What's new

US-Pak negotiations on nuclear cooperation?

US says it is open to nuke deal with PakistanChidanand Rajghatta, TNN, Mar 22, 2010, 12.31am IST


Tags:Pakistan|India|Nuclear Deal|united statesUS says it is open to nuke deal with PakistanWASHINGTON: 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.
 
By signing this deal, simply we will overcome our energy deficit while US will

overcome its trust deficit having with Pakistan. It will change the whole shape

of US in Pakistani public which will be far better for the interest of both countries.
 
Nuclear liability will not be a hurdle in Pakistan. even here its a bluff hurdle to stall political process. Though I leave the discussion to other thread.

I strongly believe that this is an effort by SAM to torpedo Iran Gas Pipeline.

For economics factor, if US is costly, China can go ahead and do Nuclear trade legally with Pakistan. That is what will be a good thing for Pakistan. US deal may take a long time to operationalize and also not to mention the economic/sanctions factor behind these US reactors and fuel.

Nice points, couple of my observations.

a) India voting against Iran will have deeper ramifications on India and negatively so, if not today it will some time in the future

b) Secondly how advanced China is in terms of energy generation from nuclear fuel. I for one do not have any qualms to believe its not comparable to Germany, Britain, France and ofcourse the United States...
 
indeed it will be a milestont acchived in Pak US relation and in return we will help defuse tention between Our Great friend China and US as we did in the past. Good for both , good for the world.
 
I am not compairing anything, i just said what if the deal happens, what will be Indias stance and also how will it effect the IP gas pipe line project.

If course there will be a lot of mess, American double speak is haunting Indians now and Obama's Af Pak policy undermines India's efforts in that region. There will be lot of hue and cry the chip being Pakistan's proliferation woes of the past.
 
Aray bhai, as pointed out before, there will be talks about talks. Patterson and others only said that the US would be willing to talk about the issue now in the Strategic Dialog.

It is the media that jumped from there to a nuclear deal, not the GoP.

AM, to be precise the general mood of Indians on American designs and policies isnt that encouraging.

A huge section of India, partcularly the younger generation does not like too much of the Yanks...and it goes without saying that the 123 aggreement is still looked down upon with suspicion.

On the military hardware point as well, the globemasters, the Poseidons and the Hercules cost less than India's long term perspective of balaancing the act with the United States, after all in 63 years (except for the JFK government) there were no where to be seen...and India should vehemently deny the US of trying to play India as China's counterweight in Asia...that is my personal view though, please feel free to disagree..:cheers:
 
Why India and Pakistan wants to have a nuclear deal with US??

Because it involves transfer of "sensitive" equipment and technologies which no other country have.


Why US will never have complete nuclear deal with Pakistan?

Ans: China. US would be too dumb to acknowledge the relationships between pakistan and China and not to realise it would be actually China which will gain more of the technological knowhow, which Us never wants in the first place.

Lets see how it turns out to be soon.
 
I do not think it will happen and it is not a good idea to be boggled down by the contract that will be presented to us.

I am against this, lets just do one thing, get US to recognize us a Nuclear power and sign a deal with the French.
 
Why India and Pakistan wants to have a nuclear deal with US??

Because it involves transfer of "sensitive" equipment and technologies which no other country have.


Why US will never have complete nuclear deal with Pakistan?

Ans: China. US would be too dumb to acknowledge the relationships between pakistan and China and not to realise it would be actually China which will gain more of the technological knowhow, which Us never wants in the first place.

Lets see how it turns out to be soon.




Hi,
so according to your statement since USA possesses a technology which no other country in the world has:what:, so because of that USA shouldn't share it with Pakistan because of China, but should share with India, who has also signed nuclear deal with Russia, so USA shouldn't worry about Russia? who has openly been sponsoring America's primary rival Iran's nuclear programme.
 
N-deal for Pak? US denies

ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI: The US on Monday denied it was considering offering Pakistan a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one it signed with India, refuting purported remarks of Anne Patterson, its ambassasdor to Pakistan, to the contrary.

"The US has not entered (into) negotiations on a civil nuclear agreement with Pakistan," a PTI report said, quoting the spokesperson of the US embassy in Islamabad.

The denial came even as ambassador Patterson's remark suggesting that the US was trying to establish parity between India and Pakistan on the nuclear energy issue triggered concern in New Delhi. Foreign minister S M Krishna reacted to Patterson's remarks by reminding the US of Pakistan's notorious proliferation record. A similar stand was taken by the principal Opposition, BJP, with Yashwant Sinha, chairman of the standing committee on external affairs, criticising any attempt to establish parity between India and "a rogue state like Pakistan with the worst proliferation record".

The apprehension of a shift in stand came from Patterson's interview to a Pakistani American magazine which quoted her as saying that the US and Pakistan would have "working-level talks" on civilian nuclear energy as part of the strategic dialogue between the two countries beginning Wednesday.

On Monday, however, the US spokesperson in Islamabad sought to rebut the perception of a policy shift. "The US 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'e economic, environmental and security needs and with the US' international commitments and policies," the spokesperson said.

In a swift response, foreign minister Krishna said, "I think, the US would always look into the track record of every country with which they are going for certain understanding or signing a treaty. I am sure the US will remember that the proliferation of nuclear weapons was because of certain indiscretions of certain countries and more particularly Pakistan and the clandestine activities which they carried on."

Congress party said it would only comment after official US announcement on the subject, but the BJP described reports as "disturbing". Yashwant Sinha, chairman of Parliament's standing committee on external affairs, said, "The US has established parity between a nuclear rogue and India at a time when they are accusing Iran of proliferation. It is perverse and brings back the hyphenation that was supposed to be over."

He further said that Patterson's remark seems to undercut the US's claim that the Indo-US nuclear deal was an exception which could not be extended to any other country, leave alone Pakistan, "the worst proliferator".
G Parthasarathy, former diplomat, said the US move was a "violation" of the July 18 agreement, because it was premised on US and India sharing commitment against terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

In her interview, Patterson appeared to be downplaying concerns over Pakistan's proliferation record. "Earlier on, non-proliferation concerns were quite severe. I think we are begining to pass those and this is a scenario that we are going to explore."

Officials said India would keep a close watch on the US-Pakistan strategic dialogue starting in Washington this week because of the assessment that the US is looking for more ways to "accommodate" Pakistani demands, to "do more" for them to incentivize them to act against terror groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Daniel Markey, senior fellow Council for Foreign Relations in Washington, said, "I think the Obama administration is trying to be responsive to Pakistan's requests as a means to demonstrate its commitment to bilateral partnership. But there is zero chance that Pakistan will get a nuclear deal of the sort that we have with India. They cannot get it through Congress or the NSG."

On a more realistic level, Pakistan has a small nuclear programme, with three reactors -- Chashma 1 & 2 and Khushab (all built with Chinese assistance). While they produce a small amount of power, they are also the source for Pakistan's uranium-based nuclear weapons programme. Incidentally, both are run by Pakistan's powerful military. So there cannot be a separation of civilian and military nuclear sectors in Pakistan.

Anupam Srivastava of University of Georgia said, "Pakistan has not completed the process of strengthening its export control systems following the A Q Khan scandal, nor has it provided access to A Q Khan. On the other hand, US has worked with Pakistan's Special Plans Division on programmes including personnel reliability programme to shore up security of nuclear weapons facilities." This is a reference to George Bush spending $100 million to train Pakistanis to make their nukes more secure -- the overriding concern being that they should not fall into the hands of terrorists or guarding against "leakage" by insiders of the system.

N-deal for Pak? US denies, India remains anxious - India - The Times of India
 
shared this news couple of times before in other threads

That was Indian media who started shouting for no reason

I don't believe them ever............... no matter even if they are praising Pakistan
 

Back
Top Bottom