Speeches and Remarks 2006

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman

For the Files                                                                      June 30, 2006
2006/

INTERVIEW
Ambassador David C. Mulford
NDTV

June 30, 2006
New Delhi, India

NDTV:  The Indo-US nuclear deal has crossed two major hurdles, but is it a done deal yet?  And if the deal does not go through, what does it mean for the India-America equation?  To discuss this and lots of other issues on the table we're joined now by Ambassador David Mulford.  Welcome to NDTV, Ambassador.

Ambassador Mulford:  Thanks very much.

NDTV:  Have these two votes been better than either the Americans or the Indians expected?

Ambassador Mulford:  I think they've been better than the media expected, better than the public expected, and probably better than most people in government expected would be accomplished at this phase.  They are very very significant votes.

NDTV:   In a sense is it a surprise that they seemed to be bipartisan, that there is no clear trend in either the Democrat side or the Republicans, that both parties seem to have come together?

Ambassador Mulford:  It hasn't really surprised me because my sense of this from the beginning has been that India is a uniting issue in the United States.  There is tremendous support for India and it is bipartisan.  The issue was whether or not the natural tendency for bipartisan support would be in any way disrupted by shorter term issues, presidential issues or election issues this fall.  But in fact what's happened is there has been some very effective leadership.  First of all from the top levels of the administration, from the Secretary, right on down; and there has been top quality leadership in both the House and the Senate.  This has come together in the past few weeks.  They have focused on the legislation, and the result of this has been that these votes have generated a sense of momentum that simply wasn't there before in the same sort of way.

The results of the vote - 16-2 in the Senate and 35-5 in the House - are both overwhelming, they are heavily bipartisan, and they give momentum now to the onward movement of the deal through the Congress.

NDTV:  The question is, is it a done deal?  I was talking earlier to officials in the Indian government who believe that if everything goes this way and there are no killer amendments, no dramatic surprises, that India could be part of the nuclear club by the end of this year.  Is that too optimistic?

Ambassador Mulford:  No, I think that's a reasonable point of view.  The opportunity for perhaps the most destructive amendment was in the committee sessions.  As you probably know, the two bills go to the respective Floors, they get voted on.  They then go to a conference between the House and the Senate and they do a report, the purpose of which is to amalgamate the two bills which are somewhat different from one another, but surprisingly similar.  Once that's done the report is voted on, then it goes to the President for signature, and at that point it goes into law.  We hope that gets done by the end of July, that process, and that's entirely reasonable if they can find the time in the busy schedule of the Congress to schedule the Floor votes and debates and so on.

NDTV:  There is somehow a sense of now or never, a sense that if it doesn't happen by mid July, if it doesn't happen before the Congress goes into recess, it may not happen at all.

Ambassador Mulford:  I don't think so.  Obviously things get more difficult as we move towards the November election just from the standpoint that there could be more partisanship emerge at that point, but I think these accomplishments now, have fundamentally set the course.  The momentum is there.  I think first of all, we are going to succeed in Congress, I think that's clear.  The only other real opportunity for amendments would be on the Floor of the Senate later.  That's a possibility.  But I think we've already established the momentum in the committees so I think there won't be a problem of that sort.

NDTV:  But it's really the bilateral agreement, the 1-2-3 agreement, that's going to operationalize this bill and there continue to remain some areas of difference.  That's still a pretty tough negotiation, would you concede?

Ambassador Mulford:  The 1-2-3 agreement is the essential operational agreement, as you say.  There are issues in there that still have to be resolved, but they aren't unfamiliar issues.  They are perfectly familiar issues where the question is how to resolve a perception issue or some other aspect.  They are entirely resolvable.  Of course the 1-2-3 agreement will have to reflect the intent of the Congress, and that is why that agreement later will come to the Congress and be voted up or down on at some point in order to finalize the process in the Congress.

The negotiation is probably 60 percent accomplished.  We've had an exchange of papers, we've had meetings.  There will be another meeting or two if necessary, but I expect this to be concluded fairly quickly.

NDTV:  But for instance, Ambassador, one of the points of difference is how the reference to what India calls a voluntary moratorium on any further nuclear detonations should be [voted], and India is apprehensive about some sort of commitment that would bind it in the future.

Ambassador Mulford:  That issue was resolved and is resolved in the July 2005 agreement which was reached in Washington at the time of the Prime Minister's visit.  That was a declaration by India, a unilateral declaration, originally done by the BJP and all that happened there was that that declaration was made and was accepted as an important part of the deal.

I think that issue of how to reflect that reality is perfectly soluble in words.  It's just a question of getting down to how it's done.

NDTV:  Would America be looking for a specific assurance on that front in the 1-2-3 agreement?

Ambassador Mulford:  The assurance is already there.  The reality of what's been agreed in the July agreement needs to be reflected accurately in the 1-2-3 agreement.  That's a sort of wordsmithing issue.

NDTV:  Wordsmithing can sometimes break deals.

Ambassador Mulford:  It can be, but I don't anticipate that this one will.  I don't think that's the essence of the business.  I don't think it's the kind of problem that's very difficult to resolve.  In fact I know a little bit about what's being discussed, and I think it will come out all right.

NDTV:  Let's look at the first bill that actually went through the House International Committee.  There are political parties here, the left and the PTP among them, that expressed apprehension, even protested that India has sold out on foreign policy issues.  The left in particular was upset that the bill made a reference to Iran, that it somehow linked Iran and India's foreign policy decision on Iran to the nuclear deal.  That reference officials here in the Indian government went on reaffirming were not binding of the India government.

How does Washington, and you, see these references?  Let's start with Iran in the first one.

Ambassador Mulford:  First of all, their characterization is accurate.  It's very important to understand how legislation works in the United States.  The bill that you referred to has a sort of legislative segment in it in which are the provisions that are to become law.  There is also often a declaratory preamble to legislation in the United States, and in those provisions, the declaratory positions which are not binding, sometimes political people will take advantage of that to express or reconfirm or express their view of American policy because they want that incorporated in the legislative action of the Congress in a way confirmed by the whole Congress that this is US policy.  So they use that opportunity.

The Congress of the United States is a sovereign body.  It's completely independent from the administration.  It's a special branch of government and it has every right to declare whatever it wants in these sorts of cases.

So what's significant in my view is that the issues that were potentially troublesome  in terms of a legislative process were all moved and incorporated into the declaratory non-binding area of the bill and not in the enforceable part of the bill.  That was a huge victory, in a sense, because it resolves the issue but it gives the representatives in the United States the opportunity to express their views, and that's their right.  It's our sovereign system there that's operating.

So it isn't right to look at that as some sort of a linkage that places some kind of a special burden on this government.  This government can simply observe that and so on.  It shouldn't over-react.

NDTV:  In a sense it was just political rhetoric, these references?

Ambassador Mulford:  I wouldn't say it's political rhetoric, no.  It's serious statements of what people think, and what people think matter.  So it isn't a meaningless exercise, but it is not part of the legislation that is going into law.   So one has to distinguish there.  But don't underestimate the importance that those statements have as statements.

NDTV:  But you can understand the impact of those statements on our domestic politics here.  There are officials in the Indian government, and you must have read this and seen it on TV as well, that describe some of those references as offensive, intrusive, and in an unacceptable language while conceding that they belong to the non-operational part of the bill.

Ambassador Mulford:  First of all, let's get down to the basics.  We're both major democracies.  We're both free countries.  We both have free press, free media, free political expression, religious freedom, everything else we associate with democracy held so dear by both countries.  Surely you would acknowledge that statements are made in this country from time to time in the parliament or in the public which express a point of view in India about policy or whatever -

NDTV:  Or President Bush.

Ambassador Mulford:  Or President Bush.  We've seen some of that.  It's all part of the scene and that is not interpreted as insulting in the United States or committing the United States to certain things.  Those are free expressions that we expect to see from other democratic nations.

NDTV:  How should Indians view those references, not just to Iran, which is undoubtedly the most controversial one in terms of public perception, but there are other specifics, like the Proliferation Security Initiative, the [Vasanar] with the Australian group, all of which Indian officials here say perhaps independently they will be quite happy to look at, but this makes it look like America's intruding.

Ambassador Mulford:  Some of the things that are referred to have already been done by India.  They've already put in place legislation.  They already have a track record of non-proliferation and of gradually moving into a more effective stance and that.  That's all been done and that work should be acknowledged and India should be congratulated for that.

The other expressions are, as I said, simply expressions of members of Congress of what they perceive US policy should be or is and it should be viewed in that way by people in India.

I would hope that people in India, including members of the government, take enormous pride in what's been achieved.  And may I just summarize that. 

We have just seen a President and a Prime Minister of India propose and carry through over a period of 18 months an historic initiative that is going to change the world and change India.

Secondly, the legislation that has been put forward and effectively now put on course to be passed in the States gives India a special exception.  You don't see this in US policy.  Single exceptions for a specific country to alter one of the most sacrosanct architectural systems created in the post-war world by the United States in the area of nuclear activity.  And this is a big deal.

It also enshrines, and you can see that the reasons why Senators and Congressmen have been careful in what they've done in the area we're talking about, and the reason that they're voting in a bipartisan fashion is that there is a recognition of the importance of the long-term developing relationship between the United States and India as we look forward into the 21st Century.  These people recognize that they're doing something and they're saying this is historic, this is something we have to do.  We've got to put aside our own party differences in America and recognize the national interests of America and make this change for India, bring it into the system in a way that strengthens the system.  But it has to be done.

This is a very very important time.

NDTV:  You must have read the statement by Jaswant Singh who was an inside player when this nuke deal was first being negotiated and didn't come through the last government, but in an interview he said that if all of these references belong to the non-operational, non-binding parts of the bill, then the Indian government must say that if this is the icing on the cake then we're diabetic, that we don't need this icing on the cake.  Do you think that's just domestic politics in India being played out?  Rhetoric?  Unnecessary?

Ambassador Mulford:  I don't have a judgment on it.  I expect statements like that to appear both in our country and in this country.  I think the essence of this deal is identifiably serious and is going to change, as I've said, India and the world and US policy has changed.  I think it will be of great service.

We have to remember, and it is sometimes lost in the picture that there is a heavy aspect of this that is economic, having to do with India's ability to continue to grow, to develop, to resolve its energy issues so that it can really emerge as it aims to as a global economic power in the 21st Century.  It's also an environmental issue.  So there are all kinds of aspects to this thing that are important, and it's going to have a major effect on our future together.

NDTV:  Another area of ambivalence, of ambiguity if it can be called that, is whether the India specific safeguards, the IAEA safeguards, need to be worked out before the vote takes place on the [fourth] Congress or after.  There seems to be a difference in how the two sides assess the sequencing of events.  Even as we have a team from the IAEA arriving here next week for these talks, the Indians seem to believe that they wouldn't want to lock themselves into any kind of safeguards until there is greater clarity on Capital Hill.

Do the Americans and the Indians see the sequencing of what should happen next differently?

Ambassador Mulford:  I think the sequencing issue is something that has been developing, as I would put it.  As you say, in the early phase the Indian government and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, they've talked, they've discussed the deal and what might have to be done and so on, but there has been a reluctance to move very far down that road until the Congress has acted.

All right.  Now the Congress has acted and the prospect is that it will have the final action necessary to change the law in the month of July.  The 1-2-3 agreement is a part of the process that involves the sort of activation of the law change.  The law change is what's key, the first vote.

So I think now people will look much more aggressively at what has to be done in both the NSG and in the IAEA because they will realize in the Nuclear Suppliers Group that if the law really is changed then the world is going to change and they all want to be part of this changing world, or the majority of them do, and they're going to want to move ahead.  Likewise the IAEA, once it's established that the law is going to change, then there is every reason to move ahead with the negotiation.

When that finishes and how it's sort of reflected is I think still a matter that we have to be looking at, both of us but one can imagine the Congress because it hasn't yet set the arrangement for the final vote on the 1-2-3, they may say well, we'd like that vote after these other things are done, or they may say well, we'll have the vote, because when they set that vote it's likely to be time set.  In other words they will say this has to be voted on in the 1-2-3 agreement once submitted within a certain defined period of time, and it will be an up or down vote.  There will be no amendments, no discussion of provisions.  It will just be a question of yes or no.  Does it meet it, or doesn't it meet it?  That will be a sort of final event.  So some members of Congress may say we'd like the comfort of knowing that all the other pieces are coming together.  There's nothing wrong with that.  So it's all a question of how it plays out, it seems to me, and it's in everybody's interest to do whatever needs to be done in the various different areas to sort of complete the thing.

NDTV:  So you say it's still a work in progress?

Ambassador Mulford:  Yes, it's still a matter for discussion I think because there are independent players around like the Congress who will probably develop a view on that.

NDTV:  Let's take a little bit of a closer look at your own tenure here, Ambassador.  Linked to some of the controversies that have surrounded the nuclear deal.  There is persistent perception in some quarters that India's kind of gone and signed on for a quid pro quo.  You get the [inaudible], you vote on Iran.  Now you remember your own interview which you later said was misquoted and taken out of context, where you were quoted as saying if India did not vote the way the Americans wanted to on Iran it could have a devastating impact on the nuclear deal.  Can you at this point assure the Indian people that there isn't a direct linkage in that sense that our foreign policy decisions or autonomy is not being compromised?

Ambassador Mulford:  I think if you look at the congressional record on the discussions that went on in these committees, there were clear statements made by, especially on the Senate side, India is a sovereign country, we mustn't do or say things that appear to be offensive or intrusive into India, and so I think there's proper recognition of that.  I think I've done that.

The statement I made, which you didn't quite get accurate, what you just repeated was -

NDTV:  I said you said it was quoted out of context.

Ambassador Mulford:  They just dropped part of it.  But what I said was if they didn't approach that issue in the right way in the eyes of the Congress it would have a devastating impact in Congress -

NDTV:  I see.

Ambassador Mulford:  -- even though the administration wouldn't wish it.  The administration never changed its view.  It never made that a condition.  It never linked those things.  But I was trying to inform people that there are people in Congress who would link it and the Congress is an independent body with the ability to take actions and maybe not support the deal.

So it was meant to be a friendly, constructive warning that they had to be sensitive to issues, their issues in the eyes of --

NDTV:  -- in Washington --

Ambassador Mulford:  But in no way does it seem to me that does that compromise India or  in any way call into question India's sovereign right to define its own policy.  We all say, I always say India will define its own national interest.  It will decide what to do on various issues in light of its national interest, and this same point was made several times during the course of the congressional discussion.  So I think it's well established.  I'm sorry to see such sensitivity here, but I honestly don't think it's really justified.

NDTV:  Can you finally, Ambassador, see any stumbling blocks ahead, concrete stumbling blocks beyond what you call just wordsmiths on either side taking it down to the wire that could prove to be an obstacle in this deal?

Ambassador Mulford:  I don't see any major stumbling blocks that would unhinge the deal at this point.  I think the momentum is there.  I think there will be follow-through.  I think the areas that one needs to worry about now are simply process questions of how we get this vote scheduled and done in July, and then how we get the Nuclear Suppliers Group consensus and the IAEA process to move along at a pace that doesn't create the impression as we go for the final vote in the 1-2-3 agreement that somehow part of it isn't being completed.  Because it is a deal of many moving pieces and everybody wants the comfort of knowing the other pieces are all coming together.  That's true in India, too.  They wanted the comfort of the congressional action and they're going to have that soon.

I think the question is how to just keep the momentum going.  If we do that I have absolutely no doubt this will be law and it will be an established regime hopefully by the end of this year.

NDTV:  All right, that sounds good.

One final question that is not about the nuclear deal.  India's nomination of Shashi Tharoor for the top job at the United Nations, clearly that's something that Washington knew before the announcement was made.  With all the speculation that the Americans would like to see somebody from East Europe at the top job of the UN, is there any chance at all that America would endorse India's nominee?

Ambassador Mulford:  I think all I can say is that the United States hasn't declared itself yet.  It's made no commitments yet.  I think you know and other people know that the United States places a very high premium on the reform of the United Nations and therefore I imagine that the quality of the candidate, the credentials of the candidate to carry out, conduct, lead effect reform in the future is going to be critical to the United States as well as some of the other issues you've mentioned.  It's just too early to know.

NDTV:  All right, Ambassador David Mulford.  Thanks very much for speaking with NDTV.

Ambassador Mulford:  Thank you very much.