US may offer India-like nuke deal to Pak!!!

[Yusuf]

Don't know if someone has posted the news, but I read that all that has been offered to pakistan as far as energy goes is expansion/degradation of three thermal power plants.

 

[Iamanidiot]

The U.S and Pakistan: It's All Talk
By Huma Imtiaz Thursday, March 25, 2010 - 1:05 PM Share

For Pakistanis, the latest talks between the United States and Pakistani officials in Washington, D.C. are just a repeat of what they've seen played out on their television screens so many times before. Even with the addition of the new chief of army staff, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani, to the delegation, a wide-ranging agenda, and renewed commitment to partnership from both sides, most Pakistanis do not see a change in the status quo.

After it was announced that the United States would provide aid for power plants in Pakistan, a right-wing colleague of mine remarked: "Why don't we just hand over our country to [the United States] now." On local television stations analysts have been speculating that Kayani's inclusion is a sign that the military and the government are putting up a united front is hard for most Pakistanis to believe, as is the impression Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are working hard to promote -- that U.S.-Pakistan relations are taking a turn for the better.

Perhaps to give the impression that they are a key player in the region, Pakistan has gone along with a long list of U.S. demands, from acquiescing to the Coalition Support Funds to paying for the support for thermal power plants on the list. Ayaz Amir, a member of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), the second largest party in the parliament, told me over the phone "I think we've set our expectations too high and our wish list is a bit too wishy-washy. We should've focused on one or two specific areas. Instead we've gone in with unrealistic expectations. These talks are no different from previous phases in our history, so we should not be carried away with this."

Cyril Almeida, a columnist at the daily newspaper Dawn, said during a phone interview, that during these talks we will likely see Pakistan making a push for what's already on the table -- for example support for the war against militancy, aid, infrastructure development, etc. "There's nothing new that you would expect either to announce, or nothing new that either side will learn about the other side. However, it is important whenever they meet, but at the same time, I don't see it as being a deal changer."

After 9 years of being ruled by a military ruler, the former president, General Pervez Musharraf, one saw Gen. Kayani, taking a backseat. But thanks to the ruling party the Pakistan People's Party mishandling of the reinstatement of deposed judges, one has seen the COAS nudge and push the government into handling domestic issues with more tact. According to Almeida, "From the Pakistani perspective, what is more important is that General Kayani is now increasingly comfortable with a high profile public role in Pakistan's foreign policy. From giving briefings to the media, chairing a meeting with the country's foreign secretaries and being seated in meetings with the Prime Minister, he is becoming uncomfortably comfortable in his newfound role as the "go to person" on Pakistan's foreign policy."

At the end of the day, even if the United States promises the moon (which it won't), and even if the Pakistani government comes back empty handed, or laden with promises, the situation in Pakistan will remain the same. Even with a lull in recent terror attacks, Pakistanis are braced every single day for the worst to happen. The current electricity shortfall in the country is now at 5,000 megawatts, meaning electricity cuts off from anywhere between 4 - 12 hours a day. Prime Minister Gilani is promising the world to Pakistanis at the moment, saying the delegation will discuss everything from power plants to Afia Siddiqui's case. The media wing of Pakistan's army -- the Inter Services Public Relations -- sends daily dispatches reporting such events as: "X number of militants was killed in army operations in the tribal areas," in an attempt to show that all is well in the country.

While this dialogue between the U.S. administration and the Pakistani government will surely continue, one wonders if all that is promised will be delivered. And with Pakistan's current government's record being so dismal on everything from implementing constitutional reforms to infrastructure development, it is highly likely that the Pakistan-U.S. talks will remain just that: talk.

Huma Imtiaz works as a journalist in Pakistan.

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/25/the_us_and_pakistan_its_all_talk

 

[ajtr]

Give Pakistan a nuclear deal

Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi came to Washington this week armed with a long list of topics to discuss. Or to be more accurate, he arrived with a hodgepodge wishlist of unrealistic propositions. However, the most unlikely proposal -- that Pakistan be given a civilian nuclear deal similar to the one India was granted in 2008 -- could be the one that finally wins those elusive "hearts and minds."

It has become a mantra of the war on terror that poverty, desperation, and hopelessness breed militancy. A population that is contented, it is said, will never strap on suicide vests.(its something like younis khan said last year when most of the cricket team refused to visit pak,"by refusing to travel pakistan world teams are taking bat away from us.do they want pakistani players too leave cricket bat and pick-up guns to become terrorists".it is well known fact that most of the dreaded terrorists are well off.) Solving Pakistan's power crisis, a source of great exasperation for many Pakistanis that is getting progressively worse with each passing year, should be a priority in Washington. And providing nuclear energy may be the cheapest, most efficient way to deal with this crisis.

A poll conducted by Gallup in July 2009 found that 53 percent of the Pakistani population goes without electricity for more than eight hours a day. Since then the electricity shortfall in the country has increased by 42 percent from 3,500 megawatts to 5,000 megawatts. The Pakistani government has tried a variety of piecemeal measures -- building a power plant here, placing pleading ads in the newspapers begging consumers to cut their consumption there -- but technical and financial constraints do not allow wholesale reform. There is also a lack of will on the part of political governments to invest in long-term solutions since the benefits of such investment would not be felt for many years to come. This is where the United States and its civilian nuclear deal could rush in and save the day.

The benefits to the United States of such a deal should be obvious. Millions of electricity-starved Pakistanis might be thankful to the United States for providing aid that has a tangible impact on their lives. The civilian and military aid currently provided by the United States has not touched the life of the average Pakistani. This will also allow the Obama administration to keep a closer watch on Pakistan's nuclear activities. By attaching the condition that all nuclear materials and technology provided under the agreement be monitored by the Americans, the U.S. government will gain greater knowledge of Pakistan's nuclear know-how. The Pakistani government, though, would have to spin such conditions to patriotic Pakistanis by boasting that Pakistan has been offered the same nuclear deal as the one given to India. The desire for parity with India should override questions of sovereignty, especially if the deal comes with a guarantee that Pakistan's existing nuclear capabilities will remain untouched and unmonitored. In the long run the United States could help avert the next regional war, which may well be over the water that Pakistan so desperately relies on for electricity generation -- water that Pakistan is now accusing India of withholding.

The most outlandish objection to a Pakistani nuclear deal is that the Taliban will take over Pakistan and with it the nuclear material provided by the United States. Given that the Taliban only control parts of the tribal areas in the country's rugged northwest -- land that has never been fully under the authority of the central government in Pakistan's history -- and that even the mainstream religious parties have never won more than 10 percent of the vote in general elections, this is an eventuality this is unlikely to come to pass. Then, there is the fear that Pakistani soldiers and officers with extremist sympathies could hand over a 'dirty' bomb to the Taliban, which somehow ignores the fact that the Pakistani army already has plenty of nukes to distribute to the Taliban if they so desired.

Pakistan might not "deserve" nuclear technology given its illegal past proliferation. By that standard, Pakistan also didn't ‘deserve' vast amounts of U.S. military aid to fight the Taliban considering its previous support for the regime. But international politics doesn't work on the principle of treating countries like schoolchildren. Give Pakistan the civilian nuclear deal and leave the demerit-badges-for-past-performance idea for the Boy Scouts.

Nadir Hassan is a journalist working for Newsline magazine in Pakistan.

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan nuclear ambitions give US leverage

Pakistan's hopes for civil nuclear cooperation have been a non-starter in Washington, but experts say the United States can use it as a dangling carrot as it seeks influence in Islamabad.
The two nations Thursday wrapped up a first-of-a-kind "strategic dialogue," which the United States hopes will show Pakistan's widely anti-American public that it cares about the country beyond seeking help against Islamic extremists.

US officials stayed carefully on message, pledging respect for Pakistan and never explicitly saying no to its requests -- a refusal that would have been sure to steal the headlines.

Pakistan is seeking a civilian nuclear deal along the lines of a landmark agreement that the United States struck with India in 2008. The South Asian rivals stunned the world in 1998 by carrying out nuclear tests.

Asked about the Pakistani request, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would listen to "whatever issues the delegation raises" and highlighted a 125-million-dollar US package to boost Pakistan's energy sector.

A nuclear deal could help ease the developing country's chronic energy shortages. But it would also amount to US recognition of Pakistan as the Islamic world's only nuclear power, a point of pride for many Pakistanis.

"At the moment this looks like a non-starter, but it shouldn't be," said Marvin Weinbaum, a scholar at the Middle East Institute and former State Department official.

"There is no reason why we couldn't use this as a bargaining tool to get more cooperation, to say, 'This may not be something we can deliver now, but we would like to work something out with you,'" he said.

"It could have a very positive impact both with the Pakistani elite and public."

But the United States has longstanding concerns about proliferation from Pakistan -- and policymakers are said to have quietly drafted a crisis plan in case the nuclear arsenal risk falling out of government control.

The father of Pakistan's bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, has admitted leaking nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea, although he later retracted his remarks.

The level of separation between Pakistan's military and civilian nuclear programs also remains a matter of dispute. Pakistan returned to civilian rule in 2008 and President Asif Ali Zardari a year later handed over control of the nuclear program to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

"I think it's extremely premature to be talking about any civil nuclear cooperation between the US and Pakistan at this stage," said Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation think-tank.

"It would be more appropriate and important to be talking about conventional military cooperation, economic support and breaking down trade barriers," said Curtis, who served in the State Department in former president George W. Bush's administration.

Bush championed the nuclear deal with India, the signature part of his drive to build an alliance between the world's two largest democracies.

The agreement faced criticism from some members of President Barack Obama's Democratic Party, who argued that it sent the wrong message as India, like Pakistan and Israel, refuses to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"One of the reasons the US was able to move forward in Congress was because of India's solid record against proliferation and Pakistan doesn't have that," Curtis said.

Some critics who believe the Bush agreement was too easy on India said that Pakistan's requests confirmed their fears.

"I think the fact that we gave India such a sweetheart deal set a very dangerous precedent and it's no surprise that Pakistan wants a similar deal," said Leonor Tomero of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

She also said that Pakistan's request was "odd" coming so close to Obama's April 12-13 nuclear security summit in Washington and the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference a month later.

 

[johnee]

I think the real deal that Pakistan is bargaining is for legitimacy to its nuclear weapons and some uranium. They start with big demands and finally come to the real issue.

 

[ajtr]

Strategic dialogue opens up possibilities for further talks

WASHINGTON: The two-day strategic dialogue between the United States and Pakistan has opened up new possibilities for further talks on a range of issues — from a nuclear deal to Islamabad’s role in the Afghan reconciliation process.

But there was silence on Pakistan’s “most heavily advertised” proposal: a civil nuclear agreement similar to the one the Bush administration signed with India. The silence also underlined the need for further talks on this issue.

During the talks that ended on Thursday, the two sides also discussed a possible role for Pakistan in the Afghan reconciliation process. US officials were particularly interested in knowing Gen Kayani’s views on this issue as they believed that he was “critical to determining the role Pakistan will play”.

Three tangible results include: $125 million for energy development, $51 million for upgrading three thermal plants and $40 million for the construction of priority roads in the NWFP.

All of these come from last year’s $7.5 billion aid to Pakistan legislation known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill and some were already announced during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan in October.

Pakistani diplomatic sources confirmed to Dawn a US media report that the Obama administration also had agreed to expedite the delivery of F-16 fighter jets, naval frigates and helicopter gunships, as well as new remotely piloted aircraft for surveillance missions.

The United States, however, made some significant pledges too. These include improved market access for Pakistani goods, the creation of special economic zones, known as ROZs, along the Pak-Afghan border and a Bilateral Investment Treaty to stimulate investment in Pakistan.

The dialogue, however, also had some impressive optics: sitting side by side at the State Department, instead of confronting each other, a visit to the White House, an audience with Vice President Joe Biden, although he had no separate meeting with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and lots of smiles and warm handshakes.

Nuclear Issue

Mr Qureshi, however, told journalists on Thursday that his delegation had “very satisfactory” talks with the Americans on civilian nuclear cooperation and that the A. Q. Khan issue was “behind us”.

Diplomatic sources also confirmed the foreign minister’s claim, but added that the Americans did not want to discuss this issue publicly and had also advised Pakistan to remain silent.

The New York Times on Friday interpreted this meaningful silence as indicating that there would be more talks on this issue.

“Given Pakistan’s history of selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, such an agreement would realistically be 10 or 15 years away,” a senior Obama administration official told the Times.

“Still, the administration was careful not to dismiss the idea out of hand,” the Times observed.

The Indian media — perhaps more concerned than the Pakistanis about the proposed nuclear deal — also noted that the Americans had not “said a no” to Pakistan’s request. “Instead they asked them to initiate steps that would restore the confidence of the international community in its nuclear programme.”

Quoting their own sources in Washington, the Indian media reported that Pakistan had apparently assured the Americans that it was willing to initiate the steps they had suggested.

The Americans told the Pakistanis that “they would closely monitor the developments” before considering the Pakistani request.

Topping the list is the complete disbanding of the Khan network, so that the US is convinced that it would not re-emerge.

The suggested steps also require international monitoring/inspection of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities.

The joint statement issued after the talks, however, stressed a mutual desire to reinforce strategic ties.

Both agreed to “redouble their efforts to deal effectively with terrorism” and would work together for “peace and stability in Afghanistan”.

The New York Times noted that the term “strategic dialogue” was by itself meant to send a message: “The administration used the term reserved for the substantive, wide-ranging exchanges it carries on with important countries like China and India. Pakistan and the United States held three such dialogues during the Bush administration,” the newspaper observed.

The Washington Post said the Obama administration’s primary goals for the gathering were to create a new level of bonding between the two countries and to win increased Pakistani cooperation in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. US officials, aware of Pakistan’s often-prickly response to perceived slights, were deferential to the Pakistanis and offered fulsome praise, the Post observed.

According to the Post, Army Chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani was clearly the star of Pakistan’s delegation, if not its official leader.

“At a Tuesday evening reception at the Pakistani Embassy, Gen Kayani’s entry brought a hush to the crowd and the appearance of dozens of cellphone cameras, wielded by Pakistanis and Americans alike,” it reported.

The Washington Times said: “Washington’s long-time suspicion and mistrust of Pakistan and questions about its commitment to fighting extremists have vanished, and the Obama administration has agreed to fast-track Islamabad’s pending requests for military equipment.”

Bruce Riedel, a Pakistan expert at Washington’s Brookings Institution agreed with Gen Kayani that the military’s campaign in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan had improved the tenor of Islamabad’s relationship with Washington. But the success has also raised America’s expectations, he warned.

“Yes, you get a pat on the back,” Mr Riedel told NYT. “But now that you’ve shown you can do something, you’ve got to do more.”

 

[hit&run]

http://www.npec-web.org/Essays/20081107-Dalberg-Pakistan.pdf

Mother of all justifications why Pakistan should not have Nuclear deal of any kind.

 

[ajtr]

Kayani and Qureshi did not go empty handed

Senator Jesse Helms, the then chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, introduced the then Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto [ Images ], to the Senate as the 'prime minister of India' [ Images ]. When everyone laughed, Helms said, 'It is her fault. She has been talking to me for the last one hour and it was all about India, not a word about Pakistan.'
Hillary Clinton [ Images ] might have gathered the impression that Shah Mahmood Qureshi was the foreign minister of India, considering that he too had more to talk about India than about Pakistan.

Qureshi talked about the strategic alliance between India and the United States, the India-US nuclear deal, the use of water in India, the Indian presence in Afghanistan and Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ].

The dominating presence of a general in full regalia was the only sign that it was not an Indian delegation that was holding a dialogue in Washington.

Hillary Clinton would have exclaimed to her team at some stage how she wished the sub-continent was never partitioned. She must have felt like a mother of twins, having to find two identical toys with different colours each time to keep her children in good humour.

Hillary Clinton would have told Pakistan off with the argument of dehyphenation and different histories and different records, like President Bush did, in happier circumstances. But this time, Pakistan had come not as a supplicant, but as a partner looking for rewards for carrying out the orders of the masters.

Pakistan, which used to protest every time a drone flew over them, had, in fact, begun to guide the drones to their targets to terrorise the terrorists. Having denied the existence of the Quetta Shura for a long time, it had arrested its leader, thus denying a chance for others to strike deals with him. Pakistan had become the kingpin of a dispensation that would enable President Obama [ Images ] to live up to his Nobel Peace Prize by ending one of the two wars he was fighting.

Pakistan had even dropped the fig leaf of democracy and brought along army chief General Ashfaq Kayani to bargain directly for services rendered.

Some years ago, a US Congressman had said that there was no way the US policy towards India and Pakistan would change, because the pressure brought on it by one country for change would be negated immediately by the other.

If the US withstood the pressure and made a change like Bill Clinton [ Images ] did in 2000 and George Bush [ Images ] did in 2005, there would be an unforeseen development, a deus ex machina, to set the clock back.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan then and the war on terror now gave Pakistan undue advantages to balance any tilt in US policy towards India.

Obama today is under pressure to remove the blue from the Indian eyes.

The Indian press would like to believe that Kayani and Qureshi left Washington empty handed, except for a made for each other picture that Qureshi got with Clinton. No nuclear deal, no mediation on Kashmir, nothing. But the truth may well lie elsewhere.

The twin of the Indian nuclear deal was conceived long ago, when China insisted that such deals should be criteria based and not country specific. It was more than a year ago that a think-tank study suggested that a nuclear deal for Pakistan was desirable on the same ground that worked in the Indian case -- a partly regulated Pakistani nuclear system would serve the cause of non-proliferation more than a totally unregulated one.

When George W Bush [ Images ] talked about different histories and different records, he was referring, perhaps, to the Chinese role in building up the Pakistan arsenal and the Nuclear Wal-Mart operated by A Q Khan.

India uses the same arguments. But the fact of the matter is that the US has put these two concerns behind them. US presidents had repeatedly certified that Pakistan had no nuclear weapons, when they knew well that China was filling Pakistan cupboards with fissile material.

If Chinese collaboration did not hurt the US then, there is no reason why it should hurt the US now? As for A Q Khan, many people believe that Pakistan passed on a part of its nuclear button to the US in return for clemency not only for Khan, but also for the Pakistan army [ Images ] that had aided and abetted the travelling salesman as he wended his way through North Korea, Libya Iran and, God knows, where else. Otherwise, how would the US forgive Pakistan for its proliferation, when it did not forgive Saddam Hussein [ Images ] for a fraction of the crime?

A nuclear deal for Pakistan is simply a matter of time. When the Pakistan ambassador claimed that such a thing was in the offing, there were loud protests. But when the US ambassador said the same thing, the denial was more muted, if at all. The reaction was that this could be discussed.

The US has nothing to lose by signing a nuclear deal with Pakistan. In fact, it will gain by nuclear trade with Pakistan, which will have no qualms about meeting the American conditions. The US diplomats say that the good thing with Pakistanis is that they do what they are asked to do, while the Indians would give twenty reasons why it cannot be done. the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the International Atomic Energy Agency board would also succumb to the US pressure as they did in the case of India.

There will be no mediation in Kashmir, just because India will have none of it. But pressure there will be on both sides to shelve the issue, if not to resolve it. The US position remains that the solution of Kashmir is 'LoC Plus', with the 'Plus' left undefined.

Bill Clinton demonstrated that at the time of the Kargil [ Images ] conflict. He was as adamant that India should not cross the LoC as he was about Pakistan withdrawing to the LOC on their side. Available reports indicate that this is exactly what India and Pakistan are seeking through the back channels.

The US does not have to do anything more by way of mediation. It gains more by appearing not to intervene as it does not need to take the blame for delay or failure.

The US DNA will be visible all over the place if a solution breaks out. Pakistan will not protest as long as their main instrument of negotiation, terrorism, is not curbed by the revelations of the likes of Headley and Rana.

Pakistan must have been reassured that US cooperation with India will stop short of tracing 26/11 to the ISI.


The biggest gain for Pakistan from the Washington parleys is the road map, which was drawn for the exit of the US from the AfPak region by 2011. This will involve greater Pakistani war efforts, for which Pakistan will be compensated by a speedy disbursement of the Coalition Support Fund.

But more importantly, Pakistan has received assurances that no dispensation in Afghanistan will be inimical to Pakistani interests and that Pakistan will have a say in the determination of the future of the region.

India would definitely not be part of the new order if the US could help it. Pakistan's gains in this area are considerable. This is where the relationship between the US and Pakistan has turned into a partnership and Qureshi has become 'a happy man, a satisfied man.'

Kayani and Qureshi have not gone back from Washington empty handed. It will now be Dr Manmohan Singh's [ Images ] turn to correct the tilt when he meets Obama in April. But the venue of the nuclear summit will not be the most conducive venue for India to work on the bilateral relationship. Obama's agenda for the summit is such that India will find it hard to make deals there.

With the Liability Bill in the doldrums, our prime minister will not have much to offer to pave the way for nuclear trade.

The tilt towards Pakistan is likely to remain intact as long as Pakistan remains crucial in Obama's calculations in the AfPak region.

 

[bhramos]

Pak to US: Terror bill worth $35 billion, nuke deal
WASHINGTON: Pakistan is coming up with a bill of $ 35 billion for its efforts in the war on terror and a wish-list that includes a nuclear deal similar to the US-India agreement as it prepares to engage Washington this coming week in what officials from both sides say is the most comprehensive dialogue in their bilateral history.

Turning the US mantra that Pakistan should "do more" in the war on terror, Pakistani officials, in an aggressive turnaround, have said Pakistan has done enough and it is now the United States turn to do more, as they set off to Washington for talks on the heels of what they claim is unprecedented success against the Taliban.

Pakistan has "captured" nearly half the top Taliban leadership, including the organisation's No.2 Mullah Baradar, in recent weeks in the run-up to the talks. Although U.N and Afghan officials accuse the Pakistanis, who were hosting the Taliban leadership, took them in to sabotage peace talks being held outside Islamabad's patronage, U.S officials said on Friday that they were "gratified" by the arrests.

"We are extremely gratified... he is where he belongs," the Obama administration's Af-Pak envoy Richard Holbrooke said about Baradar's arrest by Pakistan as he previewed the upcoming talks with reporters at the State Department on Friday, adding, "And many other people have been picked up or eliminated, and this is putting much more pressure on the Taliban. And this is a good thing for the simplest of reasons: It is good for the military efforts that are underway in Afghanistan."

Holbrooke also endorsed a central role for the Pakistani military at the talks, asking "how can you have a strategic dialogue without including the military?" In a move that has caused some disquiet in Pakistan itself, the country's army chief Pervez Ashfaq Kiyani and spy chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha are members of the delegation, ostensibly led by Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. Kiyani is said to have set the agenda for the talks in preparatory meetings in Pakistan.

"If we have a strategic dialogue in our country, we're going to include the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or some other representative. So we are very pleased that General Kayani is part of this delegation. We think that it's one country, one government, one team. It was their decision and we welcomed it," Holbrooke said. Washington in recent weeks has noticeably cooled down its criticism of the over-arching role played by the Pakistan military in the country's affairs.

Pakistan's wish-list for the Obama administration includes not only speeding up disbursements in bilateral aid under the Kerry-Lugar package and Coalition Support Funds, both of which are audited for more precise use and claim, but enhanced support for its economy, particularly in the energy sector. Vast swathes of the country are now under 8 to 12 hour power cuts and Islamabad is presenting this as one reason why Washington should offer a civilian nuclear deal to Pakistan similar to the US-India deal, although experts say Pakistan has no capacity to absorb or implement such an agreement even if it were to pass international scrutiny.

US officials remain non-committal about the deal. "We have a very broad and complex agenda in these talks... and we're going to listen carefully to whatever the Pakistanis say," Holbrooke said cautiously when asked about a possible nuclear deal. In fact, no one in Washington takes Pakistan $ 35 billion claim as its total cost in the war on terror arrived at during internal deliberations in Islamabad last week, seriously.

But Holbrooke held out the prospect of enhanced aid in other areas and sectors, promising a few surprise announcements. "This is not a photo op, although you will have an opportunity to take a photo. This is an intense, serious dialogue bilaterally between the US. and Pakistan," he said in a hurried briefing at the state department that followed a White House meeting of principals where, Holbrooke said, -- "almost every senior person in the United States foreign policy community was in the room" to discuss US policy for the region.

Pakistan too is striving to broad-base its ties with the US on the same lines as India's expansive engagement, covering sector beyond security. Indicative of the broad agenda for the March 24 talks, the Pakistani delegation led by Foreign Miniser Qureshi includes Minister of Defense Mukhtar Ahmad, Finance Minister nominee Abdul Shaikh, Advisor to the Prime Minister on Social Issues Wazir Ali; Advisor to the Prime Minister on Agriculture and Water Majidullah; the Chief of Staff of the Army General Kayani and his delegation of military advisors; Ambassador Hussain Haqqani; Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir; and Secretaries of Information Technology, Water and Power, Finance, Agriculture, Defense, among others.

The US delegation, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton includes Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, Deputy Secretary of State Jack Lew, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal Wolin, National Security Council Senior Director David Lipton, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Marantis, the Administrator of USAID Raj Shah, myself, Ambassador Anne Patterson and Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Judith McHale, Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense David Sydney, among others.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-35-billion-nuke-deal/articleshow/5706539.cms

 

[DaRk WaVe]

US nuclear policy makes exceptions for Pakistan​

WASHINGTON: The 22,000-word US Nuclear Posture Review shows a deliberate attempt to keep India, Pakistan and Israel out of trouble, although there are several clauses that could lead to punitive actions against states seeking to gatecrash into the nuclear club.

This key policy document also reflects the US desire to keep Pakistan on its side in the effort to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear material, instead of singling it out as a possible violator, as some anti-Pakistan lobbyists in Washington desire.

Underlining nuclear terrorism as “today’s most immediate and extreme danger,” the NPR notes that Al Qaeda and their extremist allies are seeking nuclear weapons.

“We must assume they would use such weapons if they managed to obtain them,” it warns, adding that the vulnerability to theft or seizure of vast stocks of such nuclear materials around the world, and the availability of sensitive equipment and technologies in the nuclear black market, “create a serious risk that terrorists may acquire what they need to build a nuclear weapon”.

Lobbies in Washington often use both concerns --- the terrorists’ desire to acquire nukes and the presence of a nuclear black market --- to rope in Pakistan.

They never tire of blaming Pakistan for using the black market to make its own weapons and are apt to point out that the so-called Khan network of proliferators provided sensitive nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

They link these with the presence of Al Qaeda connected terrorists in the Pak-Afghan region to demand the outlawing of Pakistan.

But diplomatic observers in Washington told Dawn that the Obama administration appeared to have accepted Pakistan’s argument that it’s far better to work with Islamabad to deal with these threats rather than isolate it as a rogue state, as anti-Pakistani lobbies desired.

The new US policy is also critical of “additional countries” who desire to acquire nuclear weapons, “especially those at odds with the United States, its allies and partners, and the broader international community”.

This condition creates room for Pakistan as a country which is not only allied to the US and its partners but also is playing a key role in their efforts to defeat terrorism.

The document, however, makes no such exception for Iran and North Korea, and points out that in pursuit of their nuclear ambitions, the two countries have “violated non-proliferation obligations, defied directives of the United Nations Security Council, pursued missile delivery capabilities, and resisted international efforts to resolve through diplomatic means the crises they have created”.

The document blames their ‘provocative behaviour’ for increasing instability in their regions, which “could generate pressures in neighbouring countries for considering nuclear deterrent options of their own”.

The NPR warns that continued non-compliance with non-proliferation norms by these and other countries would seriously weaken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), with adverse security implications for the United States and the international community.

A chapter titled, “preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism”, declares that the United States will lead expanded international efforts to rebuild and strengthen the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and to accelerate efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism.

“Concerns have grown in recent years that unless today’s dangerous trends are arrested and reversed, before long we will be living in a world with a steadily growing number of nuclear-armed states and an increasing likelihood of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear weapons,” the document warns.

Therefore, for the first time, the 2010 NPR places this priority atop the US nuclear agenda.

The document commits the United States to renewing and strengthening the NPT and the global nuclear non-proliferation regime it anchors to cope with the challenges of non-compliance and of the growth of nuclear power.

Another clause opens up the possibility that like India, at some stage Pakistan may be allowed to benefit from nuclear technology to cope with its alarming energy crisis.

“We support expanding access to the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology, but this must be done in a way that does not promote proliferation of nuclear weapons capabilities,” the NPR says.

But it warns that “states without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, states with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament, and all parties can have access to peaceful nuclear energy under effective verification”.

As part of this effort, the United States seeks to bolster the nuclear non-proliferation regime by: Reversing the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, strengthening International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, creating consequences for non-compliance and by impeding sensitive nuclear trade.

DAWN.COM | Front Page | US nuclear policy makes exceptions for Pakistan

 

[Daredevil]

US says no to civil nuclear deal with Pakistan

Hours after Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that his country "qualifies" for a civilian nuclear deal with the US, like that of India , the Obama Administration in a blunt message told it that such a deal is not on platter of its talks with Islamabad.

"We are focused on Pakistan's energy needs, but, as we said last week, right now that does not include civilian nuclear energy," Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley told the media.

 

[johnee]

The question is not whether Pakistan will get a civil nuclear deal? But whether its illegitimate nuclear programme get any legitimacy? This nuclear deal seems to be a smokescreen being floated...

 

[dineshchaturvedi]

So now for some Pakistani's it is an achievement when US says you are not that bad. I do not see Pakistan getting nuclear deal, US has habit of playing with word to keep people hopeful.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The question is not whether Pakistan will get a civil nuclear deal? But whether its illegitimate nuclear programme get any legitimacy? This nuclear deal seems to be a smokescreen being floated...

If USA is planning an attack on Iran giving Pakistan a nuclear deal will make it look like a hypocrite and a laughing stock to the rest of the world, giving Pakistan a non -NPT signatory Pakistan a nuclear deal and attacking an NPT signatory Iran. Iran made this exact point against India during the Bush nuclear deal.