invincible
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2013
- Messages
- 148
- Reaction score
- 0
NEW DELHI: New Delhi is set to
reject a global arms trade treaty
(ATT) since the agreement is
heavily loaded against
weapons-importing countries
like India, and let exporting nations like the US and China call
the shots. The treaty, meant to
regulate all transfers of
conventional arms around the
world, is likely to be passed by
the UN General Assembly next week. India's inability to
establish an indigenous defence
production industry may now
become a strategic vulnerability. New Delhi had several concerns
which Indian negotiators, led by Sujata Mehta, who heads the Indian mission at the
Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, fought
on, but virtually none of them have been
incorporated by the treaty's co-authors, led by
Peter Woolacott of Australia. The current round of
negotiations in New York is the second and final round. The first round, held last July, didn't have an
agreement largely because the US backed out. India wanted the treaty to regulate arms transfers
to non-state actors like terror groups. New Delhi's
focus was on terror groups that target the nation or
even internal insurgent groups like the Maoists but
this was shot down. Countries like the US and the
UK who supply arms to opposition groups such as in Syria and Libya wanted to retain the flexibility to
continue to do so. Terror groups do find mention,
but only in the non-binding preamble, and not in
the main body. In her remarks, Mehta said,
"Without such provisions, the ATT would in fact
lower the bar on obligations of all states not to support terrorists and/or terrorists acts ... We
cannot allow such a loophole in the ATT." Second, India wanted to preserve bilateral defence
cooperation agreements (arms supplies are
covered under such pacts) from the ATT's purview.
This hasn't found favour with the treaty's authors,
either. Mehta said, "Such a loophole in the Treaty
would have the effect of strengthening the hands of a few exporting states at the expense of the
legitimate defense and national security interests of
a large number of importing states." Once this
treaty goes through bilateral arms supply
agreements could come under this treaty if the
exporting country makes an "export assessment" under article 7 that it feels warrants stoppage of
supply. This would be disastrous for India, as was
evident during the Kargil war in 1999. India and China are the world top arms importers,
according to the latest figures by SIPRI. But China
itself has climbed to the top five global arms
exporters last year and the bulk of its arms
exports are to Pakistan. Given the nature of China-
Pakistan relationship, Islamabad is unlikely to suffer even if this treaty comes into effect. On the
other hand, for India, it will become the
conventional version of the global nuclear
suppliers' regime. Once this treaty goes through
India will have to provide similar kinds of end-user
verification and access to satisfy exporters that it does with nuclear imports. India feels the burden of obligations rests largely
on the importers because they have to satisfy the
exporters on end-user verification, on keeping
national records of weapons and ammunition used,
etc. In fact, New Delhi wanted ammunition transfers
to stay out of the treaty's scope, but that too fell by the wayside. A lot of international arms transfers are no longer
outright sales, but incorporate leases, and even
barter deals in exchange for resources etc. That
should have been part of the treaty but it isn't. The
treaty absolves any state which transfers arms
under its own control if it states that it retains control of such arms. This means diversions and
illicit transfers will continue to happen under
different guises. The treaty applies to transfers of battle tanks,
armoured combat vehicles, large caliber artillery
systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters,
warships, missiles and missile launchers, small and
light weapons, while ammunition and parts and
components are also brought under scrutiny.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/India-to-reject-global-arms-trade-treaty/articleshow/19263590.cms
A good thing or a bad situation for India...anyone
reject a global arms trade treaty
(ATT) since the agreement is
heavily loaded against
weapons-importing countries
like India, and let exporting nations like the US and China call
the shots. The treaty, meant to
regulate all transfers of
conventional arms around the
world, is likely to be passed by
the UN General Assembly next week. India's inability to
establish an indigenous defence
production industry may now
become a strategic vulnerability. New Delhi had several concerns
which Indian negotiators, led by Sujata Mehta, who heads the Indian mission at the
Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, fought
on, but virtually none of them have been
incorporated by the treaty's co-authors, led by
Peter Woolacott of Australia. The current round of
negotiations in New York is the second and final round. The first round, held last July, didn't have an
agreement largely because the US backed out. India wanted the treaty to regulate arms transfers
to non-state actors like terror groups. New Delhi's
focus was on terror groups that target the nation or
even internal insurgent groups like the Maoists but
this was shot down. Countries like the US and the
UK who supply arms to opposition groups such as in Syria and Libya wanted to retain the flexibility to
continue to do so. Terror groups do find mention,
but only in the non-binding preamble, and not in
the main body. In her remarks, Mehta said,
"Without such provisions, the ATT would in fact
lower the bar on obligations of all states not to support terrorists and/or terrorists acts ... We
cannot allow such a loophole in the ATT." Second, India wanted to preserve bilateral defence
cooperation agreements (arms supplies are
covered under such pacts) from the ATT's purview.
This hasn't found favour with the treaty's authors,
either. Mehta said, "Such a loophole in the Treaty
would have the effect of strengthening the hands of a few exporting states at the expense of the
legitimate defense and national security interests of
a large number of importing states." Once this
treaty goes through bilateral arms supply
agreements could come under this treaty if the
exporting country makes an "export assessment" under article 7 that it feels warrants stoppage of
supply. This would be disastrous for India, as was
evident during the Kargil war in 1999. India and China are the world top arms importers,
according to the latest figures by SIPRI. But China
itself has climbed to the top five global arms
exporters last year and the bulk of its arms
exports are to Pakistan. Given the nature of China-
Pakistan relationship, Islamabad is unlikely to suffer even if this treaty comes into effect. On the
other hand, for India, it will become the
conventional version of the global nuclear
suppliers' regime. Once this treaty goes through
India will have to provide similar kinds of end-user
verification and access to satisfy exporters that it does with nuclear imports. India feels the burden of obligations rests largely
on the importers because they have to satisfy the
exporters on end-user verification, on keeping
national records of weapons and ammunition used,
etc. In fact, New Delhi wanted ammunition transfers
to stay out of the treaty's scope, but that too fell by the wayside. A lot of international arms transfers are no longer
outright sales, but incorporate leases, and even
barter deals in exchange for resources etc. That
should have been part of the treaty but it isn't. The
treaty absolves any state which transfers arms
under its own control if it states that it retains control of such arms. This means diversions and
illicit transfers will continue to happen under
different guises. The treaty applies to transfers of battle tanks,
armoured combat vehicles, large caliber artillery
systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters,
warships, missiles and missile launchers, small and
light weapons, while ammunition and parts and
components are also brought under scrutiny.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/India-to-reject-global-arms-trade-treaty/articleshow/19263590.cms
A good thing or a bad situation for India...anyone
