Has The NSG Lost Its Relevance? – OpEd


Since India has officially requested for NSG’s membership, it has become one of the burning issues in the South Asian region for countries like China, Pakistan and many others. It has also posed a serious challenge for the NSG members who are trying to increase the membership of the NSG since 1970s.

It is important to keep in mind the main purpose of the creation of this particular nuclear cartel also known as the ‘London Club’. It was established as a voluntary cartel in response to India’s so called Peaceful Nuclear Explosion in 1975. Its main focus was to impede its members from assisting India in producing nuclear weapons. It is quiet surprising today, that India’s application is being considered and deliberations are yet to take place whether to include her in the cartel or not.

Instead of supporting a complete and an effective implementation of the Non-proliferation treaty (NPT) has been using its 2008 waiver given by NSG for justifying its application.

Although the NSG’s guidelines are not binding upon the members but they should adhere to it if they are part of the NSG. Also in the process of incorporating new members in the nuclear cartel, NSG should be careful in accepting only those states which comply with the non-proliferation principle, on the basis of which NSG stands.

This would help the group strengthen its image internationally vis a vis other regimes created for peaceful use of nuclear weapons. Any country that wants to become a member of this prestigious group will have to make sure it does not put its hands in such activities that lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons for military purpose that might have a destructive outcome. It should be a member of the NPT and should also place their nuclear power reactors plus overall nuclear activities including exports under the safeguards of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

It is clear that India has a doubtful track record of its nuclear safety shown from 1974 and 1988 nuclear tests and mocking the whole non-proliferation regime until recently. India never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) because she felt it was discriminatory It vetoed the CTBT in 1996, such examples show that India has never been interested in contributing to the non-proliferation of regime. India wants to expand its nuclear industry. It wants to rise as a nuclear power in the region. There was no question of India to get accepted by the NSG as it has been under sanctions due to the violations India made with its donors.

It was the US-nuclear deal that paved a way for India to get an exceptional treatment by convincing the NSG members to grant India a waiver in 2008. India actually enjoyed the benefits of NSG membership without having being allowed to enter in the NSG. It got an opportunity to develop its nuclear programme and it was observed that India also increased its fissile stockpile. Also it intended to have an access to nuclear material that could be used for military purposes.

Once again the US is persuading NSG members to grant India membership. If India is granted NSG membership it will undermine the NPT because India has not sign it and it will further challenge the basic idea of the NSG. With expanding its membership the NSG also needs to maintain its efficiency. It will lose its relevance if it included India despite the fact that India will not be a sincere member of the group and that is it not ready to comply with the guidelines of the NSG. Therefore, the decision of entering India in the group will make NSG vulnerable and unable to fulfil its main objectives. It might get labelled as a discriminatory group.

Moreover it will give a chance to other nuclear countries to stand against this decision and make claims for their inclusion too. Such as Pakistan, Israel and North Korea who have not signed the NPT also deserves the NSG membership and equal treatment as India. Pakistan has already raised its voice at various international forums against the discrimination and the consequences in the region if India is given NSG membership. China and other countries like Ireland, Turkey and Brazil are supportive to Pakistan to veto the NSG membership to India.

Pakistan has a much stronger position as compared to India in safeguarding its nuclear assets as it has not misused the nuclear supplies given to it for peaceful purposes. China is emphasizing on making the consensus stronger among the members and that decision making based on consensus would be effective in the longer run. China was of the view that “NSG should have discussion on the joining of the non-NPT countries in a way agreed by all parties, so as to make a decision based on agreement. This position is not directed against any country and applies to all non-NPT states.”

Whatsoever the NSG should not grant any extra waiver or membership to any country including India that cannot stick to its guidelines. According to a US senator named Edward Markey, also was of the same opinion that “If India joined the Nuclear Suppliers Group, it would be the only participating government in the organisation that was not a party to NPT, weakening the NSG’s commitment to treaty. By refraining from admitting India, the NSG strengthened both the treaty and the broader global non-proliferation regime”. The NSG should not allow any country to misuse it for its national interest of rising as a hegemonic power in the South Asian region, which India is doing. If it kept on granting country specific exceptions, waivers or membership it would undermine the group’s credibility. A non-discriminatory criteria-based approach of NSG membership will help accommodate both nuclear and non-nuclear countries equally without losing its relevance.

*The writer works for Strategic Vision Institute Islamabad and can be reached at [email protected]

7 thoughts on “Has The NSG Lost Its Relevance? – OpEd

  • September 2, 2016 at 3:32 pm

    This is an article that is devoid of merits. The facts written are truly misleading. For one, India has impeccable non proliferation track record. here has not been ever a case wherein India has ever been accused of proliferating any nuclear technology to any country. Pakistan on the other hand has been an acknowledged proliferator having sold nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea. China itself has a dubious record having itself sold nuclear technology to Pakistan which in itself is a violation of NSG guidelines.

    As far as India is concerned, she has opened several of her nuclear reactors to international inspection by the IAEA. That was a voluntary move. Hence India has impeccable non proliferation record. The author of the above article seems to ignore the ground reality and seems to be bent on propagating Pakistan’s cause at any cost.

  • September 2, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    This is a lopsided article hardly disguising the author’s undeserved partiality towards Pakistan and China.

    China is the biggest nuclear proliferator and has been single-handedly responsible for making Asia a very dangerous place after supplying its nuclear tech to Pakistan (which in turn had been selling it to all and sundry like a hawker pushing pirated DVDs on a high street, and is also in danger of losing some of its nukes to terrorist elements).

    India on the other hand, has honoured all moritoria it had set for itself and have never signed anything that it doesn’t intend to keep. It has never proliferated to any third country, and the number of nuclear weapons it holds pales in comparison to China (and Pakistan).

  • September 2, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    Nuclear Suppliers Group should verify whether one deserves membership based on their credentials. India has aligned itself voluntari!y to the spirit of all nuclear monitoring bodies and has never involved in any nefarious proliferation activies. Like they say, action speaks louder than words. India maintains good credntials and hences qualifies for membership.

  • September 2, 2016 at 9:15 pm

    Dear Manoj,

    I know its hard to digest, but we cannot deny the fact that NSG was created due to the NSG. It was founded in response to the Indian nuclear test in 1975. The test demonstrated that certain non-weapons specific nuclear technology could be readily turned to weapons development. Nations already signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) saw the need to further limit the export of nuclear equipment, materials or technology. Do you think India is not devoid on merits?

    Dear Roshan,

    Its all over the internet that Pakistan nuclear plants are more safer then India and your own writer acknowledged this fact. Your your country is safe? seriously? what about the Uranium being stolen from India?

    Dear Ramesh,

    India only deserves the membership if it adheres to the rules of NSG which includes that any member of the NSG would sign the NPT. Then why India is not signing the NPT? Why India didn’t brought 8 reactors under the IAEA comprehensive Safe Guard?

    • September 3, 2016 at 7:33 am

      Dear Zurgham Haider

      If you’d gone through the very same Harvard Kennedy School report about worldwide nuclear security that’s appeared “all over the internet” as you rightly pointed out, it highlights (and is also quoted by Dawn), that it is difficult to judge whether India’s nuclear security is capable of protecting against the threats it faces, though it is likely adversary threats in India are “less extreme” than those in Pakistan. So the report only raises a concern, rather than prove a fact. That said, you may yet want to look into the bigger problem facing you back home rather than worry about India for the moment.

      With regard to the reasons why India refuses to sign the NPT, it’s actually the article’s failing for not highlighting it, and not really my job as a commentator to furnish these details. However, if you’re genuinely interested, you may try using google because that information is also readily available “all over the Internet”.

  • September 5, 2016 at 2:58 am

    Advisable is to make a group called “NSG minus Known Proliferators”

  • September 5, 2016 at 6:52 am

    Can the author explain her statements quoted below….

    ïf India is not qualified, how does Pakistan can even think of applying for NSG membership ?
    Is Pakistan ready to Sign the NPT to gain NSG membership even if India does not go ahead ?

    “India has a doubtful track record in nuclear safety” – How ?

    Delaying NSG is only making india to develop thorium nuclear energy, So I cant see a reason why NSG is even going to be relevant for INdia’s clean power woes….Its just a formality that India wants to satisfy among a checklist of things to get the UNSC seat…NSG is only for that purpose.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *