Home Contact Us
Search :
IPCS: Research Institutes in India
   

Pakistan - Articles

Print Bookmark Email FacebookFacebook
#3351, 30 March 2011
 
Sino-Pak Nuclear Deal: American Perfidy?
Jabin T Jacob
Senior Research Fellow, IPCS
email: jabin@ipcs.org
 

If the US’ changing the rules of the nuclear world order for facilitating a civilian nuclear deal with India was a case of global hegemony in action, then China’s recent success in getting the Americans to acquiesce to a Sino-Pak civilian nuclear deal is the equivalent of a successful insurgent action.

The fact that the deal comes at a time when the world is still reeling from the radiation leak at the Fukushima plant in Japan following the massive earthquake there earlier this month, is deeply ironical. It is also a sign perhaps of how commercial nuclear energy development is driven, in some parts of the world at least, by concerns more important than issues of safety both of the reactor itself and of the population living in proximity to it or of threats from non-state actors.

There is also the chance that the Americans are being too clever by half. Global concerns over nuclear energy have increased following the Fukushima incident and the Chinese themselves are reviewing their massive build-up of civilian nuclear power over safety concerns. The Americans might therefore assume that their willingness to let the Sino-Pak nuclear deal go uncontested in the NSG, after several years of opposition, might not necessarily lead to the deal actually fructifying at least in the near term. Whether this calculation might actually take the heat off the US administration from realists inclined to view things in this light or whether it gives cause for still greater indignation, particularly among the nonproliferation lobbies in the US, remains to be seen.

In this context then, American declarations that the Sino-Pak deal is now acceptable owing to Pakistan’s own massive internal demand for electricity might be mere posturing. Together with the timing of the dropping of American objections, this raises larger questions of American sincerity with respect to Pakistan’s legitimate development goals. Why, for example, was the US not willing to acknowledge Pakistan’s massive energy shortfall when talk of the Sino-Pak nuclear deal first came up? And does this mean that the US itself will be willing to enter into a civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan?

Answering the last question in the affirmative would imply two things. One, that the US now believes that Pakistan is no longer a proliferation risk and two, that Pakistan’s nuclear assets are well safeguarded and under no threat from extremist elements. Given that the workings of AQ Khan’s clandestine network are still not fully known, for the US to accept the first proposition would be a leap of faith just as accepting the second proposition is to willfully ignore the daily reality of bombings and killings that afflict Pakistan.

With respect to China specifically, Washington continues to insist that the construction of the Chashma 3 and 4 reactors in Pakistan, would be ‘nconsistent’ ith Beijing’s NSG commitments. While the US remains the world’s preeminent military power in the world and still manages to rile the Chinese simply on the strength of its presence and ability to intervene in China’s immediate neighbourhood, the acceptance of the Sino-Pak nuclear deals indicates also American powerlessness to push China beyond a point.

Some might argue that the Sino-Pak nuclear deal is symptomatic of the growing weakness of the American hand vis-à-vis China since the global financial crisis. And that this weakness extends to even the nuclear proliferation agenda so dear to the Democrats could be a matter for still greater concern in Washington and elsewhere. Indeed, what implications does the American acceptance of the Sino-Pak nuclear deal hold for the North Korean nuclear situation? Here again, the US will be dealing with a close Chinese ally that suffers from a massive energy shortfall and the economic and social consequences that go with it.

Coming to India, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been sanguine in the past, saying for example, when queried about a possible US-Pak nuclear deal that it was purely a bilateral matter between them. His government will however view the Sino-Pak nuclear deal with just a little more concern, even if US Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert Blake, declared that India understood the linkage between Pakistan’s severe energy shortage and its perilous internal stability situation. But even if New Delhi were to accept the latest deal as being legitimate under the framework of the NPT, ignore nonproliferation concerns related to Pakistan and simply accept a Sino-Pak relationship aimed against India as a fact of life, what will really sour the Indian mood will be the Assistant Secretary’s reiteration of China playing ‘an important role’ in the region.

If the Bush administration could be credited with a sense of the long-term global good when it cut the Gordian knot of unfair regulations that stymied India, as a responsible nuclear power, from accessing the full benefits of nuclear trade and commerce, then the Obama administration’s surrender before the Chinese on the Pakistan nuclear deal can be termed the result of a certain lack of spine.

 
Article by same Author
Another Sino-Japanese Spat: So What’s New?

Sino-Indian Boundary Dispute: Present Imperfect and Future Tense?

9th Shangri-La Dialogue: Straight Talk, Bluster and Skepticism in Asia’s Choppy Waters

China’s Xinjiang Woes: Internal and External Implications

Sino-Indian Anti-Terror Cooperation: Contradictions Aplenty

China's Pakistan Quandary

A Chinese Puzzle in Vienna

China's Olympic Hurdles: The Three 'Evils'

The Congress (I)'s China Connection

Leadership Change in China and Implications for India

China and the Indo-US Nuclear Deal

India-Taiwan Relations: In Delicate Minuet

Arunachal in the Sino-Indian Dispute: Beyond the Visa Fracas

India and Japan - Towards Permanent Interests

India Missing: The China-Myanmar-Bangladesh Triangle

Assam: Back to Square One

North Korea Goes Nuclear: Fallout Extends Far and Wide

Hu Jintao's US Visit: Can't Hurry Cooperation

India-Japan-US Security Cooperation

India in East Asia: More Than Just Economics

The Meaning of Koizumi's Victory

China and the Indo-US Entente

China has America over a Barrel

Beijing Courts Taiwanese Opposition

East Asia Diary - April 2005: Reading the Past in the Present Tense

ADD TO:
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Y! MyWeb
FacebookFacebook
 
Print Bookmark Email
 
 

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) is the premier South Asian think tank which conducts independent research on and provides an in depth analysis of conventional and non-conventional issues related to national and South Asian security including nuclear issues, disarmament, non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, the war on terrorism, counter terrorism , strategies security sector reforms, and armed conflict and peace processes in the region.

For those in South Asia and elsewhere, the IPCS website provides a comprehensive analysis of the happenings within India with a special focus on Jammu and Kashmir and Naxalite Violence. Our research promotes greater understanding of India's foreign policy especially India-China relations, India's relations with SAARC countries and South East Asia.

Through close interaction with leading strategic thinkers, former members of the Indian Administrative Service, the Foreign Service and the three wings of the Armed Forces - the Indian Army, Indian Navy, and Indian Air Force, - the academic community as well as the media, the IPCS has contributed considerably to the strategic discourse in India.

 
Subscribe to Newswire | Site Map
B 7/3 Lower Ground Floor, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi 110029, INDIA.
Tel: 91-11-4100 1900, 4165 2556, 4165 2557, 4165 2558, 4165 2559 Fax: (91-11) 41652560
Email:
© Copyright 2012, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
        Web Design India Internet