While this won’t happen, it makes a nice headline.
…
Pakistan offers to get rid of nuclear weapons
Islamabad’s proposal contingent
on India doing the same
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, May 5 — Pakistan is ready to get rid of its nuclear arsenal if uneasy neighbor India also does, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Monday. The offer was made amid a burst of measures to improve relations between the neighbors after two years of tension.
“AS FAR AS PAKISTAN is concerned, if India is ready to denuclearize, we would be happy to denuclearize,” Aziz Ahmed Khan said. “But it will have to be mutual.”
Pakistan and India declared themselves nuclear powers after detonating atomic devises in 1998. Neither arsenal is open to inspections and it’s not known exactly what either Pakistan or India possesses.
The two South Asian neighbors have fought three wars since the end of British rule of the subcontinent in 1947.
Two of those wars have been over the disputed Kashmir region.
India’s Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to Khan’s remarks. New Delhi has said before that its nuclear program is not driven by Pakistan alone.
Pakistans been making this offer for God knows how many years, the Indians will never say yes, why? Because they say they don't have Nukes to be used only on Pakistan, there thinking the big picture lol.
India claims its nuclear deterrant is not focussed on Pakistan, but China as well. Therefore, its merely a publicity stunt, cz there is no realistic chance that sub-continent can ever be de-nuclearized now.
Pakistan won't give up bcz of India. India won't give up bcz of China. China won't give up bcz of US. US won't give up bcz of Russia. And so its a cycle.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zakk: *
Pakistans been making this offer for God knows how many years, the Indians will never say yes, why? Because they say they don't have Nukes to be used only on Pakistan, there thinking the big picture lol.
[/QUOTE]
You mean they are scared to bits of Great China. :)
Anyhow, this proposal if met by a mature Indian response can be a basis for nuclear disarmament/restraint in the region. Let's not forget that at the height of the Cold War the USA and USSR signed many historic and far ranging treaties that led to both sides slashing their nuclear stocks quite dramatically. If Pakistan and India can sit down and discuss the nuclear issue head to head like the USA and USSR without any preconditions then progress can be made on this issue, which I am sure the whole world would appreciate. Pakistan has made a bold gesture, now it is time for India to reciprocate.
Source-News Paper: Daily News of New York, Tuesday May 6, 2003. PG 62
Islamabad, Pakistan-
Pakistan upped the stakes in peace overtures with India yesterday, saying it would scrap its nuclear arsenal if its South Asian rival does the same.
India did not respond to the challenge, which came after India’s prime minister called for “decisive” talks with Pakistan to end the two countries’ bitter rivalry over Kashmir, where guerrillas are fighting a bloody war against Indian rule.
It’s good to see that at least two sides are communicating and are trying to one up each other. Also :k: to Mr. Jamali and his administration for making Pakistan’s point clear in the west in a positive way.
“Pakistan’s nuclear programme is India-specific, but our own nuclear programme goes beyond that,” he said. “Our concern is about other nations as well … Our nuclear doctrine is of no-first-use while Pakistan has no such provision but they call for a no-war pact,” he told parliament, which was debating new peace overtures with Islamabad. “We don’t want to use all our resources on buying arms and weapons,” Vajpayee said. “But we have to defend ourselves in case of a threat.” Vajpayee said the recent US-led war in Iraq and the September-October landmark elections in Indian Kashmir were two issues that spurred the neighbours to end their military hostility. "The elections in Kashmir were a watershed and then came the war in Iraq after the United Nations was made impotent and so smaller nations, developing nations and non-aligned nations now must think of their future. “The elections and the war appear to be separate issues but they are interlinked. The world today is surrounded by new perils and there would have been trouble had we not decided to go ahead with peace overtures,” he said. “But I assure you we will be cautious in every step we take as we are now experienced,” he said, asserting, however, that Pakistan’s alleged support to Islamic militancy must end before a dialogue can begin. Vajpayee said that during his telephone conversation with his Pakistani counterpart Zafarullah Khan Jamali last week he insisted that “terrorism must stop.” “I told him terrorism must stop. It is a crime and we are troubled by it and so we thought that we should have interactions,” Vajpayee said. “We have told Pakistan that one can change friends but not neighbours and we can become friends and keep on fighting and turn into a subject of mockery in the eyes of the world,” Vajpayee said. Indian legislators earlier voiced support for peace overtures with Pakistan but cautioned against hasty bilateral talks, as the opposition alleged the government initiative was caused by foreign pressure. Sonia Gandhi, leader of the main opposition Congress party, kicked off the debate with a back-handed compliment. “The Congress supports the prime minister’s search for enduring peace with Pakistan,” Gandhi told the lower house. “We only wish the government’s policies should have clarity and conviction,” she said. She charged that the government “has vacillated from one position to another giving rise to suspicions it is acting under external pressure”. Gandhi also said no formal talks should resume with Pakistan until the neighbour puts an end to “cross-border terrorism” in Kashmir. “The US has no role in India-Pakistan relations and talks but it can pressure Islamabad to end cross-border terrorism in India,” said Vijay Kumar Malhotra. Echoing a controversial statement made last month by Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, Malhotra likened India’s grievances with Pakistan to those the United States had with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. “The US had three reasons to attack Iraq which were it had a dictatorship, that it had WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) and that it was spreading terrorism, and on that ground India is justified to attack Pakistan,” Malhotra said. “We think talks would not be possible if cross-border terrorism is on and before we talk about a no-war pact, Pakistan must agree to our no-proxy war agreement,” he said.
You mean they are scared to bits of Great China. :)
Anyhow, this proposal if met by a mature Indian response can be a basis for nuclear disarmament/restraint in the region. Let's not forget that at the height of the Cold War the USA and USSR signed many historic and far ranging treaties that led to both sides slashing their nuclear stocks quite dramatically. If Pakistan and India can sit down and discuss the nuclear issue head to head like the USA and USSR without any preconditions then progress can be made on this issue, which I am sure the whole world would appreciate. Pakistan has made a bold gesture, now it is time for India to reciprocate.
[/QUOTE]
dude u r forgetting that the reason usa and ussr cut their nukes was tht they could destroy the whole earth dozens of times before...so after the reduction they could destroy the earth only 10 times over...seems a lot by numbers..but actually it was nothing...just a poly to cut costs to pay for generals' vacations on both sides.....and keep the public thinking that they cared about peace
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Asif_k: *
Why cant Pakistan have its own nuclear policy, its own foreign policy. Why everything has to be 'We will do it, If India does it'.
[/QUOTE]
Replace Pakistan with India and India with China then ask the same question to yourselves.
