Devil's Advocate: 123 Deal sellout to US, says Yechury

Are the Left parties truly opposed to the 123 Agreement or is it just a posture? Karan Thapar quizzes CPI-M politburo member and Rajya Sabha MP Sitaram Yechury on the Left’s problems with the nuclear deal in an exclusive interview on the Devil’s Advocate.

Karan Thapar: The Left parties have asked the Prime Minister not to operationalise the 123 Agreement. The Prime Minister in response has said: “We cannot go back on the deal.” And he has told you to do whatever you want, including withdrawing support if you should so choose. So what will you do?

Sitaram Yechury : The question is not about us supporting or not supporting. The issue is the operationalising of the nuclear deal. We have told the Prime Minister what our concerns are and why we think that the deal is not in India’s interest, so it should not be operationalised.

Karan Thapar : If operationalising the deal is your key concern rather than withdrawing support, then I shall put it you that the deal is in fact not going to be operationalised until the US Congress ratifies it and until India and America sign on the dotted line. And that being the case, if you withdraw support, then you can stop the operationalisation. Are you prepared to do that or not?

Sitaram Yechury : According to the Indian Constitution, once an international agreement has been arrived upon, there is no need for Parliament’s ratification.

Karan Thapar : But it has not been arrived upon. It will only be arrived upon when they sign it and only if the US Congress ratifies it. So if you don’t want it to be arrived upon, then you have the power to stop it? Will you withdraw support or not?

Sitaram Yechury : No. Withdrawing support will not guarantee the stopping of it, because any future government and the alternative that we have had with the BJP, they are the ones who started the entire strategic alliance or partnership with the US.

Karan Thapar : A withdrawal of support today would bring the government down and it would not be in a position to sign the deal, therefore, not operationalise it. Is it not?

Sitaram Yechury : Whichever government comes to office in the country, we would want a situation where the terms of any treaty to be different from what they are now.

Karan Thapar : But you cannot get every party in Parliament to give you a blanket assurance that they will never accept a deal with America today or in the future. Do not ask for that, it is impossible.

Sitaram Yechury : Firstly, it is not a question about any deal with America. We are talking about a specific deal that is the Civil Nuclear Cooperation Deal. Secondly, we are talking about this deal having certain parameters and certain provisions, which are not as per our conditions.

Karan Thapar : If you don’t want the deal operationalised, then it won’t be till the two countries sign on the dotted line and it won’t happen till the US Congress ratifies it so. If you withdraw support and bring down the government, it won’t be operationalised. Are you serious or is this rhetorical blasting?

Sitaram Yechury : If any government that comes into office in India should ratify a deal that is different in terms than what it is now ...

Karan Thapar : So what are you looking for is a blank assurance that the deal should not be operational ever?

Sitaram Yechury : It is not a question of this government ratifying a deal. Any government that comes into office should be able to ratify a deal that will be in the interest of our country, which we think is not now.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar : You are pitching it so high now that you are leaving room to not bring the government down. You are asking for not just this government to give you a commitment, but for all governments in the future, and that is why you are actually finding behind this facade a way out.

Sitaram Yechury : Our interest lies in the deal and the interest of India, and the interest of India lies on certain terms that the deal must contain, which it doesn’t now. If this government falls down, then some other government will come and if it brings in the same deal, then it will not be in our interest. So we want this deal to be operationalised only when the concerns that we have listed out are met.

Karan Thapar : That is what I am saying.

Sitaram Yechury : No, you are not. Your concern is more with the government falling than with the deal. Your concern is not with Indo-US relation, but with the government falling down.

Karan Thapar : What I am saying is rather than ask the Prime Minister not to operationalise the deal, the power to stop the operationalisation is in your hands. If you withdraw support, the government ceases to exist and can’t sign the deal on the dotted line. So if you want it stopped, then you have the power to do so. Are you serious about this or not?

Sitaram Yechury : My agenda is the deal and your agenda seems to be the government. My agenda is not about which government will sign the deal, but what it contains and that is what I want it changed.

Karan Thapar : Many people watching this interview will say that Sitaram Yechury faces a trade-off. He can either bring the government down, as a result stop the deal, or he can protect the government at the cost of the deal. What he seems to be indicating is that he doesn’t want to bring the government down, so he is prepared to let the deal take place even though he speaks against it.

Sitaram Yechury : No, I do not accept the facile link-up of the deal being or not being operationalised or even the government falling down, which you are making. You are making a link-up that is simply not acceptable because it is not true.

Karan Thapar : It is simple. If the government will fall, then the deal will fall as well and if the government will survive, so will the deal. But you are not prepared to bring the government down. Why so?

Sitaram Yechury : I am telling you again that your eagerness lies in bringing the government down and my concern is India’s interest and what the deal should contain. And according to what the deal contains, I am saying that it should not be operationalised till our concerns are met.

Karan Thapar : But you are not getting an answer to that from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself has told you that the deal will be operationalised now. He told The Telegraph that ‘we cannot go back on it’. He has asked you to do what you feel like doing. He has told you that you could withdraw support if you want to. He is not renegotiating.

Sitaram Yechury : The point is not about renegotiating, but about the deal being operationalised. If the deal is not operationalised, the process of renegotiating will automatically take place.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar : The audience will say that the CPI-M and the Left parties have the power to stop operationalisation. All they have to do is bring the government down.

Sitaram Yechury : That is a fallacious argument. You are repeating a fallacious argument and you have repeatedly mentioned this point.

Karan Thapar : I am repeating it for a simple reason because if you have the power and don’t exercise it, then the people will say they are objecting to the deal, but they do not mean it, they are actually happy for the deal to go through, but they are putting up a façade.

Sitaram Yechury : You are not conducting a discussion, but you have come with an agenda in mind. The agenda seems to be, why am I not pulling down the government.

Karan Thapar : No, that is not the agenda. The agenda is that if you don’t like the deal, then bring down the government because if you don’t bring down the government, then you are prepared to accept the deal.

However, talking about your specific concerns with the deal, to begin with, let’s begin with your statement on August 7. In the four-parties collective, you said, “The Nuclear Cooperation Agreement should not be seen in isolation from the overall strategic tie-up with the United States.” And then separately, Prakash Karat has talked about the Defence Framework Agreement. He has talked about the Logistic Support Agreement and Joint Naval Exercises. It seems to people that your concerns are to do with the context in which the deal is happening, rather than the content of the deal.

Sitaram Yechury : The content of the deal is not separated from the context. This deal has to be viewed at three levels. One, it the context in which the deal has been made. Secondly, the actual content of the deal itself. And thirdly, the admission in the 123 Agreement - including the fact that the primacy or the supremacy will remain of the US national law. But we have very serious objections to all these three levels.

Karan Thapar : You are articulating the three levels today, but the problem is that, in fact, in doing so, you are changing the criteria that you personally announced would be used to determine the goodness or the badness of the deal.

Sitaram Yechury : That is correct.

Karan Thapar : By saying ‘correct’, you accept to having changed the criteria.

Sitaram Yechury : No, I have not accepted changing of the criteria. The context has changed. The announcement took place in August 2006. After that came the Hyde Act in December. The Hyde Act laid down the parameters in which the US will operate. So since then the entire context has changed.

Karan Thapar : No, the context has not changed because the Defence Framework Agreement predates the deal. It happened in June 2005. The deal goes back to July 2005. That part of the context had taken place earlier. It hasn’t happened afterwards.

Sitaram Yechury : The point is that according to the US law, the US Government needs a waiver to sign a 123 Agreement for the country. The terms of the waiver came in the form of a national law. That national law that is called the Hyde Act came into operation in December.

Karan Thapar : But that hasn’t affected the context. It doesn’t affect the Defence Framework Agreement.

PAGE_BREAK

Sitaram Yechury : The assurances that I had asked for from the Prime Minister came in August. The context has changed after August, when the Hyde Act came out.

Karan Thapar : In what way has it changed?

Sitaram Yechury : The context has changed due to the provisions of the Hyde Act.

Karan Thapar: Now, you are shifting from strategic concerns to provisions of the Hyde Act.

Sitaram Yechury : What I am saying is that we have taken assurances on the basis of Indo-US statement agreements that the Prime Minister had with the US President. The US adopted a law after that. The context of the 123 Agreement has come in the context of a new Act that was not there when I asked for assurances, but the Prime Minister gave the assurances. The new Act specifies certain conditions and parameters that we oppose to.

Karan Thapar : You have now established that you are not really concerned about strategic relationships, but you are concerned about the details of the Hyde Act.

Let's turn to your specific concerns with the Hyde Act. To begin with, you say that the 123 makes it clear that the national laws will apply and that means clauses within the Hyde Act that you find objectionable will be applicable. The problem is that the three clauses that you specifically pointed towards in your August 7 statement are, in fact, just reporting requirements. They concern relationship between the US President and the US Congress and they, in no way, restrict or constrain India. So why are you worried about that?

Sitaram Yechury: The Hyde Act says in case the agreement is terminated, not only will the US cut off supplies, but the USA will work with the other NSG countries to ensure that nobody supplies to India.

Karan Thapar: Except, that is in non-binding sections of the Hyde Act. It's in 102 and 103, which are non-binding and you know that.

Sitaram Yechury: Please argue like an Indian, you are not a US citizen.

Karan Thapar: The laws are US laws, you have to accept US laws and how they apply?

Sitaram Yechury: But they will decide their laws. According to the law, the Hyde Act, again it says on the question of the access to technologies... Now, here in 123, there is a specific clause which says unless amended, the dual-use technologies for A,B,C will not be provided to India.

Karan Thapar: Absolutely. And do you know what you have fallaciously said in your August 7 statement instead? Let me quote you. You say that the 123 Agreement "denies access in any form." That's not just an exaggeration it's untrue. You know that Clause 5.2 may not grant immediate access, it doesn't deny it. So, when you say denies access in any form, you are wrong. Secondly, even if it's open to an amendment, it is a possibility that it can materialise in the future. You are getting it wrong.

Sitaram Yechury: No, the problem is I don't have the confidence in the United States that you seem to be having.

Karan Thapar:So it's a question of trust?

Sitaram Yechury: Definitely. Also, 5.2 says very clearly unless amended, these are not given.

Karan Thapar: Yes, I accept. But the point that you are missing is something else.

Sitaram Yechury: So, unless it's amended, these are denied.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: But it's not denied.

Sitaram Yechury: That's what it said.

Karan Thapar: If it was denied, then it would say under no circumstances can such technologies be sold. They are not. They are actually saying pending an amendment.

Sitaram Yechury: You are talking like a US lawmaker.

Karan Thapar: I am not talking like a US lawmaker, I am talking as a man who understands US law. You are talking as a man who is misunderstanding, and deliberately misunderstanding, US law.

Sitaram Yechury: I understand English, which you may not.

Karan Thapar: In which case you are misunderstanding the language. Your August 7 statement said 'denies access in any form'. Those five words are wrong.

Sitaram Yechury: You are neat-picking for no reason.

Karan Thapar: I am not neat-picking. I am just pointing out that your August 7 statement is wrong.

Sitaram Yechury: My interest is my country's interest, it’s not in neat-picking like you are doing. For India, unless this clause is amended, these technologies are not available. Period, simple.

Karan Thapar: It's not period, it's not simple.

Sitaram Yechury: Of course, it is.

Karan Thapar: If India's interest is paramount in your mind, then you know that US policy denies access to these technologies to all countries, including nuclear weapon powers. However, what the 5.2 clause you are talking about has done is to very cleverly circumvent the US law. Had US law been translated into the 123 in a direct and logically consistent way, no NSG country would have been able to sell these technologies to India. Now, because of the circumventing of the US law, the NSG window has been opened. Instead of criticising the 123, you should be applauding the government.

Sitaram Yechury: Where is it open?

Karan Thapar: Because it allows NSG countries to sell these technologies. They have no law that permits them not to do what America does.

Sitaram Yechury: Quote me one clause that the NSG countries are allowed to sell these technologies. It is not there. You are simply fabricating.

Karan Thapar: No, I'm not fabricating.

Sitaram Yechury: Of course you are. The truth is there is not a single line there.

Karan Thapar: I am sorry. It doesn't happen in the 123. 123 is between India and America. You know and I know that the 123 makes possible a relationship with the NSG. Without the 123, there will be no NSG. After the NSG has happened, the 123 becomes effectively irrelevant. You are missing that point deliberately. You know the truth, but you don't want to see it because you have an ideological position that doesn't let you accept America.

Sitaram Yechury: I do not want to subscribe to your position of obfuscating the facts in order to cozy up to America.

Karan Thapar: That's the problem. It's not the deal, it's the relationship with America that you object to.

Sitaram Yechury: You are obfuscating the truth. The truth is unless that is amended, you cannot get the technologies. And the national law will prevail, which says the NSG countries will be prevented from giving fuel and technology to India. It's as simple as that.

Karan Thapar: No, forgive me. The NSG countries do not have a law that prevents them selling such technologies to other countries. America does. That's why America can't sell it. What 123 has done is to circumvent America so cleverly to open the window for the NSG. You are ignoring that because it doesn't go with your arguemental position.

Sitaram Yechury: I am sorry. Again, I am very sorry that you don't seem to understand that the NSG functions on a consensus. America is part of that.

Karan Thapar: And America has committed to ensuring that the consensus goes in India's favour.

Sitaram Yechury: America is part of the NSG. And if there is no consensus in NSG, they can't do anything.

Karan Thapar: Forgive me. We are not talking about consensus. We are talking about different countries having different laws. American law on this differs to NSG. That's the point you are missing.

Sitaram Yechury: Obviously, you have an ideological point which you want to pursue.

Karan Thapar: That you do, not me.

Sitaram Yechury: You are. You are having an ideological point, which you want to pursue.

PAGE_BREAK

Karan Thapar: Okay. Let me pause a moment and put something to you. The government’s position, as well as that of perhaps a lot of analysts, is that in fact the nuclear deal will only be completed after the NSG have given their concurrence. Why doesn't the CPM, and why don't the rest of the Left parties wait to see what decision the NSG takes because then on critical issues - like immunization of strategic reserves, on clean rights to reprocess, on the right to return - on all of those you will have decent answers when the NSG gives its opinion. Why don't you wait till then before you give your opinion? Instead, what you are doing is jumping the gun and jumping in the wrong direction.

Sitaram Yechury: No. What is the question of waiting there? Here it says supremacy of the US law that NSG is not going to change.

Karan Thapar: NSG doesn't become subject to US law, that's the point. NSG has its own laws that are different. Wait for the NSG for their decision.

Sitaram Yechury: Here I have 123, which says supremacy of the US law will prevail. Now that's the point.

Karan Thapar: Only as far as America is concerned, not as far as the rest of the world. That's the point you are missing.

Sitaram Yechury: You are saying 123 is with America? We are talking about the 123 Agreement.

Karan Thapar: But 123 comes into effect only after the NSG has given its consent. So wait till the NSG gives their consent, because then when you know what NSG have decided, your attitude to 123 will change.

Sitaram Yechury: In the meanwhile, why doesn't the US accept the fact that instead of their national laws, why can't the Vienna Convention be accepted?

Karan Thapar: You know what the problem is? You are going of half-talk without knowing the full outcome. You are opposing a deal that's only still in the making. The NSG component is left. It would materially and significantly change the outcome. Yet by insisting it's not operationalised, you are actually precluding something that is in India's interest. Your prejudice is the problem not that fact that you are acting in India's interest. You are not.

Sitaram Yechury: Thank you for doing most of the talking and also coming to your own conclusions. You are most welcome. You can come to your conclusions.

Karan Thapar: The conclusion doesn't agree with your opinion, that's your problem.

Sitaram Yechury: No, the facts of the matter are different. The facts of the matter are entirely different. You have the 123 where the supremacy of the national laws of the US prevails. And that is not acceptable to India's sovereignty.

Karan Thapar: Only as far as America is concerned. The supremacy of India law is abided to India.

Sitaram Yechury: I am sorry. What is not negotiable is India's sovereignty and India's capacity to take care of its own national interest. That's it.

Karan Thapar: In which case, you are coming back to this simple thing that sovereignty of American law over India is not acceptable. I ask you again, to stop the operationalisation of this deal, will you exercise the only power your have, which is to bring down the government?

Sitaram Yechury: That doesn't stop the operationalisation of the deal.

Karan Thapar: It does. Because if the government doesn't exist, it can't be operationalised. A government that doesn't exist can't sign a deal.

Sitaram Yechury: Any government can.

Karan Thapar: Do you then want a future guarantee from the BJP, from every Member of Parliament? You want a guarantee from the Parliament itself?

Sitaram Yechury: Not at all. I want that the framework of the law is such that it will not affect India's sovereignty.

Karan Thapar: I suspect it's an excuse for arguing against the deal while letting it go ahead.

Sitaram Yechury: That is your opinion, Mr Thapar. You are entitled to your opinion. Please keep them. But don't try to browbeat a discussion in that direction.

Karan Thapar: I am not browbeating it, I am simply questioning you. A pleasure talking to you.