|
While the Indo-US nuclear deal may have crossed the first hurdle comprehensively in the House and Senate in America, it hasn’t impressed opposition BJP or ally Left back home. It has been left to Anand Sharma, MoS, External Affairs, to formulate a political response to what, many believe, is largely political opposition to the deal. In an interview to JAYANTH JACOB, Sharma says the Government welcomes the Left’s ‘‘constructive criticism’’ and was confident of winning it over, while the BJP’s charges reek of double standards:
Question: The Indo-US civilian nuclear deal has come in for a lot of criticism. And the opposition parties have been alleging that they were not kept in the loop.
Answer: Such criticisms are motivated, a partisan propaganda aimed at misleading public opinion on the issue. The deal is a bipartisan endorsement of the two countries’ mutual vision, as expressed in their July 18, 2005, statement of civilian nuclear cooperation.
There is also inadequate comprehension on the part of many about the legislative process in the US. What we heard during the debate in the House of Representatives was a sense of the House. And in any democracy, individual members are entitled to air their views...
We are committed to what forms the basis of the July 18 statement and the parameters defined in the nuclear separation plan on May 2 agreed between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President George Bush. There is no deviation, dilution or further addition to our stand. All such criticisms are premature, uninformed and deliberately partisan. India is committed to pursue a sovereign foreign policy that will be judicious and will be based on merit. There is no question of India deviating from that.
Question: It’s not only the BJP, even the Left parties have criticised the deal.
Answer: We respect the inputs of the Left parties, their constructive criticism. They are our partners. There is a mechanism of coordination with Left parties in addressing such issues. Then, in a democracy, political parties have their own stands on issues. But we seek broad-based national consensus on all matters related to foreign policy. And the country’s interests are always safeguarded.
Question: But don’t you think there is less and less attempt to hold inter-party consultations before major policy decisions, irrespective of who’s in power?
Answer: It has been our endeavour to seek consensus on major foreign policy decisions. When in power, the NDA, led by the BJP, had taken specific steps on the nuclear issue, Indo-US relations and Pakistan. We were not informed. Parliament was not informed. Their policy lacked consistency. The armies of India and Pakistan stood eyeball-to-eyeball on the border for 11 months. Things have improved in the past two years.
The BJP’s charges should be rejected with the contempt they deserve. We are only discussing the civilian nuclear plan, the NDA was discussing strategic deterrent plans with the US.
Question: Is this on record?
Answer: It is on record. The Vajpayee government was talking strategic restraint, strategic deterrent plans with the US. In 1998 then PM Vajpayee told the UN General Assembly that India’s de facto ban on nuclear testing can become a de jure one. Strobe Talbott wrote about Jaswant Singh’s readiness to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. All these show the BJP’s double standards.
Question: Do the records suggest the NDA discussed other strategic issues?
Answer: That’s not the issue here. Parliament was not kept informed about such foreign policy decisions by the NDA. (On the other hand) there was an extensive discussion on the July 18 statement in Parliament in which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh respondend to the concerns of the members. Parliament had even met on a Saturday to discuss the issue.
Question: Moving on to the Shashi Tharoor issue, many feel that by fielding him for the UN Secretary General’s post, India has traded off on its Security Council aspirations?
Answer: This is not correct. The prevailing perception among a large number of UN member nations is that the next Secretary General be from Asia in conformity with the principle of regional rotation. As Tharoor is the best available candidate from Asia, we offered him support. He is a distinguished intellectual and has vast experience at the UN...Even BJP supported Tharoor’s candidature.
As regards our UNSC aspirations, we are committed to pursuing our campaign on comprehensive UN reforms in accordance with the G-4 resolution. We are engaging other countries too. But first a framework resolution has to go through. Our rightful aspirations for the UNSC have been endorsed by a vast majority of countries.
Question: Again, why didn’t the Government keep the Opposition in the loop on this, when it would have been confident of their support?
Answer: Tharoor’s candidature was not cleared in one day. When we decided to support him, Tharoor called up former prime minister (Vajpayee), L K Advani and CPI(M) leaders Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury. But the BJP which prides itself as a nationalistic, patriotic party doesn’t even take pride in major acheievements of the country at the international level—like India bagging 173 out of 190 votes to get elected to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Question: What’s the level of Indian involvment in Sri Lanka? Considering the stake Tamil Nadu parties have in the UPA, it must be a tough balancing act.
Answer: We are concerned about the situation in Sri Lanka. Our stand has been that the peace process should continue and there should be a negotiated settlement. When it comes to foreign policy there is no different opinion from any of our allies.
Question: But the Lankan refugee problem is getting bigger...
Answer: Refugee problem is refugee problem and ethnic issue is ethnic issue. I would also like to state that the LTTE is a banned organisation.
Question: Is the time ripe for the Prime Minister to visit Pakistan?
Answer: It’s an open-ended question. Our relations with Pakistan have improved a lot since the UPA came into power.
|