Pakistan holds up mirror to India over N-oversight call
Amid unabated bellicose rhetoric from New Delhi, Pakistan on Thursday strongly condemned the "irresponsible and misleading" remarks of India's defence minister regarding the country's nuclear arsenal, as two archrivals extended their uneasy truce until May 18.
Rajnath Singh, while on a visit to IIOJK, said that Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme should be placed under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The Foreign Office hit back at Singh, reminding the international community of India's poor record with regard to securing its nuclear programme.
"These irresponsible remarks reveal his profound insecurity and frustration regarding Pakistan's effective defence and deterrence against Indian aggression through conventional means," the Foreign Office spokesperson said in a statement. "Pakistan's conventional capabilities are adequate to deter India, without the self-imposed 'nuclear blackmail' that New Delhi suffers," it added.
The comments of India's defence minister also show his sheer ignorance of the mandate and responsibilities of a specialised agency of the United Nations like the IAEA, he added. "If anything, the IAEA and the international community should be worried about the repeated theft and illicit trafficking incidents involving nuclear and radioactive material in India."
The spokesperson recalled that just last year, five persons with a radioactive device reportedly stolen from the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) were found in Dehradun, India. Later, a gang was found with illegal possession of a highly radioactive and toxic substance, Californium, worth US$ 100 million.
Three incidents of theft of Californium were also reported in 2021. These recurring incidents call into question the measures taken by New Delhi for the safety and security of nuclear and other radioactive material. "These incidents also suggest the existence of a black market for sensitive, dual-use materials inside India," the statement said.
Pakistan urged a thorough investigation into the incidents and called upon India to ensure the safety and security of its nuclear facilities and arsenal.
Singh's statement exposes India's endemic obsession with Pakistan's credible nuclear deterrence against a much larger enemy. The country's media churned out fake news about alleged Pakistani nuclear sites being hit by Indian strikes during the recent hostilities.
However, the international nuclear watchdog officially refuted reports suggesting a radiation leak from Pakistan's nuclear facilities following the Indian aggression.
The claims, which circulated widely on social media and certain foreign media outlets, alleged that Indian missiles had struck the Kirana Hills in Sargodha district, leading to a radioactive incident. However, the IAEA clarified that there is no evidence supporting these assertions.
"We are aware of the reports. Based on information available to the IAEA, there was no radiation leak or release from any nuclear facility in Pakistan," said IAEA spokesperson Fredrik Dahl in a statement.
Ceasefire
The Director General Military Operations (DGMOs) of Pakistan and India held third-round of talks and agreed to maintain the ceasefire.
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar confirmed to parliament that the militaries of both countries communicated earlier in the day and reached the decision to prolong the ceasefire, with plans to a follow-up with political dialogue.
"The ceasefire was initially agreed upon on May 10 to last until May 12. It was later extended to May 14, and now further extended to May 18," he told lawmakers.
Dar added that military-level communication had so far been instrumental in maintaining the ceasefire and after May 18, comprehensive political talks would begin.
"There will be composite and result-oriented talks with India. The purpose is not to accept anyone's superiority but to resolve issues on the basis of equality," the foreign minister said.
The ceasefire deal was brokered by the United States on May 10 after the four-day of hostilities between the two countries. While India's signaling on the ground is different, Indian political leadership continued to ratchet up their rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary Amna Baloch briefed the Islamabad-based diplomatic missions on the recent developments in Pakistan-India relations.
She apprised the diplomatic corps of the implementation and progress of the ceasefire announced on May 10. She underscored that, as a goodwill gesture, Pakistan and India exchanged the personnel of Pakistan Rangers and the Indian Border Security Force in each other's custody.
She thanked the friendly countries for their constructive role in achieving the ceasefire.
In the context of India's baseless assertions on establishing a "new normal", the secretary stressed that the only "normal" in bilateral relations is respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. She emphasised Pakistan's preference for peaceful co-existence, dialogue and diplomacy over conflict and strife.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
25 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Rs28.8tr debt spending bill tabled
The government on Monday laid a Rs28.8 trillion compulsory expenses bill before the National Assembly for the next fiscal year, which is about 17% lower than this year due to a reduction in interest rates, but key state organs received double-digit increases in their budgets. The Presidency, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Senate, the Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace, and the Federal Tax Ombudsman would get substantially higher budgets for the fiscal year 202526 compared to this year, according to the charged expenditure statement. Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb laid before the National Assembly a compulsory expenditure bill of Rs28.8 trillion to meet the expenses on debt servicing and the requirements of the President of Pakistan, Supreme Court of Pakistan, the National Assembly, the Senate, and other state organs. Under the Constitution, these expenses are considered charged expenditures on which the National Assembly does not have the right to vote. The details show that while the cost of debt has reduced due to falling interest rates, the state organs still received significantly higher budgets, except for the National Assembly. Around Rs1 trillion has been sought to meet the obligatory expenditures of the National Assembly, the Senate, the Election Commission of Pakistan, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the President of Pakistan, the Islamabad High Court, the Federal Tax Ombudsman, Pakistan Post Office, Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection against Harassment of Women, and the Foreign Office. An amount of Rs27.8 trillion has been sought for Pakistan's debt repayment requirements and interest costs, according to a summary of the spending bill presented by the government before the National Assembly, seeking its endorsement. The financing needs for repaying maturing debt, interest costs, and funding the next fiscal year's budget deficit have reduced after the central bank cut the interest rates from 22% to 11%, providing some relief to the government and taxpayers. The government's preference to borrow through long-term debt instruments has also helped reduce domestic debt repayments for the next fiscal year. However, the foreign debt repayments have significantly increased, particularly the short-term debt. The Pakistani government does not repay principal loans from its budget but instead contracts more debt to repay maturing loans. This is also a reason why debt-related expenditures are significantly higher compared to the Rs17.6 trillion size of the next fiscal year's budget. The amount of Rs27.8 trillion sought for the repayment of principal loans and debt servicing is lower by Rs5.9 trillion, or 17.5%, compared to the original budget approved for such expenses in June last year, according to the documents. This is the second consecutive fiscal year where the cost of borrowings and repayments is lower than the preceding year. Except for the Rs8.2 trillion cost of interest on debt, which will be part of the federal budget, the rest of the amount will not be booked in the budget and will be directly borrowed from domestic and foreign markets to repay loans obtained in the past by successive governments. Interest payments on domestic and foreign loans will consume roughly 47% of the proposed budget of Rs17.6 trillion for the next fiscal year. This is also lower than in the outgoing fiscal year. Compared to the original borrowing plan of Rs19 trillion for the outgoing fiscal year, the government has sought the Assembly's endorsement for Rs14 trillion to repay maturing domestic debt in the next fiscal year. This amount is lower by Rs5 trillion or 26% compared to the original allocation for this fiscal year. The government has also requested Rs8.2 trillion for domestic debt servicing, which is 17% or Rs1.5 trillion less than the outgoing fiscal year. To repay foreign loans, the government has sought a record Rs5.4 trillion for the new fiscal year, which will be obtained from foreign lenders. The need for foreign loan repayment is up by 11%, or Rs547 billion. The government has requested an additional Rs1 trillion to pay interest on foreign loans, which is almost at this year's level. It has asked for Rs200 billion from the National Assembly to repay short-term foreign loans, which is up by 577% or Rs177 billion. There has also been some reduction in the expenses of the National Assembly, as its budget has been reduced by Rs400 million to Rs6.9 billion for the next fiscal year. The Senate, however, received a 19% jump, and its expenses would increase to a record Rs6.2 billion in the next fiscal year. For the staff, household, and allowances of the President, the government has requested a record Rs2.7 billion budget, which is 17% or Rs400 million higher than the outgoing fiscal year. It seems that the country's elite ruling class does not care about the deteriorating economic conditions, which will keep Pakistan under the thumb of the International Monetary Fund for times to come. The government has requested Rs6.6 billion for charged expenditures of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which is higher by Rs2.2 billion, or 51%. The Islamabad High Court will receive Rs2.2 billion, higher by Rs280 million, or 15%. The Election Commission of Pakistan will get Rs9.9 billion in the next fiscal year. The Wafaqi Mohtasib will receive Rs1.6 billion. An amount of Rs604 million has been given to the Federal Tax Ombudsman.
Express Tribune
38 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
Pakistan, Uzbekistan eye $2b trade goal
PM Shehbaz Sharif and Uzbekistan President Shavkat Mirziyoyev raise hands in solidarity during the joint press stakeout in Tashkent. Photo: PPI Uzbekistan's Ambassador to Pakistan, Alisher Tukhtaev, met Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Industries and Production, Haroon Akhtar Khan, in Islamabad on Monday to discuss ways to strengthen economic and industrial ties between the two countries. According to an official statement, the Uzbek envoy expressed gratitude for Pakistan's continued support and stressed the need to deepen collaboration in key sectors such as agriculture, pharmaceuticals, energy, and food processing. Khan reaffirmed Pakistan's commitment to enhancing bilateral relations in line with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif's vision of increasing trade and industrial cooperation. He highlighted the PM Sharif's target of raising bilateral trade with Uzbekistan to $2 billion, noting that efforts were underway at all levels to achieve this. During the meeting, both sides emphasised the importance of joint ventures in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and cooperation in public procurement. They also discussed collaboration in e-commerce, with the ambassador inviting Pakistani digital firms to explore opportunities in Uzbekistan.
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Fragility of diplomatic engagement
In his book, Diplomacy, former US Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger writes that diplomacy is the "art of enhancing power." Further, he states, "When statesmen want to gain time, they offer to talk." He believes, "The bargaining position of the victor always diminishes with time. Whatever is not exacted during the shock of defeat becomes increasingly difficult to attain later." Termed the art of negotiations, diplomacy however failed to prevent the recent conflicts - between Israel and Iran war; Russia and Ukraine; and, India and Pakistan. According to AI "Diplomatic engagement refers to the practice of actively communicating, negotiating, and building relationships with other nations and their representatives to achieve specific foreign policy goals. This engagement can involve governments, international organisations, and even non-state actors, and it plays a crucial role in maintaining peace, promoting cooperation, and addressing global challenges." When US President Donald Trump abruptly left the G-7 summit held in Canada this past week and used highly undiplomatic language threatening Iran of dire consequences for not surrendering unconditionally, it shows how fragile the power of diplomacy is. By rendering support to the Israeli aggression against Iran, the US President adheres to what Jewish state wants: complete destruction of the Iranian nuclear programme and regime change in Tehran. Other G-7 leaders also supported Israel and its attack on Iran. It seems, the West instead of 'peace' wants to promote 'war' diplomacy. But using diplomacy to coerce Iran and relegate before Israel will have adverse implications on global affairs. The failure of diplomacy led to war as it happened in the case of the US attack on Iraq in January 1991 when the United Nations failed to seek a peaceful solution to the Gulf crisis. 'War diplomacy' cannot work in the case of Iran because it is a country which is resilient and the custodian of an ancient civilisation. Instead of declaring Israel an aggressor because of its highly unjustified attack on Iran launched on June 13, the West, particularly the US, wants the regime in Tehran toppled and Iran's nuclear installations destroyed. Iran has so far faced Israeli attacks and can also cope with the US military intervention. Trump's highly irresponsible threat to Iran to unconditionally surrender is a reflection of war diplomacy. Why didn't he criticise Israel for scuttling the US-Iran nuclear talks scheduled to be held in Oman on June 15? The US-Israel nexus for regime change in Iran and dismantling of its nuclear installations is well-planned and well-timed. Both the US and Israel know that Russia is bogged down in Ukraine and cannot come for Iran's rescue. Tehran has lost its support in Syria. Hamas and Hezbollah stand neutralised too because of the regime change in Syria. Barring Yemen, no Arab or Muslim country is standing behind Iran in this critical moment. The US-Israeli confidence in targeting Iran also got an impetus because of the domestic political schism and severe economic crisis. The enemies of the Iranian regime believe that in the event of an US-Israeli attack there would be no help from outside, and the Iranian people will rise against the clergy and topple the regime. It may be wishful thinking but one needs to ponder how Mossad penetrated deep into Iran which helped Israel eliminate several Iranian nuclear scientists and generals. The only power which has come openly against American threats to Iran is China making it clear that Washington cannot succeed in its pursuits. Certainly, despite its overt policy not to get itself involved in armed conflicts, China is capable of helping Iran in confronting a joint US-Israeli attack. Iran is the last bastion of anti-Americanism and its anti-Israeli stance is quite clear. If there is a regime change in Iran, it will mean failure of diplomacy. Like Libya, Syria and Iraq, Iran would be plunged into chaos with adverse regional ramifications. When there are no rules and principles in international relations and when Israel and the US use rhetoric to justify regime change in Tehran, there is little time for the Iranian regime to act. If the US militarily sides with Israel, will Iran not retaliate by targeting American forces deployed in the Gulf and closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz? Faced with a do or die situation, will Iran not take extreme measures for its survival? When diplomacy failed and the Iran-US nuclear talks were sabotaged by the Israeli attacks, the G-7 countries, instead of using diplomatic channels to de-escalate the situation, sided with the Jewish state. Iran is not like Iraq under Saddam Hussein or Afghanistan under the Taliban which can be easily occupied by American forces. Any attempt for regime change by subjugating Iran would have devastating implications. An ordinary Iranian would resist a foreign occupation. Furthermore, despite the years of sanctions, Iran has managed to erect a command and control system underground capable of meeting any foreign occupation. Fragility of diplomatic engagement in contemporary global scene focusing on the Israel-Iran war needs to be examined from three angles. First, for a long period of time, Iran has favoured diplomatic engagement by reaching a nuclear deal in 2015 under Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with five permanent UNSC members - China, France, Russia, the UK, the US - as well as Germany together with the European Union. Diplomatic engagement worked till 2018, but then the first Trump administration withdrew from the deal and imposed sanctions on Iran. It means diplomatic engagement cannot be a one-way traffic. The US and Israel preferred the use of force over diplomatic engagement. Second, why was Israel, which has more than 200 nuclear weapons, allowed by the West to carry out an attack on Iran? Diplomacy was used as a tool of hypocrisy by the US and West to deprive Iran of its nuclear capability but allowing Israel to remain as the only nuclear state in the Middle East and go ahead with its genocidal acts against the Palestinians in Gaza and West Bank. Third, it's not only Israel and the US which violated rules of diplomatic engagement; India also undermined diplomacy when it carried out attacks against Pakistan on May 7. Diplomatic efforts by the US, Russia and Saudi Arabia worked for a ceasefire in the case of Indo-Pak conflict, but there is no such effort as regards the ongoing Iran-Israel war.
