The Obama administration wants India as its partner in reshaping the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) asserted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She was delivering a major policy speech on nuclear non-proliferation at the U.S. Institute of Speech Oct. 21.
Her comments come in the midst of seemingly contradictory stands taken by President Obama on the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement and his calling for complete disarmament, urging the signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Non Proliferation Treaty by non-signatories including India. Secretary Clinton stepped in to square the two, or at least she tried. Whatever `concessions' had been made to India were an expression of confidence in that country, she indicated.
This Oct. 9, President Obama sent the report on the Indo-U.S.
civilian nuclear deal to the U.S.
Congress, to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This is the report required under section 204 (c) of the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act, which was signed into law a year ago Oct. 8.
In July this year, during the G8 meeting in l'Aquila, Italy, and later at the United Nations in September, President Obama muddied the waters of the nuclear agreement, discomforting New Delhi about his intentions, despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Secretary Clinton emphasizing to the contrary that the deal was intact, that Obama's statements had a caveat for the deal.
"... we want India to be part of our overall nonproliferation efforts. And we want them to really be a major player at the table in trying to figure out how, starting from where we are right now, we go forward in an effective, verifiable manner to reinstate a nonproliferation regime that can prevent further countries acquiring nuclear weapons, or even peaceful nuclear capacity without the safeguards that we envision," said Clinton at U.S.IP . "So India we see as a full partner in this effort, and we look forward to working with them as we try to come up with the 21st century version of the NPT."
That's a tall order considering all Nuclear Supplier Group nations are not on the same page as the Obama administration, leave alone many in his own party. Under the Act which relates to the U.S.-India deal, the President is required to certify to the Congress every six months, that it is working with the NSG to further restrict the transfer of uranium enrichment equipment and technology transfer. This NSG had granted a clear exemption to India in Sept. 2008, not surprisingly, tying some Indian intellectuals and policymakers into knots about the real or imagined intentions of the White House.
Clinton was asked a question that many Indians and Americans would like answered First, what, if anything, will the current Administration do differently from the Bu.s.h Administration in terms of the implementation of the Indo-U.S.
Civilian Nuclear Accord? And second, ... how you think the Indo-U.S. accord might influence negotiations with other countries like Iran. In your opinion, does the accord serve as a template for such negotiations, or does it set precedents that might serve to complicate negotiations? Clinton was quick to point out that both she and the then Senator Obama had supported the deal while in the Senate. The deal, she said was part of a broader strategic dialogue Washington and New Delhi are engaged in; that it was a comprehensive and `very' deep relationship, signified by President Obama's first state invite to Singh. The Indian agreement, she said would be like a blueprint for nuclear agreements with other nations, she said.
"We're not going to claim or u.s.e it (nuclear deal) as a template in its specifics. But in general, the kind of efforts to offer peaceful nuclear energy, while at the same time having safeguards and verification that will prevent others from going beyond the peaceful use of nuclear energy, is something that we are looking at very closely."
The U.S. is negotiating similar `123 agreements' with other countries currently and similar issues of verification and preventing use of technology and materials for weapons are emerging.
The Obama administration wants India as its partner in reshaping the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) asserted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She was delivering a major policy speech on nuclear non-proliferation at the U.S. Institute of Speech Oct. 21.
Her comments come in the midst of seemingly contradictory stands taken by President Obama on the U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement and his calling for complete disarmament, urging the signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Non Proliferation Treaty by non-signatories including India. Secretary Clinton stepped in to square the two, or at least she tried. Whatever `concessions' had been made to India were an expression of confidence in that country, she indicated.
This Oct. 9, President Obama sent the report on the Indo-U.S.
civilian nuclear deal to the U.S.
Congress, to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This is the report required under section 204 (c) of the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act, which was signed into law a year ago Oct. 8.
In July this year, during the G8 meeting in l'Aquila, Italy, and later at the United Nations in September, President Obama muddied the waters of the nuclear agreement, discomforting New Delhi about his intentions, despite Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Secretary Clinton emphasizing to the contrary that the deal was intact, that Obama's statements had a caveat for the deal.
"... we want India to be part of our overall nonproliferation efforts. And we want them to really be a major player at the table in trying to figure out how, starting from where we are right now, we go forward in an effective, verifiable manner to reinstate a nonproliferation regime that can prevent further countries acquiring nuclear weapons, or even peaceful nuclear capacity without the safeguards that we envision," said Clinton at U.S.IP . "So India we see as a full partner in this effort, and we look forward to working with them as we try to come up with the 21st century version of the NPT."
That's a tall order considering all Nuclear Supplier Group nations are not on the same page as the Obama administration, leave alone many in his own party. Under the Act which relates to the U.S.-India deal, the President is required to certify to the Congress every six months, that it is working with the NSG to further restrict the transfer of uranium enrichment equipment and technology transfer. This NSG had granted a clear exemption to India in Sept. 2008, not surprisingly, tying some Indian intellectuals and policymakers into knots about the real or imagined intentions of the White House.
Clinton was asked a question that many Indians and Americans would like answered First, what, if anything, will the current Administration do differently from the Bu.s.h Administration in terms of the implementation of the Indo-U.S.
Civilian Nuclear Accord? And second, ... how you think the Indo-U.S. accord might influence negotiations with other countries like Iran. In your opinion, does the accord serve as a template for such negotiations, or does it set precedents that might serve to complicate negotiations? Clinton was quick to point out that both she and the then Senator Obama had supported the deal while in the Senate. The deal, she said was part of a broader strategic dialogue Washington and New Delhi are engaged in; that it was a comprehensive and `very' deep relationship, signified by President Obama's first state invite to Singh. The Indian agreement, she said would be like a blueprint for nuclear agreements with other nations, she said.
"We're not going to claim or u.s.e it (nuclear deal) as a template in its specifics. But in general, the kind of efforts to offer peaceful nuclear energy, while at the same time having safeguards and verification that will prevent others from going beyond the peaceful use of nuclear energy, is something that we are looking at very closely."
The U.S. is negotiating similar `123 agreements' with other countries currently and similar issues of verification and preventing use of technology and materials for weapons are emerging.