Nuclear and Arms Control

About Centre

Nuclear science and technology have impinged upon global politics and security studies for decades. IDSA has focused on the study of the political and strategic facets of nuclear science and technology since its inception and is known for providing a different perspective on global nuclear issues. The Institute has been at the forefront of shaping the debate on key nuclear issues in India and in the world at large. The Center for Nuclear and Arms Control is dedicated to advance research on strategic nuclear issues. It is engaged in projects that seek to provide answers to relevant policy questions relating to global nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and anti-proliferation, nuclear energy, global nuclear governance, regional nuclear dynamics, Arms Trade Treaty, the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, among others. Through its outreach activities, the Centre has disseminated its research output in the strategic studies and policy communities.

Members:

Rajiv Nayan Senior Research Associate

No posts of Books and Monograph.

No posts of Jounral.

Implementing the Indo-US. Nuclear Deal: A Pyrrhic Struggle

Two rounds of negotiations have been held between Indian and US officials to negotiate implementing the Indo-US nuclear agreement, embedded in the Joint Statement issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George W Bush on July 18, 2005. Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran's talks with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas D Burns in Washington last week was the second round.

Vote at IAEA Not Anti-Iranian But Pro-India

The Indian vote at the IAEA in Vienna last week has attracted considerable domestic attention and the fact that New Delhi went along with the US-EU position is being interpreted as a case of being anti-Iranian and furthermore, as a betrayal of the non-aligned block and Third World solidarity. This is invalid and the facts as they have emerged need to be carefully analyzed.

The Indo-US nuclear deal has generated a lot of heat: here’s why

The July 2005 visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington has been eventful as far as nuclear issues are concerned. The joint statement, various speeches, briefings, and interactions have given a new direction to the nuclear policies and postures of both India and the United States (US). Of course, much heat has also been generated in both the countries. It is necessary, therefore, to provide some clarity to the heated debate. Is it a sell out/ surrender to the US or a big victory?

Good Day for India?

The joint statement issued at the Manmohan Singh-Bush summit held in Washington (July 18) has generated considerable interest and anxiety in both countries for the manner in which it has addressed the nuclear issue. It merits recall that the nuclear determinant has bedeviled the bi-lateral relationship between the US and India for well over three decades since India's Peaceful Nuclear Explosion in 1974 – which was further exacerbated after the May 1998 Shakti nuclear tests that gave India a de facto nuclear weapon status.

The Chatham House Report and the British Government

New Delhi July 25 A Briefing Paper published by the independent British think tank, The Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), has become an embarrassment for the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair even as Britain is trying to overcome the shock of the terrorist attacks on July 7 in London claiming the lives of more than fifty as well as the foiled attacks on July 21. The Briefing Paper for July 2005 titled “Security, Terrorism and the UK” says:

London Attacks: Abiding Pattern of Global Terrorism

The July 7 multiple attacks in London that crippled the public transport system followed the terrorist attack in Ayodhya on July 5 and while the number of those killed is much lower than the March 2004 Madrid attacks or the mass tragedy of 9/11 that traumatized the USA, what is evident is that the global foot-print of terrorism maintains its malignant and diabolical credibility. Western Europe is within reach.

China and North Korea: A Puzzle of Sorts?

With its repeated admissions of an ongoing nuclear weapons development programme utilising highly enriched uranium, and with an alarmingly advanced missile launching capability, North Korea is at the fulcrum of a crisis that while raising the spectre of nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula also impacts the very foundations of security in northeast Asia. Despite this brinkmanship, a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman assured on May 8, 2005, "our will to denuclearise the Korean peninsula and seek a negotiated solution to it still remains unchanged."

Look Beyond NPT’s Framework

As anticipated, the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) Review Conference held at the UN in New York (May 2-27) ended acrimoniously with no final agreed document among the 188 state parties who are signatories to the treaty that came into force in 1970. This dissonance is in marked contrast to the Rev Cons of 1995 and 2000 when there was significant consensus about the commitments that the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear fraternity were willing to undertake in the furtherance of nuclear proliferation.

NPT: Crisis of Compliance

The agenda of the NPT Rev Con, currently underway in New York, has now been finalized. Moreover, the Chairman of the Rev Con, Ambassador Sergio Duarte of Brazil has also been able to finalize upon the three Main Committees (MC) and the three Subsidiary Bodies (SB). These three subsidiary bodies will look into three important issues: practical steps towards disarmament (SB1), regional issues including the issue of Middle East (SB2) and the issue of withdrawal from the NPT (SB3).