China-Pak nuclear deal: US asks for Pak-China nuke arrangement details

[Singh]

The topic is China-Nuclear Deal. Thank You.

 

[hit&run]

A nation who can name its nuclear tipped BMs by the names of violent barbarian bandits then one must not dare to mention what Indians were nomenclaturing their nuclear tests.
One must not trust a nation who openly choose offensive names; which are synonymous of evil, violence, inhuman and beastly ever in the history of mankind.

 

[EagleOne]

There could well be strong pressure from Capitol Hill for President Obama to oppose any sale of reactors to Pakistan.

The country (means pakistan) - like India - has never signed the NPT. It too has a small nuclear arsenal. And, more worryingly, proliferation experts say it has a terrible record of selling nuclear technology and knowhow to third countries.

.read in full dont change the meaning
and back to the topic

 

[ajtr]

Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
June 28, 2010 "¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦..

QUESTION: Last week's NSC meeting – are you satisfied by the clarification given by China to you on its agreement of selling two nuclear power plants to Pakistan?

MR. CROWLEY: Are you talking about Nuclear Suppliers Group?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. CROWLEY: We did raise the issue during last week's Nuclear Suppliers Group. And we continue to seek information from China regarding its future plans.

QUESTION: So you have not – they haven't given you full details yet? Do you need more information from them before you take a decision on it?

MR. CROWLEY: We – as a first step, we're looking for more information from China as to what it is potentially proposing. We have a view that this initiative, as it goes forward, would need the agreement of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Yes. "¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦

US State Dept

 

[SHASH2K2]

WASHINGTON: The US has sought more information from China on its agreement to supply two nuclear reactors to Pakistan, saying the deal would need an agreement of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

"We as a first step are looking for more information from China as to what it is potentially proposing," State Department spokesman P J Crowley told reporters at his daily press briefing.

He was responding to a question on last week's meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in New Zealand, wherein China informed the group about its decision to supply two additional nuclear power plants to Pakistan.

"We did raise the issue during last week's Nuclear Suppliers Group. We continue to seek information from China regarding its future plans," Crowley said.

He said there was no unanimous consensus at the meeting of the NSG, which operates by consensus.

"We have a view that this initiative as it goes forward would need the agreement of the Nuclear Suppliers Group," Crowley said.

 

[Yusuf]

link for the above post.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...SG-nod-US-tells-China/articleshow/6104476.cms

shash, please keep the habit of providing links to news articles.

 

[Yusuf]

Zardari is heading to China to firm up the nuke deal. I think he goes to China every other month. The Chinese must be sick of seeing his face and the begging bowl. But have to put up with him as they give that edge against India.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-to-firm-up-nuke-deal/articleshow/6106285.cms

 

[Soham]

Zardari is heading to China to firm up the nuke deal. I think he goes to China every other month. The Chinese must be sick of seeing his face and the begging bowl. But have to put up with him as they give that edge against India.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-to-firm-up-nuke-deal/articleshow/6106285.cms

Hey. Atleast he's a boon for their airlines. And the hotels too.

 

[EagleOne]

American think tank pushes for Pak-U.S. nuke deal

Amid reservations expressed in various quarters about the Sino-Pak civil nuclear deal, a Washington-based think tank has said a similar agreement between the U.S. and Pakistan could be the biggest game-changer in bilateral relations; particularly in Pakistani public perception which presently is anti-American.

In its report 'Pakistan in the Danger Zone: A Tenuous U.S.-Pakistan Relationship', the Atlantic Council of the United States - which was headed by James L. Jones before he took over as President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser - noted that the "biggest game changer in terms of public perception" will be discussion of an energy-oriented civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan.

"That will treat it on par with neighbour India but at the same time begin to draw it into the safeguards network of the International Atomic Energy Agency and thereby dissuade it from any recidivist tendencies toward proliferation," is the contention of Atlantic Council's South Asia Centre which prepared the report with the help of staff from the International Monetary Fund.

Dwelling on the "tenuous" relationship, the report has noted that Pakistan's government and population saw how the Bush administration sought a long-term relationship with India on the basis of economic and political interests. "In pursuit of that aim, the United States essentially pushed aside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty agenda and offered India a civil nuclear deal while ignoring Pakistan."

The think tank has also advocated removal of U.S. pressure against the Iran-Pakistan pipeline and hinted at allowing its extension to India as it could be seen as a positive step towards helping America's friends in South Asia.

Released on Monday, the report articulates the step-by-step approach adopted by India and Pakistan last week to bridge the trust deficit: Identify the doables that can be implemented right away while working on the more contentious issues. "The U. S. should also use its new status as a strategic partner of both India and Pakistan to bring the two neighbours together to pick up on the resolution of solvable disputes while reducing tensions on issues that may require more time to mature," the report has suggested.

The think tank is also of the view that the U.S. and its allies can nudge India and Pakistan to see the importance and great value of open borders, transit trade and economic ties between South Asia, Afghanistan and Central Asia. While Pakistan's geographical location has been its bane - given that each of its provinces shares a boundary with another country - this, according to the South Asia Centre can be turned into an advantage; making what is seen in the West as a failed state a key hub of economic activity in the region and a transit point for energy and trade.


http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article493373.ece

 

[Zaki]

Sino-Pak N-deal meets int'l obligations: China​

Updated at: 1020 PST, Sunday, July 04, 2010

WASHINGTON: Chinese Embassy in Washington said Sunday, China believes that its agreement to install two new nuclear reactors in Pakistan does not violate international obligations, Geo news reported.

In a statement to the US media, the embassy's spokesman Wang Baodong told the US media Beijing is convinced the reactor agreement "goes along well with the international obligations China and Pakistan carry in relation to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime".

A US expert, Mark Hibbs of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, endorsed the Chinese position but urged Beijing to be careful.

"The US doesn't really have any options.....the Nuclear Suppliers Group's guidelines are voluntary. There is nothing the US can do to prevent China from going ahead with this deal," he said.

"Unless Washington comes up with a very, very attractive offer, the history of Chinese-Pakistani relations is such that it is unlikely that this deal will not go through," Heritage Foundation researcher Dean Cheng told the US media.

A State Department official disagreed with the suggestion but did so rather meekly.

The United States "suspects" that China would need a waiver from a nuclear export control group to move ahead with the sale of two atomic energy plants to Pakistan, a department official told the Washington Times.

Sino-Pak N-deal meets int'l obligations: China

 

[ajtr]

Nuclear doublespeak​

Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Dr Maleeha Lodhi

The writer is a former envoy to the US and the UK, and a former editor of The News.

As India was signing its eighth civilian nuclear deal with Canada on the sidelines of last month's G20 meeting, its officials were voicing concerns about China's sale of two power reactors to Pakistan. India's deal with Canada follows similar agreements with a number of other countries including France and Russia since the exemption it received from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in the wake of the US-India nuclear accord that entered into force in 2008.

There cannot be a more telling example of nuclear doublespeak than the objections to Sino-Pakistan cooperation raised by India and a cast of familiar characters in the western media and think-tank community. These ostensible concerns are devoid of either moral or legal basis because Pakistan-China civilian nuclear cooperation is of longstanding nature and the supply of reactors was 'grandfathered' under the agreement dating back to the 1980s that provided for an understanding in 2003 for further long-term collaboration. This predates China joining the NSG in 2004.

So why all the fuss over nuclear power reactors being provided under full international safeguards? The answer might lie in the timing of the orchestrated campaign. Although plans for the third and fourth reactors at Chashma were publicly known years before, opposition to them surfaced at the time of the review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in May. This seemed a rather transparent bid to distract attention from the US-India nuclear deal, a fundamental violation of the Treaty and for that reason the source of continuing misgivings among many NPT members.

Different lobbies with a mix of motives seemed to lie behind the efforts to ignite a controversy. The aims may have included the following: pre-empt and deflect criticism of the US-India nuclear accord, mount pressure on Pakistan to modify its position in the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty talks at Geneva, and put pressure on China in other contexts as well ( for example tougher sanctions against Iran). Feeding into this campaign were right-wing critics of President Barack Obama who sought to use the issue to depict his administration as being soft on China and Pakistan.

A spate of analyses emanated from think tanks in Washington calling attention to Sino-Pakistan nuclear cooperation. Some 'experts' even urged the US to use its assistance to Pakistan as leverage to block the 'deal'. One analyst made this case in an article on the basis of the farcical claim that US aid would be subsidising the "dangerous deal"!

Much of this comment aimed at building a momentum of opinion to urge the US to take a tougher position on the issue. While Washington said it would seek "clarification" from Beijing about the two new reactors, it has – thus far – avoided pressing the issue. American officials did not raise the issue with Pakistan in last month's unpublicised talks on nuclear safety and security. Nor has the issue figured in the strategic dialogue underway in Islamabad which has a specific track dedicated to nuclear issues.

The reason the US has taken this stance is not hard to fathom. Having concluded a sweeping civilian nuclear deal with India, which was finalised this March, the US is hardly in a position to make a big deal out of this and actively oppose such cooperation between China and Pakistan. In fact the more Washington protests the more its own double standards are exposed to the non-nuclear weapons states. Moreover as some in the nuclear non-proliferation lobby in Washington have acknowledged the US may object but it "cannot prevent China from exporting these reactors".

A section of the American media highlighted Washington's "uncomfortable" position by asking how it could oppose China's plan "while dodging charges of nuclear hypocrisy, given that the administration only last year sealed a US deal to supply India with civilian nuclear equipment."

So while the Obama administration continued to be accused by its detractors of allowing the need for vital cooperation from Pakistan and China (on a range of issues including currency revaluation ) trump its non-proliferation commitment, it desisted from going beyond seeking "clarifications" from China.

The sense of disappointment this produced in Indian official circles as reflected in their media has been palpable. Delhi has made no secret of its opposition to the deal. Its behind-the-scenes lobbying has also been evident from a spate of leaked stories. Mimicking the US stance, Indian officials have been publicly saying they are calling for "clarifications" from Beijing. This provoked a rebuke last week from the spokesman of Pakistan's Foreign Office in which he said Indian demands for clarifications are unwarranted and invalid, considering India has signed civilian nuclear deals with the US and many other countries.

According to Indian press reports Delhi has questioned Pakistan-China cooperation on several recent occasions. During the May visit of Indian President Pratibha Patil to Beijing Indian officials are reported to have conveyed their objections to China's foreign minister during a formal banquet, only to be tersely told that the cooperation was for peaceful purposes.

Attempts in the Indian media to depict China-Pakistan civilian nuclear cooperation as a "counter" to the Indo-US pact and equate the two are deliberately misleading and spurious. The latter deal has global scope and enables India to gain global access to nuclear material and technology as well as assured fuel supply from whichever supplier nation lines up for commercial advantage. The NSG waiver in fact opened the way for a veritable nuclear souk with eight countries signing agreements with India and Japan about to begin negotiations.

While Pakistan-China cooperation is bilateral and consistent with international legality, the US-India deal undermined the legal norm set by the NPT and violated the NSG's very raison d'etre by making a country-based exemption.

Pakistan-China cooperation rests on solid legal ground. It is part of continuing collaboration under an agreement that was general and generic. And as it predates China joining the NSG it does not in any way compromise its international obligations.

Moreover the two additional power plants will be under full International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and supervision. This makes the proliferation argument advanced against the supply patently specious. Much of the comment in the western press seems to have deliberately omitted this fact.

It is because these objections lack legal and moral validity that China and Pakistan have reacted coolly to them. In a series of statements the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman has said plainly and pithily that the nuclear energy cooperation between Pakistan and China is for peaceful purposes in line with international obligations and under IAEA safeguards.

Meanwhile efforts were made last month to turn an NSG meeting concerned with technical issues into one focusing on the China-Pakistan 'deal'. The meeting in New Zealand of the 46-nation cartel that monitors nuclear transactions did not take up formal consideration of the matter. But the issue was apparently raised informally by the US, Switzerland and Norway by way of "seeking information." China simply reiterated at the meeting that its civilian cooperation with Pakistan was in accordance with its international commitments. The NSG statement made no reference to any China-Pakistan agreement, saying only that "the group took note of briefings on developments concerning non-NSG states"¦ (and)"¦ agreed on the value of ongoing consultations and transparency".

Disappointment over this was evident from reports in the Indian press and from the reaction of familiar lobbies in the west. Leaks that Indian officials are "wary" of the stance taken by the NSG have been accompanied by indications that Delhi will continue to try and build up diplomatic momentum and make "quiet representation" to "friends".

These efforts are unlikely to go anywhere. And if there is any expectation on Delhi's part or among well-known lobbies in the US and Europe that pressure by leaks and flanking manoeuvres will urge Beijing to revise its position then they understand the Chinese even less than they think they do.

 

[ajtr]

China presses ahead with Pakistan nuclear deal – and contemplates U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan​

In Beijing last week to catch up with Chinese security experts on Afghanistan and Pakistan, with two issues the main focus.

Having talked on-and-off with people there about the Chashma-3 and 4 deal since it was first announced, this was the first occasion where I was greeted with disciplined – and largely unapologetic – talking points on the subject. Once the predictable lines were out of the way – the deal has no military application, Pakistan needs energy, the plants will be under IAEA safeguards – the Chinese analysts I spoke to were entirely explicit about the fact that it was a tit-for-tat strategic response to the India-U.S. deal. No-one, however, suggested that there would be anything comparable to the U.S. campaign to win approval from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Instead the expectation was that it would simply be allowed to slip by – as one put it: "Obama needs China's help on Iran and Pakistan at this stage; the United States will not really oppose it".

I was also struck by the emergence of a different conversation about Afghanistan: "We are talking about withdrawal now – we think that's where it's headed – and we are saying to the Americans that if you do withdraw, it will be a disaster for you". Neither of those claims represents a settled consensus: many in the strategic community are more than happy to see the United States pull out, "as long as it's responsible", and plenty of other analysts expect only a minor drawdown of American presence in the coming years. But the topic is now firmly on the agenda, and there is a degree of frustration about China's options: "In the event of withdrawal, we can work with Russia and we can work with Pakistan. We can't do anything ourselves, it's too dangerous to risk"; "We don't have so many instruments in Afghanistan – we only have economic tools – this is why we support reconciliation with the Taliban and a neutral Afghanistan. All the other regional countries have the groups that they can work through – we don't". And while there were some gleaming eyes about mineral deposits, the mood among Chinese companies appeared somewhat sour: "Security is always the number one issue. Why is the Aynak investment proceeding so slowly? China Railway Group admitted that they underestimated the cost and risk of their road-building project"¦and MCC Group [which runs Aynak] pulled out of the Hajigak bidding process". One way to mitigate that – Chinese security presence. Reports persist of "decommissioned" Chinese military personnel at the Aynak facility. "Sure, if they're wearing plain clothes, what's wrong with that?" quipped one Chinese former diplomat. All those people asking for Chinese troop contributions may already have their wish.

http://blog.gmfus.org/2010/07/05/ch...contemplates-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

 

[ajtr]

The China-Pakistan Nuclear "Deal": Separating Fact From Fiction​

Ashley J. Tellis
POLICY OUTLOOK, JULY 16, 2010

China's commitment to provide Pakistan with two additional civilian nuclear reactors has created great unease in the international nonproliferation community. While some compare this assurance to the U.S.- India nuclear cooperation agreement, the differences between the two are significant.

Unlike the U.S.-India civilian nuclear initiative, whose terms were publicly debated, the Sino- Pakistani agreement is a secret covenant, secretly concluded.

China appears willing to dismiss its obligations to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)—which it joined in 2004—by privately claiming that the prospective sale is grandfathered under a Sino- Pakistani contract dating back to the 1980s.

Whereas the United States respected the international nonproliferation regime by requesting a special NSG waiver to permit nuclear trade with India, China seeks to short-circuit the NSG rather than appeal to its judgment.
The United States must convey to China its strong concern about the planned reactor sale to Pakistan. The integrity of the global nonproliferation system requires an orderly and coordinated process for managing change—which the NSG provides—and China, as a member of that group, should be permitted to consummate its prospective deal with Pakistan only if it first secures an NSG exemption from the current guidelines.

By leading international opposition to the Sino-Pakistani deal in its current form—both bilaterally and multilaterally—Washington can prompt Beijing to reconsider its plans. It would also encourage other countries to insist that Beijing respect the integrity of the global nonproliferation system overseen by the NSG. China has shown its willingness in the past to listen. It is time for the United States to raise its voice again.

Resources for this publication
Full Text

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Covert deals are acceptable with NSG??? India dosen't have any covert deals with Russia that can be grandfathered??

 

[ajtr]

^^No they are not accetable.But remember we are speaking of sino-pak here who are the height of nuke proliferation.

 

[ajtr]

Pak needs to clear international concerns on China nuke deal: Clinton​

ISLAMABAD: US secretary of state Hillary Clinton on Monday said the world community has reservations about a Pakistan-China deal for the supply of nuclear reactors and wants Islamabad to respond to these concerns.

Clinton made the remarks while responding to a question about concerns on the Pakistan-China nuclear deal during a joint news conference with foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi at the foreign office here.

She said the US is constantly talking to Pakistan about its burgeoning energy needs.

She indicated that there were a series of questions about the nuclear arrangement with China that need to be addressed by Pakistan.

Qureshi said nuclear energy is a component of Pakistan's programme to overcome a crippling energy crisis and that the country would satisfy the international community's concerns on the deal with China.

Pakistan's "policy on non-proliferation is very clear" and the world community endorsed the country's atomic programme as "safe and responsible" during the recent nuclear summit hosted by the US, he contended.

"There should be no fear on that account and these projects that we intend to undertake will be open to IAEA inspection," Qureshi said.

Pakistan has 35 years' experience of generating nuclear energy and no untoward incident has occurred because of precautions and systems that are in place, he said.

Pakistan has inked a deal with China for the supply of two new reactors for its Chashma nuclear power complex.

Experts have said the deal violates the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Since the Washington concluded a landmark nuclear deal with New Delhi, Pakistan has been urging the US to grant it a similar arrangement so that it can access nuclear technology and know-how.

Clinton announced new aid projects worth over $500 million which the US hopes will help overcome anti-American opinion in Pakistan, a key ally in the war against terrorism and the military campaign in Afghanistan.

"There is a legacy of suspicion that we inherited. It is not going to be eliminated overnight. Our goal is to slowly but surely demonstrate that the US is concerned about Pakistan in the long term," Clinton said at the joint news conference with Qureshi.

"Our partnership goes beyond security against our common enemies," she added.

Responding to a question about the trust deficit between the US and Pakistan, Clinton said: "We have moved beyond a standoff and misunderstandings that were allowed to fester... to a position where we are engaged in the most open dialogue that our two countries have ever had".

Following meetings of working groups on 13 sectors, the two sides have prepared a document detailing the vision for long-term engagement and ways to develop a partnership between the people of both countries, Qureshi said.

Both Clinton and Qureshi said the Strategic Dialogue had now entered the "implementation" or "action" phase.

They said the next round of the dialogue will be held in Washington in October.

Asked about the Afghan government's process of reconciliation with the Taliban, Clinton said the US supports the reconciliation and reintegration efforts undertaken by Afghan President Hamid Karzai but has made it clear that "reconciliation cannot succeed unless the insurgents who have been fighting the Afghan government... recognise the importance of renouncing violence and al-Qaida".

Reconciliation is only possible with militants who enter the political system and agree to abide by the Afghan constitution and laws, she said.

Pakistan has been trying to position itself as a key player in the Afghan reconciliation process by facilitating contacts between Karzai's government and the Haqqani network, a powerful Afghan Taliban faction based in North Waziristan tribal region.

However, the US has indicated that it may include the Haqqani network in its list of foreign terrorist organisations.

 

[Illusive]

Clinton rules out India like nuke deal with 'proliferation-prone' Pak

ISLAMABAD: Ruling out any possibility of an India like civil nuclear accord with Pakistan, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that there are issues which are yet to be resolved, and unless the international community and the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) are satisfied on the matter no progress can be made.

Addressing journalists and members of civil society here, Clinton highlighted that the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) has raised a number of questions over any nuclear deal with Pakistan.

"NSG has posed series of questions that need to be answered ... there are clearly reservations. Pakistan knows that. I'm looking forward to the answers to the questions," Clinton said.

Referring Dr . Abdul Qadeer Khan's nexus, she said that Pakistan has a history of proliferation, which can not be ignored.

"The problem with A. Q. Khan raises red flags for people around the world, not just in the US, because we can trace the export of nuclear information and material from Pakistan through all kinds of channels to many different countries. That cannot be overlooked or put under the carpet," The Dawn quoted Clinton, as saying.

"Pakistan, right now, is the only country standing in the way of the Conference on Disarmament pursuing something called the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty," she added.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...oliferation-prone-Pak/articleshow/6190553.cms

 

[Illusive]

Clinton questions Sino-Pak nuke deal

Even as Hillary Clinton conveyed 'concerns' to Islamabad over China's controversial sale of two new 650 MW civilian nuclear reactors to Pakistan, influential Chinese voices were arguing that the Sino-Pak deal is 'practically modelled' on the India-US civilian nuclear deal. While US Secretary of
State Clinton was telling Islamabad that the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) must approve the deal, a Chinese analyst told the Hindustan Times that the NSG should be abolished. Another analyst admitted to this paper of a 'theoretical possibility' that selling nuclear material to Pakistan may be risky.

"I think we should abolish the NSG," Shen Dingli, executive dean of the Institute of International Relations at Fudan University in Shanghai, told HT, adding that he was expressing personal views. "Every country whether an NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) member or not, is entitled to peaceful use of nuclear energy and international cooperation for it. It's like a human right."

"India and the US opened the so-called nuclear Pandora's box...removed obstacles for the Sino-Pakistan pact," wrote Fu Xiaoqiang, analyst at the official think-tank China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, in the State-run China Daily on Monday. "Anybody nodding to the US and India has no reason to dissent to China and Pakistan now. The international community should abandon its ideological prejudice towards China and Pakistan."

Fu, who declined to be interviewed by HT, said the India-US deal provided China and Pakistan with a 'practical model' and it's 'groundless' for India to complain after accepting American and Russian civilian nuclear technology.

The commentary evaded the fact that while India received an NSG exemption by consensus, China is exempting Pakistan unilaterally.

"In Chinese perspective, China has not done more than the India-US civilian nuclear deal," Shi Yinhong, director, Centre on American Studies at Renmin University, told HT.

Shi added that 'India is more stable' compared to Pakistan. "Theoretically speaking, the civilian nuclear deal could increase the potential for possible future proliferation," said Shi.

"The Chinese government will take care in safeguarding that the nuclear material is not proliferated." China's foreign ministry says the Sino-Pak deal is subject to safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-...tions-Sino-Pak-nuke-deal/Article1-574718.aspx

 

[Yusuf]

Abolish NSG? Why did China join it in the first place? It surely wanted to reap the benefit of nuclear trade and now it wants it to go so that it can proliferate even more. NPT next now. Sure why not...

 

[ajtr]

Two excerpts dealing with the US Secretary of State's reaction to China's attempt to supply the Chashma 3 and 4 nuclear reactors to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in violation of NSG guidelines.

Firstly an excerpt from US Secretary of States Town Hall at the Pakistan National Council of the Arts (PNCA) in Islamabad on July 19th:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/07/144828.htm

QUESTION: Madam Secretary of State, welcome to Pakistan once again and I am meeting you for the second time. My name is Sameer Cader and I'm a business man from Islamabad. My question to you is that you have announced hydropower projects amongst others for Pakistan, which are commendable and laudable, but nothing on the civil nuclear power plants. As we expand our nuclear ties with China, you have reservations to have these deals closely inspected and monitored.

There seems to be a mistrust in your mind about an energy-hungry country like ours. How can we remove these mistrusts to benefit from your civil nuclear technology accessible to India and not to ours? (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, we recognize the desperate need that Pakistan has for more energy. And we support a comprehensive approach to meeting those energy needs. With regard to civil nuclear power, there is a process that everyone has to go through to obtain the support of the international community, the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Everybody, including India, had to go and get permission to go forward. And our view is that Pakistan does as well. There was a recent meeting in New Zealand where a number of questions were asked of both the Chinese and the Pakistani officials who were there and people are looking for those answers.

Now, I just want to be very candid with you, because that's the nature of our relationship, and I want to be sure that we are openly communicating. The request by the Pakistani Government that we explore civil nuclear power was received and we are beginning the kind of intensive discussions that are necessary that we carried on with India over many years. And there are certain issues that will have to be addressed. They cannot be overlooked or put under the carpet. They have to be addressed. Export controls, and just very frankly, the problem with Mr. A.Q. Khan raises red flags for people around the world, not just in the United States, because we can trace the export of nuclear information and materiel from Pakistan through all kinds of channels to many different countries. That is an issue. So anyone who is dealing with Pakistan as we are, with the hope of reaching an agreement that could support civil nuclear power, has to answer these questions.

Pakistan right now is the only country standing in the way of the Conference on Disarmament of the World pursuing something called the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty – even to get into the negotiations. And it's an international body that acts by consensus, which means everyone has to agree. Pakistan's the only country not agreeing. So people say, "Why? Why would Pakistan be the only country not agreeing?" So I just want you to understand that we are fulfilling our commitment to pursue this and we are doing it with great seriousness. We've already teed up our team of experts to meet with their Pakistani counterparts.

But it is not a one-way street, as most of life is not. And therefore, there has to be some awareness on the part of not only the Pakistani Government, but the Pakistani people that certain questions that people have in their minds – not just Americans, but others as well, and the IAEA, which would have to be satisfied, must be answered. And now, we are going to do everything we can to try to facilitate those answers, but ultimately, the decision lies with the government and people of Pakistan.

Secondly an excerpt from US Secretary of State's remarks with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi following the U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue once again in Islamabad on July 19th:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/07/144858.htm

MODERATOR: Mr. Jay Solomon of Wall Street Journal, please.

QUESTION: Thank you. This question is for both of you. Secretary Clinton, today, you outlined the push to help Pakistan meet its energy needs, but at the same time, I know the State Department is concerned about an impending sale of nuclear reactors from China to Pakistan. What message are you telling the Pakistanis about the U.S. position on this sale? And how are you sort of marrying the desire to help Pakistan's energy needs, but these concerns about proliferation and the nuclear question?

And for you, Minister, as well, what is Pakistan telling the U.S. as far as its plans of going ahead with this purchase of nuclear reactors from China? And what does Pakistan need to do to get greater support internationally for its use of nuclear technologies? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Jay, we are constantly talking with Pakistan about its energy needs, including the role for nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We believe that the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which has recently met to examine the sale that you're referring to, has posed a series of questions that should be answered, because as part of any kind of transaction involving nuclear power, there are concerns by the international community. Pakistan knows that. We've conveyed them. Other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group has conveyed them. And we look forward to the answers to those questions that were posed at the meeting just recently held in New Zealand.

FOREIGN MINISTER QURESHI: The energy needs of Pakistan are obvious. The people of Pakistan are facing outages, six to eight hours in the urban areas and 10 to 12 hours in the rural areas. Our economic growth has been impacted. Our agriculture production has suffered on account of that. So this government, under the leadership of President Zardari and Prime Minister Gillani, have set forth a very clear target on bridging the energy deficit.

Now, how do we propose doing that? We are doing it through an energy mix. We are tapping on the indigenous sources that we have – that's coal. We are trying to undertake new hydro projects because there's a huge capacity for hydro generation. We are looking at other sort of renewables like solar and wind energy. And we are sort of making advances there.

We are trying to make our existing system more responsive and more efficient, and of course, in this mix, there is a component of nuclear energy. Pakistan has 35 years experience of generating nuclear energy. And fortunately, and because of the precautions that we have taken and the systems in place, there has been no untoward incident.

Now, this is part of our bag, but our policy on nonproliferation is very clear. And in the nuclear summit that we had, which was led by President Obama in Washington, Pakistan's position was very obvious and very clear and endorsed by the international community that how Pakistan's program is not only safe; it is responsible. So I see there is – there should be no fear on that account. And these projects that we intend to undertake will be open to IAEA inspection. So we will satisfy the international community and their concerns and we will address them to their satisfaction.