'Liberation Of India'

Joint press briefing by Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon And US UnderSecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns

Question: I have a question for Ambassador Burns. AmbassadorBurns, even though you have not seen the final draft of the Bill, can you tellus something on the Iran that reference that may be binding upon India. Mr.Menon, Sir, do you think there is a very wide-ranging relationship between Indiaand the US … The nuclear deal is an attempt to bring it off the ground? Wouldyou say that it symbolizes a shift, it makes India and US a very specialpartnership and a very special friendship and, in a sense, similar to what Indiaand the Soviet Union had before the Cold War?

Nicholas Burns: You are right. Since I have not and no one else in ourAdministration has seen the final Bill, I simply cannot comment. I would notknow.

Question: Could you try?

Nicholas Burns: No, I think that would be a great mistake to try toimagine what the Congress is going to say in this issue because it is up to theCongress say that. But I will say this. We greatly respect the fact that Indiaand the United States and all other countries around the world have to react tothe challenges posed by Iran in the case of the nuclear programme. I would saythat India and the United States have been in the mainstream of internationalopinion. When the IAEA Board of Governors met on February 4th of this year andvoted to repudiate the Iranian nuclear programme, Brazil, Egypt, Sri Lanka,Ecuador, Japan, Australia, all the European countries, Russia and China, all ofus sent the same message. And, so, I think India and the United States have beenpart of this global effort to say to Iranians, ‘We want to work with you.’We the United States believe that Iran has a right to civil nuclear power. Infact President Bush said as early as a year ago that he will support PresidentPutin’s initiative to supply civil nuclear power to Iran but Iran turned thatdown. I think all of us are just saying that we do not want to see a nuclearweapons power emerge in Iran. And so, India from my perspective is in themainstream of that global opinion that unites Russia, China, Egypt, India,United States, lots of different countries. And I think India has to have a veryresponsible policy towards Iran. So, I do not expect any major surprises fromthe legislation that is going to emerge.

Shivshankar Menon: Thanks for your question about the relationship, howto characterize it, how does it compare with other things. I think when I saidthat the nature of our relationship now is really unprecedented, with the sortof engagement we have. I think what I was trying to say is that please do notcompare it with either what we have done before - because we have never donethis before, India and the US - or with other relationships for one very simplereason. The world has changed, we have changed. None of us is what we weretwenty years ago, thirty years ago. And we are now capable of doing things whichwe were not capable of doing then. And that is true of us all in the world. So,please, that is why I used the word unprecedented. But my hope is that we cancarry on this process of transforming the relationship and I am very optimisticfor the future of the relationship that as our capabilities grow, our commoninterests grow, and we learn to work with each other as we have shown over thelast year and a half, on civil nuclear energy, as we go through this process, Ithink the prospects just keep opening up.

Question: You have just said that the final legislation will bewell within the parameters of the July 18 agreement. President Bush had assuredthat India will get uninterrupted fuel supply and that includes from strategicreserves. Will these commitments be kept?

Nicholas Burns: Thank you. Your question gives me the opportunity tothank the Congress of the United States. I think the Congress has acted in avery supportive way of the Administration. We thank Members of the Democraticand Republican parties for their efforts and we anticipate a very supportiveBill. The United States intends to meet all the commitments that we made to theIndian Government on July 18, 2005 and on March 2, 2006 and that includes thecommitments that we made on fuel assurances because that was an important partof the agreement, particularly the March 2nd agreement. We believe this Billwill be within the parameters, as I said, of the two agreements. Therefore, wewill welcome the Bill, I am sure the United States Government, and we will alsogo ahead and implement all the obligations that we incurred as we agreed tothese Bills. And then we need to get on to, I think frankly to an easier stage.The most difficult part of this process, in my view, as the person whonegotiated this with the United States, has been the last 18 months. We havesome very tough issues to deal with. We were in uncharted waters because, ofcourse, there had never been a deal quite like this. We felt strategically itwas right to recognize everything that India had done to be a responsiblesteward of its nuclear technology, and it was right to welcome India again tothe mainstream of the nonproliferation community, and it is right to break downthe barriers of the last three decades that have kept India on the outside.

What I think the Congress of the United States will be doing, and this is avery decisive moment, is to pass legislation that will essentially agree towelcome India into the nonproliferation community, to allow the barriers to comedown, to see a type of cooperation we have not been able to have since the1970s. So, it is going to be a historic time. As we look towards 2007, I thinkthe completion of the 123 agreement is really a codification of the major anddifficult decisions we have already made. Of course, it is a long processtowards the finish line, but it is not going to be, in my judgment, as difficultas the last 18 months. So, it is the time I think for us to be thankful for thework that we have done and to congratulate ourselves that we have come a long,long way. We think it is in the best interest of the United States and we alsohope that it is in the best interest of India and that you see it that way aswell.

Question: I have a question to Mr. Menon. In Parliament today theExternal Affairs Minister has said that the Indo-US nuclear understanding isbased on its own merits and it cannot be linked either to North Korea’snuclear test or Iran’s nuclear policy. Given that Iran is very much a part ofthe two Bills, including the Senate version, if this is India’s position whatcan we do to de-link ourselves from the legislation in the versions that we havealready seen?
My question to Mr. Burns is, India voted in a certain way in September last yearand in February. Supposing we had abstained or voted against the establishedposition of the United States, would we be considered irresponsible as far asstaying away from the international mainstream of counter-proliferation efforts?

Shivshankar Menon: You obviously know more than I do about this Bill.I have not seen it. So, I would rather not comment on something that ishypothetical. But our basic approach is quite clear. What is being done here andwhat we have both agreed to do here, on the basis on which we have spoken to NSG,for instance, is that we are doing a stand alone arrangement recognizingIndia’s unique position (and) the responsible role that we played in nuclearaffairs, and our need for civil nuclear energy cooperation with the rest of theworld. But it is a special arrangement that we have worked out and it is on thatbasis that we are moving forward. How it is linked to one provision or the otherof the Bill, how those provisions work themselves out, all that for us ishypothetical until we see the Bill. So, I am not going to comment on that.

Nicholas Burns: I am afraid that I am going to avoid answering ahypothetical question. It is not in my interest to answer a hypotheticalquestion but I will say this. Everyone understands that India is a greatcountry, and a sovereign country and nobody in our system, whether it is in theexecutive part of our Government or legislative, would ever want to infringeupon India’s right to make its own sovereign decisions. That is a fundamentaltenet of international politics, and particularly, of this relationship of trustand respect that we have developed over the last several years. And so, in everyrespect you are going to see an American Administration and an American CongressI believe very respectful of India’s sovereignty and India’s independence.

I would also say this, it just bears repeating a point I made earlier, it isimportant that Iran is being sent one message on its nuclear weapons programmefrom China, Russia and the other countries of the Permanent Five members of theSecurity Council including my own, and countries like India. I think that degreeof unanimity on that particular question is important to Iran. We seek apeaceful, diplomatic solution to the problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons. Iwould not read too much into what the Administration is saying, what others maysay because I think we should accentuate the positive that all of us have stoodtogether with a message of peace and a message of diplomacy. That is a positivemessage which we hope the Iranians will react to.

Question: Ambassador Burns, you have been very confident that thefinal legislation will be within the parameters of the July accord. But therehas been a lot of opposition to the Bill here in India. No matter what the finallegislation, there will be loud cries; there will be cries of sell out perhapsin some sections. Are you not scared that given the amount of time and effortthat has been invested in this nuclear deal that if it is not well received inIndia, then it could impact the whole relationship?

Nicholas Burns: I think the US-India relationship is very strong and Ihave great confidence that we are going to carry that forward in the future. Ithink it is interesting if you go back and look at some of the reactions in theUnited States as well as in India to both the July 18 announcement butparticularly the March 2 agreement. No sooner had we left Hyderabad House thatthere was a chorus of voices in the United States and our nonproliferationcommunity condemning the American Administration for what we have done. Therewere a lot of people, including in the Indian press, predicting in March of thisyear that we would not have the kind of success we have had in the AmericanCongress. I think we broke new ground. We took a thirty-year policy of keepingIndia on the outside, of preventing India from participating in normalinternational commerce and trade, and nuclear technology and we changed it - ourtwo Governments, particularly our two leaders. And sometimes change is difficultfor people to accept. But you have seen in the United States, the Democrats,Republicans, the leadership of both Houses of the Congress come together tosupport this. I have been pleased to see a large measure of support in India’sas well for this. Now, of course, any initiative like this that is so historic,that changes policy in such a revolutionary way is going to encounter somecriticism. We expect that in a democratic society though we are confident in theUnited States, we have done the right thing here and that it is going to makesure, it is going ensure that this relationship between India and the UnitedStates prospers in the future.

QUSTION: Ambassador Burns, my question was what is the kind of feedbackthat you from NSG countries, in particular China?

Nicholas Burns: Well, you are right to suggest that at the end of thisprocess, the Nuclear Suppliers Group is going to have to agree by consensus,meaning everyone, to make the same type of changes in NSG practice that theUnited States Congress is just about to make today or tomorrow in the UnitedStates’ law. We spent the better part of the last year talking to ourpartners, including the Chinese Government and others, about this arrangementand we are, of course, enthusiastic supporters of the Nuclear Suppliers Grouptaking a positive initiative to support India. I think the great majority ofcountries in the NSG have already come out to support India. There are some whohave not and there are some who have asked questions and who have beenmoderately critical. But I am confident that at the end of the day when this ispresented to the Nuclear Suppliers Group it will pass by consensus and we willsee the international community, in essence if you will, follow the lead of theUnited States, that our President has taken in suggesting that it is time thatIndia be given its right and it is time that India be allowed to participatewith all of our companies to develop its civil nuclear power sector. This is theright thing for the world as well as for our two countries.

Question: My question is to Mr. Burns. There were a couple ofconcerns in the Indian strategic establishment over the Bill. I will just nametwo. One is the feared nuclear apartheid. The second is that of end usecertification. What is your sense of these Indian concerns being met? Myquestion to Mr. Menon is that the BJP went ballistic today accusing the PrimeMinister of demeaning conduct in pursuing the nuclear deal with the US. The BJPalso said they took exception to the Prime Minister entering into conversationwith important American Senator.

Nicholas Burns: Sir, I apologize, I did not quite get your secondquestion to me..

Question: End use certification and feared nuclear apartheid….

Nicholas Burns: Well, let me just say, I am kind of surprised thatanybody would use the term ‘nuclear apartheid’. India, it is true, has beenkept out of the system for thirty-five years. India has not been given itsrights. What President Bush and Prime Minister have done is essentially work forthe liberation of India and to allow India’s scientific and technologicalcommunity to be able to work on an equal basis with their brethren in the UnitedStates and in Europe, and in Russia and China. So, we look at this as theliberation Act of 2006 and 2007 for India’s civil nuclear power effort.

And the arguments we have made around the world is, how do you keep thecountry that will soon be the largest country in the world by population, India,out when that country has been responsible, when it has not traded its nucleartechnology on the world market or black market, when there are environmental andenergy benefits to this that will accrue to the Indian people as well as to thewhole world. We saw this as an issue of great strategic importance, of strategicliberation. As I said before, sometimes people when they react to change do soin a conventional way. This is undoubtedly the right step to take for the wholeworld and I think you are going to see a very large majority in support in ourown country but also around the world.

Shivshankar Menon: I am not sure what statement you are talking about butif your characterization of it is accurate about the Prime Minister’sbehaviour being described as somehow ‘demeaning’, it seems to me that itshows the complete misunderstanding of a democratic way of working. Here is anissue between India and the US which we have been working on, now for 18 months,which is in our common interest. If somebody talks to you about it, you tell himwhat you think, I think that is perfectly normal to have conversations betweenus. That is what we did all day. We talked about the issues that we want to moveforward and that is the normal democratic way of working. So, I cannot see howthese things are demeaning. I do not see protocol or anything coming into it ifwe discuss these things among ourselves. This is what two friendly countries do,and leaders in these countries will do this. This is normal. But quite frankly,I have not seen exactly what you are talking about.

Question: My question to Mr. Burns is what is theAdministration’s view on the likely provisions of the Bill on spent fuel enduse by India? To Mr. Menon, what is India’s position on fall back safeguards?

Nicholas Burns: You know where the Foreign Secretary and I are, in aparticular position. Neither of us has seen the text of the Bill, the commonBill, the conference Bill. It is emerging and so to answer detailed questionsabout the spent fuel end use is really impossible. It would not be very wise forme to try to guess as to what would be in there. But I will say this.

Question: What is the Administration’s view?

Nicholas Burns: You are asking me to comment on the Administration’sview on a piece of legislation that I have not seen. And perhaps tomorrow, Iwill be here in India tomorrow, if I see one of you in the streets you can askme that question and if I have seen the Bill I will give you the answer. But letme just say this. What this Bill is going to do is going to operationalise theintent that President Bush and Prime Minister Singh and is that is to open upthe flow of capital and technology to help India develop its civil nuclearsphere so that a greater part of your energy production can come from that. Itis clean energy, it is cheaper energy, and it is energy that is going to benefityour particularly agricultural population. That is what it is going to do. Therest is detail. So, that is why we are in favour of what we have been doing forthe past 18 months.

Shivshankar Menon: I think your question to me was, what is India’sposition on fallback safeguards? Our position is that which was expressed by thePrime Minister in the Parliament on the 17th of August 2006. The rest ishypothetical.