'Legislating The Hyde Act Internationally Isn't The Right Way'

New Zealand has expressed reservations about the nuclear deal. Will a second NSG meeting be required to get its approval?

There are a lot of people who say we probably will [need a second session]. We do not know for sure until we have the meeting.I think what's important is that both we and the Indian government have been working on two levels.First, we understand that this is different from your standard nonproliferation activity. So a lot of countries have a lot of questions about where this deal fits in the general nonproliferation framework that we have got andwhether it contributes to that framework. We think it absolutely does and therefore we want to go forward with it. Countries are going to have questions. India has been answering a lot ofthose questions. We have been answering a lot of those questions. So I am not surprised to hear countries say they have questions and issues that they want to discuss. 

We have also been talking to countries on a more political level. I think people do understand the outlook of India upon its own future. Clean energy for economic growth is an important factor for a lot of people. Carbon emissions is an important factor for a lot of people. India's cooperation more broadly with the West is an important factor for a lot of people. And so I think countries are looking at it at both levels-- both the technical and nonproliferation level and the political level – and we have been trying to keep that dialogue going and would like to do so all the way through. Secretary of State [Condoleezza Rice] was in New Zealand not too long ago and she talked to them there. 

India wants a "clean and unconditional" waiver. Is it realistic at this point?

We'll have to see. Countries are going to want to raise issues and get questions answered and record their views in terms of their own policies, their own commitment to nonproliferation and making nonproliferation work and so we may have to look for ways to allow people to express themselves without in any way hampering or impinging the cooperation with India. We will have to wait and see what people say. We will certainly push as hard as we can for a clean exemption and if anything needs to be considered we will consider it together with India.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Congressman Howard Berman, recently wrote to Secretary Rice to remind her about the Hyde Act provision and a House resolution that asked the U.S. president to ensure that there would be immediate termination of all nuclear commerce by NSG states with India if the latter were to undertake a nuclear weapons test. But the waiver draft the Unites States has submitted to the NSG doesn't impose such a condition on it. How do you intend to allay Mr. Berman's concerns?

We have got a dialogue going with people in our Congress including Congressman Berman. Some would like to see all the provisions of the Hyde Act legislated in some international fashion. We don't think that is the right way. We think, in a sense, thatit limits not only our president but other countries and how they react to things. Secretary Rice has said that what we seek will be consistent with the Hyde Act. The Hyde Act requires us to do things, but that doesn't mean we will have to rewrite the Hyde Act and get everybody else to agree to it.I think we will be explaining this to the congressman and having this discussion in Congress as well as internationally.There will be nothing in the NSG (waiver) that is going to violate the Hyde Act. The most important thing the Hyde Act does is that it enables this cooperation and that is the goal of going to the NSG-- to enable this cooperation.

So then does the draft placed before the NSG not completely reflect the Hyde Act?

We are not trying to take the Hyde Act and get the nuclear suppliers to sign on to it. Our goal is to allow this commerce the way the Hyde Act allows this commerce and to do so in a manner that is not in any way inconsistent with our own obligations to our Congress. There are members who feel very strongly about this. Just as I said countries have legitimate questions, I think members of Congress will have legitimate questions and we will just have to go through the process of answering those and working with them. 

Section 2 (g) of the US draft to the NSG applauds India for "continuing its unilateral moratorium on nuclear test..." Is this a condition for NSG countries to do nuclear commerce with India? In other words, should India undertake a nuclear test, are NSG countries committed to terminating nuclear commerce with India? 

So far this is a discussion document. It is a proposed draft for the nuclear suppliers and we'll have to see what people want to talk about and frankly that remains confidential. We're going to have this discussion with the nuclear suppliers and not in public.

In what tangible ways does this draft commit India to furthering NPT goals? 

Having India alongside the nonproliferation effort, having India as a partner with the countries of the NSG, havingauthorisation for the countries to cooperate with India makes India a contributor to the nonproliferation effort in a way that they are not currently. India has good export controls, and India is committed to maintaining good export controls. India is vigilant when it comes to nuclear technologies, putting in place safeguards agreements, separation plans and I think those are all steps forward in nonproliferation. I think the NSG decision would acknowledge that it's a good thing to have that kind of cooperation with India.

Once the NSG approves the deal can India commence nuclear trade with NSG members or does it have to wait for the U.S. Congress to approve the deal?

That depends on how the NSG exemption is worded and so we will have to see how that is worked out. Our hope is to do things expeditiously. To move expeditiously as we have in the IAEA board, to move expeditiously in the NSG and with some understanding from our Congress to move expeditiously there so that there is no question of some people going ahead of others.

Has India given any assurance that it won't commence commerce without US Congress' approval of the deal?

That hasn't been an issue. We are both trying to make it all work out together. If there is some difference down the road we will have to discuss it at that time.

Given the current congressional calendar there does not appear to be enough time to meet the 30-day requirement in Congress. 

Under present plans, the Congress does not plan on being in session for 30 days. We have to get the whole thing done. One of the moreinteresting lines in Congressman Berman's letter is that it will be hard for lawmakers to expedite this if they don't get a whole solid package. So that will be our first goal, to get a solid package up to Congress. IAEA board, NSGdecisions...India is taking a lot of steps under the joint statements and we need to get all that package together under the Hyde Act and be able to present it to Congress in early September. That is an enormous amount of work and that is what we are doing now. If we do that, then there will beanother enormous amount of work -- talking to people in Congress and trying to see if there is not some procedure they can use or some change or some way that they can do this expeditiously just as we have gone to others and asked for expeditious action.

Does that include calling a lame-duck session of Congress?

That's a matter the Congress has to decide. They are not planning on doing that right now. They have to decide to do it. We can ask them to consider th
is and they are going to have to find a way to do it.

India's side of Kashmir is in ferment again… 

There are a couple of things about Kashmir. We have watched as Pakistan and India have achieved a lot of progress both on confidence-building measures and on putting forth ideas on how to stabilize the place for a longer term-- how to resolve the issues. We have encouraged that process and both sides have come forward with very statesmanlike steps. We don't want to see that lost. We would like to see that continue. We have been concerned about some of the incidents recently along the LoC as well as some violence that has occurred in Jammu and Kashmir and we feel that everybody needs to pay attention to calm things down and get back to solving the problems.So far India and Pakistan have managed things well. Both sides tell us they want to continue to move along those lines along with other steps to improve therelationship.

Do you feel the U.S. needs to play a bigger role in the region?

We are not trying to insert ourselves where people don't want us. I think looking back on the last couple of years, India and Pakistan have done very well on their own. Our job is to continue to encourage that process.

You talked about action along the LoC. Has the U.S. noticed an increase in cross-border infiltrations?

There have been some incidents that have been widely reported along the LoC. I don't have detailed information to start ascribing blame but I think it is worth saying there have been more incidents recently along the LoC than they have in quite a while. Therefore both sides need to focus on making sure that we are not seeing problems along theLoC. 

Many in South Asia feel the U.S. ditched Pervez Musharraf, and it is one of the important reasons why he had to resign. The U.S. has lost an ally. Has his departure in any way changed the challenges you face in the war on terror?

Pakistan has been a complicated situation for a long time now. We tried to work with that situation on a fundamental basis-- and that is that in the long run democracy is the best foundation to fight extremism. We worked with President Musharraf. In the war against terror, he has been a good ally. But he also understood last year that it is time to move toward a democratic election. And with all the twists and turns and problems associated with that, we got there. We got a credible election and a new government. I think werecognised, with the outcome of the election, the need to work with the new government. That is what we are doing. That's why Prime Minister Gilani was here a couple of weeks ago and we had some good conversations with him. We want to work with him across the 
board. That's our goal -- to work with the democratic government of Pakistan across the board. 

The way the politics played out for President Musharraf is a matter of Pakistan and that is a matter we have to leave to the Pakistanis. Our interest is that we think he is a friend and deserves to be treated with respect and that any of these processes need to follow an appropriate constitutional format. But how exactly it works out politically after the election is for Pakistanis and that's just the way things happen.

Have any senior U.S. officials spoken with him since he announced his resignation?

Not that I am aware of.

Would the U.S. consider offering Musharraf asylum?

I don't know why people use the word asylum. He's a free man. He can go wherever he wants. It is not really an issue on the table frankly.

Some analysts have suggested there is no concrete evidence linking the ISI and Taliban. But Bush administration officials recently said the ISI had provided "logistic support" in the attack on the Indian Embassy in Kabul. Do you have proof of links between the ISI and these terrorists?

I think we all understand that Pakistani policy until 2001 was to have direct links with the Taliban. This goes back to the 80s when we were all together fighting the Soviets. We know the history of this and we know the historical ties have always been there through the 90s and until 2001, and then President Musharraf made a decision to break with the Taliban and to fight terrorism.

I think there has been a continuing effort in Pakistan to make sure that all the organizations, all the instruments of national power, were being used againstextremism. That is something that still has to continue. That is the goal: always to make sure that everybody is lined up in the same direction and everybody is using their tools against the extremism that threatens Pakistan, the region and the rest of the world.

How successful was Musharraf in severing those links with the Taliban?

You have seen a lot of change. No country has captured or killed more al Qaeda than Pakistan. You can probably say the ISI as an organization has captured and killed more terrorists than any other organization in the world. At the same time you have to make sure that every organization is lined up in terms of dealing with the national problem of extremism.

Are conditions in Pakistan appropriate to bring about effective changes in the ISI that would help Pakistan as well as facilitate the war on terror?

There are increasing signs of determination to fight terrorism among the politicians, among the army, among other groups in society. I think people thoroughly understand the threat to Pakistan and that's the basis for them to gather their strength and to move forward against terrorism. And that doesn't mean just fighting terrorism but also in terms of economic opportunities, building roads, building schools. A whole lot of things can be done to modernize Pakistan, to integrate the tribal areas and to fight the problem of extremism more broadly. I see more convergence on that in Pakistan.

We are trying to help Pakistan across the board with its problems and help the society across the board withmodernisation.

How do you view the Pakistani government's policy of going ahead with peace agreements in the tribal regions along the Afghan border?

What they say is they want to negotiate with tribes to get the tribes on their side. If they are successful in getting the tribes on their side, I think thatwould be an important thing to do.

But this is also something that Musharraf tried and it didn't work.

Part of what the problem was there was lack of enforcement. If you can cut a deal with the tribes then the tribes have to implement it. And if they don't, there has to be enforcement and I think that was one of the big problems with the September 2006 agreements, and I certainly hope people will learn from that experience andwon't repeat it.

A slightly shorter, edited version of this appears in print