The New York Times Trips Up on India and the NSG

[Taygibay]

I'm not joining this already hypersensitive knee jerk reaction fest
but I'd like to point out TimeTraveller's out ligned passage in par.6

If he succeeds, India would be in a position to keep Pakistan, which has also applied for membership, from gaining membership because group decisions must be unanimous. That could give Pakistan, which at one time provided nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran, new incentives to misbehave.

A simple solution if I may point it out would be to grant simultaneous access
to the NSG to both Pakistan and India.

That way, the unanimous thing becomes a moot point?
... and issues would be fixed prior to their entry into the club.

Just offerin' , Tay.

 

[Mysticbuddy]

This is a time when important concessions can be extracted from India as it readies itself for what may be a final push. One can't fault the Ed Board of NYT for framing a slightly stilted narrative and subsequently making demands on India to stream line itself with Global Nuclear Commerce.

Expected rebuttals on the lines of China did that though self satisfying cut no ice, as legally X murdered Y so I can murder Z is not a tenable defense.

The other fault in this line of reasoning is that when India justifies its behavior by associating it with China, it gives China an opening to associate India with Pakistan vis a vis NSG, there in you see a clever gambit where Pakistan has applied to the platform on the heels on Indian application.

Ultimately there are only two avenues left open to India -

a. India offers something to China which can tempt it towards supporting Indian application without connecting it with the Pakistani one. I frankly don't see any leverage which India has to make such an offer.

b. India withdraws its application or let it lapse on grounds of non unanimity and satisfies it self with the status quo where it can participate in the nuclear commerce but does not hold a seat at the table.

I think China will have to mend its position because.

1. It's own record of NSG is very much new and disputable.

2. It will have a huge rebuttal from all the members for the council due it's own partnership with Pakistan on civil nuclear cooperation. It claims that it was done just week before them joining the NSG for which no waiver is required.

3. The membership process for India is not new. They had stated this process back in 2005. It's more just formal for them to apply.

4. China is looking for technology from so called west so its decision will have implications for its own country as well.

 

[Piper]

I'm not joining this already hypersensitive knee jerk reaction fest
but I'd like to point out TimeTraveler's out ligned passage in par.6



A simple solution if I may point it out would be to grant simultaneous access
to the NSG to both Pakistan and India.

That way, the unanimous thing becomes a moot point?
... and issues would be fixed prior to their entry into the club.

Just offerin' , Tay.

Impossible is the word much abused but apt in case of this generous offering. India should not be granted full membership to NSG as the article correctly argues because it's not a signatory to NPT but if India is offered membership then one should not compound this folly by offering the same to Pakistan.

I do not wish to comment more on "why not Pakistan" as arguments have been often stated and know to all.

Either way the point of this whole exercise is to not grant membership to Pakistan but to deny it to India, I think Indian negotiators know it well and are using these visits to gain leverage in other matters such as BIT and EUFTA and if by some miracle India gains membership then it would be double bonanza.

The other point to note is that conclusions at this stage is already known as overtures have been made to China and already implicitly rejected by propping up Pakistan. I cannot though yet assuredly say what is the angle India is playing at if even there is an angle to speak of and entire thing not an exercise in futility.

 

[TimeTraveller]

I'm not joining this already hypersensitive knee jerk reaction fest
but I'd like to point out TimeTraveler's out ligned passage in par.6



A simple solution if I may point it out would be to grant simultaneous access
to the NSG to both Pakistan and India.

That way, the unanimous thing becomes a moot point?
... and issues would be fixed prior to their entry into the club.

Just offerin' , Tay.

No No No......... I made no modification to this text(no outline either)... It is exactly same as what appeared in NYT...........

 

[Mysticbuddy]

Impossible is the word much abused but apt in case of this generous offering. India should not be granted full membership to NSG as the article correctly argues because it's not a signatory to NPT but if India is offered membership then one should not compound this folly by offering the same to Pakistan.

I do not wish to comment more on "why not Pakistan" as arguments have been often stated and know to all.

Either way the point of this whole exercise is to not grant membership to Pakistan but to deny it to India, I think Indian negotiators know it well and are using these visits to gain leverage in other matters such as BIT and EUFTA and if by some miracle India gains membership then it would be double bonanza.

The other point to note is that conclusions at this stage is already known as overtures have been made to China and already implicitly rejected by propping up Pakistan. I cannot though yet assuredly say what is the angle India is playing at if even there is an angle to speak of and entire thing not an exercise in futility.

I have not read anywhere including the NSG's site that NPT is a requirement. There are a lot of states that have been NSG members before signing the NPT (of which China is a willful defaulted).

 

[Taygibay]

I made no modification to this text(no outline either)... It is exactly same as what appeared in NYT......

Highlighted, blued, bolded or whatever, I did not imply that you modified it, mate!
I only picked it up to show the fix of treating the two as one problem and thus
having the sticking points mentioned by Piper solved in a bipartisan manner.

Either the 2 succeed or the two fail is a very just way to face such conundrums
and it would free the NSG from having explain rules until done.

In short, I was not suggesting a solution but rather a framework for proceeding towards one.

Have a great day, Tay.

 

[TimeTraveller]

Highlighted, blued, bolded or whatever, I did not imply that you modified it, mate!
I only picked it up to show the fix of treating the two as one problem and thus
having the sticking points mentioned by Piper solved in a bipartisan manner.

Either the 2 succeed or the two fail is a very just way to face such conundrums
and it would free the NSG from having explain rules until done.

In short, I was not suggesting a solution but rather a framework for proceeding towards one.

Have a great day, Tay.

Oh... Sorry............

 

[Bombaywalla]

I love how you pakistanis are eager to jump and defend China and blow their trumpet... lol

It is utterly laughable. I wonder why they piggy back on the achievements of China? I'm sure the Chinese laugh too.