Finally, A Squeak

Nick Burns came to discuss the implementation and the time schedules thatwill determine when and how the July 18 agreement will come to fruition. Thespeech comes a month before the IAEA will take stock of what to do with Iran. Italso sets the tenor for the winter session of Parliament where the issue will nodoubt be debated. There are many voices that argue that as a result of thenuclear deal with the United States, India has lost, in no small measure, theautonomy of decision-making with respect to critical areas of foreign policy.

At the heart of the speech is the argument that insofar as the reality fornuclear power countries are concerned, the world has changed and in keeping withthe dynamics of this change, New Delhi is adapting to the emerging realities.This is predicated on the fact that New Delhi has emerged as a nuclear weaponstate. Given the dynamism and the technological sophistication of the Indianeconomy, New Delhi cannot any longer afford not to act in keeping with thisacquired heft in world affairs. There is a suggestion here somewhere that thevote on Iran can be viewed from this perspective. It is also an indication thatNew Delhi will stay the course on this matter. It is another matter that Russiatoo would not like the matter to go to the UN, and would rather that the problemis solved before then. India can draw a certain political comfort from this.

One of the main pitches of the speech seems to be the necessity to highlightanother strategic objective: that it is a technological imperative not to bedenied technology that will shape the future and the government has created a"favourable enabling environment" for this. He lists the enactment ofthe WMD Bill and the upgradation of the national export control lists toharmonise them with the Nuclear Supplier Group and the MTCR guidelines as partof this instinct.

The proposed separation of the civilian and military nuclear facilities andthe negotiation of an additional protocol with the IAEA are steps in the futurebut will evoke a lively debate. In sum, the foreign secretary makes the casethat India is positioning itself to be a critical player in any futurearrangement that emerges as a result of this churning but with the caveat thatit should have a big say. For example, in the case of the Proliferation SecurityInitiative where there is not yet sufficient clarity.

But there are some aspects of the speech that are bound to generate politicalfog. The foreign secretary brings a new emphasis on Pakistan by bringing up theAQ Khan network and highlighting that "it is important that remainingissues...are satisfactorily clarified as well." Hearteningly, the foreignsecretary declares, "We see no reason why there should be an insistence onpersonal interviews with Iranian scientists but an exception granted to a manwho has been accused of running a global 'nucler Wal-Mart.'"

This is a welcome departure from the pussyfooting that was done on the issuewhen the news broke in the fond hope that silence will earn brownie points fromWashington and will not rock the peace process that had been tentativelyunderway. This assertion puts paid to any residual Pakistani hopes that NewDelhi would legitimise its nuclear programme any more than it did last June whenPakistan and India said they were moving from flashpoint to nuclear stability.

While the foreign secretary was at it, it would have been worthwhile toelaborate what the residual issues are that remain to be clarified as well.