Opinion

Introduction

After staying outside the international non-proliferation regimes for a few decades, India decided to embark on a new path, seeking to join the global clubs.  This journey includes gaining membership into the global export control mechanisms such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) and Australia Group (AG).  Of these four regimes, India has gained a seat at the MTCR and the process of accession into the other three is currently on.  Even as India enjoys a clean track record in the area o

On 2 December 2015, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has released its final assessment on past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran’s nuclear program.[1] The agency finds no “credible indication of diversion of nuclear material” and “based on all the information available to the Agency relating to nuclear material acquisition…the agency has not found indications of an undeclared nuclear fuel cycle in Iran, beyond those activities declared retrospectively by Iran.”

The World Economic Outlook database, released by the International Monetary Fund on April 14, 2015 has stated that China’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate will drop to 6.8 per cent from 7.4 per cent last year. The biggest challenge that China is now faced with however, is not the declining rates of growth but unemployment, which could trigger social unrest.

I read a news headline a couple of days back that India braces up for Pakistan raising the Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) issue at the United Nations (UN). I always wonder why India is sensitive to Pakistan raising the J&K issue at the UN or at any other international fora?  Firstly as per the Independence of India Act (1935), further endorsed in the 1947 Act, it was the sovereign of the princely state, who was authorised to choose between India, Pakistan or to remain independent.

The old cold war between the US and the Soviet Union, or the NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries, had some clear lines of division. China gradually moved from the anti-US camp to the anti-Soviet comp and in the course maximised its benefits, proving self-interest and not ideology was the essence.

By 2010 China felt that it was strong enough to establish its own “Monroe Doctrine”. But it wanted in a manner, US blessings. A senior Chinese official indicated off the table to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Washington accept the South China Sea as China’s “core interest” that is, South China Sea was Chinese sovereign territory, and China would accept USA’s domination elsewhere. Clinton declined the proposal.

President Xi Jinping appears to have taken full control of the PLA, especially following the recent anti-corruption drive, bringing down heavy weight power centres in the armed forces. As chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), he made emphatically dear to modernize a military that can “fight wars and win wars”.

One of the successful manoeuvres China undertook (from the late 1970s and 1980s) for a seat at the global high table was the “polar” international structure. In the 1980s China projected a tri-polar power balance with the USA and the Soviet Union as the strong poles and China as the third pole weak but growing. This was the theory necessitated the two powers to strengthen China to maintain global stability.

Conventional weapons seem to have reached the end of the road. Does that mean the work started by the likes of Alfred Noble[i] and Tipu Sultan[ii]has finally reached its pinnacle as far as further development in technology and concept is concerned? The answer is in the affirmative!