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 These arguments are both expected and manageable, and demonstrate how the Communists stubbornly cling to an outdated past while the BJP and Congress are working for a closer relationship with the US.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