PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON US-INDO NUCLEAR DEAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 NEW DELHI 006011

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/03/2015
TAGS: PGOV PREL MNUC MASS KNNP ENRG EPET KDEM NSSP
SUBJECT: PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON US-INDO NUCLEAR DEAL

REFLECTS PARTIES' VISIONS OF INDIA'S FUTURE

REF: A. NEW DELHI 5879

B. NEW DELHI 5815

C. NEW DELHI 5616

Classified By: PolCouns Geoffrey Pyatt, for Reasons 1.4 (B, D)


1. (C) Summary: The much-anticipated Lok Sabha debate on PM
Singh's visit to Washington and his July 28 statement in
Parliament (Ref A) contained few surprises: the BJP called
for a national debate and nit-picked over technicalities of
the agreement while the Communist parties decried the
Congress shift away from a non-aligned foreign policy. The
BJP's criticism, led by a statement from former PM Vajpayee,
could not hide the bitterness in the party that Congress
achieved a nuclear victory that rode on their own progress
with the US over the past five years. Emphasizing the need
for an independent foreign, military and nuclear policy, the
Left Front criticized the Congress for making India a "junior
partner" of the US. These arguments are both expected and
manageable, and demonstrate how the Communists stubbornly
cling to an outdated past while the BJP and Congress are
working for a closer relationship with the US. Lurking
behind this debate is a broader Indian public concern that
despite all the progress in US-India relations, the GOI
cannot trust the Americans. End Summary.

BJP: (IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN US) BUT OUR DUTY IS TO OPPOSE
-------------- --------------


2. (U) The thrice-delayed Lok Sabha on the PM's July 28
speech debate began with a statement from BJP former PM
Vajpayee, who called for a national debate to achieve
consensus on US-Indo nuclear cooperation and questioned
whether the deal was in India's best interest. His first
complaint was that the Congress government should have taken
the Parliament into confidence on the matter before making
any commitments. In line with his earlier statements, he
also questioned whether India should separate its civilian
and military facilities, charging that it would be too costly
and difficult a task and could harm India's security. Third,
Vajpayee worried that India made significant commitments that
could stifle its nuclear program without extracting any
guarantees from the United States. He asked the Congress
government to clarify whether any "indirect conditionalities"
had been imposed on India for the deal, and worried that
inspections could limit production of nuclear materials.

COMMUNISTS: FROM NAM LEADER TO US FLUNKY
--------------


3. (U) Continuing the argument they made after Defense
Minister Mukherjee's US visit (Ref B),the Left Front
assailed Congress for deviating from Jawaharlal Nehru's
vision of non-alignment as the foundation of Indian foreign
policy. In an impassioned speech, CPI leader Pramodh Panda
questioned whether the US and India had any common interests,
given the disagreements over the invasion in Iraq, gas from
Myanmar and Iran, support for Pakistan and India's bid for a
UNSC seat. Ideologically opposed to American foreign policy,
he said that India was becoming a "junior partner" of a
country that "by fighting terrorism, was actually creating
it, and in the name of spreading democracy, was actually
destroying it." Protecting India's interests, according to
the Left, requires maintaining an independent foreign and
nuclear policy, which PM Singh sacrificed in Washington. In
a surprising and bizarre argument, Panda also attacked the
agricultural agreement for imposing an American corporate
agenda which will "destroy the Indian farmer" and lead to
terrorism, as demonstrated, he claimed, by the terrorism
explosion in the Punjab after the first US-sponsored green
revolution. Comment: Huh? End Comment.

CONGRESS: ON OUR OWN TERMS AND IN OUR BEST INTERESTS
-------------- --------------

4. (U) In response to these accusations, Congress MP Pawan
Bansal defended the Prime Minister and the joint statement as
the best way forward for India's foreign policy and domestic
development. He allayed BJP concerns and echoed the PM by
clarifying that the GOI would undertake all commitments on a
reciprocal basis and emphasizing that it was India's
prerogative to decide which facilities would be set aside for
military use. In a dynamic world, Bansal argued that nuclear
technology was a priority and India should take advantage of
a changed attitude in the US for its own energy development.
Calling it "the best agreement for India's future," he
criticized the Left Front for being stuck in the past. Even
Samajwadi Party MP Rup Chand Pal defended closer cooperation
with the US, saying that the non-aligned movement was
irrelevant in today's world. Both the Congress and Left
parties questioned whether taking Parliament into confidence
was feasible, and cited examples of the BJP's "secret deals"
during their term in power.


5. (U) On August 2, Defense Minister Mukherjee also made a
statement in the Lok Sabha clarifying the "New Framework for
the US-India Defense Relationship," the text of which is
copied below in paragraph 7. Several Communist leaders took
the opportunity to criticize closer defense cooperation,
charging that the US is eyeing another market for its
military hardware and hoping to "use India against China."

COMMENT: NOTHING NEW TO SOUR PUBLIC OPINION
--------------


6. (C) Watching this debate unfold, Poloff found the mood
generally sedate, with many spectators dozing off and none of
the fisticuffs that are common in the Indian Parliament. The
most vociferous arguments ironically came from the ostensible
coalition partner Communists, who oppose the joint statement
as a manifestation of closer relations with the US, even
though they generally support many of achievements of the
PM's visit. The BJP's hands are tied, since nuclear
cooperation through the NSSP was its own brainchild, as a
result, it limited questioning to whether India got the best
deal. The press has pointed out that former NSA Mishra
previously proposed a similar nuclear deal to the US during
BJP rule (Ref C),thus their arguments are largely viewed as
politically motivated, with sour grapes mixed in. Throughout
the debate, US support for Pakistan and opposition to the
Iran pipeline and India's UNSC campaign came up again and
again, and served to demonstrate where our interests diverge.
Nevertheless, the Congress party and the scientific
community are addressing the BJP's nuclear questions, and
elite opinion is quickly moving ahead of the Communists'
archaic foreign policy views. A deeper problem, which came
out strongly during PolCouns' recent visit to West Bengal, is
the belief among many Indians that despite much progress in
bilateral relations, the US is not to be trusted. Turning
around this grassroots skepticism will be easier as we
proceed with implementation of the July 18 framework, and
will be facilitated by the favorable turn of elite opinion.
For now, the hub-bub in Parliament appears manageable. End
Comment.

FULL TEXT OF MUKHERJEE'S STATEMENT
--------------


7. (U) Begin GOI text:


A. I made an official visit to the United States of American
(USA) recently at the end of June 2005 at the invitation of
the US Secretary of Defense. The visit provided an
opportunity for an exchange of views with the US leadership
on international security issues and to promote cooperation
with the US to strengthen and modernize our armed forces and
our defense industries through increased professional
interaction in the military sphere and collaboration in the
sphere of defense equipment and technology in the mutual
interest of both countries. A document entitled "New
Framework for the US-India Defense Relationship" was signed
during the visit. The 'Framework' contains only enabling
provisions. It does not contain any commitments or
obligations.


B. The 'Framework' updates the 'Agreed Minutes on Defense
Relations between India and the United States' signed in
January 1995 It identifies global security threats that have
seriously affected our security, such as terrorism and
violent religious extremism, and the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD) and related materials, data and
technologies as areas of shared concern, and provides for
cooperation with the US to enhance our capabilities in
responding to these and prospects of cooperation in advanced
and sensitive technologies and other challenges like natural
disasters. It reflects our interest in the security of the
sea-lanes and regional and global security and stability. It
establishes a new Defense Procurement and Production Group
under the existing Defense Policy Group to promote a defense
trade, production and technology relationship with the US.
It also provides for a dialogue on internal security issues,
and cooperation with the international community to promote
regional and global stability through cooperative actions in
the mutual interest.


C. The visit builds on ongoing efforts to expand cooperation
with the US in the field of high technology by opening up the
US as a potential source of advanced defense equipment and
technology, increasing our options and leverage vis-a-vis
suppliers in the acquisition of defense technology, promoting
cooperation with the US to enhance the capabilities of
India's Armed forces and defense industries, and increasing
our strategic maneuverability in international affairs.


D. The 'Framework' document should be seen in this context.
Concerns expressed in Parliament and in the press on the
implications of the document have included apprehensions that
it commits India to deploying troops in support of US-led
coalition operations in Iraq and possibly elsewhere; that it
adopts vocabulary and language, and therefore the world view
of the United States and that it promotes US security
interests and not ours, and therefore compromises our
security. None of these apprehensions are justified. The
document, more than anything else, signals US willingness to
enhance defense cooperation with India and strengthen our
defense capabilities. It is in our interest to see how we
can exploit this change of attitude to our advantage. It is
an enabling document that provides a framework within which
specific cooperation can take place. It is up to us how we
develop this. This will not be dictated to us. It will be
decided by mutual agreement.


E. The presumption that "shared" interests involving the US
must necessarily mean primacy to US interests, reflects a
lack of self-confidence in ourselves. As a trustee of the
legacy of independence, secularism, non-alignment and
autonomy and independence on our domestic and foreign
policies, we have the self-confidence that will be able to
recognize and resist anything that is not in our national
interest, not confuse US interests with ours, or subordinate
our interests to US interests.
BLAKE