The more they attempt to put a spin on home minister L.K. Advani's remark on nuclear cooperation with Israel, the more it spins out of control. So much so that it has given rise to a diplomatically piquant situation that may not be brought entirely under control even after India proffers a belated explanation to the Arabs. Avers joint secretary (West Asia, North Africa) Rakesh Kumar: "That would depend on how they take it."
The Arabs have so far not taken Advani's straight-to-the-chin statement very well. During his visit to Israel in mid-June, when the home minister talked about increasing cooperation with Israel in all fields, he was asked specifically if this would also include the nuclear issue as well. The home minister is reported to have remarked: "I would certainly favour increasing cooperation with Israel in all fields, including this one." This has been widely quoted in Indian as well as in sections of the Arab press. On June 23, a national English daily carried a denial of sorts, issued by the Indian High Commission in London: "Insofar as the specific issue of cooperation in the nuclear field is concerned, the embassy of India in Tel Aviv had issued a categorical denial on this issue having been discussed. This is now reiterated."
But that doesn't seem to have cut much ice. On June 22, a letter was written on behalf of the Arab League addressed to the Indian foreign secretary. The idea was to seek appropriate clarifications on issues raised by the Indian home minister's remarks. When there was no reply forthcoming, the Indian ambassador to Egypt was summoned by the Arab League headquarters in Cairo. Its assistant secretary general for political and international affairs Mohammed Zachariah Ismail brought up Advani's statement. The chief representative of the League of Arab States Mission in New Delhi, Mahmud Husein Gaddafi, told Outlook that the Indian ambassador sought time for appropriate clarifications. He had, however, said that the home minister's reported statement "doesn't represent the political policy of the country". The embassy in Egypt has thus distanced the government from the statement.
Asked if the concern over Advani's reported statement was limited to certain quarters of the Arab League, Gaddafi emphasised that the sense of "anxiety over the issue is uniform" and it would be wrong to minimise its broad-based nature.
An Arab diplomat based in Delhi described the statement of Advani as an "open crossing" of the nuclear rubicon. He emphatically said: "No country in the world has ever said or stated or even made an intention clear that it has or it may be possible to have nuclear cooperation with Israel. This is the first time we hear such news."
Another diplomat wondered if the Indian home minister's statement, in fact, represented a "paradigm shift by a country that has the second-largest population of Muslims in the world".
Yet another Arab diplomat declared that because of the nature of the denial, "Advani's statement is open to interpretation". In sum, Arabs see three possibilities arising out of Advani's reported statement:
Without exception, all Arab countries are party to the npt. In the region, Israel alone is not part of the npt. There is a history of negotiations to the concept of a nuclear-weapon-free Middle East, which Arabs are keen to conclude. The Arab League in 1998 adopted a resolution urging "all the countries to stop supplying Israel material, equipment or assistance until it opens all its nuclear installations to the International Atomic Energy Agency control". There is nothing Arab countries would like better than a denuclearised Israel.
Therefore, home minister Advani's statement has a certain chutzpah. Even Jaswant Singh's politically competitive remark in Jerusalem, that considerations of the Muslim votebank had prevented India from opening up to Israel in the past, comes a poor second and sounds decidedly diplomatic in comparison. It's pertinent to mention here that Israel never officially says it has nuclear weapons, although that is widely acknowledged. Introduced into this extremely charged Levantine atmosphere, Advani's statement has led to a triple-whammy situation, especially considering that there were no mitigating circumstances when he made his (personal?) position abundantly clear.
Domestically too, Advani's remark has not gone unnoticed. cpi(m) politburo member Prakash Karat told Outlook, "This has serious implications and shows the increasing enmeshing of India with US strategic interests. It will be seen as a hostile move in the Arab world." He felt that the "shared ideological affinity" underlying home minister Advani's visit may have prompted him to drag the nuclear cooperation issue out of the closet. "We are going to raise this issue, among other unilateral foreign policy changes made by this government, in Parliament."
India's sustained build-up of relations with Israel has led to extensive cooperation in areas of defence; there is increasing cooperation between the security apparatuses; there have been extensive high-level visits, and the possibility exists of broader cooperation in the field of "counter-terrorism".
In June 1993, the then Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, reportedly explained to an Indian newspaper the nature of limitations in terms of technology transfers: "We are limited by our commitments to the United States.... Whatever we get from the US as an end-user, we are bound by our commitment...not to give others such technology. But we have technology which is quite advanced and which is not limited, except by certain international agreements." End-user arrangements are a grey area. It has been suggested in the Israeli media that to blunt criticism of alleged Israeli transfer of American technology to third parties in 1996, the former disclosed that Tel Aviv and Washington had reached an agreement arranging a "division of rights" on the Arrow missile project, for instance.
IT is further arguable that without the US as a component, Indo-Israel ties can't reach the level of cooperation home minister Advani might wish vis-a-vis nuclear areas, although it is pertinent to point out that India and the US are working on a modus vivendi on, among other things, technology transfer issues.
A strategic alliance seems to be evolving with Israel and it indicates the ground is fertile for a strategic relationship. Could such a relationship be possible without a nuclear facet? It's relevant to state that in September 1998, a reputed Israeli publication carried a detailed and credible study of the "evolving strategic partnership" between India and Israel, where it mentioned, among other things, that A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, credited to be one of the moving forces behind Pokhran II, "paid an unannounced visit to Israel" in June 1996. And "there are suggestions that Kalam was again in Israel in January 1997". A report attributed to the uni news agency on June 3, 1998, quoted the Yediot Aharnot daily as saying that Kalam "had been shown Israel's missile and satellite projects". The report further added that Kalam's "senior colleagues also visited Israel" and that "senior Israeli scientists also travelled to India, as part of a reciprocal programme". The September 1998 study also mentions that "in October (1994) Prof U.R. Rao", a leading scientist in India's space endeavours, who negotiated the cryogenic engine deal with Moscow, "came to Israel with a four-member delegation. Among others, he met Prof Yuval Ne'eman, head of Israel's space agency".
While all this is in the past when more attention was paid to political sensitivities, what the current state of play might be is a matter of conjecture, although it would take some gumption to suggest that under the bjp, the number of visits like those mentioned might have actually gone down. Ultimately, a question that has to be asked is: if all this is indeed true, would it be tantamount to continuity of policy or votebank politics?
Tags