Post-trust vote: Mulford presses swiftness on nuke deal

Ambassador David Mulford said the government needs to move swiftly now that it has won the Vote of Confidence to expedite the Indo-US nuclear deal. "Speed is of the essence and time is quite tight."

Mulford said there is a reasonable chance that India's papers could be processed if it arrives on the scene in early September. "We would like to present the legislation to Congress at the end of the first week of September."

According to Mulford, the deal will help India diversify its energy base and help achieve its growth visions of the future.

Excerpts from CNBC-TV18’s exclusive interview with David Mulford:

Q: How do you view the fact that not only did the government win the vote of confidence last night in the Lok Sabha, but in the process more than 50% of the membership of the Lok Sabha was on the government’s side?

A: I view that extremely favourably. It was an extremely impressive performance right from the beginning, when the Prime Minister made the decision to go ahead and manage that issue during the course of the challenge that was made in the Parliament.

Q: Hours after the government won the vote on the floor of the Lok Sabha, a White House spokesperson according to the BBC has called upon the Indian government to expedite the Indo-US nuclear deal. Are you worried that they might still possibly drag their feet?

A: No, that statement is aimed only at the fact that there are a number of steps to be taken, which I think everybody is aware. There are also a number of technical issues that have to be addressed as we approach the placing of the legislation before the Congress.

Q: Although we have got passed the Indian legislature and there is no blockage on the Indian side, speed is of the essence because time is tight?

A: Speed is of the essence and time is quite tight, you are quite right.

Q: On August 1, the IAEA Board of Governors will meet to consider the India specific safeguards. There are reports in the Indian papers that Pakistan is a member of the IAEA board and may ask for a vote or may seek to delay passage of the safeguard in some other way. Are you concerned about this?

A: We are concerned about that and we are working on that.

Q: When you say you are working on that, can I ask you to be a bit more explicit on what you are doing?

A: There will be some conversations between United States and Pakistan on that subject.

Q: So, America will use its influence on Islamabad to ensure that Islamabad doesn’t throw a spanner in the IAEA’s work?

A: We are certainly making efforts to make sure that we understand the case and do what we can do to bring Pakistan on board.

Q: Given the traditional rivalry between India and Pakistan and sometimes the tricky nature of the relationship between the two countries, are you confident of being able to ensure that Pakistan is not a problem?

A: Nobody can give a cast iron assurance but I think that the chances will be very good that we can bring them around because there is lot at stake here for everybody including them.

Q: After the IAEA, the next stage is the Nuclear Suppliers Group, where America has undertaken to ensure that it gives India or obtains for India a clean unconditional clearance. How confident are you that you can deliver this clean unconditional clearance?

A: We have an extremely good prospect of giving a clean exemption because after all this is at its essence a major political issue and if it is focused on in that way, I believe the leaders of these countries will come along with the idea that this must be a clean exemption. Their relationship with India and their commitment to the process and their relationship with United States should ensure that we can accomplish that.

Q: You say that you are reasonably confident. But it is known that there are some countries such as Austria, Netherlands and New Zealand who have reservations. Is Washington doing everything it can to bring them around?

A: Yes.  At the time the legislation was passed in the US, there were many Senators who had doubts and concerns and detailed questions that they felt they were a little uncertain about. But when it came time to vote, they decided that they wanted to be on the right side of history and that they wanted to have an important and developing relationship with India. This kind of thinking will ultimately come into play.

Q: Are you hoping that some of the reservations that have been expressed by these countries in public will fall by the wayside because either they would have been persuaded by America, or will want to be on the right side of history for their own reasons. When it comes to a decision, the NSG won’t be obstacle to a clean unconditional exemption for India?

A:  I don’t think their concerns will fall by the wayside. They will have a number of their concerns satisfied in the process. Secondly, they will find that some of their concerns are dealt with in a process that we have to go through to present the legislation, which is the Presidential determination that would have to be made on a number of issues.

So those issues are in some cases touching on the kind of things that are of concern to them.

Q: Assuming the IAEA is successfully crossed on August 1, when do you expect the NSG to meet to consider India’s case?

A: Our hope is that that meeting will be as early in August as we can hold it.

Q: It could happen within the first two weeks of next month?

A: I think it could. We would certainly like it to because we assume there may need to be more than one meeting.

Q: Do you have a target date by when you would like the deal to be presented to the US Congress for a final up or down vote?

A: Yes, we do. We would like to be able to present the legislation to the Congress at the end of the first week of September.

Q: Does that mean that it will be in time to be passed by Congress before the Congress goes into recess at the end of September?

A: That is a question to which there is no firm answer because the US Congress is a sovereign body. The leadership of Congress will have to make a decision about what it is going to do. It can waive rules, it can do something that is very important and decide to accelerate it. But those are decisions in the hands of Congress. I think we can only know about those as we get much closer to the time.

Q: Is there a reasonably good chance that the deal could be cleared by the Congress before it goes into recess in September? Is that now something you are doubtful about?

A: In giving an assessment, I want to be sure that I am not impinging upon the sovereignty and independence of the Congress in their prerogatives to act according to their own rights. But it seems to me there is a reasonable chance that this could be processed if it is arriving on the scene in early September.

Q: If for some reason, the deal doesn’t clear Congress whilst President Bush is still in office, how confident are you that either a McCain administration or an Obama administration will push the deal without taking substantial or what India would consider damaging changes?

A: I think it is impossible to speculate on that and I don’t think it would be wise to do so.

Q: In other words, it is best from India’s point of view that the deal arrive in Congress by the first week of September and be passed by the Congress before the Congress goes into recess at the end of September. Is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying?

A: That is certainly the best scenario from the standpoint of India and also from the standpoint of the US.

Q: Many people in India believe that one of the reasons why the Bush administration is very keen on this is because it could be part of a legacy that the President leaves behind when he leaves office in January next year. How important is this deal to President Bush?

A: I think it is a very important initiative for President Bush and it is important for his legacy. But I don’t think that is the main reason for going forward in trying to get it done.

The President would be the first one to say that it is the substance of this deal and the vision and the potential the deal has for India, for the world, both as to non-proliferation and as to environmental improvement and as to diversifying India’s energy base and helping India achieve its growth visions of the future. The real issue here is the substance of the deal.

Q: Two quick questions about the role that you have played, which we all know has been critical. How hard did you lobby with Indian politicians to ensure that they were on board and voting for the deal? I don’t just mean Congress or UPA politicians, but those also from the other side of the House?

A: It is important that we explain here that we spent all the months between them - past summer and now - at every opportunity that we had to continue to explain the benefits of the deal and to stress the importance of the time-tabled issues.

Then we said that we have to leave the process at the hands of the Indian political process. We respected that process and stayed well removed from that, and encouraged people. We did not put pressure on people and did not intervene. We made ourselves available to be helpful. So, in the long run that was a strategy that made sure everybody was informed and they could have it according to their own rights at the time.

Q: You have put in a special effort to try and convince the BJP leadership. You met up with Advani, Rajnath Singh and Yashwant Sinha, and yet the BJP repeatedly insists that the deal threatens India’s strategic nuclear deterrent and that it would take away India’s right to carry out further nuclear tests. How do you respond to that insistence by them?

A: The views they had were their own views. We must respect those views. I did point out that there is not a problem about testing. I explained why and went through that in detail. But apparently they had a different view of that subject.

Q: The Indo-American relationship goes all the way back to the time when Vajpayee was Prime Minister. In a sense, the BJP is the architect of the relationship that is culminating in the deal and yet because of politics they have converted themselves into the chief opponent of the deal. Are you disappointed by the attitude the BJP has taken?

A: No, I am not disappointed. We respected the Indian political process and we see the different shades of opinion on this question.

We are also aware that the BJP is very much a party to the India-US relationship and did a great deal in the beginning to stimulate the sort of movement forward in that relationship as we see it today. So, I think there is a lot of common ground here.

Q: Do you think that now that the deal has got a majority in the Parliament, the BJP will drop its opposition to it, or do you hope that will happen?

A: I cannot comment on that. I don’t know what they will do.

Q: The Left has been virulent opponents of the deal and beyond that virulent opponents of any strategic relationship between Delhi and Washington. Is that something that you have taken as a given and you cannot do anything about or do you wish they would change their position?

A: Obviously, we would like everybody to have a position of recognising the very important value of this deal to India and to the world. I mean not only India’s stature and its ability to sit at the top tables of the world, but I also mean India’s ability to address its own energy issues and also to take advantage of the tremendous environmental improvements that lie in the future as India develops civil nuclear energy. So, I think it is a very positive scenario. I hope they ultimately come to recognise that.

Q: Do you have a message for Prakash Karat?

A: No, I don’t have a message.

Q: Since I know you are on holiday, have a very good holiday and come back soon.

A: I am not really on holiday, I have been in Washington where we are setting up the steering room that is putting together all the things that have to happen for this deal. I will be very close to that situation while I am away because there will be a lot of activity in the US as you might imagine and I’ll be able to be involved in that.