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.
SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Tracking India's Admission into International Groups & Bodies

Postby SSridhar » 02 Oct 2015 14:13

Place Holder

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 02 Oct 2015 14:22

India could be part of elite anti-missile grouping next week - Indrani Bagchi, Economic Times
Barring an unpleasant last-minute surprise, India could be accepted as a member in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) next week. One of the world's top four non-proliferation regimes, the MTCR plenary will be held in Oslo where the Indian application for membership will be considered. The 34-nation grouping takes decisions by consensus.

Since India made a formal application for membership in summer this year, India has worked closely with key countries who have promised to support its membership. If India is accepted in the grouping it would be a huge fillip to its missile and space programmes, even allowing it to export its own technology to member countries.

In recent years, MTCR has even assumed oversight regarding non-proliferation of UAVs - ironically, Pakistan, not a member of MTCR, has just developed its own armed drones which it has recently used on its own people.

Accession to MTCR is one of the leftover tasks of the India-US nuclear deal. The US had promised to support India's membership to all four - Wassenaar Arrangement, Nuclear Suppliers Group and Australia Group, along with MTCR. Initially, Indian diplomatic push was to bundle its membership to all four. The Indian thinking then was India could leverage its candidature all at once rather than lobby separately for all four. However, that thinking underwent a change and the MEA decided to approach all four regimes separately.

It was originally believed that Australia Group would be the easiest to get into. But India still has to harmonize some of its controls on chemicals etc to make the cut. Instead the government has worked hard to harmonize its export control lists, called SCOMET with MTCR regulations. In March 2015, Indian government put in a host of new items on the SCOMET list which would need prior permission before exports and invite strict oversight by government agencies. A second list on military items also served to harmonize export licensing of military stores, a key compliance demand for MTCR. Acceptance to MTCR might make it easier for India to access the other regimes, though no one is in any doubt about how difficult it would be for India to get into the NSG, where China remains opposed.

Between the PM, foreign minister Sushma Swaraj and even President Pranab Mukherjee, the government has lobbied with all the members of the MTCR in the past year. Officials said Indians have been ready with answers to any question put to them by MTCR members. The US has worked closely as well, lobbying for India, the first time after the nuclear deal waiver at the NSG. In the recently concluded Strategic Dialogue between Swaraj and John Kerry, the joint statement noted, "The US side affirms its support for India's membership in the Missile Technology Control Regime at its upcoming plenary, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, and in the other global non-proliferation export control regimes."

China is not a member of the MTCR but has promised to abide by the original 1987 Guidelines and Annexure, but not the subsequent revisions. China has also asked for membership, but China, like Pakistan, is believed to have lax export control systems.

Established in 1987, the MTCR aims to curb the spread of delivery systems like missiles which carry a minimum payload of 500 kg to a distance of a minimum of 300km.


kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2117
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby kit » 02 Oct 2015 14:50

are transfers between MTCR members by the same guidelines ? or is it only for countries outside the MTCR ? say for example the 250 km limit

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 02 Oct 2015 20:19

kit, from MTCR FAQs

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.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2117
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby kit » 03 Oct 2015 12:19

So then it does like a membership card to flaunt but not much of practical use ! .. except maybe if India starts to export big time and that's a big if indeed

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 10 Oct 2015 12:28

Missile Technology Club Still Out of India's Reach, No Consensus in Rotterdam Meeting -Devirupa Mitra, New Indian Express
India will have to wait for longer to get into the Missile Technology Control Regime as the meeting in Rotterdam ended on Friday without reaching a consensus on New Delhi’s membership.

The outgoing Norwegian chair of MTCR Roald Næss tweeted on Friday evening, “Broad support for Indian membership in MTCR, but regrettably no consensus yet. I remain optimistic.”

Since it was a closed door meeting, it isn’t clear why there was no consensus on India’s membership. A public statement issued after the MTCR meeting in Rotterdam stated, “Partners exchanged views on issues relating to future membership. Individual applications for membership were thoroughly discussed. The membership issue will continue to be on the agenda.”

Besides India, Latvia’s membership was also on the agenda.
Late on Friday night, Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Vikas Swarup said India’s application, which was submitted in June, was “received well and it remains under consideration”.

“We are hopeful that MTCR discussions on this issue will conclude soon,” he said. He added that India’s membership in the MTCR and other export control regimes would further strengthen global non-proliferation objectives.

The 34-member MTCR which was formed to curb the delivery system of missiles, is the first of four non-proliferation regimes of which India aspires to become a member.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 20 Oct 2015 16:36

29th Plenary Meeting of the Missile Technology Control Regime and India’s Membership - Rajiv Nayan, IDSA Comment
The 29th plenary meeting of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) took place in Rotterdam between 5 and 9 October 2015. Established in 1987, the MTCR, with its current 34 members or partners as well as non-member adherents, is supposed to exercise control on the commerce in goods which may contribute to the development of ballistic and cruise missiles as well as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Although the Regime has a 300km/500kg range/payload threshold, this loses its relevance when a transaction is suspected to have helped in the development of a carrier for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

At Plenary meetings, regime members are supposed to take stock of the functioning of the MTCR. In the 29th Plenary meet too, the partners of the MTCR gathered to “review and evaluate” its work so that the partners and adherents can take timely preventive measures. The plenary meeting applauded additional adherents – Estonia and Latvia – for incorporating the regime’s guidelines into their national export controls systems.

For India, the 29th plenary meeting was special because its membership was to be decided in this meeting. As widely reported, India had applied for membership of the MTCR in the first week of June 2015, but had not gained membership. The spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs stated:

“India has an application under submission since June 2015 to be a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).”

Is it the end of the road for India as far as membership in MTCR is concerned? The official press release of the October 2015 MTCR plenary meet did not mention India. It simply noted:

“Partners exchanged views on issues relating to future membership. Individual applications for membership were thoroughly discussed. The membership issue will continue to be on the agenda.”

Neither the Indian government nor the previous Chairman of the MTCR indicated that India’s application had been rejected. The MEA spokesperson noted:

“It [the Indian application] has been received well and it remains under consideration. We are hopeful that MTCR discussions on this issue will conclude soon. India’s membership of the MTCR and other export control regimes would further strengthen global non-proliferation objectives.”

A similar view was expressed by Roald Naess, the previous Chairman of the MTCR, who tweeted on October 9, 2015 that “Broad support for Indian membership in MTCR but regrettably no consensus yet. I remain optimist.”

That leads to the question: what is the probability of India becoming a member? As the MTCR has not explicitly stated the date of the next meeting for discussing India’s membership, the issue is, undoubtedly, in the realm of uncertainty. The Chinese application for MTCR membership has been lying pending for more than a decade. However, the Indian case for MTCR membership cannot be compared to the Chinese. China is internationally known as a proliferator. In fact, it is China’s proliferation record that has affected its case for membership. In contrast, India is globally acknowledged as a country with an impeccable non-proliferation record.

To substantiate its record on the non-proliferation commitment, India seems to have submitted a dossier of more than 100 pages along with its application for MTCR membership. Apparently, the dossier is divided into many parts, with each part describing how India is contributing to the non-proliferation cause. Indeed, India has developed a very robust and effective domestic export controls system. The Indian control list—SCOMET—has harmonised the “integral common list of controlled items listed in the MTCR Equipment, Software and Technology Annex.” India has also harmonised its export controls with the MTCR guidelines.

MTCR teams have been visiting India under various programmes, including outreach. Indian official delegations have also been interacting with MTCR member countries at various levels, even outside India
. Both apparently sound confident about their pursuit of shared goals. The last chairman had yet another tweet on June 17, 2015, in which he highlighted India’s constructive role in controlling the export of missiles capable of delivering WMD.

As a country with a well-developed export control system and a well-articulated non-proliferation policy, India could be extremely useful to strengthen the objectives of the MTCR. India and MTCR members share the common objective of restricting the “proliferation of missiles, complete rocket systems, unmanned air vehicles, and related technology.”

In recent years, the MTCR has come to see the danger of non-state actors exploiting MTCR-controlled items either independently or in collaboration with countries. Several experts have highlighted the possibility of terrorists developing, stealing and using UAVs. Both Indian governmental and non-governmental organisations have been active with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 Committee and the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs to prevent the procurement of WMD and their delivery vehicles by terrorists. For this cause, India is active on other fronts as well.

Any pressure on India to accept unreasonable demands for the grant of MTCR membership may prove counterproductive. Any tendency to place such a demand needs to be curbed by member countries, which understand the relevance of India’s inclusion in the MTCR. More experienced European countries and the United States may have to play a more active role in this regard.

A strong section of the Western world wants the grant of membership of the MTCR to all EU countries. Apparently, in the October 2015 plenary meeting, the issue of membership for all EU countries was positively discussed. In fact, over the years, EU members have increased their presence in all multilateral export controls regimes. Broad basing the group’s membership by including EU countries is not a bad idea. However, MTCR member countries need to remember that the Indian aerospace and defence industry is very strong and it is gaining strength every day. India could be much more valuable for pursuing the objective of the MTCR than some of the EU countries which are without any such industry.

Expediting India’s membership process would be a win-win situation for both India and the MTCR. The prevailing uncertainty will end for India and the MTCR will get an effective and positive member. It is not necessary that the decision is taken at an annual plenary meeting. According to MTCR rules, extraordinary plenary meetings may be convened several times in one year.

Actually, in 2008, the Nuclear Suppliers Group plenary met a few times to decide on the India-specific exemption in its guidelines. The May 2008 plenary meet press release had even notified that “the next regular plenary meeting” would take place in Hungary in 2009. But it met again in Vienna on August 21 and 22, 2008, at the end of which a press release stated that the participating countries “agreed to meet again in the near future to continue their deliberations.” Finally, at the extraordinary plenary meeting held on September 6, 2008, member countries evolved a consensus on the India-specific exemption.

Sharing the optimism expressed by the previous MTCR president, member countries may meet soon to convert their ‘broad support’ for India’s inclusion into a consensus. Once granted membership, India would be able to participate more actively in promoting the objectives of the MTCR. This would provide a momentum for India’s membership and preparedness to join other multilateral export controls regimes. In the ultimate analysis, India’s membership of the MTCR and other multilateral export controls regimes will strengthen global nuclear governance.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 31 Oct 2015 09:35

‘Nuclear suppliers may admit India’ - Suhasini Haidar, The Hindu
The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) will begin consultations on India’s membership to the elite group of nuclear export next month, says NSG Chairperson Rafael Grossi.

Speaking to The Hindu about his meetings with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and MEA officials, Mr. Grossi, who will begin those consultations leading up to the NSG plenary session in June 2016, said he thinks it is possible to find a way for India’s membership to be accepted.

However, he ruled out an “India-specific” rule, which means countries such as Israel and Pakistan, who too haven’t signed the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty), could also apply. “Nobody disputes that India is a keyplayer in the nuclear scenario, hence there is a recognition that some formula must be found for India [to become a member], and I think it is possible,” he said.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 02 Nov 2015 13:55

Nuclear Suppliers Group to consider India's entry in June 2016, PM Modi to visit Washington - IANS, Economic Times
India's pending application for entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) should come up for consideration at its plenary in June 2016.

Indian diplomats have been in discussion with NSG members for some time, and on October 30, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj discussed the matter with visiting NSG chairman Rafael Grossi, who indicated that he would take it up with the grouping's 48 members right away.

India is aggressively being supported by the United States, which has more or less assured India's entry into the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in the coming couple of months, and then follow through to facilitate it in the NSG. US diplomats told India Strategic that the Obama administration was committed in this perspective.

Diplomatic sources also said that President Barack Obama had invited Prime Minister Narendra Modi for a state visit in March 2016, which had been accepted, and the US support to India due to its clean non-proliferation record, tight export control laws, and growing friendship with the US was a given now.

India's entry into the MTCR could be considered as a gift from Washington to the Indian prime minister due to the strengthening relations.

Hectic discussions should be on between the two countries to finalise some agreements which should formally be signed during the visit.

India may face some hurdles from China which wants its only military ally, Pakistan, to also gain entry into the NSG and other denial regimes despite its bad track record in both missile and nuclear proliferation. Grossi has observed that it would be difficult to have an India-specific exemption, and how the process evolves, has to be seen.

India, Pakistan and Israel are the three countries with nuclear capability but who have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). India though has never violated it unlike Pakistan, which has imported nuclear technology from China, missile technology from North Korea, and sold nuclear technology to Iran.

India however has a waiver, courtesy Washington, for nuclear trade with those willing, but there are many technologies that it still cannot access due to MTCR and two other denial regimes, the Wassenar Arrangement and Australia Group.

Sources say that Indian diplomats are also engaging China towards NSG.

The grouping, set up in 1975 as a reaction to India's 1974 nuclear test, needs consensus for admitting new members or to take some key decisions.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 03 Nov 2015 09:23

India pushes harder for NSG membership - Suhasini Haidar, The Hindu
With the visit of the Nuclear Suppliers Group chairperson last week, India is fast-pacing its pitch for membership to the 48-member nuclear club, The Hindu has learnt. In a string of visits by officials abroad, as well as incoming visits planned, NSG membership, as well as membership of the other major groupings: MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime), Australian and Wassenaar Arrangement are in focus, officials have confirmed.

The push for the nuclear clubs, whose members can trade in and export nuclear technology{which is not strictly true}, comes despite a setback to India’s efforts in early October this year, when the MTCR group met in Oslo, but failed to take up the membership application.

Officials are now hopeful of being considered for MTCR membership in “early spring 2016,” and for the NSG at its plenary session in June 2016.

Speaking to The Hindu during his visit, NSG Chairperson Rafael Grossi said he would start consultations with NSG members in early November. “India is willing to join the NSG now, today if possible. It has all the elements in place for membership. There have been some deliberations already, and I am trying to make the process more dynamic,” he said, as Indian officials acknowledged there was a “fast-tracking” of the decision-making process.

As the 48-member NSG works by consensus, not majority, India is reaching out to every possible country, much like the push at the UNGA for reforms.

On Monday, the visit of Norwegian Foreign Minister Borge Brende, was significant as Norway is the outgoing MTCR chair, and had said there was “broad consensus for Indian membership in MTCR, but regrettably no consensus yet.” According to an MEA statement Mr. Brende expressed Norway’s “support” for India's membership to the NSG and MTCR regimes.

In the past few months, President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Sweden, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Ireland and Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar’s visit to Switzerland all saw “intense discussions” over the NSG question. The support of all these countries, including Norway is critical, as previously they had all been seen as “non-proliferation hardliners,” insisting that India sign the NPT before it could be admitted.

However, in the past few years, they have softened their position, calling instead for India to align its civil nuclear safeguards with NSG guidelines. Equally, India has given in on its earlier stand that it must be recognised as a “nuclear weapons state,” as that is unlikely in the current scenario.

“There has been a growing appreciation for Indian nuclear controls and capabilities since 2008,” said an Indian official, “They have had six years to see us keep our word on all our nuclear commitments.”

In addition, Mr. Modi’s visit to Turkey for the G-20 summit as well as to France for the COP-21 climate change summit will see India finessing its pitch for the nuclear club memberships, with the help of both U.S. and Russia, two countries that have pledged support.

India’s biggest worry remains possible opposition from China, but hopes to smooth this over as the two sides engage on climate change and nuclear energy ahead of the Paris summit, officials confirmed. Vice-President Li Yuanchao will be in Delhi on November 6 for discussions on a range of issues. China “noted” India’s aspirations to the NSG for the first time in May 2015, but also recognised Pakistan’s aspirations for the same in June 2015, leading to speculation that when the NSG decides on India’s membership it would open the way for other non-NPT states like Pakistan and Israel as well.

Finally, India hopes to conclude its nuclear deal with Australia as early as this month, possibly ahead of Mr. Modi’s meeting with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on the sidelines of the G-20 on November 15. Confirming this would happen “very soon,” Australian Foreign Secretary Peter Varghese told The Hindu , “We are very close to an agreement on the details of the arrangement, and I think we will find a solution that is consistent with Australia’s policy requirements and India’s policy practice,” he said, referring to the sticking point of tracking Australian nuclear fuel. A nuclear deal with Japan that has been hanging fire for several years, would be the icing on the cake, say officials, with a possible visit by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Delhi in December. “PM Abe has to persuade many people. Talking about nuclear issues in Japan is always unpopular. Mr. Abe does have a sympathetic view of this deal. But whether he can conclude it on his next visit, I doubt it,” senior foreign policy Adviser to Mr. Abe, as well as to previous Prime Ministers Koizumi and Hashimoto, Yukio Okamoto, said in an interview this week.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 03 Nov 2015 19:36

India’s APEC membership not on the agenda, says U.S. - Varghese K George, The Hindu
India’s desire for membership is not on the agenda of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum meeting in Manila in Philippines, on November 18 and 19, the U.S. said on Monday. “I do not believe there is any active consideration within APEC for expanded membership in the current time,” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Senior Official for APEC Matt Matthews said.

Reminded that U.S. President Barack Obama had “supported” India’s desire for membership of the forum during his 2015 visit to India on Republic Day, he said the U.S. had so far only welcomed “India’s interest” in joining the APEC.

“It is important to be careful and accurate about describing President’s comment. President welcomed India’s interest in APEC. That speaks for itself. We welcome India’s examination of APEC. We have not entered [into any] discussion about it. I do not believe India is formally pressing for actual membership now in APEC,” he said.

U.S.-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region released during Mr. Obama’s New Delhi visit had said: “the United States welcomes India’s interest in joining the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, as the Indian economy is a dynamic part of the Asian economy.”

The statement was widely interpreted as U.S. support for India’s membership in the APEC, but Mr. Matthews’s statement on Monday brings clarity on the U.S. position.

“APEC is an organisation which is consensus based. So each of the APEC members has to agree to expansion of the APEC membership. And no discussion in APEC this year has focused on that topic,” Mr. Matthews said.

The 21-member APEC, established in 1989, has nearly half of the world trade among the members and India has been lobbying for its membership for the last two decades.

Observer status since 2011

India has been an observer at the forum since 2011 and a membership would have been in tune with the Modi government’s ‘Act East Policy,’ the purported improvement it claims to have brought about in the earlier ‘Look East Policy.’

Speaking to The Hindu earlier, another U.S. diplomat had said influential sections within the Obama administration considered India as an “obstructionist” force in multilateral forums. “India needs to prove that its presence in APEC will help everyone. Unfortunately, there are areas of concern,” he had said.

“I would suggest that for any economy that is interested in APEC, a great way to start is to go into identifying some form of working groups that work on particular areas …. [If] they are particularly interested in that, apply as a guest, send experts to participate, to both help understand how APEC works and get a better understanding of how process turnout works,” Mr. Matthews said on Monday.

In a recent study C. Fred Bergsten of Peterson Institute for International Economics argued that India could be accepted in APEC first before it could join the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He argues trade liberalisation would enable India to increase its annual growth to 8 to 10 per cent.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 09 Jan 2016 11:16

X-posting from the Missiles Thread

dhiraj wrote:


Seems realpolitik in play and probably after some time matter will be sorted out in interest of both parties. JMT


http://www.telegraphindia.com/1151231/j ... oYHk_l94dU

India, Italy work on deal on marines
- Secret talks on 'road map'

If the deal is finalised, the Indian government will not object to any Italian plea before the Supreme Court to allow Salvatore Girone, one of the two marines arrested for shooting dead two Kerala fishermen off India's coast on February 15, 2012, to return to Italy. Massimiliano Latorre, the other marine, is already in Italy. (See chart)

But Italy will first need to commit to withdrawing objections to New Delhi's membership to four key export control regimes - the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group.

Italy, a member of all four clubs that control the world's trade in nuclear supplies, high-end missiles, chemicals that can be used for weapons and "dual use" technology - which can be used for military purposes - had in September vetoed India's membership application to the MTCR.


http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-di ... ly-1261091

India Dismisses Suggestions Of Quid Pro Quo Deal With Italy

India has today said there was no link between its bid for membership in the nuclear export control regimes, of which Italy is a member, and the marines issue, dismissing suggestion that the two countries were working on a quid pro quo deal.
The Spokesperson's reaction came amid reports that India was secretly negotiating a deal with Italy under which the government will not object to any Italian plea in the case of marines, who are charged with killing two Kerala fishermen and Rome will not object to India's membership of export control regimes.


Let's see where things go now :!: :!:

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 09 Jan 2016 11:20

From the EU Ambassador's Interview in Business Line.
Excerpt
Q: But, isn’t the EU linking it with the Italian marines’ detention issue outcome that is now up for international arbitration? Also, do you support Italy vetoing India’s membership application to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)?

A: No. The European leadership is fully committed to move bilateral relations forward.

The marines’ case is a subject of international arbitration — a bilateral issue between India and Italy. As regards MTCR, it is a bilateral issue between India and Italy.

But, if there is issue of bilateral relations between India and a member-state, then of course we will take notice. This is not EU-India matter. As I understand, the EU does not have a position in India’s membership to the MTCR, member-states do.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 16 Feb 2016 16:25

UNSC divorced from reality, represents a bygone era: Syed Akbaruddin - PTI, Economic Times
India has hit out at the UN Security Council over its current structure and methods of work, saying the 15-membered powerful world body is "divorced from reality" and represents a bygone era warranting reform.

"It is ironical that the Security Council is working towards the establishment of democracy and Rule of Law in various parts of the world when its own house is not in order," India's Ambassador to the UN Syed Akbaruddin said.

"The current structure and methods of work of the Security Council are divorced from reality and represent a bygone era," he told the UNSC yesterday.

Akbaruddin said that to regain "its legitimacy there is no option but for the Security Council to reform."

The terse remarks were made by Akbaruddin during an open debate 'Respect to the Principles and Purposes of the Charter of the United Nations as Key Element for the Maintenance of International Peace and Security' at the UN Security Council.

"We hope it does not require a cataclysmic crisis to foster this fundamental change. There has never been a greater need for reform of the Council which is a sine qua non for the optimal efficiency of the Council and would be the real form of tribute to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations," he said.

Akbaruddin said while terrorism remains a cardinal threat to the maintenance of international peace and security, the efforts of the United Nations and the Security Council in taking decisive action to combat terrorism leaves much to be desired.

It has been noticed that even brazen public violations of the sanctions regime by listed individuals and entities, far from attracting punitive measures, do not even elicit the mildest censure, Akbaruddin said.

"Yet, we the general membership of the UN are expected to comply with the decisions of the Council's Sanctions Committees decisions or lack thereof," he said.

Observing that the Council has taken the lead in referring to the purposes and principles of the Charter while attempting to maintain international peace and security, he said, however, its own actions have not always been in the spirit of the Charter.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 10 Mar 2016 05:22

China helped Pakistan block India’s NSG membership bid: Aziz - PTI, The Hindu
Pakistan Prime Minister’s Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz on Tuesday said that China had helped Pakistan in blocking India’s bid to become a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

India has been seeking membership to the 48-member club, whose members can trade in and export nuclear technology..

While countries like the U.S. have backed India’s membership in the NSG, China has only offered conditional support to New Delhi.

China’s Foreign Ministry had called for “prudence and caution” over expanding the NSG.

When asked if China wants to back any other country’s entry into NSG, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying had said, “As for the expansion of the group, the members should make the decision on consensus after thorough discussions. India’s inclusion into this group is an internal matter of the group. It needs prudence and caution and thorough discussions among all members.”

“We support such discussion and we also support India’s inclusion into this group if it meets all the requirements,” she had said.


Pakistan says if it is deprived of the NSG membership while India is accommodated, it would be taken as discrimination and lead to imbalance in the region.


Let's remember that among the P-5, China is the only country that till to date does not recognize India as a nuclear weapons state and refuses to engage with CBMs on this issue.

After Obama's forceful talk in Siri Fort in Jan 2015 wherein he promised the full support of the US in making India enter the NSG (and Wassenaar, AG & MTCR), the Chinese reaction to these developments was predictably negative. The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said, “We believe that such (an) inclusion should be conducive to the integrity and effectiveness of the regime and decision should be made on consensus. We notice India’s commitment to relevant issues. We support the group to include new members and we support India to take further measures to meet the requirements for the inclusion in the group.” The reference to the decision having to be consensual means that China would have to be involved and it had its own reservations on the issue. Also, the reference to India having “to take further measures to meet the requirements for the inclusion in the group “ meant that in China’s judgement India did not meet the standards set for admission into NSG. The reference to “new members” indicated that China would bat for Pakistan in the NSG.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 12 Mar 2016 10:37

Mexico opposes India’s campaign for UNSC - Kallol Bhattacherjee, The Hindu
India’s quest for permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), on Friday faced a new challenge with Mexico coming out in opposition to India’s campaign.

“We don’t support India’s campaign for permanent seat at the UNSC. We do not think adding more permanent members in the Security Council is the solution. More veto power-wielding permanent members will mean more paralysis of the U.N. Instead we are willing for a compromise with India and India can opt for long-term membership with possibilities of election,” Foreign Minister of Mexico Claudia Ruiz Massieu said here [New Delhi] on Friday addressing the Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). Ms. Massieu who is on a three-day visit to India indicated that India has taken a maximalist position by demanding a permanent membership at the UNSC with veto powers as the permanent members of the United Nations are yet to give up their control over the United Nations. “How long can India wait?” Ms. Massieu asked urging India to reconsider its stance for the permanent membership of the UNSC and opt for an alternative tactic.

“We hope to reach a consensus that represents the current global community and the need to have peaceful solution to the challenges facing the world,” Ms. Massieu said.

Interestingly, the Mexican opposition to India’s quest at the UNSC came two days after the United Nations held the “Informal Plenary meeting of the Inter-governmental Negotiations on equitable representation” with India strongly reiterating its demand for reform of the UNSC.

In the Plenary held on Wednesday, India’s Permanent Representative, Syed Akbaruddin tried to convince those countries who oppose new members with veto power in the UNSC arguing that the issue of the veto can be reviewed later whereas the democratisation of the U.N. cannot wait any longer.


Is Mexico acting as the front in the UNSC issue just as Australia acted in the CTBT review nearly two decades ago?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 24 Mar 2016 13:37

Bill introduced in US Congress to help India join APEC - PTI
A group of influential American lawmakers have introduced a legislation asking the Obama administration to help India join the APEC forum, saying an economically prosperous India benefits the US' strategic goals in Asia.

"Membership in APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) would provide India a constructive forum to glean insight from other Asian countries that have already taken significant steps to advance their economies," Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific Matt Salmon, who introduced the legislation in the US Congress, said.

"Indian Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi is striving for major economic reforms to open India's markets, improve trade volume, and facilitate his growing population's need for continued job growth," he said yesterday.

Salmon is joined by Congressman Ami Bera, the only Indian- American lawmaker in the current Congress, Co-Chair Congressional Caucus on India and Indian-Americans; Ed Royce, Chairman of House Foreign Affairs Committee; Elliot Engel, Brad Sherman, George Holding, Derek Kilmer, Dana Rohrabacher and Scott DesJarlais.

Bera said that India is one of the world's largest and fastest growing economies.

"An economically prosperous and regionally engaged India benefits the US' strategic goals on Asia," Bera said.

The legislation notes that the US-India partnership is vital to the US strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific region and across the globe, and is an integral aspect to the Administration's Rebalance to Asia.

Observing that India enjoys a location within the Asia- Pacific region which provides an avenue for continued trade and investment partnerships with APEC member states, the legislation asks Secretary of State John Kerry to develop a strategy to obtain membership status for India in APEC, including participation in related meetings, working groups, activities and mechanisms.

It directs the Secretary of State to actively ask APEC member states to support such membership status for India and submit a report to the Congress within two months of the passage of this legislation.

Singapore-headquartered Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is a forum for 21 economies to promote free trade throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

The members are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Peru, the Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, the US and Vietnam.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5053
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Viv S » 24 Mar 2016 18:43

SSridhar wrote:Mexico opposes India’s campaign for UNSC - Kallol Bhattacherjee, The Hindu

Is Mexico acting as the front in the UNSC issue just as Australia acted in the CTBT review nearly two decades ago?


Actually, Mexico has held this position since 1995. Its a member of the 'Uniting for Consensus' group created in opposition to plans to enlarge the UNSC.


G4 nations: Brazil, Germany, India, Japan

UfC members: Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Pakistan, South Korea, Spain, Turkey

member_29294
BRFite
Posts: 131
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby member_29294 » 25 Mar 2016 04:33

^

America leverages Canada, Turkey, and Mexico to oppose any expansion since they don't want to come out against expansion themselves. US doesn't want any challenge to its power.

Argentina and Columbia oppose Brazil. Italy and Spain oppose Germany. South Korea and Indonesia oppose Japan. Paki obviously oppose India. Simple regionalism at play here.

India needs to focus on getting to top 3 Nominal GDP in the world. I doubt any country except Paki and Chine would staunchly oppose India then. 2030 is a good goal for India to get into the UNSC, but noise about it should be made now in preparation.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20350
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Prem » 26 Mar 2016 00:58

Chakra.in wrote:^
India needs to focus on getting to top 3 Nominal GDP in the world. I doubt any country except Paki and Chine would staunchly oppose India then. 2030 is a good goal for India to get into the UNSC, but noise about it should be made now in preparation.


This is most important and then forget about asking SC seat but subvert this UNO by showing its impotency. All 3,4 letter treaties,organisation without India must be made irrelevant.

Vipul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3727
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 03:30

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Vipul » 26 Mar 2016 15:06

^^^^Germany has/had been number 2 or 3 in GDP in the world for a long time and it did not get into the UNSC. The Chinese Veto will forever ensure India never gets into the UNSC.

India just does not have the power to make any treaty irrelevant. Rather it is now scrambling to somehow get into RCEP after it was left out of TTP. Forget any international treaty it does not have the power to make even a regional treaty like SAARC relevant. It is rather Pakistan which is trying to make India irrelevant by trying to get China into SAARC!!!!

The idealism/foolishness of Nehru in not joining UNSC and lack of foresightedness in not joining ASEAN when we were invited (we would have been a part of APEC as an ASEAN member) has cost as colossal damages.

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

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby svinayak » 26 Mar 2016 21:31

During the congress rule till Nehru and from 1964 to 1995 Indian foreign policy was subject to colonial relationship.

Hence the entire foreign policy need to be rebuilt for the new century. It is a tough job and lot of hard work for the next 25 years

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2709
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby arshyam » 26 Mar 2016 21:56

Are you saying it was free from colonial influence under the UPA? Heck, even Modi's reign does not have a clear verdict, even if it is far better than UPA's.

Also, I would cut some slack to PVNR's govt. given the kinds of constraints he operated under. Despite that, he did the groundwork for Pok-2 and ensured a positive hand-off to ABV so he could proceed from where it was left off.

If you are talking about the IFS specifically, that may be true - a) the IFS needs to be more tuned to Indic thoughts and be more informed ambassadors for them, and b) increase the strength of the IFS multi-fold. For a country of our size, we have a tiny foreign service.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 15 Apr 2016 05:03

X-Post from India Nuclear thread.


India will not make it to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) as China will oppose its membership despite the US backing India's bid, a senior Pakistani ex-diplomat has claimed.

Zamir Akram, Pakistan's former permanent representative at the UN in Geneva and envoy at the Conference on Disarmament, said this while speaking at a seminar on the International Nuclear Order, jointly organised by the Strategic Vision Institute (SVI) and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

Pak Daily The Dawn quoted Mr Akram as saying that the "chances of India gaining entry into NSG are virtually nil". He claimed China would not allow India to join the 48-nation NSG because this would affect its nuclear cooperation with Pakistan.

He said China is committed to ensuring that both India and Pakistan gain membership at the same time.

Other than China, he said there are some countries that are upset by the "double standards" being shown in India's case, and are calling for an approach based on criteria.

This is the second time in a month that a senior official involved in the country's nuclear affairs has dismissed India's chances of NSG membership.

Last month, advisor to the National Command Authority, retired Lt Gen Khalid Kidwai, said at a conference that "We also have friends in NSG who would not let it happen" referring to India's bid.

SVI also called for maintaining credible deterrence capability against India, and advised against compromising security for mainstreaming in the nuclear order.

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1104
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby member_23370 » 15 Apr 2016 05:11

India should simply start selling their nuclear plant designs to countries that are interested. India is not bound by any treaty. Pakis entering any group is a foregone conclusion.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

MTCR

Postby SSridhar » 17 Apr 2016 14:11

X-Post from EU Thread

Jhujar wrote:Italy stalls India's recognition as a Global Military Power ; keeps it away from MTCR

Italy is hell bent to to continue to veto against India's entry into the elite Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This club accounts for 34 member states that can access top-end technology from missiles and UAV's.The European Union shares Italy's concerns and expects India to free the two Marines at the earliest while India expect due justice for the families of the two Indian fishermen. This dispute has been going on since 2012 and a solution to this is no where in sight.Italy was the only country to have objected to India's entry into the MTCR while all other 33 member states unanimously agreed to include India. Italy has effectively used the rule that all new members should be approved unanimously by the 34 member group.America has been a strong supporter to India's cause but its options are limited since things have been extremely complicated between India and Italy.Italy knows how important it is for India to become a member of the MTCR and it is effectively using its veto power to blackmail India for the release of its Marines.The US has urged India to change its outlook on the case and release the Marines for the sake of a larger motive.India has insisted on taking up the matter of the shooting as a criminal case and not as direct Govt level talks. The marines were doing their duty under the authority of the Italian government.If India let Girone go home, Italy will accept India into the MTCR.This will still leave decisions to be made by the Arbitration Panel but the case would go on for years. It is now up to India to decide to either continue to hold up the marine and seek justice or soften its stance to achieve a Global Power status.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 17 Apr 2016 14:12

We can realize the range of countries pitted against us.

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

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby rgosain » 17 Apr 2016 14:56

SSridhar wrote:We can realize the range of countries pitted against us.

Interesting turn of phrase. Is this in Km or miles. There is going to be a time when there are more countries outside of the MTCR than in it, and the proliferation of drones, UAV across the mediterranean will be a foregone conclusion..

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 17 Apr 2016 15:08

rgosain, no, this is a normal phrase. I meant the range of countries from the small Marshall islands, Nepal to Argentina, to Italy, Pakistan to China and the US.

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

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby rgosain » 17 Apr 2016 15:11

SSridar. I wasn't complaining. Lovely phrase and conveyed very elegantly the reasons for staying away from the MTCR. Why be part of a club which asks you to make concessions that are without merit.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47919
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby ramana » 29 Apr 2016 00:28

SS and RG,
Read this news report dated 4/27!

viewtopic.php?p=2011107#p2011107

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20350
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Prem » 29 Apr 2016 02:16

Apparently Agusta Westland Italian gang in India connected to this Italian Veto in MTCR.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 06 May 2016 12:43

India’s nuclear diplomacy must change - Priyanjali Malik, Business Line
Last month’s final Nuclear Security Summit in Washington appeared to be another successful attempt by India to present itself as a responsible global player. But President Obama’s unscripted comments at the concluding press conference altered the situation.

South Block reacted with some anger to Obama’s mentioning as a challenge developments in India and Pakistan’s military doctrines; he went on to state his hope not to see them ‘continually moving in the wrong direction’.

India was back to being tied to its difficult neighbour: South Block’s efforts to present India on its own merits appeared to have foundered yet again on other countries’ proclivities to tie it to Pakistan in their nuclear dealings with South Asia.


Risky game

This is a familiar theme, and one that will recur as India moves towards a place at the top table of global nuclear governance in the coming months. At stake is inclusion in the regimes that control trade in nuclear and dual use materials and weapons delivery systems.

India’s membership of these regimes has been a work-in-progress since Obama stated American support for India’s joining these collectives during his visit to India in 2010.


The Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG), a 49-member grouping, was set up in 1975 to control the export and re-transfer of materials that can be used to make nuclear weapons.

The 34 countries in the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) work to prevent the proliferation of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles capable of carrying a payload of 500 kg beyond 300 km.

The Wassenaar Arrangement brings together 41 states that have agreed to monitor and restrict the transfer of dual-use technology and conventional arms. The 42 members of the Australia Group collaborate to inhibit the spread of chemical and biological weapons. All four functions by consensus and membership require the agreement of all members. New Delhi is currently focussing its energy on joining the NSG and MTCR.

An interim progress report makes for sober reading. Indian membership of the MTCR was considered during the group’s October 2015 plenary in Rotterdam, but without success.

According to leaked reports (the proceedings of these meetings are confidential), consensus was impeded by Italy, who asked for more time. In effect, membership was denied not over concerns relating to technical requirements but because of a current bilateral dispute between the two countries involving two Italian marines.
Politics had intruded into what should have been a technical discussion.

Clearly, whatever support India had mustered was not enough to overcome this stalling tactic. The obstruction also underscored the weakness of working by consensus; it plays into the misgivings of some members about inviting India into a group that might then be held hostage in any future dealings with Pakistan by the state of relations between the two neighbours.

Change in the horizon

India’s membership of the NSG will probably be discussed in the group’s plenary session in June 2016. On the credit side of the ledger, New Delhi has apparently pulled out all stops in assiduously courting all it members.

India hosted Chairperson Rafael Grossi, in early November. Additionally, President Mukherjee, Prime Minister Modi, and Foreign Secretary Jaishankar have all raised this issue during their visits to Sweden, Ireland and Switzerland, some of the known non-proliferation ‘hardliners’. Norway (which incidentally held the chair in the recently-concluded MTCR meeting) has also signalled a softening of its earlier stance.

On the debit side, however, Pakistan has made known its unhappiness over India being accorded any exceptional treatment and China (an NSG member) has promised its all-weather friend that it will seek the same privileges for Islamabad.

There is also the deep-seated non-proliferation hostility towards India — the sense amongst some that membership would amount to rewarding India for its bad behaviour in testing nuclear devices in 1998.

This is an emotional argument and New Delhi’s rebuttals based on India’s track record, the fact it was not legally bound to remain a non-nuclear weapons state, and its responsible nuclear stewardship have received a selective hearing at best. In the absence of stronger reasons to exclude India, the state of relations with Pakistan tends to become a convenient proxy. To counter this, India needs truly creative diplomacy, which goes beyond focusing on Pakistan’s bad behaviour.

Being realistic

New Delhi could let it be known that India as a member of the NSG and other satellite regimes will not block Pakistani membership of these regimes if the other members of the regimes so desire and if Pakistan is able to meet the conditions and obligations that go with such membership.

There are three reasons for India to appear reasonable on Pakistan.

First, it would expose those countries (and China comes to mind) who demur over Indian membership of these groups because it operates by consensus. It will also break the hyphenation with Pakistan and push outsiders to engage with India on its own terms and not in connection with Pakistan. And finally, should Pakistan make it into these regimes, it is in India’s interest to have its neighbour signed up to as stringent a set of nuclear security provisions as possible.

In short, it is time for India to break free of its image as a difficult negotiator. Historically, India’s nuclear negotiations have not always been easy, and have not always won it friends — the rejection of the NPT and the CTBT come to mind.

Some might say India’s nuclear diplomacy has been characterised by being vigorously disagreeable. But the India of 2016 is politically, economically and strategically strong enough to make concessions if necessary. Now is the time for New Delhi to be vigorously agreeable. Let’s talk.

The writer is a researcher on security and the author of 'India's Nuclear Debate: Exceptionalism and the Bomb (War and International Politics in South Asia) '

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 13 May 2016 03:48

China and Pakistan join hands to block India's entry into Nuclear Suppliers Group - ANI
China and Pakistan are closely coordinating moves to block India's entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Beijing is using Pakistan's non-starter position with the NSG to block India's application in the name of parity, stating that it would either support NSG entry for both India and Pakistan, or none of them.

Talking about the China - Pakistan grand strategy to stall India's admission into the NSG , well placed US sources who work with the NSG said that from all counts it does appear that China and Pakistan are coordinating closely to stop the Indian entry.

The sources pointed to the fact that when India sought an information session with the NSG Participating Governments (PGs) at the recent NSG Consultative Group meeting on April 25 and 26, where it would have made a formal presentation to the NSG Group in support of its membership, Pakistan requested for a similar discussion slot with the NSG PGs.

Sources said that even though Pakistan was fully aware that its request would be rejected, it made its application at the cue of China, in order for Beijing to look even-handed when it sought the rejection of both requests on grounds of parity.

Providing an insight into the China-Pakistan plan to stall India, sources say that Pakistan is now going to write to all the NSG PGs about its wish to join the group. This is being done in anticipation of an application by India for NSG membership at the forthcoming plenary session of the group in June.

The Pakistani application, added sources, is "just a decoy" for China to reject both applications on grounds of parity. China knows that Pakistan does not stand a chance at the NSG, and most of the states will reject Islamabad's application.

By taking the lead in rejecting the Pakistani application along with that of India, China would like to project its position as "neutral" when in reality it is "working in tandem with Pakistan to stall India's application ".

US sources are disappointed with the Chinese tactics of "using Pakistan's non credentials with the NSG to settle scores with India". Informed sources say that this strategy is not a secret and during Pakistan President Mamnoon Hussain's visit to China in November 2015, China revealed its hand when it told President Hussain that if India is allowed to get NSG membership, China would ensure that Pakistan also joins the group.

The Chinese government told President Hussain that "if India is allowed to join the NSG and Pakistan is deprived of NSG membership, Beijing will veto the move and block the Indian entry".

Sources maintain that true to its word, China is following a plan that will enable it to use Pakistan's non-acceptance at the NSG to block India's acceptance. "It is both or none" is the Chinese plan to derail the Indian application, say sources.

Chinese officials at the NSG level have been using the Pakistan card to stop India's entry into it while appearing to be even handed in China's relations with India.

Well informed sources also point to comments made by Pakistan's former permanent representative to the United Nations Zamir Akram who virtually admitted the grand China - Pakistan plan to stall India's entry into the NSG when, he said, that India will not make it to the NSG despite US support since China was committed to both India and Pakistan joining the NSG at the same time, and would block any move for a unilateral admission of India.

He added that chances of India gaining entry into the NSG are virtually nil. The former senior Pakistani official also made it known that Islamabad has "friends at the NSG" who won't let India enter the group.

US sources have seen through China's game of "either both or none" in the NSG. They say that India's non-proliferation credentials can never be compared with Pakistan's, as Pakistan has a history of "selling Nuclear technology to rogue states like Libya". They point to the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, Dr A.Q. Khan, and his global nuclear trade.

Added to this history, is the fear in the West that Pakistan's nuclear weapons, especially the tactical version that it is now in the process of developing, can easily find their way into the hands of terrorists, as Pakistan's nuclear command is extremely vulnerable to penetration by Islamic hardliners.

Well-placed sources say that China is aware of this situation, and is mindful of the fact that Pakistan can never be considered for membership in any global nuclear club, but that won't stop China from using Pakistan as a "parity token to stop India which is fast emerging as China's competitor at a global level".

By rejecting the applications of both Pakistan and India, China is telling New Delhi and the NSG governments that it is "neutral", when in fact it is working with Pakistan to reject India's application in the hope that there won't be an Indian reaction.

US sources say China's grand plan is to "eat its cake and have it too", that is reject the Indian application to the NSG on the pretext of "neutrality" between India and Pakistan and then hope that the "neutrality" card will stop any Indian commercial blowback on China

Giving further insight into the plan, US sources say that China "would be naive to expect that there won't be an Indian reaction, and especially a commercial one, as China is mindful that India is fully qualified to join the NSG, and by playing the 'Pakistan parity card', China is only hurting its own interests with an upcoming economic power, India."

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1104
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby member_23370 » 13 May 2016 04:39

I for one would prefer if India used its being a non MTCR member to sell Agni-1 to vietnam and Prithvis to Afghanistan. We don't have to abide by any treaty we are not a part off.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 13 May 2016 18:42

China claims support of several NSG members to block India's bid - PTI
Defending its move to block India's entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, China has claimed that several members of the 48-nation bloc shared its view that signing of the NPT was an "important" standard for the NSG's expansion.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang said that not only China but also a lot of other NSG members are of the view that Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone for safeguarding the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Asked about reports that China is pushing Pakistan's entry into NSG linking it to India's admission into the bloc, Lu said the NSG is an important part of NPT, which has been the consensus of the international community for long.

Although India is not part of the NSG, Indian side recognises this consensus, he claimed.

"All the multilateral non-proliferation export control regime including the NSG has regarded NPT as an important standard for the expansion of the NSG," he said.

Avoiding any references to Pakistan, Lu said "Apart from India, lot of other countries expressed their willingness to join. Then it raised the question to the international community - shall the non-NPT members also become part of the NSG?" he said.

"The international community believes that there should be a side discussion in the NSG on this issue and decision should be made in accordance with relevant rules. China's position is not directed against any specific country but applies to all the non-NPT members," he said.

India, Pakistan, Israel and South Sudan were among four UN member states which have not signed the NPT, the international pact aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Last month Pakistan Prime Minister's advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz said that China has helped Pakistan to stall India's bid to get NSG membership.


India deserves this spanking for Nehru ignoring Sardar Patel's very prescient assessment of China's intentions way back in 1949 and Nehru's adamant policy of giving China a seat and above all a more pre-eminent position in the UN over and above itself. The country which has been the biggest proliferator and which continues to do so even now is giving a sermon about Non-Proliferation Treaty. If there is any country that deserves to be expelled from the NSG for being a complete misfit and an anachronist in the grouping, it is China, China & China.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2885
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby vera_k » 13 May 2016 19:57

China alone cannot stand in the way though. Looks like some more NSG countries are not convinced of the need to have India on board.

I think India should participate as an observer similar to the European Commission.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 14 May 2016 13:43

vera_k wrote:China alone cannot stand in the way though. Looks like some more NSG countries are not convinced of the need to have India on board.

I do not know what prompts you to say that India should not take its rightful place in the NSG.

In September 2008, India got a waiver from the NSG which allowed India to access Nuclear fuel supplies and technology from the international market. The US drafted and introduced a waiver agreement in the NSG. A group of seven minor nations led by New Zealand and which included Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Norway, Sweden and Ireland raised objections about the IAEA ‘approval’. They were propelled by a strong ‘non-proliferation’ policy. Their objection was that India’s commitment on ‘self-moratorium’ on testing and commitment to non-proliferation would be accepted only if they were incorporated in to the waiver. India stood firmly that it would never agree to restrictions on its sovereign rights. These countries relented only after the then Indian FM Pranab Mukharjee issued a statement re-affirming Indian commitments. Countries like Australia, Germany, Canada & Japan offered a lukewarm support. China’s opposition was not on any such solid ground! The fact that China instigated these seven small dissenting countries became obvious when the Chinese delegation withdrew from the NSG deliberations as soon as these seven countries agreed to the waiver eventually. That's where the US had to step in. The NSG waiver came only after this strong opposition from China was smothered by the US. The US President had to speak to his Chinese counterpart.

Too much water has flowed under the bridge since 2008 for the seven dissenting and four 'lukewarm' countries to carry the same approach now. Certainly Australia, Canada and Japan can be expected to toe a different line not only because of the dramatically changed geostrategic situatin but also because of the nuclear commerce. Out of the 'minor dissenting countries', New Zealand might change now. I don't know about the rest but they may not eventually stand in the way as they did last time around because the more 'dangerous' proposition was allowing India to receive nuclear fuel and technologies, not its admission per se into the NSG. Once the former became de jure, the latter is a mere formality and only a matter of time.

The China situation has also undergone a dramatic change, but the other way around with India being viewed by it as solidly in the US 'grouping' especially in the Indo-China Sea issue. Therefore, I visualize China to be the only stumbling block.

After Modi's visit to China last year, it said that it "took note" of India's aspiration to become a member of NSG. This was taken as a positive change in the Chinese approach. May be, it was said to induce India from tilting more against it. It was perhaps a carrot. But, its argument now exposes the Chinese duplicity. It says, "Pakistan has taken steps towards its mainstreaming into the global non-proliferation regime. We support Pakistan's engagement with the NSG, and hope such efforts could be conducive to the authority and effectiveness of the international non-proliferation regime. We wish to strengthen communication and coordination with Pakistan."

If a well-established and internationally-shamed nuclear proliferator such as Pakistan (of course, China also competes for the same, if not, more non-flattering adjectives) needs to be a member of the NSG, wouldn't India's case be many orders stronger? As usual, China is tying itself up in knots due to conflicting requirements because of Pakistan. It is very similar to its objections to oil drilling by India in the Vietnamese waters in the Indo-China Sea but its own efforts such as the Karakorum Highway, CPEC or the Diambar-Basha Dam in Pakistan Occupied Indian territories. It is not standing on a moral high-pedestal or even solid grounds on the NSG issue. China is not even masking its shameful reasoning; it is very overt because China itself is a proliferator of the worst kind and its proliferation is continuing to this day with transfer of missiles, enrichment plants and the bogus 'grandfathering' of the four Chashma & Karachi reactors which no member of the NSG believes in as true 'grandfathering'.

China also argues that signing up the NPT is an important criterion for membership of the NSG. India has always been scrupulous, unlike China, in matters nuclear. It was in December 1975 that A.Q.Khan arrived in Pakistan with the complete set of coveted documents on URENCO's gas centrifuge technology. Now, that was an area where the Chinese were weak after the Russians had left them in the lurch. That's where AQ Khan came in handy. Z.A.Bhutto recalls in his papers written from the condemned-prisoner’s cell that his 1976 agreement with China was the greatest game-changer for Pakistan. Obviously, the two countries agreed to a barter deal. AQK admitted that Pakistan sent 135 C-130 planeloads of valves, inverters, flow-meters, pressure-gauges, machinery etc to China to set up their centrifuge plant. The Chinese had so far been dependent on gas diffusion technology. In return, China gave Pakistan 50 Kg of HEU, 15 tonnes of UF6 (Pakistan had no means of producing Uranium hexafluoride then), triggers, maraging steel, high-explosives for the lens, ring magnets, rocket propellants, avionics, complete missiles and ultimately, of course, the complete design blueprint of its CHIC-4. It even tested the Pakistani-painted but its own device in Lop Nor.

One can be sure that it is not lost on other countries that such a shameless proliferator and violator of NSG conventions wants to keep out a country that is meticulous in observing NSG guidelines, non-proliferation concerns and has always abided by its international obligations scrupulously, namely India.

I think India should participate as an observer similar to the European Commission.

The European Commission and the Chair of the Zangger Committee participate as observers. But, they are not 'nation-states', mere entities. Again, what is the point for India to be a mere observer?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21740
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 14 May 2016 15:21

US disagrees completely with China, says India ready to be in Nuclear Suppliers Group - ToI
China and Pakistan may not agree, but the United States believes - completely - that India is ready to enter the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

Hours after China defended its blocking India from becoming part of the NSG, the US on Friday said that India does in fact meet the missile technology control regime requirements for entry into the NSG.


In fact, State Department Spokesman John Kirby last night reminded the media that US President Barack Obama said as much in 2015.

"I'd point you back to what the President said during his visit to India in 2015, where he reaffirmed that the US view was that India meets missile technology control regime requirements and is ready for NSG membership," Kirby told reporters at his daily news conference.

Kirby's remarks yesterday about India's eligibility for the NSG came in response to a question about reports that China and Pakistan have joined hands to oppose India becoming a member of the NSG.

"I'm going to refer you to the governments of China and Pakistan with respect to their positions on India's membership," Kirby said.

US sources recently told news agency ANI that they are disappointed with Chinese tactics of "using Pakistan's non credentials with the NSG to settle scores with India".

China made claims yesterday that many members of the 48-nation NSG share its view that signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is an "important" standard for the group's expansion.

They said that India's non-proliferation credentials can never be compared with Pakistan's, as Pakistan has a history of "selling Nuclear technology to rogue states like Libya". They point to the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, Dr A.Q. Khan, and his global nuclear trade.

The NSG is a body concerned with reducing nuclear proliferation by controlling the export and re-transfer of materials used to make weapons.

The NPT is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

India has said it won't ever join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state, because those weapons are integral to its security. In addition, India has maintained that the NPT is very discriminatory.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2885
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby vera_k » 14 May 2016 21:09

SSridhar wrote:The European Commission and the Chair of the Zangger Committee participate as observers. But, they are not 'nation-states', mere entities. Again, what is the point for India to be a mere observer?


My perspective is that all nuclear proliferation around India has been caused by the NSG states. Therefore there is the utmost need to keep on top of policy discussions lest more proliferation is inadvertently or by design allowed by the NSG. Other than that its hard to see what benefits accrue from NSG membership, since the nuclear cooperation deals are all signed on a bilateral basis.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Avinandan and 17 guests