Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

India summons US envoy over Iran
BBC ^ | Thursday, 26 January 2006, 14:21 GMT

Posted on 01/30/2006 9:06:19 AM PST by Gengis Khan

India summons US envoy over Iran
David Mulford
Mr Mulford expressed 'sincere regrets'
India has summoned the US ambassador to Delhi after comments he made over India's relations with Iran.

US Ambassador David Mulford had warned that a deal giving India US nuclear technology could collapse if India does not back a UN motion against Iran.

He was told his comments were "inappropriate and not conducive" to US-India relations, India's foreign ministry said on Thursday.

Mr Mulford earlier said his remarks were taken out of context.

The US State Department said Mr Mulford was voicing his "personal opinion".

The US is pursuing action against Iran which it suspects of trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme.

Mr Mulford told the Press Trust of India (PTI) news agency on Wednesday that the US was keen to have India's support when UN atomic watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meets to discuss Iran.

"If [India] opposes Iran having nuclear weapons, we think they should record it in the vote."

India's failure to do so, he said, would have a "devastating" effect on US Congress members who have yet to approve the nuclear deal.

"I think the initiative will die in the Congress. Not because the administration would want it to, but the Congress will... so I think this is part of the calculation that India has to keep in mind," Mr Mulford said.

Mr Mulford also said India had not met "test of credibility" in showing a clear separation of its civilian and military nuclear programmes - a key condition of the technology-sharing deal agreed last year, the PTI said.

'Sincere regrets'

Mr Mulford was summoned by India's Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran, on Thursday afternoon and told that his comments were "inappropriate and not conducive to building a strong partnership between the two democracies," a foreign ministry statement said.

The Bhabha atomic plant outside Mumbai, India
India wants to use nuclear power to meet its energy needs

It said that the ambassador was informed that India's vote on any possible resolution on the Iran nuclear issue at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be determined by India's own judgement of the merits of the case.

"The ambassador expressed his sincere regrets, saying that his remarks had been taken out of context," the foreign ministry statement said.

India has rejected attempts to tie its stance on Iran to the deal with the US.

Washington agreed last year to share advanced civilian nuclear technology with Delhi, lifting sanctions triggered by India's nuclear tests in 1998.

State department spokesman Sean McCormark said on Wednesday that Mr Mulford was "reflecting" the "very strongly held feelings about Iran" in the Congress about the Iran issue.

"Ultimately, how India votes on this matter is going to be a decision of the Indian government. They voted to find Iran in non-compliance the last time around and we certainly would encourage and hope that they vote for referral this time around," he said.

Mr McCormack also sought to separate the civilian nuclear deal with how India votes on the Iran issue.

"We deal with the Indian government on these two issues as separate issues. Certainly, they come up in the same conversations," he told reporters in Washington.

Correspondents say Mr McCormack's comments are a move to defuse any potential political and diplomatic row that could erupt between the two countries ahead of President George Bush's visit to India in March.

'Serious apprehensions'

One of the key allies of the ruling Congress party-led coalition, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has also demanded the government must clarify its stand after Mr Mulford's comments.

George Bush (left) and Manmohan Singh at the White House
Mr Bush and Mr Singh agreed the nuclear deal in 2005

"These remarks raises serious apprehensions regarding the nuclear cooperation deal being negotiated with the US," the CPI(M) said in a statement.

Mr Mulford has said that his comments to the Press Trust Of India had "been taken out of context".

"Iran is a matter where we know India will vote on the basis of its own national interest," he said.

The Press Trust of India is standing by its interview.



TOPICS: News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: india; iran; mulford; us

1 posted on 01/30/2006 9:06:20 AM PST by Gengis Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan

I'ts always awkward when a diplomat accidently speaks the truth.

The truth is that the India deal, which *we should* support, is in trouble because of distruct in Congress (from Kerry and other boneheads, but also on Republican side).

Iran is screaming double-standards because we let India become a nuclear power without sanctions, but not Iran.

Yes, there is a double standard> The world's largest democracy is much less of a threat than the the world's worst mullah-ocratic dictatorship.


2 posted on 01/30/2006 10:55:20 AM PST by WOSG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gengis Khan
Mr Mulford was summoned by India's Foreign Secretary, Shyam Saran, on Thursday afternoon and told that his comments were "inappropriate and not conducive to building a strong partnership between the two democracies," a foreign ministry statement said.

Why is speculating such a bad thing to do? If you take your best guess about any given “future” and you lay that guess out for the world to see, why is that considered a threat? We were gifted with big brains that help us predict the future with acceptable margins of error. There are scenarios Indians and Americans can imagine that are not pleasant and it is those scenarios we can avoid if we work together and consider each possibility carefully. I have to admit, I’m very disappointed, not in Mulford or India but International relations in general. How are we, the citizens of the free world, supposed to build peaceful and prosperous communities if an ambassador speculating about the future sends officials scurrying about, muttering to their constituents, “We will act in our interests!… Our interests can’t possibly be their interests!…

Interests aren’t like marbles on the playground during recess! Interests are intangible concepts that often overlap. We all live under the same sky therefore our futures are inseparable. Our collective interests are the bricks and mortar of our shared future. Let’s act in all of OUR interests. The sustainability of democracy depends on it.

3 posted on 01/30/2006 12:16:22 PM PST by humint (WARNING! My commentary is often longer than the article that inspired it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson