Briefing by the Ambassador of India

Mr. C Eglin (DA) stated that from an international point of view, IBSA was exciting because unlike other coalitions Brazil; India; and South Africa had very similar ideological and economic bases. However, he regarded IBSA with a very selfish South African perspective and wondered what they would get out of the IBSA arrangement.

Mr Mukherjee explained that IBSA was almost countervailing the G7, but not in the sense that it was automatically opposing them. IBSA desired to be a partner with the G7 in a credible dialogue. There was no negative side to South Africa's involvement in IBSA. This initiative was challenging to quantify in very specific terms. Yet, it was not difficult to see what each country would gain through this conglomeration. They would have the opportunity to assert common causes on a united front. These causes would included trade; UN reform; and international development. IBSA did not detract from existing structures such as the G77, the non-aligned movement, or multilateral operations of the UN. IBSA would provide a forum for these three large economies to chart out and hasten the implementation of an existing agenda. Most importantly, they would gain from each others natural endowments in defense production; peace training; and health. The UN had already joined with IBSA to create an IBSA poverty alleviation facility. The UNDP controlled the facility's seed money that was a sum of 300,000 dollars.

Ms F Mahomed (ANC) asked Mr Mukherjee how confident he was that IBSA could make a dent multilaterally as they had already attended many meetings in Cancun. She wondered how optimistic she could be.

Mr Mukherjee responded that South Africa could be very optimistic about IBSA. It was a very practical initiative that would allow them to accomplish objectives that had been difficult to achieve in the past. This was especially true regarding the North-South dialogue. Cancun was a good example of the influence that IBSA could have with the G20 plus. IBSA had helped keep G20 unity when it faced strong pressure from Northern countries.

Mr Eglin stated that it was exciting that India, with a population of a billion people; a colonial past; a multi-ethnic society; a multi-lingual country; and a tremendous disparity between wealth and poverty could have an economic growth rate of 8.5 percent. How could South Africa accomplish this high growth rate when it was stuck with a 2.5 percent growth rate. This situation must be related to policies and priorities. He wanted South Africa to learn something from India. He hoped apart from increasing trade that a relationship could develop between the Indian government; the South African government; and the private sector.

Mr Mukherjee replied that he could only reiterate the sentiments of the international community. While South Africa did not have a very high growth rate, India, along with the rest of world, believed that its economy was responsibly managed. India looked forward to using many of South Africa's endowments in mining; infrastructure; and cheap power production. South Africa had a low inflation rate along with a good fiscal deficit rate. Even though India had a healthy growth rate, it was far from eliminating poverty. The good news was that if they maintained a 7 to 8 percent growth rate each year, they could eliminate poverty by 2020. He would not comment on South Africa's domestic economy beyond that.

Mr Eglin stated that India and Pakistan were the first countries to ignore the
International Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. He asked if this would open the floodgates for other countries to follow in their lead.

Mr Mukherjee replied that while India had sponsored the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, they had abandoned it, concluding that it would create a "nuclear apartheid". This meant that those who possessed nuclear weapons would expand them, and those who did not possess weapons never would own them. India refused to support this treaty based on this unequal principle, even though they did support complete nuclear disarmament. India had not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for similar reasons. This was not a Test Ban Treaty but a Test Explosion Ban Treaty which meant that the P5 could continue to refine their weapons using computer simulation. However, in May 1998, for security purposes, it was essential that India conduct nuclear tests to develop a minimum credible nuclear deterrent.
.
Mr Eglin stated that it was indicated that North Korea; Iran; and Libya had been in the process of receiving nuclear information from other countries. Iran has been getting information from Pakistan. The press mentioned that Libya had received information from China. Was India satisfied that it had the security; loyalty; and commitment of those engaged in nuclear proliferation to not become a source of nuclear information for Rogue states.

Mr Mukherjee replied that India's nuclear regime had a perfect safety record. America and the International Atomic Energy Agency had testified to this. There had not been any instances of India's nuclear infrastructure falling into the wrong hands. Foolproof systems had been put into place. Even in America, nuclear information had leaked. Chinese scientists had been accused of stealing nuclear research from the Livermore Laboratory in California.

Ms F Mahomed (ANC) wondered how the countries would cooperate in dealing with trade imbalance and tourism?

Mr Mukherjee replied that trade between the countries was reasonable balanced. If anything, South Africa was favoured, even when taking gold into account. Out of the billion dollars that was generated in trade, India had four hundred million dollars of the export profit, while South Africa had 600,000 million dollars of the export profit. India was not concerned about balancing trade with individual countries, but in balancing trade with countries as a whole. Balancing trade was important because India imported over seventy percent of their energy needs. They believed in an open trading system and had been liberalizing its economy for the past ten years.

Mr Mukherjee agreed that tourism needed to progress on the agenda. There had been two rounds of talks between the Embassy and the Ministry of Tourism, in which they identified what needed to be done. The number of flights (up to fourteen flights per week) between South Africa to India would be quadrupled. South Africa allowed India the fifth freedom of picking up passengers along the Mericious Route.

Ms Mahomed asked what India's foreign policy was towards the reconstruction of Iraq?

Mr Mukherjee replied that India had agreed with the international community and with the UN that sovereignty must be handed back to the Iraqi people as soon as possible. India had denied America's request to send troops into Iraq to work with the coalition that was already there. They were not comfortable with sending troops into a situation that was not UN controlled and not properly sanctioned. However, India was willing to help with non-military reconstruction. Along with Jordan, they had built a hospital and donated supplies to help civilians rebuild their communities.

Ms Mahomed asked about NGO involvement in the progression of peace in Kashmir?

Mr Mukherjee explained that currently NGO involvement was very strong. Various groups of influential NGO workers had been meeting each other. This included women's groups; parliamentarians; Greens; and environmental activists. The media had broadcast these interactions to the public which had resulted in improved confidence between Pakistanis and Indians.

Mr W Makanda (UDM) stated that there was a dis-equalibrium in political and economic power relations between the Northern and Southern countries. Could the IBSA axis act as a counter force to remove the geopolitical block that had created an inhospitable environment for North-South economic and political interaction?

Mr Mukherjee confirmed that IBSA could become a forum for creating and sustaining a dialogue with the North in a more effective manner. However, referring to IBSA as a counter-force was inappropriate because IBSA did not have a confrontational agenda. IBSA would not be used as a forum to extract concessions from the North that they would not be given otherwise. While Northern countries were more powerful economically and politically, IBSA would extract a more equitable economic order from them.

Mr A Mokoena (ANC) asked if they could draw an equivalence between the Pakistan-India conflict and the Argentina and UK conflict.

Mr Mukherjee replied that it was absurd to compare the two situations. The Falklands was on the UN list of de-colonized countries. On the other hand, Kashmir was an integral part of India. In 1946, when the Independence of India Act passed in Britain, Indian states were given the choice to accede to Pakistan. After it had been attacked by Pakistan, Kashmir chose to accede to India. Since the creation of Pakistan came out of this act, to question this decision would be to question the existence of Pakistan itself.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) asked to what extent the bilateral agreement with Israel included or precluded a nuclear component?

Mr Mukherjee stated that India did not feel contempt about nuclear trade dealings with Israel. India bought arms from the world market, choosing the best possible sources to fit their needs. Their nuclear program was entirely indigenous because after the1974 nuclear tests, nuclear nations imposed sanctions on nuclear technology.

Mr Ramgobin said he had lunch twelve days ago with the Pakistani High Commissioner. He did not believe that the Commissioner shared Mr Mukherjee's cautious optimism. At the lunch, the Commissioner had contended that the UN made unreasonable recommendations that the Indian government had accepted. Unless this situation was resolved, there would be no possibility of "withstanding existing non-official relations". What did Mr Mukherjee think of this?

Mr Mukherjee replied that the Pakistani High Commissioner was entitled to his opinion. However, it was important to note that in the past, Pakistan frequently had harped about UN resolutions. This was even before the Kashmir conflict had escalated. In 1972, both countries had signed a UN resolution that still held. This agreement enjoined the nations to solve their problems bilaterally and peacefully. The Labo Declaration, the most recent peace initiative of 1997, reiterated this UN resolution. The UN had stated that the resolutions needed to be updated. Mr Mukherjee asserted that even the Pakistani government accepted further progression required that agreements be made between the two nations independent of the UN.