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

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

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby GShankar » 10 Oct 2016 20:49

SSridhar wrote: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.


I agree it is fudge. My impression after reading that was that it might be easier to convince them to declare about Masood than get NSG membership. I don't think we are going to fall for it this time.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7883
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Gus » 10 Oct 2016 21:01

I think we have to seriously push for boycott chinese products at Indian consumer level. It will be hard at some levels where reasonable Indian alternatives are just not there, and also assembled products whose subassemblies are sourced from china.

But there is no reason to buy chinese crackers and chinese toys as we have traditional alternatives from indian small scale industries.

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 613
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Y. Kanan » 13 Oct 2016 22:46

Agreed RE: Chinese boycott. I have been doing this for years whenever possible, though sadly it's near impossible in the realm of electronics.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2795
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Rudradev » 13 Oct 2016 23:53

GShankar wrote:
SSridhar wrote: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.


I agree it is fudge. My impression after reading that was that it might be easier to convince them to declare about Masood than get NSG membership. I don't think we are going to fall for it this time.


This is an opportunity to explore an illuminating object lesson about how the Chinese negotiate.

First they bring TWO bad things to the table: e.g.Masood Azhar and NSG.

We protest both. Then they say, ok, you give us XYZ and we will take ONE of those bad things off the table in exchange. See? All good! We are velly velly complomising and good neighbouls.

End result, we give up something that's important to us. They give up a red herring, while continuing to have future leverage upon us by retaining the other issue in their pocket.

Masood is being busily shunned by the Paki parliament itself after the surgical strike. PRC cares damn-all about him. NSG is a different matter. They REALLY don't want us to have that. But they will probably offer to climb down on the Masood Azhar thing to show how magnanimous they are (letting the Indian govt. have this "small victoly" to save face, and not return from negotiations empty-handed).

With the MMS/Maino regime and its antecedents, this worked every time. I wonder how Modi will play his turn.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20199
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Prem » 14 Oct 2016 02:17

Rudradev wrote:
GShankar wrote:I First they bring TWO bad things to the table: e.g.Masood Azhar and NSG.
We protest both. Then they say, ok, you give us XYZ and we will take ONE of those bad things off the table in exchange. See? All good! We are velly velly complomising and good neighbouls.End result, we give up something that's important to us. They give up a red herring, while continuing to have future leverage upon us by retaining the other issue in their pocket. With the MMS/Maino regime and its antecedents, this worked every time. I wonder how Modi will play his turn.


This low tactic is not negotiation but slimy behaviour. It may have worked with small nations and few Indiots who were swallowing flies with open eyes but it won't work at BRICS level head of state meeting standards. More so it would diminish their credibility as serious nation or regime. China will need both GB/POK and Baluchistan for CPEC to work .India can blow both out sucking oxygen out of this venture. PeeRC vulnerability will grow only from now on as they need this CPEC Catheter tube in their pube for relief from pressure they feel on their Mush whenever Massa is no Khush.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 14 Oct 2016 07:28

Rudradev wrote:This is an opportunity to explore an illuminating object lesson about how the Chinese negotiate.

First they bring TWO bad things to the table: e.g.Masood Azhar and NSG.

We protest both. Then they say, ok, you give us XYZ and we will take ONE of those bad things off the table in exchange. See? All good! We are velly velly complomising and good neighbouls.

End result, we give up something that's important to us. They give up a red herring, while continuing to have future leverage upon us by retaining the other issue in their pocket.


RD, though it appears that the Chinese want us to bargain one for the other, I am convinced that they are not going to let us have either of them. Masood Azhar is a prized possession for both the Pakistani Army and the Chinese, for some reason. He is not to be frittered away.

Pardon me for the below lengthy paragraph, but it is needed to put the extraordinary efforts by India to convince China and the blunt & determined opposition from China in the face of support from every other member of the UNSC.

In May 2009, after JuD and Hafeez Saeed were eventually placed on the list in Dec. 2008, China blocked Indian move to place Maulana Masood Azhar. Later, when India engaged China in counter-terrorism talks in July, 2011 and presented evidence about JeM and Maulana Masood Azhar, it summarily refused to re-visit that issue. In late January, 2016, armed with its investigation into the attack on Pathankot AFB, India approached the UNSC Sanctions Committee 1267 yet again to sanction JeM Emir Maulana Masood Azhar. On April 1, 2016, just two hours before deadline, China placed a ‘technical hold’ on the Indian request citing insufficient information and after consulting Pakistan. Reacting to the news, the Indian PM Narendra Modi seated to the left of the American President Barack Obama with the Chinese President Xi Jinping seated to Obama’s right in the Nuclear Security Summit at Washington said, “The reach and supply chains of terrorism are global; but genuine cooperation between nation states is not” There were a series of high-level meetings coincidentally between Indian and Chinese leaders in the third week of April 2016 and the JeM Emir Maulana Masood Azhar’s case in the UN was taken up forcefully by the Indian side. First, it was the April 18 meeting between Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Chinese counterpart Wang Yi on the sidelines of the RIC meeting in Moscow, "I told him (Wang) that if we were to fulfil our intention of fighting terrorism together, then China should review the stand it had taken at the UN 1267 Committee," Swaraj told a joint press conference with Wang and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. Raising the issue with Wang during a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the RIC meet, Swaraj emphasized the need for bilateral cooperation to combat the challenge of terrorism. If India and China were to combat terrorism unitedly, then Beijing should change its position of opposing India's bid against Pathankot terror attack mastermind Azhar at the UN Sanctions Committee, Swaraj told Wang. On the same day, the visiting Indian Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar met his Chinese counterpart Gen. Chang Wanquan in Beijing. On China’s role in blocking U.N. sanctions on Masood Azhar, The next day, the Indian NSA Ajit Doval met his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi for the 19th round of border talks and the Masood Azhar issue figured prominently there. On arriving back in India, Parrikar said, “I have expressed very clearly to them that there cannot be differentiation in terrorists. All terrorists are the same and they should be dealt with the same principle, including the issue they had obstructed at the UN. They should also deal with it in the same manner. May be for the first time, it was raised clearly and firmly. Of course, they have their own justification...We did not shy away from raising our issues”. Again, a few hours before the ‘technical hold’ was to expire on October 1, 2016, China decided to extend the ‘technical hold’ once again. This also prevented India from placing further facts before the 1267 Committee such as Masood Azhar’s close links to the Taliban and consequently to Al Qaeda and his direct involvement in the September 18, 2016 attack at an Army camp in Uri which killed 19 Indian Armymen. India was also planning to inform the UN committee that elements of JeM have received training in tactics, use of weapons and psychological warfare from Pakistan.

There is no reason for China to go to such lengths and then budge. So, Masood Azhar is *NOT* going to be included in the UNSC 1267 list.

On the question of NSG, it is not a surprise. China has been the only country that opposed our entry in every forum, group or organization, tooth-and-nail, be it ASEAN or APEC, or EAS. Its low-levl tactics in preventing our entry into UNSC late last year proved its desperation to keep us out.

Masood Azhar involves the interests of its only ally, Pakistan, and China has some interest in that too. India's entry into NSG is viewed by China as not in its interests at all and Pakistan has some interest in that too. Both issues are complementary as both nations function as a tag team.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 16 Oct 2016 08:44

India, China discuss NSG membership issue - Suhasini Haidar, The Hindu
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping on Saturday discussed India’s hopes for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group at a bilateral summit ahead of the eighth BRICS summit here.

Although officials didn’t report any major shift in China’s opposition, they described as “hopeful” the process set into motion of meetings between the two nuclear negotiators of the countries.


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

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby svinayak » 16 Oct 2016 22:46

SSridhar wrote:

There is no reason for China to go to such lengths and then budge. So, Masood Azhar is *NOT* going to be included in the UNSC 1267 list.

On the question of NSG, it is not a surprise. China has been the only country that opposed our entry in every forum, group or organization, tooth-and-nail, be it ASEAN or APEC, or EAS. Its low-levl tactics in preventing our entry into UNSC late last year proved its desperation to keep us out.

Masood Azhar involves the interests of its only ally, Pakistan, and China has some interest in that too. India's entry into NSG is viewed by China as not in its interests at all and Pakistan has some interest in that too. Both issues are complementary as both nations function as a tag team.


This is a competition between China and USA
China is taking a punishing attitude because USA is supporting India in the international forums and for UNSC

China by opposing Indian demands is delaying the India USA strategic alliance in the international scene
By Opposing India , China is opposing US and Its global super power influence

Earlier USA and China were together in supporting the Pak jehad organization. Now China is the one supporting Pak Jehad,

Gyan
BRFite
Posts: 812
Joined: 26 Aug 2016 19:14

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Gyan » 16 Oct 2016 23:05

USA is using India as expendable fodder is its Geopolitical gaming with China. If USA wants to take on China then its poodles Japan, Skorea, Taiwan will lead the economic charge. I think USA is reconciled to G-2

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

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby svinayak » 16 Oct 2016 23:40

Gyan wrote: I think USA is reconciled to G-2

US is supporting India for UNSC :wink:

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Guddu » 17 Oct 2016 01:14

So if China is going to block India's entry into NSG, do we have any realistic options. India cannot give anything on CPEC...

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 17 Oct 2016 09:27

svinayak, Since it is OT here, I have replied in the "Managing Chinese Threat" thread.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 17 Oct 2016 09:30

Guddu wrote:So if China is going to block India's entry into NSG, do we have any realistic options. India cannot give anything on CPEC...

I do not see much of an Indian leverage, except reciprocally blocking Chinese entry into MTCR. But, China has found it difficult to get into MTCR anyway by virtue of its past and continuing actions. We don't have to do anything extra and waste our goodwill.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Guddu » 20 Oct 2016 05:52

I would think we should support SE-asian countries in the S China sea. Thats a pain point for them. Secondly, we should become more involved in POK and Balochistan. Any roads thro POK, need to be controlled by India. If Modi wins this election, article 370 should go. All of these things should show the cheenis that the CPEC monies will go waste.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 20 Oct 2016 13:03

Guddu wrote:I would think we should support SE-asian countries in the S China Indo-China sea (or Champa Sea . . . anything but South China Sea).

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 26 Oct 2016 17:06

Modi-Key talks: New Zealand assures 'constructive' approach on India's NSG bid - ToI
India and New Zealand on Wednesday agreed to strengthen ties in key areas of trade, defence and security during talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Kiwi counterpart John Key, who also assured that his country will contribute "constructively" to the process currently underway in the NSG to consider India's membership.

After the "productive" talks between the two Prime Ministers, the two sides inked three pacts including one pertaining to Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and decided to establish Foreign Minister-level dialogue as well as exchanges on cyber issues.

Asserting that they had detailed and productive discussions on all aspects of the bilateral engagement and multilateral cooperation, Modi at a joint media event with Key said, "I am thankful to Prime Minister Key for New Zealand's constructive approach to the consideration of India's membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)."

There was no clear word of support on India's entry into 48-nation NSG from the visiting leader, who only said, "New Zealand would continue to contribute constructively to the process currently underway in the NSG to consider India's membership."

Noting that they had a "detailed" discussion on India's NSG bid, Key also said, "New Zealand is committed to working with NSG members to reach a decision as soon as possible."

New Zealand acknowledged the "importance to India of it joining the NSG", a joint statement issued after the talks said, adding that India stressed that this would provide the predictability necessary for meeting India's clean energy goals in the context of the Paris agreements.

New Zealand was one of the countries that took the stand at the last NSG plenary in South Korea in June that no exception can be made in the case of India, a non-NPT country
, while considering its membership bid of the elite group that regulates trade in nuclear material. At the plenary, despite strong US support, China had blocked India's bid on the ground that it was a not a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT).


This is by no means a positive news for India unless the NZ PM has given some personal assurance to Modi.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 31 Oct 2016 17:13

India, China hold 'constructive' talks on India's NSG bid - ToI
India and China today held "substantive and constructive" discussions on India's bid for NSG membership during the second round of talks between their top nuclear experts in Beijing.

Following the first such meeting in New Delhi on September 13, India and China continued their discussions on the NSG issue in Beijing today when JS (Disarmament and International Security) Amandeep Singh Gill met Director General of Department of Arms Control Wang Qun, sources said.
"The talks were substantive and constructive. The engagement will continue as per the directive of the leadership," sources said. {That means the talks made no progress at all}

During the talks, India once again asserted to the Chinese side that its implementation of Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) principles was "second to none".

Today's talks come ahead of a possible informal consultations in next two months on India's membership in a NSG panel, headed by Argentine ambassador Rafael Grossi.{These are last ditch efforts by India}


In the June Plenary of NSG in Seoul, despite strong American support, China stonewalled India's bid+ to get entry into the group on the grounds that it was a not a signatory to the NPT.

Wang, who was the chief negotiator for China in the South Korea meet, had told reporters that signing of the NPT "is a must", maintaining that the rule has not been set by China but by the international community.

Wang had also warned "if exceptions are allowed here or there on the question of NPT, the international non-proliferation regime will collapse altogether".

China has been maintaining 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.

China also 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. {This is Satan reciting the Bible. China would not accede to India joining the NSG.}

rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby rsingh » 31 Oct 2016 17:15

I am not hopeful. We have been there many times.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 31 Oct 2016 17:31

^ Absolutely. Besides, NZ is very lukewarm. The US is in the lame-duck President mode. The Chinese cannot be dissuaded by India.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 01 Nov 2016 20:26

China sticks to stance of not backing India's case for NSG - Saibal Dasgupta, ToI
China explicitly stated on Tuesday that it would not consider supporting India's case for entry into Nuclear Suppliers' Group until general rules for admitting other non-members are formulated.

Beijing prefers a set of general rules for countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) but seek to join the NSG.

Beijing is keen to see Pakistan, its close allay, joining the group if India makes it to the select club. This is why it would prefer to wait until situations are created that would enable Islamabad's entry into NSG, observers said.

"We will seek a solution that applies to all Non-NPT countries and then we will discuss the specific application of relevant non-NPT country," Hua Chunying, spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry said. "We are willing to keep communication and contact with India in this regard".

The statement came one day after talks were held between Joint Secretary (Disarmament and International Security) Amandeep Singh Gill and his Chinese counterpart Wang Qun. Hua indicated that Beijing has not changed its stance on the issue after discussions with Gill. She did not name Pakistan. After yesterday's talks, Indian and Chinese officials had described yesterday's talks as "substantive and constructive".

"On India's accession to the NSG, I can tell you that China's position is very clear and consistent. China attaches importance to the accession of non-Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) members into the NSG," Hua said.

"We will carry out relevant work based on the Seoul General Assembly and the inter-governmental process that is open and transparent," she said. "We will seek a solution that applies to all Non-NPT countries and then we will discuss the specific application of relevant non-NPT country," Hua said.

China had stonewalled India's bid at the June Plenary of the 48-member NSG in Seoul on the ground that it is not a signatory of NPT. New Delhi had obtained US support, however.

"We are willing to keep communication and contact with India in this regard," Hua said. China had taken a stand that India was not a signatory to the NPT which is necessary for entry of new members into the club which controls nuclear commerce. Monday's talks were the second round of dialogue between Indian and Chinese officials on India's admission into the NSG with the first round held in September.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 01 Nov 2016 20:28

As expected. Nothing surprising at all.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 13 Nov 2016 18:43

Many U.N. member states back India’s bid for permanent seat - PTI
[quote][/quot India’s bid for a permanent seat in a reformed United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has received a strong support from many member states of the world body, including the United Kingdom and France, which emphasised that the U.N.’s top unit must reflect the emergence of new global powers.

More than 50 speakers shared their suggestions, perspectives and concerns over reform of the 15-nation UNSC during a General Assembly session here last week.

Ditto with Brazil, Germany, Japan

“Many favoured bolstering representation for such emerging powers as Brazil, Germany, India and Japan. While some spotlighted the progress made in recent years through the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform process, others voiced deep frustration that more had not yet been achieved,” a summary of the November 7 meeting posted on the U.N. website said.

Among the large number of nations supporting a permanent seat for India and other emerging powers like Brazil and Germany were two veto-wielding permanent members of the Council — the United Kingdom and France.

U.K.’s Permanent Representative to the U.N. Ambassador Matthew Rycroft said at the session that Britain believed in a modest expansion in the permanent and non-permanent categories. The increase in membership should be such that it balanced representation with effectiveness.

Mr. Rycroft reiterated his country’s support for permanent seats for Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, alongside permanent African representation.

May discussed it with Modi

Referring to British Prime Minister Theresa May’s visit to India last week, her first bilateral trip outside Europe since taking office, Mr. Rycroft said she discussed “that very issue with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.”

“Our support is steadfast, and I look forward to working through all available avenues to reach the more representative and more effective Council that we seek,” he said.

France’s Deputy Permanent Representative Alexis Lamek said his country wished to see the Council reflect the emergence of new world powers, for which it supported the candidacies of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan and the increased representation of African countries in both the permanent and non-permanent membership.

‘No veto for mass atrocities’


The five permanent members should also refrain from using the veto in cases of mass atrocities, a commitment that France had already made, Mr. Lamek said.

German ambassador to the U.N. Harald Braun, speaking on behalf of the G4 Group of Brazil, India, Japan and Germany, said Council reform was an urgent matter, saying the Council must be rendered fit-for-purpose in order to face the current global challenges of peace and security. He added that all regions must be adequately represented to ensure legitimacy and effectiveness.

Akbaruddin slams Council

During the session, India’s Ambassador to the U.N. Syed Akbaruddin, in a stinging criticism of the Security Council, had said that the 15-nation body is “stuck in its own time warp and politics.”

He had also lamented the “never-ending carousel of discussions” on UNSC reforms saying “it is time to break the impasse” to urgently reform the U.N. body that “is unresponsive” to the current global situation. e]

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 15 Nov 2016 11:39

The Vienna plenary is over, but Indian media are totally silent.

We have only the following indirect information from China.

China insists on NPT for NSG entry - Atul Aneja, The Hindu
In a separate statement, the Foreign Ministry commented on the November 11 meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) in Vienna. The meeting, which discussed the two-step intergovernmental process to address the issue of non-NPT states’ participation, follows India’s bid to become a full member of the 48-nation NSG. China has so far opposed India’s membership, citing the need for common criteria for all non-members, including Pakistan.

The statement said the Vienna meeting was held to discuss the “technical, legal and political aspects of non-NPT states’ participation in the NSG,” in accordance with the mandate adopted in June during the grouping’s meeting in Seoul. The meeting was a maiden attempt since the NSG’s inception in 1975 to formally take up non-NPT states’ participation “in an open and transparent manner.”

However, the statement reiterated China’s insistence on linking NSG membership to the NPT — a formulation that rules out India’s membership. “China maintains that any formula [for membership] worked out should be non-discriminatory and applicable to all non-NPT states; without prejudice to the core value of the NSG and the effectiveness, authority and integrity of the international non-proliferation regime with the NPT as its cornerstone; and without contradicting the customary international law in the field of non-proliferation.”


India has underscored that NPT membership is not essential for joining the NSG, as was the case with France. Highly placed sources said that at the talks with the Chinese, India insisted that the NSG was not a non-proliferation, but an “export control,” mechanism. Therefore, India’s NSG bid should be de-linked from the criterion of NPT membership.

‘Good beginning’


The Foreign Ministry said: “The meeting marks a good beginning of the two-step inter-governmental process launched by the Group.” It added that the first step for membership was the evolution of a “formula,” which would be followed by a second step which would be “country-specific.”

“China supports the continuation of this open and transparent inter-governmental process, in accordance with the relevant rules of the Group, and to ensure a solid first step taken towards an early formula on the...issue so that the Group can proceed to the second step of taking up country-specific membership application by non-NPT states at an early date.”

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 19 Nov 2016 09:00

NSG membership for India seems unlikely this year - Suhasini Haidar, The Hindu
India’s hopes of a membership at the Nuclear Suppliers Group this year were virtually dashed after the NSG meeting in Vienna ended inconclusively, even as experts said the process would continue in 2017. India and the U.S. had been keen to make progress on the application before the end of President Barack Obama’s tenure, and senior State Department officials had expressed optimism that it would be done by “year-end.”

According to diplomatic sources, the meeting of the NSG Consultative group in Vienna on November 11 ended much like the Seoul plenary in June this year without making headway on India’s application for membership. However, China’s push for a two-step process, to first identify the criteria for non-signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as both India and Pakistan are, was considered by the 48-nation group.

On Friday, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Nafees Zakaria claimed the outcome was in line with its position, indicating that the decision had gone against India’s wishes. “At the November 11 meeting of the NSG, majority of the members supported a two-step process involving i) agreement on objective and non-discriminatory criteria and ii) consideration of applications membership for non-NPT states, the position that resonated Pakistan’s stance on the issue, vis-à-vis some of member countries’ desire to the contrary,” he said.

The Ministry of External Affairs declined to comment on the workings of the “closed-door” meeting of the NSG, which works by quiet consensus. However, an official said India would prefer to wait until “more details were known” while adding that it was impossible to comment on Pakistan’s statement as it “was not in the room” during the meeting.

India’s hopes of a membership had been raised after the Seoul meeting in June over the NSG chair’s decision to mandate Argentine diplomat Rafael Grossi with working on a consensus amongst members on India’s application. However, the “Grossi process” as it was called faltered after China refused to recognise it.

India, which has repeatedly called China the “one country” blocking its ambitions, then softened its stand, conducting two rounds of talks between China’s nuclear negotiator Wang Qun and India’s Joint Secretary for Disarmament Amandeep Singh Gill on September 13 and October 31. However, China is yet to yield on India’s appeal to treat it as a special case on the basis of its unblemished nuclear record and adherence to all nuclear safeguards.

China’s stance

In a statement on November 15, China’s Foreign Ministry said that “any formula [for membership] worked out should be non-discriminatory and applicable to all non-NPT states; without prejudice to core value of the NSG,” indicating its position had not changed.


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

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby svinayak » 19 Nov 2016 10:42

India’s hopes of a membership had been raised after the Seoul meeting in June over the NSG chair’s decision to mandate Argentine diplomat Rafael Grossi with working on a consensus amongst members on India’s application. However, the “Grossi process” as it was called faltered after China refused to recognise it.


Time to start the nuclear commerce group.

SSridhar wrote:
On Friday, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Nafees Zakaria claimed the outcome was in line with its position, indicating that the decision had gone against India’s wishes. “At the November 11 meeting of the NSG, majority of the members supported a two-step process involving i) agreement on objective and non-discriminatory criteria and ii) consideration of applications membership for non-NPT states, the position that resonated Pakistan’s stance on the issue, vis-à-vis some of member countries’ desire to the contrary,” he said.

Pakistan commenting on another country's issue. It has to look only for its country

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 19 Nov 2016 12:37

I am unable to understand it when somebody says that India's hopes were raised after the appointment of diplomat Rafael Grossi to try and work out a consensus regarding India. China is not going to allow this and they are quite firm. We have to understand that China is almost always inflexible and there is a strong reason for China to be so in this matter.

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

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby svinayak » 19 Nov 2016 12:48

SSridhar wrote:I am unable to understand it when somebody says that India's hopes were raised after the appointment of diplomat Rafael Grossi to try and work out a consensus regarding India. China is not going to allow this and they are quite firm. We have to understand that China is almost always inflexible and there is a strong reason for China to be so in this matter.

International system is very funny.

This NSG rules are not cast on stone. Large countries get lot of exceptions. Our Indian negotiators are still learning the game.
This game need lot of give and take, pushing and shoving.

China is only one member of this group and is trying to show it is the lead in this cartel.
China has no choice and it is not the sole leader of the cartel.

China is trying to prove two tigers cannot be on top of one mountain.
India will prove it wrong
“One Mountain Cannot Contain Two Tigers” literally means that in an area, there cannot be two very strong personality people leading. Just like in a mountain, there will only be one king, one leader. If there are 2 tigers (2 kings), you can be sure, they will fight it out. Either that or one of the tiger leaves that mountain.

O ya, there can be another outcome. It is where one of the tiger pretends to be ‘not-a-tiger’ for a while. This leads to the second part of another Chinese Idioms “Pretend to be a Pig, to eat the Tiger”.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 28 Dec 2016 20:08

DAWN reports an emerging new arrangement for India's inclusion in NSG.

Formula for new NSG members leaves Pakistan out: US group - DAWN
A draft proposal for accepting new members into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) paves the way for India’s entry but leaves Pakistan out, says a US-based arms control organisation.

The Arms Control Association (ACA), Washington, also warns that relaxing membership rules will undermine non-proliferation.

Last week, the US media reported that Rafael Mariano Grossi, a former chairman of the NSG, had prepared a two-page document, explaining how a non-NPT state, like India and Pakistan, could join the group. Mr Grossi was acting on behalf of the current chairman, Song Young-wan of South Korea, and his document enjoys a semi-official status.

To prevent India from blocking Pakistan from joining the NPT, Mr Grossi’s draft note proposes that “one non-NPT member state should reach an understanding not to block consensus on membership for another non-NPT member state”.


But ACA’s executive director, Daryl Kimball, warns that “Pakistan still has grounds to object to the formula outlined by Mr Grossi”. He explains that the document will require Pakistan to meet the same criteria for membership as India “but, to engage in civil nuclear trade with NSG states, it would have to win a separate NSG exemption from the full-scope safeguards requirement”.

The 48-nation NSG is a nuclear technology control organisation formed in 1975 in response to India’s first nuclear weapon test, which used plutonium produced with nuclear technology from Canada and the United States. The NSG seeks to prevent similar future misuses.

Current NSG membership rules require a state to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) before joining this exclusive club {Not true}. India remains one of only three countries, with Israel and Pakistan, never to have signed the NPT.

Earlier this year, India formally applied for membership and was followed by Pakistan. The United States, and a host of other powerful western nations, back India’s application, but China and half a dozen other nations are blocking India’s membership, which requires a consensus of all members.

India had hoped to join the group during NSG’s last plenary session, held in Seoul in June this year, but the meeting ended without taking any decision on New Delhi’s application.

Several countries expressed concerns over India’s entry because it had not yet signed the NPT. China led the efforts to block India’s membership.

After the plenary, the new chairman asked Mr Grossi to work out a proposal for admitting new members. The proposal he prepared also addressed the India-Pakistan dispute, acknowledging that both countries had “political reasons” for blocking each other’s membership.

But Mr Kimball points out that Grossi’s formula allows India to claim that it has already undertaken the steps necessary for membership, “which could then lead to a decision on membership for India, while still leaving Pakistan in a different status”.

The proposal requires a non-NPT state to declare that it has brought into force a clear and strict separation of current and future civilian nuclear facilities from non-civilian nuclear facilities and is willing to apply this principle to future facilities as well.

The new member also needs to assure NSG that it has provided and maintains a declaration to the IAEA that identifies all current and future civilian nuclear facilities.


The applicant also needs to assure NSG that it has enforced a safeguards agreement with the IAEA covering all declared civilian facilities and all future civilian facilities which the IAEA determines are eligible for safeguards.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 28 Dec 2016 20:18

In light of the above, please recall the IDSA paper posted here.

Sanatanan
BRFite
Posts: 475
Joined: 31 Dec 2006 09:29

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Sanatanan » 30 Dec 2016 10:43

On 28 Dec 2016 quoting a report published in DAWN, SSridhar wrote:

Current NSG membership rules require a state to sign the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) before joining this exclusive club {Not true}. India remains one of only three countries, with Israel and Pakistan, never to have signed the NPT.


In this connection:

(A)
IAEA INFCIRC/254/Rev.9/Part 2a Date: 13 November 2013
(http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1978/infcirc254r9p2.pdf) echoing Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines, NSG Part 2, June 2013
GUIDELINES FOR TRANSFERS OF NUCLEAR-RELATED DUAL-USE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, SOFTWARE, AND RELATED TECHNOLOGY (http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/images/Files/Updated_control_lists/Prague_2013/NSG_Part_2_Rev._9_clean.pdf) says under the para titled ESTABLISHMENT OF EXPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES:

4. Suppliers should have in place legal measures to ensure the effective implementation of the Guidelines, including export licensing regulations, enforcement measures, and penalties for violations. In considering whether to authorize transfers, suppliers should exercise prudence in order to carry out the Basic Principle and should take relevant factors into account, including:

(a) Whether the recipient state is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or to the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco), or to a similar international legally-binding nuclear non-proliferation agreement, and has an IAEA safeguards agreement in force applicable to all its peaceful nuclear activities;


(B)
Likewise, IAEA INFCIRC/254/Rev.12/Part 1a Date: 13 November 2013 (http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1978/infcirc254r12p1.pdf) echoing echoing Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines, NSG Part 1 June 2013 GIDELINES FOR NUCLEAR TRANSFERS (http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/images/Files/Updated_control_lists/Prague_2013/NSG_Part_1_Rev.12_clean.pdf) in the paragraph 4. (a) under "Safeguards" says:

4. (a) Suppliers should transfer trigger list items or related technology to a non-nuclear
weapon State only when the receiving State has brought into force an agreement with
the IAEA requiring the application of safeguards on all source and special fissionable
material in its current and future peaceful activities. Suppliers should authorize such
transfers only upon formal governmental assurances from the recipient that:

 if the above-mentioned agreement should be terminated the recipient will bring
into force an agreement with the IAEA based on existing IAEA model safeguards
agreements requiring the application of safeguards on all trigger list items or
related technology transferred by the supplier or processed, or produced or used in
connection with such transfers
; and

 if the IAEA decides that the application of IAEA safeguards is no longer possible,
the supplier and recipient should elaborate appropriate verification measures. If
the recipient does not accept these measures, it should allow at the request of the
supplier the restitution of transferred and derived trigger list items.

(b) Transfers covered by paragraph 4 (a) to a non-nuclear-weapon State without such a
safeguards agreement should be authorized only in exceptional cases when they are
deemed essential for the safe operation of existing facilities and if safeguards are
applied to those facilities. Suppliers should inform and, if appropriate, consult in the
event that they intend to authorize or to deny such transfers.

(c) The policy referred to in paragraph 4 (a) and 4 (b) does not apply to agreements or
contracts drawn up on or prior to April 3, 1992. In case of countries that have adhered
or will adhere to INFCIRC/254/Rev. 1/Part 1 later than April 3, 1992, the policy only
applies to agreements (to be) drawn up after their date of adherence.

(d) Under agreements to which the policy referred to in paragraph 4 (a) does not apply
(see paragraphs 4 (b) and (c)) suppliers should transfer trigger list items or related
technology only when covered by IAEA safeguards with duration and coverage
provisions in conformity with IAEA doc. GOV/1621. However, suppliers undertake to
strive for the earliest possible implementation of the policy referred to in paragraph 4
(a) under such agreements.

(e) Suppliers reserve the right to apply additional conditions of supply as a matter of
national policy.

I feel that perhaps the highlighted clause above highlighted in Red (by me) is to be interpreted to imply that a country (such as India), to be a recipient of nuclear items from any country, should have signed NPT as a NNWS with Full Scope Safeguards.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 30 Dec 2016 11:09

Sanatanan, it is for this reason that we have signed an agreement with IAEA dividing our nuclear installations as military & civilian with fullscope IAEA safeguards applicable to the latter and on that basis got an NSG waiver also fo nuclear commerce except enrichment facilities (which was an afterthought by the NSG)

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 30 Dec 2016 13:23

Pakistan rejects new formula for NSG membership - DAWN

It will now be China's turn to do so.

There are three groups in NSG as far as the debate regarding India's admission goes. One, which supports India, another which wants to have a well laid-out procedure for non-NPT countries and a third (China) which do not want India at all or want India & Pakistan to be jointly admitted (knowing fully well that it is a strict 'no go' with almost all members) It will be interesting to see how the second group reacts now. If they all agree that this is a workable solution, then China will get isolated. Can China influence still a few to remain with it? In that case, India has to deal harshly with those countries.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1209
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby schinnas » 30 Dec 2016 18:36

SSji,
I doubt China cares anymore about being isolated. Being the lone holdout for Azar's case in UN did not deter them from persisting with their stance. Compared to the terrorism tainted Azar, they can get preachy and claim to have the moral high ground in NSG. It all boils down to whether Chinese want to (or pressured enough by India and US to) support India in NSG. They price they may be asking for might be too high for us to agree.

China thinks they are a world by themselves and have stopped caring for world opinion when it comes to things they consider as strategic. The only area where they care for world opinion is in matters where there H&D is involved. They dont want to be appearing to back off from a hard stance and hence I don't expect a climb down by Cheen in NSG. In fact, if India succeeds in isolating China in NSG, it will only harden their stance as they would loathe to appear weak and brow-beaten by India. Chinese would ask themselves has anything changed in terms of fundamental reasons as to why they want to deny India NSG membership? If the answer is no, then they would not change their stance. They, in their mind have crossed the rubicon where they felt the need to make pretense about friendship with India. With CPEC, India China opposition is out in the open. They dont feel a need to play nice and don't think India has enough leverage over them to make them change their stance.

rgosain
BRFite
Posts: 299
Joined: 10 Jan 2003 12:31

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby rgosain » 30 Dec 2016 18:58

schinnas wrote:SSji,
I doubt China cares anymore about being isolated. Being the lone holdout for Azar's case in UN did not deter them from persisting with their stance. Compared to the terrorism tainted Azar, they can get preachy and claim to have the moral high ground in NSG. It all boils down to whether Chinese want to (or pressured enough by India and US to) support India in NSG. They price they may be asking for might be too high for us to agree.

China thinks they are a world by themselves and have stopped caring for world opinion when it comes to things they consider as strategic. The only area where they care for world opinion is in matters where there H&D is involved. They dont want to be appearing to back off from a hard stance and hence I don't expect a climb down by Cheen in NSG. In fact, if India succeeds in isolating China in NSG, it will only harden their stance as they would loathe to appear weak and brow-beaten by India. Chinese would ask themselves has anything changed in terms of fundamental reasons as to why they want to deny India NSG membership? If the answer is no, then they would not change their stance. They, in their mind have crossed the rubicon where they felt the need to make pretense about friendship with India. With CPEC, India China opposition is out in the open. They dont feel a need to play nice and don't think India has enough leverage over them to make them change their stance.


I would second this view and add, that taken together, the Masood stance together with the PRC's role at the NSG, seems to be testing the waters as to how the US and some P5 members would react to China's antics. If there is nothing but studious silence, then, China maybe tempted to teach India a lesson in the coming year, as the diplomatic and military advantage is in its favour at the moment.
One way out of this would be to dissolve the NSG and create a new grouping based on the original IAEA membership.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1209
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby schinnas » 30 Dec 2016 19:35

rgosain wrote:One way out of this would be to dissolve the NSG and create a new grouping based on the original IAEA membership.


Hope I don't go OT too much. That is possible but US would not do it just for India. US would need to do it in order to assert its influence and stop the fast declining of its power perception. I hope Trump admin has the balls and the vision to rein in China. Sooner or later China will want to teach a lesson to one of its neighbors who still remains independent. India, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan are the only hold outs. Of all these countries, US is treaty bound to assist Japan and So. Korea. There is nothing really strategic for China to achieve by picking a fight with Vietnam other than sending a message to others. However, with India there are strategic gains for China to realize by instigating a fight and subduing India. They can also fight a war with India to the last Paki.

India cannot fail against China as it is the most capable bastion against China in Asia. NSG inclusion should be viewed as one part of a grand strategy of containing and reversing China's hegemonic designs. This calls for a multi-pronged approach. In addition to NSG,US needs to co-opt India into win-win trade agreements with other friendlies such as Japan, S.Ko, Vietnam, Phillipines, etc. That would help move manufacturing out of China into India, US, Vietnam and Phillipines. Every billion reduced in its trade surplus is that much money China cannot spend against US or India or Japan. This also requires US to conserve resource it is squandering away in meaningless rivalry with Russia. US needs to co-opt Russia and form a partnership with them to gain its influence back in eastern europe, west asia and CAS republics. That can also help shut the Afghanistan door to China.

The time window is closing fast. If US follows a reproachment with Russia and manages to shut down Afghanistan, West Asia and CAS to China, I expect India-China theatre to heat up. Gwadar port and road/rail connection to CAS and Afghanistan is imperative for China for this reason. The timeline would be around 2019 / 2020 when there is change of government in India.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21335
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby SSridhar » 30 Dec 2016 20:44

schinnas, China doesn't care because of two reasons. It knows that India's non-admission into NSG is a non-event for the other countries. Nobody is going to pick up a fight with it over this issue. Secondly, it thinks that India has not much leverage against it. The only leverage is trade restrictions and it might feel that it could drag us to WTO. It might also feel that India might chicken out. It always had scant respect for us anyway and expressed it openly as well.

The latest defiance after the PCA verdict under UNCLOS and the eventual submission of the victorious Philippines to Chinese presure and blandishments adds to its confidence. The famed ASEAN unity stands unravelled in this issue, and has been so for quite a few years now with Laos & Cambodia acting as China's saboteurs.

In spite of all that, China must be isolated for whatever it is because the laundry list of its criminality *MUST* add up against it.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Guddu » 30 Dec 2016 21:20

I think India can cause pain to China on their investment in CPEC. Make it very difficult to build anything and then not allow passage thro POK. The next time there is a terror strike in India, a few bombs should go awry and hit the Karakoram highway.

Guddu
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 06:22

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Guddu » 30 Dec 2016 21:20

del dupl

Varoon Shekhar
BRFite
Posts: 1581
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 31 Dec 2016 00:01

"schinnas, China doesn't care because of two reasons. It knows that India's non-admission into NSG is a non-event for the other countries. Nobody is going to pick up a fight with it over this issue. Secondly, it thinks that India has not much leverage against it. The only leverage is trade restrictions and it might feel that it could drag us to WTO. It might also feel that India might chicken out. It always had scant respect for us anyway and expressed it openly as well."

India has to cite ultimate national interest in these 'disputes', and expect that its economic interests in China will face more or less the same sanctions, which is fine. India should sniff at China if China doesn't respect India. Also, this 'scant respect', is largely contrived. China does watch what India is doing, comments on it, then tries to match or surpass it. There are several examples that come to mind: the Antarctica expedition, where India reached there first, and China soon after sent a team of its own; India's moon mission, where China scrambled to get to the moon first, after India's mission was first announced; India's presence and achievements in IT, where China started competing soon after India became established; the zealotry to learn English to partly counter India's advantage in this sphere; wind energy, where India was the first in Asia, but where China later became the largest wind power producer; granite processing; IIT like institutes; anti-piracy activities in the Gulf; economic presence in Afghanistan; going for a Mars Mission which China says will be better than India's; developing a long range solid fueled missile which it claims will be superior to Agni-5, and so on.

India is obviously not minor in China's eyes! China is not trying to match/surpass Somalia or Papua New Guinea.

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

Re: Tracking India's Admission into International Groups

Postby shashankk » 31 Dec 2016 00:15

India is still not responding to China in way china would have done to any country when it was not an economic powerhouse.
We are too cautious in our approach. If China openly defies our security and sovereignty concern why we are not trying to improve our relationship with Myanmar. An open visit or a symbolic diplomatic contact would be more than enough to send message across. Brahmos sale to Vietnam is yet to see day light. What can china do if we grant citizenship to some Uighar seperatist? We must increase the price for China in this battle.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: anupmisra, Google [Bot], neerajb, srin, Supratik and 37 guests