Syeda Mazhar
India should be required to meet the NSG’s standards, “including opening negotiations with Pakistan and China on curbing nuclear weapons and halting the production of nuclear fuel for bombs,”
Nuclear Support Group’s 1026 annual plenary, which begins in Seoul, is expected to have a huge impact on the future of South Asia. The change in the nuclear dynamics of India and Pakistan is also one of the anticipated outcomes of the meeting. This session is to take up the membership request of both India and Pakistan to join the Nuclear Support Group.
Pakistan submitted its request on the eleventh hour to join the support group, on May 18, exactly one week after India submitted theirs, on May 12th. Both India and the United States were surprised at this hand played by Islamabad. It has also been pointed out that Pakistan’s quiet diplomacy has hit a bull’s eye and it would be a difficult proposition for the member countries to give India membership without considering Pakistan for the same position as Pakistan does fulfill the criteria.
“Had Pakistan not applied for the membership, India would have become a member of the NSG in the last week’s extraordinary meeting held in Washington.”
The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, could have returned to India victorious carrying the membership in his hands but now since the matter has been deferred a fortnight to the 23 and 24th of June.
Let there be no doubt that an India-specific inclusion would go to great lengths to undermine the long-standing non-proliferation principles of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Over the past few years, India has repeatedly demanded access to the NSG raising some valid concerns about the future of Asia’s evolving nuclear order. The biggest concern being India being in the position to block any future entry of Pakistan in the group as all the decisions are made through consensus. Moreover, Indian membership would mean that the group’s ability would be undermined to ensure that Indian government respects its non- proliferation commitments.
Now the countries including the United States that wanted to keep India out of the group after its first nuclear test are desperately working for India’s inclusion because it suits their containment policy. What the US and India both overlooked was the fact that the NSG abides by a cardinal principle, that any entrant in the group must be a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The principal objection of the NSG countries to Indian membership is that India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and neither does India intend to do so. The other requirements of the NSG were Indian adherence to the CTBT and signing of an Additional Protocol with the IAEA, as committed by it in the Indo-US nuclear deal.
The NSG membership remains deeply divided about allowing entry to India and there are apparently three groups in the cartel. One group is governed by what is described as ‘mercantile interests’, and consists of countries like the US, France, UK and Russia, which have advanced nuclear industries and want those industries to benefit from the business that would be generated from Indian nuclear expansion in the power sector. The second group is of certain small states with a deep attachment to non-proliferation, countries like Austria, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Ireland, Switzerland and New Zealand which are totally opposed to admitting India, which has not signed the NPT. The third group is of those countries which are equivocal and reluctant, and include Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia.
In the Nuclear Support Group’s annual meetings, many members have been opposing India’s constant proposition to enter the NSG, many also question the need to expand the group. Any deviation from a criteria based approach is more likely to undermine credibility of the NSG, which cannot be compromised.
The criteria include adherence to the NPT or a nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaty, the capability to supply the goods listed in the NSG guidelines and the ability to ensure implementation of nuclear export control regimes in compliance with NSG rules. New Delhi strives harder, after Pakistan’s request for membership, to gather broad international support before formally applying for entry into the group. Some member states, including the US and France, have promised to back India’s membership of the NSG, as well as other multilateral export control regimes. China, however, has strongly opposed India’s membership in the group, as it believes India will actively try to change the dynamics of the Nuclear power in Asia and isolate Pakistan in process.
In addition, various opinion makers, nuclear experts and legislators have warned Obama’s unjust efforts of forwarding India’s request for membership. “India’s membership of the NSG is not merited until the country meets the group’s standards,” wrote The New York Times. The newspaper argued that as NSG member, India would oppose Pakistan’s entry and “that could give Pakistan, which at one time provided nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran, new incentives to misbehave.”
Enabling only one of the country to join the NSG would cause “never ending” nuclear race in South Asia. Whether any of the two countries meet the prerequisite to join the NSG is for the group to decide fairly. The decision will clearly reflect on the integrity of the governing members. The outcome will soon reveal the same.
