After a mixed response to the Pak-China nuclear energy deal, the US administration has finally come out of the closet indicating that it would vote against an exemption for China to sell two civil nuclear reactors to Pakistan at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting, in a fresh move to step up pressure to get the controversial deal annulled. This is for the first time that such a clear statement has emerged from the Obama administration, days after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Pakistan that the US would work with it on the civil nuclear energy, during her just concluded Islamabad visit. It is clear that the US is indulging in double standards at the behest of India. Congressman Ed Royce, who is co-chair of House India Caucus, at a Congressional hearing convened by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, canvassed along with other Indian lobbyists to oppose the Pak-China deal. When the issue came up before the NSG at its meeting last month in New Zealand, the US had sought more information from Beijing on this issue. The US and India observe that international guidelines forbid nuclear exports to countries that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or do not have international safeguards on reactors. They find the Sino-Pak deal in contravention of this, which is a ludicrous objection since India itself is in violation as not having signed the NPT. It is undoubtedly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Let us examine some relevant questions pertaining to the Pak-China civil nuclear deal. First, what is the Chashma Complex? Chashma in Pakistans Punjab province is the site of a nuclear power complex built using Chinese expertise and designs. One 300MW pressurised water reactor began commercial operation in 2000, and Chinese nuclear companies are building another one likely to be finished in 2011 or 2012. Chinese companies have also unveiled plans to build another two bigger reactors at Chashma in coming years. Second, why is China helping build more reactors there? Pakistan faces increasing power shortages and demand is likely to keep growing quickly as its population expands. Thus, China being its longstanding partner is helping it (Pakistan) to build more reactors. In addition, Beijing believes it is important to back Pakistan to counter Indian regional dominance. It is also wary of growing the US sway across South Asia. Third, are there any nuclear proliferation risks? The response is that both China and Pakistan have asked the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to keep safeguards at Chashma. This major step should satisfy all doubting Thomases, most of all the US, which is indulging in double standards vis--vis Pakistan and India. Unfortunately, USAs list of double standards does not end with nuclear cooperation alone. With Pakistan being a frontline state in the war on terror and having sacrificed maximum in the ongoing struggle to eliminate terrorism, it expected the US to show some compassion towards it. Richard Holbrooke, the US Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, while in New Delhi, in a bid to please the Indian leadership, reiterated the alleged links between the ISI and the Taliban, calling it a problem. The successes that Pakistan has achieved in the so-called war against terror and the cooperation provided by it have come to naught. If that was not enough, over the weekend, the website released roughly 92,000 government documents related to the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010, after providing the documents to the New York Times, Guardian, and Germanys Der Spiegel. Many of the reports leak links between elements of the ISI and Al-Qaeda and Taliban alleging of high level cooperation from training, funding and providing arms and ammunition, supporting the plot to assassinate Karzai and an allegation that former ISI head Hamid Gul met with three presumed Al-Qaeda representatives in South Waziristan to plan a suicide bombing against the US forces. The timing of the report is ominous, as it supplements the pressure tactics being applied on Pakistan to mount an attack on North Waziristan. The reports contents are malicious as they are based on single informants and Afghan officials hostile to the ISI, thus failing to provide damning evidence and only confirm US double standards. The writer is a political and defence analyst.