Grave Crisis Over India-US
Nuclear DealBy Praful Bidwai
27 August, 2007
The NewsThe confrontation between the United Progressive Alliance and the Left over the India-United States nuclear deal has ballooned into a major crisis, which could potentially dislodge the government. The roots of the crisis lie in the way the "123 agreement" was negotiated, without political leaders being taken into confidence about its context or content, or involved in resolving differences over its text.
Opposition to the deal, whether genuine, procedural or contrived, is widespread. But it's only when the Left presented its critique on August 7 that matters came to a head. This was the first well-informed and -reasoned critical analysis of the deal after the "123" text was made public.
Even so, an ugly confrontation might have been avoided but for two events. First, Singh gave an interview to the Kolkata-based Telegraph (Aug 11), challenging the Left to withdraw support to the UPA. Second, US State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack was reported to have said that under "123", "all nuclear cooperation [would be] terminated" if India conducts nuclear test. This was one day after Singh said that testing is India's "sovereign decision", and won't cause
sudden termination.If the second event created confusion, the first provoked the Left. Singh taunted it for not having "thought" things "through", and said: "It is an honourable deal Šif [the Left parties] want to withdraw support, so be itŠ" Singh's self-styled advisers calculated that this would help him play the CPM's so-called "moderate modernisers" in West Bengal off against its "hardliners" to trump their opposition. This betrayed a serious misunderstanding of how the Left parties make policy decisions. It also underrated the unanimity among them on foreign policy and security issues.
The Left's reaction was ballistic. Within three days, Singh was begging CPM general secretary Prakash Karat for a reconciliation meeting. Thus began the worst-ever crisis in UPA-Left relations. The CPM, joined by the other three Left parties, demanded that that the government suspend further talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Suppliers' Group to complete the deal.
Or there would be "serious consequences". Without the Left's support, the UPA would fall short of a parliamentary majority by 30 to 50 seats. Instead of sincerely exploring a via media, the UPA deviously resorted to accusing the Left of acting at China's and Pakistan's behest. This tendentious charge was articulated through Right-wing pro-US China-Pakistan-baiters masquerading as "experts". In reality, there is no live contact between the Indian Left and the Chinese Communist Party, over some of whose policies the Left has serious misgivings.
India is now witnessing the most vicious attack on the Left since the 1962 China War. Every Tom, Dick and Harry in the media--from semi-literate television anchors, to former intelligence spooks, to pitiable third-edit writers--is unleashing vitriolic anti-Communist assaults. This new McCarthyism betrays malignant intolerance. Such intolerance can only have dangerous consequences for public debate. If every dissenting opinion is attributed to the "foreign hand" by suppressing its rational content, and if every difference on principle is reduced to an "ego clash" between personalities, there can be no rational discourse on policy issues. That does not bode well for Indian democracy.
It's simply undeniable that the Indian Left represents the most important current driven by ideology and principle in politics, which perhaps concentrates more brainpower per capita than any other party. Despite the Left's conduct in Singur and Nandigram--of which this writer has been strongly critical--, its objection to the deal on strategic grounds cannot be dismissed. As this column argued two weeks ago, the nuclear deal is inseparable from the larger US game-plan to recruit India into a junior strategic partnership, not least to counter China, and more broadly, to create an anchor for a Washington-dominated security architecture in Asia. The deal cannot be divorced from the Defence Framework agreement of June 2005, nor from India's two votes against Iran at the IAEA, nor from the 27 recent high-level military exercises with the US.
The Left's critique of the deal is foundational. It's centred on the US's deeply destabilising world role, and its attempt to ignite a second Cold War by encircling Russia with NATO and targeting China and Iran through "Son of Star Wars" Ballistic Missile Defence. The US remains the globe's most belligerent power, which has made the world more insecure through its Global War on Terror and its Empire project.
True, the Left did not consistently emphasise the deal's strategic dimensions in the past two years, and often concentrated on its text rather than context. Since December, it has been more concerned to point to differences between the Hyde Act and Singh's assurances to parliament. It didn't really agitate the issue in public. Any genuine, principled opposition to the deal should logically have focused on its harmful global and regional consequences for nuclear disarmament, and its promotion of an inappropriate, costly, hazardous and environmentally unsound energy trajectory through nuclear power development--besides its consequences for the loss of India's strategic and foreign policy autonomy via a strategic embrace of the US. These are significant errors of omission.
However, the government's errors of commission are graver. Singh acted like a typical bureaucrat, and left the deal's negotiation to bureaucrats alone, without bringing political leaders on board. He consistently underplayed its strategic consequences, and fomented the illusion that the deal would offer a magic bullet for India's energy problems. He capitulated to US pressures. Former US assistant secretary of state Stephen Rademaker says India's votes on Iran were obtained through "coercion".
Singh continues to pay lip-service to disarmament, while knowing fully well that the deal will enable India to stockpile 1,600 kg of plutonium every year--enough for more than 300 bombs, in addition to the existing estimated inventory of 100-150 warheads. This is a recipe for a nuclear arms race with Pakistan, and worse, China, which can only reduce the security of all three.
Now, the UPA faces a crisis of survival. It would be foolish for it to brazen this out. It can still rescue the situation by doing four things. The first is to distance itself strategically from Washington demonstrably--by cancelling the huge military exercises with the US, Japan, Australia and Singapore planned for September. Second, it should initiate what might be called a "domestic Hyde Act" to prevent the transfer of any imported nuclear material/equipment out of India which would jeopardise the continuous operation of Indian reactors.
Third, the UPA must update the Rajiv Gandhi plan of 1988 for global nuclear disarmament and place it before the United Nations. That's the only concrete way of fulfilling the National Common Minimum Programme's promise that India would seize "leadership" in fighting for a nuclear weapons-free world. Finally, the UPA must launch a national debate on nuclear power, reviewing India's (unhappy) experience with it, analysing its international performance, and focusing on its hazards, costs and unsustainability.
The UPA must suspend negotiations on the deal while these processes are under way. Similarly, the Left must clarify that it won't vote against the government or contribute to its fall, thus helping the BJP. That could promote an honourable solution.
Leave A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Digg it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So, as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top