Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

India reacts strongly to reports of US-Pak nuke pact, says 'check Islamabad's prolife

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • India reacts strongly to reports of US-Pak nuke pact, says 'check Islamabad's prolife

    NEW DELHI: India on Thursday reacted very sharply to reports of the US mulling a nuclear deal with Pakistan on the lines of India-US pact, saying anyone considering a nuke pact should first see Islamabad's proliferation track record.

    "We have 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. And when India got this particular deal it was on the basis of our own impeccable non-proliferation track record.

    "That is the reason 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 taken into account in making any such decision," spokesperson in the external affairs ministry Vikas Swarup said, in an apparent reference to Pakistan scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan leaking the nuke technology to countries like North Korea.

    Khan was one of Pakistan's top scientists and was involved in various scientific programmes there until his dismissal in January 2004 by Pakistan government on the evidence provided by the US about his involvement in leaking bomb-making designs and equipment to at least three countries — Iran, North Korea and Libya.

    Ahead of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's visit to the US this month, a report in The Washington Post said the US is negotiating a pact on new limits on Pakistan's nuclear weapons and delivery systems, a deal that might lead to an agreement similar to the India-US civil nuclear deal.

    "Pakistan has been asked to consider what are described as 'brackets'," the report quoted a source familiar with the talks between the two countries as saying.
    Source

    WTF? Can somebody confirm this?
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  • #2
    Some Pakistani sources:
    US considering nuclear deal with Pakistan: report

    Pakistan likely to secure civil nuclear deal with US: report
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

    Comment


    • #3
      The original article:

      The U.S. cannot afford to forget Afghanistan and Pakistan

      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. Such an accord might eventually open a path toward a Pakistani version of the civil nuclear deal that was launched with India in 2005.

      The nuclear dialogue is especially important because it would begin to address what U.S. officials for two decades have viewed as one of the world’s most dangerous security problems. A source familiar with the talks said Pakistan has been asked to consider what are described as “brackets.” Pakistan would agree to restrict its nuclear program 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.

      In return for such an agreement, the source said, the United States might support an eventual waiver for Pakistan by the 48-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, of which the United States is a member. At U.S. urging, that group agreed to exempt India from rules that banned nuclear trade with countries that evaded the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This so-called “civil nuclear agreement” allowed India partial entry into the club of nuclear powers, in exchange for its willingness to apply International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards to its civilian program.
      The Indian diaspora should vote enmasse for Donald Trump in the next elections. Or any other Republican they deem fit.

      India's the check to Pakistan: Trump
      Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

      Comment


      • #4
        The key to solving the puzzle of Afghanistan is Pakistan

        Recent setbacks in Afghanistan — from the fall of Kunduz to the errant U.S. bombing of a hospital in that city — again raise a question. Why, after 14 years of American military efforts, is Afghanistan still so fragile? The country has a democratically elected government widely viewed as legitimate. Poll after poll suggests that the Taliban are unpopular. The Afghan army fights fiercely and loyally. And yet, the Taliban always come back.

        The answer to this puzzle can be found in a profile of the Taliban’s new leader, Akhtar Mohammad Mansour. It turns out that Mansour lives part time in Quetta, the New York Times reports, “in an enclave where he and some other Taliban leaders . . . have built homes.” His predecessor, Mohammad Omar, we now know, died a while ago in Karachi. And of course, we remember that Osama bin Laden lived for many years in a compound in Abbottabad. All three of these cities are in Pakistan.

        We cannot solve the problem of Afghanistan without recognizing that the insurgency against that government is shaped, aided and armed from across the border by one of the world’s most powerful armies. Periodically, someone inside or outside the U.S. government points this out. Yet no one knows quite what to do, so it is swept under the carpet and policy stays the same. But this is not an incidental fact. It is fundamental, and unless it is confronted, the Taliban will never be defeated. It is an old adage that no counterinsurgency has ever succeeded when the rebels have had a haven. In this case, the rebels have a nuclear-armed sponsor.

        Pakistan has mastered the art of pretending to help the United States while actually supporting its most deadly foes. Take the many efforts that U.S. officials have recently made to start talks with the Taliban. It turns out that we were talking to ghosts. Omar has been dead for two years, while Pakistani officials have been facilitating “contacts” and “talks” with him. This is part of a pattern. Pakistani officials, from former president Pervez Musharraf down, categorically denied that bin Laden or Omar was living in Pakistan — despite the fact that former Afghan president Hamid Karzai repeatedly pointed this out publicly. “I do not believe Omar has ever been to Pakistan,” Musharraf said in 2007.

        The Pakistani army has been described as the “godfather” of the Taliban. That might understate its influence. Pakistan was the base for the U.S.-supported mujahideen as they battled the Soviet Union in the 1980s. After the Soviets retreated from Afghanistan in 1989, the United States withdrew almost as quickly, and Pakistan entered that strategic void. It pushed forward the Taliban, a group of young Pashtun jihadis schooled in radical Islam at Pakistani madrasas. (“Talib” means student.) Now history is repeating itself. As the United States draws down its forces, Pakistan again seeks to expand its influence through its long-standing proxy.

        Why does Pakistan support the Taliban? Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, whose book “Magnificent Delusions” is an essential guide, says that “Pakistan has always worried that the natural order of things would be for Afghanistan to come under the sway of India, the giant of the subcontinent. The Pakistani army came to believe that it could only gain leverage in Afghanistan through religious zealots. Afghanistan’s secular groups and ethnic nationalists are all suspicious of Pakistan, so the only path in is through those who see a common, religious ideology.” This strategy is not new, Haqqani points out, noting that funding for such groups began in the mid-1970s, before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979.

        What should the United States do? First, says Haqqani, it needs to see reality for what it is: “When you are lied to and you don’t respond, you are encouraging more lies.” He argues that Washington has to get much tougher with the Pakistani military and make clear that its double-dealing must stop. To do this would be good for Afghanistan and stability in that part of the world, but it would also be good for Pakistan.

        Pakistan is a time bomb. It ranks 43rd in the world in terms of its economy, according to the World Bank, but has the sixth-largest armed forces. It has the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, and the most opaque. It maintains close ties with some of the world’s most brutal terrorists. By some estimates, its military consumes 26 percent of all tax receipts, while the country has 5.5 million children who don’t attend school . As long as this military and its mind-set are unchecked and unreformed, the United States will face a strategic collapse as it withdraws its forces from the region.
        Nuke deal would legitimize Pakistan's terrorist activities vis-a-vis it's neighbors, and it's nuke proliferation record as well as playing the international community with double standards (OBL and Mohammed Omar). Pakistan doesn't need a nuke deal. If any, a general consensus needs to be built at the UNSC asking Pakistan to give up nukes, or else face punitive sanctions, which culminates in foreign boots on the ground securing Pakistan's nukes.
        Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

        Comment


        • #5
          Sounds like a bid to bribe Pakistan to quit building additional nukes and destroy some of their existing arsenal in exchange for civil nuclear power stations.

          I'd think India would be on board with a deal like that as it reduces the number of missiles Pakistan has pointed East.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            Sounds like a bid to bribe Pakistan to quit building additional nukes and destroy some of their existing arsenal in exchange for civil nuclear power stations.
            Does that make a difference? 10 nukes pointing at us or a 100, those are still nukes of a mad mullah.

            Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
            I'd think India would be on board with a deal like that as it reduces the number of missiles Pakistan has pointed East.
            I seriously doubt that. However, if that is the case, then that would be the worst policy mistake after Indira decided not to bomb Pak nuclear facilities in the 80s.

            Some questions now.

            #1. Why does USG continue to reward Pakistan even after losing American soldiers in Afghanistan, while Pakistan continue to play the double game, milk billions and is duplicitous?

            The lives of US soldiers don't matter? Surely policy makers in Washington are not fools, then what clouds their judgement when it comes to Pakistan?

            #2. US is the leader of the free world, why then has it not forced the Paks to close the terrorist manufacturing factories in PoK?

            If USG cannot force Pakistan from closing those terrorist manufacturing factories, I don't see any reason why USG should continue to meddle in South-East Asia. Leave us to our fate.

            I propose a solution. Stop giving financial and military aid to Pakistan. Not a dime. Tell the Paks bluntly that in case of another terrorist attack in India, USG would not restrict the GoI, and any attack from India would be Pakistan's own to handle. If the Paks threaten to use nukes, let them use it. Either we call the bluff, or get vaporized, and Pakistan does not exist on world map anymore.

            Squeezing aid to Pakistan would mean less aid money directed at expensive nuke toys, or maintaining the terrorist camps. They go bankrupt, the mullah's go crazy and civil war erupts. Then is the time to hard talk to Pakistan and ask them to give up their nukes, close the jihadi manufacturing factories and join the free world. Trust me, when the Pak Generals have gun totting crazy mullah's on their ass, they would do anything to survive.
            Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Oracle View Post
              A disturbing development indeed. However do remember that any deal would have to be ratified by the U.S. Congress.

              Originally posted by Oracle View Post
              The Indian diaspora should vote enmasse for Donald Trump in the next elections. Or any other Republican they deem fit.
              It is better to have the support of 60-70 Senators and a few hundred Congressmen from both sides of the aisle who can work with you on a full range of concerns, from local public schools to foreign policy. While we are broadly sympathetic to India's security concerns vis a vis Pakistan, the day-to-day concerns of a 7-11 owner in St Louis are different than a doctor's in Pittsburgh, which are different than an IT engineer's in Atlanta, which are different than a farmer's in Northern California, which are different than a banker's in New York... it is plain foolish to throw all your support behind one man or one party over one foreign policy issue.

              Indian-Americans can get you sympathetic allies among our friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc, but at the end of the day India also needs to make a strong and coherent case on why the deal doesn't really work for the United States.

              Comment


              • #8
                I can not for the life of me understand the US's near constant antipathy toward India. As far as I can recall, Bush II is the only administration that has tried to find mutual ground, every other administration including the current has bent over backward to threaten India via Pakistan.
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                  I can not for the life of me understand the US's near constant antipathy toward India. As far as I can recall, Bush II is the only administration that has tried to find mutual ground, every other administration including the current has bent over backward to threaten India via Pakistan.
                  Nah, it has been up and down since 1948. JFK considered India a strategic partner and relations were good. Under LBJ they declined and really hit bottom with Nixon. Problems were the usuals: Pakistan and nuclear testing.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                    I can not for the life of me understand the US's near constant antipathy toward India. As far as I can recall, Bush II is the only administration that has tried to find mutual ground, every other administration including the current has bent over backward to threaten India via Pakistan.

                    I don't get the feeling of antipathy so much as indifference.

                    I don't get it either frankly..

                    I mean India has the potential (not to mean they are) to become a major power economically as well as militarily but I don't see this administration, or any past administrations going out of their way to build a stronger bond with them.

                    I sense a somewhat amicable relationships between the two but no real commitments that they'll go to bat for each other.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      None of you remembered the Cold War when either you are on my side or his. India was clearly siding with Moscow during the Cold War, at least from everybody's perspective. They exploded their nuke and still got weapons from Moscow, including leasing strategtic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles (loop hole in the NPT).
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                        None of you remembered the Cold War when either you are on my side or his. India was clearly siding with Moscow during the Cold War, at least from everybody's perspective. They exploded their nuke and still got weapons from Moscow, including leasing strategtic nuclear weapons delivery vehicles (loop hole in the NPT).
                        This was after being rebuffed by the west. The Indo-Soviet alliance started in the 1970s. The US had plenty of time from 1947 to 1971 to bring Pakistan into SEATO, base her aircraft in Peshawar and deny arms sales to India when they mattered the most in 1965.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          1947-1971? Are you freaking kidding? Korean War, Vietnam War, Israeli-Arab Wars, Sino-Soviet nuclear confrontation ... and you thought Indo-Pakistan is going to take front page on the New York Post?
                          Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 10 Oct 15,, 05:59.
                          Chimo

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                            A disturbing development indeed. However do remember that any deal would have to be ratified by the U.S. Congress.



                            It is better to have the support of 60-70 Senators and a few hundred Congressmen from both sides of the aisle who can work with you on a full range of concerns, from local public schools to foreign policy. While we are broadly sympathetic to India's security concerns vis a vis Pakistan, the day-to-day concerns of a 7-11 owner in St Louis are different than a doctor's in Pittsburgh, which are different than an IT engineer's in Atlanta, which are different than a farmer's in Northern California, which are different than a banker's in New York... it is plain foolish to throw all your support behind one man or one party over one foreign policy issue.

                            Indian-Americans can get you sympathetic allies among our friends, colleagues, neighbors, etc, but at the end of the day India also needs to make a strong and coherent case on why the deal doesn't really work for the United States.
                            I endorse your view mate. Consider your post liked.
                            Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Oh! Come on. Not the cold war again. This is now. I don't think we should let the differences of our past, keep the future of Indo-US relations hostage. India is not anti-US anymore, so why does US bend over to the Pakistanis everytime?
                              Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X