US-India nuclear pact runs into politics
Saturday, 20 October 2007
Somini Sengupta
The United States-India nuclear deal may be in trouble, but it is not dead yet.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose Communist allies object to plans for a nuclear accord with the United States.
Last week the Indian government declared that it would postpone final negotiations because of political opposition at home, setting off a fresh round of speculation that the deal was in terminal decline.
This week American officials conceded they were taken aback by the mixed signals but remained hopeful, so much so that they were engaged in daily conversations with their Indian counterparts on how the agreement could be sealed soon.
For their part, Indian officials and policy analysts said that while the government's apparent backpedaling had left Prime Minister Manmohan Singh weakened, it could ultimately help him persuade his critics that he would not snub their views.
How all that shakes out will determine whether the accord, the centerpiece of new bilateral relations, can withstand the heat of Indian domestic politics.
"The country, the government, the prime minister have invested far too much in terms of time, effort, imagination, political initiative for them to give up on the deal," said Prof. Amitabh Mattoo, vice chancellor of Jammu University, who served on a committee that advised the prime minister on the nuclear package. "What we're seeing is the middle game, not the endgame."
The accord, sealed this year between the Bush administration and Mr. Singh's government, would allow India to buy nuclear fuel and technology from the world market for its civilian energy program. India has been prohibited from doing so for three decades, since it tested its own nuclear weapons.
R. Nicholas Burns, the United States under secretary for political affairs, made it a point to say that the two countries had "an excellent relationship," and that Washington remained optimistic that domestic political differences would be ironed out.
"We hope very much it will be possible to move forward with the agreement," he said Thursday in a telephone interview from Washington. "We are quite conscious of the fact that this is a sensitive issue inside India."
India has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and insists on its right to continue its nuclear weapons program. In the United States, critics have denounced the administration for acceding to Indian demands and compromising global nonproliferation norms.
Even so, it is in India that the deal faces the greatest resistance. The fight is led by four small Communist parties whose support Mr. Singh's fragile coalition needs to maintain a majority.
If the leftist parties withdraw support, which they have vaguely threatened to do, the government would be forced to call elections before its term expires in spring 2009. On Monday, Mr. Singh's cabinet is to meet with its Communist allies.
"The fact is, if tomorrow there is no government, there is no deal," said a senior government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the issue. "It would be even worse if we did something and did not implement what we signed."
In recent days, the ruling Congress Party has made it plain that it is not quite ready to face the voters. Yet the party is also showing signs of electioneering, presenting a series of populist measures, from welfare programs to price supports for farmers.
The Communist parties, though they control only two of India's 28 states, have the numbers in Parliament to prop up or bring down Congress Party rule, and they have used that leverage to block proposals to loosen labor laws and foreign investment in retail trade.
The differences have prompted many political analysts to predict that sooner or later, Mr. Singh and his party will be compelled to break with the Communists.
The politics of the United States matter, too. For President Bush, an agreement with India would represent a singular foreign policy achievement, and if sealing the deal edges closer to the 2008 elections, it is uncertain whether the Democrats will let him enjoy such a victory.
Apparently hedging their bets, supporters of the deal in Washington have lately sought to describe the nuclear accord as one piece of a broader relationship. Even if the deal is on hold for now, they say, the new amity between India and the United States is not.
"The achievement has been the stronger U.S.-India relationship, not the deal per se," said Xenia Dormandy, a former State Department official who is now the director of the India program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. "That relationship will remain strong even without the deal being completed."
The real tension lies in whether India will be able to work out its domestic difficulties before the American campaign season, when the Democrats may be reluctant to back such a radical overhaul of American foreign policy. For that reason the White House would like to present a final agreement to Congress sooner rather than later.
Asked if the prime minister had put a freeze on the nuclear negotiations, which are key to India easing its energy crisis, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, K. Subrahmanyam, said: "I don't know if he has put it in the refrigerator or in the freezer. If it's the refrigerator, he can take it out soon."
Unless of course the power goes out first, and the contents of the refrigerator expire, as they often do in energy-starved India.
The United States-India nuclear deal may be in trouble, but it is not dead yet.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, whose Communist allies object to plans for a nuclear accord with the United States.
Last week the Indian government declared that it would postpone final negotiations because of political opposition at home, setting off a fresh round of speculation that the deal was in terminal decline.
This week American officials conceded they were taken aback by the mixed signals but remained hopeful, so much so that they were engaged in daily conversations with their Indian counterparts on how the agreement could be sealed soon.
For their part, Indian officials and policy analysts said that while the government's apparent backpedaling had left Prime Minister Manmohan Singh weakened, it could ultimately help him persuade his critics that he would not snub their views.
How all that shakes out will determine whether the accord, the centerpiece of new bilateral relations, can withstand the heat of Indian domestic politics.
"The country, the government, the prime minister have invested far too much in terms of time, effort, imagination, political initiative for them to give up on the deal," said Prof. Amitabh Mattoo, vice chancellor of Jammu University, who served on a committee that advised the prime minister on the nuclear package. "What we're seeing is the middle game, not the endgame."
The accord, sealed this year between the Bush administration and Mr. Singh's government, would allow India to buy nuclear fuel and technology from the world market for its civilian energy program. India has been prohibited from doing so for three decades, since it tested its own nuclear weapons.
R. Nicholas Burns, the United States under secretary for political affairs, made it a point to say that the two countries had "an excellent relationship," and that Washington remained optimistic that domestic political differences would be ironed out.
"We hope very much it will be possible to move forward with the agreement," he said Thursday in a telephone interview from Washington. "We are quite conscious of the fact that this is a sensitive issue inside India."
India has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and insists on its right to continue its nuclear weapons program. In the United States, critics have denounced the administration for acceding to Indian demands and compromising global nonproliferation norms.
Even so, it is in India that the deal faces the greatest resistance. The fight is led by four small Communist parties whose support Mr. Singh's fragile coalition needs to maintain a majority.
If the leftist parties withdraw support, which they have vaguely threatened to do, the government would be forced to call elections before its term expires in spring 2009. On Monday, Mr. Singh's cabinet is to meet with its Communist allies.
"The fact is, if tomorrow there is no government, there is no deal," said a senior government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the issue. "It would be even worse if we did something and did not implement what we signed."
In recent days, the ruling Congress Party has made it plain that it is not quite ready to face the voters. Yet the party is also showing signs of electioneering, presenting a series of populist measures, from welfare programs to price supports for farmers.
The Communist parties, though they control only two of India's 28 states, have the numbers in Parliament to prop up or bring down Congress Party rule, and they have used that leverage to block proposals to loosen labor laws and foreign investment in retail trade.
The differences have prompted many political analysts to predict that sooner or later, Mr. Singh and his party will be compelled to break with the Communists.
The politics of the United States matter, too. For President Bush, an agreement with India would represent a singular foreign policy achievement, and if sealing the deal edges closer to the 2008 elections, it is uncertain whether the Democrats will let him enjoy such a victory.
Apparently hedging their bets, supporters of the deal in Washington have lately sought to describe the nuclear accord as one piece of a broader relationship. Even if the deal is on hold for now, they say, the new amity between India and the United States is not.
"The achievement has been the stronger U.S.-India relationship, not the deal per se," said Xenia Dormandy, a former State Department official who is now the director of the India program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. "That relationship will remain strong even without the deal being completed."
The real tension lies in whether India will be able to work out its domestic difficulties before the American campaign season, when the Democrats may be reluctant to back such a radical overhaul of American foreign policy. For that reason the White House would like to present a final agreement to Congress sooner rather than later.
Asked if the prime minister had put a freeze on the nuclear negotiations, which are key to India easing its energy crisis, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, K. Subrahmanyam, said: "I don't know if he has put it in the refrigerator or in the freezer. If it's the refrigerator, he can take it out soon."
Unless of course the power goes out first, and the contents of the refrigerator expire, as they often do in energy-starved India.