India and US - III

[Guest]

<b>The United States Government's response does not reflect that it treats India to be a Banana Republic or a weak outfit. The following extract from the US State Department Press Briefing of 25 January 06 reflects the exact position of US Government:-
Quote
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I don't know if you guys covered this. The U.S. Ambassador to India is being quoted as saying that this landmark civilian nuclear program that they've agreed to would die -- in the quote -- if India does not vote against Iran at the upcoming IAEA meeting. Can you confirm that that's true?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I didn't sit in the interview so I didn't --

QUESTION: No, I don't care if the interview is true. Is the issue that if Iran -- if India votes against Iran, is that true that --

MR. MCCORMACK: If you look at the news stories that have come out on this, the various wire reports, it includes comments from Ambassador Mulford's spokesman at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi. What he said is the Ambassador was expressing his personal opinions about what the potential political outcome might be. He was giving his personal assessment of how the Congress might react to such an action by India.

Let me be clear. Ultimately, how India votes on this matter is going to be a decision for the Indian Government. They voted to find Iran in noncompliance the last time around and we certainly would encourage and hope that they vote for referral this time around. But I think what the Ambassador was doing was talking about and reflecting the view that on Capitol Hill there are very strongly held feelings about Iran and the need to -- need for the international community to act decisively and firmly and with a single voice concerning Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

And we -- you know, not to go through Civics 101, but we've got three separate branches of government here. We're in the Executive Branch. And Congress and Senators and Representatives will have views of their own. And I think what Ambassador Mulford was doing was expressing an opinion about how the Congress might react, given that outcome.

QUESTION: So what is the Executive Branch's view on that as far as the understanding?

MR. MCCORMACK: Our view is that we would certainly encourage and we would hope that India would vote for a referral to the Security Council.

QUESTION: And if it doesn't?

MR. MCCORMACK: We continue to work with the Indian Government on implementation of the agreement that President Bush and Prime Minister Singh signed during the Prime Minister's recent visit here. We would certainly hope that we would be in a position to -- before or as part of the President's visit to India to make progress on this issue. Part of making progress on this issue is for the Indian Government to present a workable plan that would separate the Indian civilian and military nuclear programs. We're still talking about that issue with the Indian Government and I expect that those discussions will continue.

QUESTION: And is there any relevance between progress on that issue related to their needing to give you a program and their vote at the IAEA?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that what Ambassador Mulford was doing was offering some political analysis about how the Hill might react.

QUESTION: Right, but leaving Mulford alone, is there --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, that's why we're talking about this.

QUESTION: It is but -- it is because that's where it came up. But is there any relevance between how India votes at the IAEA and how their civilian nuclear agreement with the United States proceeds?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we deal with the Indian Government on these two issues as separate issues. Certainly, they come up in the same conversations, I'll tell you that. And we continue to encourage the Indian Government to vote for referral. Ultimately, that is going to be their decision. And we also have been talking to them about the importance of making progress on their implementation plan for separating the civilian and military nuclear programs.
Unquote</b>