The **** Deal[FONT=Verdana,Arial][SIZE=-2]8/2/2006 10:10:22 PM[/SIZE][/FONT]- By Vikram Sood
The Indo-US nuclear deal is not between two individuals or two political parties, but between two nations. Hence, all Indians want to know what the deal entails for them, how the country and they will benefit. Legitimate fears that India’s interests have not been safeguarded, therefore, need to be assuaged.
The only place this can be done now is in Parliament, where the US Congress Bills should be discussed clause by clause, commas and full stops included. This is not a question of political beliefs and ideologies, or secularism or communism, as the supporters of the deal trivialise the criticism. This debate is necessary because not many would have the opportunity or the patience to read the two Bills proposed by the US House of Representatives and the Senate; fewer understand the implications of the various clauses, sub-clauses and the caveats. If the government worries about a vote in Parliament or about a "Sense of the Parliament resolution," then obviously it realises and understands, but is not willing to accept, that it is still persisting in its march of folly.
The US, with its well-advertised intentions to maintain global dominance, insists on imposing its domestic laws internationally, while habitually ignoring almost all international laws. If the US were serious about its original declarations and promises, then it would have been better for the US to have ensured approval from its N-5 partners before offering the deal. India with a sovereign Parliament is preparing to accept legislation, or the effects of legislation, of another country. We forgot that in today’s global situation despite all the military might the US has and its displayed readiness to use this as a first option, it is a lonely and friendless nation and there are limits to the exercise of this power. India could have called its bluff and struck a better bargain. But for some inexplicable reason, we have begun to show diffidence in our negotiations while proclaiming grandly that we are on our way to becoming a major power.
The deal was about supplying India civilian nuclear energy. Instead, what India is being asked is to accept the provisions of the NPT, CTBT, FMCT and every other similar law. The deal is about tying down India’s nuclear capability now and forever. The criticism is not about getting rich. It is about India entering a strategic cul-de-sac, with its foreign policy initiatives shackled to US strategic interests. In addition, there will be a perennial dependence on vital external supplies, which in turn would remain dependent on annually certified good behaviour of the recipient and the whims of the supplier. This deal is about the future of the country, and one cannot expect foreign policy and strategic objectives to be attained on the philosophy of Mr Micawber.
Protagonists advise that this criticism is over-dramatised and insist that present fears are less than horrible imaginings. They also argue that fears expressed about US intentions by the sceptics are baseless. India should await the final outcome of the US legislative process. We are not told how this process will take care of our legitimate concerns. The same US executive that suggests that the deal will get watered down, had made its intentions clear last year when Burns and Joseph had unequivocally said that the deal is not what India thinks it is. It was also clarified to the Congress that the arrangement which the Nuclear Five had with the IAEA would not be available to India. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice gave enough indications when she said last January that India would have to make difficult choices. There was space in nuclear purgatory, but not in nuclear paradise.
Judging from the working of the process in the US, the end-product will only be an amalgam of the two Bills. What the Senate has proposed is more sinister than the House Bill, which in turn is more sinister than the July 18 agreement, which itself has not given many scientists, strategic analysts and observers much joy. Several of them — all men and women of honour and knowledge — have consistently expressed their misgivings on these pages in the last one year. The two Bills are declarations of intent of the Congress and India should take these seriously.
The problem is that we have no real answer about how we will deal with a situation should the Bill be passed in its current and most repressive form. The impression now being created, although never clearly spelt out in this fashion, is that, ultimately, this horror of a Senate Bill will not be passed and that the final Act will look more and more like the July 18 agreement which then becomes the angel of the piece by default. To now argue that nothing has been delivered yet and that we will decide later is an evasive argument. We need to have our game plan worked out now. And if they are not adequately and satisfactorily addressed, what are we planning to do? Just go along and resort to convoluted self-deluding rationalisations or walk out?
Another argument given is that, now is not the time to argue about the nuts and bolts of the agreement. It is also argued that only small minds read the small print in such deals. When they do this they miss the big picture of an India resurgent — all done by the US for India. On the contrary, it is only when a person reads the small print in a treaty that he gets the big picture. It is suggested that we should ignore the US Congress, who are just a bunch of busybodies and that the Congress would be over-ruled by a weakened and distracted US President still determined to have his way on this one. Ultimately, therefore, this is only an elaborate charade being enacted in Washington. One would have to be exceptionally **** to accept this argument.
Whether or not we get a fair deal (appears highly unlikely), Pakistan will be re-armed in compensation for the so-called strategic imbalance that this deal is seen to be creating, and it would be left free to continue its quest for nuclear weaponry and other technology from China. This speaks volumes for our strategic foresight.
Dream merchants tell us a wonderful rainbow awaits all of us if we are prepared to go down the road with them. India and many Indians will get rich and get employed. So what if in the process some US companies make a pile selling us arms and untested nuclear power technology? Just so long as we remember that however breathtaking, shorn of its poetry, a rainbow is only a pretty mirage.
We feel smug in the belief that India is too big and strong to come under pressures. True, we are large and numerous, but there are other ways of subversion and subjugation. It would be wise to remember what pastor Martin Niemöller said many years ago… "First they came for the communists, but I was not a communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the socialists and the trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." Nations are the sum total of individuals.
The time to speak out has come.
Vikram Sood is former Secretary (RAW)
http://www.asianage.com/
The Indo-US nuclear deal is not between two individuals or two political parties, but between two nations. Hence, all Indians want to know what the deal entails for them, how the country and they will benefit. Legitimate fears that India’s interests have not been safeguarded, therefore, need to be assuaged.
The only place this can be done now is in Parliament, where the US Congress Bills should be discussed clause by clause, commas and full stops included. This is not a question of political beliefs and ideologies, or secularism or communism, as the supporters of the deal trivialise the criticism. This debate is necessary because not many would have the opportunity or the patience to read the two Bills proposed by the US House of Representatives and the Senate; fewer understand the implications of the various clauses, sub-clauses and the caveats. If the government worries about a vote in Parliament or about a "Sense of the Parliament resolution," then obviously it realises and understands, but is not willing to accept, that it is still persisting in its march of folly.
The US, with its well-advertised intentions to maintain global dominance, insists on imposing its domestic laws internationally, while habitually ignoring almost all international laws. If the US were serious about its original declarations and promises, then it would have been better for the US to have ensured approval from its N-5 partners before offering the deal. India with a sovereign Parliament is preparing to accept legislation, or the effects of legislation, of another country. We forgot that in today’s global situation despite all the military might the US has and its displayed readiness to use this as a first option, it is a lonely and friendless nation and there are limits to the exercise of this power. India could have called its bluff and struck a better bargain. But for some inexplicable reason, we have begun to show diffidence in our negotiations while proclaiming grandly that we are on our way to becoming a major power.
The deal was about supplying India civilian nuclear energy. Instead, what India is being asked is to accept the provisions of the NPT, CTBT, FMCT and every other similar law. The deal is about tying down India’s nuclear capability now and forever. The criticism is not about getting rich. It is about India entering a strategic cul-de-sac, with its foreign policy initiatives shackled to US strategic interests. In addition, there will be a perennial dependence on vital external supplies, which in turn would remain dependent on annually certified good behaviour of the recipient and the whims of the supplier. This deal is about the future of the country, and one cannot expect foreign policy and strategic objectives to be attained on the philosophy of Mr Micawber.
Protagonists advise that this criticism is over-dramatised and insist that present fears are less than horrible imaginings. They also argue that fears expressed about US intentions by the sceptics are baseless. India should await the final outcome of the US legislative process. We are not told how this process will take care of our legitimate concerns. The same US executive that suggests that the deal will get watered down, had made its intentions clear last year when Burns and Joseph had unequivocally said that the deal is not what India thinks it is. It was also clarified to the Congress that the arrangement which the Nuclear Five had with the IAEA would not be available to India. US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice gave enough indications when she said last January that India would have to make difficult choices. There was space in nuclear purgatory, but not in nuclear paradise.
Judging from the working of the process in the US, the end-product will only be an amalgam of the two Bills. What the Senate has proposed is more sinister than the House Bill, which in turn is more sinister than the July 18 agreement, which itself has not given many scientists, strategic analysts and observers much joy. Several of them — all men and women of honour and knowledge — have consistently expressed their misgivings on these pages in the last one year. The two Bills are declarations of intent of the Congress and India should take these seriously.
The problem is that we have no real answer about how we will deal with a situation should the Bill be passed in its current and most repressive form. The impression now being created, although never clearly spelt out in this fashion, is that, ultimately, this horror of a Senate Bill will not be passed and that the final Act will look more and more like the July 18 agreement which then becomes the angel of the piece by default. To now argue that nothing has been delivered yet and that we will decide later is an evasive argument. We need to have our game plan worked out now. And if they are not adequately and satisfactorily addressed, what are we planning to do? Just go along and resort to convoluted self-deluding rationalisations or walk out?
Another argument given is that, now is not the time to argue about the nuts and bolts of the agreement. It is also argued that only small minds read the small print in such deals. When they do this they miss the big picture of an India resurgent — all done by the US for India. On the contrary, it is only when a person reads the small print in a treaty that he gets the big picture. It is suggested that we should ignore the US Congress, who are just a bunch of busybodies and that the Congress would be over-ruled by a weakened and distracted US President still determined to have his way on this one. Ultimately, therefore, this is only an elaborate charade being enacted in Washington. One would have to be exceptionally **** to accept this argument.
Whether or not we get a fair deal (appears highly unlikely), Pakistan will be re-armed in compensation for the so-called strategic imbalance that this deal is seen to be creating, and it would be left free to continue its quest for nuclear weaponry and other technology from China. This speaks volumes for our strategic foresight.
Dream merchants tell us a wonderful rainbow awaits all of us if we are prepared to go down the road with them. India and many Indians will get rich and get employed. So what if in the process some US companies make a pile selling us arms and untested nuclear power technology? Just so long as we remember that however breathtaking, shorn of its poetry, a rainbow is only a pretty mirage.
We feel smug in the belief that India is too big and strong to come under pressures. True, we are large and numerous, but there are other ways of subversion and subjugation. It would be wise to remember what pastor Martin Niemöller said many years ago… "First they came for the communists, but I was not a communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the socialists and the trade unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." Nations are the sum total of individuals.
The time to speak out has come.
Vikram Sood is former Secretary (RAW)
http://www.asianage.com/
