With reports of the US considering a nuclear agreement with Pakistan emerging, New Delhi on Thursday [i.e. on Oct. 8] asked for Islamabad’s proliferation track record to be kept in mind. Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Vikas Swarup said, “We’ve seen these reports and it is not for the first time this issue has surfaced. Whosoever is examining that particular dossier should be well aware of Pakistan’s track record in the area of proliferation. When India got this particular deal it was on the basis of our own impeccable non-proliferation track record.” “That is the reason the US gave us 123 Agreement in 2005 and that is why we got a NSG waiver in 2008. Pakistan’s track record is completely different, so we hope that will be taken into account in making any such decision,” he said, while responding to questions on the proposed US-Pakistan nuclear pact. Swarup’s remark was an oblique reference to Pakistan scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who supplied nuclear technology to countries like North Korea.
(Excerpted from: 'Nuclear deal talks: Consider Pak’s nuclear proliferation record, says India' at <http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/paks-proliferation-track-record-should-be-considered-before-any-nuke-deal-with-it-india/>.) Sukla P.S.: India's prompt formal reaction clearly shows up to what extent it has got rattled at the mere prospect of a talk, most likely to be eventually fruitless, between thee US and Pakistan as regards a nuclear deal. It's just yet another indication that despite all tall talks India is far from getting over the "hyphenation" obsession. On 08/10/2015, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > [The ball for the Indo-US Nuclear Deal started rolling with > Bush-Manmohan joint statement on July 18 2005. The process eventually > concluded on October 10 2008. > It was quite a roller-coaster ride. > > If that experience is any indicator, and as the report at sl no. III > below shows, things are not going to be any easier here. > And given the fact that the Obama administration is now at the fag end > of its tenure, the prospects do not appear to be all that bright. > > In case of India, Bush had enough time to negotiate the bends and > curves. So did Manmohan Singh. > > In the former case, the main motivation of the Bush administration in > trying to put an end to India's penal exile from the global nuclear > market was to set it up as a major regional challenger to Chinese > power. > In the subject case, the driving force is to have some sort of control > over Pakistan's nuclear programme. Ref: "The White House is also > exploring what could be a diplomatic blockbuster: ***possible new > limits and controls on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and delivery > systems*** [emphasis added]. Such an accord might eventually open a > path toward a Pakistani version of the civil nuclear deal that was > launched with India in 2005." (Available at > <https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dangers-that-still-lurk-in-south-asia/2015/10/06/e3adf016-6c73-11e5-b31c-d80d62b53e28_story.html>.) > Despite its strong quest for a parity with India, Pakistan may not be > too interested given the fact that it is able to go ahead with its own > nuclear programme with the full backing from China.] > > I/III. > http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/in-fact-what-a-us-pakistan-nuclear-deal-might-mean-for-india/ > > In fact: What a US-Pakistan nuclear deal might mean for India > > Although the deal has been termed a potential “diplomatic > blockbuster”, its inherent contradictions may make it difficult to > sell in both the US and Pakistan. > Pakistan premier Nawaz Sharif and US President Barack Obama. > > India has seen this movie before and it does not have a happy ending. > As the idea of a nuclear deal between the United States and Pakistan > gains some traction in Washington, Delhi is unlikely to lose much > sleep. > > One of Washington’s well-briefed columnists, David Ignatius, has > revealed this week the outlines of a nuclear agreement that the US is > said to be negotiating with Pakistan. These talks could be at the top > of US President Barack Obama’s agenda with Pakistan when he receives > Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif at the White House later this month. > > Although the deal has been termed a potential “diplomatic > blockbuster”, its inherent contradictions may make it difficult to > sell in both the US and Pakistan. > > The hope for a nuclear deal between America and Pakistan was born the > very moment US President George W Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan > Singh unveiled the historic civil nuclear initiative in July 2005. > > In typical fashion, Pakistan simultaneously opposed the US deal with > India and demanded one for itself on the same terms that Washington > had offered Delhi. > > The Bush Administration refused to entertain any proposal for a > nuclear accommodation with Pakistan. It insisted that the deal with > Delhi was an exception that couldn’t be replicated with Islamabad. > > The Obama Administration, in contrast, has been ambivalent and allowed > itself to come under sustained pressure from Pakistan’s supporters in > Washington. > > In a Washington Post column on Wednesday, Ignatius says the US is > ready to lift international restrictions against civilian nuclear > commerce with Pakistan in return for significant voluntary restraints > on its nuclear weapons programme. > > These limits, according to The Post, would be defined by the principle > that Pakistan should “restrict its nuclear program to weapons and > delivery systems that are appropriate to its actual defence needs > against India’s nuclear threat”. > > The idea of a nuclear deal with Pakistan has had considerable support > from sections of the American non-proliferation community. A recent > report published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and > the Stimson Centre in Washington has enumerated in greater detail the > possible American demands on Pakistan. > > In the report titled A Normal Nuclear Pakistan, Toby Dalton of > Carnegie and Michael Krepon of Stimson laid out four such demands. The > most important one was a call to limit Pakistan’s production of short > range missiles and tactical nuclear weapons. > > The other three are a separation of Pakistan’s civil and military > nuclear programmes, reduction or cessation of the production of > special nuclear material, and a signature on the Comprehensive Test > Ban Treaty without waiting for India to do the same. > > These terms outlined by Dalton and Krepon may not necessarily be the > ones being discussed at the official level; but they certainly give > Delhi a sense of the new approach in Washington. > > On the face of it, the terms of the deal with Pakistan are somewhat > different from those that India had won from Washington in 2005. That > in itself will make it a hard political sell in Pakistan, which has > always insisted on ‘nuclear parity’ with India. > > The clamour for parity was expressed in its demand for a bilateral > nuclear restraint regime with India. Delhi, of course, is unlikely to > ever accept either parity or a regional restraint regime. > > Pakistan may also find it more difficult than India to separate its > civilian and military programmers that are so tightly bound. > > Further, it is not clear why Pakistan would accept what have been > called ‘brackets’ on its nuclear arsenal in return for access to > civilian nuclear technology. After all, Pakistan has already broken > through the global nuclear blockade with the help of China. > > Beijing, which found it difficult to accept the India-US civil nuclear > initiative but could not derail its implementation, has in clear > violation of its nonproliferation commitments, been building new > nuclear reactors in Pakistan. > > The quest for nuclear parity has only been one important theme of > Pakistan’s atomic diplomacy. The other is Jammu and Kashmir. Since it > acquired nuclear weapons in the late 1980s, Pakistan has sought to > leverage them to alter the political status quo in Kashmir. > > That of course completes the vicious circle that has long complicated > the triangular relationship between India, Pakistan and the US. > Pakistan’s friends in Washington seem to think that they can square > this circle with the help of Beijing. That might make matters a lot > worse than they are today. > > *[email protected]* > > *(The author is the Consulting Editor on foreign affairs for The > Indian Express and a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research > Foundation, Delhi)* > > II/III. > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-in-talks-with-Pakistan-over-capping-its-nuke-range/articleshow/49264551.cms > > US in talks with Pakistan over capping its nuke range > Chidanand Rajghatta,TNN | Oct 8, 2015, 01.34 AM IST > > The issue is being discussed quietly in the run-up to Prime Minister > Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Washington on October 22. > > WASHINGTON: The Obama administration is exploring a possible civilian > nuclear deal with Pakistan ahead of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's > visit to Washington later this month, a Washington Post columnist has > reported, citing a sole source "familiar with the talks" who said > Islamabad has been asked to consider "brackets" relating to the deal. > > Brackets, in diplomatic parlance, are numerous alternative > formulations that are negotiated towards an eventual agreement. > According to the report, the deal centers around a civilian nuclear > agreement similar to the one the United States arrived at with India, > in exchange for a Pakistani commitment that would "restrict its > nuclear program to weapons and delivery systems that are appropriate > to its actual defense needs against India's nuclear threat." > > Pakistan might, for example, agree not to deploy missiles capable of > reaching beyond a certain range, the report said, citing the source, > who indicated that the US might support an eventual waiver for > Pakistan by the 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the same way > it has done for India. > > READ ALSO: > US cautions Pakistan over brandishing of nuclear status > > The Obama administration said it was in "regular contact" with the > Government of Pakistan on "a range of issues" as it prepared for the > visit on October 22 of Prime Minister Sharif, but declined comment on > the specifics of the discussions. > > "The United States urges all nuclear-capable states, including > Pakistan, to exercise restraint regarding nuclear weapons and missile > capabilities. We encourage efforts to strengthen safety and security > measures and continue to hold regular discussions with Pakistan on a > range of global issues, including nuclear security, counterterrorism, > and international norms," an administration spokesperson said in a > tacit acknowledgement that some sort of dialogue is taking place on > the nuclear issue. > > Successive US administrations both under Presidents Bush and President > Obama, have knocked down the idea of a deal for Pakistan like the one > Washington arrived at with India, saying the background and > circumstances surrounding the US-India civilian nuclear agreement was > entirely different, and pointing to Pakistan's record of nuclear > proliferation. > > READ ALSO: > In 10 years, Pakistan will have largest N-stockpile after US and > Russia, report says > > However, President Obama's recent track record vis-a-vis Iran and > Cuba, both regarded for a long time as outlaw nations, suggests there > may be some substance to a nuclear outreach towards Pakistan. There is > also less pathology about Pakistan in Washington's official circles, > where many veterans have a romanticized recall of Islamabad's role in > the Cold War when it offered its services to Washington, for a price. > The strategy helped Pakistan circumvent nuclear non-proliferation > roadblocks that the US all too readily winked at. > > In recent months, Pakistan has tried to project itself as a > responsible nuclear power, although some of its politicians and > generals reflexively brandish the country's nuclear weapons to assure > themselves and their constituents about security against India. "We > are a nuclear-armed country and we know how to defend ourselves," > Pakistan's National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz boasted recently in a > suo motu assertion although no one had talked of a nuclear war. > > While a few regional experts have floated the idea of a nuclear deal > for Pakistan in the past, most analysts are aghast at the prospect. It > will be "sheer madness wrapped in folly," said Sumit Ganguly, a South > Asia scholar at Indiana University, among several experts who have > critiqued Washington frequent free passes to a country that has a > reckless history of nuclear proliferation and home-grown terrorism. > > The WaPo report however conceded that inasmuch as Pakistan prizes its > nuclear program, "negotiations would be slow and difficult, and it's > not clear that Islamabad would be willing to accept the limitations > that would be required." But, it said, the issue is being discussed > quietly in the run-up to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's visit to > Washington on October 22. > > III. > http://tribune.com.pk/story/969332/curbs-on-nuclear-programme-ruled-out/ > > Curbs on nuclear programme ruled out > > By Our CorrespondentPublished: October 8, 2015 > > ISLAMABAD: A senior Pakistani official on Wednesday dismissed > speculation that Islamabad could agree to put certain limits on its > nuclear weapons programme in return for a civil nuclear energy deal > with Washington. > > “We will not compromise our nuclear programme… we are seeking civilian > nuclear technology but that does not mean we will accept any > restrictions on our nuclear weapons programme,” the official, who is > familiar with Pakistan’s talks on nuclear issues, told The Express > Tribune on the condition of anonymity. > > In an opinion piece published by The Washington Post, US journalist > David Ignatius claimed that Washington is exploring possible new > limits and controls on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and delivery > systems. Such an accord, he wrote, may eventually open a path toward a > Pakistani version of the civil nuclear deal that was launched with > India in 2015. > > He further claimed that a source familiar with the talks said Pakistan > had been asked to consider what were described as ‘brackets’. > “Pakistan would agree to restrict its nuclear programme to weapons and > delivery systems that are appropriate to its actual defense needs > against India’s nuclear threat. Pakistan might agree not to deploy > missiles capable of reaching beyond a certain range, for example,” > Ignatius said. > > The foreign office, however, in an official reaction to The Washington > Post article would not say if Pakistan was offered a conditional > nuclear deal by the US. “As a responsible nuclear state Pakistan > remains actively engaged with the international community, including > the United States, on nuclear stability and security issues,” said the > foreign office spokesperson on Wednesday. > > Without referring to the conditions mentioned in the Washington Post > piece, he said Pakistan’s nuclear policy was shaped by evolving > security dynamics of South Asia, growing conventional asymmetry, > provocative doctrines and aggressive posturing by India. > > This situation, the spokesperson said, obliges Pakistan to take all > necessary measures to maintain a full spectrum deterrence capability > in order to safeguard our national security, maintain strategic > stability and deter any kind of aggression from India. > > “Pakistan seeks peace and strategic stability in South Asia as a > cornerstone of its policy and considers conflict resolution as a means > to achieve this end. This policy has been reiterated by Pakistan’s > highest decision-making body, the National Command Authority (NCA), > chaired by the Prime Minister, in its meeting on September 9, 2015,” > he said. > > Published in The Express Tribune, October 8th, 2015. > -- > Peace Is Doable > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
