-
-
Aug302007
123 Trilogy: Part 3
We have examined the Indo-US deal in the political context in Part 1. We then studied it in a social context in Part 2. In this concluding Part 3, let us evaluate possible outcomes of the present imbroglio, by doing a SWOT analysis. The boundaries of this SWOT analysis are constrained by the Indian political scene - we will not consider events within the US, or IAEA/NSG, or examine other non-political aspects of the agreement.
Strengths
What reasoned arguments can be used to silence the opposition?
Opposition 1: The deal will not further Left’s strategic interests (including closer cooperation with communist countries), but instead will advance closer cooperation with the US and surrender our sovereignty to the imperialist US. Further, this will be deemed to have happened without the Left being taken into confidence or it being given a chance to make their concerns matter.
Response: Not entirely true. In fact, the opposite may become true. India may end up doing the most business with Russia, possibly some with the French, and none with the US. Why? Because no US supplier will sell anything to India until we pass a Liability Protection Law. Since the Left’s support will be required to pass any law in the present Government, it can virtually stop any business and cooperation with the US by voting against it. Such a law would not matter for Russia, because Russian companies are backed by government guarantees and are immune to liability lawsuits.
Opposition 2: The Hyde Act has various restrictive clauses against India and undermines India’s sovereignty.
Response: We cannot do anything about the laws passed by another country, and we are not bound by those laws. What we can do something about and what we are bound by is the agreement or treaty that we enter into. India has signed the 123 agreement, not the Hyde Act. In cases of conflict, there are disputes over whether the 1954 US Atomic Energy Act and the Hyde Act will supersede the 123 Agreement or the other way around. There is no unanimous clear answer.
However, what really matters is that the US law does not matter much. In most cases, it is the diplomatic relationship that matters. The US is known to have bypassed and violated its own laws when required.
Opposition 3: All international treaties and agreements should be approved by Parliament before being signed by the Indian government.
Response: Good and valid point. We can take up this issue in Parliament and debate it. The current 123 agreement however, is the logical outcome of a strategic initiative by the previous opposition government (which was also prepared to sign the CTBT). It is therefore not a partisan agreement, but in harmony with the nation’s strategic interests as believed by the opposition as well.
Opposition 4: Nuclear energy is more expensive than other sources of energy like thermal, hydro, etc. Further, it will not meet a significant proportion of our energy requirements.
Response: Yes, but this is a narrow and myopic view. We need to explore all sources of energy, period.
Opposition 5: The 123 agreement does not allow India to conduct nuclear tests. If we conduct a nuclear test, our fuel supplies will be discontinued.
Response: The 123 agreement does not say anything about nuclear testing by India. If India feels nuclear testing is necessary, it retains its sovereign right to do so. But you cannot have your cake and eat it too. The scenario will not be different than it was before the 123 agreement. Rather, even if our supplies are cutoff by the US in the event of a nuclear test, the US has committed itself to help find other nations to restore our supply!
Opposition 6: The current American President may be satisfied by the reporting requirements and continue to uphold the 123 agreement. What is the guarantee that future American Presidents will do the same?
Response: There is no, and can be no guarantee. If the US were to call off the deal for whatever reasons, the worst case scenario is that we would be back into nuclear apartheid - as is the state today. (There are several other possibilities better than the worst case, even if the US were to back off in the future).
Also, conversely, if India at any point in the future, deems the 123 agreement as detrimental to its interests, we can terminate the deal with a 1-year notice. It is not binding upon subsequent Indian governments either.
Weaknesses
There is not much public awareness in India about the Indo-US nuclear deal. In the event of early elections, the nuclear deal is not likely to be a poll issue at all. This leaves the passage of the nuclear deal vulnerable to external factors that can influence elections, like terrorist strikes, organized protests against retail chains, and so on.
The Left is not open to reasoned debate because of ideological compulsions. The strengths listed above are probably, mostly impotent. Also, the possibility of the Left compromising its stand appear remote.
Opportunities
This is one opportunity for India to get rid of the Left. Two separate opinion polls have showed them getting much lower number of seats if fresh elections were held. This is not an opportunity for the deal per se, but certainly opens up lots of other opportunities!
Threats
The obvious threat is that the government will buy time and freeze any progress on the deal. This will lead to a deadlock and the Left would have achieved their statist ambitions. There will be an inordinate delay on any progress towards operationalizing the deal and India will have succumbed to the arm-twisting tactics of the Left.
The other threat is that the Left can withdraw support and bring down the UPA government. If that happens, there will be no progress on the agreement. Even though two independent polls suggest that the Left will lose significantly if elections were held, they’re quite capable of committing suicide with their myopic ideological glasses blurring all clarity. Another threat is that the Congress, sensing that it can get a much larger number of seats in a fresh election, will itself dissolve the Lok Sabha.
Summary
At this time of writing, the above SWOT analysis shows that, under the present political circumstances, it is difficult for the Indian government to operationalize the 123 agreement. Our politicians are infamously irrational, and we can never tell what will happen. But it will be a matter of national shame for all of us, if India as a nation doesn’t live up to its promises. We are going to simply talk the talk and let others walk all over us.
Photo Credit: Zee News, NDTV
The views expressed in this post are those of the writer and are not necessarily endorsed by Mutiny.in
Subscribe
Submit Link
Arnav Mohanty
001
8:24 am
The UPA should dump the left parties right away and beign talks to with IAEA and the NSG to operationalise the Indo-US nuclear deal without any further delay. If a mid-term poll were to come about, I am sure the discredited left will stand to lose more than any other party.
The left parties (CPM, CPI, RSP, FB) are India’s enemies from within! Their very existence makes us vulnerable.
As far as the BJP is concerned, Advani’s latest statement suggests that the saffron flip-flop will continue. He wants the deal to be “renegotiated” now. What hypocrisy!
cdm
002
2:31 pm
Great analysis of information!
We can find more SWOT about an Indian at http://oh-indian.com
Hope this helps the visitor to know more.
Revathi
003
2:50 pm
I guess the our congress now will hope that the US congress will disapprove the deal!
The problem with the whole affair is the way the deal has been negotiated without prior discussion in the lok sabha (ok, our politicians are irrational but they have king size egos)
It is significant that the US doestnt decide without consulting its parliament (USA itself is not all that democratic but we seem worse off).
I had thought that the communists were against nuclear proliferation, but it doesnt seem to be the case.
Mahendra
004
10:39 pm
Arnav/CDM/Revathi: thank you.
I am not sure if if the UPA dumps the Left and the government falls down, there will be any official entity representative of India, who can go ahead with negotiations with the NSG and IAEA.
I agree that the Congress government has not managed the whole process well, it could’ve done much better.
Mathew
005
3:11 pm
Terrible SWOT Analysis!!!
S & W should be discussed with respect to the country’s point of view and O & T should be with respect to international market place.
S - Power generation would lead to accelerated growth resulting in economic stability and progress.
W - Ambiguity in the sustainability of the nuclear supply.
O - More international collaboration leading to development and growth in trade, technology, BPO, FIIs and FDIs. Ultimately this will lead to make us a top player in the world market.
T - Over dependency in nuclear power prodution may make us to forget about alternate channels of power production and may lead to a state of dependency, which can be a possible threat in our growth.
Mathew
006
3:21 pm
Kindly let us stop arguing for the implementation part of the deal and let us discuss the benefits and the threats of the deal? If the deal explicitly founds to be highly benefitial for us then it is just a matter of proper communication required so that the people will throw all those who are against the deal irrespective of saffron or red. But if the deal is having long standing repurcussions on our freedom of growth we are liable and responsible to our future generations to come. Kindly let us talk for the benefit of our country and not fight for or against the deal. Kindly let us throw our emotions and start thinking logically
Mahendra
007
3:26 pm
Mathew:
There can be multiple methods of applying SWOT in a given situation depending on what you are analyzing.
You have used SWOT for analyzing the nuclear deal from India’s perspective. And for the most part, I agree with your analysis.
As mentioned at the outset, I have used SWOT to evaluate possible outcomes of the present political imbroglio. The political suspense at the time I wrote the post was the driving force behind the analysis, not the benefits/hazards of the deal itself.
Mahendra
008
3:32 pm
Mathew,
I agree that communication is required. I have linked to various columnists, defense security experts, strategic experts, industrialists, politicians, journalists who are all communicating the benefits of the deal - I don’t think I need to repeat what all these distinguished folks are already communicating!
If you can let me know where you see emotion churning out illogical thoughts in my posts, I’ll gladly correct myself.
Mathew
009
3:46 pm
Never say correct yourself. You are ofcourse correct and I can see a genuine interest for our country’s growth. The matter is, one side of the discussion is missing. What is the use if we all are saying the same thing? where is the other people who oppose the deal. If they are not there we should defend for them and if you can better substantiate the dialogue the problem is over.
Dear Mahendra, tell me from your heart, Is it correct that in most of our discussions( discussions that we can see in our country) emotions comes often and logic rarely? may be emotions about politics, about our dislike of politicians etc. That is what I meant by the word emotions and not about you. Hope I made the scene clear. Thanks for your timely reply
usa today poll coaches
010
11:30 pm
usa today poll coaches…
…
roopa.s
011
2:33 pm
hi sir i am reallly thanking full u sir
because i got a news i mean information in site i am very much hapy so i amm journalism student so i got information in 123 nucleqar deal
thanikng full
roopa.s
from,
banglore plz mail me sir i want to more information in this topic
Kay
012
1:26 pm
Hmmm…i have limited knowledge!!
so, you think, everything is hunky-dory and the left’s making a hue and a cry for no reason??There is absolutely nothing wrong in it and it’s only Left’s political propaganda? What motive do they have if it clearly suggests decrease in the political mileage??]
[and why is it that your Part 1 you have said more about not binding on future../can walk off../can call off..or was it my myopic view?]
{i’m sorry for the late comment, but i had missed out on this. But it’s still relevant so hoping for a non-superficial reply}
audi fortitude
013
7:22 pm
igvz bfiutgx
com
014
1:47 pm
wxbml
en language language loterij nl nl site
015
7:26 pm
gshkab htwbnm