"Our principle focus right now has been on the India civil nuclear deal, having worked through the IAEA, now working through the NSG, and still trying to get into a position to make the appropriate presidential determinations in early September. So that's our focus right now on the civil nuclear side," Rice said on her way to Tel Aviv.
Mulford seeks to reassure India
Siddharth Varadarajan
As G-6 talks conditions, U.S. for ‘clean’ NSG waiver
New Delhi: With the perception gaining ground in official circles here that the United States pulled its punches at last week’s meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, U.S. Ambassador David C. Mulford sought to clear the air by insisting Washington was committed to “working with India to rapidly complete the remaining steps” necessary to conclude the civil nuclear cooperation initiative.
“The U.S. and India stand shoulder-to-shoulder in their desire for a clean exception and we will continue to work with our Indian partners to persuade the NSG countries that such an exemption is in the international community’s best interest,” he said on Monday.
However, despite New Delhi’s misgivings about additional conditions — reiterated by Atomic Energy Commission chairman Anil Kakodkar in remarks to reporters in Mumbai on Sunday — Mr. Mulford did not promise that the waiver the U.S. must push through the NSG to allow nuclear commerce with India would be unconditional.
The Ambassador added that both the U.S. and India would “continue our vigorous joint advocacy for the initiative at the highest levels of NSG governments.”
Mr. Mulford’s assurance comes even as New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke reiterated at a press conference in Wellington on Monday her government’s intention of pressing for amendments to the draft discussed at the NSG last week. New Zealand is part of a group of six countries that acted in concert at the NSG meeting in Vienna last week demanding changes in the draft waiver. The other members of this group are Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland.
In their opening statement to the closed-door meeting on August 21 — a copy of which is with The Hindu — the six warned that they would move “substantive amendments ... with a view to increasing the level of comfort with the proposed exemption.” All of these amendments, they said, “are based on concepts already enshrined in U.N. Security Council Resolutions, in domestic legislation of NSG Participating Governments, and in bilateral nuclear supply agreements which NSG [states] have concluded over the years.”
The reference to U.N. resolutions is clearly to UNSCR 1172, passed after the nuclear tests of 1998, which called on India to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And the ‘domestic legislation’ the six have in mind is the Hyde Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in December 2006, which sought to move the goalposts for nuclear cooperation envisaged by the July 2005 agreement in a manner unfavourable to India.
There is also a view that some of the amendments or changes relating to enrichment and reprocessing technology, reviews and suspension of the waiver in case India conducted a nuclear test, might well reflect the concerns of Nuclear Suppliers Group members like China. While Beijing has not publicly opposed the waiver, its apparent concern that the non-proliferation regime should not be weakened — despite its own dodgy record on this count — reflects its unease.
Opposition within the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to the Indo-US nuclear deal has shrunk to just two countries, Austria and New Zealand, say diplomatic sources.
GoI/US hope could be of weaning away Ireland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden by making cosmetic changes and bearing on them politically. Austria and NZ would then be isolated. Perhaps the combined weight of the big 4 in EU (Germany, France, UK, Italy) could pacify Austria. NZ would then not press on further conditions.These included: the existing nuclear testing moratorium, no export of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology, and conforming to nonproliferation agreements like the IAEA Additional Protocol and Missile Technology Control Regime.
The conditionality India was most concerned about — the ban on ENR technology — was scuppered by two arguments. One, the NSG has never included such a clause in its guidelines. Two, the US had left a door open for such technology to be passed to India in the Hyde Act. It would be absurd for a group of nuclear nothings to be able to block this access.
On testing, India argued the existing moratorium was already imbedded in nuclear deal documents. It was impossible to go back and change these.
When it came to calls for periodic monitoring of India’s nuclear facilities, the response was, “Who will provide financial compensation for the cost of shutting down reactors?”
Despite all the drama with the US, the Kiwis cling to ANZUS.Philip wrote:To be fair to New Zealand,it has for decades had a prinicipled stand against nuclear proliferation,even years ago enraging the US by banning US warships (PM David Lange banned the USS Buchannan) from entering NZ ports if they carried nukes.
....................
David Lange stated that if the security alliance was the price New Zealand must pay to remain nuclear-free, 'it is the price we are prepared to pay'{why then did David Lange in 1984, or any of his successors since then including Helen Clark, not take New Zealand out of the ANZUS military alliance with the US and Australia?}.
"Should we allow ourselves to be pushed? Are we not Indians? Are you not proud of yourself and what you are doing?" Kakodkar said.
India has been against proliferation too and would love to ban nukes as we all know them. And, India is proposing a civilian nuclear proposal that is better than any other WRT proliferation.To be fair to New Zealand,it has for decades had a prinicipled stand against nuclear proliferation,even years ago enraging the US by banning US warships (PM David Lange banned the USS Buchannan) from entering NZ ports if they carried nukes.
NKumar ji,nkumar wrote: If US doesn't not deliver a "clean and unconditional" waiver, it is time for MMS to show statemanship and walk out of the deal and let his spin masters in the media do the rest.
However, if we've already decided that we've compromised before; If we already decided that US is playing the game beautifully (by implication India is not); If we already suspect that India will be the loser.Having compromised before, GoI should have plainly told US that it is their part of the bargain to deliver on NSG, no negotiating negotiating any further, take it or leave it. US is playing the game beautifully, it let the poodles bark on its behalf to take the game to a different level and use the eagerness of MMS to sign the deal to bring GoI to the negotiationg table. I suspect a new equilibrium will be reached, in which India will be the loser.
NRao ji,NRao wrote: MMS is too quite for a rather simple NSG stand.
Just casting a very, very slight doubt on the outcome should do. Let us hope he has done it behind the scenes.I would be interested in knowing what you think MMS should do at this stage of the game?
Is he capable, after the slide from J-18 to the Hyde Act? (sorry if that is not PC and crosses some line in the sand). The confidence vote was one of the worst, IMHO, that could have happened in the largest democracy and supported by the oldest.Make a policy statement?
NRao wrote:Just casting a very, very slight doubt on the outcome should do.I would be interested in knowing what you think MMS should do at this stage of the game?
Is he capable, after the slide from J-18 to the Hyde Act? (sorry if that is not PC and crosses some line in the sand). The confidence vote was one of the worst, IMHO, that could have happened in the largest democracy and supported by the oldest.Make a policy statement?
And, finally, considering the voice coming from AK, why is he keeping quite?
Hmmmmm.. $100 Billion investment and the hope of an entire country for the next 4+ decades = "drop of hat"?IMVHO the Prime Minister of India doesn't make a policy statement at the drop of hat!
No. BUT, having followed AK, I am convinced that if both were to walk past each other they will not acknowledge each other. The only good stuff I see is that MMS does not seem to have poked his nose in the IAEA agreement.Have you considered the possibility that AK may be taking tough because he's been asked to by MMS? And not because he's playing Lone Ranger guarding India's interests?
What optionS? He can walk away is the only option. Or are you saying he may give up testing or worse still sign NPT/CTBT?MMS not making a statement at this point keeps India's options open
I never said he should make a "statement". 3-5 casual words are enough. At this point in time every word of his words will be weighed very seriously.If the PM makes a statement
I certainly hope you are right, and, I am wrong.it's also a case of political astuteness
I expect transparency. Which is doable in democracies.However, I think the blame should fall on our entire political class and not just on MMS
I think the folks who matter, that is the French, Russians etc understand fully well what is the opportunity cost of India walking out. MMS does not need to make a policy statement to make them aware at this stage.NRao wrote:Hmmmmm.. $100 Billion investment and the hope of an entire country for the next 4+ decades = "drop of hat"?IMVHO the Prime Minister of India doesn't make a policy statement at the drop of hat!
No. BUT, having followed AK, I am convinced that if both were to walk past each other they will not acknowledge each other. The only good stuff I see is that MMS does not seem to have poked his nose in the IAEA agreement.Have you considered the possibility that AK may be taking tough because he's been asked to by MMS? And not because he's playing Lone Ranger guarding India's interests?
What optionS? He can walk away is the only option. Or are you saying he may give up testing or worse still sign NPT/CTBT?MMS not making a statement at this point keeps India's options open
I never said he should make a "statement". 3-5 casual words are enough. At this point in time every word of his words will be weighed very seriously.If the PM makes a statement
I certainly hope you are right, and, I am wrong.it's also a case of political astuteness
I expect transparency. Which is doable in democracies.However, I think the blame should fall on our entire political class and not just on MMS
BTW, these "deals" (123, IAEA and NSG) will come to bite India because they all are very interpretable. Be very aware that India has no reproc techs so far, and, such. MMS has still not got all he wanted ......... they have, at best, kicked the can. So, giving a policy statement I would think would be actually welcome at this point in time. The world needs to know what it would really mean if India did not get this waiver. Like I said, $100 Billion and a potentially 8% per year eco for India ...... which is what could be lost.
Have you considered the possibility that in the begining MMS having not kept the Scicom in loop, AK is now once again muttering his concerns.Have you considered the possibility that AK may be taking tough because he's been asked to by MMS?
What makes you think we dont have one?
And yes we need a very very stong leader - Kim Jong IL variety. Someone who would fight the world for the NRI's to the last RI
John Snow wrote:.Have you considered the possibility that AK may be taking tough because he's been asked to by MMS?
If what you say is true then does it not prove that MMS cant stand on his feet and be tough?
There you have answered your own questionWhat makes you think we dont have one?
Let me quote for the full paragraph from the article for you:I think the important point in Sreenivasan's article is this:
But if the NSG is suggesting inclusion of new conditionalities such as signing of the NPT or CTBT even in the distant future, they should be rejected outright.
What Sreenivasan is suggesting is that India should agree to more amendments. Is that not an important point of the article? How does this square with clean and unconditional waiver?If the NSG is seeking to bring into the waiver only those elements which India has approved in one way or the other in the last three years, we should have no hesitation to discuss the amendments suggested. There is no such thing as an unconditional waiver, as is obvious from the present draft. But if the NSG is suggesting inclusion of new conditionalities such as signing of the NPT or CTBT even in the distant future, they should be rejected outright.
It might square depending on what these additional ammendments / conditions are. Why don't we wait instead of hyperventilating? Hypothetically, if an ammendment is put through saying - 'India should not send a cow to the moon because the RSPCA objects', we might agree to these kinds of ammendmentnkumar wrote:amit, I noted the part you have quoted from Sreeenivasan's article, which you call as an "important point".
Let me quote for the full paragraph from the article for you:I think the important point in Sreenivasan's article is this:
What Sreenivasan is suggesting is that India should agree to more amendments. Is that not an important point of the article? How does this square with clean and unconditional waiver?If the NSG is seeking to bring into the waiver only those elements which India has approved in one way or the other in the last three years, we should have no hesitation to discuss the amendments suggested. There is no such thing as an unconditional waiver, as is obvious from the present draft. But if the NSG is suggesting inclusion of new conditionalities such as signing of the NPT or CTBT even in the distant future, they should be rejected outright.
The game is well playednkumar wrote:amit ji,
You seem to have tremendous confidence in MMS and GoI machinery in use for this deal. But I don't share your optimism.
MMS has broken his commitments given to the Parliament wrt to the deal and then subverts democracy to pass the deal. He calls for a broadest possible consensus but never calls for an all party meeting. MKN admits there were state dept lawyers on the US side while negotiating for 123 while our country is not that legalistic, so there is no point in having lawyers, it is another matter that GoI puts Sibal (a Harvard trained lawyer) in front to defend a deal, how ironic! Saran says that it would be unrealistic to not expect NSG to add conditions, thereby nuking the GoI stand of "clean, clear and unconditional" waiver. Mulford calls India's stand of clean and unconditional waiver as provocative but Menon or anybody from the GoI doesn't remind him that it is perfectly reasonable to expect clean and unconditional waiver and this was the part of the bargain. Still the editors of leading national papers believe that this deal is good for India. Indeed, GoI is playing the game beautifully!!
Uh..so if we can't beat 'em - Join 'emnkumar wrote:"Hyperventilating"..good word to use..reminds me of the articles of C. Raja Mohan, KS and the daily dose from IE about India losing face internationally if we don't sign the deal
I thought folks came to BRF to specifically avoid this sort of sensationalism. If we are here to mirror mainstream media, why bother ?How difficult it is for you to understand that I was highlighting the selective quoting and then highlighting it as an important point. Did we agree to statements like these, 'India should not send a cow to the moon because the RSPCA objects' in the past 3 years, which Sreenivasan is suggesting that India should have no problem with.arnab wrote:Uh..so if we can't beat 'em - Join 'emnkumar wrote:"Hyperventilating"..good word to use..reminds me of the articles of C. Raja Mohan, KS and the daily dose from IE about India losing face internationally if we don't sign the deal
No, New Zealand did not mention conditions, which it knows will not be taken seriously, only those technical conditions aimed at true sabotage, conditions made by Daryl Kimball kind. Phil Goff wants the world to think, he is some kind of smiling smooth operator, who will bring India to her knees with smooth talk, building coalitions with the other pipsqueak. He will be disappointed. He holds only the self-destruct card."The discussions last week were robust and constructive and we look forward to continuing this dialogue around a revised draft exemption text at next month's meeting," Phil Goff said.
"Around 50 amendments have been proposed to the original text, with many countries speaking in favour of amendments.
"The key function of the NSG is to formulate guidelines for managing exports of nuclear material, equipment and technology to ensure that this trade does not contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation.
"Discussions in Vienna focused on how to ensure compatibility of these objectives with the exemptions, sought for the US-India Civil Nuclear Co-operation Agreement.
"While New Zealand remains a strong advocate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and would welcome India's accession to these treaties, we have not included these elements in our package of proposals.
"New Zealand engaged constructively in the discussions, acknowledging potential benefits involved in the Agreement and its good relationship with both countries, while noting concerns and the need for consistency in pursuing the objective of non-proliferation.
"A large number of countries big and small expressed views similar to New Zealand's that there needed to be compatibility between the US-India Agreement and the goals of the NSG, and indicated a willingness to engage positively to achieve that outcome," Phil Goff said.
There is US on one side, Common wealth UK - Old world , Russia and eastern states and then Japan and China.dada wrote:80% of the NSG members belong to the European Union/Erstwhile Russian States
Is this a US v/s EU v/s Russian political tug of war on the Indian Nuclear Deal ?