Is the Indo-US nuclear deal in the danger of being rejected by the US Senate or brutally amended? If so, what will the Indian Government do about it? Those were the two key questions that Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran addressed during an exclusive interview with Karan Thapar on Devil's Advocate.
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate.
Foreign Secretary, you spent the last week in the US trying to promote the Indo-US nuclear deal. But the problem, as The Los Angeles Times put it on March 31, and I quote: "...Is that the deal has met with a chilly reception from lawmakers, who are predicting that instead of a swift approval, the initiative faces revisions and delays if not outright rejection. Worse still, according to AP, when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice briefed the two committees of the Houses, she was met with considerable scepticism. Are you worried?
Shyam Saran: No, I don't think I am worried at all. Because when I was in Washington and I met a number of very key legislators - both from the Democratic Party as well as from Republican Party - I did not receive a chilly reception. I was told this was a very important element of the emerging relationship between Indian and the US.
That there were questions that needed to be answered. But that in view of the very great importance which was attached to Indo-US relations, in fact, the Congressmen were ready to see this very seriously.
Karan Thapar: All right. Let's explore the extent to which this reception was chilly and the extent to which the reception that you personally got was polite. The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar, and the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Henry Hyde, have both maintained a careful, deliberate and studied neutrality. Given that their committees will have to endorse the deal, this clearly isn't a good sign.
Shyam Saran: No. I think there is a misreading of the ways the American Congress works. They are chairmen and chairmen are supposed to be quite neutral.
Karan Thapar: The chairman gives nudges to their committees. No nudges being given here.
Shyam Saran: How do you know that no nudges have been given?
Karan Thapar: Because it would have been picked up by the American press.
Shyam Saran: Not necessarily.
Karan Thapar: The American press itself has commented that the studied neutrality is a sign of rejection.
Shyam Saran: I would go more by my own discussions with the various Congressmen.
Karan Thapar: You met Senator Lugar. What did he say to you?
Shyam Saran: Yes, I met him. I met Senator Lugar, but this was not in this visit to Washington. I met him during my last visit. And I felt that Senator Lugar was quite position about this.
Karan Thapar: Why did you not meet him this time around?
Shyam Saran: Well, I was meeting several others whom I had not met earlier.
Karan Thapar: Was he unavailable to you?
Shyam Saran: No. I don't think he was unavailable to me.
Karan Thapar: You didn't try?
Shyam Saran: I was there for a short period, when I needed to meet a number of senators both on the Republican side as well as the Democratic side. And that was just for one day.
Karan Thapar: Did you meet Congressman Henry Hyde?
Shyam Saran: Yes, I did.
Karan Thapar: What indications did he give you? Will he support the deal?
Shyam Saran: Well, he said that he had a certain role as a Chairman. But that he attaches great importance to Indo-US relations and I could be certain that in consideration of this particular proposal, that particular perspective will be borne in mind.
Karan Thapar: Is that equivalent to endorsing the deal or is he simply staying neutral and saying nothing very much?
Shyam Saran: Let me make a very important point. I think no one in the American Congress wants to be seen as merely stamping a text that has been handed over to them by the administration. That is not how they see their role. I think it's the same with the Indian Parliament. They would also like to debate the proposal, which has been forwarded to them.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: So, you are saying respect the American Congress, but don't misread and interpret it as opposition?
Shyam Saran: I think we are a democracy. We have had a debate in our own country over this deal. I think we should not be surprised that there should be a debate in the United States, which is also a democracy.
Karan Thapar: All right. That answers the surprises to the responses of the chairmen of the two important House committees. What about the so-called friend of India - Hillary Clinton, Congresswoman Ros Lehtinen, Congressman Ed Royce - all of whom are either past chairs of present chairman of the Indian Caucas. None of them have endorsed the deal. Their silence is ominous.
Shyam Saran: I am not really worried about individual Congressman. I think what is very important is that there should be bipartisan support for this relationship.
And if you look at the testimony of the Secretary of State Rice to the House of Representatives and to the Senate, you will see that there was considerable amount of bipartisan support for the initiative.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that people like Hillary Clinton, Ros Lehtinen and Ed Royce should have been out there batting for you. They are not. They are your friends. They should have been lending support for the deal. Their silence suggests opposition.
Shyam Saran: Well, they may have good reason for their silence. But as long as we have a large number of Congressmen on both sides of the party divide who are supporting us, why should we worry?
Karan Thapar: So this silence doesn't worry you?
Shyam Saran: Yeah, it doesn't worry me.
Karan Thapar: What about the fact that Ed Markey has tabled a resolution specifically trying to kill the deal. Not only has he got 18 people as supporters and co-sponsors, but 10 of those 18 are members of the India Caucas.
Shyam Saran: Well, there are several members of the India Caucas who are also members of the Pakistan Caucas.
Karan Thapar: So, it's not much of an India Caucus then?
Shyam Saran: I don't really pay much attention to that aspect.
Karan Thapar: Except that it means it's not much of an India Caucus.
Shyam Saran: I think it is very important that we have a sufficiently large number of influential Congressmen from both the parties who are behind this. And this is what will see us through.
Karan Thapar: What about something else? Practically all the important American papers have spoken up against the deal - The New York Times, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, USA Today and even the Economist. The Washington Post's response is lukewarm. But not a single American major newspaper has come out in support of the deal. Doesn't it worry you?
Shyam Saran: It doesn't worry me. Because this would not be the first time that there are proposition before the Congress, which are not supported by the American press. So, I think again I must go by our own independent assessment.
Karan Thapar: Which is?
Shyam Saran: What the sentiment is in the Congress. One, that Congressmen, Senators wish to have a debate over this initiative and that is quite legitimate.
Second, they can raise issues, they can raise questions. It just so happens that we have the answers to the issues that they are raising, to the questions that they are raising. Therefore, we are confident that this can have bipartisan support in the Congress.
Karan Thapar: What about the fact that Congressman Gary Ackerman has twice gone on record to say that George Bush as President is doing a terrible job, trying to sell this deal to both the US Congress and the American People. His role is critical. If he is doing a terrible job, he is letting you down.
Shyam Saran: I don't know on what basis this assessment is being made. I think if you look at the reports over the past couple of weeks, President Bush, in various meetings he has been having even in small towns in America, has been batting for this deal. And you had just the Secretary of State Rice who had made, I think, a very very persuasive testimony before the Congress.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: Except that Associated Press reported within hours that her testimony has been received with considerable scepticism. The Washington Post said that it had raised so many questions, so many areas of doubt that it could take months to clear up.
Shyam Saran: That's simply not true. I have seen the question-and-answer session in the Congress after the testimony. And the assessment I came to is that in fact after this testimony, the deal has much better chance of going through the Congress.
Karan Thapar: Let's come back to President Bush. Are you as Foreign Secretary of India happy with the way he is supporting, promoting and trying to get support for this deal?
Shyam Saran: I think it's critical.
Karan Thapar: But are you happy with the way he is doing this?
Shyam Saran: Yes. As the President of the United State, if he is seen as fully behind this initiative and he is investing such a lot of political capital in getting this initiative through, I think that sends a message.
Karan Thapar: What about the fact that his rating is, perhaps, down to as low as 29 per cent and it is already being said in the papers that Democratic Congressmen don't want to give him a foreign policy triumph weeks or months ahead of the November elections.
Shyam Saran: That is precisely the reason why I said it is extremely important that there should be a bipartisan support and consensus behind this deal.
Karan Thapar: But then the bipartisan support is missing. The Democrats are against it.
Shyam Saran: No. That is why I said it is very important for you to really look at the question-and-answer session of the testimony in the Congress. And if you look at the question-and-answer session, there are several people belonging to the Democratic Party who have come out fully in support unambiguously in support of this initiative.
Karan Thapar: In which case, let me ask you a blunt question. Are you confident that this deal will be passed by both Houses of Congress in a way that is acceptable to the Indian government before the November elections, before Congress adjourns for its election recess?
Shyam Saran: I am not an astrologer. But I think I am very optimistic that this will happen.
Karan Thapar: Optimistic or confident?
Shyam Saran: Ok. I will be confident.
Karan Thapar: You don't sound very confident though.
Shyam Saran: In politics, there are always uncertainties. So, I have to make a best assessment possible given the current situation. I don't know how the politics will evolve in the coming weeks.
Karan Thapar: If the deal isn't passed by this Congress and gets pushed to the 110th Congress, which gets elected after November, where everyone expects the Republican Party could lose in majority, perhaps in one House, perhaps in both, would you concede that then with a Democratic majority in both Houses, the deal is dead?
Shyam Saran: What I would say to that is that the earlier we get this through, the better it is.
Karan Thapar: All right. In fact, let's turn to the depth of concerns that you faced in Congress and how you are tackling it.
The first concern is the belief that this deal blows a bomb-size hole through America's non-proliferation legislation, which makes a mockery of its present policies on Iran and North Korea and which could perhaps provide a precedent for other countries to follow suit.
Shyam Saran: All the comments that you have made relate to nuclear weapons. This is not a deal about India's strategic programme. This is a deal about civil nuclear energy cooperation between India and United States.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that Congressmen say that India 30 years ago made itself a rogue state when it used Canadian technology, American heavy water to carry out a controlled nuclear implosion. Is it being rewarded for its rogue behaviour today?
Shyam Saran: It just so happens that we don't agree with that version of history and if you look at the July 18 joint statement, it starts off by acknowledging that India has an impeccable record as far as non-proliferation is concerned.
Karan Thapar: So, you are saying that this concern that the deal smashes to smithereens America's very valued non-proliferation regime is actually a concern that you think you can alley?
Shyam Saran: It is a totally misplaced concern.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: A second concern that's come up in Congress is that this deal doesn't do enough to curb or control or contain India’s nuclear weaponry. Worse, it makes substantial amounts of uranium available for military purposes which, perhaps, weren't available to India earlier.
Shyam Saran: I repeat. This is a deal which is not about India's nuclear weapons. As far as having a large part of local uranium or indigenous uranium being made available for weapons purposes is concerned, I think the same people have been giving the argument that more and more of India's reactors should be brought under safeguards. If more reactors are brought under safeguards, more uranium will come from outside. Would they be happier if we had fewer reactors offered for safeguards?
Karan Thapar: So, you are saying there is an inherent illogic in this criticism? You can't say you want more reactors under safeguards and at the same time complain that indigenous uranium being freed up for ostensibly military purposes. You either can have one or the other.
Shyam Saran: Isn't that apparent to you?
Karan Thapar: Did you make that point to Congressmen?
Shyam Saran: Well, I didn't make that point to Congressmen because this was not raised with me in those terms. But I did certainly make the point to them that this is an agreement about civil nuclear energy cooperation. There is nothing in India's record to show that there has been a lack of respect or responsibility as far as strategic programme is concerned.
Karan Thapar: And did they buy that argument?
Shyam Saran: Yes, they did.
Karan Thapar: Major voices in America - Jimmy Carter, Bob Einhorn, John Kerry, Thomas Friedman - are saying that the deal will be considerably more acceptable if India could accept a permanent ban on production of fissile material. They argue that all the major nuclear powers have accepted this or are implementing it. You completely rule that out?
Shyam Saran: We have already committed ourselves to negotiating in good faith on a multi-lateral, verifiable, fissile material cut-off treaty at the Geneva conference on disarmament.
Karan Thapar: So what about accepting a cut-off on fissile production today as a way of getting the deal through in the next four months?
Shyam Saran: No, I think we have made it very clear that that is not acceptable and you have Secretary Rice testifying in the Congress, saying that India will not accept such norms.
Karan Thapar: You also are quoted in Indian papers as saying that India might be prepared to consider changes provided they were within what you describe as parameters of the original understanding. Let me try and run a couple of ideas past you. Would you be prepared, for instance, to accept that India would not build fresh military reactors other than the eight that under this deal are about to be designated as military purpose reactors? No new ones?
Shyam Saran: No, I think it is very important to remember that whatever we have agreed upon is the result of very very difficult, very tough negotiations. What we have at this point of time is an extremely carefully and delicately balanced understanding. And when I said that, it must remain, whatever legislation is passed, must remain within those parameters. I also express the strong hope that revisions will not be made.
Karan Thapar: So, India cannot accept any revision regardless of whatever a Jimmy Carter or a Bob Einhorn or John Kerry recommends. You cannot accept any changes even if that might help Congress pass the deal?
Shyam Saran: The political reality is that what we have been able to achieve, the balance of obligations that are enshrined in the understanding that we have with the United States is something that is very delicately balanced.
Karan Thapar: So, the deal is sacrosanct, not a word, not a coma can be changed. That's in effect what you are saying?
Shyam Saran: Putting in those terms is perhaps missing the point. I think what is very important to understand - this is something which Secretary Rice has also put forward in the Congress - is that this is a very very carefully-balanced agreement. Please don't disturb it.
Karan Thapar: In other words, what you are saying to Congressmen through this interview: Don't try to tinker with the deal. You won't improve matters, you will probably unravel it?
Shyam Saran: It could happen. But as I mentioned to each and every Congressman and senator I met, you have the right to debate this deal. You have the right to raise questions, you have the right to ask for clarifications. It just so happens that I am very confident that we can provide you with a satisfactory answer that we can give you the clarifications.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: But don't demand substantive changes. You have also added that.
Shyam Saran: Yes, that's true.
Karan Thapar: In which case, we have here a classic impasse, a standoff between the Indian position and possibly that of the American Congress. Many people in America believe the deal simply won't pass without substantive changes - you are saying to me those substantive changes would be unacceptable to India?
Shyam Saran: Not one single Congressman or senator I met mentioned anything about asking for amendment.
Karan Thapar: Except for that a moment ago, I quoted LA Times and the LA Times said that in fact lawmakers were saying that the deal would face revisions, delays and perhaps outright rejection.
Shyam Saran: I repeat Karan, every senator or Congressman I met said that Indo-US relation was extremely important for them. No one mentioned the word amendment.
Karan Thapar: If the deal doesn't go through - and as you say you are not an astrologer so you can't predict, so it is clearly a possibility - how much of a setback to Indo-US relations will that be?
Shyam Saran: Well, you know Indo-US relation has acquired a broad range in character. There are several important components to that relationship and this happens to be one of the components. However, this also happens to be the component on which there is very intense focus. And, therefore, if this particular deal doesn't go through, naturally there will be a sense of failed expectation. There will be a loss of enthusiasm and this may have an impact on other aspects of our relations.
Karan Thapar: And this can be a serious impact. Because no one can predict how this impact go?
Shyam Saran: Yes. There is also always an unpredictability about these things. But I would say that the logic behind the kind of broad range in character that Indo-US relations have acquired, that logic will not disappear.
Karan Thapar: Let's turn to domestic concerns that have arisen in India. It has emerged that the waiver authority requires the US President to certify that India has not detonated a nuclear device. Don't you believe that this converts India's revocable and voluntary ban on testing into a legally binding and permanent ban? Worse, it is now enforced by US and not voluntary by India.
Shyam Saran: The voluntary commitment remains. What you have is a reference to US law which says that the law requires that of there is partner which detonates an explosive device, then cooperation will come to an end. That is part of US law and it is not part of a bilateral understanding between India and the US.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that once you have invested billions of dollars in creating nuclear reactors as a result of the Indo-US deal and then India were to go and test and the US would suddenly stop supplies, your money - in billions - would be wasted. Your nuclear reactors would be starved of fuel.
Shyam Saran: But this is nothing new. This has always been a part of the US law. There is nothing new in this.
Karan Thapar: Except up till now, you have a right to resume testing. But once this deal goes through under the waiver authority, it will no longer be up to you, it will be up to conditions imposed by the Americans.
Shyam Saran: As far as cooperation with the US is concerned, this law has always been there. It is not a new law. It is not with reference to specifically India.
Karan Thapar: Let me ask you this. After this Indo-US deal comes into force and after your revocable ban becomes what I call a permanent ban on testing, if Pakistan and China…
Shyam Saran: It is not a permanent ban on testing. You are making a mistake. In the Indo-US joint statement, there is a reference to a moratorium being maintained by India and not a permanent ban. So, please.
Karan Thapar: Let me finish my question. If after the Indo-US treaty comes into force and China and Pakistan were to test, what would India do?
Shyam Saran: Well, if you look at the US-China nuclear energy cooperation agreement, in that too, cooperation between China and US is only for peaceful purposes. Those peaceful purposes also include not testing any explosive device.
Karan Thapar: Your answer was with reference to China. My question was with reference to India. In China or Pakistan were to test a nuclear device after the Indo-US deal comes into force, will India also test or will it not?
Shyam Saran: This is a decision that will have to be made at that particular point of time.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: The problem is if you test, you lose American supplies. That is the problem.
Shyam Saran: That is a decision that you have to make.
Karan Thapar: So you are prepared to take the risk?
Shyam Saran: It is not a condition that has been imposed as something specific to India.
Karan Thapar: But certainly there is a risk. If you test after the deal comes into force, you lose supplies from America.
Shyam Saran: Of course. There is a risk. But this risk has not been introduced. This has been a part of the US law for years.
Karan Thapar: So, you factored that into your own considerations?
Shyam Saran: Of course. It has been factored into out calculations.
Karan Thapar: All right. A second element of a ban on testing is that the quality of your deterrent could be affected since a similar ban on testing has not been imposed on Pakistan. Over a period of time, India's deterrent vis-a-vis Pakistan could deteriorate. Doesn't that worry you?
Shyam Saran: I think it is very important to accept that here we are not talking about an arms control agreement.
Karan Thapar: But the waiver authority has implications for your deterrents.
Shyam Saran: The waiver authority doesn't have any kind of reference to India's strategic progress. There is a reference to a law, which has been in the books of the US for many years.
Karan Thapar: But the question I asked was different. The question I asked is that if there is a ban, whether it is imposed voluntarily or by a US law, on India testing, then that would have implications on India's deterrent. In those circumstances, when Pakistan doesn't have a similar ban, India's deterrent could deteriorate vis-a-vis Pakistan over a period of time.
Shyam Saran: When you carried out testing in 1998, weren't a whole series of sanctions put on you?
Karan Thapar: So, you are prepared to live with those tests?
Shyam Saran: Whether you have a moratorium or you don't have a moratorium, if you were to test tomorrow, there will be exactly the same reactions that you had in 1998. Therefore, in 1998 you took a very conscious decision that despite the fact this is what would happen, it was important for you to take that step. I think in the future, it would be the same.
Karan Thapar: What you are saying in effect is that the concerns that have been brought out by former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee are baseless?
Shyam Saran: I think Vajpayee, when he referred to the waiver, there is a factual problem here. As far as China is concerned, because he has compared the waiver being given to India to that being given to China, frankly India and China are not in the same status. China is a nuclear weapon state under the Non-proliferation Treaty. So, it does not require a waiver.
Karan Thapar: What about the point that he makes that a ban on testing would have an impact on the quality of India's deterrence. Do you think that is baseless too?
Shyam Saran: That is something which is a separate question and what has very little to do with the civilian nuclear energy cooperation agreement in which you are in.
Karan Thapar: One other thing - former deputy national security adviser Satish Chandra and Brahma Chellaney, one of India's best-known nuclear expert - both believe that the language of the waiver authority rules out all sub-critical tests. Did you seek clarification from American about that?
Shyam Saran: No. We have not sought any clarification because the definition of a nuclear explosive device doesn't include sub-critical tests.
Karan Thapar: So, you believe that sub-critical tests are still possible without incurring the loss of the ...
Shyam Saran: Look, I don't think that it is necessary for me to go into the discussion about India's strategic programme.
Karan Thapar: I am asking a simple question. Can sub-critical tests happen?
Shyam Saran: My answer to that is precisely what I said. That the definition of nuclear explosive device doesn't include this class of tests.
PAGE_BREAK
Karan Thapar: You are absolutely confident?
Shyam Saran: Yes.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely?
Shyam Saran: Yes.
Karan Thapar: But you haven't double-checked with the Americans?
Shyam Saran: Why should I double-check with the Americans?
Karan Thapar: Let me end by putting this to you. India is committed - as the language goes - to a credible minimum nuclear deterrent. Does the Indo-US nuclear deal damage the credibility of that deterrent while, oddly enough, guaranteeing minimality?
Shyam Saran: You have seen that in the negotiations, we have had representatives of the Department of Atomic Energy, who are in a sense the guardians of this deterrence. We have done nothing, which has remotely given them any sense of anxiety. You have heard the Chairman of the Department of Atomic Energy coming out publicly and saying, "this is a good deal". I don't know why should there be any anxiety on this score.
Karan Thapar: One other question. It is not just that the Americans are tightening the screws - or trying to - on India's nuclear deterrence at the moment. They have also said that they will continue even after the deal falls in place. Let me quote to you Under-Secretary of State Robert Joseph. Rather than add conditions today, he says, we believe that it would be better to lock in this deal and then seek to achieve further results as our strategic partnership advances. Will American be constantly be tightening the screw on India?
Shyam Saran: Why are we always so worried about screws being tightened on us? You know, I found that there is such a lack of confidence in our own ability to preserve our own positions as if someone can just come and turn the screws on us and we will just lie back and be screwed. Why should there be such an assumption?
I think if you look at the negotiations that have taken place for this particular deal, I think we have done rather well for ourselves.
Karan Thapar: In which case, you know…
Shyam Saran: We have preserved our basic positions. We have preserved out basic interests. I see no reason why there should be this kind of an anxiety that somehow, one way of the other, we are always vulnerable to pressure.
Karan Thapar: In a word, have you sacrificed India's defence security to secure a nuclear deal with America?
Shyam Saran: No.
Karan Thapar: Absolutely not?
Shyam Saran: Absolutely not.
Karan Thapar:100 per cent not?
Shyam Saran: 100 per cent not?
Karan Thapar: Foreign Secretary it was a pleasure talking to you on Devil's Advocate.
Shyam Saran: Thank you.
Comments
0 comment