Advertisement
X

'India Should Sign The CTBT, Not For The US, But For Itself'

There was nothing cool about the US reaction to the nuclear heat India generated last summer. Subsequently, several rounds of talks led to an easing of stance and partial lifting of sanctions. Yet US Ambassador to India Richard F. Celeste is cautious

Has the US or any other nuclear state ever declared its exact nuclear capability? If not, why should India?

But there are no specifics?
No, there are numbers. (But) I don't think they count every warhead or describe it in great detail. I think we've learned over time that the more transparent you can be, the more it reduces the pressure and potential adversaries that keep pursuing ever-new systems, ever-new weapons. Today, of course, we're spending more time destroying weapons than building new ones.

India says unofficially that there's no question of declaring our minimal N-deterrence. Is that an obstacle?
I don't want to anticipate obstacles in our relationship...we have a constructive dialogue going. It has to take into account India's concerns, the need for a robust non-proliferation regime that will serve not only US but also Indian interests. India has said it is pursuing a strategic defence review. My government is ready to better understand what India sees as the parameters of a minimum deterrent. Both sides hope we can find a way to harmonise these goals.

With information on China's espionage and N-expansion plans, does the US now share India's concern over China?
I've no reason to agree with the premise that China is expanding its nuclear arsenal. They've indicated their goal is defensive in nature. We're keen to evolve a friendly relationship with China in all aspects, including strategic issues. On his Beijing visit, our President discussed the detargeting of nuclear missiles with the Chinese premier. So we have a framework for discussing our respective concerns, and in a sustained way.

Is there no change in US policy on China?
No, I don't believe there's a change.

Not even after the Jaswant Singh-Talbott dialogue?
This dialogue should grow as a reflection of our desire to have a robust engagement with India on a whole range of security questions-China is only one. It's not a matter of synchronising our policies on China (but) trying to understand each other's policies towards China. And I say we're developing a better understanding.

Advertisement

What of old concerns about an 'irresponsible' BJP?
(Long pause) I'm reluctant to use the word irresponsible to characterise the actions of a friendly nation. We disagree with the judgement. We would've preferred India not to test; to refrain from developing N-arms. We think the decision to test and the manner it was arrived at and communicated to the world created problems between the US and India. But Vajpayee has taken several positive steps to reassure not simply the US but the comity of nations about India's intentions. We felt his speech to the UN last September was very constructive. As also the Talbott-Singh conversations. We reserve the right to disagree respectfully with the decision to test. But we're fully committed to improving ties.

How does the US view the Congress stand on the CTBT?
We'd want to persuade the Congress that it's in India's interest to sign the CTBT-one that would bind not only India but Pakistan, China and others. So, obviously we hope the Congress could be persuaded to endorse the signature of the CTBT. Not because the US asks them to do it. But having tested, having achieved what those tests set out to prove and enable India to develop, India now could, in good faith and in their national interest, sign the CTBT.

Advertisement

Have you spoken to Sonia Gandhi about this?
I've never made it a point of talking about our conversations with political leaders in India, whether from government or the opposition. It's not fair. (But) we've shared our views on the CTBT with any political leader we've had an opportunity to interact with. That certainly includes Congress leaders.

India says an end to sanctions would help a national consensus on CTBT.
The President took important steps to try to ease sanctions after Sen. Brownback's amendment enabled him to. There's also been some effort to signal a readiness to further relax the sanctions. I think it was his considered judgement at that time that that was as far as he could responsibly go. Until concrete progress was made around non-proliferation postures outlined in the Security Council and the G7. The decision on further action isn't going to be made by the US ambassador sitting in New Delhi, it'll be made by the President of the United States in Washington and he'll do it when he judges the time to be right. But I feel the force of argument by the US on the meaning of CTBT or its reward (on) sanctions (should not be) the reasons why India should sign the treaty. I think India needs to conclude that it's in its national interest to do so. Then and only then should it sign the CTBT, whether or not there are sanctions. These were not intended to be an incentive to persuade India to act; (they) were an automatic consequence of the decision to test. So the idea that the sanctions were put there to pressurise India...it's the other way around.

Advertisement

Is the US likely to say 'if that's what it takes for India to sign the CTBT, then let's lift sanctions'?
I don't want to judge what it takes to create the right political environment here, that's something India's political leadership needs to do. I want to stress some of these sanctions are not what the US alone controls. The issue of signing the CTBT has to be considered apart from the current status of sanctions.

Is the US preparing for President Clinton's visit before the end of his term?
We had preparations going back to February last year and twice his visit has been postponed-first because of elections, (then) because of India's decision to test. So there's a sense in which the preparations are on hold. I personally feel Indo-US relations have suffered because it has been 21 years since the US President has come here. In India, darshan is valued. We need the presence of the US President in India. There's no question in my mind that this President would like to visit India. In fact, before I came here-by the way this is a scoop-I had a conversation with the First Lady. She said: 'Dick there's one thing I want you to do-and that is make sure my husband visits India.' So I know there's a desire on his part to come. And I get the sense that this government would very much like to receive him here. But both he and Vajpayee have said it really should take place in a positive atmosphere.

Advertisement

Jaswant said recently it was inconceivable that an expanded UN security council could exclude India...
We've said repeatedly that we support the notion that the Security Council needs to be reformed and expanded. We haven't made a judgement as to how that expansion should take place. I believe this is a subject for ongoing conversation between the US and India and it is the kind of subject that ought to be the stuff of our discussions in the future as we look forward.

After the violence against Christians, are you dissatisfied with the bjp's inability to put its own house in order?
Your question implies a judgement about what the government's doing and I'm not prepared to embrace that judgement. I believe that at the very highest levels of this government there's a strong commitment to preserving the secular nature of India-of protecting all its citizens, including Christian minorities. In a country that's big and diverse it's a challenge to make sure that the message is communicated to every part of the country. Having said that, the world looks at India in a very special way, maybe we hold it to a very high standard. But any news of violence against any minorities causes us a concern. Violence against Dalits causes us concern and it's a concern I've tried from time to time to communicate in a sympathetic way to the government.

Have you talked to the government recently on this issue?
I don't think it's appropriate for me to try to (comment) on the basis of a particular event or a couple of events. My job is to represent the US interest here and to speak broadly about issues of our concern. I've shared with this government how I believe these stories affect the perception of India in the US and elsewhere around the globe. I've met with state governments as I've travelled around the country and one of the topics of conversation has been...how do you feel about your ability to protect minorities in your state and what do you see as your responsibility? I think there has been evidence that the Orissa chief minister is deeply concerned about this and does want to use the powers at his command to try and address this. And I think we've heard from the home ministry that they want to use their powers... I think all of us would feel better when the perpetrator of the horrendous crime against Graham Staines, the Australian missionary, is brought to justice. And that's not the feeling of the US ambassador here. I sense it's the feeling of most Indians. So.

Published At:
US