward to sign pact. But Pakistan preference will be remain to get form US, because it will be subsidized pricing.

 

[EjazR]

Should Pakistan Get a Nuke Deal? | Foreign Policy
BY CHRISTINE FAIR | MARCH 23, 2010

On March 24, the United States and Pakistan will convene their newly launched strategic dialogue. Past engagement between the two countries has been neither strategic nor a dialogue. This time, Pakistan's delegation is likely to request a civilian nuclear agreement akin to the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal that was initiated in 2005. Given Pakistan's history of proliferation, such a proposal would meet with howls of disapproval on Capitol Hill and in New Delhi, not to mention healthy skepticism among some in Barack Obama's administration. But Washington should not reject a deal outright: It could be a real opportunity to put the United States's troubled relationship with Pakistan on steadier footing.

To stabilize Afghanistan, the United States needs Pakistan. It is both the primary transit route to supply the Afghan war and the home to Islamist militants who are savaging Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan itself. Worse, these militant groups are linked to international terrorism -- as numerous terrorist plots and attacks across North America, Europe, and Australia attest.

Islamabad's pitch will likely be that Washington needs it more than the other way around. But the truth is that Pakistan needs the United States more than ever as it confronts a serious blowback of Islamist militants who are ravaging the country. Pakistan's military has limited counterinsurgency capabilities or assets due to its longstanding focus on conventional war with India. Pakistan needs U.S. help to improve its inadequate police forces and help rebuild the country's civilian institutions and rehabilitate the areas and populations devastated by army operations. Although Pakistanis point to their "all-weather friend" China, it is U.S. -- not Chinese -- assistance that will help Pakistan maintain conventional parity with its chief nemesis, India. The platforms that China is willing to sell are unlikely to be an effective counterweight to India's evolving capabilities.

Moreover, because Pakistan fears U.S. intentions regarding its nuclear arsenal, only the United States can address Pakistan's neuralgic insecurity by acknowledging the country as an accepted -- rather than merely tolerated -- nuclear power. The United States has formally conceded India as a de jure nuclear power and has long supported Israel's program actively and passively. Pakistan is the third country that went nuclear outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and it wants the same explicit acceptance as the other two.

Any civilian nuclear deal for Pakistan would have to be conditions-based. It would not be equivalent to India's deal, which recognizes India's nonproliferation commitments and enables India to compete strategically with China globally. A civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan has a different logic: to reset bilateral relations that are bedeviled with layers of mistrust on both sides.

Pakistan disconcerts the world due to its nuclear proliferation record and because it supports myriad Islamist militants menacing the international community. This deal should therefore be conditioned upon access to nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan and direct information about his nuclear black markets, as well as verifiable evidence that Pakistan is reversing its support for militant groups and taking active steps to dismantle the architecture for terrorism.

At the same time, the deal should address Pakistan's chief concerns. Pakistan fears that the United States -- perhaps in consort with India and Israel -- seeks to dismantle its nuclear program. Such a deal would formally recognize Pakistan's nuclear status and reward it for the considerable progress it has made to enhance its arsenal's security since 2002.

Although the United States has professed a need for a "strategic relationship" with Pakistan and has offered lucrative financial allurements and conventional arms since the 1950s, a genuinely strategic relationship has been beguiled by the reality that both states have divergent strategic aims. Washington wants Islamabad to give up what it sees as the only tools in its arsenal to secure its interests at home and abroad: jihadi terrorism under the security of its nuclear umbrella.

But the United States is going to have to offer something in exchange: recognition and strategic support. Such a deal could create the conditions of trust whereby other initiatives, such as a limited security guarantee -- negotiated with India's explicit input -- would be welcomed.

Pakistan maintains that its dangerous policies are motivated by fears of India. A phased U.S. approach will either diminish this deep-seated insecurity or call Pakistan's bluff about the rationale for its behavior, motivating the United States to rethink its handling of Pakistan. Either outcome would be an enormous improvement over the stagnant status quo.

Washington must transform its relations with Islamabad (and Rawalpindi, where Pakistan's military is headquartered) with the same energy and creativity as it did with New Delhi because Washington needs both South Asian states as much as they need Washington. Such a conditions-based deal will take years to come to fruition even if dubious U.S entities and inveterate U.S. foes in Pakistan don't stand in the way. Putting it on the table now would only be a first step in a strategic gamble that may or may not pay off down the road.

The only other future option is far more unpalatable and difficult: trying desperately to keep containing the myriad and complex threats Pakistan poses to the world. And we already know how well that strategy works.

 

[courageneverdies]

Why everybody forgets India has now nuclear deals with Canada, Russia,Australia, france, UK, south Korea , Germany etc..

why the cry over indo-US nuclear deal which hasnt finalised yet???

Thats the reason. If India has deals with other major powers of the world including US, than all is not well. Things are of course getting off the track and since Pakistan is a Nuclear counterpart of South Asia, it is imperative for US - since Pakistan is his frontline ally against Terrorism - to make a N-deal with us.

Justified.

KIT Over

 

[karan.1970]

Thats the reason. If India has deals with other major powers of the world including US, than all is not well. Things are of course getting off the track and since Pakistan is a Nuclear counterpart of South Asia, it is imperative for US - since Pakistan is his frontline ally against Terrorism - to make a N-deal with us.

Justified.

KIT Over

There cant be an entitlement mindset about it. There is no SHOULD in business deals between nations. Also fight against terrorism has nothing to do with nuclear deal.

 

[courageneverdies]

There cant be an entitlement mindset about it. There is no SHOULD in business deals between nations. Also fight against terrorism has nothing to do with nuclear deal.

Of course there can be "entitlement mindset." If weapons advancement can destabalize or unbalance the situation, so does such deals. Remember, Nuclear Deals mean transfer of Nuclear technology (Still if the deal is peaceful and civilian). Such terms, that include Nuclear are always alarming.

If you have ever read any bilateral Agreement or MoU you would have noticed that the word "SHOULD" is frequently used. US is in search of winning the faith of Pakistani nation and this can only be done if they keep the relations with Pakistan in equal terms with those countries, considered hostile by Pakistani Nation.

US deal with India and denial for Pakistan has raged the people of Pakistan. This has been a major cause of difference and casued damage to US policy in Pakistan.

Secondly, if fight against terrorism has nothing to do with nuclear deal, than why do conspiracy theorists always claim of threat to Pakistan's nuclear program from Terrorists? If it is to be included then so the nuclear deals.

Pakistan is spending the sums which were for development in the war against terrorism brought here by US, so N-Deal has to do much because such deal can help Pakistan in development projects eg Energy Sector.

KIT Over

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

FM Qureshi satisfied with strategic dialogue outcome

WASHINGTON, March 25 (APP): Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi emerged from strategic talks with the United States satisfied that the Obama Administration would provide timely economic and military aid to Pakistan.“I’m satisfied because you finally agreed to many of the things that we have been sharing over our discussions in the last ... two years,” he said after hours of delibrations with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.“The people of Pakistan expected a different kind of an approach.The people of Pakistan expected a democracy to treat a democracydifferently, and you have done so.

And that is why I am satisfied, and that is why I think we are going to move from a relationship to a partnership,” he said, appearing jointly with Secretary of StateHillary Clinton The two days of strategic discussions aim at expanding relations beyond US goals in the war on terrorism to focus cooperation on economic and energy development, as well as in education, agriculture and water supplies.
“We want to think about security in the broadest possible terms - not just what we commonly think of as national security, but the full range of political, economic and social issues that shape the daily life of people everywhere,” Clinton said.
The Obama Administration hopes that the first-ever ministerial-level strategic dialogue and cooperation under it in the future will help overcome scepticism about Washington’s long-term commitment to Pakistan.
Qureshi also sounded confident about resolution of the issue over delay in US reimbursements to Pakistan on account of coalition support fund.
“We’ve agreed to put in place a mechanism which is mutually acceptable, which is transparent, which takes into account accountability, but that delivers and delivers in time. We’ve agreed in this interaction that the substantial sum will be paid to Pakistan by the end of April, and the remaining, hopefully, will be settled by the end of June.”
The foreign minister, who has also been meeting top Congressional leaders during his visit, saw a “qualitative difference” and expression of trust in Pakistan in his engagement with the Congress.
“I remember when I came here for the first time as foreign minister two years ago, everybody said, “You signed the Swat deal? Capitulation. Surrender.” I said, “Hold on, hold on. That’s a tactic. Wait. Wait till you see the results.”
“And we have demonstrated the results. The people of Pakistan, the armed forces of Pakistan, have shown the resolve, the determination, and the commitment. And we will win. And we’re going to win in this struggle, because defeat is not an option that we are planning for. And Inshallah, by the grace of God, we have a clear objective, we have a plan, we have a strategy, and that strategy is working. And today, we have a partnership, and hopefully, this partnership will turn the tide in our favor, hopefully in our mutual favor.”
Qureshi was also hopeful that the United States would provide Pakistan long-awaited defense equipment to prosecute war against militants in the mountainous tribal region bordering Afghanistan.
“We’ve talked about military hardware. You have to realize that we are operating in a completely different theater. The western border, the terrain is completely different. And I’m glad to share with you we’ve agreed to fast-track, to fast-track our requests that have pending for months and years on the transfer of military equipment to Pakistan. So all these steps, I think, will make a qualitative difference to border management".

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency ) - FM Qureshi satisfied with strategic dialogue outcome

 

[HAIDER]

WASHINGTON: Pakistan's foreign minister said on Thursday his delegation had “very satisfactory” talks with Washington on civilian nuclear cooperation and that the case of a Pakistani scientist was “behind us.”

Pakistan is pressing for a nuclear cooperation arrangement similar to one its key rival India has with the United States but Washington has so far been reluctant to enter into any formal talks on the issue.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told Reuters in an interview that meetings with US officials on nuclear cooperation, nonproliferation and export controls had gone well.

“I am quite satisfied with the discussions we had,” Qureshi said when asked about the nuclear cooperation issue. “I would not like to expand on it at this stage.”

He added that “the talks were very satisfactory” but declined to specify the kind of cooperation Pakistan sought.

The two days of high-level talks in Washington were aimed at boosting ties between the often uneasy allies as the United States relies on cooperation from Pakistan in its fight against Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan.

Washington has been dubious about talks on sharing nuclear technology, partly because of fears it would upset India but also due to concerns over the case a Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

“I think that is behind us,” Qureshi said when asked about the Khan case. “I think they understand the new command-control structures we have in place. I think they are pretty satisfied with security and safety systems in place in Pakistan and there is recognition of that.”

Just days before the “strategic dialogue” talks in Washington, Pakistan's government filed a court petition to investigate the Khan case.

POWER CRISIS

Asked whether his country wanted the same kind of nuclear deal that Washington has with India, Qureshi said: “I am against discrimination.”

Pakistan faces daily blackouts and the power shortage has weighed heavily on the economy as well as public patience.

Qureshi said his country was looking at a multi-pronged approach to the energy crisis and that included boosting the current small capacity for nuclear power.

“We have to modernize and tap on indigenous resources like hydro, coal. We have to bring in renewables — solar, wind — and we also have the capability of producing nuclear energy and we are doing it.”. — Reuters
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Pakistan satisfied with US nuclear talks

 

[booo]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pakistan's foreign minister said on Thursday his team had "very satisfactory" talks with Washington on civilian nuclear cooperation but a senior U.S. official played down prospects of a deal.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan is pressing for a nuclear cooperation arrangement similar to one its key rival India has with the United States but Washington has been reluctant to enter into any formal talks on the issue.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told Reuters in an interview that meetings with U.S. officials on nuclear cooperation, nonproliferation and export controls had gone well.

"I am quite satisfied with the discussions we had," Qureshi said when asked about the nuclear cooperation issue. "I would not like to expand on it at this stage."

He added that "the talks were very satisfactory" but declined to specify the kind of cooperation Pakistan sought.

Asked about Qureshi's comments, a senior U.S. official made clear there were no plans for any formal talks, noting there was no reference to the civilian nuclear issue in a statement released on Thursday after the two days of meetings.

"It is not on the table and the Pakistani views are well understood and we listened carefully to them," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The high-level talks in Washington were aimed at boosting ties between the often uneasy allies as the United States relies on cooperation from Pakistan in its fight against Taliban and al Qaeda militants in Afghanistan.

Washington has been dubious about talks on sharing nuclear technology, partly because of fears it would upset India but also due to concerns over the case a Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who transferred nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iraq and Iran.

"I think that is behind us," Qureshi said when asked about the Khan case. "I think they understand the new command-control structures we have in place. I think they are pretty satisfied with security and safety systems in place in Pakistan and there is recognition of that."

Just days before the "strategic dialogue" talks in Washington, Pakistan's government filed a court petition to investigate the Khan case.

POWER CRISIS

Asked whether his country wanted the same kind of nuclear deal that Washington has with India, Qureshi said: "I am against discrimination."

Pakistan faces daily blackouts and the power shortage has weighed heavily on the economy as well as public patience.

Qureshi said his country was looking at a multi-pronged approach to the energy crisis that included boosting the current small capacity for nuclear power.

"We have to modernize and tap on indigenous resources like hydro, coal. We have to bring in renewables -- solar, wind -- and we also have the capability of producing nuclear energy and we are doing it."

Analysts are skeptical Washington will embark on any serious talks with Pakistan and caution that legislation would be highly unlikely to get through Congress, pointing to the lengthy negotiations for the Indian deal that was finalized only last year and has still not been implemented.

In addition, such an arrangement requires consensus approval from the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group in Vienna, which is also a lengthy process.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was noncommittal over what had been discussed on nuclear cooperation, except to say there was a broad agenda including "complicated" issues.

"We've said that we will listen to and engage with our Pakistani partners on whatever issues the delegation raises. We're committed to helping Pakistan meet its real energy needs," Clinton told a news conference on Wednesday.

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)

INTERVIEW - Pakistan satisfied with U.S. nuclear talks | Top News | Reuters

 

[PakSher]

It took India 13 years to secure the nuclear deal with US. Yes, IAEA will have every longtitute and latitude and design of every Indian nuclear reactor.

 

[ssheppard]

Pakistan's hopes for civil nuclear cooperation have been a non-starter in Washington, but experts say the United States can use it as a dangling carrot as it seeks influence in Islamabad.

The two nations Thursday wrapped up a first-of-a-kind “strategic dialogue,”which the United States hopes will show Pakistan's widely anti-American public that it cares about the country beyond seeking help against Islamic extremists.

US officials stayed carefully on message, pledging respect for Pakistan and never explicitly saying no to its requests - a refusal that would have been sure to steal the headlines.

Pakistan is seeking a civilian nuclear deal along the lines of a landmark agreement that the United States struck with India in 2008. The South Asian rivals stunned the world in 1998 by carrying out nuclear tests.

Asked about the Pakistani request, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would listen to “whatever issues the delegation raises” and highlighted a 125-million-dollar US package to boost Pakistan's energy sector.

A nuclear deal could help ease the developing country's chronic energy shortages. But it would also amount to US recognition of Pakistan as the Islamic world's only nuclear power, a point of pride for many Pakistanis.

“At the moment this looks like a non-starter, but it shouldn't be,” said Marvin Weinbaum, a scholar at the Middle East Institute and former State Department official.

“There is no reason why we couldn't use this as a bargaining tool to get more cooperation, to say, 'This may not be something we can deliver now, but we would like to work something out with you,'” he said.

“It could have a very positive impact both with the Pakistani elite and public.”

But the United States has longstanding concerns about proliferation from Pakistan - and policymakers are said to have quietly drafted a crisis plan in case the nuclear arsenal risk falling out of government control.

The father of Pakistan's bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has admitted leaking nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea, although he later retracted his remarks.

The level of separation between Pakistan's military and civilian nuclear programs also remains a matter of dispute. Pakistan returned to civilian rule in 2008 and President Asif Ali Zardari a year later handed over control of the nuclear program to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

“I think it's extremely premature to be talking about any civil nuclear cooperation between the US and Pakistan at this stage,” said Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation think-tank.

“It would be more appropriate and important to be talking about conventional military cooperation, economic support and breaking down trade barriers,” said Curtis, who served in the State Department in former president George W. Bush's administration.

Bush championed the nuclear deal with India, the signature part of his drive to build an alliance between the world's two largest democracies.

The agreement faced criticism from some members of President Barack Obama's Democratic Party, who argued that it sent the wrong message as India, like Pakistan and Israel, refuses to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“One of the reasons the US was able to move forward in Congress was because of India's solid record against proliferation and Pakistan doesn't have that,” Curtis said.

Some critics who believe the Bush agreement was too easy on India said that Pakistan's requests confirmed their fears.

“I think the fact that we gave India such a sweetheart deal set a very dangerous precedent and it's no surprise that Pakistan wants a similar deal,” said Leonor Tomero of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

She also said that Pakistan's request was “odd” coming so close to Obama's April 12-13 nuclear security summit in Washington and the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference a month later.

DAWN.COM | World | Pakistan nuclear ambitions give US leverage

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

US to Pak: Want N-deal? Take these steps

The US has asked Pakistan to first take necessary steps to address the non-proliferation concerns of the international community, especially on rogue scientist A Q Khan's clandestine network, as a basis for consideration of a request for a civilian nuclear deal.

Pakistan has so far failed to secure a clear commitment for its much sought-after civil nuclear deal from the US on the lines of that of India.

It is believed that the US has not said a "No" to the Pakistani request in this regard; but instead asked visiting delegation led by Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, which also included Pakistani Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, to initiate steps that would restore the confidence of the international community in its nuclear programme.

The high-level Pakistani delegation is understood to have given assurances to initiate steps in this regard, the sources said, adding that the administration would closely monitor the developments in the country in this regard.

Topping the list is the complete disbanding of the rogue nuclear scientist A Q Khan network, so that the US is convinced that such a network could not grow up in the future.

It also requires international monitoring/inspection of its nuclear facilities.

"Given Pakistan's history of selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, such an agreement would realistically be 10 or 15 years away. Still, the administration was careful not to dismiss the idea out of hand," a senior administration official was quoted as saying by The New York Times.

In his opening remarks of the upgraded Strategic Dialogue, Qureshi had sought "non-discriminatory use of available energy resources" for Pakistan, in an apparent reference to the civilian nuclear deal.

At a press conference, later in the day, in response to a question, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had said this was one of the "complicated issues" with Pakistan.

"We're committed to helping Pakistan meet its real energy needs," she said.

Qureshi was quoted in media as saying that he was very satisfied with the talks he had with the US on civilian nuclear deal. However, he refrained from giving any further details about the talks on civilian nuclear deal.


US to Pak: Want N-deal? Take these steps

 

[pkd]

US dangles Pakistan a carrot
By Syed Fazl-e-Haider

KARACHI - In 2008, after several years of negotiations, nuclear-armed India and the United States signed a civilian nuclear deal that in essence allowed India access to civilian nuclear technology and fuel from other countries even though it is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Pakistan, which like its neighbor India has a nuclear arsenal and is not a signatory to the NPT, has long been rankled by India's deal, wanting one of its own with the US. This topic featured high
on the agenda of a top-level Pakistani delegation that held talks in Washington this week with senior US officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Washington, with some reservations, has been receptive to Pakistan's wishes, especially as Islamabad has emerged as a key strategic partner in the efforts to bring the war in Afghanistan to a conclusion, and in dealing with al-Qaeda and militancy in general in the region.

There will be a price: the US, according to analysts who spoke to Asia Times Online, wants Pakistan to walk away from the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project.

Last year, Islamabad and Tehran finalized a US$7.5 billion deal to transfer gas 2,775 kilometers from fields in Iran to terminals in Pakistan, and this month they signed an operational agreement on the project, despite US opposition.

The US, as it seeks to isolate Iran and impose sanctions on it over Tehran's nuclear program, is a vocal critic of the pipeline project, which was initially to have included a third leg going to India. India dropped its participation in the project, ostensibly over pricing disagreements; there is widespread belief that it did so to secure the nuclear deal with the US.

This, according to analysts familiar with the project, is the dilemma that Pakistan now faces. In recent months, there has been talk of the pipeline being extended to China; that would be a non-starter should Pakistan pull out.

The two days of talks in Washington concluded on Thursday. All that Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said was that his delegation had had "very satisfactory" talks with US on civilian nuclear cooperation.

"I am quite satisfied with the discussions we had," Reuters quoted Qureshi as saying. "We have to modernize and tap on indigenous resources like hydro[electric power], coal. We have to bring in renewables - solar, wind - and we also have the capability of producing nuclear energy and we are doing it."

Clinton was quoted as saying, "We are certainly looking at it [nuclear deal] as how to help Pakistan with its long-term energy needs."

Washington's reservations over a nuclear pact center on lingering concerns over security in Pakistan. The founder of Pakistan's nuclear program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, several years ago confessed to playing a role in nuclear proliferation. In 2008, Khan, who remains under house arrest, recanted these confessions. The US is also aware that any deal with Pakistan would upset India.

Pakistan faces daily blackouts, and a power shortfall estimated at 5,000 megawatts (MW) weighs heavily on the economy. Ahead of this week's talks, Islamabad drew up a 56-page report in which it sought US support in developing a civilian nuclear program. The US earlier agreed to provide $125 million for energy development and assistance in establishing three thermal power plants.

Analysts see a major role for the US in rehabilitating the energy sector, as the US could engage international financial institutions, including the US Trade and Development Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank and World Bank, together with the US's private sector.

If the US and Pakistan do go ahead with a nuclear deal, it would still require consensus approval from the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) and also from the US Congress - this turned out to be a lengthy process for the Indians.

China this week reacted cautiously to reports that the US was open to help Pakistan tap nuclear energy. "We believe that sovereign countries have the right to peacefully use nuclear energy with adequate safeguards," Pakistan Press International reported a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Qin Gang, as saying in Beijing.

China has assisted Pakistan in developing facilities for nuclear power generation since 1986, when the countries signed a comprehensive agreement for nuclear cooperation that envisaged the supply of power plants and cooperation in the research and development of commercial and research reactors. Under an agreement signed in 1990, China helped Pakistan in the construction of a 300 MW reactor in Chashma, Punjab province, which went into operation in 1998. The Chashma-1 plant has delivered full power of 300 MW to the national grid since September 2000.

In December 2006, a much-awaited agreement on Chinese assistance to build more nuclear reactors in Pakistan was not signed during President Hu Jintao's visit to Islamabad. Though Beijing had agreed to provide two more nuclear power plants, worth about $1.2 billion, China apparently succumbed to pressure from either the West or the NSG. Beijing shelved the project without comment.

At present, China-Pakistan nuclear energy cooperation is mainly focused on the Chashma Nuclear Power Plant-2 in Punjab. The 325-MW capacity facility is being built in collaboration with China National Nuclear Corporation and is likely to be completed by the end of this year.
Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

 

[aanamehra]

US says no to civil nuclear deal with Pakistan


WASHINGTON: Hours after Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that his country "qualifies" for a civilian nuclear deal with the US, like that of India, the Obama administration in a blunt message told it that such a deal is not on platter of its talks with Islamabad.

"We are focused on Pakistan's energy needs, but, as we said last week, right now that does not include civilian nuclear energy," assistant secretary of state for public affairs P J Crowley told reporters.

A high-level Pakistani delegation led by the country's foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was here last month to launch the US-Pak Strategic Dialogue.

The Pakistani delegation sought a civil nuclear deal with the US on the lines of that of India.

The Obama administration did not give any concrete assurance to Qureshi, neither did it totally reject the request.

Meanwhile, chairing a special meeting of parliamentary committee on national security in Islamabad, Gilani said Pakistan "fully qualifies" for it as it has put in place effective security and non-proliferation measures.

A "well established, foolproof safety and security culture fully qualifies Pakistan for equal participation in civil nuclear cooperation at the international level, which would help us in addressing our immediate energy problems and would bring greater stability as well," Gilani had said.

Crowley reiterated that US has full confidence in the safety and security of nuclear weapons in Pakistan.

"I think various US leaders have expressed confidence in the security of the Pakistani weapons. I'm not going to go any further than that," he said.

Earlier in the day, another Obama administration official said it favors a new global civil-nuclear architecture allowing countries to meet their energy needs without posing proliferation risk.

"The Obama administration has favored new international civil nuclear-energy architecture, an architecture that allows countries around the world to benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy without increasing proliferation risks," Robert J Einhorn, special US advisor for nuclear non-proliferation and arms control, said.

"Ideas have been put forward, like fuel-supply assurances, international fuel banks. These are designed to give countries more options, to give them more access to the nuclear fuels they need to run a nuclear-energy program, a nuclear-power program. We have supported these international fuel banks to do that," Einhorn told foreign journalists at a news conference.