Setback for India as consensus eludes NSG meeting

[Devil Soul]

Setback for India as consensus eludes NSG meeting
BAQIR SAJJAD SYED — UPDATED about 2 hours ago
WHATSAPP
28 COMMENTS
PRINT
ISLAMABAD: In what may be called a major setback for Indian ambitions to join the nuclear trade cartel, consensus continued to elude the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) at its last meeting in Vienna held for considering admission of non-NPT countries.

Although last week’s meeting was meant to discuss the technical, legal and political matters relating to non-NPT members’ (India and Pakistan) accession to the NSG, the Indian case took the spotlight because of US pressure for getting India into the group before the end of the year.

The extraordinary plenary session of the 48-member group that regulates international nuclear commerce had been specially convened for this purpose.

At least 12 NSG members at the meeting called for a criteria-based approach. These included China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Italy, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Belgium, Brazil and Russia, according to a source aware of the proceedings at the Vienna plenary.

India has been blaming Beijing for being the chief blocker.

At the meeting, China maintained that any formula 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.

China told the NSG members that it was ready to work with all parties to promote early progress by the group in this regard, according to a Chinese statement.

The source claimed that there was growing support for developing criteria for non-NPT states and the Chinese proposal for a two-step approach for new admissions which involved developing criteria in the first stage and then inviting applications for membership.

The source said the development was not surprising because the mood of the NSG members before the meeting had clearly pointed towards the continuing stalemate.

It was the second time in a year that an NSG plenary ended without an agreement on the question of membership of non-NPT states.

The Seoul meeting held in June this year had, after failing to achieve consensus, decided to continue deliberations on the “technical, legal and political aspects of the participation of non-NPT states”. The NSG chair had then appointed Ambassador Rafael Grossi as facilitator for negotiations among the member countries on the issue.

Mr Grossi submitted his recommendations at the plenary session, which were allegedly tailored to support the Indian candidature. The participating countries differed sharply with his proposals.

Since the cartel works through consensus, the suggested formula could not be adopted.

Pakistan, which is also a candidate for the NSG membership, feels encouraged by the increasing support for well-defined and neutral membership criteria for non-NPT candidates.

“The position taken by a greater number of members suits us,” a Pakistani official said.

From Pakistan’s perspective it was a progress given that earlier India was presented as a candidate ready for entry because of the waiver granted to it in 2008.

Published in Dawn November 17th, 2016


WHATSAPP
28 COMMENTS
PRINT

 

[abrar khan]

ISLAMABAD: In what may be called a major setback for Indian ambitions to join the nuclear trade cartel, consensus continued to elude the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) at its last meeting in Vienna held for considering admission of non-NPT countries.

Although last week’s meeting was meant to discuss the technical, legal and political matters relating to non-NPT members’ (India and Pakistan) accession to the NSG, the Indian case took the spotlight because of US pressure for getting India into the group before the end of the year.

The extraordinary plenary session of the 48-member group that regulates international nuclear commerce had been specially convened for this purpose.

At least 12 NSG members at the meeting called for a criteria-based approach. These included China, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Italy, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Belgium, Brazil and Russia, according to a source aware of the proceedings at the Vienna plenary.

India has been blaming Beijing for being the chief blocker.

At the meeting, China maintained that any formula 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.

China told the NSG members that it was ready to work with all parties to promote early progress by the group in this regard, according to a Chinese statement.

The source claimed that there was growing support for developing criteria for non-NPT states and the Chinese proposal for a two-step approach for new admissions which involved developing criteria in the first stage and then inviting applications for membership.

The source said the development was not surprising because the mood of the NSG members before the meeting had clearly pointed towards the continuing stalemate.

It was the second time in a year that an NSG plenary ended without an agreement on the question of membership of non-NPT states.

The Seoul meeting held in June this year had, after failing to achieve consensus, decided to continue deliberations on the “technical, legal and political aspects of the participation of non-NPT states”. The NSG chair had then appointed Ambassador Rafael Grossi as facilitator for negotiations among the member countries on the issue.

Mr Grossi submitted his recommendations at the plenary session, which were allegedly tailored to support the Indian candidature. The participating countries differed sharply with his proposals.

Since the cartel works through consensus, the suggested formula could not be adopted.

Pakistan, which is also a candidate for the NSG membership, feels encouraged by the increasing support for well-defined and neutral membership criteria for non-NPT candidates.

“The position taken by a greater number of members suits us,” a Pakistani official said.

From Pakistan’s perspective it was a progress given that earlier India was presented as a candidate ready for entry because of the waiver granted to it in 2008.

Published in Dawn November 17th, 2016

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

At least this forum is no longer being overrun with claims that India will soon become an NSG and UNSC permanent member, and no one can stop them.

It took a decade but at least reality has finally begun to take hold.

Or maybe they finally realised what veto power means.

 

[Meengla]

At least this forum is no longer being overrun with claims that India will soon become an NSG and UNSC permanent member, and no one can stop them.

It took a decade but at least reality has finally begun to take hold.

Or maybe they finally realised what veto power means.

Yes. All the sugar coating aside, China and India are strategic competitors much like USSR and USA were for decades. Now, there's shouldn't be any question about the rivalry, though China, being the beneficiary of the trade, would rather not to be too obvious in the rivalry.

These two countries could have and should have settled their border disputes way back in the 50s in the larger strategic context.

 

[navtrek]

At least this forum is no longer being overrun with claims that India will soon become an NSG and UNSC permanent member, and no one can stop them.

It took a decade but at least reality has finally begun to take hold.

Or maybe they finally realised what veto power means.

China will have to finally give way there is no point in blocking India. Am sure we will come up with a non discriminatory framework. We have no issues with Pakistan being in NSG.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Ok Ok.. published by DAWN::::

Your own media is printing exactly the same story. Check the news.

These two countries could have and should have settled their border disputes way back in the 50s in the larger strategic context.

In 1960 Zhou Enlai offered to recognise India's claim on AP, if they recognised China's claim on Aksai Chin. Basically turning the LoC into an international border.

Nehru's response was to start a war against China (which he lost). They have never shown interest in any kind of border deal.

 

[Meengla]

In 1960 Zhou Enlai offered to recognise India's claim on AP, if they recognised China's claim on Aksai Chin. Basically turning the LoC into an international border.

Nehru's response was to start a war against China (which he lost). They have never shown interest in any kind of border deal.

Yes, my understanding of the 1962 China-India war is that Nehru got too cocky, presumably, because of the anti-communist Western sentiments of those days. Plain and simple: The 1962 China-India war was India's hubris.

 

[Fireurimagination]

At least this forum is no longer being overrun with claims that India will soon become an NSG and UNSC permanent member, and no one can stop them.

It took a decade but at least reality has finally begun to take hold.

Or maybe they finally realised what veto power means.

It may take time but we will get there eventually. Much will depend upon the stand the new US administration will take, If they are hell bent on getting India in we will maybe not immediately then sometimes in 2017, In the meantime we have signed nuclear deal with Japan and we will keep on pursuing that. Countries that are blocking our candidature will be losers of business worth millions of dollars

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

At least this forum is no longer being overrun with claims that India will soon become an NSG and UNSC permanent member, and no one can stop them.

It took a decade but at least reality has finally begun to take hold.

Or maybe they finally realised what veto power means.

I guess I spoke too soon:

China will have to finally give way there is no point in blocking India. Am sure we will come up with a non discriminatory framework. We have no issues with Pakistan being in NSG.

It may take time but we will get there eventually. Much will depend upon the stand the new US administration will take, If they are hell bent on getting India in we will maybe not immediately then sometimes in 2017, In the meantime we have signed nuclear deal with Japan and we will keep on pursuing that. Countries that are blocking our candidature will be losers of business worth millions of dollars

 

[Fireurimagination]

I guess I spoke too soon:

Your government is having a dialogue with India on the issue, do you believe they have plenty of free and useless time to waste and are just doing time pass?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Your government is having a dialogue with India on the issue, do you believe they have plenty of free and useless time to waste and are just doing time pass?

China's official position is that India cannot enter the NSG unless Pakistan does as well.

Doesn't matter even if India already sold their sovereignty to the US military by signing the LEMOA. That's not enough to get you the NSG seat, as you have found out 2 times already.

 

[ito]

At least this forum is no longer being overrun with claims that India will soon become an NSG and UNSC permanent member, and no one can stop them.

It took a decade but at least reality has finally begun to take hold.

Or maybe they finally realised what veto power means.

China can use that India is not a signatory to NPT to deny NSG membership, but there is no excuse for India to deny UNSC membership. Anyway, when India can get all the nuclear technology from Japan, US and France, NSG membership doesn't make any difference.

 

[Fireurimagination]

China's official position is that India cannot enter the NSG unless Pakistan does as well.

Doesn't matter even if India already sold their sovereignty to the US military by signing the LEMOA. That's not enough to get you the NSG seat, as you have found out 2 times already.

That is not China's official position, your official position is let's have some criteria based approach cr@p. Also if that is the official position then why are they having a dialogue on the issue with India?

 

[ito]

China's official position is that India cannot enter the NSG unless Pakistan does as well.

Doesn't matter even if India already sold their sovereignty to the US military by signing the LEMOA. That's not enough to get you the NSG seat, as you have found out 2 times already. Because we have veto power, and one veto is all it ever takes.

That is not the official position of China. China official position says signing NPT is a requirement for NSG.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

That is not China's official position, your official position is let's have some criteria based approach cr@p. Also if that is the official position then why are they having a dialogue on the issue with India?

Dialogue is your proof now?

You guys were so confident you were going to get the NSG seat after you sold your sovereignty to America.

But what happened? Do you understand what veto power means?

Keep getting disappointed again and again. Until you open a dictionary and understand what veto means.