Pakistan wants to join NSG, MCTR, Australia group, Wassenaar Arrangement

[praful]

That is Pakistan's problem then isn't it? Why are you guys so concerned about it and dragging India into the conversation? Did the Statement from Pakistan mention India in terms of the NSG?

We have made a proposal, and laid down our conditions - the rest will play out in the next few years.

Dear Sir, The response was to the post of muse who said that why Indian acting defensively. actually India was dragged by Muse not me.

PS. Why did I get the infraction for the same post for which u replied ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Dear Sir, The response was to the post of muse who said that why Indian acting defensively. actually India was dragged by Muse not me.

Actually India was dragged into the conversation by Indian posters, starting with Rajusri, who suggested Pakistan was only doing this to 'match India'.

The Pakistani posters have merely been responding to that.

PS. Why did I get the infraction for the same post for which u replied ?

I have issued no infraction, and moderating issues need to be taken up through PM and/or wall messages, not on the open forum.

 

[EjazR]

Well I don't see why Pakistan would not want to join such groupings. And even if it didn't it wouldn't stop China involving Pakistan in such a group to counter balance India.

Its the same old divide and rule game that Pakistan has obliged - unwittingly perhaps.

Besides, having Pakistani civil nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards as part of the deal would probably be good overall. In fact, if its in US interests to play the NSG membership card with Pakistan on some sort of deal on Pakistani bases or in Afghanistan, you would see that too. But India should focus more on having stringent IAEA safeguards and non-proliferation controls in place instead.

The world is not a fair place, so I wouldn't be surprised if Pakistan is offered some sort of arrangement even by the US perhaps despite its abominable proliferation record.

While India will have to satisfy more requirements if only because it can be a real competitor to other NSG countries in the nuclear suppliers market unlike Pakistan which would more likely be mainly a consumer and a market in itself.

 

[muse]

Ejaz seems innocent of the waiver the US carved for India and how this has enabled the divide and rule game -- the US cannot afford good relations between Pakistan and India - and someday, soon, I hope, it may have no other choice but to accept that Pakistan and India want better relations without some Western interference.

 

[Peshwa]

I think you need to stop looking at this just from the perspective of 'Pakistan matching India'.

I agree with that....Pakistan has its own needs in terms of energy security etc...

However, if we are to look at this situations from a "non-Indo-Pak" angle, we have to take into consideration that currently the Pakistan armed forces and the ISI haven some elements (some even in high ranks as seen from the Mehran tragedy) that are supportive of extremists.....
Given that terrorism has become a world problem now, do you believe it is safe to allow nuclear trade and sensitive nuclear technology to a state, where these important technologies have a chance of reaching the hands of the extremists?
I believe not until the "rotten apples" have been weeded out by the Pakistani state...

You have to understand that world opinion of Pakistan becomes the biggest barrier in Pakistan's entry....unfortunately, Pakistan's problems are highlighted on the world stage that make things even worse...

With regard to the "discrimination" angle, when a world body like UN is discriminatory, then why be surprised that merit based discrimination can exist in a group like NSG?

 

[EjazR]

Ejaz seems innocent of the waiver the US carved for India and how this has enabled the divide and rule game -- the US cannot afford good relations between Pakistan and India - and someday, soon, I hope, it may have no other choice but to accept that Pakistan and India want better relations without some Western interference.

Nothing about innocence there.

Frankly speaking China and India have problems. The nuclear deterrent is China specific and NOT for Pakistan. Infact, some think tanks in India have even advocated a NFU only for SAARC region i.e. having the first strike option against China because of their hostile manoeuvrings and the capability mismatch.

The day when India and Pakistan will learn to maintain good relations is when either side will realize what are its capabilities based on its own potential and not rely on external power support to punch above its weight. Be that the external power is from the west or east.

Otherwise we will end up with an unstable situation which serves the interests of that external power.

 

[Goodperson]

Ejaz seems innocent of the waiver the US carved for India and how this has enabled the divide and rule game -- the US cannot afford good relations between Pakistan and India - and someday, soon, I hope, it may have no other choice but to accept that Pakistan and India want better relations without some Western interference.

I do not think western influence is obstructing India Pakistan. Both of them are developing countries the need involve more with developed countries to accelerate development. However one can understand why one is facing lot of issues due to terrorism because of whatever reason. And terrorism is the reason most of Indians think and will not support Pakistan.

I support your good intentions but lets not ignore the fact.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

some think tanks in India have even advocated a NFU only for SAARC region i.e. having the first strike option against China because of their hostile manoeuvrings and the capability mismatch.

I hope you realize that the argument you quoted above is almost identical to the one made by Pakistani policy makers not in favor of a NFU in SAARC.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Given that terrorism has become a world problem now, do you believe it is safe to allow nuclear trade and sensitive nuclear technology to a state, where these important technologies have a chance of reaching the hands of the extremists?

Yes, since Pakistan already has an extensive civilian and nuclear weapons program and associated infrastructure. There are tens of thousands of Pakistanis, if not hundreds of thousands when taking into account all the associated and tertiary industries and entities, involved in these programs. If the argument is that 'WMD's or dirty bomb related material' will leak out to terrorists, then it is too late. Expanded civilian nuclear cooperation, especially if done under the aegis of the mentioned groups, does not enhance the potential of terrorists getting hold of nuclear material.

 

[great]

Yes, since Pakistan already has an extensive civilian and nuclear weapons program and associated infrastructure. There are tens of thousands of Pakistanis, if not hundreds of thousands when taking into account all the associated and tertiary industries and entities, involved in these programs. If the argument is that 'WMD's or dirty bomb related material' will leak out to terrorists, then it is too late. Expanded civilian nuclear cooperation, especially if done under the aegis of the mentioned groups, does not enhance the potential of terrorists getting hold of nuclear material.

Well it does. All it takes is one of them turning against the state. International community is stuck with you having nuclear weapons. There's nothing much they can do. But why would they exacerbate the issue more? Unless Pakistan shows that they can handle terrorism, no one with a right mind in this world, would grant such a waiver.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

it is not in our national interests to sign the NPT/CTBT....they are one-sided, nonsense treaties.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

on a SOMEWHAT related note



Ottawa Dialogue Recommends Nuclear Agreements for India and Pakistan

OTTAWA, July 13, 2011— An ongoing dialogue known as the “Ottawa Dialogue” has resulted in the adoption of an ambitious list of nuclear confidence-building measures (CBMs). The Ottawa Dialogue is a distinguished group of academics and retired senior officials and military officers from India and Pakistan.

It is led by Peter Jones, a professor from the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs.

The list of recommended CBMs was adopted at a meeting at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution in Palo Alto, California, from July 6 to 8, 2011.

The meeting was hosted by former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry also participated in a number of the discussions.

The list includes CBMs that could be implemented to prevent an accidental launch of nuclear weapons and prevent the escalation of conflicts.

The members of the Ottawa Dialogue who signed the list were pleased that high-level official talks on nuclear confidence-building had resumed between India and Pakistan. They have put forth these recommendations in the hopes of assisting the official process.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

It's too dangerous to the whole world that Pakistan have access of sensitive and dangerous nuclear technology. Pakistan should forget about it and should improve the safety of it's stock and get rid of radicalised people from their ranks.

some of your countrymen say "why bring india into it" when in fact india (a non-signatory) has a worse nuclear safety record than Pakistan ever had....it's silly to bring up AQ Khan --given that that it is a closed case for some years now and nothing materialized as far as "proliferation" is concerned. Even countries like Iran still have a ways to go, and the AQ network (which spanned across several countries from Sri Lanka to UAE to Turkey) only sold some out-dated centrifuge-cascade designs to the Iranians and not much else really.

of course it didnt help Pakistan's "case" --but it is a closed chapter and in fact nations whose officials are regularly critical of Pakistan in other aspects all agree that Pakistan's nuclear stockpile is very much safe and secure. Seems that it is only the hindustanys who forget this fact.

 

[indushek]

Nothing about innocence there.

Frankly speaking China and India have problems. The nuclear deterrent is China specific and NOT for Pakistan. Infact, some think tanks in India have even advocated a NFU only for SAARC region i.e. having the first strike option against China because of their hostile manoeuvrings and the capability mismatch.

The day when India and Pakistan will learn to maintain good relations is when either side will realize what are its capabilities based on its own potential and not rely on external power support to punch above its weight. Be that the external power is from the west or east.

Otherwise we will end up with an unstable situation which serves the interests of that external power.

Actually this same calculus is what will get Pakistan its waiver soon no doubt. If we leave the rhetoric of unsafe standards and export of sensitive technology aside the ultimate thing is interests and China or even USA will get Pakistan what it wants if they make a good bargain. Most of the Indians after getting the waiver are in the thought process that India got this only because of our clean record (which is an added asset no doubt). As Agnostic has pointed out this waiver has opened a "pandora's box" no doubt. Its the war of mighty nations at work here and we are letting them use us as pawns for scraps.

 

[EjazR]

I hope you realize that the argument you quoted above is almost identical to the one made by Pakistani policy makers not in favor of a NFU in SAARC.

But two major differences should be noted as well

(1) India's official govt. policy is still No First Use including NFU against China.
(2) India has not supported insurgencies and/or terrorist groups in China unlike the history that Pakistan has.

It is of course Pakistan's imperative on whether it wants to have an NFU policy or not though.