Five days at the hallowed halls of the Hofburg Palace, listening to experts transcend all boundaries to engage with each other, the Science and Technology conference turned out to be a convincing one. For me, at least. But as an Indian journalist, there was also a question gnawing away at me. Why isn’t India here? Why aren’t we here?&nbsp;It appears that decades later, the conversation of nuclear test ban and transparency, which in many ways began in New Delhi, has changed course over time. And a lot has contributed to these shifting winds.<h2>Global call-to-action transforms into a national call</h2>In 1954, the U.S. conducted a high-yield thermonuclear test called ‘Castle Bravo’; it’s resulted yield nearly three times the expected amount. Shortly after, thousands of miles away, free India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru delivered a thundering address at the Parliament’s lower house, or Lok Sabha.&nbsp;Nehru became the world’s first statesman to call for a nuclear test ban. He urged that nuclear powers of the world create a ‘standstill agreement’ – a critical step towards the long journey of nuclear disarmament. Much has changed in the next 20 years, and India’s stance has shifted. Rather, it was forced to shift under a strong geopolitical compass, often moved by the West.&nbsp;Fresh out of its colonial identity and finding its footing in the world, New Delhi moved against it. In 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test. Codenamed ‘Operation Smiling Buddha’s the test triggered a hypocritical frown from the West. It marked a significant moment; making India the sixth country to possess nuclear weapons. More importantly, it was the first outside the permanent members of the UN Security Council to conduct such a test.&nbsp;India did not stop its nuclear ambitions there. In 1998, the country conducted Pokhran-II, a second series of nuclear tests. For India’s leadership, the tests were an assertion of strategic autonomy.&nbsp;<h2>India &amp; CTBT: A relationship stuck in time</h2>Two years before India’s second nuclear test, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty came into existence.In the year 1996, the CTBT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on&nbsp;10 September. But for the treaty to enter into force, it was decided on various factors that 44 countries are necessary to sign and ratify it.&nbsp;Of those 44, there are 9 countries that have not ratified the treaty. Of these, there are 3, which have not even signed it. India, Pakistan &amp; North Korea. The Pariahs. Of the three, North Korea is no surprise. Pakistan has chosen to be an observer state. But India, excluding itself, has long been a surprise for many stakeholders globally and domestically, too. Not to forget, the company finds itself in. One, an adversarial neighbour with a deeply connected past but a complicated co-existence ever since. The second is a country that has chosen to keep the world at arm’s length.&nbsp;But India? With its global positioning and the growing bilateral relationships with countries around the world, why has it segued away from this multi-lateral relationship of the CTBTO? Several reasons.&nbsp;New Delhi has repeatedly called the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty an unequal one, biased towards the five recognised nuclear states, which do not include India. The country has also contested ambiguous language in several of the Treaty’s provisions. For one, the lack of clarity on sub-critical nuclear tests remains a strong point of contention even today. More recently, it appears to have only deepened, especially after the U.S. conducted subcritical nuclear tests in May last year.&nbsp;Another provision of the Treaty that India contests is the ‘On-Site Inspection.’ The country has long maintained that it finds OSI intrusive, and in contradiction to national security, which cannot be compromised. Nor should it.&nbsp;Let me be clear; India’s issues with the Treaty are valid. My issue is the closed door that has hindered any and all possible conversation, at a table where 187 state signatories have a seat. India has repeatedly been offered a proposal to accept an observer status and access the data from the CTBTO’s International Monitoring System. But India has refused, as recently as 2019.&nbsp;India does not stand to lose much by accepting an observer status. It absolves the country of any obligation towards the Treaty, but grants access that any country positioning itself as an upcoming global superpower does need. Geopolitically, India should take a seat at any and every table its regional neighbours sit on. Especially Pakistan and China. Beyond the obvious strategic positioning, India’s diplomatic stakeholders need to take its scientific and academic community into confidence. Now more than ever, there is a pressing need for multi-lateral conversations, but they are incomplete without India, and India is incomplete without them.&nbsp;My two cents to New Delhi? You don’t have to take the plunge, but you can take a single step. It is time.

A record participation unfolded at the CTBTO’s Science & Technology conference this past week. But India, estimated to have the third-largest scientific and technical manpower in the world, was conspicuously absent. Question is, why?

Five days at the hallowed halls of the Hofburg Palace, listening to experts transcend all boundaries to engage with each other, the Science and Technology conference turned out to be a convincing one. For me, at least. But as an Indian journalist, there was also a question gnawing away at me. Why isn’t India here? Why aren’t we here? It appears that decades later, the conversation of nuclear test ban and transparency, which in many ways began in New Delhi, has changed course over time. And a lot has contributed to these shifting winds. Global call-to-action transforms into a national call In 1954, the U.S. conducted a high-yield thermonuclear test called ‘Castle Bravo’; it’s resulted yield nearly three times the expected amount. Shortly after, thousands of miles away, free India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru delivered a thundering address at the Parliament’s lower house, or Lok Sabha. Nehru became the world’s first statesman to call for a nuclear test ban. He urged that nuclear powers of the world create a ‘standstill agreement’ – a critical step towards the long journey of nuclear disarmament. Much has changed in the next 20 years, and India’s stance has shifted. Rather, it was forced to shift under a strong geopolitical compass, often moved by the West. Fresh out of its colonial identity and finding its footing in the world, New Delhi moved against it. In 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test. Codenamed ‘Operation Smiling Buddha’s the test triggered a hypocritical frown from the West. It marked a significant moment; making India the sixth country to possess nuclear weapons. More importantly, it was the first outside the permanent members of the UN Security Council to conduct such a test. India did not stop its nuclear ambitions there. In 1998, the country conducted Pokhran-II, a second series of nuclear tests. For India’s leadership, the tests were an assertion of strategic autonomy. India & CTBT: A relationship stuck in time Two years before India’s second nuclear test, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty came into existence. In the year 1996, the CTBT was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September. But for the treaty to enter into force, it was decided on various factors that 44 countries are necessary to sign and ratify it. Of those 44, there are 9 countries that have not ratified the treaty. Of these, there are 3, which have not even signed it. India, Pakistan & North Korea. The Pariahs. Of the three, North Korea is no surprise. Pakistan has chosen to be an observer state. But India, excluding itself, has long been a surprise for many stakeholders globally and domestically, too. Not to forget, the company finds itself in. One, an adversarial neighbour with a deeply connected past but a complicated co-existence ever since. The second is a country that has chosen to keep the world at arm’s length. But India? With its global positioning and the growing bilateral relationships with countries around the world, why has it segued away from this multi-lateral relationship of the CTBTO? Several reasons. New Delhi has repeatedly called the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty an unequal one, biased towards the five recognised nuclear states, which do not include India. The country has also contested ambiguous language in several of the Treaty’s provisions. For one, the lack of clarity on sub-critical nuclear tests remains a strong point of contention even today. More recently, it appears to have only deepened, especially after the U.S. conducted subcritical nuclear tests in May last year. Another provision of the Treaty that India contests is the ‘On-Site Inspection.’ The country has long maintained that it finds OSI intrusive, and in contradiction to national security, which cannot be compromised. Nor should it. Let me be clear; India’s issues with the Treaty are valid. My issue is the closed door that has hindered any and all possible conversation, at a table where 187 state signatories have a seat. India has repeatedly been offered a proposal to accept an observer status and access the data from the CTBTO’s International Monitoring System. But India has refused, as recently as 2019. India does not stand to lose much by accepting an observer status. It absolves the country of any obligation towards the Treaty, but grants access that any country positioning itself as an upcoming global superpower does need. Geopolitically, India should take a seat at any and every table its regional neighbours sit on. Especially Pakistan and China. Beyond the obvious strategic positioning, India’s diplomatic stakeholders need to take its scientific and academic community into confidence. Now more than ever, there is a pressing need for multi-lateral conversations, but they are incomplete without India, and India is incomplete without them. My two cents to New Delhi? You don’t have to take the plunge, but you can take a single step. It is time.

A record participation unfolded at the CTBTO’s Science &amp; Technology conference this past week. But India, estimated to have the third-largest scientific and technical manpower in the world, was conspicuously absent. Question is, why?

India and CTBTO need each other

The United Nations Security Council on Friday adopted a resolution urging quick global implementation of a treaty that would ban tests of nuclear weapons. 
 
More than 160 countries have ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). But eight nations have not yet ratified the treaty.&nbsp; 
 
The 15-member Council urged China, the United States, North Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel and Pakistan to ratify the agreement, which would allow the deal negotiated 20 years ago to come into force. 
 
Since then India, Pakistan and North Korea have conducted nuclear tests.&nbsp; 
 
Invoking North Korea&#39;s latest and largest nuclear explosion, the US secretary of state John Kerry said the treaty would make for &quot;a safer, more secure, and more peaceful planet.&quot; 
 
The resolution draft by the United States calls on all states to refrain from conducting any nuclear explosions. 
 
&quot;But it does reinforce the core purposes and objectives of the CTBT itself: to diminish our reliance on nuclear devices, to reduce competition among nuclear powers, and to promote responsible disarmament,&quot; Kerry told the council. 
 
14 member countries voted in favour of the resolution and an abstention by Egypt. 
 
Egypt&#39;s Hisham Badr, assistant foreign minister for multilateral affairs, described the resolution as &quot;substantively flawed and ill-suited to be addressed in the Security Council.&quot; 
 
&quot;Its contribution to the nuclear disarmament regime is minimal and ineffective. Rather than strengthening this regime, the resolution squanders the opportunity to emphasise the urgency to advance nuclear disarmament,&quot; he told the council. 
 
Although the resolution does not impose any legal obligations on the countries, but would add political weight to the push for an early ratification of the treaty.&nbsp; 
 
The United States itself has not yet ratified the ban on nuclear tets. US President Barack Obama&#39;s administration is in favour of the treaty but a number of lawmakers, including Republicans oppose the pact fearing it would limit their security options.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;Our affirmative vote here is a sign of our unwavering commitment to a safer world in which nuclear technology is used solely for peaceful purposes and the risk of nuclear conflict is no more,&quot; Kerry said. 
 
Anti-treaty minded Republicans had rejected it under former US President Bill Clinton and congressional opposition remains strong till date.&nbsp; 
 
UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of Russia said Moscow hoped the next president of the United States would be &quot;more strident in his desire to ratify it.&quot;&nbsp; 
 
The UN&#39;s Comprehensive Test Ban Organisation has a network of monitoring stations. But it still cannot go on site to inspect for tests until the treaty enters into force.&nbsp; 
 
For that, the holdouts among the 44 countries that are designated &quot;nuclear-capable&quot; the United States, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan must ratify.&nbsp; 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

The 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, yet to be ratified by eight nations, urges global nuclear disarmament

The United Nations Security Council on Friday adopted a resolution urging quick global implementation of a treaty that would ban tests of nuclear weapons. More than 160 countries have ratified the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). But eight nations have not yet ratified the treaty. The 15-member Council urged China, the United States, North Korea, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel and Pakistan to ratify the agreement, which would allow the deal negotiated 20 years ago to come into force. Since then India, Pakistan and North Korea have conducted nuclear tests. Invoking North Korea's latest and largest nuclear explosion, the US secretary of state John Kerry said the treaty would make for "a safer, more secure, and more peaceful planet." The resolution draft by the United States calls on all states to refrain from conducting any nuclear explosions. "But it does reinforce the core purposes and objectives of the CTBT itself: to diminish our reliance on nuclear devices, to reduce competition among nuclear powers, and to promote responsible disarmament," Kerry told the council. 14 member countries voted in favour of the resolution and an abstention by Egypt. Egypt's Hisham Badr, assistant foreign minister for multilateral affairs, described the resolution as "substantively flawed and ill-suited to be addressed in the Security Council." "Its contribution to the nuclear disarmament regime is minimal and ineffective. Rather than strengthening this regime, the resolution squanders the opportunity to emphasise the urgency to advance nuclear disarmament," he told the council. Although the resolution does not impose any legal obligations on the countries, but would add political weight to the push for an early ratification of the treaty. The United States itself has not yet ratified the ban on nuclear tets. US President Barack Obama's administration is in favour of the treaty but a number of lawmakers, including Republicans oppose the pact fearing it would limit their security options. "Our affirmative vote here is a sign of our unwavering commitment to a safer world in which nuclear technology is used solely for peaceful purposes and the risk of nuclear conflict is no more," Kerry said. Anti-treaty minded Republicans had rejected it under former US President Bill Clinton and congressional opposition remains strong till date. UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin of Russia said Moscow hoped the next president of the United States would be "more strident in his desire to ratify it." The UN's Comprehensive Test Ban Organisation has a network of monitoring stations. But it still cannot go on site to inspect for tests until the treaty enters into force. For that, the holdouts among the 44 countries that are designated "nuclear-capable" the United States, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan must ratify. (WION with inputs from agencies)

UN Security Council adopts resolution on nuclear test ban, calls for quick enforcement of CTBT

comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty

Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, News on Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, stories on Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, articles on Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty stories at Wion, Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty news, Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty latest news

comprehensive nuclear-test-ban-treaty

India and CTBTO need each other

UN Security Council adopts resolution on nuclear test ban, calls for quick enforcement of CTBT