No civilian nuclear deal with Pak: US
No civilian nuclear deal with Pak: US
From Our Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON: — Stating that the United States entered into a civilian nuclear co-operation agreement as an exception, a senior State Department official ruled out the possibility of such an accord with Pakistan.
“We view India as an exceptional case, and see civil nuclear co-operation as a mechanism to deepen further India’s commitment to international non-proliferation,” Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph told a congressional hearing.
In an interview with an American news agency circulated Thursday, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Jehangir Karamat sought for Islamabad the same access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology that President George W. Bush has proposed for India.
Ambassador Karamat warned that “the balance of power in South Asia should not become so tilted in India’s favour, as a result of the U.S. relationship with India, that Pakistan has to start taking extraordinary measures to ensure a capability for deterrence and defence.”
But in his testimony to the House International Relations Committee here, Under Secretary Joseph said, “Some have asked whether it might be possible to extend such co-operation to Israel and Pakistan — the only other two (de facto weapon) states that did not join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT),” he said, adding, “India, Israel and Pakistan are each unique and require different approaches.”
“Neither Pakistan nor Israel has a civil nuclear energy programme that approximates at of India. The United States has no plans to seek full civil nuclear co-operation with Israel or Pakistan,” he told the House International Relations Committee here.
He said people have questioned the rationale behind inking a civil nuclear co-operation pact with India as it was not a signatory to the NPT and have asked why a cap on India’s production of fissile material for weapons was not part of the deal.
“The United States does not and will not support India’s nuclear weapons programme,” Joseph said, adding: “Our initiative with India in no way recognizes India as an NPT nuclear weapon state and we will not seek to renegotiate the NPT. We remain cognizant of and will fully uphold all of our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We remain committed to universal NPT adherence.
“But we also recognize that India is a special case and see a clear need to come to terms with it. India never became a party to the NPT. In fact, India was very hostile toward the Treaty for many years. With its decision to take the steps announced in the Joint Statement, India will now take on new nonproliferation responsibilities that will strengthen global nonproliferation efforts and serve the fundamental purpose of the NPT.
“India has informed us that it has no intention of becoming a party to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state at this time. Despite this, it is important to seize this opportunity to assist India in becoming a more constructive partner in our global nonproliferation efforts. Indian commitments to be undertaken in the context of the Joint Statement will align this critical state more closely with the global nonproliferation regime than at any time previously. India has said it wants to be a partner and is willing to take important steps to this end. We should encourage such steps in this case by offering tangible benefits in return.
“We remain committed to achieving an Indian cessation of fissile material production for weapons, and we have strongly encouraged a move in this direction. However, achieving the physical separation of civilian and military infrastructure would be a significant step forward. And we jointly agreed to work toward the completion of an effective Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty, even as the United States stands willing to explore other intermediate options that also might serve this objective.
“As India completes those nonproliferation actions that it has agreed to undertake in the Joint Statement, I am convinced that the nonproliferation regime will emerge stronger as a result. Separately, we will continue to encourage additional steps, such as India’s acceptance of a fissile material production moratorium or cap, but we will not insist on it for the purposes of the civil nuclear cooperation initiative announced by the President and Prime Minister. Even absent such a cap, the initiative represents a substantial net gain for nonproliferation. It is a win for our strategic relationship, a win for energy security, and a win for nonproliferation”
Update: Dawn report
No N-parity with India, US tells Pakistan: Congressional hearing
WASHINGTON, Sept 9: The Bush administration used an open congressional hearing on Friday to inform Pakistan that it cannot get the same nuclear cooperation as granted to India under the Indo-US nuclear deal. The US policy statement came hours after a news agency published an interview with Ambassador Jehangir Karamat, saying that Pakistan should have the same access to civilian nuclear technology that President Bush has proposed for India.
Later, at a hearing of the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Dan Burton pleaded Islamabad’s case and demanded an answer by the two senior State Department officials testifying before the committee.
Both the officials — Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Robert Joseph – told the committee that the Bush administration was not planning to give equal treatment to India and Pakistan on the nuclear issue. “In the context of providing full assistance or full trade on the civilian side (to Pakistan), that is something that we don’t think we are prepared to do,” Mr Joseph said.
Ambassador Karamat’s interview, given last week but published on Wednesday when the first congressional hearing on the US offer to India began, was seen in Washington as a bold diplomatic move.
“Mr Karamat perhaps also wanted to take the temperature of the congressional committee after the Pakistani foreign minister held the first publicised meeting with his Israeli counterpart,” said a diplomatic observer present at the hearing.
The two State Department officials, however, made it clear that Washington has no plan for extending nuclear cooperation to Islamabad.
They cited two reasons for Washington’s refusal: Pakistan does not have the same energy requirements as India and its nuclear power programme is not significant. The other reason was Pakistan’s “non-proliferation record.”
Explaining the Bush administration’s reasons for offering a nuclear deal to New Delhi, Mr Burns said: “India has demonstrated a strong commitment to protection of fissile materials and nuclear technology, and we believe it’s now time to end the isolation of India and to integrate it into non-proliferation norms.”
From Our Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON: — Stating that the United States entered into a civilian nuclear co-operation agreement as an exception, a senior State Department official ruled out the possibility of such an accord with Pakistan.
“We view India as an exceptional case, and see civil nuclear co-operation as a mechanism to deepen further India’s commitment to international non-proliferation,” Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph told a congressional hearing.
In an interview with an American news agency circulated Thursday, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States Jehangir Karamat sought for Islamabad the same access to U.S. civilian nuclear technology that President George W. Bush has proposed for India.
Ambassador Karamat warned that “the balance of power in South Asia should not become so tilted in India’s favour, as a result of the U.S. relationship with India, that Pakistan has to start taking extraordinary measures to ensure a capability for deterrence and defence.”
But in his testimony to the House International Relations Committee here, Under Secretary Joseph said, “Some have asked whether it might be possible to extend such co-operation to Israel and Pakistan — the only other two (de facto weapon) states that did not join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT),” he said, adding, “India, Israel and Pakistan are each unique and require different approaches.”
“Neither Pakistan nor Israel has a civil nuclear energy programme that approximates at of India. The United States has no plans to seek full civil nuclear co-operation with Israel or Pakistan,” he told the House International Relations Committee here.
He said people have questioned the rationale behind inking a civil nuclear co-operation pact with India as it was not a signatory to the NPT and have asked why a cap on India’s production of fissile material for weapons was not part of the deal.
“The United States does not and will not support India’s nuclear weapons programme,” Joseph said, adding: “Our initiative with India in no way recognizes India as an NPT nuclear weapon state and we will not seek to renegotiate the NPT. We remain cognizant of and will fully uphold all of our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. We remain committed to universal NPT adherence.
“But we also recognize that India is a special case and see a clear need to come to terms with it. India never became a party to the NPT. In fact, India was very hostile toward the Treaty for many years. With its decision to take the steps announced in the Joint Statement, India will now take on new nonproliferation responsibilities that will strengthen global nonproliferation efforts and serve the fundamental purpose of the NPT.
“India has informed us that it has no intention of becoming a party to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state at this time. Despite this, it is important to seize this opportunity to assist India in becoming a more constructive partner in our global nonproliferation efforts. Indian commitments to be undertaken in the context of the Joint Statement will align this critical state more closely with the global nonproliferation regime than at any time previously. India has said it wants to be a partner and is willing to take important steps to this end. We should encourage such steps in this case by offering tangible benefits in return.
“We remain committed to achieving an Indian cessation of fissile material production for weapons, and we have strongly encouraged a move in this direction. However, achieving the physical separation of civilian and military infrastructure would be a significant step forward. And we jointly agreed to work toward the completion of an effective Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty, even as the United States stands willing to explore other intermediate options that also might serve this objective.
“As India completes those nonproliferation actions that it has agreed to undertake in the Joint Statement, I am convinced that the nonproliferation regime will emerge stronger as a result. Separately, we will continue to encourage additional steps, such as India’s acceptance of a fissile material production moratorium or cap, but we will not insist on it for the purposes of the civil nuclear cooperation initiative announced by the President and Prime Minister. Even absent such a cap, the initiative represents a substantial net gain for nonproliferation. It is a win for our strategic relationship, a win for energy security, and a win for nonproliferation”
Update: Dawn report
No N-parity with India, US tells Pakistan: Congressional hearing
WASHINGTON, Sept 9: The Bush administration used an open congressional hearing on Friday to inform Pakistan that it cannot get the same nuclear cooperation as granted to India under the Indo-US nuclear deal. The US policy statement came hours after a news agency published an interview with Ambassador Jehangir Karamat, saying that Pakistan should have the same access to civilian nuclear technology that President Bush has proposed for India.
Later, at a hearing of the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Dan Burton pleaded Islamabad’s case and demanded an answer by the two senior State Department officials testifying before the committee.
Both the officials — Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Robert Joseph – told the committee that the Bush administration was not planning to give equal treatment to India and Pakistan on the nuclear issue. “In the context of providing full assistance or full trade on the civilian side (to Pakistan), that is something that we don’t think we are prepared to do,” Mr Joseph said.
Ambassador Karamat’s interview, given last week but published on Wednesday when the first congressional hearing on the US offer to India began, was seen in Washington as a bold diplomatic move.
“Mr Karamat perhaps also wanted to take the temperature of the congressional committee after the Pakistani foreign minister held the first publicised meeting with his Israeli counterpart,” said a diplomatic observer present at the hearing.
The two State Department officials, however, made it clear that Washington has no plan for extending nuclear cooperation to Islamabad.
They cited two reasons for Washington’s refusal: Pakistan does not have the same energy requirements as India and its nuclear power programme is not significant. The other reason was Pakistan’s “non-proliferation record.”
Explaining the Bush administration’s reasons for offering a nuclear deal to New Delhi, Mr Burns said: “India has demonstrated a strong commitment to protection of fissile materials and nuclear technology, and we believe it’s now time to end the isolation of India and to integrate it into non-proliferation norms.”
posted by India News Watch at 5:08 PM
<< Home