Factbox: What are the major issues between India and Pakistan?

The talks between S.M. Krishna of India and Shah Mehmood Qureshi of Pakistan are widely seen as the first step in trying to revive a peace process broken off in the wake of the attacks on India’s financial capital.

Here are some of the main issues between the neighbors:

SECURITY

For India, security is the top issue. It has refused to resume a series of talks known as the composite dialogue until Pakistan takes more action against Pakistan-based militant groups.

In particular, India wants Pakistan to show it is serious in reining in the militants behind the Mumbai attacks, in which 166 people were killed.

This is complicated by Indian suspicions that the Pakistan security establishment backed the militants in some way. On the eve of the talks, Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai escalated the charges and directly blamed Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency for the attacks.

“It was not just a peripheral role,” he was quoted as saying by the Indian Express newspaper. “They were literally controlling and coordinating it from the beginning till the end.”

For its part, Pakistan accuses India of backing separatists in its Baluchistan province and providing weapons and funding to Pakistan Taliban groups, charges India denies.

KASHMIR

The divided, mostly Muslim Himalayan region of Kashmir is at the heart of hostility between the neighbors and was the cause of two of their three wars since independence from Britain in 1947. The third was over the founding of Bangladesh.

Separatists began an insurgency against Indian rule in 1989 — a movement almost immediately backed by Pakistan — and since then tens of thousands of people have been killed. Most fighters want all of Kashmir to become part of Pakistan but many ordinary Kashmiris want independence from both India and Pakistan.

Krishna and Qureshi will have to sidestep another danger — getting bogged down in a blame game over ongoing anti-government protests in a part of Kashmir held by India.

Violent anti-government protests have swept India-controlled Kashmir for almost a month. The region is under an army lockdown.

WATER

The two countries disagree over use of the water flowing down rivers that rise in Indian Kashmir and run into the Indus river basin in Pakistan.

The use of the water is governed by the 1960 Indus Water Treaty under which India was granted the use of water from three eastern rivers, and Pakistan the use of three western rivers.

Pakistan says India is unfairly diverting water with the upstream construction of barrages and dams. India denies the charge.

SIACHEN

Indian and Pakistani forces have faced off against each other in mountains above the Siachen glacier in the Karakoram range, the world’s highest battlefield, since 1984.

The two sides have been trying to find a solution that would allow them to withdraw troops, but India says it is unwilling to bring its forces down until Pakistan officially authenticates the positions they hold.

Pakistan has said it is willing to do so but on the condition that it is not a final endorsement of India’s claim over the glacier, a source of meltwater for Pakistan’s rivers.

AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan has become a major source of friction, although Indian and Pakistani differences over Pakistan’s western neighbor have not been a part of their official talks.

The two countries have long competed for influence there and Pakistan is deeply suspicious of a rise in India’s presence after the fall of the Islamabad-backed Taliban government in 2001.

It accuses India of using Afghanistan as a base to create problems inside Pakistan, including backing separatists in its Baluchistan province. India denies the accusations, saying its focus is on development.

This rivalry is complicating U.S.-led efforts to end an intensifying Taliban insurgency and bring stability to Afghanistan more than eight years after the Taliban were ousted.

(Compiled by Chris Allbritton and Zeeshan Haider in Islamabad; Editing by Sugita Katyal)

FACTBOX-What are the major issues between India and Pakistan?

(Reuters) – The foreign ministers of nuclear-armed rivals Pakistan and India are holding their first substantive talks since the Mumbai attacks of 2008 in Islamabad on Thursday. [ID:nSGE66D0EY]

The talks between S.M. Krishna of India and Shah Mehmood Qureshi of Pakistan are widely seen as the first step in trying to revive a peace process broken off in the wake of the attacks on India’s financial capital.

Here are some of the main issues between the neighbours:

SECURITY

For India, security is the top issue. It has refused to resume a series of talks known as the composite dialogue until Pakistan takes more action against Pakistan-based militant groups.

In particular, India wants Pakistan to show it is serious in reining in the militants behind the Mumbai attacks, in which 166 people were killed.

This is complicated by Indian suspicions that the Pakistan security establishment backed the militants in some way. On the eve of the talks, Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai escalated the charges and directly blamed Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency for the attacks.

“It was not just a peripheral role,” he was quoted as saying by the Indian Express newspaper. “They were literally controlling and coordinating it from the beginning till the end.”

For its part, Pakistan accuses India of backing separatists in its Baluchistan province and providing weapons and funding to Pakistan Taliban groups, charges India denies.

KASHMIR

The divided, mostly Muslim Himalayan region of Kashmir is at the heart of hostility between the neighbours and was the cause of two of their three wars since independence from Britain in 1947. The third was over the founding of Bangladesh.

Separatists began an insurgency against Indian rule in 1989 — a movement almost immediately backed by Pakistan — and since then tens of thousands of people have been killed. Most fighters want all of Kashmir to become part of Pakistan but many ordinary Kashmiris want independence from both India and Pakistan.

Krishna and Qureshi will have to sidestep another danger — getting bogged down in a blame game over ongoing anti-government protests in a part of Kashmir held by India.

Violent anti-government protests have swept India-controlled Kashmir for almost a month. The region is under an army lockdown.

WATER

The two countries disagree over use of the water flowing down rivers that rise in Indian Kashmir and run into the Indus river basin in Pakistan.

The use of the water is governed by the 1960 Indus Water Treaty under which India was granted the use of water from three eastern rivers, and Pakistan the use of three western rivers.

Pakistan says India is unfairly diverting water with the upstream construction of barrages and dams. India denies the charge.

SIACHEN

Indian and Pakistani forces have faced off against each other in mountains above the Siachen glacier in the Karakoram range, the world’s highest battlefield, since 1984.

The two sides have been trying to find a solution that would allow them to withdraw troops, but India says it is unwilling to bring its forces down until Pakistan officially authenticates the positions they hold.

Pakistan has said it is willing to do so but on the condition that it is not a final endorsement of India’s claim over the glacier, a source of meltwater for Pakistan’s rivers.

AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan has become a major source of friction, although Indian and Pakistani differences over Pakistan’s western neighbour have not been a part of their official talks.

The two countries have long competed for influence there and Pakistan is deeply suspicious of a rise in India’s presence after the fall of the Islamabad-backed Taliban government in 2001.

It accuses India of using Afghanistan as a base to create problems inside Pakistan, including backing separatists in its Baluchistan province. India denies the accusations, saying its focus is on development.

This rivalry is complicating U.S.-led efforts to end an intensifying Taliban insurgency and bring stability to Afghanistan more than eight years after the Taliban were ousted. (Compiled by Chris Allbritton and Zeeshan Haider in Islamabad; Editing by Sugita Katyal) (For more coverage of Afghanistan and Pakistan, see: here)

India reimposes curfew in parts of Kashmir

India, July 10 (Reuters) – Indian authorities on Saturday re-imposed a curfew several hours ahead of schedule in some areas of Kashmir, including parts of the main city Srinagar, in response to protesters attacking security forces with stones, police said.

Authorities late on Friday had lifted a four-day long curfew that was introduced after some of the largest protests in two years against India rule. [ID:nSGE6682CY]

The curfew was to have come back into force later on Saturday evening, but was brought forward after police and protesters clashed in several places in the volatile region. In Srinagar, thousands of protesters led by separatist leader Mirwaiz Omar Farooq marched the streets demanding freedom.

The violence in Kashmir could affect efforts by India and Pakistan to revive a peace process that India suspended after the attacks in Mumbai in 2008, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan-based militants.

India has blamed Pakistan-based militant group, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), of being behind the growing protests in Kashmir against Indian rule, but many locals believe the protests are mostly spontaneous.

The nuclear armed neighbours have fought two wars over the Himalayan region which they claim in full but rule in part. (Reporting by Sheikh Mushtaq; writing by C.J. Kuncheria)

FACTBOX-What are the issues between India and Pakistan?

(Reuters) – The top diplomats of nuclear-armed rivals Pakistan and India hold their second meeting in three months on Thursday in Islamabad amid continuing efforts to normalise relations strained by the Mumbai attacks of 2008.

Here are some of the main problems between the neighbours.

SECURITY

For India, security is the top issue. It has refused to resume a series of talks known as the composite dialogue until Pakistan takes more action against Pakistan-based militant groups.

In particular, India wants Pakistan to show it is serious in reining in the militants behind the Mumbai attacks, in which 166 people were killed.

Pakistan accuses India of backing separatists in its Baluchistan province and providing weapons and funding to Pakistan Taliban groups, charges India denies.

KASHMIR

The mostly Muslim Himalayan region of Kashmir is at the heart of hostility between the neighbours and was the cause of two of their three wars since independence from Britain in 1947 (the third was over the founding of Bangladesh).

Separatists backed by Pakistan began an insurgency against Indian rule in 1989 and since then tens of thousands of people have been killed. Most fighters want Kashmir to become part of Pakistan but many ordinary Kashmiris want independence from both India and Pakistan.

WATER

The two countries disagree over use of the water flowing down rivers which rise in Indian Kashmir and run into the Indus river basin in Pakistan.

The use of the water is governed by the 1960 Indus Water Treaty under which India was granted the use of water from three eastern rivers, and Pakistan the use of three western rivers.

Pakistan says India is unfairly diverting water with the upstream construction of barrages and dams. India denies the charge.

SIACHEN

Indian and Pakistani forces have faced off against each other in mountains above the Siachen glacier in the Karakoram range, in the world’s highest battlefield, since 1984.

The two sides have been trying to find a solution that would allow them to withdraw troops, but India says it is unwilling to bring its forces down until Pakistan officially authenticates the positions they hold.

Pakistan has said it is willing to do so but on the condition that it is not a final endorsement of India’s claim over the glacier, an important source of meltwater for Pakistan’s rivers.

AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan has become a major source of friction although Indian and Pakistani differences over Pakistan’s western neighbour have not been a part of their official talks.

The two countries have long competed for influence there and Pakistan is deeply suspicious of a rise in India’s presence after the fall of the Islamabad-backed Taliban government in 2001.

It accuses India of using Afghanistan as a base to create problems inside Pakistan, including backing separatists in its Baluchistan province. India denies the accusations, saying its focus is on development.

This rivalry is complicating U.S.-led efforts to end an intensifying Taliban insurgency and bring stability to Afghanistan more than eight years after the Taliban were ousted.

(Compiled by Chris Allbritton and Zeeshan Haider in Islamabad)

Iran approves “peace pipeline” deal with Pakistan

(Reuters) – Iran finalized a $7 billion “peace pipeline” deal on Sunday to export natural gas to Pakistan by 2015, Iran’s state television reported.

World

“The deal was signed. Export of Iran’s gas to Pakistan will be launched by the end of 2015,” state TV reported.

“For 25 years Iran will export one million cubic meters of natural gas to Pakistan per day,” it said.

The project is crucial for Pakistan to avert a growing energy crisis already causing severe electricity shortages in the country of about 170 million, at the same time as it confronts Islamist militancy.

Iran has the world’s second largest gas reserves after Russia but has struggled for years to develop its oil and gas resources. Iranian officials say the country needs $25 billion to develop its crucial energy industry.

Sanctions by the West, political turmoil and construction delays have slowed Iran’s development as an exporter.

The pipeline will connect Iran’s giant South Fars gas field with Pakistan’s southern Baluchistan and Sindh provinces.

State television said the pipeline was 1,000 km (620 miles) long, with about 907 km of it already built.

Dubbed the “peace pipeline,” the project has been planned since the 1990s and originally would have extended from Pakistan to its old rival, India. New Delhi has been reluctant to join the project because of its long-running distrust of Pakistan, with whom it has fought three wars since independence in 1947.

Under a deal signed in March, Pakistan will be allowed to charge a transit fee if the proposed pipeline is eventually extended to India.

The United States has tried to discourage India and Pakistan from any deal with Iran because of Tehran’s disputed nuclear programme, which the West fears is a cover to build bombs.

Iran, hit by a fourth round of U.N. sanctions on Wednesday over its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, denies any such ambitions.

(Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by Paul Tait)

How proud was my valley

India, June 5 — Srinagar is the land of Shah Faesal. Everyone here knows who he is – topper of the Indian civil services, a new brand ambassador of Kashmir in 2010 “Yes, I know him, he is the top IAS officer,” Ejaz Ahmad, 39, a shopkeeper here, seeks oneness with the son of the soil that Shah Faesal is.

The life outside the airport here is like that outside any other airport in the country – big hoardings promoting cell phones and university courses. Way back in 1990, when this reporter landed at Srinagar airport and asked a taxi driver whether there was a taxi bearing the number plate JKF, the answer was: there is no JKF, here it is only JKLF – the abbreviation of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front and the outfit which stands for the complete independence of the state both from India and Pakistan.

The azadi (freedom) sentiment was at its peak even though fiercely pro-Pakistan group Hizb-ul-Mujahadeen had started showing its military might – the group used to boast of largest number of militants, approximately 4,000 to 5,000. Hizb supporters would say “here everyone is a Mujahadeen (holy warrior).

” A series of widespread protests over the ‘fake encounter’ and marches to Shopian and invocation of the relevance of the United Nations’ resolutions notwithstanding, Shah Faesal – the bespectacled doctor has given a new ownership to this land, where IAS is no longer a hated service, it is meant for Kashmiris in a big way. Faesal, too represents a sentiment – aspire, work hard and achieve.

“He is our inspiration,” says Bashir Dar, an unemployed youth in his early twenties. He had a habit of cursing the National Hydro-electric Projects Corporation for power failures in the Valley.

He was among those who had bought the theory propounded by the leaders, particularly PDP president Mehbooba Mufti and her father and former Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed that “NHPC had stolen the waters of Kashmir”. NHPC has constructed three major power projects in the state and is also operating a fourth one.

It’s been almost a month since Shah Faesal appeared on the scene – a success story scripted by his hard work and ambition to make it big despite having lost his father to the bullets of militants eight years ago. With him three others from this land have made it to the IAS. They are: Mir Umair, Showkat Ahmad Parrey and Rayees Mohammad Bhat.

Four Kashmiris in IAS in a single year is in itself an achievement that has infused a new life among Kashmiri youth. that fact has opened a window of opportunity beyond the high Pir Panchaal range of Himalayas.

The IAS topper represents something “achievable” within the system that is cursed by many in the Valley. His accomplishment has presented the country as a land of opportunity where there is no discrimination in the name of religion, ethnicity or any other factor.

Machil staged shootout raises doubts about previous operations: Omar

New Delhi, June 6 (IANS) Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah says the killing of three civilians in an alleged staged shootout in Nadihal village April 30 has raised doubts over the genuineness of other gunfights between security forces and separatist guerrillas with many cases being re-investigated now.

Abdullah, while speaking on a television show late Saturday, also sought more transparency in the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).

The chief minister told NDTV’s ‘Left Right and Centre’ programme that the Jammu and Kashmir Police were flooded with complaints questioning the genuineness of previous shootouts, all of which are being probed again now.

‘I am saying that almost every encounter, unfortunately, that has taken place now has question marks being posed by people and it is our duty to address those questions,’ Abdullah said.

‘We have dug up bodies and are verifying whether the encounters are genuine or not. This has really put a lot of additional work on the already burdened police force because a whole host of questions are being asked about these encounters.

‘Obviously there would be doubts. This is the problem when a handful of people for their short-term gains are willing to sacrifice the long-term interests of not only the forces they represent but that of everybody else,’ Abdullah added.

Three villagers — Shahzad Ahmad Khan, Riyaz Ahmad Lone and Muhammad Shafi Lone — were allegedly framed as separatist guerrillas and killed in a staged shootout in north Kashmir’s Machil sector of the Line of Control (LOC), which divides Jammu and Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

Police have arrested four people — a soldier of the Territorial Army and three army informers — for luring the three civilians to work as labourers for the army. An army officer has also been accused in the case.

Abdullah maintained that the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was still required in Kashmir, but said it should be made more transparent.

AFSPA, which dates back to 1958, is considered by rights activists as a draconian law that gives security forces unrestricted power to carry out their operations in a ‘disturbed area’.

Under the legislation, even a non-commissioned officer is granted the right to shoot to kill based on mere suspicion. It gives the armed forces wide powers to shoot, arrest and search.

‘Unfortunately, under the AFSPA, because it is built for the armed forces, the army is the judge, jury and the hangman. Therefore, there is absence of transparency as a result of which people have lost faith in the system,’ Abdullah said.

Accepting that AFSPA was still required to tackle separatist violence, he said: ‘It needs to be amended so that it is more transparent, more accountable and people have more faith in the system.’

Asked whether the ‘quiet dialogue’ initiated by Home Minister P. Chidambaram with a section of the separatists had not been handled well, he said: ‘I don’t think that it was Delhi’s fault that the quiet dialogue didn’t remain quiet.

‘I think concerted efforts were made by certain quarters throughout the dialogue process and that is what it fell victim to,’ he said.

On people’s expectations from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s two-day visit to the state starting Monday, Abdullah said they would seek some sort of indication on the central government’s intention to kickstart the stalled dialogue between New Delhi and mainstream political voices as also other players.

Manmohan Singh last visited Srinagar in October.

Israeli PM rejects “flawed” U.N. nuclear declaration

(Reuters) – Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a U.N. declaration that urged his country to put its nuclear facilities under U.N. safeguards, saying it singled out Israel while letting Iran off the hook.

World

In an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcast on Sunday night, Netanyahu said he did not think Israel would participate the U.N. resolution’s implementation.

The declaration adopted on Friday by all 189 parties to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, including the United States, called for a conference in 2012 to discuss banning weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

The creation of such a zone could ultimately force Israel to sign the NPT and abandon any atomic weapons it has.

The document urged Israel to sign the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to U.N. inspection.

“I thought that was a particularly distorted and flawed resolution because it singled out Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East and the only country anywhere on Earth threatened with annihilation,” Netanyahu told CBC.

“It failed to mention Iran, which brazenly violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty, is racing to arm itself with atomic weapons and openly expresses its wish to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth,” Netanyahu said.

Israel is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. It is the only Middle East state that has not signed the NPT and, like India and Pakistan, which have exploded nuclear devices, did not participate in a month-long U.N. meeting in New York to review the NPT.

The declaration contained plans for further disarmament, strengthening global non-proliferation efforts and ensuring access to technology for peaceful uses. It called on North Korea to return to the NPT, which it left in 2003.

The Obama administration opposed efforts to single out Israel and said it would not put the Jewish state under any pressure to do anything that would undermine its security. The White House deplored the document’s failure to mention Iran.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful generation of electric power. The United States and other Western countries suspect it is aimed at producing nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu said the U.N. should be focusing on Iran.

“The greatest threat to mankind today … is if a radical Islamic regime meets up with nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons meet up with a radical Islamic regime,” he told CBC,

“The first is called Iran and the second is called the Taliban takeover of Pakistan. These developments could … change the world,” Netanyahu said.

(Reporting by Anthony Boadle, editing by David Stamp)

Nuclear treaty talks on brink of failure: Diplomats

Talks on shoring up the global anti-nuclear arms treaty were on the edge of failure on Friday as the United States and its allies clashed with Egypt over a push to pressure Israel to scrap any atom bombs it has.

For a month the 189 signatories of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have been meeting in New York in hopes of agreeing on a plan to shore up the troubled pact, which analysts say has been hit by Iran’s and North Korea’s atomic programs and failure by the nuclear powers to disarm.

The latest draft of a final declaration for the NPT review conference calls for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to organize a meeting of all Middle Eastern states in 2012 on how to make the region free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as demanded by a 1995 NPT resolution.

The creation of a WMD-free zone would eventually force Israel to abandon any atomic bombs it has. The Jewish state, which like nuclear-armed India and Pakistan never signed the NPT, is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. Israel is not participating in the NPT meeting.

In a radical departure from the previous U.S. administration, President Barack Obama’s negotiators had agreed to join the NPT’s other four official nuclear powers — Britain, France, Russia and China — in backing such a conference while encouraging reluctant Israel to participate.

The five permanent U.N. Security Council members and a group of Arab states led by Egypt are close to a deal that would make the 2012 conference happen, delegates say. But the two sides have reached an impasse on the question of whether Israel should be named in the declaration as a problem state.

The Egyptians insist the declaration must state explicitly that Israel should join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, but the Americans are refusing, diplomats said.

LAST-MINUTE COMPROMISE?

One Western diplomat familiar with the talks described the situation as “not looking too hopeful.”

He said there was a “stark choice for the Arabs — name and shame Israel or have a conference in 2012 to move forward the 1995 promise … toward a WMD-free zone in the Mideast.”

“My bet is their (the Arabs’) short-term political needs will trump their long-term strategic interest,” he said.

Other delegates confirmed the possibility that the NPT review conference would fail to agree on a final declaration because of disagreements on the Middle East question, repeating what happened at the last NPT review conference in 2005.

But diplomats said they hoped the United States and Egypt — the key players in the Middle East negotiations — would strike a last-minute compromise that salvaged the conference.

“We’ve worked so hard for the past month,” one diplomat said. “We’ve got a strong draft that would strengthen all three pillars of the NPT — disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy. It shouldn’t be thrown away.”

Western diplomats said Israel had reluctantly agreed to attend the 2012 conference but only on condition that it not be “named and shamed” in the final declaration.

Iran’s envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Tehran’s chief delegate, accused the United States of causing the impasse at the NPT talks. Apart from the Middle East WMD-free zone, he said Washington and the other nuclear powers had rejected key demands of Iran and the other non-aligned developing nations.

Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh said those demands were for a precise deadline for nuclear powers to disarm, a call for negotiations on a treaty banning the use of atomic arms, and a pledge from the five nuclear powers not to use atomic bombs on states without them, known as a “negative security assurance.”

“The nuclear weapon states, particularly the United States, have not cooperated to find a solution for these four main issues,” Soltanieh told reporters, adding that the NPT talks had reached a deadlock.

If the nuclear powers refuse to compromise, “they should be blamed for consequences,” Soltanieh said, adding that Tehran was prepared to block a declaration that it viewed as too weak. Since NPT meetings make decisions by consensus, Iran has a virtual veto.

‘Not right time for India and Pak to address Kashmir issue’

The US has said that this is not the appropriate moment for India and Pakistan to hold discussions on the Kashmir issue as they need to go for confidence building measures first.

“I think that’s not going to be an issue that’s going to be addressed right away,” Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake said in response to a question at a special news conference on India yesterday.

Blake emphasised that it was for India and Pakistan to take a call on it, but felt that it would be better for the two countries go for confidence building measures first.

“I think, again, that what’s most important is first to get these talks going again and to focus on — once they’ve gotten beyond the immediate counter-terrorism issues, to focus on some of the important opportunities like trade that exist between these two countries,” Blake said.

“Once they have developed a degree of confidence, they might then be able to take up some of these more sensitive territorial issues,” Blake said.

He was responding to the question: “Where does Kashmir and the line of control fit into this puzzle?” The State Department official also did not agree with the allegations coming from some of the top Pakistani officials about India’s role in Afghanistan, which he said is nothing but constructive.

“I am not sure that India’s providing that much training to the Afghan army,” Blake said when referred to the remarks of General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani that he was against India training Afghan Armed forces.

“The vast majority of the assistance that the Indians are providing to Afghanistan is in the form of economic assistance,” Blake said.

“I would say we’ve welcomed very much the assistance that India has provided and all of our cabinet-level officials have welcomed that and will continue to do so,” he said.

“We think that they’ve really played a very important role with the USD 1.3 billion in assistance that they provided to date, mostly in infrastructure and other kinds of reconstruction projects, but also capacity building and training and so forth.

And so we think that is a very important part of the international effort to help stabilise Afghanistan,” Blake said.

Infiltration from Pak into India obstacle to relationship: US

The US has said that the continued infiltration of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and other (Pakistani) Punjab-based terrorist groups into India is one of the most important obstacles to the Indo-Pak relationship and the dialogue between the two South Asian neighbours.

“One of the most important obstacles to expansion of those relations is the continuing infiltration from Pakistan to by Punjab-based groups, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM),” Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Robert Blake said yesterday.

“The United States has consistently called for greater action on the part of Pakistan to stop the activities of these groups,” Blake asserted, thus putting on Pakistan the onus of success of the resumption of the dialogue between the two countries.

The State Department spokesman also refuted reports that the US is pressurising either India or Pakistan to continue with the dialogue process, as is being reported in the American and Indian media.

“We always have an interest in seeing our two friends have peaceful relations, but we are not pressurising either side,” Blake said.

The United States has consistently said that it is up to India and Pakistan to determine how to improve their relations and that the pace and the scope and the character of whatever talks they have is really up to those two countries to decide, he added.

“But we will always stand ready to help in any way that we can, because again, we see it very much in our interest to see improved ties between these two friends of ours,” Blake said.

Pakistan, he conceded, along with Afghanistan would be one of the major issues of discussions during the next week’s strategic dialogue between India and US; which would be co-chaired by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and External Affairs Minister S M Krishna. Blake said during the meeting the US will welcome the announcement that has been made by the Indians and the Pakistanis that their two foreign ministers will meet in Islamabad in mid-July.

“That meeting will be preceded by a very important meeting between the home ministers that will take place in late June.

Home Minister P Chidambaram of India will be, again,

visiting Islamabad. So those are very important opportunities to try to expand relations and to reduce some of the frictions between these two friends of the United States,” he said.

The State Department official said the US would like to see two of its friends — India and Pakistan — to get back on the days of 2004-2007, when Pakistan took actions against terrorists and that laid the basis for a very significant expansion in relations between the two countries.

“But one of the first things that has to happen is for there to be visible progress in stopping this,” he said.

“I think the point that the Secretary (of State) and(Defense) Secretary Gates and the (US) President himself has made is that increasingly, these groups are all operating together as a syndicate.

So it’s very much in Pakistan’s own interest to take on these groups as well,” Blake said.

‘US consistently pressing Pakistan to rein in anti-India terror groups’

Washington, May 29 (IANS) The United States says it has consistently pressed Pakistan to stop the continuing infiltration into India by Punjab-based terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taeba and Jaish-e-Mohammed as this was a key obstacle to improved relations between ‘two friends of US’.

‘On Pakistan, I’m sure it will be a topic of discussion’ at the inaugural US-India strategic dialogue here next week Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs Robert O. Blake told reporters Friday when asked what the US was doing to rein in Pakistan to allay India’s concerns about cross border terrorism.

Welcoming the announcement that Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers will meet in Islamabad in mid-July and Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram will be visiting Islamabad in late June, he said: ‘Those are very important opportunities to try to expand relations and to reduce some of the frictions between these two friends of the United States.’

But Blake acknowledged ‘One of the most important obstacles to expansion of those relations is the continuing infiltration from Pakistan to by Punjab-based groups, such as Lashkar e-Taeba and Jaish-e-Mohammed and others.’

‘And the United States has consistently called for greater action on the part of Pakistan to stop the activities of these groups,’ he said suggesting ‘Pakistan has done so in the past between 2004 and 2007, and that laid the basis for a very significant expansion in relations between India and Pakistan.

‘So we’d like to see these two friends get back on that same course again. But one of the first things that has to happen is for there to be visible progress in stopping this.’

President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defence Secretary Robert Gates have all made the point ‘that increasingly, these groups are all operating together as a syndicate. And so it’s very much in Pakistan’s own interest to take on these groups as well,’ Blake said,

Highlighting what he called ‘the unprecedented counterterrorism cooperation,’ between India and the US, he said they had raised the level of cooperation ‘because of the increasingly common threats that we face, particularly those in India faced by Lashkar- e-Taeba and other groups.’

Asked if the US will relay Pakistan’s concerns about India ‘training the Afghan army’, he said: ‘I’m not sure that India’s providing that much training to the Afghan army. The vast majority of the assistance that the Indians are providing to Afghanistan is in the form of economic assistance.’

And US ‘welcomed very much the assistance that India has provided and all of our cabinet-level officials have welcomed that and will continue to do so,’ he said describing it as ‘a very important part of the international effort to help stabilise Afghanistan.’

Denying reports that US is pressurising India to have its dialogue with Pakistan despite the fact that Islamabad has not taken any action against those responsible for the Mumbai terrorist attack, the official said while US ‘always have an interest in seeing our two friends have peaceful relations, but we are not pressurising either side.’

Asked where the Kashmir issue fitted into this puzzle, Blake said ‘What’s most important is first to get these talks going again and once they’ve gotten beyond the immediate counterterrorism issues, to focus on some of the important opportunities like trade’ before ‘taking up some of these more sensitive territorial issues.’

Pakistan, Iran finalise gas pipeline deal – ministry

Pakistan and Iran have finalised a deal for the construction of a much-delayed pipeline to pump Iranian natural gas to the energy-starved South Asian country, the Pakistan petroleum ministry said.

The $7.6 billion project is crucial for Pakistan to avert a growing energy crisis already causing severe electricity shortages in the country of about 170 million.

Pakistani and Iranian petroleum officials signed the agreement on Friday evening in Islamabad, the ministry said.

“The project is now ready to enter into its implementation phase,” the ministry said in a statement.

Pakistan said the first gas is scheduled to flow by the end of 2014 and expects its total cost on the project to be $1.65 billion, funded through private and state capital.

Under the deal, Pakistan will import from Iran 750 million cubic feet of gas daily for 25 years. The amount could be increased to 1 billion cubic feet a day and the deal could be extended five years if needed, the ministry said.

The ministry said the imported gas would help generate about 5,000 MW of power.

The pipeline would connect Iran’s South Fars gas field with Pakistan’s southern Baluchistan and Sindh provinces.

Iran has the world’s second-largest gas reserves after Russia. But sanctions by the West, political problems and construction delays have slowed its development as an exporter.

“U.S. OPPOSITION”

Dubbed the “peace pipeline” by the two countries, the project has been planned since the 1990s and originally would have extended from Pakistan to its old rival, India.

However, India has been reluctant to join the project given its long-running distrust of Pakistan, with which it has fought three wars since independence in 1947.

Under a previous deal between Iran and Pakistan, Islamabad holds the right to charge a transit fee if the pipeline is eventually extended to India.

The United States has tried to discourage India and Pakistan from any deal with Iran because of Tehran’s suspected ambitions to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies any such ambitions.

India has invested in civilian nuclear reactors to help fulfil its increasing energy demand. It also signed a landmark civilian nuclear deal with the United States in 2008.

Nuclear-armed Pakistan has long called for a similar deal with the United States, but Washington has been unwilling to make an agreement with its ally, which is battling an al Qaeda-linked Islamist insurgency.

(Editing by Chris Allbritton and Paul Tait)

Conference on Mideast WMD ban gets go ahead

Signatories of a global anti-nuclear arms treaty — nearly all of the world’s nations — called on Friday for a conference in 2012 to discuss banning weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

The creation of such a zone could ultimately force Israel to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and abandon any atomic weapons it has.

But U.S. officials, disappointed at efforts to single out the Jewish state, made clear the proposal might go nowhere, saying the Middle East could not be declared WMD-free until there was broad Arab-Israeli peace and Iran curbed its nuclear program.

The call came in a declaration adopted by consensus by all 189 parties to the treaty, including the United States, after a month-long meeting in New York to review the NPT that at times had seemed on the brink of failure.

The 28-page document said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and key states would arrange a conference that would include all nations in the region, by implication including bitter foes Israel and Iran.

At the same time, the declaration urged Israel to sign the NPT and put its nuclear facilities under U.N. safeguards, and also called on India and Pakistan, which have exploded nuclear devices, to join the pact.

The chief U.S. delegate at the meeting, Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher, had opposed naming Israel in the declaration, saying it undermined the idea of the 2012 conference.

But Washington ultimately acquiesced on that point.

FOCUS ON ISRAEL

Afterwards, Washington — named as one of the co-sponsors of the proposed conference — quickly cast doubt on its chances of ever taking place.

While welcoming agreements on a range of non-proliferation issues at the U.N. meeting, U.S. President Barack Obama said: “We strongly oppose efforts to single out Israel, and will oppose actions that jeopardize Israel’s national security.”

U.S. national security adviser Jim Jones criticized the “gratuitous” attention paid to Israel and said it was deplorable that the resolution failed to mention Iran as the “greatest threat of nuclear proliferation” in the region.

Israel is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. It is the only Middle East state that has not signed the NPT and, like India and Pakistan, did not participate in the review conference.

Tauscher said Washington would work with countries in the region to organize a successful conference in 2012.

But she added that the U.S. ability to do that “has been seriously jeopardized because the final document singles out Israel in the Middle East section, a fact that the United States deeply regrets.”

Gary Samore, who oversees policy on weapons of mass destruction at the White House, said U.S. Vice President Joe Biden had warned Arab ambassadors in Washington this week that naming Israel in the final document would be a bad idea.

“The political symbolism of mentioning Israel in this way is very destructive,” he told reporters on a conference call.

“I don’t know whether this conference will even happen,” Samore said. “We’re not going to convene a meeting unless we believe the conditions are right for having that meeting.”

There was no immediate reaction from Israel.

‘DIFFICULT COMPROMISE’

The White House insisted it would not put the Jewish state under any pressure nor encourage it to do anything that would undermine its national security. It also denied entering into a deal with Egypt and other Arab states on the WMD-free zone.

“There is no deal between the U.S. and Egypt or any countries with regard to that particular issue,” Jones told Reuters in Washington.

Diplomats familiar with the talks, however, told Reuters the United States had agreed with the Arabs not to block consensus on the declaration while making clear it would condemn the naming of Israel.

British delegate John Duncan told the meeting the text on the Middle East had involved “difficult compromise for all parties involved.”

U.N. diplomats have said that one of the reasons Washington agreed to negotiate with the Arabs on the WMD-free zone was to secure their support for new U.N. sanctions against Iran.

Tauscher said that “Iran is the only country in this hall that has been found … to be currently in non-compliance with its (NPT) nuclear safeguards obligations.”

The declaration also contained plans for further disarmament, strengthening global non-proliferation efforts and ensuring access to technology for peaceful uses.

The 1970 NPT is intended to stop the spread of atomic weapons, though it allowed the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia to keep their arsenals while calling on them to negotiate on disarmament.

The conference called on North Korea to give up nuclear weapons and return to the NPT, which it left in 2003.

(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick in Washington; editing by Eric Beech and Mohammad Zargham)

FACTBOX – Key points of nuclear non-proliferation declaration

A nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference declaration was agreed by consensus by 189 nations on Friday. It was the first agreement by the pact’s signatories at a treaty review conference in 10 years.

Following are key “follow-on actions” included in the declaration:

* NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

The five official nuclear weapons states — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — “commit to undertake further efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate all types of nuclear weapons.” But no timetable for doing so is specified.

* SECURITY ASSURANCES

Signatories agreed that the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament should “immediately begin discussion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.”

* NUCLEAR TESTING

Nuclear weapons states undertake to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty “with all expediency.” The United states and China have not ratified the treaty, meaning it cannot yet enter into force. Until it does so, all states commit to refrain from nuclear test explosions.

* FISSILE MATERIALS

States agree that the Conference on Disarmament should “immediately begin negotiation of a treaty banning the production of fissile material.”

* NON-PROLIFERATION

The conference urged Israel, India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT treaty.

* NUCLEAR ENERGY

The conference urged states “to facilitate … the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.”

* MIDDLE EAST WEAPONS-OF-MASS-DESTRUCTION-FREE ZONE

The conference said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and key states “will convene a conference in 2012, to be attended by all states of the Middle East, on the establishment of a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.”

* NORTH KOREA

The conference “strongly urged” North Korea to carry out “the complete and verifiable abandonment of all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs” and return to the NPT.

(Compiled by Patrick Worsnip; editing by Mohammad Zargham)

U.S., Arabs reach deal at nuclear treaty talks – envoys

The United States and Egypt struck a deal on a push to pressure Israel to ultimately scrap any atomic bombs it has in a bid to avert a collapse of talks on shoring up the global anti-nuclear arms pact, envoys said on Friday.

But they said it was unclear whether Iran would attempt to single-handedly block an agreement on a final declaration that has now been agreed upon by the other 189 signatories of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, who have been meeting for a month to find ways to strengthen the troubled pact.

“We have a deal that everyone can live with,” a Western diplomat told Reuters. “Now the question is will Iran do the right thing.”

The latest draft of a final declaration for the NPT review conference calls for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to organize a meeting of all Middle Eastern states in 2012 on how to make the region free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as demanded by a 1995 NPT resolution.

It also urges Israel to sign the NPT and put its nuclear facilities under U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards — a passage the Americans had wanted deleted. In the end, they backed down in the interest of salvaging the conference, delegates told Reuters.

The creation of a WMD-free zone would eventually force Israel to abandon any atomic bombs it might have. The Jewish state, which like nuclear-armed India and Pakistan never signed the NPT, is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies that.

Israel is not participating in the NPT meeting.

(Reporting by Louis Charbonneau; editing by Todd Eastham)

Nuclear treaty talks on brink of failure – diplomats

Talks on shoring up the global anti-nuclear arms treaty were on the edge of failure on Friday as the United States and its allies clashed with Egypt over a push to pressure Israel to scrap any atom bombs it has.

For a month the 189 signatories of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have been meeting in New York in hopes of agreeing on a plan to shore up the troubled pact, which analysts say has been hit by Iran’s and North Korea’s atomic programs and failure by the nuclear powers to disarm.

The latest draft of a final declaration for the NPT review conference calls for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to organize a meeting of all Middle Eastern states in 2012 on how to make the region free of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as demanded by a 1995 NPT resolution.

The creation of a WMD-free zone would eventually force Israel to abandon any atomic bombs it has. The Jewish state, which like nuclear-armed India and Pakistan never signed the NPT, is presumed to have a sizable nuclear arsenal but neither confirms nor denies it. Israel is not participating in the NPT meeting.

In a radical departure from the previous U.S. administration, President Barack Obama’s negotiators had agreed to join the NPT’s other four official nuclear powers — Britain, France, Russia and China — in backing such a conference while encouraging reluctant Israel to participate.

The five permanent U.N. Security Council members and a group of Arab states led by Egypt are close to a deal that would make the 2012 conference happen, delegates say. But the two sides have reached an impasse on the question of whether Israel should be named in the declaration as a problem state.

The Egyptians insist the declaration must state explicitly that Israel should join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, but the Americans are refusing, diplomats said.

LAST-MINUTE COMPROMISE?

One Western diplomat familiar with the talks described the situation as “not looking too hopeful.”

He said there was a “stark choice for the Arabs — name and shame Israel or have a conference in 2012 to move forward the 1995 promise … toward a WMD-free zone in the Mideast.”

“My bet is their (the Arabs’) short-term political needs will trump their long-term strategic interest,” he said.

Other delegates confirmed the possibility that the NPT review conference would fail to agree on a final declaration because of disagreements on the Middle East question, repeating what happened at the last NPT review conference in 2005.

But diplomats said they hoped the United States and Egypt — the key players in the Middle East negotiations — would strike a last-minute compromise that salvaged the conference.

“We’ve worked so hard for the past month,” one diplomat said. “We’ve got a strong draft that would strengthen all three pillars of the NPT — disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy. It shouldn’t be thrown away.”

Western diplomats said Israel had reluctantly agreed to attend the 2012 conference but only on condition that it not be “named and shamed” in the final declaration.

Iran’s envoy to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Tehran’s chief delegate, accused the United States of causing the impasse at the NPT talks. Apart from the Middle East WMD-free zone, he said Washington and the other nuclear powers had rejected key demands of Iran and the other non-aligned developing nations.

Ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh said those demands were for a precise deadline for nuclear powers to disarm, a call for negotiations on a treaty banning the use of atomic arms, and a pledge from the five nuclear powers not to use atomic bombs on states without them, known as a “negative security assurance.”

“The nuclear weapon states, particularly the United States, have not cooperated to find a solution for these four main issues,” Soltanieh told reporters, adding that the NPT talks had reached a deadlock.

If the nuclear powers refuse to compromise, “they should be blamed for consequences,” Soltanieh said, adding that Tehran was prepared to block a declaration that it viewed as too weak. Since NPT meetings make decisions by consensus, Iran has a virtual veto.

(Editing by Bill Trott)

58 per cent willing to accept LoC as permanent border

Jammu, May 28 — A myth has been exploded that the people in Kashmir were against making Line of Control as permanent border between two parts of Jammu and Kashmir. A survey by a UK based think tank has discovered that 58 per cent of the people were in favour of that.

Those surveyed on either side of the 744-km LoC that divides the Himalayan state between India and Pakistan said that the LoC be made a permanent border, but with lot of relaxation on the borderline. Robert Bradrock, a visiting senior research fellow at King’s College, London in his study, “Kashmir: Paths to Peace “for Chatham House, where he works as an associate fellow, that a majority of the people were in favour of the LoC being made permanent border.

“Overall, a majority of the total population, 58 per cent were prepared to accept the LoC as a permanent border if it could be liberalized for people and/or trade to move across it freely, and a further 27 per cent were in favour of it in its current form.” This survey vindicates Kashmir leaders like Union Minister for New and Renewable Energy Farooq Abdullah, who since 1990s has been advocating the line.

He has been pleading for making the LoC as a permanent border. Farooq’s argument all along has been that “converting the LoC into a permanent border was the best solution to Kashmir crisis.

” It had also formed a critical part of former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf’s four point formula on Kashmir-making the borders irrelevant. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had proposed of LoC merely a “line on the map”.

The study which addressed a series of questions, including the approach of the people of this state toward becoming independent, joining India or Pakistan, found out from among 3,774 respondents on both sides of the LoC..

Obama elevated dialogue with ‘emerging global power’ India

Washington, May 27 (IANS) The US says the Obama administration felt it important to elevate its dialogue with New Delhi as India is a ‘a great and emerging global power’ with which the US has a significant range of interests.

‘I think the strategic dialogue speaks for itself,’ State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley told reporters Wednesday when asked to give a sense of US-India relations in the first 17 months of Obama Administration.

‘India is a great and emerging global power. Our range of interests are significant in terms of the environment, in terms of regional security, in terms of counterterrorism, economic issues,’ he said.

‘We have very strong cultural ties to India, so we look forward to the strategic dialogue,’ he said referring to the June 3-4 inaugural India-US strategic dialogue led by Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

‘It’s something that the Secretary and the President (Barack Obama) felt important to elevate the level of our coordination and cooperation,’ he said. ‘So we look forward to the dialogue.

‘I think our relations with India have never been stronger. We are talking about the relations between the largest and oldest democracies in the world. We have a great deal in common and we look forward to the meetings next week,’ Crowley added.

Asked about a report that Pakistan has asked for US help in bridging the trust deficit with India, the US official said trust deficit was essentially a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan, but US will continue to encourage both of its ‘friends’ to enhance their dialogue and cooperation.

‘Well, the trust deficit, as it’s been called, between India and Pakistan is most significantly a bilateral issue between Pakistan and India,’ he said.

The US, Crowley said, had ‘encouraged both Pakistan and India to enhance its dialogue in a cooperation’ as it was ‘friends with both countries’ and has ‘strong and strengthening relationships’ with both.

‘We are gratified that both countries seem to be moving in a direction that – to see that dialogue become deeper. So we will continue to encourage both countries to pursue the commitments that both have made and pledged publicly.’

Asked what role the US had played in India banning over 100 terrorist organizations and Pakistan arresting an army major in connection with the failed Times Square bombing, Crowley said: ‘First of all, these were steps taken by India and Pakistan.’

Security and counterterrorism were an ingredient of its dialogue in the US relationship with both countries, Crowley said describing it as ‘a shared challenge that the United States, India, Pakistan, other countries have.

‘It’s a global challenge. So we welcome the efforts of these countries to try to reduce the threat not only within the region, but more broadly.’

(Arun Kumar can be contacted at arun.kumar@ians.in)

UN nuclear conference calls on India to joint NPT, CTBT

Breaking the tradition of not naming countries, the first draft of the final document of 2010 Nuclear-Non Proliferation Treaty Review conference has asked India, Pakistan and Israel to join NPT and CTBT.

“The conference calls upon India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the treaty as non-nuclear weapon States, promptly and without conditions, thereby accepting an internationally legally binding commitment not to acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices,” the first draft of the document said.

“The conference also calls upon India and Pakistan to maintain moratoriums on nuclear testing and calls upon India, Israel and Pakistan to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) without delay and without conditions,” it said.

The NPT Review Conference is held every five years to assess the progress in reaching the goals set out in the 1970 treaty to disarm and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

This year it started on May 3 and would end on May 28 when the final draft is expected.

India, Pakistan and Israel have not signed the treaty and do not attend. The last conference in 2005 ended in failure.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a Western diplomat said here that there were countries, which had accepted that India and Pakistan were not going to become part of the treaty and suggested a new track to reign them into the non-proliferation regime.

“We are going to try and put them in a cooperation system with obligations so that they would have the same obligations that NPT countries without being in the NPT,” he said, noting that such an agreement was better than doing nothing.

Several experts, however, have pointed out that by the time the final document was prepared the names of the countries may be replaced by a more general call for the universal acceptance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Officials noted that naming Israel, for instance, would lead to the country not cooperating with the Arab nations on a plan to have a Middle East free nuclear weapons free zone.

“We want something so that all countries come to the table,” the Western diplomat said. “But it’s so fragile, it’s so difficult.”

Mark Hibbs, an expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who had attended the meetings noted that there seemed to be a “tacit agreement” not to retain the names by the end of the conference.

Yesterday, US also reiterated that its nuclear cooperation deal with India was a unique situation and did not set a precedent for the future, according to Reaching Critical Will, a project of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the oldest women’s peace organisation in the world.

While several states continue to criticise the special status given to India through the Civil Nuclear deal as weakening the NPT regime, diplomats here noted that it had not become a major bone of contention.

However, the senior Western diplomat noted that the international community would not accept Pakistan entering into a deal similar to the one the US and India had signed.

“We know exactly what India is doing,” he said, noting that Islamabad would not allow checks on its nuclear facilities even if entered into a similar agreement with China.

“Pakistan does not want to have any inspection of any kind.”

Meanwhile, the five permanent members of the Security Council have come under severe criticism for watering down the disarmament obligations in the document.

“The commitment to disarm are clearly weaker than what they have been till now,” Hibbs said.

The senior Western official also noted that the tussle in the conference was between the permanent members of the Security Council that were united and the Non-Aligned Movement countries that had divided positions on several issues including Iran’s nuclear program.

“The final document will be weak because it will be the only way to have a document,” the Western diplomat said.