Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Viv S » 05 Sep 2016 06:59

Ras Al Ghul wrote:^^^^We dont have a waiver for re processing i believe.

We do.

The NSG waiver applied to reprocessing rights as well. Thereafter it depends on domestic laws of member states.

For example, the 123 agreement with the US provided India with the right to reprocess US-origin fuel but did not authorize the transfer of US-origin reprocessing technology.



Frequently Asked Questions on the India –US Agreement for Co-operation concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy - MEA

Does India get the right to reprocess spent fuel?

We view our right to reprocess as a key element of a closed fuel cycle. Our right to reprocess US origin spent fuel has been secured upfront in this Agreement.

Do we get enrichment and reprocessing technology from US?

The United States has a longstanding policy of not supplying to any country enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production facilities. This Agreement provides for such transfers to India only through an amendment. We hope transfers will become possible as cooperation develops and expands in the future.

Would our indigenous R & D effort be affected?

Our indigenous R &D effort would continue unhindered and unaffected.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Viv S » 05 Sep 2016 07:02

Enrichment and Reprocessing Technology, NSG and India - IDSA

Rajiv Nayan
August 19, 2011

Can India procure Enrichment and Reprocessing (ENR) technology and goods from the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)? This question is dominating the strategic debate not only in India but also across the world, as evident from commentaries and opinions expressed in the media, think tanks and the policy community ever since the June 2011 NSG plenary. In fact, this question had been cropping up periodically in the policy making community even before the NSG plenary.

The issue was somewhat complicated by the press statement issued by the NSG after the plenary meeting, which said little. Informal briefings and official statements, first from the US and then from a couple of other countries, tried to portray that there was no dissonance between India and the NSG guidelines on ENR. The media and some commentators argued that the NSG’s 2008 exemption for India did not include ENR technology. Others pointed out that the entire 2008 NSG exemption business was a farce and that in the future as well the NSG countries may impose new restrictions thus making the 2008 exception meaningless.

Later, a letter from the chairman of the NSG, dated July 12, 2011, was transmitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA published it as INFCIRC/254/Rev.10/part1 dated July 26, 2011. For India, the most crucial clause in this document was 6(a) (i), which demands that a recipient of ENR facilities, equipment and technology should be a member of the NPT and fulfil all its treaty obligations. Since India is not a member of the NPT, linking membership of the treaty to the supply of ENR items as per the NSG guidelines appears to have complicated the matter for India.

The government of India, seemingly, to allay apprehensions has been taking several measures, including the provision of briefings to the media on the issue. On August 10, 2011, the external affairs minister made a suo motu statement on ENR technology, in which he reiterated that the September 2008 India-specific exemption in the NSG included an exemption for the supply of ENR items. As mentioned earlier, some writings in India and outside, however, maintained that there was no such thing as a ‘clean exemption’ in the NSG. Which of these positions is right: the minister’s statement or the opinion doubting the NSG’s exemption of ENR supply to India?

For sure, the minister’s statement is based on facts. The India-specific exemption in the NSG is contained in the IAEA document INFCIRC/734 (Corrected), dated September 19, 2008. The statement notes:

Participating governments may transfer trigger list items and/or related technology to India for peaceful purposes and for use in IAEA safeguarded civil nuclear facilities, provided that the transfer satisfies all other provisions of INFCIRC/254/Part 1, as revised and provided that the transfers of sensitive export remain subject to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the guidelines.

Thus, it is clear that the exemption included the supply of ENR items to safeguarded facilities for civil nuclear energy cooperation. The supply of ENR or for that matter any other NSG item for an unsafeguarded military or strategic programme was never an issue. Now comes the question: what are restrictions imposed under paragraphs 6 and 7 of the guidelines? Before the 2011 amendment, paragraph 6 of the guidelines had stated that:

Suppliers should exercise restraint in the transfer of sensitive facilities, technology and material usable for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. If enrichment or reprocessing facilities, equipment or technology are to be transferred, suppliers should encourage recipients to accept, as an alternative to national plants, supplier involvement and/or other appropriate multinational participation in resulting facilities. Suppliers should also promote international (including IAEA) activities concerned with multinational regional fuel cycle centres.

Similarly, the unamended paragraph 7 noted:

For a transfer of an enrichment facility, or technology therefor, the recipient nation should agree that neither the transferred facility, nor any facility based on such technology, will be designed or operated for the production of greater than 20% enriched uranium without the consent of the supplier nation, of which the IAEA should be advised.

In both these paragraphs, the standard language was used. There is only regulated restriction and not a ban on the export of controlled items. In fact, the 2011 amendment sought to introduce a new element into the guidelines by inserting NPT membership and obligations.

However, even the otherwise vague 2011 NSG public statement that inserted the NPT angle into the guidelines, underlined that the NSG would implement the India-specific exemptions fully. As a result, the NPT angle in the guidelines becomes irrelevant – which was quite rightly pointed out by the minister in his suo motu statement.

What will be its implications for India? India has the indigenous capability for developing ENR facilities and goods which it has demonstrated very well. But the question is: why does it want to acquire ENR? It seems that the Indian nuclear energy establishment wants to take advantage of new technological developments in the world for the generation of energy and electricity. It is for this reason that India is involving a number of countries in its nuclear energy development programme.

Will these countries supply ENR items to India? The indications are positive. Just after the plenary meeting, when unofficial news about the NPT-relating amendment was circulating, the United States made a reassuring official statement in which it promised to continue with the ‘clean’ exemptions notwithstanding the amendment of the guidelines in the 2011 plenary meeting. Later, France and Russia also made similar reassuring statements. As all the important external actors for the Indian nuclear energy programme are willing to supply ENR, we may expect new actors to do so as well.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Viv S » 05 Sep 2016 07:07

SSridhar wrote:I know. That was why my answer was more nuanced than simply saying NSG was mandatory for WA. Looking at the list of countries that are in NSG & WA, some of whom had raised some objections and stuck to them against us for NSG in two plenaries (Geneva & Seoul) in spite of the US pushing, it is my belief that there may be some resistance in WA also.

True. Then again, all of the same countries were also members of MTCR agreement (Austria, Ireland, New Zealand, Turkey) where too decisions need to be taken unanimously - so WA may not necessarily be a major hurdle for India.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 05 Sep 2016 07:52

Viv S, one hopes so as far as admission to WA goes. But, there is a difference between MTCR & WA. The MTCR membership needs adherence to MTCR Export Control Guidelines, for which purpose it divides the items as Category I & II. That's all there is to it. There is no pre-requisite of 'adhering' to NPT (as in NSG) or having 'preferably' NSG membership (as in WA) etc. However, NSG & WA have such ambiguous references which enabled China (and a few others) to stall India in NSG and might allow similar objections to be raised in WA.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 05 Sep 2016 14:34

Need India in NSG to promote non-proliferation: Japan - Sachin Parashar, ToI
As China refuses to let go of its opposition to India's Nuclear Suppliers Group+ (NSG) membership bid, Japan has reiterated support+ for India saying its presence in NSG will help promote non-proliferation.

In its first official comments over the issue after the Indian bid collapsed in the face of Chinese resistance+ in the Seoul NSG meeting earlier this year, top Japanese foreign ministry told TOI in an exclusive interaction that they continued to work with India to make its membership possible.

"We intend to continue working with India on the issue as we believe its membership of NSG will help strengthen the non-proliferation regime+ ," said Yasuhisa Kawamura, the Director-General of Press and Public Diplomacy in Japan's ministry of foreign affairs, adding that Japan will continue to discuss the issue with other member states.

While Kawamura said China's conduct in blocking India's membership was obvious to all, he added Japan did not want to make any comment on consultations within NSG over the issue. "The fundamental issue is to ensure consensus building and we are working for it," said Kawamura, who served as Japan's deputy chief of mission in Delhi until a few years ago.

Another old India hand in in Japan's ministry of foreign affairs and senior regional coordinator in southwest Asia division, Masayuki Taga, said India's membership will help Japan promote non-proliferation.


While supporting India's bid, Japan remains unwavering in its commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and Kawamura, in fact, said Japan as a "general sentiment" will continue to ask India to sign the Treaty. Tokyo, however, has not allowed India's NPT non-signatory status to come in the way of its cooperation with New Delhi for the latter's presence in NSG.

This is in complete contrast to China, which is accused of violating both NPT and NSG guidelines in supplying nuclear technology to its ally Pakistan, while using the same to juxtapose India's claim with that of Islamabad. China says India's presence in NSG will weaken the international non-proliferation regime but was itself accused recently by Arms Control Association of contradicting the 2010 NPT consensus, which forbids transfer of nuclear materials to countries which are not under full-scope IAEA safeguards, in sharing nuclear technology with Pakistan.

When asked about Pakistan's bid, Kawamura and other officials said India, unlike some other countries, had already made efforts to strengthen export control regime. "There are some countries which need to make more efforts," said Kawamura.

India's unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing is one such effort, he said. That, in fact, was also the basis for Japan's decision to sign a pact with India for cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Amid reports that the MoU signed had run into technical difficulties, Japan said it was convinced that things were moving in the right direction.

"I have a positive sense that we are making appropriate efforts," said Kawamura. Japan is currently legally vetting the pact signed and after some clarifications will look to sign the final agreement. The agreement will then have to be passed by Japan's Diet.

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Amoghvarsha » 06 Sep 2016 00:31

SSridhar wrote:
Ras Al Ghul wrote:Why Wassenar Group requires NSG membership?AFAIK they say that controls should be in accordance with different non proliferation treaties,but NSG membership isnt a mandatory requirement.And at the end of the day if US pushes our case,differences will be ironed out.

I know. That was why my answer was more nuanced than simply saying NSG was mandatory for WA. Looking at the list of countries that are in NSG & WA, some of whom had raised some objections and stuck to them against us for NSG in two plenaries (Geneva & Seoul) in spite of the US pushing, it is my belief that there may be some resistance in WA also.


The same countries allowed us in the MTCR. And with absence of China there wont be a rallying pivot for them.But yes there may be some kind of resistance.

What about the Australia group?

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1272
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby JohnTitor » 08 Sep 2016 02:28

I'm curious about the MTCR, why did we bother? In the sense - Based on what I have read, it seems to be an agreement not to proliferate certain technologies that would allow long range missiles/payloads. Other than that, do we actually gain anything?

In fact, the MTCR website says:

14. Are exports to Partners treated differently than exports to non Partners?
The MTCR Guidelines do not distinguish between exports to Partners and exports to non-Partners. Moreover, the MTCR Partners have explicitly affirmed that membership in the Regime provides no entitlement to obtain technology from another Partner and no obligation to supply it. Partners are expected to exercise appropriate accountability and restraint in trade among Partners, just as they would in trade between Partners and non-Partners. Partners are bound by a “no-undercut” policy to consult each other before considering exporting an item on the list that has been notified as denied by another Partner pursuant to the MTCR Guidelines.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 08 Sep 2016 06:55

JohnTitor wrote:I'm curious about the MTCR, why did we bother? . . .

We have discussed this here before. See for example, around this post.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 08 Sep 2016 19:38

U.S. strongly supports India’s NSG bid: Obama - PTI
The United States “strongly supports” India’s NSG membership bid, President Barack Obama on Thursday told Prime Minister Narendra Modi here as they discussed the immediate priorities in the strategic partnership, including deepening the civil nuclear cooperation and combating climate change.

“Had a great discussion with President of the US (POTUS) on India-USA relations,” Mr. Modi tweeted after his meeting with Mr. Obama on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit here, their eighth in the last two years.

A White House official, giving details of the meeting, said, “Reaffirming the strong bonds of friendship between the United States and India, the President underscored that the United States strongly supports India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).”

The US has been playing a lead role in supporting India’s bid in the 48-member elite group. China had scuttled New Delhi’s bid at the Plenary Session of NSG in June.

shashankk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 03:53

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby shashankk » 14 Sep 2016 04:09

No NSG for India if Pak is not allowed: China

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/570270/no-nsg-india-pak-not.html

China on Tuesday made it clear that it would oppose India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), unless the cartel opened its door to Pakistan too.

A meeting between senior diplomats of India and China in New Delhi on Tuesday failed to make any breakthrough on the contentious issue, which emerged as the new irritant in the bilateral relations over the past few months.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 14 Sep 2016 07:39

shashankk wrote:No NSG for India if Pak is not allowed: China

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/570270/no-nsg-india-pak-not.html

The below is what I posted a few months back:
If India has to be admitted, China has to be assured MTCR membership AND Pakistan has to get into NSG too. Pakistan will handle India in NSG leaving China with less diplomatic effort as well as assume a 'disinterested in the proceedings' posture with India within the NSG. China will NOT give up its only ally Pakistan at this stage.

shashankk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 03:53

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby shashankk » 14 Sep 2016 22:45

In short India's hope to get into NSG is over now. I guess shyam saran was right in his pessimistic article few days back. Time to start measures to stop Chinese dumping goods into Indian Market now ?
I think Modi was hopeful of getting into some sort of agreement with chinese and now that hope is gone so gloves should be off .

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9295
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby arun » 15 Sep 2016 10:11

X Posted from “Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)” thread.

Official statements put out by our Ministry of External Affairs and Foreign Ministry of PR China regards meeting on India joining Nuclear Supply Group (NSG). PR Chinese procedural foot dragging evident via expedient of claiming that NSG must look at issue of membership of Non-Signatories to the NPT rather than membership of India:

Visit of Chinese delegation for talks on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation
September 13, 2016
A Chinese delegation led by Director General Wang Qun of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs visited India on 13 September 2016 for talks with an Indian delegation led by Amandeep Singh Gill, Joint Secretary (Disarmament & International Security) in the Ministry of External Affairs. The talk covered issues of mutual interest in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation.

As agreed by the EAM and the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in their meeting on 13 August, the two sides focused in particular on an issue of priority for India - membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

The discussions were candid, pragmatic and substantive. The two sides agreed to meet for the next round on a mutually convenient date.

New Delhi
September 13, 2016

Clicky


China Supports the Notion of Two-Step Approach within the Nuclear Suppliers Group to Explore a Non-Discriminatory Formula Applicable to all Non-NPT States

2016/09/13

On September 13, 2016, China and India held a fresh round of arms control consultation in New Delhi. The consultation was co-chaired by Ambassador Wang Qun, Director-General of Arms Control Department of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and Mr. Amandeep Singh Gill, Joint Secretary for Disarmament and International Security of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. The two sides exchanged views on issues of common concern in this field.

On the question of non-NPT states' participation in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), given that it is an issue of major concern to India, China, for its part, shared with India the recent developments as it sees within the Group in relation to the question. China also shared with India its principled positions and views on the above question. In the meantime, China listened to and had the inputs from India on this issue, and indicated that it will bring such views and inputs back to the Group for its consideration. China hopes the above inputs will help facilitate the relevant discussions within the Group.

The two sides realized that the question of the non-NPT states' participation is, in essence, a multilateral issue, and can only be subject to multilateral solution by the Group. Bilateral exchanges should serve to facilitate the relevant discussions within the Group.

China pointed out that the issue of the non-NPT states' participation in the NSG raises new questions for the Group under the new circumstances, and the crux of the above question is how to address the gap between the existing policies and practices of the non-NPT states and the existing international non-proliferation rules and norms based on the NPT as the cornerstone. China wishes to see early commencement of an open and transparent inter-governmental process to undertake, in accordance with the mandate adopted by the NSG at its Seoul Plenary meeting, a comprehensive and thorough study on the question of the non-NPT states' participation in the NSG in various aspects. China has hitherto not yet taken a position on any country-specific membership in the category of the non-NPT states. And China supports the notion of two-step approach within the Group to address the above question, i.e., at the first stage, to explore and reach agreement on a non-discriminatory formula applicable to all the non-NPT states, and to proceed to take up country-specific membership issues at the second stage. China, for its part, expressed its readiness to actively participate in the above process within the Group.

The two sides also had in-depth discussions on issues related to cyber security and the work of the Conference on Disarmament.

The two sides believed that the consultation is positive, candid, pragmatic and constructive. The two sides expressed the wish to intensify their exchanges on the relevant issues. They also agreed to hold the next round of consultation in China in due course, to be decided through diplomatic channels.

Clicky

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9295
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby arun » 16 Sep 2016 11:03

X Posted from “Managing Chinese Threat (09-08-2014)” thread.

Continuing from my earlier post immediately above.

PR Chinese Foreign Ministry on Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) membership of India. The usual PR Chinese duplicitous prevarications on display:

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying's Regular Press Conference on September 14, 2016

2016/09/14 ……………..

Q: China and India held a new round of arms control consultation in New Delhi yesterday, discussing the accession of India into the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG). Can you give us more details?

A: On September 13, China and India held a fresh round of arms control consultation in New Delhi. The consultation was co-chaired by Wang Qun, Director-General of the Arms Control Department of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and Amandeep Singh Gill, Joint Secretary for Disarmament and International Security of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. The two sides exchanged views on issues of common concern.

On NSG enlargement, given that it is an issue of major concern to India, China shared with India the relevant discussions within the Group, as well as its principled positions and views on that. In the meantime, China listened to India's opinion on the accession into the NSG by countries that are not signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and promised to bring such views back to the Group for its consideration. China hopes the above inputs will help facilitate the relevant discussions within the Group.

The two sides realized that non-NPT states' participation is, in essence, a multilateral issue, and can only be subject to consensus of all NSG members through consultation. Bilateral exchanges should serve to facilitate the relevant discussions within the Group.

China pointed out that the issue of the non-NPT states' participation in the NSG raises new questions for the Group under the new circumstances, and the crux of it is how to address the gap between the existing policies and practices of the non-NPT states and the existing international non-proliferation rules and norms with the NPT as the cornerstone. In accordance with the mandate given to the NSG at its Seoul Plenary meeting, China supports an early commencement of an open and transparent inter-governmental process to undertake comprehensive and thorough discussion on issues relating to non-NPT states' participation in the NSG in various aspects. China has yet to take a position on the accession into the NSG by any specific non-NPT country. China supports the notion of a two-step approach, which means that at the first stage, exploring and reaching agreement on a non-discriminatory formula applicable to all non-NPT states, and proceeding to take up country-specific membership issues at the second stage. China is willing to actively participate in the above process within the Group.

The two sides also had in-depth discussions on issues related to cyber security and the work of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament.

The two sides believed that the consultation is positive, candid, pragmatic and constructive. The two sides expressed the wish to intensify their exchanges on the relevant issues, agreeing to hold the next round of consultation in China in due course, to be decided through diplomatic channels.


From here:

Clicky

rgosain
BRFite
Posts: 300
Joined: 10 Jan 2003 12:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby rgosain » 16 Sep 2016 17:01

The optimal response by India to NK's testing of nuclear waheads for the PRC would be to restart Agni testing for MIRV capability citing NK as a threat but in reality flagging China for its poor proliferation record and NSG shenanigans.
If China insists on a two-step approach then India should link the Paris accord on CO2 emissions to NSG and NPT membership, as any delay will only delay the capping process.

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Amoghvarsha » 16 Sep 2016 17:04

There is no chance of NSG membership till Xi Jinping is President.

rgosain
BRFite
Posts: 300
Joined: 10 Jan 2003 12:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby rgosain » 16 Sep 2016 17:10

I agree. The NSG which was set up by the USA has become hijacked by the PRC, and India needs to walk away from it. PRC has inherited the crown from the USA and are using the same non-proliferation language that the USA and the Clintons used 20-25 years ago against India.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2130
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby kit » 16 Sep 2016 20:56

maybe PRC should be kicked out from NSG for violating NSG norms in supplying Pakistan and NK with nuclear technology despite both of them being non signatories ..PRC loses America wins

Does being in NSG mean any nation can do what it wants ?
Last edited by kit on 16 Sep 2016 21:00, edited 1 time in total.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2130
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby kit » 16 Sep 2016 20:59

another option is to let in pakistan n korea and all sundry nations into NSG , dilute the stupid regimen and make it lose its relevance.. both America and PRC loses

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2130
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby kit » 16 Sep 2016 21:03

China knows it cannot hold back India for long ..but long enough to delay its development for say a decade by which time it will surpass the USA in economic heft

zoverian
BRFite
Posts: 219
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 10:58

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby zoverian » 24 Sep 2016 12:42

Do we have a chance to get a NSG membership by the end of this year.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby pankajs » 24 Sep 2016 13:08

The urgency is because

1. India feels that the next US president may not so supportive or at least there is no assurances.
2. The desire to insulate ourselves from mischief at the NSG before we go all out on Nuclear energy and the US reactor contract is finalized.
3. Access to nuclear energy is *secure* before we ratify the Paris climate deal.

If it the first and if China too sees the same logic, it will make sure that India does not get in by the year end. If we have linked the last 2 to a positive outcome on NSG then our downside is protected even if there is a delay.

The likely outcome is for a delay given how strongly the Chinese have come out in opposition.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby panduranghari » 24 Sep 2016 13:43

Amoghvarsha wrote:There is no chance of NSG membership till Xi Jinping is President.


THere wont be NSG, UNSC, P5 etc. in a few more years. take it FWIW. :D

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby svinayak » 24 Sep 2016 23:09

panduranghari wrote:
Amoghvarsha wrote:There is no chance of NSG membership till Xi Jinping is President.


THere wont be NSG, UNSC, P5 etc. in a few more years. take it FWIW. :D


Yes, It will be completely different

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20420
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Prem » 24 Sep 2016 23:13

Better for desh to remain outside now , soon will be time to piss on all or anyone we want.

shashankk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 03:53

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby shashankk » 25 Sep 2016 11:09

Just wondering what are complications of India helping Vietnam with Nuclear technology. Not a Bomb but giving 1-2 reactors for study and research . That might give a warning to China to behave or we will do what they did with Pakistan.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5076
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Viv S » 25 Sep 2016 11:21

shashankk wrote:Just wondering what are complications of India helping Vietnam with Nuclear technology. Not a Bomb but giving 1-2 reactors for study and research . That might give a warning to China to behave or we will do what they did with Pakistan.

Vietnam has two 4000 MW nuclear power projects under construction (one Russia, other Japanese) scheduled to reach full capacity by 2025. Over the long term, it plans to expand that further to over 10,000 MW.

As for nuclear weapons, unlike Pakistan, Vietnam is a signatory to the NPT and has no interest in pursuing a weapons program.

shashankk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 44
Joined: 16 Aug 2016 03:53

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby shashankk » 25 Sep 2016 12:53

Viv S wrote:
shashankk wrote:Just wondering what are complications of India helping Vietnam with Nuclear technology. Not a Bomb but giving 1-2 reactors for study and research . That might give a warning to China to behave or we will do what they did with Pakistan.

Vietnam has two 4000 MW nuclear power projects under construction (one Russia, other Japanese) scheduled to reach full capacity by 2025. Over the long term, it plans to expand that further to over 10,000 MW.

As for nuclear weapons, unlike Pakistan, Vietnam is a signatory to the NPT and has no interest in pursuing a weapons program.


Thanks a lot for the information about Vietnamese Nuclear program but a co-operation with India and maybe a fake hint of interest in nuclear bomb related technology can give sleepless nights to China.
Signing treaties and abiding 100% to it are two different things and all countries against china should definitely consider breaking it if it send some messages to dragon. After all China is biggest Nuclear and missile technology prolifirator despite being part of NSG.

Also my POV is that Vietnam doesnt want nukes because they know no one will give them the technology.
Last edited by shashankk on 25 Sep 2016 13:19, edited 1 time in total.

g.sarkar
BRFite
Posts: 1331
Joined: 09 Jul 2005 12:22
Location: MERCED, California

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby g.sarkar » 25 Sep 2016 13:14

Prem wrote:Better for desh to remain outside now , soon will be time to piss on all or anyone we want.

Actually it better if India keeps trying and is unable to join just due to one veto by the Lizard, while every one else favors the change.
Gautam

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 6861
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby JE Menon » 25 Sep 2016 13:37

We are making the correct moves...

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 25 Sep 2016 13:49

G4 issues joint statement for UN reforms - The Hindu
India, Germany, Japan and Brazil will continue to push for comprehensive reform of the UN Security Council, Foreign Ministers of the four countries who met on the sidelines of General Assembly resolved. India was represented by Minister of State for External Affairs M.J. Akbar. The Group of 4 (G4) wants permanent membership of the Security Council for themselves, and wide and far-reaching reform of the UN. “More than 70 years after the founding of the UN, the Security Council also has to adapt in order to cope with the ever growing global challenges,” a joint statement by the four countries issued over the weekend said.

Amoghvarsha
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 18 Aug 2016 12:56

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Amoghvarsha » 25 Sep 2016 17:25

India to ratify Paris Treaty.Our only bargaining chip is gone.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 26 Sep 2016 04:56

China uses Pakistan to blunt India's NSG membership bid - Sachin Parashar, ToI
As India mounts a diplomatic offensive against Pakistan over the issue of terrorism, China has again signalled it will continue to prop up Islamabad as a counterpoise against India's bid for membership of Nuclear Supplies Group.

Last week, China held another round of Arms Control Consultation with Pakistan in which it discussed Islamabad's application for NSG membership and also "indicated" on placing Pakistan's views and inputs to the group for consideration. The China-Pakistan dialogue comes within days of India's "candid and substantive" talks with Beijing here on its NSG bid.

According to Chinese authorities, Beijing shared with Pakistan its views on recent developments and also its principled position over the issue of participation of non-NPT countries in the NSG.

What's amusing though is that the language used in the statement by the Chinese embassy in Pakistan is almost identical to the one issued by China's mission in Delhi after the Sino-Indian NSG talks. Like in the case with the statement on India, the Chinese communication on Pakistan too says it will bring the view of Islamabad to the NSG. China's assurance is still important though in the light of Beijing's use of Pakistan to blunt India's campaign for membership.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3557
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby panduranghari » 26 Sep 2016 18:02

Amoghvarsha wrote:India to ratify Paris Treaty.Our only bargaining chip is gone.


Its of no consequence saar. As Ramana saar sad - this gives Obama his legacy. In return we get something, which is best left unsaid in light of what happened in Uri. Paris treaty was a dud anyway.

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15962
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby chetak » 26 Sep 2016 20:48

panduranghari wrote:
Amoghvarsha wrote:India to ratify Paris Treaty.Our only bargaining chip is gone.


Its of no consequence saar. As Ramana saar sad - this gives Obama his legacy. In return we get something, which is best left unsaid in light of what happened in Uri. Paris treaty was a dud anyway.


simply sign it and go do what you want. That is the way of the world and not the silly nehuruvian bull shit that we have been following all this while and buggering ourselves repeatedly in the bargain.

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9572
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby pankajs » 26 Sep 2016 21:17

Agree with the both of the above members. If you look at some of the past reports right after the NSG India had explicitly made a link.

1. Seems some give and take has happened whatever that is.
2. Without a mechanism to force countries on their obligation its implementation will be at our convenience.

JTull
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2042
Joined: 18 Jul 2001 11:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby JTull » 06 Oct 2016 15:07


GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby GShankar » 10 Oct 2016 12:02

http://www.india.com/news/world/ready-for-consensus-nsg-but-opposed-to-un-ban-on-masood-azhar-china-1546965/
Ready for consensus on NSG but opposed to UN ban on Masood Azhar: China
Xi's visit to India this week to take part in the BRICS Summit in Goa, China's Vice Foreign Minister Li Baodong again harped on the need to build consensus over the admission of new members in the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Beijing, Oct 10: Ahead of President Xi Jinping’s visit to India, China today said it is “ready” for talks with India on its entry into the NSG but defended extending a hold on India’s bid for a UN ban on JeM chief Masood Azhar, saying Beijing is opposed to anyone making “political gains in the name of counter-terrorism”. Briefing media here on Xi’s visit to India this week to take part in the BRICS Summit in Goa, China’s Vice Foreign Minister Li Baodong again harped on the need to build consensus over the admission of new members in the 48-member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).
Asked if any progress on the issue of India’s admission into NSG can be expected in the meeting between Xi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit, Li said NSG rules stipulate consensus among the members to admit new ones. “These rules are not to be decided by China alone. On the issue, China and India have maintained good communication and we are ready to continue consultations with India to build consensus and we also hope India can go to other members of the NSG as well,” Li said replying to a question on China’s reservations on India’s admission to the elite nuclear trading club. ALSO READ: No middle path for China on Masood Azhar, says BJP
“In this aspect we are also ready for discussions with India to explore possibilities but things need to be in keeping up with procedures, norms and regulations of the NSG. On this issue, China position is consistent. That is why China has often said international law must be observed,” he said. Xi will travel to Goa to attend the BRICS Summit scheduled to held between October 15-16. The BRICS grouping consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. While India has blamed one country, without naming China, for stalling its membership in the NSG, both the countries held talks recently to iron out differences.
After talks with India, China also has held similar talks with Pakistan, which also applied for membership in the influential grouping. Replying to a question on criticism about China’s move to stall India’s bid for a UN ban on Azhar – head of Pakistan-based terrorist group Jaish-e-Muhammad, Li sought to justify Beijing’s recent technical hold in the matter, saying: “China is opposed to all forms of terrorism.” “There should be no double standards on counter- terrorism. Nor should one pursue own political gains in the name of counter-terrorism,” he said in a veiled reference to India, which is pressing for the UN ban against Azhar over his role in the Pathankot terror attack.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 10 Oct 2016 13:49

China is fudging just ahead of Modi-Xi meet at Goa. China is *NOT* going to allow India's entry into NSG. It is very clear now that after Xi's ascent to power, the India-China relationship has slid down dramatically. It is now enemy-grade relationship.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21905
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 10 Oct 2016 20:16

India and the NSG Membership: What Lies Ahead - G. Balachandran, IDSA
In the pre-2005 period, the Indian government as well as most Indian analysts had approached the four export control regimes – the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) and the Australia group (AG) – with suspicion. Such an approach was not unnatural considering the fact that the first two, namely the NSG and the MTCR, had actively worked against Indian interests. The NSG denied fuel for the Tarapur Atomic Power station (TAPS) while the United States used MTCR provisions to prevent the transfer of cryogenic engine technology – a purely civilian space technology – by Russia to India thereby setting back the Indian space programme by more than a decade.

With the conclusion of the India-US nuclear cooperation agreements after July 2005 and the September 2008 NSG exemption for India from some of the restrictive provisions of the group’s Guidelines, the Indian attitude and approach to these regimes turned favourable. India began to positively consider the possibility of becoming a member of all these regimes. This attitude was further reinforced by the November 2010 Joint Statement issued during President Barack Obama’s visit to India, which explicitly endorsed India’s candidature for the four multilateral export control regimes. India had then considered the NSG membership as being the most important. The US “Food for Thought” paper on the question of India’s membership circulated to NSG members for their consideration and feedback just prior to the June 2011 Consultative Group (CG) and Plenary meeting in Noordwijk, the Netherlands, further vetted India’s aspirations.

Even though all NSG Plenaries from 2011 onwards continued to discuss “NSG(’s) relationship with India” (in the words of the NSG communiqués), there was very little forward movement. To a certain extent, the delay could be attributed to India as well. For one, India had not even applied for NSG membership until May 2016, that is, just prior to the 2016 Seoul Plenary. Nor could it have because one of the important requirements for applying for the group’s membership, leave alone being actually admitted, was that an applicant state should be a NSG adherent. It is true that as part of its commitments to the NSG for obtaining the September 2008 exemption India had addressed a communication to the IAEA Director General stating that “India has adhered to the Guidelines and Annexes of the Nuclear Suppliers group”. But this was not in line with the actual NSG requirement that, for recognition as an NSG adherent, the adherence letter to the IAEA Director General must also include a statement to the effect that the adherence communication be published as an IAEA Information Circular (INFCIRC). India sent such a communication to the IAEA only on May 9, 2016, just before formally applying to the NSG for membership on the next day. (It is, of course, altogether another matter that the then US President sent to the US Congress in October 2008 a false certification to the effect that “the U.S. assesses that India has adhered to the guidelines and annexes of the NSG and the MTCR, and has done so in a manner consistent with the procedures and/or practices of those regimes.”)

Pakistan followed India’s footsteps about a week later by sending to the IAEA Director General a NSG adherence communication on May 18, 2016 and subsequently on the very next day a letter to the NSG Chair applying for membership in the grouping. Both India’s and Pakistan’s applications were sent well ahead of the June 23-24, 2016 Seoul NSG Plenary. Given the special nature of the applications, the first by non-NPT states and that too by states possessing nuclear weapons, the then Chair of the NSG, Ambassador Rafael Grossi of Argentina, had recommended an extraordinary plenary session to discuss the special characteristics of the applications prior to the regular plenary session.

Grossi later admitted in an interview that “we came to Seoul thinking that we could take a decision (on India’s membership application) there and then.” However, discussion on the two applications was not put on the agenda of the plenary by the incoming NSG chair, who usually sets the agenda as per NSG procedural rules. It was reported at that time that this was done so by the South Korean Chair under pressure from China, although the outgoing Chair, Grossi, did state in a post-Seoul Plenary interview that “it is clear to all that a decision on the membership issue was not possible to be taken in Seoul.” Whatever the reason, the Seoul plenary limited itself to discussions on the issue of “Technical, Legal and Political Aspects of the participation of non-NPT States in the NSG” and decided to continue its discussion. However, the incoming Chair asked the outgoing Chair “to reach out and see what is possible in the coming months.”

It has been more than three months since Grossi began his exercise by speaking to all NSG governments to find out what is acceptable and then go back to the group after which the group will have to take a decision on how to proceed further. Grossi’s job is to assist the NSG Chair to get to a future decision with a clear understanding and purpose. Therefore, hopefully by the next Plenary, regular or special, the NSG would have arrived at a final decision on India’s and Pakistan’s applications. The next regular plenary session will be held in Switzerland in the summer of 2017. According to some press reports, a special plenary may be called later this year, around December, to decide on the membership applications. While Grossi has not been to India since June 2016, it is quite possible that Indian diplomats may have had talks with him on the inputs he had received from NSG members about what is required to be done to take a decision on the membership applications at the next plenary.

What lies ahead?

Even before the Seoul Plenary, a large number of the 48 Participating Governments (PGs) in the NSG had openly declared their support for India, many of them unconditionally. However at Seoul, some members, while supporting India’s admission, felt that some questions need to be answered. A few others had felt that there should be further discussion before a decision.

Thus, at the end of the Seoul Plenary, there were three groups of countries weighing in on India’s application. The first, the overwhelming majority, felt that India had fulfilled all the requirements and should be admitted. The second group consisted of a handful of countries who were, in general, supportive of India’s application but felt that admission of non-NPT States to the NSG should be decided after the group had formulated a common criteria for such admissions and then decide on individual applications. Finally, a third group consisted of a lone member, China, which, without rejecting the common criteria requirement, had held that:

“NSG has explicit rules in terms of the acceptance of new members. There are five standards concerning not only technology but also political and legal issues. The most important one is the NPT, which means the applicant must be a NPT signatory. This is a mandatory standard which is not set by China but commonly recognized by the international community.”


As an aside, it is not clear whether China felt that all the five standards set by the NSG are mandatory or only one of these five standards, namely the NPT signatory requirement, was mandatory. China could not have referred to all five being mandatory requirements since, at the time of its own application for NSG membership, it had failed to fulfil one of these five requirements, namely, NSG adherence as per NSG procedure. Further, it should also be mentioned that the NSG had not in any public statement referred to NPT membership as a requirement for a state’s admission into the grouping. In all of their communications to the IAEA, the NSG had only referred to “adherence to NPT”, a vague and undefined term, as one of the requirements for membership.

Grossi’s mandate was to reconcile the positions of these three groups of countries. If China continues to insist on NPT membership as a precondition, there can be no reconciliatory position that will be acceptable to India. However, it is quite possible that Grossi would be able to craft a common criterion acceptable to all the other 47 NSG members without the NPT requirement. Under such circumstances, it is unlikely that China would continue to hold on to the NPT requirement, especially after the recent South China Sea dispute judgment at The Hague when it faced almost universal isolation. However, it must also be noted that after the September 13 consultation between India and China relating to arms control, the Chinese foreign ministry issued a statement stating that “China supports the notion of two step approach within the Group to address the above question, i.e., at the first stage, to explore and reach agreement on a non-discriminatory formula applicable to all the non-NPT states, and to proceed to take up country specific membership issues at the second stage.”

It is, therefore, very likely that Grossi’s recommendation, after his extended discussion with NSG members, would include the two-step process with a common criterion. The final decision on the India and Pakistan NSG applications would rest on the following issues:

Can a common criterion acceptable to all the parties – NSG members, India and Pakistan – be crafted?
If that can be done, what will be the outcome?

As for the second question, it seems very unlikely that, at this stage, the NSG would approve both applications. India’s application will find favour at the next NSG plenary, given the nature of India’s relations with the grouping in the recent past. These include: the 2008 NSG exemption, India’s record of full compliance with the exemption requirements, the regular annual discussion at the NSG since the 2011 Plenary on India’s relations with the NSG, and the already committed support from the vast majority of NSG members.

It is not clear at this stage whether Pakistan enjoys a similar favourable view among the NSG members except, of course, China.
It is quite likely that the next NSG Plenary will not result in Pakistan being admitted as a member. In that case, China will have to reconcile itself to a position where it accepts (i) the two-step process, (ii) a common criterion acceptable to India, and (iii) the rejection/deferment of Pakistan’s application. China’s vote on the Indian application will depend on the political compulsions it faces in its relations with Pakistan. If it feels very strongly that Pakistan must be admitted at the same time as India, and this is unlikely to happen, it may revert back to its stand on NPT membership and block a consensus on India’s application.

However, even if China goes along with the two-step formulation, the going may not be easy for Pakistan. The 2008 NSG exemption for India was conditioned upon eight commitments and actions by India. It is quite likely that the criterion for membership may contain commitments and actions beyond those required for exemption. However, as far as Pakistan is concerned, even the conditions for the grant of an exemption may not be acceptable to it. While seven of the eight actions undertaken by India can possibly be accommodated by Pakistan, the eighth condition may pose domestic political problems for Pakistan. This condition relates to “its readiness to work with others towards the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut-off treaty (FMCT).” Pakistan has been blocking any discussion on a FMCT at the Conference on Disarmament for more than decade. It was also the only country (among the 189 UN member states) that voted against a December 2012 UN General Assembly resolution (A/RES/67/53) calling for a “Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” (Incidentally China was one of the few countries that abstained from voting on that resolution).

Where does that leave India?

As a former Foreign Secretary who was intimately connected with the 2008 NSG exemption had written,

“The waiver in 2008 had involved very difficult and complex negotiations on the wording of the decision reconciling the different requirements posed by certain key member countries. ... It is only if there is a fresh discussion on so-called ‘criteria’ applicable to all non-NPT applicants that the criteria on the basis of which India has already received a waiver could be reopened. This is a slippery road and India should be careful that in subsequent deliberations the NSG does not revisit the terms and conditions of the India-specific waiver. In case such a threat is perceived, it is better to preserve the substantive gains already obtained through the waiver rather than to push hard for membership.”

As explained above, there is a real possibility of both a discussion on “common criteria applicable to all non-NPT applicants” and the inclusion of some additional elements into the new “criteria” over and above the 2008 NSG exemption criteria. What should be India’s approach then? Should it withdraw its application for membership as suggested above by the former Foreign Secretary? Or, should India base its approach on an evaluation of whether or not such additions have any possible adverse impact on any of the real or perceived future threats to India’s national security?

Fortunately, India can draw a ‘red line’ on what constitutes acceptable additions to the 2008 criteria. The considerations in this regard are:

Any additional criteria should be relevant to the NSG’s objectives, which, according to the NSG, is “to contribute to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons through the implementation of two sets of Guidelines for nuclear exports and nuclear-related exports.” The requirement of a moratorium on the production of fissile material will not fall under this objective and cannot be accepted.
The criteria should not include any practice that is not currently accepted by all the NSG members. India has already accepted certain practices not accepted by one or more members. These include: the IAEA Additional Protocol, which has been rejected by some NSG members; and, placing facilities under permanent IAEA safeguards that are not required to be so placed on the basis of any bilateral/multilateral/international agreement or treaty – a practice that is not followed by NPT Nuclear Weapons States.
India cannot agree to any requirement that would declare all its grid-connected reactors as civilian reactors. The United States and other Nuclear Weapons States had for a long period declared, and still may be continuing to do so, some of their grid connected reactors as not being used for civilian purposes. The Hanford reactor and the Tennessee Valley Authority’s tritium-producing light water reactors in the US are pertinent examples, as indeed are the RMBK reactors in Russia.
Any additional criteria should not adversely affect India’s national security.
Any criteria that adds to the strengthening of international norms relating to nuclear non-proliferation and which are accepted by all NSG members should not pose any problem.


It is very likely that NSG members would be amenable to a formula within the above delineated boundaries. In such a scenario, India will have to make a political decision whether or not to accept the additional criteria. If China feels very strongly about the non-admission of Pakistan and the admission of India at the next plenary, its strategy would be to include in the common criteria some element that would conform to all the requirements stated above and yet not be acceptable to India.
----------------

Note: This Issue Brief is an extended and modified version of a forthcoming article titled “India Should be Wary of Additions to the 2008 Criteria” in the July-September 2016 (Vol. 11, No. 3) issue of the Indian Foreign Affairs Journal and is published here with grateful acknowledgement to that journal and with the concurrence of its editor.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yogesh and 33 guests