New Delhi, June 2
External Affairs Minister (EAM) Natwar Singh has caused some embarrassment to the government by proposing a Common Nuclear Doctrine for India, China and Pakistan in his press conference yesterday and the matter may well snowball into a major controversy in the coming days.
Authoritative sources told The Tribune today that before making such a sensitive proposal, Mr Natwar Singh had not discussed the matter with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh or anybody else in the government who is competent to take a decision or advise on the issue.
Besides this, some of Mr Natwar Singh’s averments on Pakistan and the USA have not gone down well within the government and the feeling is that the EAM should not have said what he said.
Decision-makers in the government are deeply upset by Mr Natwar Singh’s comments about Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf wherein he has dropped subtle hints of a deal between Gen Musharraf and the Vajpayee government and also conjured up the spectre of Gen Musharraf’s assassination. Incidentally, Mr Natwar Singh had ruffled the feathers of the Pakistan government last week when he had advised Gen Musharraf to consult his Foreign Minister before speaking on foreign policy issues.
Coming to the specifics, perhaps the most “damaging” remark of Mr Natwar Singh about Pakistan and Gen Musharraf is as follows: “My view is that you also know the reasons for the friendly steps that have been taken (between India and Pakistan). ‘Is qadr jo ishq hua, wajah kya thi uski.’ (What was the reason for the love that blossomed like this?) The hope was that this government (NDA government) will come back to power. But it did not happen and the game was spoiled.”
Mr Natwar Singh did not stop here only and went on: “For any government to put all its eggs in one single basket is a risky business. In India, we have a system, we have a parliament, we have the Press, we have public opinion and we have a broad sanction for our foreign policy among the people of India. This is not the case in the neighbouring state. That is why there have been attempts on the life the President of Pakistan on this issue. I would like the General to live for 150 years. But, God forbid, if something happens,
where is the back-up in the Pakistan establishment to carry this thing forward? We have the back-up.” Obviously, the operative portion in this long quotation is: “But, God forbid, if something happens...”
On the Common Nuclear Doctrine (for India, Pakistan and China) the EAM said: “If you see the manifesto and the Common Minimum Programme we (India and Pakistan) are now both nuclear powers and so is China. So, I think the three countries should get together and work out a common nuclear doctrine so that all speculation, all that disappears because the responsibility as a nuclear power is enormous... This has to be dealt with priority and with greatest seriousness. You seemly cannot talk about these matters in terms of scoring points. The matter is too grave.”
Shortly afterwards, in response to another question, Mr Natwar Singh had said: “... It is essential that we speak the same language because it is not just three countries, it is in fact the whole world... We mentioned this is our manifesto and the CMP that there will be a mechanism for this.”
The CMP, which the EAM has talked about, has dealt with the issue in just one paragraph which is as follows: “The UPA government is committed to maintaining a credible nuclear weapons programme while at the same time it will evolve demonstrable and verifiable confidence-building measures with its nuclear neighbours. It will take a leadership role in promoting universal, nuclear disarmament and working for a nuclear weapons-free world.”
The question doing the rounds in the government is not whether Mr Natwar Singh’s idea of a Common Nuclear Doctrine is workable or not, but what was the urgency for the EAM to announce it at a press conference when the issue has not been discussed within the government and when the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is still to be constituted and deliberate on the issue?
Certain US-specific remarks of Mr Natwar Singh, sources said, could have been avoided. Sample these:
* “Our American friends discovered terrorism on 9/11.”
* “If non-alignment is irrelevant, how is NATO relevant? NATO has been extended from the Atlantic Coast to the borders of Russia. Who is the enemy? It is a legitimate question to ask that instead of disbanding, you have expanded NATO.” The question doing the rounds is whether Mr Natwar Singh has forgotten that he is no longer a foreign affairs expert but the country’s foreign minister.
Also, the fact that Mr Natwar Singh overstretched his press conference to nearly one and a half hours has also led to murmurs of criticism. “The EAM’s job is implementing the foreign policy of his government and not to give long-winded lectures on it,” said a well placed political source in the government.
