'Threats Can't Pressure Us'

Ambassador Ronen Sen's tenure in Washington has been eventful. In a little over a year, he oversaw a successful visit to the US in July by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and was instrumental in crafting a historic civil nuclear deal between India and the US. He's no stranger to matters nuclear, drawing upon his stint as secretary of the Atomic Energy Commission of India. Sen has earlier been ambassador to Russia, Germany and the UK. His clout in the UPA government is considered formidable, partly because of his proximity to Congress president Sonia Gandhi and the close relationship he had shared with her husband and one-time prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. He spoke to Ashish Kumar Sen, prior to leaving Washington on a "working vacation" in India. Excerpts:

Indo-US ties have undergone a rapid transformation over the past few years. What factors do you attribute this to?

The transformation is primarily due to the steady closing of the gap between old mindsets and perceptions and current realities. There are still some people in both countries who remain frozen in postures of a bygone era, but their numbers are declining. Even ostriches can't indefinitely keep their heads in the sand.

What are some of the areas in the relationship that will be a focus in the coming years?

Indo-US relations are among the few where interests can be reconciled with ideals and practices with principles. As in relations between any two democracies, there may be occasional divergences of assessments on some issues. However, in the long-term perspective, I do not see any conflict of strategic interests between India and the US, whether on combating international terrorism, promoting non-proliferation ofWMDs, pluralism and democracy, combating global pandemics.

What are the areas in which the relations have not developed to full potential?

The topmost priority should be to add more economic ballast to this relationship. There is vast untapped potential for rapid growth in two-way trade, investments and technology transfers.

The Bush administration has been vehemently opposed to the idea of a gas pipeline between India and Iran. What is the status of this project?

This is an issue which concerns India, Iran and Pakistan. We will be guided by our own interests.

Has the Bush regime offered India alternative sources of energy in exchange for New Delhi dropping this deal?

It's clearly in our interest to take all measures to promote energy security. A rapid increase in nuclear power production is in our interest, while we explore other alternative and renewable sources of energy and reduce our dependence on imported oil and gas.

Why did India deviate from its past policies and not vote along with other non-aligned countries in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in September?

India's position on non-proliferation has for decades differed from those of the vast majority of non-aligned countries. This was apparent, for instance, in New York during the special 60th anniversary session of the UN General Assembly, shortly before the IAEA meeting in September. The question of deviation from past positions is based on incorrect presumptions.

What is India's current stand on the issue of voting at the IAEA for recommending Iran to the UN Security Council?

It's premature to speculate on this.

Were you surprised by the reaction from some members of the US Congress to the civil nuclear deal between India and the US, especially the prominent players on the India Caucus on Capitol Hill?

I was somewhat taken aback by comments which presumed that a large and vibrant democracy like India could ever be pressurised by threats. But this is an issue of the past. I'm convinced that such remarks represented an aberration.

Former prime minister A.B. Vajpayee criticised the deal. Did this surprise you?

I have worked under different governments in India. For instance, during my six-year tenure as ambassador in Moscow, there were five changes of government in India. There is, however, one constant factor of overriding priority, namely, India's national interests, which I am committed to promote to the best of my ability.

Other nations, Pakistan in particular, are arguing why the US should have a civilian nuclear agreement of this nature exclusively with India.

The Indo-US agreement is based on the acceptance that India's case is unique. India has been, and will remain, a responsible nuclear power. We have not signed the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), and will never sign it, except as a recognised Nuclear Weapon State. Yet we have never sought to undermine this treaty. Our track record on non-proliferation is impeccable. Our export controls were stringent even before non-proliferation regimes were conceived of, let alone codified and put in place. I would not like to comment on the non-proliferation credentials of other countries. However, as in the case of international terrorism, we should not focus exclusively on destinations of nuclear proliferation but also its sources.

Some members of the US Congress and non-proliferation advocates have sought imposition of additional conditions on the nuclear deal before it can be fully implemented. Would additional conditions be a deal-breaker?

I am not unduly concerned about what self-styled and self-serving experts say, and whether or not they accept the realities on the ground. The agreement is finely tuned and carefully balanced in terms of reciprocal obligations and benefits. Any attempt to disturb this balance could undermine it. However, no Congressman has, as far as I am aware, proposed additional conditionalities.

Certain analysts have also suggested that India cap its fissile material production. Is this something New Delhi would agree to do at some point?

Some people have tried to be too clever by half by pointing out that the US and some other P-5 countries have accepted a cap on fissile material cutoff and, since India wants to be equated with these countries, it should do the same. Such assertions ignore the fact that the cap on fissile material cutoff was due to the embarrassment of excess of fissile materials, after negotiated reductions in nuclear weapon stockpiles.

The Bush administration and members of the Congress say US laws will only be amended once India takes the first step of separating its civilian and military nuclear facilities. Do you anticipate this process proving long drawn out?

The July 18 joint statement calls for reciprocal steps by both countries.

Is the Bush administration sharing advice with the Indian government on how to separate the civilian and military nuclear facilities?

The separation process is to be determined by the Indian government, just as the legislative process in Congress has to be steered by the US administration.

You have been meeting several members of the Congress in a bid to allay some of their concerns about the nuclear deal. What sort of response have you had from them so far?

Yes, I have met several Senators and Congressmen of both parties. My discussions with them have not always focused exclusively, or even primarily, on the issue of civil nuclear cooperation. Some have been positive, others non-committal or not fully aware of the details. But virtually all of them are committed to stronger relations with India.

Are you optimistic that this deal will eventually go through as it is?

Yes, I am reasonably sure that the lawmakers will see that the civil nuclear agreement is not one-sided, but mutually beneficial and serves the national interests of both countries and their shared global concerns, in terms of nuclear non-proliferation, energy security, equitable economic development in Asia, environmental protection and so on.