The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Nuclear deal: why avoid sense of Parliament?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Aug 12, 2006

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Nuclear deal: why avoid sense of Parliament?

Prakash Karat

Why is the UPA Government unwilling to have the nuclear deal discussed in Parliament so that a common viewpoint emerges which can be the sense of Parliament? What is clear is that the Government has begun to adjust our foreign policy to the strategic partnership.

THE INDO-U.S. nuclear agreement has been at the centre of a major controversy. Serious problems have arisen over the manner in which the nuclear cooperation deal is sought to be implemented. From the time of the July 18, 2005 nuclear cooperation agreement and the first statement made by the Prime Minister to Parliament on July 29, the course of negotiations has resulted in the United States seeking to change the terms and conditions contained in the joint statement.

These warning signals became more explicit when the U.S. Congress took up for consideration the bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act to exempt certain provisions to facilitate the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement. Two versions of the bill processed through the relevant committees of the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives have added on various unacceptable conditions and reframed important provisions of the original agreement. The House of Representatives adopted the draft bill (HR 5682), which is exactly the same as what was approved in the House Committee. The Senate is supposed to take up its version of the bill in September.

The statements of policy contained in the bill are highly objectionable as they seek to bind India not only on nuclear issues but on broader foreign policy goals. It requires the United States to secure India's full participation with the United States so as to "dissuade, isolate and if necessary sanction and contain Iran." It also requires the United States to secure India's active participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a plan that contravenes international laws.

Taken along with the Senate version of the bill, there are a number of points of departure from the July 18 framework agreement. They concern "full" civilian nuclear cooperation, the nature of the additional protocol to be signed with the IAEA, the sequence of the additional protocol coming after the U.S. adopts the agreement into law, the guarantee of fuel supply from the Nuclear Suppliers Group countries in case the United States backs out of its commitments, and India's stand on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty.

It is not necessary here to go into the specific details of these issues and how the goalposts have been shifted after the original July 18 agreement. They have been adequately covered in several articles appearing in the press. What should concern us is the way the issue is being dealt with by the United Progressive Alliance Government and the role of Parliament in this regard.

The Left parties decided on the eve of the monsoon session that this important issue must be raised in Parliament. The sense of Parliament should be expressed, so that the parameters on which the agreement can proceed are spelt out. The Government has so far refused to accept any proposal that would lead to the sense of Parliament being expressed — either through a statement by the Prime Minister on which a discussion can take place, or by his reply following a discussion in Parliament. The key question is whether the statement would respond to the developments that have taken place since the Prime Minister's first statement in Parliament on July 29, 2005.

The issues that have arisen from the bills being pursued through the U.S. Congress and the reports of the negotiations so far have thrown up doubts in seven areas. The sense of the House through a statement of the Prime Minister should reflect India's stand on these issues based on his exposition in Parliament on what the July 18 agreement stood for. The points that need to be addressed are given in the accompanying box.

Thus far the Government has not gone beyond making a general statement on the floor of both Houses in answer to questions. They are confined to assuring the House that there will be no going beyond the parameters of the July 18, 2005 joint statement and an assurance that there will be no compromise on the issue that will affect our nuclear technology development. This does not serve the purpose of Parliament's views being expressed in a situation where the U.S. Congress has moved to rewrite and reframe the terms of the agreement.

There are justifiable apprehensions that the nuclear agreement is being utilised to serve the wider purpose of the United States to harness India as an ally for its wider strategic interests in South Asia and on the international plane. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that the nuclear deal is a "strategic achievement." The UPA Government seems oblivious of the wider purpose. More disturbingly, there is evidence of how the Government has begun to adjust our foreign policy to the strategic partnership.

The volte face on the Iran nuclear issue in the International Atomic Energy Agency was the first major instance. On the eve of the passage of the House of Representatives Bill, the Bush administration issued a formal statement in support of the legislation. In that, it is stated "India has agreed to support international efforts to limit the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies including to states such as Iran." Has the UPA Government decided that Iran has no right to reprocessing technologies being a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? There is no refutation of this statement by the Government.

The efforts to obfuscate the issue by stating that the amendments set out in the U.S. legislation are "non-binding" have also to be exposed. The policy statements in the legislation passed in the House of Representatives are to be pursued and annually reviewed through presidential certification. There is ample proof and experience on how the amendments in U.S. legislation are implemented. The Jackson-Vanick amendment to the U.S. Trade Act passed by Congress in the early 1970s when the Soviet Union existed concerned restrictions on Jews emigrating to Israel. The amendment imposed trade restrictions and prohibited sale of hi-technology to the Soviet Union as long as Jews could not freely emigrate. That amendment remains in force 20 years later, even after the Soviet Union has ceased to exist and Jews have freely left the country. So the clauses added on as amendments to U.S. legislation should not be brushed aside as "non-binding" clauses.

The argument that we should wait for the "final product" to emerge from Congress before discussion in Parliament also does not hold water. Step by step, the goalposts are being shifted and India will find itself boxed in, if corrective steps are not taken at every stage. For instance, how the negotiations on the IAEA protocol should proceed will depend on the understanding of the sequencing of the steps in the agreement. The reality is that Parliament will have no effective say on the agreement if most of the major decisions become a fait accompli. Everyone knows it has no powers for ratifying international treaties and agreements.

What the people of India would like to know is why the UPA Government is unwilling to have the nuclear deal discussed in Parliament so that a common viewpoint emerges which can be the sense of Parliament. When the U.S. Congress can discuss an agreement that vitally affects India's security and foreign policy interests, what is the purpose behind not agreeing to such an intervention by Parliament?

Certain sections in the ruling establishment have sought to project the efforts for a sense of Parliament as the lining up of the CPI (M) with the BJP. This is being raised only to sidetrack the real issue. The Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement can have far-reaching implications. The nuclear agreement has aspects of India signing up on treaties "in perpetuity" and this should be seen as a national issue. Every effort should be made to work out a common stand through Parliament. If the nuclear deal, as the UPA Government claims, is in national interest, surely Parliament can weigh the issues involved and convey its opinion. This would be the best way by which the Government can fortify its position in negotiating an agreement on such a crucial issue.

[The writer is the general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)]

* * *

Points that need to be clarified in Parliament

1. Whether the deal will give "full" access to civilian nuclear technology and lift all existing sanctions on dual use technology imposed on India for not signing the NPT.

2. Cannot accept restrictions on Indian foreign policy to be imposed such as on Iran, irrespective of whether it is in the policy section or in the sense of the house section of the legislation.

3. Signing of IAEA safeguards in perpetuity for the civilian programme to take place after the U.S. Congress has approved of a "123 Nuclear Co-Operation Agreement." All restrictions on India to be lifted before we sign the IAEA safeguards.

4. Guarantees on fuel as agreed in the March 2006 agreement. In case the U.S. reneges on supply of fuel, they will ensure continuity through other members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG).

5. India will work for an FMCT and for nuclear disarmament for all nuclear weapon states, in line with the Rajiv Gandhi Plan or Delhi Declaration in tandem.

6. In the original deal, there is no provision for U.S. inspectors, only provision for IAEA inspectors. The draft U.S. Bills contain such provisions.

7. An India-specific protocol and not an Additional Protocol as per IAEA Standard Modified Protocol.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Terror and the Pakistan connection

Tackling chikungunya

Nuclear deal: why avoid sense of Parliament?

German townsfolk in fear of neo-Nazi rallying point

Corrections and clarifications

India, Pakistan need to move ahead

U.K.'s response to terrorism makes things worse

Lebanon the real victim