Round The World

New Delhi, 20 April 2010

PM At N-Summits

INDIA ON A BALANCING ACT

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of InternationalStudies, JNU

The plates has been full for PrimeMinister Manmohan Singh this past week, attending the BRIC (Brazil, Russia,India and China) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) summits in Brasilia soonafter the conclusion of the multi-nation Nuclear Security Summit in Washington.Singh managed to sail through deliberations in these high-profile summitsshowcasing India’s relevanceto international issues, though he had some balancing act to do when it came tothe issue of sanctions against an intransigent Iran.

Moreover, despite theacknowledgement of India’scontribution to the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan,major differences still persist when it comes to US AfPak strategy and itsovert dependence on Pakistan.But, as of now both New Delhi and Washington have shownmaturity and agreed to disagree over these critical issues.

These differences did not come inthe way of the camaraderie that President Obama and PM Singh shared during theNuclear Security Summit and the welcome given to India’s plan to set up a GlobalCentre for Nuclear Energy Partnership. The BRIC and the IBSA that held their summitsclose on the heels of the Washington summit, are significant for the way theyhave come up as unmistakable signs of the way the international system ischanging.

The spheres of power are diffused inthis world and international organizations and machineries of internationalpolitics need to come out of the past and embrace the new changes. This is themantra of BRIC and IBSA, which look at the inevitability of changes in theinternational economic system to better reflect the changes in the nature ofworld economy.

The Nuclear Security Summit, in trueWashingtonfashion brought leaders from 47 nations around the world, as sort of avindication of President Obama’s priority to prevent the misuse of nuclearknowhow and materials. The Washingtonsummit came out with a communiqué and a work plan binding the countries in acommon resolve to maintain effective security of nuclear materials. Withoutmaking any legal distinction between the nuclear and non-nuclear weapon States,the communiqué attempts to extract a common commitment towards securing allnuclear materials.

The Summit stuck to the issue of nuclear securitywhich has been distinguished from the issue of non-proliferation. That’s thereason the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) does not find reference inthe present communiqué. The inclusion of the issue of NPT would haveunnecessarily made it difficult to take into confidence responsible nuclearweapon States such as India,which has refused to sign the treaty complaining of its discriminatory nature.

Hence, the Obama administrationprobably understood that to take forward the issue of nuclear safety andsecurity and to significantly raise the issue of nuclear terrorism, it had tobe de-linked from the issue of non-proliferation. Over the NPT issue, Washington and NewDelhi continue to spar.

The outcome of the summit calls moresupport for strengthening of existing mechanism to enhance nuclear security,for instance the 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materialand its 2005 amendment, the Convention on the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism.The primary motive as such of the present endeavor of Nuclear Securityspecifically wants to prevent the nuclear materials from falling into the handsof those entities that have no right to possess in the first place --- non-Stateactors and terrorists.

Thus, the effort which is to apin-point target on the issue of nuclear terrorism is being de-linked from thatof nuclear non-proliferation that focuses on preventing the further spread ofnuclear technology to countries that do not have them and at the same persuadesthe “de-facto” nuclear States to sign the NPT. The summit brings forth thequestion of State responsibility when it comes to preventing nuclear materialsfrom falling into the wrong hands. In this respect, the abject failure of the Pakistani State to have control over the shoddyblack-market notoriety of its once respected nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan isnoteworthy.

In an apparent criticism of thePakistani government, Singh spoke on the need of countries to abide by theirinternational obligations so as to prevent the recurrence of past mistakes,which have led to lot of insecurity, especially for India. One of the highlights of thesummit was the announcement of India’splan to institute a Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership, which wasmuch appreciated by Obama.  

It is visualized as astate-of-the-art facility based on international participation from theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other interested foreignpartners. Explaining the project further, the Singh said the Centre wouldconsist of four schools dealing with Advanced Nuclear Energy System Studies,Nuclear Security, Radiation Safety, and the application of Radiation Technologyin the areas of healthcare, agriculture and food.  

Of late, the Obama administration hasgone ahead to institute what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “biting”against Iran,which has ignited recurrent suspicions regarding the nature of its nuclearprogramme.  The Ahmadinejad regime hastime and again reiterated that the nuclear programme is meant for peacefulpurposes but has not been able to convince a large part of the internationalcommunity. American intentions to take hard measures against the regime have oftenbeen given a soft-landing by other permanent members of the UN Security Councillike China and Russia.

And it is in the case of the Iraniannuclear programme, Indiahas had to walk a tightrope. In the past, India’svotes against Iranat the IAEA have often faced domestic criticism for tip-toeing the Americanline. Moreover, India hasreasonable bilateral contacts with Iran,particularly in the realm of energy where Iran is seen to be an importantsource. Indiahas made it known officially that it does not necessarily buy the American linethat sanctions will not affect the ordinary people. On the contrary, itbelieves that sanctions do affect the ordinary people while those in power areoften unaffected, and such a scenario increases support for the regime.

The BRIC and the IBSA nations werenot keen on instituting sanctions against the Iranian regime. Though all thenations feel that Iranshould be more transparent regarding the nature of its nuclear programme, theyalso feel that sanctions are not the right instruments to persuade the regime.All members of the BRIC and IBSA prefer the route of diplomacy and thecementing of the relevance and centrality of the IAEA in resolving this issue.

However, such divergence on an issuewould not seriously affect the trajectory of India-US relations, which is seento be multi-pronged and of long-term interest to both the nations. New Delhi does not say itis happy with the Iranian nuclear programme and instead favours the Iranianregime to come clean and convince a suspicious international community thatthere is nothing to hide. And it has amply shown its displeasure by its votesagainst Iranat the IAEA. But, it does not favour taking extreme measures before all meansare exhausted. Hence, there is no lack in India’s commitment to fightproliferation activities but the divergence is only in the means employed.---INFA

(Copyright, IndiaNews and Feature Alliance)