By IANS,
Islamabad : Thanks to the US, Pakistan’s attempts to block India’s efforts to secure a country-specific safeguards agreement from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have “come to a grinding halt”, a widely respected commentator wrote Monday.
Soon after Pakistan wrote a letter to the IAEA board seeking a vote on the issue, “the US got moving and conveyed to Islamabad that Pakistan had already given a commitment, through a previous foreign secretary, that it will offer no opposition to the US pursuing India-specific exceptions at the IAEA and the NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group),” Shireen M. Mazari wrote in The News.
As a result, the Pakistani foreign ministry “was asked to stop all activities meant to counter India-US moves on safeguards and technology exports at the IAEA and the NSG respectively.
“The net result has been that all diplomatic efforts by Pakistan have come to a grinding halt and the special envoy’s mission (to follow up on the letter) had to be aborted midway,” Mazari wrote in the article, headlined “Pak N-diplomacy comes to a full stop”.
A former director general of think tank Institute of Strategic Studies, Mazari’s views are considered to be a form of Pakistani nationalism.
According to Mazari, there were two reasons behind Pakistan letter to the IAEA.
“One, to expose those member states that have been holding forth on non-proliferation but would go along with making an exception to India; and, two, to see how many of Pakistan’s Arab allies, who are presently members of the IAEA Board would vote.”
The US and India are seeking an agreement by consensus without putting the issue to vote.
In addition to the letter, the foreign secretary also wanted to send a letter to the NSG members asking them to adopt a criteria-based approach for sensitive technology transfers rather than country-based exceptions, Mazari wrote.
The third leg of the foreign ministry’s strategy “was to send an envoy – preferably a seasoned diplomat – to our ally China to get them to lend support to the Pakistani approach vis-à-vis the IAEA and the NSG”.
The US action came even as Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir was in New Delhi last week for talks with his Indian counterpart Shivshankar Menon for launching the fifth round of their composite dialogue process.
The US action came “despite the fact that many Western IAEA and NSG members are firm adherents to the non-proliferation regime and are uncomfortable with the India-US nuclear deal – which is why the US and India do not want to put the safeguards agreement to vote in the IAEA,” Mazari wrote.
“It is important to remember that Pakistan has been signing the normal non-NPT member states’ safeguards agreement with the IAEA, seeking no exit clauses or other exceptions.
“Interestingly, although the US has consistently and publicly stated that it will not sign a nuclear deal with Pakistan on similar lines to the India-US nuclear deal, Pakistan’s new de jure foreign minister has naively sought to declare, like his predecessors, that Pakistan will seek such a deal,” Mazari added.
According to her, “some outsiders” the present government has inducted into the foreign service “have been intervening in foreign policy decisions. At international meets, they check and rewrite all speeches prepared by the ministry.
“They allegedly informed the foreign secretary that the ministry should stop focusing on China as Pakistan’s major ally because now there was going to be a major reorientation towards the US and India.
“Perhaps that is why the prime minister has chosen to go to the US before visiting our ally in good times and bad, China. Could that also be the reason for negotiating with an Indian-owned (company) for the exploitation of Thar coal rather than the Chinese companies with whom Pakistan had been negotiating for the last few years?” Mazari wondered.