Deal or no deal

Of late nearly every one worth his/her salt seems to be commenting on the nuclear deal on the context of the strategic freedom of India as a future super power. Finally Mr Karat the esteemed General Secretary of CPI(M) has gone public about the reasons of the Left opposition to the nuclear deal.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/20/stories/2007082051921200.htm

Any careful perusal of the statement makes the contradictions evident. I have quoted verbatim (in italics) from the article linked and tried to highlight some of the evident contradictions in the actions and stated aims of the Left parties on the issue of the India - US nuclear deal.

Without going into the complex and technical issues concerning civilian nuclear cooperation, it is necessary to take a wider look at the implications of the agreement. Is this only a nuclear cooperation deal or is it part of a wider agreement? If so, does it protect our capacity for an independent foreign policy and how will it affect our sovereignty? One can legitimately question whether India should partner the United States in the global democracy enterprise. “Regime change” and the implanting of democracy have yielded horrific results in Iraq.

By all means the current and future national interest is supreme and should be jealously guarded and it is welcome to analyse the deal from that perspective. But it is best to get the facts straight from fiction. There is no evidence so far to suggest that India is partnering US in any democratic crusade. The high point of the crusade was of course Iraq in which there was not even a debate about our participation covert or overt, forget about actual participation. Even within US the necons are in the decline and domestic US support for such campaigns is non existent (recent congress and senate election debacle), so to think that any such future campaigns are imminent is pure fantasy from the Left to justify reflexive opposition to deny the govt. legitimate credit for a huge foreign policy gain.

The nuclear cooperation deal is only one part of the wide-ranging alliance that the UPA government has forged with the United States. This was spelt out by the Indian Prime Minister and the American President in the joint statement in July 2005 in Washington. This agreement covers political, economic, military, and nuclear cooperation. This alliance entails not just nuclear cooperation but talks of the two countries promoting global democracy, revamping the Indian economy to facilitate large scale investment by the United States, and a strategic military collaboration.Prior to the joint statement of July 2005, the UPA government signed a ten-year Defence Framework Agreement with the Untied States. It is evident that without the defence agreement, the Americans would not have agreed to civilian nuclear cooperation. This seems part of a quid pro quo.

Revamping the Indian economy should be in the top of any agenda which seeks to further our national interest, and if another country is willing to help us attain that, then any such help should be more than welcome. Now, accepting the part that the nuclear deal is a quid pro quo for defence cooperation, it is hard to understand the logic that after conceding the US demand why we should shy away from claiming the part of the quid pro quo arrangement which is 'in our interest' as is conceded by the Left?

Repeated assertions that India’s foreign policy will not be subject to external pressures have not evoked confidence after the Iran episode. Spokesmen for the Bush administration have often cited India’s attitude on Iran to be a test. Even before the nuclear cooperation agreement was finalised, the government responded by voting against Iran not once but twice in the International Atomic Energy Agency. The first serious conflict with the Left arose when the UPA government did a volte-face on the Iran nuclear issue. The government voted along with the U.S. and other Western countries in September 2005 and was not even prepared to go along with the position adopted by the bloc of Non-Aligned Movement countries.

The Left alway seems to hide behind the convenient argument that we are losing our so called 'independence' in foreign policy and independence in foreign policy is a worthy goal in itself even at cost to larger national interests. The fact that we have had an 'independent' foreign policy by acting as the moral guardian of the so called third world has amounted to little in terms of real benefits to the country and it's citizens. Even in the rarefied atmosphere of high diplomacy our self righteous exhortations has counted for little. Our so called NAM friends haven't even stood by us to get an indian elected as UN secretary gen. much less getting into the hallowed security council. The so called Iranian friends are happy to renege legal gas supply agreements to charge us above commercial rates and engaging in brinkmanship in the cohort with our other 'friend' Pakistan on the gas pipeline issue. So when the Left is willing to scuttle it's own govt. and risk the credibility of country to tot up the Iranian interests it is clear whose best interests they are keeping in mind!

The Left parties have been watching with disquiet the way the UPA government has gone about forging close strategic and military ties with the United States. The Left came out in strong opposition to the Defence Framework Agreement. According to this agreement, India is taking steps to interlock our armed forces with that of the United States in the name of “inter-operability.” The framework agreement is leading to various steps like the Logistics Support Agreement and the Maritime Cooperation Pact. The Left has been vehemently opposed to joint military exercises such as the one that took place in the Kalaikunda air base in West Bengal. These exercises were held despite the strong protests of the Left parties and the Left Front government of West Bengal. The years 2005 to 2007 have seen a sharp increase in joint exercises between the two armed forces. This is now being extended to the “quadrilateral” exercises as desired by the U.S. with Japan and Australia in the September naval exercises in the Bay of Bengal.

The United States has been going about stating the obvious strategic and commercial benefits that will accrue from the nuclear deal. Apart from the sale of nuclear reactors, the U.S. is mounting pressure on India for military contracts to purchase fighter planes, naval ships, radar, and artillery. Along with steadily increasing military and security collaboration with Israel, India will find itself entangled in U.S. strategic designs in Asia.

Again Mr Secretary is making some vague allusions to US designs. It will be very useful for the Left to elaborate on the details of the so called 'design' that we are falling prey to. The Left had been 'watching' and doing nothing about the military cooperation between India and US. Why was it silent till now about all the military cooperation of last 2 years and is now creating a ruckus? What is the immediate trigger if not to deny the govt crucial credit which is due from the nuclear deal and 123 agreement. Why did the comrades let the US participate in military exercises in Kalaikunda under their very nose, with out any similar protestations as we are being subjected to now? By the way Indian armed forces are also planning exercises with China, Russia, Thailand, Singapore etc. etc. .... Are we supposed to believe that all these countries have some sinister 'designs' on India or are these exercises just part of maintaining normal diplomatic relations and building military to military contact? Again there are some allusions to US, Australia, India, Japan quadrilateral exercises as being planned as a counter to China. So respecting Chinese and Left sensitivities. if we stay away from such groupings what concessions do we get in return from China ? Would they stop military cooperation and nuclear proliferation to Pakistan? Would they stop claiming our territories and return the ones they have annexed? Would they support or at least stop opposing our entry to ASEAN, UN security council and help us secure rather than undercut our energy supplies? When China takes every possible step to curtail our supposed rise as a powerful nation, why are the Left so keen on not offending Chinese sensibilities at the cost of real benefit to the nation from being closer to the US and Japan. Further, when they wrap and sell it to us as their prescription for protecting our national interests only a person blinded by jaded ideology couldn't see through the smokescreen.

A major reason put forth being made for the nuclear cooperation agreement is that it will help India meet its energy needs. This ignores the very limited contribution that nuclear power makes to our overall energy generation, which is just 3 per cent and cannot exceed 7 per cent even if the ambitious plans for expansion are implemented by 2020. To make India’s foreign policy and strategic autonomy hostage to the potential benefits of nuclear energy does not make sense except for the American imperative to bind India to its strategic designs in Asia.

Owing to the consistent pressure of the CPI(M) and the Left parties who had raised a number of questions regarding the draft legislation before the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, the Prime Minister gave certain categorical assurances to Parliament on August 17, 2006. At that juncture, these assurances were in line with the concerns raised about protecting the country’s interests on the three-stage nuclear programme we have adopted.

However, the situation changed after the U.S. Congress adopted the final legislation to give a waiver for nuclear cooperation with India. This legislation known as the Hyde Act runs contrary to most of the assurances given by the Prime Minister in August 2006. The Act includes provisions imposing restrictions on transfer of technology and barring access to dual use technologies, thus denying India a full nuclear fuel cycle. The U.S. President has to report to the Congress every year on how India is complying with the provisions set out in the Hyde Act. The Act enjoins on the administration the prevention of fuel supplies and equipment from other countries to India if the U.S. terminates the bilateral agreement. The argument that the bilateral text overrides the clause cannot be accepted, as the text also states that “national laws” will prevail. To say that the Hyde Act is not binding to India is irrelevant. The point is that it is binding on the United States.

This is the only part of the statement by Mr Secretary that I think is at least rooted in logic and raises some valid issues. Clearly, it is neither an economic nor scientific consensus that nuclear power is a solution to the looming energy crisis facing the world. Even discounting the European paranoia about nuclear waste there are still lingering safety issues about widespread adoption of nuclear power, when there are other alternatives available like clean coal, bio, solar and wind etc. Even the developed world finds nuclear power expensive, that to without taking into account costs associated with dismantling of obsolete plants and long term safe storage or disposal of nuclear waste. In a highly populous country like India, any nuclear disaster would have disproportionately high human cost which no govt. of future can ignore. Even, assuming for a moment that nuclear power is a viable, safe and economical power source , expecting the US to provide us with world class reactors would be futile. The US nuclear industry has been in virtual freeze since late 1970s 3 Mile island incident and there has been no new reactors commissioned for close to 3 decades. If the hidden goal of the US behind the deal is off load obsolete US equipment at cut throat prices or for India to serve as testing ground for risky new reactor designs then the deal would not be in our interest at all. On the other hand if the deal opens up possibility of greater cooperation with Japan and France (who are the only countries actively commissioning new reactors and generate 80% of their electricity by nuclear process), and also open up importing uranium for running indigenous reactors, then such a deal would be extremely beneficial to us. If the Indian planners have sufficient foresight then they would source reactors from Japan and France and Uranium from Australia or Central Asian countries, which also in turn means that the Hyde act and US policy of return of nuclear equipments etc. becomes irrelevant. While we should internally debate which form of power is best suited for us economically and environmentally, the deal if implemented and followed up correctly opens up an option to expand the contribution from the nuclear sector, hitherto which has been in doldrums due to international restrictions put in place specifically against us (the 1974 Nuclear supply group being constituted in the aftermath of the first Indian nuclear test). As it happens, the world is again seriously considering nuclear power as a component of future solutions to the fossil fuel crisis. By not having an option to rapidly upgrade our nuclear component of power production we will be at significant future disadvantage. The potential harm from such a restriction to our national interest is being completely overlooked by the Left and other opponents to the nuclear deal.

Outside the sphere of nuclear cooperation, the Hyde Act contains directions on India’s foreign policy and other security-related matters. There are nine references to India’s role having to be one of support and complicity with U.S. designs on Iran.

After the Hyde Act was adopted in December 2006, the CPI(M) stated that it contained provisions that were contrary to the assurances given by the Prime Minister to Parliament on August 17, 2006. The CPI(M) repeatedly asked the government not to proceed with the bilateral negotiations for the 123 agreement until this matter was cleared up. But the government did not heed this advice.

The United States is already moving for another round of sanctions against Iran in the United Nations Security Council. Indian companies have been warned not to export to Iran even non-lethal materials. The Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline will not proceed if this nuclear agreement is put in place, despite the government’s protestations to the contrary. It will be unwise and shortsighted for India to spoil its relations with Iran and other West Asian countries, given the vital role these countries play in fulfilling India’s energy needs.

Again the Left's Iran obsession is getting out of hand here and is at variance with our national interest. Foreign policy independent or not must be subservient to the overall national interest and cannot be carried out as a morality play in international arean. It is high time that we recognise the realities of the world power structure and our strengths and weaknesses in that structure. As the world is and is going to be in the near future, the US would be the primary superpower both in military and economic terms. Next in the global pecking order comes Japan in economic strength and technology skills. The Iranians (whom our Left comrades would die for), come no where close to any of these nations and would be facing an internal implosion if not for the global crude price boom. What is the quid pro quo that the Iranians could offer us in return for our support? For all our 'friendship' over the decades with the West Asian and Arab countries what is the 'real' benefit that has accrued to us? Do we have preferential access to crude and gas supply .... no! Do these countries lean on Pakistan to end the terrorist menace ...no! On the contrary, most of the Islamic terrorism is funded by gulf petro dollar in active connivance with the local governments ! So if for a vote against Iran in IAEA the US is offering to open up the nuclear market for us as the Left is suggesting... then by all means we should gladly accept that. It is a very small price to pay for real gain to the country in terms of opening up new opportunity to source nuclear raw material (whose chronic under supply is forcing our current reactors to be under utilised, forget about further expansion! ). The Left should be forced to confront the potential 'real' benefits and losses that the country could potentially suffer by choosing to align with nations built on religious fundamentalism as their core philosophy, instead of aligning with like minded democratic powers.

When the UPA government was being installed in 2004, a Common Minimum Programme was drafted. When the Left was consulted, we insisted on the deletion of a reference to “strategic relations with the United States.” There is no mention of strategic ties with the U.S. in the Common Minimum Programme. But soon after, the government proceeded with forging a wider strategic alliance with Washington.

The Left parties have, after carefully assessing the implications of the 123 agreement, demanded that the government should not proceed further to operationalise the agreement. The objections to the deal have been spelt out in detail in the statement issued by the Left parties. The Left is clear that going ahead with the agreement will bind India to the United States in a manner that will seriously impair an independent foreign policy and our strategic autonomy.

A wise and expedient step for the government will be to acknowledge that there is widespread opposition to the agreement. The question is not whether it should be put to vote in Parliament or not. It is clear that a majority in Parliament is opposed to the agreement. The best course would be for the government not to proceed further with the operationalising of the agreement. Till all the doubts are clarified and the implications of the Hyde Act evaluated, the government should not take the next steps with regard to negotiating the IAEA safeguards, which are to be in perpetuity, and proceed to get the guidelines from the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

The above argument makes mockery of any rational and objective discussion that could be held to critically analyse the potential benefits and pitfalls of the treaty. In the name of majority opposition in Parliament, the Left is hiding behind the fact that it is riding piggy back on the support of the so called communal forces whom it is sworn to oppose! It is the BJP and NDA which exploded the bomb and then started the reconciliation process which has led to the current agreement. It is the NDA govt. which open heartedly supported the purported global war on terror and signed the defence cooperation agreement with the US. Now that they are in the opposition they are wily nily working hard to deny the current govt. any credit for the nuclear deal. It has become an unwritten law in our parliamentary set up that the opposition party should oppose every action of the govt. even if it goes against the decisions of its own previous govt and the the larger interest of the nation. The BJP opposition from this point though quixotical and reflexive, is understandable. But for the Left to hide behind such a facade and project their brand of obstructionist jaded policy as the will of people is nothing other than mockery of democracy. As we see the biggest enemies of the 'rise' of our nation are not external forces (read US), but quixotic pusillanimous vindictive politicians who prevent progressive ideas from taking root to settle petty egoistic goals .... all in the name of defending our 'national interest'.

If it all there is a single person who should be credited with the recent perception of a rising or shining India it is Dr Manmohan Singh, along with the political leadership of PM Rao in 1991, who freed the country decisively from the dark ages of license permit production. He has proven his credibility with 'real' results in the last decade (even the BJP and CPI(M)'s own Buddhadev Bhattacharjee have either wholeheartedly followed or accelerated his policy prescription during their reign) and is seeking to open new possibilities for the country. On what credible basis does the Left in general and Mr Karat in particular are adopting their current holier than thou approach about upholding national interest? Their long stint in power is exactly correlated with the decline of WB from a progressive and leading state of the nation to the economic back water that it is now. All over the world, the ruin of state planned communism is evident. Of course we can always count on North Korea and Cuba as the flag bearers of the future class less society. Comrades in Russia and China are probably more rabidly capitalist than their American counterparts ... the little fuss with which national foreign exchange reserves can be used for hedge fund operations in China has definitely put the US social security administrators to shame! Even more glaringly for the CPI-M, China it self was keen on a similar 123 agreement to be signed with the US after tortuous negotiations (from 1987 to 1998) on much worse terms than us, so that they can have the option of importing Australian Uranium to ensure energy supply for their booming economy. Does it mean that due to the nuclear cooperation with US (or even before when they broke the red solidarity by breaking bread with Nixon in '73), Chinese foreign policy or strategic independence is undermined or is it forced to play along with any democratic crusade of the US? Confident of it's own strength, China has been using the nuclear agreement to ensure energy supply and further secure its strategic and economic interests vis a vis US, Japan and not to forget India. If not anything, then this should be the clinching argument which highlights the duplicity of the Left's opposition to the current deal.

With all its ideological underpinnings being made irrelevant since the collapse of communism and organised worker movement, it is laughable that the obscurantist and anachronistic Indian Left is holding the whole country hostage by hiding behind the patriotism and independent foreign policy smokescreen in hand in hand with the (according to the Left definition ) the neo Fascist BJP! In the process they seek to sacrifice the energy security of the country, keep it permanently hostage to the West Asian 'friends', tarnish the credibility of any future govt. to pursue any meaningful international treaty, preserve permanent Chinese dominance in Asia and of course pave the way for the BJP to return to power. If the Left's vision for India is to be a class less society of beggars (think! if poverty is eradicated then the Left becomes irrelevant) built on self righteous morality (which the world doesn't give damn about) eternally paranoid and insecure about it's place in the world (read the constant exhortations about imperialism in the statements) hand in hand with West Asian fanatics and spurning advances from well meaning nations ... then it is high time well meaning citizens of India call their bluff and consign them to the footnote of history book they belong to.

Bravo comrades keep the farce on!