The Nuclear cheerleaders are trying to grasp at straws to avoid admitting what a load of crock the deal was. Some of these attempts border on hilarity (read the second point in the post).
Hillary Clinton's India visit provided another out. The visit was expectedly covered with much fanfare. Mrs. Clinton mostly said what the fawning Indian politicians and Indians wanted to hear and believe.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has delighted reporters repeatedly during her travels by speaking off the cuff, but is she also speaking off the mark? At a press conference in New Delhi on July 20, she was asked by an Indian reporter whether the United States opposed the transfer of sensitive reprocessing and enrichment nuclear technology from India to other countries.
"Well, clearly, we don't," she said. "We have just completed a civil nuclear deal with India. So if it's done within the appropriate channels and carefully safeguarded, as it is in the case of India, then that is appropriate." The Indian reporter got excited, because what he heard was a policy change. Since the beginning of the U.S.-Indian negotiations on the civil nuclear deal in 2005, both the Bush and Obama administrations have refused to allow India to transfer sensitive technology, citing proliferation concerns. Now Mrs. Clinton was saying the opposite.
A diplomat at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi immediately noticed the discrepancy and alerted the State Department, which speedily compiled "press guidance," anticipating questions from reporters about the secretary's remark. "U.S. policy on restricting transfers of enrichment and reprocessing technology, equipment and facilities has not changed," the guidance said. "Efforts… to restrict transfers of [such] technology are not aimed at India, or any other country, but reflect our global nonproliferation efforts."
Washington's arms-control community also noticed the secretary's comment and immediately tried to correct it. [link]
1 comment:
Actually I meant CNN-IBN, but same thing.
Post a Comment