NUCLEAR DEBATE RERUN GETS PERSONAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 NEW DELHI 005206 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/05/2017 TAGS: PREL PARM TSPL KNNP ETTC ENRG TRGY IN SUBJECT: NUCLEAR DEBATE RERUN GETS PERSONAL REF: NEW DELHI 5174 Classified By: A/Political Counselor Atul Keshap for Reasons 1.4 (B and D) ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Personal attacks between the ruling Congress Party and opposition BJP leaders marked the eight-hour-plus December 4-5 Rajya Sabha (upper house) nuclear debate in Parliament. Going over the same arguments as in previous Parliament debates, the Left and United National Progressive Alliance (UNPA) parties clarified their position against the nuclear deal, while the UPA government allies made clear that they supported the government. Communist leader Sitaram Yechury said that he expected the government to submit the IAEA safeguards agreement to the UPA-Left committee before initialing it. Portraying the Hyde Act as a nonproliferation measure countering India's strategic program, the BJP reiterated that the party would renegotiate the deal. The DMK party, a UPA ally, fielded the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister's daughter, who made her first speech in Parliament, a strong defense of the nuclear deal. Countering the impression that the Uttar Pradesh-based Samajwadi Party, a key UNPA member, had softened its position during the November 28 lower house debate, SP leader Amar Singh spoke against the deal. Congress Party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi countered the attacks with a detailed, legalistic argument. Although the strong showing by the opposition aimed to demonstrate that a majority of Parliament opposes the nuclear deal, the Congress Party and its core allies stuck together, defying Left and BJP attempts to split the UPA. With the nuclear debate now concluded and the Parliament session nearly finished, all eyes in Delhi will shift to the election in Gujarat ahead of the December 12 vote. We hope this distraction will let the Indian bureaucrats make progress with the IAEA. End Summary. Left Reiterates Old Arguments - - - ¶2. (SBU) Opening the December 4 Rajya Sabha (upper house) debate, Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPM) leader Sitaram Yechury repeated the oft-heard arguments associated with the Left. India had cheaper energy sources than nuclear, Yechury claimed, which meant that choosing nuclear energy, "the most expensive option," denies the "aam aadmi" (the people) of hospitals and schools. He attacked the "illusion" that the 123 Agreement would break India out of its "nuclear apartheid;" instead, it "sucks India into subordinate status to the U.S." He observed that President Bush considers himself a "friend of India," and he feared that Prime Minister Singh would encounter the same fate as other friends like former Prime Ministers Tony Blair, John Howard and Silvio Berlusconi. "We are supporting the government and don't want this fate to follow," Yechury said, prompting the BJP to intervene and ask him whether he supports the nuclear deal. Yechury responded, "I want the government to stay and the nuclear deal not to happen." Explaining the Left's decision to allow the government to negotiate with the IAEA, Yechury asserted that the government will bring the IAEA safeguards agreement back to the UPA-Left committee before initialing it. BJP Twists the Truth - - - ¶3. (SBU) Speaking in Hindi, former Foreign Minister and BJP leader Yashwant Sinha focused on the limits that the Hyde Act and 123 Agreement place on India's ability to test. He portrayed the BJP as always pushing for a strong nuclear deterrent, while the Congress Party has waffled, even confusing credible minimum deterrent with minimum credible deterrent. Minister of State Anand Sharma stood up and protested that Sinha has put "words in my mouth." Sinha continued that the Hyde Act requires the administration to keep the U.S. Congress informed of India's nuclear activities, and questioned whether the 123 Agreement contained fuel supply assurances and consent to reprocess spent fuel. "We will get nothing. All this is false," he shouted. Sinha attacked the Prime Minister for his failure to conclude an agreement in Moscow for four additional reactors in Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu. In fact, Sinha continued, Russia had snubbed the Defense Minister during his November 2007 visit to Moscow. The PM intervened, claiming that such a nuclear agreement depended on the IAEA agreement NEW DELHI 00005206 002 OF 003 and NSG exemption. He also accused Sinha of still being bitter over his own snubbing when he visited Tokyo as Finance Minister and did not meet his Japanese counterpart. ¶4. (SBU) Speaking later in the debate, Arun Shourie, a senior BJP member known for his editorials in the Indian Express, framed the Hyde Act and 123 Agreement as the next step in the U.S. effort to roll back India's nuclear weapons program through legislation. He asserted that the U.S. will try to invoke the puny 100 million dollar safeguards budget in the IAEA to impose bilateral safeguards. Noting that President Bush dismissed certain clauses of the Hyde Act, Shourie claimed that he should have dismissed the whole act. "Rather, he praised the act!" Shourie exclaimed, and doubted the friendliness of President Bush to India, calling the U.S. Congress "much more moderate," particularly regarding Iran. He recalled that when a three-person team from the U.S. Embassy, which included senior advisor Ashley Tellis, visited him, Shourie had requested a list of binding and non-binding clauses, which, Shourie continued, the U.S. team admitted it could not provide because, Shourie believed, all Hyde Act clauses were binding. Reading from the Explanatory Statement issued by the U.S. Congress, Shourie underlined his view that all cooperation will cease as soon as India detonates a nuclear device. UNPA Parties Assert Their Opposition - - - ¶5. (SBU) Faced with the general impression that his party had softened its stance in the November 28 Lok Sabha debate, Samajwadi Party (SP) leader Amar Singh reiterated the "agreement is not honorable at all and not in our benefit." Reinforcing the impression that the United National Progressive Alliance (UNPA, also known as Third Front, composed of eight political parties recently voted out of state office) truly stood united against the deal, Tamil Nadu-based AIADMK spoke twice against the deal. AIADMK member V. Maitreyan criticized the "open market lobbying" by the U.S. officials meetings with government officials and politicians. "Such unrelenting pressure and interference is very dangerous," he claimed. The Telugu Dasam Party (TDP), which had only tabled a statement in the November 28 discussion, prompting the press to speculate that it too had modified its position, did not make a statement. UPA Allies Continue to Show Support - - - ¶6. (SBU) The regional allies of the UPA government also continued to prove that they stood behind Prime Minister Singh. Speaking for the Tamil Nadu-based DMK party, whose leader and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Karunanidhi had earlier expressed doubts about the nuclear deal, his daughter Kanimozhi explained that the DMK had always supported the initiative but merely sought "consensus." She presented the many benefits of the nuclear deal, dismissing any doubts about the DMK's position. Supriya Sule represented the Maharashtra-based UNP (led by Minister of Agriculture Sharad Pawar),and added her party's unequivocal support to the deal. Although a representative from the Bihar-based RJD did not speak, party leader and charismatic Minister of Railways Lalu Prasad Yadav sat through the entire discussion (even though he is not a member of the Rajya Sabha),and helped the Congress Party deflect more personal assertions. Yadav also gave the allotted RJD time to independent MP and noted attorney Ram Jethmalani, who instigated several disruptions in Parliament by proclaiming himself an "undoubted friend of the U.S." and calling the deal the best thing to have happened to India in the last five years. (Note: Jethmalani represents Yadav in the Supreme Court in an ongoing corruption case. End Note.) Congress Puts Up Able Defense - - - ¶7. (SBU) Congress Party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi and Minister of State and Technology Kapil Sibal, speaking third and last during the December 4 discussion, offered detailed defenses of the deal. Speaking third, Singhvi referred to U.S. Supreme Court rulings and the U.S. Constitution to demonstrate that the 123 Agreement took precedence over the Hyde Act. Addressing the Left's doubts about nuclear energy, Singhvi presented a detailed breakdown of how and when NEW DELHI 00005206 003 OF 003 nuclear energy can offer a cost-effective alternative to conventional energy sources. Sibal, who immediately followed Shourie at the end of the debate, challenged the BJP's assertion that it would renegotiate the 123 Agreement. "What is it you want to renegotiate? Do you want the U.S. to say that Indian can have as many tests as they want? Then say so," he taunted, observing that former Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee had first instituted the voluntary testing moratorium. ¶8. (SBU) Providing the government's defense December 5, External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee recounted that throughout India's history, it did not seek to become a Nuclear Weapons State. Rather, he outlined, India has a strong commitment to universal disarmament and nonproliferation, as evidenced by its nuclear doctrine of no first use and credible minimum deterrent. Mukherjee pointed out that India must draw on all energy options if it wanted to grow at 9-10 percent, and, contrary to Yechury's assertion, nuclear energy would benefit the people. He pleaded for the Members of Parliament (MPs) to recognize the reality that India has suffered from sustained sanctions, as proven by the delays in India's Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) fighter program. Referring to the disagreement between the UPA and Left over when an agreement becomes "operationalized," Mukherjee contended that only after the U.S. Congress approves the 123 Agreement should the government consider "operationalization." ¶9. (SBU) Both leader of the opposition Jaswant Singh and Yechury asked for Mukherjee to take a "sense of the House" and acknowledge that a majority of MPs were not convinced. Mukherjee explained that the process is not finished yet, and he declined, prompting the BJP, Left and UNPA parties to walk out. Comment: Tough Debate in Rajya Sabha Could Put Government On Defensive - - - ¶10. (C) More fiery than the dull November 28 Lok Sabha debate, the Rajya Sabha debate made clear where parties stood on the nuclear issue, particularly the regional parties whose alliances have shifted throughout the two-and-a-half year process. Moreover, the BJP's intellectually dishonest arguments, which we have directly countered in previous meetings, made clear that, despite earlier reports of its softening, it too will remain firmly against the deal. Except for the hardened opposition of the Left, the debate showed that the status quo established on day one still exists; the BJP, Left and several third parties oppose it, and the Congress Party and core allies support it. The UPA government must now decide if the Parliament debate could not allow it to proceed straight from the IAEA talks to the Board of Governors. With the debate over for now, the political class now turns its focus to Gujarat, and the election there December 12. We can only hope this will permit the bureaucrats enough cover to keep working as quickly as possible with the IAEA. MULFORD