 | « Back to article | Print this article |
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should meet United States President George W Bush in Washington next week but he should not sign the India-US civil nuclear agreement, according to Lalit Mansingh, former ambassador to the US and a staunch supporter of the nuclear deal.
"You can have the deal signed at other levels," said Mansingh.
He has sprung a surprise by urging Dr Singh not to sign the deal unless the Bush administration clarifies some aspects of the 'Presidential declaration' sent to the Congress, along with the 123 Agreement, for voting.
While talking to rediff.com, Mansingh said, "I think our relations with the US are important enough for the PM to have a bilateral meeting with President Bush. It can be done in two ways. It can be done on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. It has been done many times -- former prime ministers Narasimha Rao and Atal Bihari Vajpayee did it."
Dr Singh will help push N-deal over the line: US
"If he is making a special trip to Washington to sign the agreement, if that is the intention, then that will not be right for Dr Singh. Because if you don't have a common understanding of what you are signing, then I think it would not be appropriate for the PM. It should not be done at the level of the prime minister making a special gesture," he explained.
When asked how Dr Singh signing the agreement in Washington made a difference, he said, "It is symbolic that the PM makes a special effort to go to Washington to sign it. That is what I am opposed to. I am not opposing the bilateral meeting or the nuclear deal. All we need is a proper clarification from the American side. If Americans clarify that the entire agreement, including article 5, is binding then I have absolutely no problem with the PM going there and signing it."
Bush gears up to push N-deal through Congress
Clarifying his position, Mansingh told rediff.com, "I have been the most ardent supporter of closer relations with the US and I have been a supporter of the deal as the centerpiece of our strategic partnership. The only problem I have is the interpretation being given in the 123 Agreement's forwarding note, known as the Presidential determination, by President Bush while sending it to the Congress."
Mansingh added, "It says in particular about article 5.6 (of the 123 Agreement) -- that it is a political commitment and not legally binding. I find that difficult to accept. In my view, a treaty is a legal document and in treaties there is no distinction between political and legal commitments. Also, a particular clause has been singled out, saying nuclear fuel supply commitments are not binding on the US. I also find that a little odd."
This deal may cause India to collapse
Mansingh emphasised that India should get a clarification about these points before singing the agreement.
"After all, they have invested a lot of political capital. President Bush has personally promoted the idea of strategic partnership with India and has taken personal interest in getting the nuclear deal through. But this doubt, which has been raised, needs to be clarified at the earliest," he said.
'The PM's reputation as an economist is in jeopardy'
But Mansingh maintained that India should go for the deal even if the US administration doesn't clarify these points.
"Yes, we should go for the deal. Because everything that has happened has surely ended the three-decade old restrictions of technology transfer to India. Mind you, what Americans have done is scoring a self goal. In this particular case, the damage is not to India's national interest but it is damaging American national interest because we have got the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers' Group and we are in a position to sign bilateral deals with other countries," he pointed out.
The people who swung the N-deal
Mansingh believes that Bush's determination letter has raised doubts in Indian minds. "They are raising the old suspicion that Americans are not a reliable supplier. We have seen this in the Light Combat aircraft project, in case of spare parts of the Sea King helicopters and in the Tarapur agreement which was based on the 123 Agreement," he cautioned.
Embarrassing revelations on the Nuclear Deal
The former bureaucrat finds it difficult to understand why President Bush included such controversial remarks in his covering note. He says he can only hypothesise that, "He needed this as concession to the Congress to get the deal through."
"It is the symbolism that matters. The PM may sign something about which the US President himself has stated doubt. It is a nuanced argument," he added.