Politics

The Indo-US Nuclear Deal: Epilogue in Parliament

By Dweep Chanana ⋅ August 20, 2007 ⋅  Email this post ⋅ Post a comment

On the Indian National Interest (a conservative blog), Nitin asks “why is it surprising the The Hindu changes tack and now advocates ‘putting the nuclear deal on hold’?”

To look for the answer, I would suggest reading the article itself, which is by far the best analysis of the deal thus far (see also my previous analysis - 1, 2 - for a primer on negoitation theory) . A careful reading clarifies that contrary to Nitin’s suggestion, Siddharth Varadarajan does not suggest placing the nuclear deal on hold, but rather using the threat in order to signal to the US and other members of the NSG our ability to walk away from a deal that we do not see as addressing our concerns. In particular, it suggests subsuming the Left’s opposition to further its negotiating power by leveraging domestic constraints.

Until now, it is Washington which has leveraged the executive-legislative divide to extract more than its pound of flesh from Delhi. The Hyde Act passed by the U.S. Congress last December subverted the finely wrought reciprocity of the July 18, 2005 (J18) joint statement and the fuel supply assurances of the March 2, 2006, separation plan (M2). India’s negotiators fought their way back in the 123 agreement but the spectre of Hyde remains to be exorcised…

In other words, rather than seeing the Left’s call for Parliament to play a role in validating the nuclear deal as something adversarial, the Prime Minister should realise the legislature is very much an instrument of modern diplomacy.

All of this, of course, begs the question of India’s capacity to hold its own internationally…Unfortunately, the Manmohan Singh government’s lack of confidence in the country’s negotiating strength has led it to make vital concessions over the past two years.

It is worthwhile, at this point, to elaborate the position of many of the Indian National Interest’s bloggers. At one end of the spectrum, Rohit decries the Left for its opposition to the 123 Agreement. Simultaneously, The Acorn speaks out in favor of the Prime Minister. And Nitin points out that the debate in parliament is no longer about the pros and cons with respect to the national interest.

That is true, and as The Acorn says, this is “a good deal but bad politics”. But the bad politics is being displayed by both the Left and the Right. If the Left is guilty of ideological opposition to a foreign policy realignment with the US that is clearly beneficial to India, The Acorn and Rohit are even more guilty of an even stronger ideological criticism of the Left and a blanked acceptance of whatever the US offers, when when the Left’s position could be used to extract benefits in that realignment. This is similar to what I foresaw after the Hyde Act was passed.

In particular, public statements by our government supporting the Henry Hyde Act indicate that we will take whatever the US Congress offers. Instead, a smarter strategy would have been to criticize the Act as insufficient and threaten walking away from the deal. The mere willingness to consider rejecting the deal would be a signal that our acquiescence not be taken for granted. Not now. Not later.

Iif anyone should be criticised it is the Prime Minister, who by dismissing the Left’s offer to negotiate has further weakened India’s hand on the international stage. His (and the INI’s) constant, unilateral and unequivocal support of everything the US has offered since the original agreement 2 years ago is counter productive. The Hyde Act contained significant constraints that should concern India, and the 123 Agreement has done little in concrete terms to address those concerns, except through “word play”, as pointed out by Brahma Chellaney (see also 123: Text and Context).

A deal with the US that establishes India as a defacto member of the nuclear club is to be celebrated. But the purpose of this nuclear deal is not - nor should be - that membership or unfettered access to technology (including the much vaunted right to reprocess). The purpose of this entire process should be to establish India as an independent force that can negotiate from a position of strength.

Unfortunately, while the Left is blocking our independence, the Right is compromising our position of strength. This may be a good deal, but if only the Right would give up its ideological opposition to the Left, it would be better still.

Tags: indo-us nuclear deal, nonproliferation