INDIAN MP'S ARE GUARDEDLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 NEW DELHI 008298 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/08/2016 TAGS: PREL ETRD ETTC EAID ECON EAGR PINR PTER KDEM IN SUBJECT: INDIAN MP'S ARE GUARDEDLY OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE INDIA/US RELATIONSHIP Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Geoffrey Pyatt for reasons 1.4 (B,D) ¶1. (C) Summary: A selected group of Members of Parliament from the India/US Forum of Parliamentarians (IUFP) discussed a broad range of issues with U/S Burns and Ambassador Mulford during their December 8 meeting. The MPs were mostly from the Congress party, although the BJP and regional parties were also represented. There were no Communist MPs present. Most of the discussion centered on the India/US Civil Nuclear Agreement, with several MPs expressing worries that the final agreement could be flawed and a hard sell in Parliament. U/S Burns worked hard to dispel their concerns, providing cogent and reasonable arguments that the MPs could use to defend the measure. By the end of the meeting, the atmosphere had relaxed, with the MPs more confident about their support. They asked the Embassy to provide additional information (ideally a non-paper) to help them sell the deal. There was considerable interest in next steps and moving beyond the Agreement into other areas. Several MPs identified agriculture as the principal area of concern to most Indians, emphasizing that the US could make a solid contribution to developing this long-neglected sector. End Summary. Broad Possibilities for the Relationship -------------- ¶2. (C) The Ambassador introduced U/S Burns, emphasizing that this was an important moment in the relationship, as the US Congress is set to pass legislation for a historic India/US Civil Nuclear Agreement and send it to the President for his signature. However, there are still things left to do in order for us to gain a full understanding as to what has been accomplished and to ensure that our Indian counterparts are as enthusiastic as we are. U/S Burns called it a great day for the relationship, as we have accomplished something special that defies the history of the past 35 years. This will be an abrupt change. U/S Burns was confident that the deal is in the best interest of India, as it will now be brought into the non-proliferation mainstream. This is ONE of the biggest foreign policy developments of recent times, as it will strengthen the US/India friendship and encourage the already positive trend in trade and investment. Our two great democracies will now work even more closely together on counter-terrorism, HIV-AIDS, combating poverty, stabilizing Afghanistan and other important issues. He emphasized that the US wants to stand side by side with India on counterterrorism. The US also wants to help India remove the remaining barriers on trade and Investment. In this key moment, the U/S appreciated the cooperation from the Indian Parliament. U/S Burns then opened the floor for questions. Lingering Doubts on the Deal -------------- ¶3. (C) A Congress MP noted that we can expect skepticism and cynicism from many quarters in India regarding the nuclear deal. He asked U/S Burns to help Indian MPs understand the fine points to help deal with the expected criticism. Conceding that major progress has been made on the issue of mandatory reporting requirements, he still fully expected NEW DELHI 00008298 002 OF 005 that this could become a major issue for the Indian side. U/S Burns replied that this bill fits well within the parameters of the July 18, 2005, agreement and said the US will meet all its commitments, including fuel assurances. The US made four fuel supply commitments to the GOI in the March 2, 2006 meetings, and all will be met. This is a piece of compromise legislation which enjoys strong upport from both parties. No matter what happens in US politics, this bill will continue to enjoy bi-partisan support. The US has no intention of telling India what to do. Sometimes the U.S. Congress has concerns about a piece of legislation, but they are not strong enough to warrant imposition of restriction by statute. In these cases, Congress schedules reports from Executive Branch agencies. This is a positive development, as it indicates that Congress is satisfied. India has its own policy on Iran. The US will not ask India to do anything beyond what it asks its other allies regarding Iran. India and the US will work together to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, which both countries agree is a good thing. The Ambassador then pointed out that the congressionally mandated burden of preparing reports falls on the Executive Branch, not on India. Some of the reports started as legal provisions that would have required action from the GOI or USG, but have now been successfully downgraded to a reporting requirement. Under the US system of separation of powers, Congress insists that it be kept abreast of developments. Let's Get Beyond the Nuclear Agreement -------------- ¶4. (C) A BJP MP maintained that the US/India relationship has its own momentum and the nuclear deal should not be made into a "benchmark." The US and India should cooperate on a broad spectrum of relations, including trade, and democratization. It is time for the relationship to move beyond the current narrow parameters, but this will require caution from both sides. He expressed concern about the "certification" provision (sic),adding that this could allow the US Congress to probe into Indian affairs. He also emphasized that India is "not so worried" about Iran, but is more concerned about terrorism aimed at its population. If that is the case, he noted, he would find it difficult to support the Iran measure. U/S Burns agreed that the relationship goes beyond nuclear issues and is very broad. Pointing out that he has not yet read the final version of the bill, Burns said he understood that the proposed annual "certification requirement had been changed to a reporting requirement. Noting that the earlier versions of the bill contained what could be considered "discriminatory provisions," U/S Burns described that Secretary Rice had sent a letter to Congress and urged that they be removed. Congress responded by passing responsibility to the State Department in the form of annual reports. The USG prepares "hundreds" of such reports every year on many countries and this measure does not single out India in any way. With this in mind, the final bill should receive a positive reception by the Indian Parliament. Agriculture is the Real Issue -------------- NEW DELHI 00008298 003 OF 005 ¶5. (C) Intoning that "there is no bigger problem in India" than agriculture, another MP maintained that this issue should be highlighted in India/US bilateral discussions, as "we need to show Indians that this relationship will benefit the countryside." The US should be thinking about a "second green revolution." U/S Burns replied that this was a great suggestion and pointed out that during the President's 2006 visit the USG and GOI announced many initiatives including an Agriculture Knowledge Initiative. He reminded the MPs that this issue was "very important" to the Prime Minister and that he brought it up with US officials frequently. The US played an important role in Indian agriculture in the 1950's and we hope to replicate it. The MP emphasized that Parliament should be involved and suggested that the USG sponsor a seminar or event aimed at further stimulating bilateral cooperation on agriculture. The Ambassador announced that he would be happy to host a gathering of prominent Indians, including MPs, but emphasized that his vision was very broad and went beyond the Green Revolution, which was largely restricted to improving how crops were grown. He envisioned a far-reaching series of measures that would deal with the entire process from the field to the retail outlet, and would include transport of products and connectivity to rural villages, as a comprehensive approach is necessary to transform the rural sector. Suggestions for Improvement -------------- ¶6. (C) Shahid Siddiqui of the regional Samajwadi Party stated that it was fairly obvious from this discussion that there is broad support across party lines for further improvements in the India/US relationship. He suggested that the Embassy schedule further meetings with MPs to keep them informed as additional elements of the India/US Nuclear Agreement are implemented. However, he pointed out, such meetings should not be restricted to the Agreement, but could examine a broad range of issues, most particularly agriculture. He suggested that ONE such issue would be the Israel/India relationship, which seems to remain undiscussed even though Israel is now India's number two arms supplier after Russia. Since the majority of Indians are hardly aware of the nuclear deal, we need to focus on issues that really matter to the average person. U/S Burns responded that the credit for the high-quality dialog in India is due in large part to Ambassador Mulford, as "there is no finer Ambassador and Embassy anywhere in the world." The press has also made the nuclear agreement an exclusive concern, often shoving aside positive developments in other areas. For example, the Ambassador pointed out, the Embassy has only received ONE or two letters on the nuclear agreement, and hundreds of letters of thanks for reducing the visa backlog. Managing Iran and the Nuclear Issue -------------- ¶7. (C) A Congress MP agreed with U/S Burns that the nuclear agreement was in India's interest, but warned that "we cannot give the impression that India's foreign policy is dictated by foreign powers." For many Indians, he lamented, the notification requirement will give the impression that the US NEW DELHI 00008298 004 OF 005 might nullify the entire Agreement if India voted with Iran in the IAEA. Furthermore, the five recognized nuclear powers have collectively only opened 14 of their nuclear reactors to international inspection, so why does the Agreement require India to open 14 of its reactors, he asked. U/S Burns replied that he does not expect the US and India to have identical positions on Iran. Japan and the Western European countries have relations with Iran that the US does not have and remain close allies. India and the US agree that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. The reporting requirements are not a compulsion. The bill makes no demands on India and is no challenge to its sovereignty. The US adheres to IAEA guidelines by opening its nuclear reactors to inspection, but keeps its military programs private. India needs to demonstrate a certain degree of transparency, since it has been outside the non-proliferation mainstream for 35 years, Burns said. The Agreement deals only with civil nuclear programs and has nothing to do with military programs. How to Keep the Process Moving -------------- ¶8. (C) A regional party MP agreed that most Indian concerns have now been met, the reporting requirement is not a problem for the relationship, and most Indians now agree that the Agreement is in India's interests. Just as was the case in the US, Indian political parties must rise above their differences and make this a multi-party issue. However, there are reports that Pakistan and China will arrange a similar bilateral agreement. If Pakistan, under the cover of such an agreement, conducts a nuclear test, it would present a serious problem for India, as it would be under tremendous popular pressure to conduct its own test. Likewise, most Indians are not convinced that the Agreement will provide energy security to India. It is only ONE step. The way to move forward is to demonstrate how India will gain from the Agreement, not just on nuclear cooperation, but in a broad range of fields. U/S Burns replied that both the US and India are importing larger amounts of energy and need to diversify their sources. Nuclear power is ONE part of this process and will have HEALTH and environmental benefits. He pointed out that this Agreement is unique, and only for India. President Bush told President Musharraf that there would be no such agreement for Pakistan. U/S Burns did not think that Pakistan and China would ever be able to conclude a similar agreement, because it would have to be approved by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG),which operates by consensus agreement. In India's case, NSG members such as Russia, the European countries and Japan are already on board, and though China is remaining quiet, it will likely support the Agreement in the NSG. Only Ireland, Austria, Sweden and Norway continue to hold out, but they will likely join the emerging consensus. India will achieve a consensus within the NSG that is not possible for Pakistan in light of the proliferation activities of AQ Khan. The Ambassador offered that the Embassy could circulate a document highlighting the benefits of the Agreement for the MPs. ¶9. (C) A Congress MP suggested that the Embassy conduct regular briefing meetings for Indian MPs on the provisions of the Bill. He noted that he had already told his own party NEW DELHI 00008298 005 OF 005 that the annual briefing requirement mandated by Congress is actually a good thing, and that instead of criticizing the process, India should emulate it. He did not see why Parliament should not compel the GOI to issue regular reports on the implementation of the Agreement. Comment -------------- ¶10. (C) The MPs represented an astute and well-read group that is obviously following the Civil Nuclear Agreement closely. The quality of their remarks indicated that Parliamentary debate on the issue could potentially take the high road and avoid histrionics. The MPs entered the meeting mildly skeptical about the Agreement and a little fearful about impending debate and how they would mollify the critics and avoid getting singled out for being too enthusiastic. U/S Burns provided them with a series of cogent and reasoned arguments that they can use to influence the debate. By the end of the meeting the atmosphere was much more relaxed and most of the MPs seemed convinced that they could back the Agreement without facing political problems. ¶11. (C) The resolve of some of the MPs to steer future collaborative efforts into other, less contentious, areas was also reasoned and well-thought out. This implies a muted eagerness to get the Nuclear issue nailed down and move on to many other areas, most particularly agriculture, where there is considerable potential for mutual benefit, as well as the Indian rural sector. End comment. ¶12. (U) This message was cleared by U/S Burns' party. PYATT