US-Pak negotiations on nuclear cooperation?

[IceCold]

The United States is committed to helping Pakistan address its real and growing energy needs, and we look forward to cooperating with Pakistan in ways that are compatible with Pakistan's economic, environmental and security needs and with US international commitments and policies.

Yes committed only in talks, we get that. Thank you Uncle SAM.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

A spokesman of the US embassy in Pakistan said: "The US has not entered negotiations on a civil nuclear agreement with Pakistan.

No sh** - can we express the obvious any more? Discussions on the possibility of civilian nuclear power are to be part of the Strategic Dialog, so of course 'negotiations have not been entered yet'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes committed only in talks, we get that. Thank you Uncle SAM.

How many years did it take India to negotiate a deal with the US?

Given Pakistan's more complicated circumstances, why do you expect the US to offer a nuclear deal to Pakistan out of the blue and without at least an equivalent amount of protracted negotiations?

 

[Iggy]

Na you will get the nuclear deal..US desperately wanted you guys in Afgan.so Uncle Sam is willing to give you some goodies to impress you..but there will be some hard bargain and some of the decisions will draw lot of opposisation..


offtopic:I love the way Times Now telecasting this news..they are talking like Pakiatan already nuked India

 

[IceCold]

How many years did it take India to negotiate a deal with the US?

Given Pakistan's more complicated circumstances, why do you expect that the US will offer a nuclear deal to Pakistan out of the blue and without at least an equivalent amount of protracted negotiations?

I never said US is going to offer a nuclear deal to Pakistan, infact i stated the very contrary, to even think about such a deal happening was very farfetched and so have i stated.
My point is all that we hear is talks, nothing really substantial. Even the GOP has started to ask the US to do more, i am sure you realize what it reffers too not just the WOT.

 

[s6demon]

Indian Media to be precise

SECOND THIS!!

As I recall it was the Indian media who even reported this in the beginning and now they are reporting that their earlier report was false?? WTF?

 

[Hyde]

Pak-US strategic dialogue agenda: agriculture, communication, defence and security and other topics to be discussed ​

ISLAMABAD (March 22 2010): The Pakistan-US strategic dialogue, to commence in Washington on March 24, will cover issues like circular debt, revenue collection/value-added tax (VAT) implementation and deficit targets, official sources told Business Recorder.

The dialogue, according to US President's Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrook, will focus on agriculture, communication and public diplomacy, defence and security, economic development and finance, trade environment, social issues and energy and water.

Details of the issues to be discussed between the officials of the two countries are as follows:

1) Agriculture

i) Crop enhancement (wheat and horticultural) and livestock productivity (control of animal disease) and market systems; water management and irrigation infrastructure improvement; progress under Afghanistan-Pakistan-US Trilateral; sanitary-phytosanitary capacity building; export of Pakistani mangoes to the US (proposed pilot shipment this season, proposed capacity building over the next year) and Pakistani Seed Act and Plant Breeder's Act (improved capability to benefit from biotechnological advances).

2) Communications and Public Diplomacy

i) Media and regulatory frameworks; (ii) communications platforms and content; (iii) countering extremist voices; (iv) defining and reaching audiences and; (v) expanding access to information.

3- Defence and Security

i) Pakistani 'COIN' Operation; (ii) Pakistani operation overview; (iii) USG military assistance (USG) and; (iv) enabling hold-build activities in Pakistan; (v) long-term Pakistani military modernisation; and (vi) presentation on defence planning exchange (USG).

3-Economic Development and Finance: Macroeconomic Environment

(i) Signing thermal power rehabilitation agreements (Secretary W and P, Ambassador Patterson); (ii) circular debt resolution; (iii) revenue collection/VAT implementation; and (iv) deficit targets.

4-Trade Environment (45 minutes)

i) Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs; (ii) Free Trade Agreement (FTA); (iii) GSP; (iv) investment environment; (v) TIFA Developments; (vi) USAID Trade Facilitation and Economic Growth Programs;(vii) USTDA cold storage and non-energy programs; transit trade negotiations.

5- Social issues

i) University partnerships in research and education; (ii) education administration in a decentralised system; (iii) sustaining US investment in Pakistan's educations sector; (iv) curriculum reform; (v) women's education/girls' education; (vi) public-private-religious school models and; (vii) school violence.

6-Energy and Water

i) Update on Pakistan programme (new generation update; efficiency; collections; performance contracts for distribution companies); (ii) update on US signature program (immediate impact projects); Disco support program; OPIC; USTDA; USDOC trade missions; planning for lab visits. Water (Pakistani priorities; UU approach to water and assistance planning).
--------------------

I think this will also relevent to this topic.

 

[Hyde]

SECOND THIS!!

As I recall it was the Indian media who even reported this in the beginning and now they are reporting that their earlier report was false?? WTF?

I always say don't believe Indian media........... even if they are saying something good about Pakistan....... still don't believe it

What a piece of crap Indian newspapers are

 

[IceCold]

Na you will get the nuclear deal..US desperately wanted you guys in Afgan.so Uncle Sam is willing to give you some goodies to impress you..but there will be some hard bargain and some of the decisions will draw lot of opposisation..

Our leaders are known to sell cheap, why would it be any different this time. Like i said before no nuclear deal, the trip would be a failure but our leaders would call it a huge success as has always been the case.

 

[s6demon]

oh great, they wanna talk about kheti bari.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

I haven't been able to find anything regarding the topic under discussion in Western Media, Its the Indian Media who's jumping up & down

 

[s6demon]

Our leaders are known to sell cheap, why would it be any different this time. Like i said before no nuclear deal, the trip would be a failure but our leaders would call it a huge success as has always been the case.

and to be honest it would have been veery difficult to get passed by the US senate anyways, especially now when they are trying to derail Obama on everything and think he is a secret Muslim, as if being Muslim is a bad thing. Atleast Bush strong armed everything he wanted done.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Pakistan lobbying hard for n-deal akin to India-US pact ​

From R. Vasudevan—Reporting from New Delhi
New Delhi, 22 March (Asiantribune.com):

In a development of serious concern to India, Pakistan seems to have lobbied successfully for a civilian nuclear deal with the US, akin to the one that Washington has with New Delhi.

The Barack Obama administration has indicated it is open to Islamabad's plea for a civilian nuclear deal, 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.

This development comes even as two eminent American atomic experts have claimed that Pakistan is estimated to have more nuclear warheads than India. The two Asian neighbors along with China are increasing their arsenals and deploying weapons at more sites. While Pakistan is estimated to possess 70-90 nuclear weapons, India is believed to have 60-80, claims Robert S Norris and Hans M Kristensen in their latest article ,'Nuclear Notebook: Worldwide deployments of nuclear weapons, 2009'.

The article published in the latest issue of 'Bulletin of the Atomic Science' claimed that Beijing, Islamabad and New Delhi are quantitatively and qualitatively increasing their arsenals and deploying weapons at more sites, yet the locations are difficult to pinpoint.

For example, no reliable public information exists on where Pakistan or India produces its nuclear weapons, it said. "Whereas many of the Chinese bases are known, this is not the case in Pakistan and India, where we have found no credible information that identifies permanent nuclear weapons storage locations," they said.

"Pakistan's nuclear weapons are not believed to be fully operational under normal circumstances; India is thought to store its nuclear warheads and bombs in central storage locations rather than on bases with operational forces. But, since all three countries are expanding their arsenals, new bases and storage sites probably are under construction," the two nuclear experts said.

On the nuclear deal, another top US official, ****** envoy Richard Holbrooke, was a little cautious. "We're going to listen carefully to whatever the Pakistanis say," he replied. 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.

However, there is also the issue of getting such a nuclear deal past the 44-member Nuclear Suppliers Group, which made an exception for India but might find Pakistan demand a bit complicated for quick clearance.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is coming up with a bill of $ 35 billion to Washington for its efforts in the war on terror in what officials from both sides say is the most comprehensive dialogue in their bilateral history.

Holbrooke has endorsed a central role for the Pakistani military at the talks, asking "how can you have a strategic dialogue without including the military?" In a move that has caused some disquiet in Pakistan itself, the country's army chief Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani and spy chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha are members of the delegation, ostensibly led by Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. Kiyani is said to have set the agenda for the talks in preparatory meetings in Pakistan.

Pakistan wants enhanced support for its economy, particularly in the energy sector. Vast swathes of the country are now under 8 to 12 hour power cuts and Islamabad is presenting this as one reason why Washington should offer a civilian nuclear deal to Pakistan similar to the US-India deal.

The US delegation, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton includes Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal Wolin, National Security Council Senior Director David Lipton, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Marantis, the Administrator of USAID Raj Shah, Ambassador Anne Patterson and Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Judith McHale, Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense David Sydney, among others.

- Asian Tribune -

Pakistan lobbying hard for n-deal akin to India-US pact | Asian Tribune

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Our leaders are known to sell cheap, why would it be any different this time. Like i said before no nuclear deal, the trip would be a failure but our leaders would call it a huge success as has always been the case.

Are you calling the trip a failure because the US and Pakistan are not signing on the dotted line with respect to a nuclear deal?

I'm sorry, but you seem to have taken the Indian media's claims to heart - some senior Pakistani posters had clarified all along that the statement by Patterson indicated a shift by the US towards beginning negotiations on potential civilian nuclear cooperation, and not a decision to announce a nuclear deal next month.

It is not the GoP nor the US's fault that some set their hopes in the clouds when there was nothing said to justify that.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

^^^^ For one, consider MMRCA to be in the European pockets....

ohh please I don't want Rafale in IAF

Walker's World: Obama is losing India​

WASHINGTON, March 15 (UPI) -- The Obama administration is trying to play catch-up in its relations with the country that could become its most important long-term ally. But it may be leaving it too late, after India last week agreed a $7 billion deal in arms, nuclear reactors and space technology with Russia.

India's strategic importance can hardly be exaggerated. More than just the other Asian economic giant after China, India is a democracy where English is an official language. It shares with Washington the same love-hate attitude toward China, hopeful but deeply suspicious at the same time. And with a much healthier demographic profile than China, most extrapolations of long-term trend suggest that India's economy will outgrow China's by the second half of this century.

U.S. President Barack Obama himself seems to have understood this. The first state dinner he hosted was for India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. And then were strong foundations on which to build. His Democratic predecessor Bill Clinton had started the courtship of India in the 1990s and President George W. Bush's commitment to India was one of the few successes of his troubled foreign policy.

Bush's legacy was a nuclear cooperation agreement, which allowed India to escape the nuclear isolation into which it was plunged after testing a nuclear weapon outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Bush's deal also opened the way for the United States to sell nuclear power stations, fuel and other technology to India and to forge a lasting strategic partnership.

But for a host of reasons the Obama administration has let India slip down the list of its priorities. Not all of these reasons relate to Islamic terrorism, the war in Afghanistan and consequent urge to focus on Pakistan.

The economic crisis has emphasized China's importance, as the country with the biggest trade surplus with the United States and as the second leading holder of U.S. securities after Japan. China's diplomatic role, as a member of the U.N. Security Council and thus wielding a veto, has also underlined China's pivotal position in U.S. attempts to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran and north Korea.

India understandably chafes at the sense that it plays second fiddle in Washington, lacking that network of institutional ties and official relationships that cement connections to other leading powers.

"The U.S.-Indian relationship remains constrained," notes Evan Feigenbaum, senior fellow for Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations and former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state for South Asia and Central Asia. "Although U.S. officials hold standing dialogues about nearly every region of the world with their counterparts from Beijing, Brussels and Tokyo, no such arrangements exist with New Delhi."

Other states, notably Russia, have not led India slip to the back burner. Last week's visit to New Delhi of Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has seen the signing of a number of strategic deals. They included an aircraft carrier, MiG-29 fighters, defense and space technology and at least 12 civilian nuclear reactors. Putin also said he wanted the current $8 billion in annual trade with India to more than double to $20 billion.

The deal to buy the Soviet aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov has been in the works for years, delayed by the need for an almost complete overhaul of the ship and by haggling over the terms. The initial price tag was $1.5 billion, which Russia increased to $2.5 billion but has now settled for $2.3 billion, to include its complement of 45 MiG-29 warplanes.

This is still a fraction of the price of an air fleet-equipped modern U.S.-built carrier, even if one were available, or even of the smaller British and French carriers now being developed. But India's current carrier, the Viraat, is the former British vessel HMS Hermes, built in 1959. Obsolete and usually in dock, its obsolescence means India needs another carrier quickly if it is to maintain the complex skills essential to carrier deployment. India's first domestically produced carrier, the Vikrant, now under construction in Cochin, is unlikely to be operational before 2015.

What Putin did not get was any commitment that India would pick Russian warplanes for its planned $11 billion purchase of 126 state-of-the-art fighters, intended to give the country's air force the technological edge over China and Pakistan in the current Asian arms race. It is the deal that everyone wants to win, from the Eurofighter to Boeing's Super Hornet and Russia's MiG-35.

But that arms deal is just a fraction of the estimated $150 billion that India will be sending on energy technology, from nuclear reactors to oil and gas exploration and wind and solar. American hopes of winning a major slice of these contracts have been stalled over an elusive agreement on reprocessing nuclear fuel.

Robert Blake, the senior State Department official dealing with India and its region, is hopeful that a deal can be concluded by this summer. Indian officials are less optimistic and query U.S. insistence that India's parliament enact a limited liability rule on compensation for nuclear accidents, an issue that does not seem to worry Russian and French suppliers.

There is a pattern here. Two far-reaching agreement on U.S.-Indian military cooperation have stalled, as have other projects for hi-tech and space research cooperation.

The real problem is fundamental. Indians complain that the Obama administration still sees India less as a great power in its own right, than as a walk-on player in two issues that worry Washington more. The first is the Afghan-Pakistan imbroglio and the second is U.S.-China relations. Obama's suggestion, during his cap-in-hand visit to Beijing, that China help the United States "manage" the Indo-Pakistan problem "led to the mistrust of Obama that today pervades the Indian establishment," argues influential Indian commentator Professor Madhav Nalapat.

"President Obama's policy of downgrading India to the level of a South Asian power is pushing Delhi closer toward Moscow and Beijing," Nalapat adds." If such an axis takes place, the 'credit' will go to the Obama administration. India sees itself as an Asian power with a global focus. Those unwilling to accept this cannot be defined as friends."

Walker's World: Obama is losing India - UPI.com