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