Pakistani Writers Question Nuclear Deals with China

[sonicboom]

Pakistani Writers Question Nuclear Deals with China

Note: 'Pakistan is Simply a... Disposal Ground for... [China's] Small and Unwanted Reactors'; 'Why Not Invest in [Pakistan's Oil] Sector?'

In April, the Chinese government agreed to a deal to build two nuclear reactors for Pakistan, to be financed by a 20-year loan from China. The move to build the Chashma-3 and Chashma-4 nuclear reactors is not permitted under the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Groups (NSG), the international body that regulates trade in nuclear materials. China has said that the two nuclear reactors are part of the series of Chashma-1 and Chashma-2 nuclear reactors built by it before 2004. The Chinese argument is that since China became a member of the NSG only in 2004, it can still construct the Chashma-3 and Chashma-4 reactors at Chashma in Pakistan's Punjab province.

The United States and India have expressed concerns over the Chinese plan to construct nuclear reactors, and their likely military use. According to a report in the Urdu-language daily Roznama Jang, Abdul Basit, the spokesman for the Pakistani Foreign Office, rejected Indian and American concerns, saying that Pakistan-China nuclear cooperation has a history and has always remained within the boundaries of international law.

In a statement issued by the Foreign Office, Basit said, "Cooperation between Pakistan and China [in the nuclear field] is not new. Both the countries have been cooperating for years now, and asking Pakistan for a clarification is not justified… Cooperation between Pakistan and China is for peaceful purposes and both of the countries understand their responsibilities regarding nuclear issues. The treaty is to meet Pakistan's energy needs."[1]

It is true that Pakistan is facing an acute shortage of electricity. Almost all major Pakistani towns and cities have witnessed violent protests due to power cuts, a kind of enforced rationing of electricity supply to deal with the shortage. However, many Pakistani writers are not convinced that a nuclear agreement with China can meet even a small fraction of the energy that Pakistan needs. The international community also worries about Pakistan's role in international nuclear proliferation.

Recently, two articles published in the leading liberal newspaper Dawn examined the relevance of the Pakistani nuclear program, especially the move to build two more nuclear reactors with assistance from China. In the first article, titled "The Chashma Deal," senior Pakistani journalist Zubeida Mustafa argued that the Pakistani nuclear program is not only failing to meet Pakistan's energy needs, but it has also made the country more vulnerable strategically. In the second article, titled "Nuclear Energy the Answer?", noted academic Pervez Hoodbhoy, who teaches physics at the Quaid-i-Azam University in Islamabad, offered alternative options to meet Pakistan's energy needs.


"We Do Not Need Any More Nuclear Weapons; Today Our Nuclear Status has Only Made us More Vulnerable"

The following are excerpts from Zubeida Mustafa's article in Dawn:[2]

"Pakistan's nuclear program is once again under fire. This time the legality of its deal with China for two nuclear reactors ostensibly for civilian purposes is being questioned. The U.S. has demanded an explanation from Beijing and has asked for details of the accord it concluded with Islamabad three months ago. It wants to be sure that China is not violating the international obligations it undertook when it joined the 46-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)...

"China claims that the 650-megawatt Chashma-3 and Chashma-4 [nuclear reactors] are part of the original deal of 2004 under which Chashma-1 and Chashma-2 were supplied. In other words the new agreement does not violate the NSG's guidelines, it is said. As an extension of the earlier projects, the new reactors will operate under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]...

"As could be expected, the pro-nuclear lobby in the country is ecstatic about the move to enhance the nuclear power generation capacity. The hawks have attacked the U.S. for questioning the latest deal. Here some cautious reflection would be in order. Is the policy to blindly pursue nuclear power justified?

"It is important to be clear about the purpose of acquiring more nuclear reactors, that are like a double-edged sword which can be used for manufacturing atom bombs or generating electricity. The government insists that no military motives are attached to the Chashma reactors. Does the government really mean what it says?

"We do not need any more nuclear weapons. What we have developed after the explosions of May 1998 – 50 bombs perhaps – have not really strengthened us strategically. Today our nuclear status has only made us more vulnerable. On the one hand we are accused of irresponsibly proliferating nuclear technology to other Third World countries. On the other, our allies in the war on terror doubt our ability to prevent our nuclear arms falling into the hands of militants.

"Given this international perception of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities, the move to acquire new reactors – even for the generation of electricity – betrays a lack of understanding of the implications of the nuclear geopolitics of the region..."

"The Fact is That for Decades Pakistan Denied That Its Nuclear Program had Military Goals; but That is Exactly How It Turned Out to be"

"It is no use taking a step that gives the impression that Pakistan is trying to secretly enter into a nuclear race with India. The fact is that for decades Pakistan denied that its nuclear program had military goals. But that is exactly how it turned out to be when it sprung a surprise on the world by exploding a series of nuclear devices and announcing its debut in the nuclear club...

"Pakistan is already a proclaimed nuclear state, though that has hardly enhanced our security. Given the nature of the security threats we face and the war the army is required to fight against the Taliban, it is inconceivable that a nuclear weapon could be used by the army to achieve its war aims. It would amount to bringing a slow and painful death by radiation to our own people.

"If we believe Islamabad's contention that the Chashma reactors are only for power generation, then we can logically ask if nuclear energy is the only ideal solution to our power crisis. Nuclear power is expensive and the most demanding in terms of technological skills. At present, nuclear energy constitutes only two percent of Pakistan's electricity generation mix.

"Even this small quantum has not been handled as well as it should have been. Take our first reactor in Karachi, Kanuup, that became operational in 1971. It has a designed life of 30 years which ended a decade ago, and now Kanupp is operating on an extended life of 15 years which will expire in 2015. It has generally not operated at full capacity and has very often had to be shut down for 'maintenance'. Chashma-1 began operation in 2000 while Chashma-2 has failed to meet its deadline of becoming operational in 2009. It is now expected to be ready next year."

"Is It Wise to Concentrate on Nuclear Energy? At Present the Country's Energy Supply Comes Mainly from Hydel and Thermal Generation – 33 Percent from the First and 65 Percent from the Second"

"Is it wise to concentrate on nuclear energy? At present the country's energy supply comes mainly from hydel and thermal generation – 33 percent from the first and 65 percent from the second. Thermal power generation can be enhanced quite easily by installing more thermal plants. Instead of going in for imported fuel, it is important that indigenous supplies of oil and coal both should be developed.

"The country has 3,362 million short tons of proven recoverable reserves of coal. Pakistan's proven oil reserves have been estimated in the CIA World Factbook at 395.6 million barrels in 2009, when production stands at only 60,000 barrel per day. Why not invest in this sector?

"It is also difficult to understand why transmission losses of 30 per cent should be tolerated, and the problem does not get addressed in earnest. Does it make sense to install new generation capacity while allowing 5,000MW of electricity to be lost in transmission or be stolen by power thieves?"

"Despite a 50-Year Long Nuclear History... Pakistan has Proven Unable to Build for Itself Even a Single Electricity-Producing Nuclear Reactor"

Following are excerpts from Hoodbhoy's article in Dawn:[3]

"It seems odd at first sight to understand why Pakistan, a country that can make nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and has an atomic energy commission that employs over 30,000 people, has electricity blackouts.

"Pakistani authorities blame Western countries for denying it nuclear energy because it will not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). The NPT expressly forbids transfer of any kind of nuclear technology, including that for power generation, to non-signatories.

Cont'd...........

[sonicboom]

"But the fact is that despite a 50-year long nuclear history, and vast spending, Pakistan has proven unable to build for itself even a single electricity-producing nuclear reactor. These are technologically far more complex than nuclear bombs. Pakistan relies on a 40-year old Canadian reactor (in Karachi) and a 10-year old Chinese reactor at Chashma [in Punjab province], which together constitute two percent of the total electricity capacity. A second Chinese reactor has been under construction at Chashma since 2005 and is expected to be completed next year.

"In February 2010, China agreed to Pakistan's request to build two additional civilian nuclear reactors in Pakistan, each of 330MW (about one-third the size of most modern nuclear power plants). To make this affordable, China has offered to provide over 80 percent of the total $1.9bn cost as a 20-year loan. An apparent stumbling block was that in 2004 China joined the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), whose rules prohibit supply of nuclear materials to non-NPT states..."

"China is Negotiating with Western Companies to Acquire Their Technology under License for Critical Components; Pakistan is Simply a Test Bed and a Disposal Ground for Its [China's] Small and Unwanted Reactors"

"So far the U.S. has registered only a muted objection to the Chinese sale. This is quite understandable. In 2008 it had arm-twisted the NSG into agreeing upon special exemption from its rules for India. Thus it has no credible counter-argument to protest a similar deal initiated by China. Moreover, serious efforts to block the sale would deeply irritate Pakistan, upon which the U.S. relies for helping it fight the Afghan war. The cold reality of geo-politics and economic interests has quietly put to death earlier restrictions, suggested by the U.S., upon global nuclear trade.

"China's interest in pushing the deal with Pakistan is fairly clear. The sale of two rather small-sized reactors to Pakistan is but a step in a larger plan to become a major producer and exporter of nuclear power plants. China is negotiating with Western companies to acquire their technology under licence for critical components that would enable it to make reactors of 1,000MW and 1,400MW. Pakistan is simply a test bed and a disposal ground for its small and unwanted reactors.

"The impact of the Chinese reactors upon Pakistan's energy crisis will be marginal. Nor will they contribute to its bomb-making capacity because they are under full-scope IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards. It will take six to eight years after the contracts are formally signed before the electricity reaches the grid, if all goes according to plan. Even then, the new reactors will contribute barely a drop in the ocean. Moreover, the cost per kilowatt will be considerably higher than from other means..."

"Pakistan Should Use the Vast Deposits of ... Coal Using Appropriate Technology to Minimize the Negative Environmental Consequences; or It Can Build Gas-Fired Power Plants"

"Pakistan's problem is not primarily that of installed capacity. If all current sources are included, this amounts to a respectable 19,000MW. In principle this should be more than adequate for Pakistan's power demand, which stands at around 14,500MW. The problem is that a mere 10,200MW is actually generated. About 30 percent of current capacity is not used. Government incompetence and mismanagement are to blame.

"One manifestation is 'circular debt' — meaning the non-payment of electricity bills by the military and various government departments to other government departments. This has had the effect of electricity producers being unable to import fuel oil. Thus, expensive imported plants stand idle.

"An inefficient distribution system wastes over 10 percent of the electricity as it travels along transmission lines, through transformers, and in bad connections. This is compounded by an electricity grid that is unable to effectively distribute electricity from power plants to consumers.

"Electricity theft, by rich and poor alike, is another critical factor. For a small bribe, electric company employees create unmonitored bypasses called kundas or tamper with meters. Electricity producers and distributors lose revenue. The solution may lie in installing smart meters that are tamper-proof and remotely read. Stopping power theft would save far more megawatts than will be generated by Chashma's four nuclear reactors, whenever they come on line..."

"For new electricity-generation capacity, Pakistan should use the vast deposits of ... coal, using appropriate technology to minimize the negative environmental consequences. Or it can build gas-fired power plants and fuel them using natural gas imported from Iran. The only thing standing in the way is the United States's determination to impose sanctions on Iran's oil and gas industry..."

Endnotes:



[1] Roznama Jang (Pakistan), June 28, 2010.

[2] Dawn (Pakistan), June 23, 2010. The text of the articles has been lightly edited for clarity.

[3] Dawn (Pakistan), June 29, 2010.

Pakistani Writers Question Nuclear Deals with China, Note: 'Pakistan is Simply a... Disposal Ground for... [China's] Small and Unwanted Reactors'; 'Why Not Invest in [Pakistan's Oil] Sector?'