V.V. KRISHNAN

U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and Defence Minister A.K. Antony in New Delhi on February 27. On an official visit to the U.S. recently, Antony assured his hosts that American companies would get “a level playing field” in the bidding for defence contracts.

IF National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan is to be believed, it was “divine intervention” that provided a waiver for India at the eleventh hour in Vienna. Narayanan told the Indian media that he was seeking help from the gods when he received the good news at midnight on September 6. However, conventional wisdom is that it was arm-twisting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) by the Bush administration that was crucial to the lifting of the ban on India on engaging in international nuclear trade and operationalising the India-United States nuclear deal. The U.S. Congress has yet to formalise the deal, but India is now legally free to conclude separate nuclear deals with countries such as France and Russia.

Top U.S. administration officials have been assuring the Indian government for the past two years that they would shepherd India over the hurdles in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the NSG. U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford recently stated that it was “the biggest American diplomatic effort he had witnessed since the 1980s”.

The statement by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, reiterating that India would maintain the decade-old moratorium on nuclear tests, was the face-saver needed for the group of countries that had raised objections to fall in line. The deal, if it passes the U.S. congressional hurdle this year, will also constitute the only significant foreign policy achievement for the Bush administration.

Austria, Ireland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland had demanded a commitment from India, in lieu of a waiver, not to test again. China, which had given an assurance to India not to actively block the NSG waiver, was however of the view that the points raised by the six countries should be discussed in a democratic manner. The negotiations, orchestrated by the American chief delegate, went on until midnight.

The head of the Chinese delegation asked for a recess so that he could consult the headquarters, but the Americans insisted that the discussions continue until a deal was clinched. To show his displeasure, the head of the Chinese mission left the venue, leaving a junior functionary to complete the formalities. China wanted to make the point that it should not be taken for granted and that it had stood up for certain sacrosanct principles of disarmament.

The international community is aware that one of the prime motivating factors for Washington to push the nuclear deal was to ensure that India became part of the emerging alliance against the next superpower – China. Washington has used the nuclear deal to pressure India on other foreign policy issues, most notably on Iran. In his letter to the U.S. Congress, President George W. Bush lauded India’s policy shift on Iran. There are reports in the Indian media about the growing pressure on New Delhi to deploy troops in Afghanistan.

Almost all of India’s diplomatic efforts were focussed on the nuclear deal for the past couple of years, to the detriment of relations with traditional friends. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated that the whole idea of the nuclear deal was to make India a “great power”. After the NSG waiver, the Indian media have gone to town describing India as “the sixth global power” after the G-5 powers – U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China. Minister of State for Industry and Commerce Ashwani Kumar claimed recently that the NSG decision had put “India strategically on the high table of global politics”.

Jayantha Dhanapala, a former United Nations Under-Secretary General and disarmament expert, said that “brutal and unconscionable pressure has been exerted on the few countries who opposed the India-U.S. deal”.

Indian media reports said the leaders of the six countries that raised objections in the NSG received phone calls from the “highest levels” in Washington. New Delhi sent a “demarche” to Beijing on the issue. A European diplomat, who preferred to remain anonymous, told a news agency that after the NSG waiver was granted, it was greeted with complete silence in the room. He said this reflected the general mood as only the U.S. and a few other countries that stood to gain financially from the India-U.S. deal were really happy with the outcome.

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who was on a visit to India in the second week of September, reiterated that his country had played a “constructive role” at the NSG and did not try to derail the India-U.S. nuclear deal. “We also adopted a positive and responsible attitude, and a safeguards agreement was reached, so facts speak louder than some reports,” Jiechi told the media in New Delhi.

M.K. Narayanan has been publicly criticising China’s role in the NSG. Mukherjee has, however, said that he accepted his Chinese counterpart’s version of what really transpired in Vienna. Sections of the Indian media erroneously reported that as a sign of official Indian displeasure, Congress president Sonia Gandhi refused to grant an audience to the visiting Chinese Foreign Minister. In fact, as the External Affairs Ministry spokesperson clarified, the Chinese Minister was not scheduled to meet the Congress president.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman told the media in Beijing after the NSG waiver that “the decision will contribute to peaceful use of nuclear energy and international cooperation on non-proliferation”. The spokesperson emphasised that China had participated in the relevant meetings of the NSG in a “responsible and constructive manner”.

RITU RAJ KONWAR

American Special Forces personnel undergoing jungle warfare training in a joint exercise at the Indian Army’s Counter-Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School at Vairengte in Mizoram on August 11.

A report in The Washington Post of September 12 said that the 45-member NSG, which has the final say in the trade in nuclear equipment and materials, privately agreed that none of its members “plans to sell sensitive technologies to India”. This agreement, according to the newspaper, “undercuts one of the Indian government’s key rationales for seeking a civilian nuclear deal with the U.S”. The Indian government has been insisting that the NSG waiver has opened the door for “full civil nuclear cooperation” with the rest of the world. However, the report said that it was this previously undisclosed understanding that persuaded several sceptical NSG members to reverse their stand. The NSG, according to the report, is also moving towards a consensus on a total ban on the sale of sensitive technologies to countries like India that have not yet signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

A U.S. diplomat told the paper that the NSG countries recognised the necessity of “tightening up” rules that would allow them “to achieve the same restrictions on India later without causing a diplomatic rupture now”. President Bush in his letter to the U.S. Congress has also said that certain provisions of the 123 Agreement with India, such as reliable fuel supply for reactors, are not “legally binding” on the U.S. government. All this may be posturing by the Bush administration to convince critics of the U.S.-India deal, who cut across party lines in the U.S. Congress, to approve the agreement expeditiously.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that what transpired between the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress is irrelevant to India and that New Delhi is only bound by the 123 Agreement and not the Hyde Act.

Many U.S. Congressmen have said that they are planning a careful review of the deal. Former President Jimmy Carter, in an opinion piece in the New York Times, said that the proposed deal “further undermines the global pact for restraint represented by the nuclear non-proliferation regime”. Carter, who has dared to criticise even Israel for its policies, added that if India’s “unique demands” were accepted, advanced NPT signatories such as Brazil, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Japan, along with “less responsible nations”, would find it difficult to restrain themselves. He said that “different interpretations of the same pact” in Washington and New Delhi had made the situation farcical. He emphasised that the Hyde Act called for the immediate termination of all nuclear commerce with India by the NSG if New Delhi opted for a nuclear test again.

Three Democratic lawmakers, Edward Markey, Ellen Tauscher and John Spratt, have said in a joint letter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman that the deal contained many lingering questions and required further examination. They cautioned against “waiving U.S. law through unorthodox procedures”. David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, described the agreement as a “nuclear proliferation deal” that would provide a model for other countries to do similar deals. “If the U.S. can do a deal with India, why not China with Pakistan? Or Russia with Iran? Or Pakistan with Syria? The possibilities for nuclear proliferation are endless, and this deal makes it more likely.”

In Teheran and other capitals, the lifting of sanctions on India, a non-NPT country, is being viewed as a manifestation of double standards. The step would no doubt strengthen the hands of hardliners in Teheran who want to proceed with uranium enrichment. Anyway, it is important for Iran, which suffers serious electricity shortages, to find non-oil and non-gas sources of energy.

The Indian government has signalled that it will not wait too long for the U.S. Congress to get its act together and has started negotiating agreements to buy nuclear technology and facilities from other countries such as France and Russia. “Government is taking steps to realise commercial cooperation with foreign partners in this field. We have informed the USA about our intent to source state-of-the-art nuclear technologies and facilities based on the provisions of the 123 Agreement from the U.S.,” an External Affairs Ministry statement said. Experts estimate that the nuclear trade with India will account for $23 billion in the next 10 to 15 years. The principal beneficiary, if things go as planned, will be the U.S., followed by France and Russia.

But Washington stands to make even more money selling conventional arms to India. Defence Minister A.K. Antony, who was on an official visit to the U.S. in the second week of September, discussed the nuclear deal and U.S.-India military cooperation with the U.S. Secretaries of State and Defence. Antony assured his hosts that American companies would get “a level playing field” in the bidding for defence contracts. Not surprisingly, there are inspired leaks that the U.S. is going to be the biggest beneficiary of the proposed $10 billion Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA) deal. Washington has indicated that it wants to replace Russia as India’s biggest supplier of weaponry.

India has already concluded big-ticket defence deals with the U.S. They include the purchase of anti-ship “Harpoon” missiles for $170 million and eight Boeing P-8i long range maritime reconnaissance aircraft worth couple of billions. Before that the U.S. bagged an order to supply six C-130J Super Hercules aircraft for $962 million and a warship, INS Jalwa, for $49 million.

As a result of the nuclear deal, the Americans have already started cashing in on IOUs. The Bush administration has done defence deals worth $32 billion worldwide this year. Most of them are with Asian countries, including India. The major foreign policy aim of Washington in the region is to contain Iran and North Korea.