Sunday, September 26, 2010

Pak Not a Responsible Nuclear Power: US Official Washington | Sep 25, 2010

Pak Not a Responsible Nuclear Power: US Official

Washington | Sep 25, 2010


China should be stopped from going ahead with its move to transfer new atomic reactors to Pakistan which is "not a responsible nuclear power," a top American Congressman has said.

"Pakistan greatly damaged global security by allowing this rogue (nuclear scientist AQ Khan) free reign in that country. China's plan to build another two nuclear reactors in Pakistan violates Nuclear Suppliers' Group rules. It should be stopped," Congressman Ed Royce said at a Congressional hearing.

He recalled that years ago, he had raised the issue of the "ring magnets" that China was transferring to Pakistan "to develop a nuclear weapon, that was obviously what was intended on the part of Pakistan."

Royce, who is co-chair of the Congressional India Caucus, said at the hearing on nuclear cooperation and non-proliferation, "Now we know that China's irresponsibility in proliferation ... gave rise to the capability of Pakistan, which subsequently trumped China's irresponsibility with its own, because that knew no limits in terms of AQ Khan's ability to proliferate."

"So the fact that AQ Khan, supposedly Pakistan's most popular man, two weeks ago went on Pakistani television and spoke about his future as the nation's president that should be more than troubling to us in terms of Pakistan and the future. The government there is just not a responsible nuclear power. That needs to be addressed," Royce said.

Participating in the Congressional hearing held by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, several other US lawmakers also expressed concerns about the latest Chinese move to build two nuclear reactors in Pakistan.

"If China proceeds with the sale of the two new reactors to Pakistan, what is the likely impact on the Nuclear Suppliers Group? Should the US attempt to persuade the NSG to disapprove the sale? Should China be expelled from the NSG? What is the cost of

No comments: