The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Let's await the final U.S. Bill: Pranab

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Nov 21, 2006
ePaper

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Let's await the final U.S. Bill: Pranab

Amit Baruah

Pranab Mukherjeeis back as External Affairs Minister after a gap of some 10 years. Besides the civilian nuclear deal with the United States, he speaks of addressing problems in the near and extended neighbourhood. Excerpts from an interview he gave on Sunday evening at his Talkatora Road residence in New Delhi:

— Photo: V. Sudershan

Pranab Mukherjee: "We have established it [the joint terror mechanism with Pakistan] with hope and expectations that it will be effective and delivers the goods. Let us see."

What are your priorities as External Affairs Minister?

Foreign policy has continuity. At the same time, we have to grapple with problems as they arise. If you look at our immediate neighbourhood, you will find that some sort of [democratic] arrangements are being made in Nepal; in Bangladesh elections are going to be held.

Talks between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil (LTTE) are going on. But, everywhere, there are some problems — attempts are being made to resolve those issues. With Pakistan, we have resumed our composite dialogue.

The Chinese President [Hu Jintao] is coming and it is a major visit. After 10 years, a Chinese President is visiting India.

We have to address problems in our near and extended neighbourhood. In Afghanistan, there are problems — there are problems in Iran. So, we shall have to respond to the issues that are emerging. With our friends like the United States, a civilian nuclear cooperation Bill has been passed by the Senate, but the reconciliation is yet to take place.

The Government and you, personally, have been quite guarded in welcoming the passage of the Senate Bill. Is it because India has known concerns about a ban on reprocessing of imported spent fuel and on transfer of nuclear technology in the text of the Bill?

The U.S. administration is aware of the fact that the Bill should be as close as possible to the parameters laid down in the July 18, 2005, joint statement and March 2006 separation plan presented in Parliament. That is the commitment, which has been made to Parliament.

Thereafter, Prime Minister [Manmohan Singh] while replying to a debate in Parliament also spelt out the parameters within which the [U.S.] legislation should be framed. Now, we shall have to look at the various provisions of the Bill and analyse its implications. But, before that we'll have to see the final shape of the Bill.

The House [of Representatives] has passed a legislation, Senate has passed a legislation. There are divergences of view: these are to be reconciled ... then only the final shape of the Bill will become known. All of us are working on placing the cart before the horse.

As External Affairs Minister of a rising India, don't you resent the American Senate's efforts to bind us on Iran despite the fact that we have cast two votes against Tehran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)?

Look, legislatures have their own way of functioning. We are concerned with the diplomatic relationship, not observations in the legislature — but how the [U.S.] administration responds and reacts to it.

If you look at the debate in the Indian Parliament, with respect to certain countries, what type of phraseology is used? The kind of phraseology used is known to us and to others [outside the country] as well. But they do not respond to it.

Let us understand and appreciate that various organs of the government have different roles to play.

With respect to the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, it appears that the Government has painted itself into an either-or situation — the civilian nuclear deal with the U.S. or the gas pipeline with Iran. Don't you think that our diplomacy should be deft enough to do both?

We have never said one will cancel the other. We have never said that.

So, we can do both?

Of course. That's why we are having discussions.

You are confident we'll move ahead on the Iran pipeline?

I think so.

We now have a trilateral framework for cooperation with China and Russia — we've had meetings at the level of the Foreign Ministers and heads of government of the three countries. Obviously, this is a powerful forum. Do you feel there's some kind of reluctance on the part of the three countries to take positions on key global issues such as, say, Palestine?

Trilateral arrangement is there to share opinions and to share with each other perceptions on different international issues. This is a mechanism for consultation. When Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was here, we had a discussion — he's also interested in resuming the Foreign Minister-level talks. And, we'll try to find out from our Chinese friends when they will be in a position to give us a date [for the trilateral meeting] and then we'll resume these talks.

But, it is not desirable and we cannot make any comment that on one particular issue what would be our view unless it is discussed and there is a joint formulation.

Of late, there's a perception that India after its May 1998 nuclear tests, is interested in joining the big boys' nuclear club and our commitment to disarmament, articulated by successive Congress Prime Ministers, has been diluted.

No, it has not been diluted; we are committed to non-proliferation and disarmament. What Rajiv Gandhi said at the special session of the United Nations on disarmament [June 9, 1988] is the guiding principle of our foreign policy.

He told the world that we would not graduate ourselves from the threshold level — that was our position then, before 1998. We want that those who have nuclear weapons should stop proliferation — vertically, horizontally — reduce stockpiles and have a time-bound action plan [for disarmament]. And that [commitment] stands.

In between, of course, we have gone for the [May 1998 nuclear] explosions. There have been developments and that cannot be erased. It has already taken place — but even in that context we are serious and we are engaging ourselves. In this United Nations session, we are going to move a resolution to this effect [for time-bound disarmament].

How do you see the long-term trajectory of our relationship with Pakistan?

We are neighbours; you cannot alter your neighbours. The option before you is: either you live with your neighbour under constant tension or you try to defuse the tension and live in peace. We want to live in peace.

What are your expectations from the joint anti-terror mechanism agreed to with Pakistan?

Let us see. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. How it [the mechanism] operates, how it functions. We have established it with hope and expectations that it will be effective and delivers the goods. Let us see.

Leading members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) are in Delhi. Is there any possibility of you or other members of the Government meeting them?

No. That is a matter to be dealt with the Nepalese Seven Party Alliance. We want the peace talks to succeed and the Maoists should join the mainstream of Nepal politics and make their own contribution to strengthening democracy there.

Since they are in town ...

It's not a question of who is in town or who is not in town. It's a question of certain basic principles.

There are Maoist leaders who remain in Indian jails. Will they be released?

These are matters to be decided by the courts, not by the executive.

In Sri Lanka, what can India do to help the peace process along?

We do not want to involve ourselves directly. But, we are trying to suggest to the Sri Lankan Government and those who are taking the initiative [like the Norwegians] that the peace process should be expedited. There should be dialogue.

You know our stated position. We want that legitimate aspirations of the ethnic groups must be fulfilled within the framework of the Sri Lankan Constitution without affecting the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka.

Violence is not the answer — the answer lies in carrying on negotiations, however tortuous and difficult they may be.

I'm aware that the LTTE is a banned organisation in India. But is there any way we can influence the LTTE to see reason and negotiate seriously with the Sri Lankan Government?

We do not have any discussions [with the LTTE]. It is a banned organisation.

How is your job different now from the time you were External Affairs Minister last time (February 1995 to May 1996)?

A lot of changes have taken place. In the last 10 years, India's position has become stronger. India has emerged as a strong economic power. Now, everybody recognises that India's economy is going to be powerful. Keeping that in view, India's stature has also increased substantially.

Does that make your job easier or more difficult?

Of course, it will be more difficult. There are more responsibilities, more expectations from India.

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

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Afghanistan at a crossroads

Redressing uneven development

The search for AIDS vaccines

Let's await the final U.S. Bill: Pranab

Hamas may opt for national unity government

Harmony between Parliament and judiciary

Corrections and Clarifications

Ex-U.N. mission chief testifying in genocide trial