Opinion - Interviews   

Nuclear issue: "India is a unique case"

Kesava Menon & Nirupama Subramanian

The United States Ambassador to India, David C. Mulford, is a finance expert who has also served as an official in the Treasury Department. In an interview, Mr. Mulford spoke about the nuclear deal and related issues. Excerpts:

David C. Mulford: "U.S. commitment to non-proliferation is not going to change." — Photo: Vino John.

How does the administration propose to move the nuclear agreement with India through Congress? We understand there are some problems there.

David C. Mulford: We have done two things already, which were part of that agreement. One, we have on behalf of India approached the ITER [International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor] countries so that India can become a participant in the fusion project. The European Union is going to invite India to the forthcoming meeting on September 12. It is true that there is a working group before that in which there are still a couple of countries who don't seem to want India included. But it seems an important first step in terms of India's entry into ITER. Secondly, six companies were removed from the entities list. This goes back not only to the White House agreement but also to the NSSP [Next Steps in Strategic Partnership] project, which was ongoing and had a number of developments in it. You may remember restrictions were lifted in respect of space, high-tech and civil nuclear. This has now gone further with these entities being de-listed. So these two things we have accomplished and I think in quite important sectors.

Thirdly, there is a campaign now that has to be made in Congress. In order to regularise or normalise the relationship with India we need to make some changes in our legislation. It is under discussion at the moment exactly how to make those changes but in any case there will have to be agreement with the Congress to get that done. There is need therefore to mobilise support from both Republicans and Democrats. Investing the support of the Indian-American community, which supports both Democrats and Republicans, and hopefully they will lobby both groups. American business, which has an interest in this area, has to be mobilised.

Now the President has made this agreement. He has committed that he will try to get this done. So that's a major development in the bureaucratic sense because the administration is on board. Now it's true there are some people in the administration, some people in the so-called non-proliferation bureaucracy who may personally not be happy about this. That's true. You get that in your bureaucracy from time to time. So those people will have to find out in their own minds whether they work for the opposition or the President. Ultimately they will have to move forward on this. Hopefully we can get this done prior to the visit of the President.

What implications does the nuclear deal have for U.S. efforts to roll back the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programmes?

You have criteria that justify doing this. First of all we have a very close partnership. Secondly, India is a country that needs for its development civil nuclear energy. It is a democracy, it has a long and distinguished history as a non-proliferator. It has recently implemented non-proliferation legislation and it did so quite quickly under NSSP and is in the process now of implementing it. If you look at that and take the view that India is meeting the standards that major nuclear powers are meeting, and therefore say that we need to regularise relationships and they need to assume the same duties and they need to have roughly the same benefits even though they are not signatories to the NPT.

That does not apply in any way to North Korea, Iran, or even to Israel or Pakistan. You know Israel is an important country but it does not need nuclear power for its development. So, I think, India can truly be distinguished as a unique case without violating or compromising our own commitment to non-proliferation. The U.S. commitment to non-proliferation and the international architecture is not going to change.

If the U.S. is so concerned about India's energy needs why does it oppose the Iran pipeline?

There's other gas in the world. In Turkmenistan, in the Sakhalin Islands. India has invested in that.

But on Iran, I think it's important to be clear and judicious on your treatment of that issue. What we have done with the Indian government is that we have advised them that we have legislation, the Iran-Libyan Sanctions Act, which requires the administration to look at investments that appear to help monetise the development of Iranian natural resources. And, to impose sanctions on parties that participate in that process. But you need to bear several things in mind.

First of all, the law has never been used. Secondly, the law is very unclear until the specifics of a situation are laid before it. The nature of the project, the participants in the project, the business plan, what nationalities the players are — are relevant to how that law would operate. But since the law has never been used nobody is really sure how it will be implemented in any particular case. Whether this project is feasible economically is very unclear at this point. What we have done is draw the attention of the government here to the fact that we have this law and they need to keep that in mind. It is not an issue that is dominating everything, it is just something we need to be open about and they need to be under no misapprehension that we do have that law on our books.

Does the U.S. share India's assessment that Pakistan has not completely dismantled terrorist infrastructure on its side?

The U.S. position is very clear. Pakistan is a major ally of the U.S. and very helpful in the global war on terror. It is a key asset in the whole Afghanistan situation. Yet it is recognised that Pakistan is a country with very significant problems. The incursions into Kashmir are unfortunate, on the one hand, and unacceptable, on the other. The U.S. has used its influence to diminish and have it stopped. That has had some considerable influence on the incursions. I understand that camps still exist. The U.S. would like it if they didn't and the President has made that clear. What is important to remember and understand is that both the U.S. and India have a strong, mutual interest in some progress and success in Pakistan.

The U.S. has been against India's candidature to the U.N. Security Council...

That isn't true. The U.S. has indicated that its priority at this point in time is to press for reform in the U.N. The U.N. needs fundamental reform and that is our highest priority.

A part of that reform, but only a part, is what happens to the Security Council.

As to India, the U.S. issued some criteria for developing countries' membership of the Security Council. A lot of people have come to the conclusion that the only country that could meet these was India. And the U.S. didn't say that wasn't true.

However, India has joined another group, G-4, which is kind of an "all four or none of us," and that has introduced enormous inflexibility in the Indian position. The U.S. has rejected that and they will continue to reject that.

Is it because of Germany?

I think it is clear what it is. I think the U.S. is not favourable to Germany.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A flawed constitution fans disaffection
A balanced scorecard
Energy security and the search for new options
The new Vietnam at sixty
Pakistan's religious parties losing ground?
Elections: don't expect too much
Climate change adds to Africa's woes
Hypocrisy to the fore
The Chidambaram issue
Disappointing
Uncharitable
Uses of homeopathy
Nuclear issue: "India is a unique case"

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu