Showing posts with label envoy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label envoy. Show all posts

After US and Russia, France reassures India on clean NSG waiver

New Delhi
1 July 2011

After the United States and Russia, France has iterated its commitment to full civil
nuclear cooperation with India.

The French government has said that the Nuclear Suppliers Group's (NSG's) recent
decision, to bar transfer of sensitive enrichment and reprocessing technologies to non-
NPT signatories, does not undermine the waiver granted to India in September 2008.

"The decision taken by the NSG is not a measure targeting any particular State. This
decision is the fruit of prolonged discussions initiated in 2004. Coming after the decision
of exemption from the full-scope safeguards clause, adopted in favour of India in
September 2008, it does not undermine the principles of this exemption," Jerome
Bonnafont, the French ambassador to India, said.

In a statement, the envoy also said, "France confirms that this NSG decision in no way
undermines the parameters of our bilateral cooperation, and is committed to the full
implementation of our cooperation agreement on the development of peaceful uses of
nuclear energy signed on September 30, 2008."

Bonnafont emphasised that France was strongly committed to the development of an innovative, broad-based and dynamic civilian nuclear cooperation with India.

The NSG held its plenary at Noordwijk in the Netherlands in June.

Further, Bonnafont said President Nicolas Sarkozy of France announced his support for India's membership of four multilateral export control regimes during his visit to India in December 2010, and
France iterated its "full and complete support" to India's membership of the NSG in
its meeting which concluded on June 24.

In September 2008, France became the first country to sign a bilateral civilian nuclear
accord with India after the NSG granted a landmark waiver to New Delhi, reopening
global civilian nuclear commerce after a gap of 34 years. The French envoy's assurance
on his country's commitment to full civilian nuclear cooperation came a day after
outgoing US ambassador Timothy Roemer stressed that Washington was firmly
committed to NSG's clean waiver to India.

Peter Burleigh returns as interim US ambassador to India

New Delhi
13 June 2011

Albert Peter Burleigh is expected to succeed Tim Roemer as the interim ambassador of the United States to India.

Burleigh (69) is no stranger to India, having temporarily served as charge d'affaires at the US embassy in New Delhi from April to July 2009, after David Mulford completed his tenure as ambassador here and before Tim Roemer took up his current position.

Roemer resigned on April 28, citing personal, professional and family considerations. He is expected to leave India by the end of June.

Burleigh is expected to arrive in New Delhi in the last week of this month and assume temporary charge till the US Government has nominated him or another individual as the US ambassador to India in succession to Roemer and the US Senate has confirmed the nomination.

Burleigh served as the US deputy representative to the United Nations from August 1997 to December 1999. Immediately prior to that, he served as the US ambassador to Sri Lanka and Maldives between 1995 and 1997.

Born on 7 March 1942, Burleigh joined the US foreign service in 1967, after spending a year as a Fulbright scholar in Nepal. He served in the Peace Corps in Nepal between 1963 and 1965, doing community development work in that country.

In his long career Burleigh served in the US embassies in Nepal and India, too.

Burleigh is a consultant for the National Intelligence Council (NIC) in Washington. Since 2006, he has been a consultant to the Carter Centre in Atlanta. In March 2007 he became a director of the Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust. He is fluent in Bengali, Hindi, Nepali, and Sinhalese.

'26/11 was the low point of my stay in India'


The battle against terrorism will require concerted international action of all likeminded countries as it is a battle that we cannot afford to lose, says MARK SOFER, Israel's outgoing ambassador in New Delhi, as he prepares to leave India soon after spending four years here. In an interview to RAMESH RAMACHANDRAN, he talks of how the “dynamic“ relationship between the two countries “is now going places“. Excerpts:

Q: How would you describe the Israel-India relations today, and what are some of the high and low points of your tenure?

A: It is a relationship in motion, which started before I came of course, but clearly, it has an enormous dynamic of its own. If you look at the basic facts and figures, the bilateral civilian trade has reached $5 billion. We are working on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the establishment of India-Israel relations, and, hopefully around that time we will be able to conclude the (FTA) negotiations. Some experts estimate that bilateral civilian trade will triple in the next three or four years, so we are talking $15 billion worth of civilian trade. And the trade is finely balanced in terms of imports and exports, and it will include such things as investment, services, and goods. In agriculture, a centre of excellence is already up and running in Karnal, Haryana; a second centre will open in Sirsa, also in Haryana; and a third probably will be in Nagpur in Maharashtra. We are also looking at Tamil Nadu. I mean — the sky is the limit. And, now we are embarking on a new negotiation process for an MoU (memorandum of understanding) in dairy farming, etc.

So, basically, in every field of human endeavour, this relationship is in a dynamic mode. It didn’t start with me and it won’t end with me; I am just in the middle of it. So this is a relationship that is going places. One of the real high points in my four years here has been the opening of the agricultural centre in Haryana. A vast population of India is dependent on farming. At the end of the day, embassies and countries interact to better the lives of their peoples, and if we can cooperate on the main issue which faces the Indian economy and social world, which is agriculture of course, this gives me the greatest pleasure. There is nothing more inspiring or heart-warming than seeing farmers from far and wide coming to look at Israeli technologies and incorporating them into their own smallholdings. We all like to deal with geostrategic issues, but, sometimes, it is these things, the nitty-gritty, that make a term of duty the beauty that it is.

If you ask me, it has been the most wonderful four years of my life working with the Indian government and people on not just issues related to West Asia but related to the welfare of people, such as water, alternative energy, agriculture, technology and industry. I think that there is no doubt in my mind that the low point of my stay here was the Mumbai attacks; of that there is no doubt. Our prayers are with the families of those Indians that were killed, but the Jewish people also were specifically targeted in that atrocity.

Q: How will the killing of Osama bin Laden affect the war on terrorism in general, and the situation in West Asia in particular?

A: The world is a better place now that Osama bin Laden is no longer with us. But does it mean the end of terrorism? Of course it does not. Other such fanatics will come out of the woodwork, they are already coming out of the woodwork, already planning new attacks. The way to tackle it is concerted unified international action of all like-minded countries. This is a battle that we cannot afford to lose.

Q: US President Barack Obama’s speeches on the West Asia peace process have not gone down well with the Israeli government. How do you see the Israel-Palestine peace process going forward?

A: This relationship is rock-solid. There is no rift. There are differences of opinion, which are natural; there are differences of opinion between friends and even inside a family. That is a normal process; so one should be careful not to over-dramatise it. If someone is trying to find fissures (between the United States and Israel), it will be very hard to find them, but that is not to suggest that we agree on everything. But, yes, we are at a crossroads. We do believe strongly in Israel that we urgently need to get back to the negotiating table. There is no point in putting preconditions down because if we all start doing that, then we are predetermining the outcome of the negotiations before they actually have taken off in any seriousness. So we really have a great deal of difficulty in understanding in all honesty why all of a sudden the Palestinian Authority has placed this condition or that condition. Second, this agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas is something that places us backwards. Hamas, in a way, is West Asia’s Al Qaeda. It is an extremist organisation dedicated to the eradication of the State of Israel and is anti-Semitic by its own charter and it has not moved one iota from the demands of the international community that it accept Israel’s existence, that it accept previous agreements reached between Israelis and Palestinians, and stop massacring people. I must stress that these are not conditions placed by Israel; these are placed by the Quartet, by the international community, on Hamas, and they have not met them. We do see in Mahmoud Abbas a serious and pragmatic partner, we do see in the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) an institution with which we can achieve peace, but we do not at this stage at all (visualise) the Hamas entering into that arena.

Q: How does Israel view the Palestinians’ move to seek a vote in the United Nations recognising Palestine as a sovereign country?

A: We, of course, disagree with it entirely. We don’t have dozens of countries that will support us. A former foreign minister of Israel, Abba Eban, has said that if Israel were to propose in the UN that the world was round, the UN will vote that it was flat. Anything [that is done] in the UN is a priori geared against Israel. We believe the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state should be through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, that is the way to move forward. Actually we are not that far apart: we both agree on a two-state solution. But, of course, the devil is in the details. A lot of discussion is necessary, and it is not going to be easy, but scoring points is not going to move forward any type of peace process in West Asia.

Q: How do you see the emergence of representative governments following the popular uprisings in Israel’s neighbourhood?

A: I think a moving away from authoritarian leadership towards democracy is almost automatically positive. It cannot be negative when people are able to find an expression of their views and freedoms that were denied to them. This has to be positive and I think there will be positive spinoffs as well.

Q: The US and the European Union have imposed further sanctions on Iran. How would you describe the current thinking in Israel on Iran?

A: There is a difference between the people of Iran and the regime, and one must make this distinction. It is so tragic that they have at the helm a leadership of hate, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, striving for nuclear arms in order to carry out the destruction of the world’s only Jewish country. Why should we sit idly by when this is happening? And we won’t. The Jewish people have suffered throughout history at attempts to annihilate. Our supposed annihilators have always been annihilated. We will never lose in this struggle against those who would do us ill. When we say never again after the Holocaust, we mean never again. And when (Iran talks about) killing and murdering Israelis, it is something that we cannot of course take, and watch idly as it does this.