India to reject global arms trade treaty

[anant_s]

India to reject global arms trade treaty
Indrani Bagchi

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.

India to reject global arms trade treaty - The Times of India

 

[iajj]

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.

now if somalia rejected to the treaty on this ground, i would totally understand: nobody even knows who is the state actor in that shitty country and whether that country has a state actor that can ever take control of things in that land any more. but india would have trouble documenting import and verifying end-users? seriously? is its bureaucracy so corrupt and incompetent that it is not even capable of simple book-keeping? is its military so inept and weak that it couldn't even guard its toys? i will see india in totally different light from now on, wow. what a failed state.

 

[anant_s]

now if somalia rejected to the treaty on this ground, i would totally understand: nobody even knows who is the state actor in that shitty country and whether that country has a state actor that can ever take control of things in that land any more. but india would have trouble documenting import and verifying end-users? seriously? is its bureaucracy so corrupt and incompetent that it is not even capable of simple book-keeping? is its military so inept and weak that it couldn't even guard its toys? i will see india in totally different light from now on, wow. what a failed state.

There are two things that need to be looked into:
1. Once you have a globally binding treaty, the rules must be applicable to all parties and this is where some signatory nations can be in disadvantaged position. It really is a no-brainer that the record keeping of even the samllest arms is done properly as far as india is concerned. I can say with surety that even a bullet is accounted for let alone costly imported hardware.
However when you see that several nations route the imported material to so called Non State players or even worse some governments or agencies supply the arms directly to parties that a state considers enemy that includes terrorist factions, who takes the responsibility.
2. We must consider if the provisions of treaty are water-tight and the treaty has provisions to ensure that while a signatory will account for al the hardware it has imported but the seller will also ensure that a weapon sold to anyone will not, through black market reach hands that any government considers detrimental to its security.

I'll quote a few examples:
Reagen administration provided cutting edge technology to Pakistan in early 80s including stinger missiles. While some of use would not agree, but a large part of it reached Mujahideen in Afghanistan. (perhaps that was original intent of Reagen too). later these very offensive weapons were used against forces that had actually supplied them.

Who supplies modern arms to Taliban? There surely is a thriving black market where if you tell correct price, you can own almost any piece of weapon you wish to. Today Pakistan a large part of domestic terrorism can be attributed to this illegal arms market.

We can go on and on with such list, but the point is unless both suppliers and users agree on a common resoning that arms should only be put in responsible hands with a treaty that is fair to all parties, nothing much is going to be achieved.

 

[Jade]

now if somalia rejected to the treaty on this ground, i would totally understand: nobody even knows who is the state actor in that shitty country and whether that country has a state actor that can ever take control of things in that land any more. but india would have trouble documenting import and verifying end-users? seriously? is its bureaucracy so corrupt and incompetent that it is not even capable of simple book-keeping? is its military so inept and weak that it couldn't even guard its toys? i will see india in totally different light from now on, wow. what a failed state.

it seems you have reading comprehension problem. Read the article again.

 

[xuxu1457]

Only North Korea, Iran and Syria against the treaty now, hope can pass the treaty later

 

[iajj]

There are two things that need to be looked into:
1. Once you have a globally binding treaty, the rules must be applicable to all parties and this is where some signatory nations can be in disadvantaged position. It really is a no-brainer that the record keeping of even the samllest arms is done properly as far as india is concerned. I can say with surety that even a bullet is accounted for let alone costly imported hardware.
However when you see that several nations route the imported material to so called Non State players or even worse some governments or agencies supply the arms directly to parties that a state considers enemy that includes terrorist factions, who takes the responsibility.
2. We must consider if the provisions of treaty are water-tight and the treaty has provisions to ensure that while a signatory will account for al the hardware it has imported but the seller will also ensure that a weapon sold to anyone will not, through black market reach hands that any government considers detrimental to its security.

I'll quote a few examples:
Reagen administration provided cutting edge technology to Pakistan in early 80s including stinger missiles. While some of use would not agree, but a large part of it reached Mujahideen in Afghanistan. (perhaps that was original intent of Reagen too). later these very offensive weapons were used against forces that had actually supplied them.

Who supplies modern arms to Taliban? There surely is a thriving black market where if you tell correct price, you can own almost any piece of weapon you wish to. Today Pakistan a large part of domestic terrorism can be attributed to this illegal arms market.

We can go on and on with such list, but the point is unless both suppliers and users agree on a common resoning that arms should only be put in responsible hands with a treaty that is fair to all parties, nothing much is going to be achieved.

fair enough, although i am still not sympathetic to india's position. yeah, india was dealt a tough hand on this one (india will look bad regardless of the outcome of the treaty ratification), given its geography, given all the undercurrents in its neighborhood, given its inept bureaucracy (i don't agree with your assessment that india was perfect on record-keeping: no countries are, not even china or us, but india is way sloppier than those two). but as a chinese i delight in india's pains.

 

[BDforever]

It is US and West countries agenda to stop or slow down Asian countries from gearing up and bring balance in power. As we all know this century is Asian century and these asian countries now gearing up heavily by importing. US and west only want to sell to their allies like Afganistan, Iraq, Saudi Arab etc on the name of Hostile region. I think Asia countries need to realize it.

even china and russia need to oppose it because they can not fight alone with US and west countries, they need well geared up other allies too.

 

[Screambowl]

this treaty will be lost somewhere in the hardrive of computers in UNO.

 

[anant_s]

fair enough, although i am still not sympathetic to india's position. yeah, india was dealt a tough hand on this one (india will look bad regardless of the outcome of the treaty ratification), given its geography, given all the undercurrents in its neighborhood, given its inept bureaucracy (i don't agree with your assessment that india was perfect on record-keeping: no countries are, not even china or us, but india is way sloppier than those two). but as a chinese i delight in india's pains.

Ok no problems with your assessment, i respect your opinion.

I'm sure you would agree with atleast the part that heavy offensive weaponary (fighters, AWACS, artillery equipment) accounting is proper primarily for the fact that all this is Capital inventory and moreover where else can it be passed to? Most of the joint ventures or Technology transfer projects have gone on with good transparency and this is where Indian govt would feel cheated/humiliated to be clubbed in same bracket as some rogue states.
My whole point of this discussion is the fact that some arm suppliers would keep on passing arms through some direct or indirect way and thereby keeping their industry in good humor, whereas the ones who have been law abiding will have to bear same consequences as irresponsible states.
I'll leave with a point to ponder
NPT was signed with an intent to keep nuclear states club membership to a limited number. What happended is known to everyone. India, Pakistan, N Korea, Israel (perhaps) all got their hands onto nuclear weapons. It is almost certain that the technology either completely or in parts was handed by Big 5 to the countries mentioned.
I say it again, unless a treaty allows to accommodate the requirements of all nations, it is bound to fail.

but as a chinese i delight in india's pains.

I hope those are sarcastic remarks, no human can derive happiness from others pain!

 

[IND151]

what are the clauses in treaty that India finds unsuited and unfavorable?

 

[danish_vij]

no pakistan has also supported india!!

 

[A.Rafay]

no pakistan has also supported india!!

We may have supported the treaty not india!

 

[danger007]

now if somalia rejected to the treaty on this ground, i would totally understand: nobody even knows who is the state actor in that shitty country and whether that country has a state actor that can ever take control of things in that land any more. but india would have trouble documenting import and verifying end-users? seriously? is its bureaucracy so corrupt and incompetent that it is not even capable of simple book-keeping? is its military so inept and weak that it couldn't even guard its toys? i will see india in totally different light from now on, wow. what a failed state.

take rest, troll... we know who is shitty country ...

 

[shree835]

UN arms treaty not harmful to India’s security interests: US

The draft of a UN arms treaty that would regulate the multi-billion-dollar global arms trade will not harm India’s national interests, the US on Friday said, allaying New Delhi’s concern over its text.

“While I appreciate the concerns that has been expressed very clearly by India’s representative here, my own view is that this treaty will not be harmful to India’s security and certainly not in any way harm the very strong bilateral relationship between India and the US,” said Tom Countryman, head of the US delegation to the Arms Trade Treaty Conference.

Countryman was responding to questions on the concerns raised by India on the draft text of the treaty, which could not be adopted by the conference in the absence of consensus among its 193 nations; which was considered to be the first step towards regulating the $70 billion global arms trade.

Iran, Syria and North Korea opposed the final draft text on the pretext that it fails to ban sales of weapons to groups that commit “acts of aggression”.

Now the proponents of the treaty have scheduled to put it to vote in the UN General Assembly next week.

India, which had worked hard during the negotiations, had expressed its deep concerns on the final draft.

In her intervention during the closing arguments, India’s Permanent Representative to Conference on Disarmament, Geneva, and head of the Indian Delegation to the Arms Trade Treaty Conference Sujata Mehta said the final version fell short of India’s expectations and that of other likeminded countries.

“At the commencement of this Conference India had made clear that the ATT should make a real impact on illicit trafficking in conventional arms and their illicit use especially by terrorists and other unauthorised and unlawful non-state actors. The provisions in the final draft on terrorism and non-state actors are weak and diffused and find no mention in the specific prohibitions of the Treaty,” Mehta said in her intervention.

India, she said, has stressed consistently that the treaty should ensure a balance of obligations between exporting and importing states.

“India cannot accept that the treaty be used as an instrument in the hands of exporting states to take unilateral force majeure measures against importing states parties without consequences,” she added.

“The relevant provisions in the final draft do not meet our requirements. There is a fundamental imbalance in the text which is flawed as the weight of obligations is tilted against importing States. As an importing state we will take measures to ensure that the treaty does not affect the stability and predictability of defence cooperation agreements and contracts entered into by India,” Mehta argued

However, US officials – who played a major role in the drafting of the current text – tried to dispel India’s concerns after the conference was over.

“In terms of India’s concerns as a major arms importer, I first put it in this context that the United States and India has an extremely strong bilateral relationship. It is a multi-dimensional strategic partnership that includes solid co-operation of security matters including in defence trade and we recognize India’s legitimate interest in providing for its national defence,” Countryman told reporters during a conference call in response to a question.

“My own opinion is that this treaty is in no way threatens the security of supply for India. It is this treaty should make it harder for States that are serious abusers of human rights that use weapons against their own citizens, that are aggressive towards their neighbours that support terrorism – should make it harder for those states and those groups to get weapons. India is not in any of those categories,” he said.

But Indian officials insisted that given its bitter past experience like the one during the Kargil war, New Delhi should not be part of any international treaty that tends to jeopardise its national interests.

“While India has negotiated in good faith and in an open and transparent manner with respect to our essential interests, the final draft has the tell-tale marks of behind- the-scenes carve outs of exclusive interests of a select few countries, such as egregiously excluding non-state actors or arms transfers as gifts or loans, thus seriously diminishing the value of a multilateral Treaty negotiated in the UN,” Mehta said.

“We have stressed that universal adherence to this Treaty would not be possible unless all stakeholders were on board and this includes major exporting as well as importing states,” she said.

Mehta said the final draft text will be examined carefully and in detail.

“India will undertake a thorough assessment of the ATT from the perspective of our defence, security and foreign policy interests.

“Our participation in this session does not in any way prejudice our position on the substantive aspects of the Treaty and should not be construed in any way as our endorsement. We would wish this to be reflected in full in the record of this meeting and annexed to the report of the Conference,” she said.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...ation-arms-trade-treaty-conference-draft-text

 

[danish_vij]

We may have supported the treaty not india!

no pakistan has supported india on decision to reject global arms trade........bcoz inda nd pakisan had common interest....this info i got from pdf only......plz search for recent threads...i cnt post link....