Connect with us

South Asia

China, others oppose India’s bid for Nuclear Suppliers Group

Published

on

The 48-nation the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) aims to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons by restricting the sale of items that can be used to make those arms.

India aims at membership into 48-nation NSG. This membership will make path for India to achieve high-end technology and also shape its engagement with nuclear proliferation group, which can positively impact India’s bid to join elite Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) club. The other foreign policy objective of getting entry into the UN veto powers’ club, also called P5 plus one, has not made any progress as there is no support from the present UNSC-5 plus Germany,, notwithstanding applying all sorts of pressures directly and through other leaders who visited India on official tours. .

A membership into the important nuclear group NSG will open wide-array of nuclear possibilities for India. India can get help from global markets to set up nuclear power plants. Apart from giving India the knowledge of state-of-art technology, it can also solve the problem of nation’s energy crisis. Under this membership, India can also commercialize the production of nuclear power equipment. This in turn will boost innovation and high tech manufacturing and can bring India into level-playing field with its dragon neighbour. Most importantly India’s access to advanced nuclear technologies will help it export power generators to other emerging economies.

China’s military modernization, capacity-building, infrastructure development in Tibet, and moves into the Indian Ocean pose serious challenges to India’s security. The alleged ‘String of Pearls’, an attempt to bring peripheral states into its circle of influence, only adds to India’s geopolitical concerns. According to Pentagon’s 2016 China military report, China is aggressively pursuing military modernisation. China increased its defence budget by 7.6 per cent to $146 billion for FY17, citing militarization of the Asia-Pacific, especially the disputed South China Sea, and deepening tensions with the US. This is almost four times that of India’s outlay.

India on the other hand, seeking to be a super power, is grappling to make available to its armed forces cutting-edge mobility, weapons and equipment. In order to overtake China and USA and Russia, military specialists argue that making India self-reliant in production of its military requirements is the need of the hour and the Modi government should give more funds for upgrading military equipment.

As India is eager to be seen as a big power and an ally of super power and to join the main club of countries controlling access to sensitive nuclear technology, China is leading opposition to a push by the United States (US) and other major powers for pushing Indian case without substance.

Backed by USA, India says it already enjoys most of the benefits of membership under a 2008 exemption to NSG rules granted to support its nuclear cooperation deal with Washington, even though India has developed atomic weapons and never signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the main global arms control pact.

China is leading opposition to a push by the United States and other major powers for India to join the main club of countries controlling access to sensitive nuclear technology, diplomats said as the group discussed India’s membership bid. Other countries opposing Indian membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) include New Zealand, Ireland, Turkey, South Africa and Austria, they said. They argue that granting it membership would further undermine efforts to prevent proliferation. It would also infuriate India’s rival Pakistan, which responded to India’s membership bid with one of its own and has the backing of its close ally China. By bringing India on board, it’s a slap in the face of the entire non-proliferation regime,” a diplomatic source from one of a handful of countries resisting India’s push said on condition of anonymity.

A decision on Indian membership is not expected before an NSG plenary meeting in Seoul on June 20, but diplomats said Washington, delicately pushed by New Delhi by buying huge terror equipment from Washington, had been pressuring hold-outs, and the closed-door meeting was a chance to see how strong opposition is. In order to show how much USA cares for Indian money bags and ‘regional stability’, US Secretary John Kerry wrote to members asking them “not to block consensus on Indian admission to the NSG”.

A UN veto member China, however, showed no sign of backing down from its opposition to India joining unless Pakistan becomes a member. “China, if anything, is hardening its position,” another diplomat said.

Indian Modi has been touring many countries to shore p support for its entry into NSG. Most of the hold-outs oppose the idea of admitting a non-NPT state such as India and argue that if it is to be admitted, it should be under criteria that apply equally to all states rather than under a “tailor-made” solution for a new US ally.

In a move aimed at garnering Beijing’s support for entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), India has ‘smartly’ removed conference visas for Chinese participants from the prior referral category. China has, on several occasions, pressed India for lifting restrictions on conference and research visas.

In line with the decision taken last year during Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh’s visit to China, India has further liberalised the visa regime for Chinese citizens. India has already rolled out electronic tourist visa-on-arrival facility for Chinese and more recently, removed the need for prior approval for conference visas.

The timing of the move is being seen as an attempt to soften the atmosphere in the run-up to the meetings of the NSG in Vienna. “Not all categories of visas for Chinese have been removed from the restricted category. The relaxation is only for conference visas as it was a major hindrance for the Chinese to come here and share technological advancements and strategies, but India had to do that to appease China. Conference visas are issued for seminars, workshops and conferences organised by government departments, Union ministries, public sector undertakings, central educational institutions or public funded universities.

Earlier, China was bracketed with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, foreigners of Pakistani origin and stateless persons under the restricted category, requiring prior security clearance from the Indian intelligence agencies for obtaining a visa. However, Beijing is yet to reciprocate to New Delhi demand for a similar arrangement for its citizens.

China, however, has made it clear there is not chance for India to be in the NSG. China knows well that USA is playing the usual tricks on the Indian case for NSG. Interestinlgy, India also is well aware of the emerging situation which is not in its favor but all that it wants is an open declaration of support of USA on India cases. India’s major concern in fact is not UN veto or NSG but keeping neighboring Jammu Kashmir under its brutal control and it seeks US support to deny Pakistan any chance to take over India occupied Jammu Kashmir.

USA, China and Russia also know that. Even Pakistan, which also occupies a part of Jammu Kashmir, too is well versed with the topic.

All the money that travels regularly from New Delhi to Washington is essentially meant to appease the Uncle Sam to support Indian case for Kashmir.

Meanwhile, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to have assumed the duty of spokesperson for Obama and USA as he declared that USA has decided to isolate those who support terrorism. Modi added that India and the United States should work together more closely to defeat terrorism and head off regional instability.

BJP led by PM Modi thrives in India on the themes like Pakistan and Muslims that got the Hindu vote banks to their services to make it the ruling party of India. As routine rhetoric, Modi while in USA called Pakistan a terror state, though indirectly. While the Indian leader did not mention Pakistan by name, he urged US lawmakers to help isolate those who support terrorism that is ‘incubated in India’s neighborhood’. And, while he did not address China’s maritime territorial ambitions, Modi said a US-India partnership would ‘help ensure security of the sea lanes of commerce and freedom of navigation’. Modi made the remarks in an address to a joint session of the US Congress during a visit to Washington designed to build on improved ties between the world’s two largest democracies.

Once effectively banned from the United States because of his alleged role in anti-Muslim riots before coming to national office, Modi has built a rapport with US President Barack Obama. Now, with Obama’s final term coming to an end in seven months, the two partners are keen to secure support for India’s civil nuclear program and build an enduring great power partnership.

Modi was keen to play up for his Washington audience the more than $10 billion India has spent on US weaponry in the past five years. However, China is a major stumbling block to country’s NSG dreams. Backing Pakistan’s membership bid, China asserts that India is not qualified to join the nuclear group, as the latter has not signed NPT.

Pakistan has also expressed concern over growing strategic ties between India and the US, a day after the two countries signed a number of agreements for security cooperation during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s regular visit to the USA. Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz said the US approaches Pakistan whenever it needs it and abandons when it does not need the country. “We firmly conveyed it to the US that maintaining effective nuclear deterrence is critical for Pakistan’s security and only Pakistan itself can determine how it should respond to growing strategic imbalance in South Asia,” he said. “Pakistan will convey its concerns to the US over the latest issues in the bilateral ties,” Aziz. A high-level meeting is scheduled to take place between Pakistan and the US officials on Friday in Islamabad.

Aziz also said Pakistan has decided to take up the issue of Kulbhushan Jadhav, alleged Indian spy arrested in Balochistan, with the UN and other international forums. He said the statement made by Director General of National Investigation Agency (NIA) that no evidence linked Pakistan to the January 2 Pathankot attack in Punjab has vindicated Pakistan’s position in attack probe.

The developing Indo-US military relationship is seen as the only a foreign policy ‘success’ for the Obama government. The two countries have finalized various agreements that would make it possible for their militaries to cooperate more closely in the future. Under one such agreement, an American company will build six nuclear reactors in India.

Washington also says it views India as an important part of it’s re-balance to Asia and as a counterweight to China and Russian influence in Mideast.

The destabilization of Pakistan as an Islamic state due to NATO war in and around and the consequent fall of US-Pakistan relations make India happy. The perpetually oscillating Pakistan-US relationship is once again at low as reflected by the congressional restriction on financing of F-16 fighters’ sale from Foreign Military Financing programme, because of which Pakistan lost the opportunity to buy the jets. Washington, however, gets things ‘done’ in Islamabad as it seeks very easily as there is only a puppet regime there. The relationship was further strained when the US carried out a drone strike in Balochistan, killing Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour. Pakistan termed it as a violation of the country’s sovereignty.

After causing instability in South Asia by invading an Islamizing Afghanistan on the pretext of Sept-11 hoax, US rulers are talking about stability in the region. Funny guys!

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Into the Sea: Nepal in International Waters

Sisir Devkota

Published

on

A visit to the only dry port of Nepal will immediately captivate busy scenes with hundreds of trucks, some railway carriages and huge Maersk containers at play. Trains from the Port of Kolkata in India carry tons of Nepal’s exports every week. Every year, Nepal is fined millions of rupees for overstaying its containers at the designated dock in Haldiya Port of Kolkata. Nepal pays for spaces inside Indian ships to carry out its exports via the sea. This is the closest Nepal has come in exploiting economic opportunities through sea waters. Prime Minister KP Oli went one step further and presented an idea of steering Nepal’s own fleets in the vast international sea space. While his idea of Nepal affording its own ship was mocked; on the contrary, he was right. The idea is practical but herculean.

To start with, Nepal has a landlocked right to use international waters via a third country for economic purposes only. Law of the Sea conferences held during the 80’s, guarantees Nepal’s right to use the exclusive economic zone all around the globe. Article 69 of the Law of the Sea convention states that Nepal could both use sea as a trading route and exploit the exclusive economic zone of its sea facing neighbors. Nepal’s closest neighbor, India has a wide exclusive economic zone which consists of 7500 km long coastline. The article also allows landlocked nations to use docking facilities of the nearest coastal nation to run its fleets. An exclusive economic zone in sea waters is designated after a coastal nation’s eleven mile parallel water boundary ends; which is also a part of the coastal nations territory. Simply put, Nepali fleets can dock at India’s port, sail eleven miles further into international waters-carry out fishing and other activities, sail back to the Indian coast and transfer its catches back to Nepal.

Floating Challenges

Before ships can carry the triangular flag into sea waters, Nepal will need treaties in place to use coastal nation’s water to take off and build shipment facilities. Law of the Sea convention clearly mentions that the right to use another nation’s coast will depend solely on the will of the hosting coastal nation. Does Nepal have the political will to communicate and forge a comprehensive sea transit agreement with its coastal neighbors? Nepal’s chance of securing fleets in and around the Indian Ocean will depend on whether it can convince nations like India of mutual benefits and cancel any apprehension regarding its security that might be compromised via Nepal’s sea activity. The convention itself is one among the most controversial international agreements where deteriorating marine ecosystems, sovereignty issues and maritime crimes are at its core. Majority of global and environmental problems persist in the high seas; ranging from territorial acquisitions to resource drilling offences. Nepal is welcome into the high seas, but does it comprehend the sensitivity that clouts sea horizons? Nepal needs a diplomatic strategy, but lacking experience, Nepal will need to develop institutional capacities to materialize the oceanic dream. Secondly, the cost of operating such a national project will be dreadfully expensive. Does the Nepali treasury boast finances for a leapfrogging adventure?

How is it possible?

The good news is that many landlocked nations operate in international waters. Switzerland, as an example might not assure the Nepali case, but Ethiopia exercising its sea rights via Djibouti’s port could be inspiring. Before Nepal can start ordering its fleets, it will need to design its own political and diplomatic strategy. Nepal’s best rationale would lie in working together with its neighbors. The South Asian network of nations could finally come into use. Along with Nepal, Bhutan is another landlocked nation where possible alliances await. If India’s coasts are unapproachable, Nepal and Bhutan could vie for Bangladeshi coastlines to experience sea trading. Maldivian and Pakistani waters are geographically and economically inaccessible but Sri Lanka lies deep down the South Asian continent. If Nepal and Bhutan can satisfy Sri Lankan interests, the landlocked union could not only skim through thousands of nautical miles around the Bay of Bengal without entering Indian water space; but also neutralize the hegemonic status of India in the region. If such a multinational agreement can be sought; SAARC- the passive regional body will not only gain political prowess but other areas of regional development will also kickstart.

Most importantly, a transit route (such as the Rohanpur-Singhdabad transit route) from Bangladesh to Nepal and Bhutan will need to be constructed well before ships start running in the Indian Ocean. In doing so, Nepal will not only tranquilize Nepal-Bhutan relations but also exercise leadership role in South Asia. A regional agreement will flourish trade but will also make landlocked Nepal’s agenda of sailing through other regions of international sea strong and plausible. A landlocked union with Bhutan will trim the costs than that of which Nepal will be spending alone. Such regional compliance would also encourage international financial institutions to fund Nepal’s sea project. Apart from political leverages, Nepal’s economy would scale new heights with decreasing price of paramount goods and services. Flourishing exports and increased tourism opportunities would be Nepal’s grandiloquence. Nepal’s main challenge lies in assuring its neighbors on how its idea would be mutually beneficial. Nepal’s work starts here. Nepal needs to put together a cunning diplomatic show.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hug Diplomacy Fails

Published

on

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s enthusiasm is only to capture power; the same, however, cannot be said of foreign policy administration, especially in dealing with our immediate neighbors, and China. The best examples of his policy paralysis are the way in which demonetization and GSTs are implemented, or his sudden visit to Pakistan in December 2015. He is always in election mode. During the first two years, he was in the humor of a general election victory. Thereafter, he has spent much of his energy in establishing himself as the sole savior of the BJP in state elections, and this year he will turn his attention to the 2019 general elections.

Two years ago, without doing any homework or planning, Modi travelled to Pakistan from Afghanistan to greet his counterpart, the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, to wish him well on his birthday. He hugged Sharif and spent only two hours with him to try to sort out the 70 year outstanding divergence between India and Pakistan.

Modi strategically hugs fellow world leaders. He has no strategic perception. He believes only in the power of his personal charisma in dealing with foreign policy matters. This strategy has failed considerably with China and with our other immediate neighbors, but he neither intends to accept these mistakes, nor is he interested in learning from them. More importantly, an alternative diplomatic strategy is necessary to maintain our international position; through prudent policy articulations. Let us examine the impact of his hug diplomacy.

During the 2013/14 general elections campaign he attacked the Congress-led UPA government on multiple fronts, including towards former Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh’s policy on Pakistan. He proposed that the BJP government would have more guts to better deal with Pakistan. Under his administration, we lost numerous soldiers in fighting with Pakistan terrorists, experienced a 100-day shutdown in Kashmir, blindly allowed a Pakistan team to inspect our Pathankot Air Force Station, and generally continued down a visionless path in foreign policy. These indicate that Modi’s defensive and offensive strokes against Pakistan have failed completely, including the most politicized ‘surgical strike’ that did not contain the terrorists from Pakistan. Today, the Modi government is searching for policy directions in handling Pakistan, but sat in a corner like a lame duck.

In the beginning, when he took office, Modi perhaps believed that ‘everything is possible’ in international affairs simply by virtue of occupying the prime minister seat. Further, he thought that all his visits abroad would bring a breakthrough. His hugs with counterparts, various costume changes, and the serving of tea, indicate that our prime minister is using soft power approaches. These approaches were used by our first Prime Minister Nehru whilst India did not have a strong military or economy. However, India is not today what it was in the 1950/60s. Presently, hugging and changing costumes will not necessarily keep India influential in international relations, especially at a time when the world is undergoing multi-polar disorder. However, he is in continuous denial that his paths are wrong, especially in dealing with our neighbors.

What is the BJP led-NDA government policy on Pakistan? Does this government have any policy for Pakistan? Since 2014,Modi has not permitted the Minister of External Affairs, Sushma Swaraj, to contribute to any foreign policy articulations. As long as Sushma fulfills the duty of Ministry of Indian Overseas Affairs she will receive praise from the prime minister’s office.

During 2015 he met Sharif at his residence in Islamabad to give him a hug. This happened exactly two years ago. Further, this is a very serious question that the Media and Modi-supporting TV channels forgot to raise. Instead, without hesitation, they praised him for touching the sky, and described the moment as a diplomatic initiative for a breakthrough with our neighbor Pakistan. The Media will realize this mistake when their traditional viewers switch over to other channels to get centrist news.

What are the outcomes of Modi hugging Sharif at his residence? The results are terrible. India’s relation with Pakistan touches the lowest ever level in a history of 70 years. The Mumbai terror attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed was released from house arrest and has started a political party to contest the general elections in Pakistan next year. This government does not have the guts to put pressure on Pakistan to provide the evidence – as requested by the Pakistan’s Court – essential to keeping the trial alive against Saeed. Modi has often preached that his government succeeded in isolating Pakistan in the international domain. The reality would be as much India diplomatically isolating Pakistan from the international community as the vacuum has been comfortably filled by China without any difficulty. These are the achievements that Modi’s hugs have brought to India.

The stability of Afghanistan is in India’s long-term strategic interest. India’s ‘aid diplomacy’ to Afghanistan in various fields has been increasing day after day, including infrastructure development and the training of Afghan security forces. Yet, India’s influence in Afghanistan is in disarray. Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said, “India should have its own policy on Afghanistan”. However, Modi’s policy makers in New Delhi are expecting the US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to maintain India’s active and significant role in Afghanistan.

India showed its displeasure during the constitutional crisis in Nepal, in halting energy supply to Kathmandu. This forced the land-locked country to obtain easy support from Beijing. Nepal was once the buffer state between India and China; it is now sitting on China’s lap and steering India. Modi’s mute approach to the Rohingya crisis speculates India’s major power ambition. This is a serious setback to India’s diplomacy: it is now pushing Myanmar to get support from China, along with our neighbor Bangladesh, in resolving the crisis with Rohingya refugees.

The first democratically elected government under Mohamed Nasheed was toppled unconstitutionally in Maldives. Since India has failed to raise any substantial voice against this atrocity, China has jumped onto the scene. New Delhi ought to have designed a policy to resolve the political crisis, but India, the world’s largest democracy, has watched this incident as a movie in the Indian Ocean Theatre. The highlight was the decision of our Prime Minister to skip a visit to the Maldives whilst on his tour of the Indian Ocean islands.

In Sri Lanka, China is designing its future battlefield against India. As the war against LTTE was over, Colombo started travelling in a two-way track, with India and China. Beijing’s love affair, apparently with Colombo, but with an eye on New Delhi, is no secret. Since Modi has allowed these developments without exercising any diplomatic resistance, he has given China a comfortable seat inside Sri Lanka. China has now realised that her weaved network against India can be strengthened easily in the Indian Ocean, because New Delhi only displays silent concern. After Modi took office, India – China relations have remained static. The border talks are on stand still. Beijing holds on to extend a technical hold on Masood Azhar, a UN designated terrorist. The dragon pulls our immediate neighbors to her side. These developments indicate that our foreign policy articulations are not supported by any clear strategic trajectory.

Modi’s diplomacy is like an air balloon which, once torn, cannot be refilled; a new balloon is needed. Hugging a leader does not lead to any commitment in foreign affairs. Personal charisma does not work as a foreign policy tool in dealing with a world power. For this reason, Modi cannot understand the setback he is facing with China, Pakistan, and our other neighbors. In comparison, Vajpayee’s or Dr. Manmohan Singh’s combined simple charisma as leaders or economists with appropriate home-work in the past; has caused tremendous results in foreign policy, including expected results in Indo-US nuclear negotiations. This is completely missing in Modi’s administration.

Hence, the newly elected Congress Party President Rahul Gandhi has said, “Modi’s hug diplomacy fails”. It was a valuable comment that the ruling elite should consider as a meaningful insight. Alternative approaches are vital to regain our neighbors’ trust, as opposed to China’s. However, Prime Minister Modi’s this year of work will be focused on the 2019 general elections, compromising the proper attention due to India’s international diplomacy.

First published in Congress Sandesh

Continue Reading

South Asia

Potential Consequences of Nuclear Politics in South Asia

Published

on

Established in 1948, Indian atomic energy commission turned towards United Kingdom for their first help in the making of Apsara. Subsequently, with a similar vision, the CIRUS reactor was supplied by Canada, where, the heavy water came from the United States.

India, over the years, has built a nuclear program that has led to the making of a number of reactors. India’s 1974 “Peaceful nuclear explosion” implies to their hegemonic ambitions as India has the capacity to produce around 300-400 nuclear weapons. The continuous upgradation of weapons by India could lead her as a hegemon nuclear power that can deeply unsettle Pakistan and China.

Calling into question India’s stated intentions, when it comes to nuclear tests, the plutonium for its 1974 and 1998 tests was diverted from its “civilian” nuclear facilities. After 1974, India continued to claim its explosion was “peaceful” and advocated global nuclear disarmament, even as it rejected proposals by Pakistan to denuclearize South Asia.

From Pokhran-I to Operation Shakti, India has traditionally relied on plutonium and thermonuclear technology. In 1992, the then Chairman of Department of Indian Atomic Energy  acknowledged that India had succeeded in the past for achieving the target of highly enriched uranium, while the centrifuge program was facing critical and technical hindrances. Also, it was admitted by the former Chairman of AEC, Raja Ramanna that India was working to produce more efficient centrifuges which were used for military purposes.  At the peak of all these developments, it is important to note that thermonuclear weapons have far more destructive power than a nuclear bomb.

India may also be considering using its civil power reactors to increase its stock of weapon-grade plutonium. Robert Einhorn, the State Department’s former top nonproliferation official told the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in March that the officials in the Bush administration had the ambition to sign a nuclear deal with India, to “work together to counter China- to be a counterweight to an emerging China.” He further expressed his views that the nuclear deal had unfortunate repercussions, because other nations concluded that Washington was playing favorites with India.

India is the only country in the region having uranium reserves that are higher than what other countries in the region hold. India has already received roughly 4,914 tons of uranium from France, Russia, and Kazakhstan, and it has agreements with Canada, Mongolia, Argentina, and Namibia for additional shipments. It also signed a uranium deal with Australia that has sparked considerable controversy at home.

This massive production of uranium annually can support its nuclear submarine program and current weapons grade plutonium production rate indirectly. These uranium reserves are enough for approx. 6-10 bombs per year.

Adding a twist to the existing fissile material build-up process, the Indo-US strategic partnership supplemented it. Under this dangerous bargain, it would continue to not only allow India to increase its fissile material but also the capacity to increase the build-up of nuclear weapon material.

Hence, the strategic stability in South Asia has been negatively impacted since the initial stages due to the hegemonic designs which India pursued with the start of CIRUS reactor. With the passage of time, the Indo-US nuclear deal and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver have already added more repercussions and now the discriminatory move to try to facilitate Indian NSG membership will further erode the strategic stability in South Asia.

Indian NSG membership and its potential exemption has adverse implications on non-proliferation regime. This has allowed India to expand its military program. As a result of 2008 exemption it has signed a number of agreement in nuclear domain with different countries. Interestingly, Mansoor Ahmed states that India has the capacity to utilize the uranium it is importing from these countries to produce more bombs.  The aforementioned reasons sum up India’s keenness to obtain NSG’s membership. This U.S.-backed move to make India a member of the NSG will be good neither for Pakistan nor for China, and it would set off nuclear instability in the region.

While looking at the dynamics of left alone Pakistan since late 1990’s, starting from Indo-US strategic partnership to now this geoploliticising of NSG. Consequently, this shall allow India to use all this a means of making the most optimum use of all its natural uranium stocks for weaponization. To offset the stakes, it might be prudent to have a close check on the international architects of India’s nuclear build-up. The alleged misuse of U.S. and Canadian controlled items by India must be enough to refrain from any cooperation if it is not abiding by group’s guidelines and commodity control list.

Furthermore, the more discriminatory the international nuclear order becomes, the less would be the effectiveness of deterrence and strategic balance in the region. The NSG will have to identify that India’s 1974 nuclear explosive test was the reason that nuclear supplier states established the NSG. It must also emphasize upon its commitment to uphold the principles of the nonproliferation.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy