|
Kill the deal to help China
By Ashok K MehtaOf the many things the Army teaches you, foremost is contingency planning, especially meeting the unforeseen. This axiom was apparently not factored into the run-up to the 123 Agreement with the US, singularly the most widely and hotly debated agreement in 60 years of India's foreign policy. Not only was there no fallback position, the political czars had also taken the Left opposition for granted. The Government expected future battles to be fought in the NSG, IAEA and US Congress, not on its own turf threatened by an unpredictable ally. They were lulled into equanimity partly due to the fact that treaties and agreements in India do not require to be ratified by Parliament. In most countries you need a two-thirds parliamentary majority for the consummation of any agreement which impinges on national security. But in India national interest seldom figures prominently in any political calculus: Survival of the Government and electoral prospects determine the national agenda. Soldiers, on the other hand, fight for their regiment and their country. There is no other consideration except service before self. Notwithstanding the current hiccups, it has to be acknowledged that the 123 Agreement with all its alleged imperfections and improprieties is a good deal, the result of skilful negotiations with experienced American interlocutors. With the deal, we are better off, not net losers, as the nay-sayers to the deal are claiming. The agreement has been politicised both in content and context. The opposition to the deal has come from the Left parties, historically antagonistic to the US. They support the UPA Government from the outside only to keep the 'bigger evil' - the BJP-led NDA - at bay. Did the Government foresee the Left threat of withdrawal of support - "heavy political consequences" - if they went ahead with the agreement? The answer is probably is no, judging by the crisis that was generated over the spat between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat, which the former passed on to a Kolkata daily in the citadel of the Left. The 'Breaking News' story catalysed the crisis. Rumours about the aftermath to the crisis wafted across the central lawns of the Rashtrapati Bhawan on a hot and sticky Independence Day reception by President Pratibha Patil, where, for the first time, the ropes had been reconfigured to create a separate enclosure for Cabinet Ministers. It was conspicuously empty as Ministers chose to mingle with the aam admi. The Prime Minister, went the rumour, will have to go, as UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi was not kept on board about his 'Take-it-or-leave-it' challenge to Mr Karat. That this so-called non-Prime Minister had strategised his operational plan through the media showed the high value and credence he attaches to it. It is strange that instead of lauding the Prime Minister for showing political spine in calling the Left's bluff over the 123 Agreement, Ms Gandhi chose discretion over valour and put the UPA on the defensive. She did not share the Prime Minister's new-found aggressiveness, ignoring a life-threat to the Government. One learns in the services the importance of the clarity in the chain of command and no premature deviations from a plan once it has been implemented. The dual command system followed in the Congress-led UPA Government is confusing as well as dangerous for scoring self-goals. Now everyone knows, if they did not earlier, that the UPA chairperson and not the Prime Minister has the last word. By retracting his challenge to Mr Karat, Mr Manmohan Singh had to eat crow. Ms Gandhi may have saved the Government for some time and her electoral plans of the future, but her actions have severely undermined the office of the Prime Minister and the credibility of the Government at home and abroad. Gen KS Thimayya used to say, "Never make your subordinate lose face." By asking Mr Pranab Mukherjee to find a middle path, Ms Gandhi has let down her Prime Minister, the Government and the country in the larger interest of political survival. The lesson for the political class from this brief brush with brinkmanship is to be found in Sun Tzu's Falling off the Precipice. He offers a simple suggestion: "Be calm, firm and keep both feet on the ground." The face-saving formula the media has described as deal-breather, not deal-breaker, was found in a meeting between non-Government actor No II and CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury, sometimes the Government's special envoy to Nepal, and Mr Pranab Mukherjee. It is not clear who among the two re-discovered the evergreen committee formula, but it was Mr Yechury who announced that a panel would examine how the US Hyde Act will impinge on the 123 Agreement. The Left is insisting that while this panel is in place, negotiations with the IAEA and the NSG should be put on hold, which effectively means the 123 Agreement is dead. A middle path to this would be for both to function in tandem, as time is at a premium due to the US election in 2008. US Under-secretary of State Nicholas Burns has said that India-related NSG and IAEA certifications have to be in before year-end for passage through Congress. Over two-and-a-half years, the pros and cons of the 123 Agreement have been thrashed out in micro detail by all manner of experts. The debate has now turned into political theatre: India needs nuclear energy; no, it does not. India will join the nuclear club; no, it will freeze and roll back the nuclear programme. The US will help India in becoming a great power; no, it will make India subservient to the US... and so on. Guess who's having the last laugh? The non-proliferation ayatollahs of the world, apart from China and Pakistan. Never reconciled with India's nuclear tests, which were attributed to China, Beijing has frequently criticised the 123 Agreement and, in fact, demanded India join the NPT as a non-nuclear state. Pakistan has said the 123 Agreement will disturb the strategic balance in South Asia and has asked Washington to do an equivalent agreement with Islamabad. Last year, President George W Bush told Gen Pervez Musharraf to his face, "India and Pakistan are two different countries with different histories." Consequently, the US will not apply the parity principle. Instead, all-weather ally China has agreed to oblige in case the 123 Agreement is done. If this deal does not go through, China will rise as the dominant power in Asia, leaving India behind, tied down in the region countervailed by Pakistan. Blame it on the culture of coalition Governments, thanks to Mr VP Singh's Mandalisation of politics. Ashok K. Mehta is a retired Major General of the Indian Army Posted by: john frum 2007-08-21 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=196804 |