• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

NUCLEAR SECURITY: A FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETTER FROM CAPS NUCLEAR SECURITY: A FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETTER FROM CAPS Vol 10, No. 16, 15 JUNE 2016 OPINION – Manpreet Sethi CONTENTS Entry into the NSG: Getting Past the Doorman OPINION Doormen – big, burly individuals – at entrances NUCLEAR STRATEGY of exclusive clubs impose entry regulations. They could deny you entry for not carrying the correct BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENCE identity card, or for not entering as a couple. One NUCLEAR ENERGY particular country has assigned itself this role at the NSG door. Set and resolute, it has declared NUCLEAR COOPERATION that you are not carrying the required NPT identity NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION card and worse still, you are not ready to enter with a partner. So, China insists that India cannot NUCLEAR SAFETY be allowed entry into NSG, certainly not without NUCLEAR TERRORISM Pakistan. For a few NSG plenary meetings now, India has would have to stand singly. It prefers instead to been hopeful that a decision on its membership hide behind objections being made by others, giving would be taken, nearly eight years after the them tacit support without exceptionalisation was being identified itself as the made for it to engage in This is a rare occasion that China has primary obstructionist. It international nuclear openly declared its objection to India’s consciously avoids being commerce. This task yet entry and has dared to stand alone on called a spoiler. This seems remains pending though the this. Beijing has traditionally been shy to have changed, perhaps US agrees that India has the of taking a position where it would for two reasons. One, requisite credentials to join have to stand singly. It prefers instead China has perceived that the NSG. Standing up to the to hide behind objections being made the bulwark of states that US on its position, China by others, giving them tacit support it was banking upon to thinks otherwise. Interesting without being identified itself as the stop India’s entry into the insights can be gleaned from primary obstructionist. It consciously NSG is about to give up. So, the Chinese position. avoids being called a spoiler. This it feels the need to step up seems to have changed. Firstly, this is a rare occasion itself. The other reason is that China has openly that China’s confidence in declared its objection to India’s entry and has its own clout and influence has grown. Having dared to stand alone on this. Beijing has amassed economic and military strength with the traditionally been shy of taking a position where it accompanying political weight, it believes it can Vol 10, No. 16, 15 JUNE 2016 PAGE - 1 NUCLEAR SECURITY: A FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETTER FROM CAPS afford to assert its position and get away with it. China. Consequently, it is no longer chary of standing alone. So, what should India do to get past the self- appointed doorman? For one, Indian nuclear Secondly, China’s sense of assertiveness rises from diplomacy will have to work harder to chip away the knowledge that its at the objections being economic power is far China has deep nuclear pockets. Nearly raised by China or its above that of most of the every major nuclear supplier has a proxies. Secondly, the NSG members. In fact, hand in it. China is importing from, as Indian nuclear market must neither US, nor Russia can well as co-developing nuclear reactors once again appear to look afford to offend the new with France, Russia, and the US. It is lucrative. When it did so in China, and certainly not on building nuclear reactors in the UK and the mid-2000s, President the nuclear issue. Argentina. The nuclear industry of Bush (actively supported by Undertaking simultaneous each of these states is invested in the nuclear industry) construction of 22 nuclear China, currently the largest nuclear managed to engineer the power plants (accounting market. huge transformation in the for more than one third of US’ nuclear relationship all reactors being built globally), China has deep with India, including convincing others to make the nuclear pockets. Nearly every major nuclear NSG exceptionalisation possible. Since then, and supplier has a hand in it. China is importing from, especially after Fukushima, the Indian nuclear as well as co-developing nuclear reactors with market has started to look dull. The nuclear liability France, Russia, and the US. It is building nuclear law perceptibly weighed against the supplier, reactors in the UK and Argentina. The nuclear public acceptance stalemates, etc. have taken the industry of each of these states is invested in sheen off India’s nuclear ambitions. Of the two China, currently the largest nuclear market. poster boys of the nuclear industry, China is shining, while India appears to be falling behind. Given the downturn in the fortunes of the nuclear industry after Fukushima, the nuclear marketplace Thirdly, India should seriously consider entering today belongs to the buyer, not the seller. And the nuclear market as a supplier itself. It has the China is the biggest buyer on the block. Who then capability and the capacity to do so. And once that can afford to upset it? happens, it would change Thirdly, China’s objection to Given that Beijing still insists on UNSCR India’s de facto position. India’s entry into the NSG is 1172 of 1998 that called for a roll back Fourthly, for China, its ‘face’ because of India, and not and elimination of an ‘illegitimate’ is very important. India because it necessarily nuclear weapons programme, it needs to look for wants its all-weather friend cannot brook the idea of any concessions that it can to be an NSG member too. semblance of ‘legitimacy’ being make to provide China the It is only using Pakistan as granted to India. Sharing space as a face saving to back off from a proxy, as China always nuclear rule-maker with India is its strident position. One has, to box India in. What anathema to China. idea here could be to take China finds difficult to up China’s offer of nuclear digest is the accommodation of India that would, cooperation made by Premier Xi Jinping on a visit in its eyes, make it its nuclear equal. Given that to India. This cooperation could take many forms - Beijing still insists on UNSCR 1172 of 1998 that R&D on new generation of reactors, between their called for a roll back and elimination of an nuclear Centres of Excellence, nuclear safety and ‘illegitimate’ nuclear weapons programme, it security, etc. Such collaborative ventures could be cannot brook the idea of any semblance of one way of subtly introducing it to India’s strengths ‘legitimacy’ being granted to India. Sharing space in the nuclear power sector. as a nuclear rule-maker with India is anathema to Source: http://www.ipcs.org, 02 June 2016. Vol 10, No. 16, 15 JUNE 2016 PAGE - 2 NUCLEAR SECURITY: A FORTNIGHTLY NEWSLETTER FROM CAPS OPINION – Siddharth Varadarajan states. Article 6 also applies to them but is non- binding: to “pursue negotiations in good faith on The New York Times Trips Up on India and the effective measures relating to cessation of the NSG nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear The New York Times is free to take whatever disarmament, and on a treaty on general and position it likes on any issue complete disarmament and if it believes India The Chinese assisted Pakistan’s nuclear under strict and effective should not be admitted into weapons programme before Beijing international control.” The the NSG, it has every right acceded to the NPT in 1992 but there Chinese assisted to write an editorial are suspicions the relationship Pakistan’s nuclear advocating ‘No Exceptions continued beyond that date, thus weapons programme for a Nuclear India’. What it violating Article 1. The New York Times before Beijing acceded to ought not to do is build its itself reported about this in 1996: the NPT in 1992 but there argument on faulty analysis, China secretly sold nuclear-weapons are suspicions the misrepresentation and technology to Pakistan last year and relationship continued factual inaccuracies. What could face the loss of billions of dollars beyond that date, thus follows is a paragraph-by- in business deals under United States violating Article 1. The paragraph explanation of law. New York Times itself how the newspaper – that I reported about this in have read and liked for years – has gone 1996: China secretly sold nuclear-weapons wrong, horribly wrong in this editorial. technology to Pakistan last year and could face the loss of billions of dollars in business deals under Para 1 United States law, Administration officials said. But, America’s relationship with India has blossomed they said, President Clinton may waive the under President Obama, who will meet with Prime penalties to ease tensions with Beijing. “China Minister Narendra Modi. Ideally, Mr. Obama could sold Pakistan magnets used to refine bomb-grade take advantage of the ties he has built and press uranium, the CIA told the Administration late last for India to adhere to the year. State Department standards on nuclear As for Article VI, the suggestion that the officials said they had proliferation to which other N-5 have adhered to the disarmament concluded that the nuclear weapons states obligations prescribed by the NPT is, evidence regarding the adhere. quite frankly, laughable. Even if the US magnets was strong and Russia have cut the size of their enough to trigger the Here, the NYT makes arsenals – retaining enough to destroy penalties. We regard it as a huge assumption: that each other and the world – China, very serious,” said a senior there are “standards on France and Britain have shown no State Department official, nuclear proliferation to inclination to pursue negotiations on who spoke on the condition which other nuclear disarmament.

Load more

  29

Copy Link