Articles Relating to the July 18, 2005,

U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement, and

U.S. Coercion Placed on India to Cast

 Anti-Iran Votes at IAEA Meetings






  1. “Joint Statement Between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan
    Singh,” White House Press Release, July 18, 2005


  1. India Summons U.S. Envoy Over Statements Relating to India and Iran,” BBC News,
    January 26, 2006


  1. “India's anti-Iran votes were coerced, says former U.S. official,” Siddharth Varadarajan,
    The Hindu,
    India’s National Online Newspaper, February 16, 2007


  1. Curious Silence from India’s Government Over Whether India was Coerced into
    Voting against Iran,”
    Indrani Bagchi,TNN, The Times of India, February 17, 2007


  1. “’Rademaker is not a U.S. official,’ says U.S. Ambassador David C. Mulford,” The
    India’s National Online Newspaper, February 25, 2007


  1. Evidence of U.S. coercion of IAEA members against Iran revealed,” Campaign Iran
    (Source: CASMII), February 25, 2007


  1. Bush, Singh discuss nuclear deal troubles,” Dawn, Pakistan's Most Widely Circulated
    English Language Newspaper
    , May 8, 2007


  1. ”What Dr Singh told Bush on N-deal,” Rediff India Abroad, August 17, 2007


  1. ”N-deal endgame in sight: US increases pressure on India as IAEA meets,” CNN,
    September 19, 2007



Back to Top 




Joint Statement Between President George W.

Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

July 18, 2005


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Bush today declare their resolve to transform the relationship between their countries and establish a global partnership. As leaders of nations committed to the values of human freedom, democracy and rule of law, the new relationship between India and the United States will promote stability, democracy, prosperity and peace throughout the world. It will enhance our ability to work together to provide global leadership in areas of mutual concern and interest.

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh


Building on their common values and interests, the two leaders resolve:

The Prime Minister's visit coincides with the completion of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) initiative, launched in January 2004. The two leaders agree that this provides the basis for expanding bilateral activities and commerce in space, civil nuclear energy and dual-use technology.

Drawing on their mutual vision for the U.S.-India relationship, and our joint objectives as strong long-standing democracies, the two leaders agree on the following:






Recognizing the significance of civilian nuclear energy for meeting growing global energy demands in a cleaner and more efficient manner, the two leaders discussed India's plans to develop its civilian nuclear energy program.

President Bush conveyed his appreciation to the Prime Minister over India's strong commitment to preventing WMD proliferation and stated that as a responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states. The President told the Prime Minister that he will work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India as it realizes its goals of promoting nuclear power and achieving energy security. The President would also seek agreement from Congress to adjust U.S. laws and policies, and the United States will work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India, including but not limited to expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded nuclear reactors at Tarapur. In the meantime, the United States will encourage its partners to also consider this request expeditiously. India has expressed its interest in ITER and a willingness to contribute. The United States will consult with its partners considering India's participation. The United States will consult with the other participants in the Generation IV International Forum with a view toward India's inclusion.

The Prime Minister conveyed that for his part, India would reciprocally agree that it would be ready to assume the same responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantages as other leading countries with advanced nuclear technology, such as the United States. These responsibilities and practices consist of identifying and separating civilian and military nuclear facilities and programs in a phased manner and filing a declaration regarding its civilians facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); taking a decision to place voluntarily its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards; signing and adhering to an Additional Protocol with respect to civilian nuclear facilities; continuing India's unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing; working with the United States for the conclusion of a multilateral Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty; refraining from transfer of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that do not have them and supporting international efforts to limit their spread; and ensuring that the necessary steps have been taken to secure nuclear materials and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and through harmonization and adherence to Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines.

The President welcomed the Prime Minister's assurance. The two leaders agreed to establish a working group to undertake on a phased basis in the months ahead the necessary actions mentioned above to fulfill these commitments. The President and Prime Minister also agreed that they would review this progress when the President visits India in 2006.

The two leaders also reiterated their commitment that their countries would play a leading role in international efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons.

In light of this closer relationship, and the recognition of India's growing role in enhancing regional and global security, the Prime Minister and the President agree that international institutions must fully reflect changes in the global scenario that have taken place since 1945. The President reiterated his view that international institutions are going to have to adapt to reflect India's central and growing role. The two leaders state their expectations that India and the United States will strengthen their cooperation in global forums.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh thanks President Bush for the warmth of his reception and the generosity of his hospitality. He extends an invitation to President Bush to visit India at his convenience and the President accepts that invitation.

Back to Contents







India Summons U.S. Envoy Over

Relating to India and Iran




India has summoned U.S. ambassador David C.

Mulford to Delhi after comments he made over

India's relations with Iran.

BBC News

Thursday, January 26, 2006

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.

David C. Mulford expressed his “sincere regrets.”

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.

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.

"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.

Back to Contents





India's anti-Iran votes were coerced,

says former U.S. official

Siddharth Varadarajan

The Hindu, India’s national Online Newspaper

Friday, February 16, 2007


New Delhi: A former ranking official of the Bush administration acknowledged on Thursday [February 15, 2007] that India's votes against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were "coerced."

In a talk on `Iran, North Korea and the future of the NPT' at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Stephen G. Rademaker — who quit his job as Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation and International Security at the U.S. State Department last December — said the July 2005 nuclear agreement had helped bring about a big change in India's attitude towards "non-proliferation."

"The best illustration of this is the two votes India cast against Iran at the IAEA," he said, adding: "I am the first person to admit that the votes were coerced."

A key role in the entire process was played by the Congressional hearings on the nuclear deal, the former State Department official noted.

Congressional vote

"In the end, India did not vote the wrong way," he said. And India's votes against Iran, in turn, "paved the way for the Congressional vote on the civilian nuclear proposal last year."

Mr. Rademaker joined the State Department in 2002 as Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control and was put in charge of the combined bureaus of arms control and non-proliferation in 2005. At the end of 2006, he quit the U.S. government to take up a job with Barbour Griffith & Rogers, the lobbying firm whose clients include the Government of India.

During the time he served in the State Department, Mr. Rademaker was involved in bilateral negotiations with India on nuclear matters. He also headed the U.S. delegation to two meetings of the Nuclear Suppliers Group held soon after the July 2005 Indo-U.S. nuclear deal.

Though the civil nuclear bill had now cleared Congress, said Mr. Rademaker, "more is going to be required [of India] because the problems of Iran and North Korea have not been solved."

The former Bush administration official claimed Iran was developing nuclear weapons and that the international community was going to have to take tougher measures to persuade Iran to change course. "Whether there will be more U.N. sanctions or more measures taken outside the U.N. context, we'll have to see." Russia, said Mr. Rademaker, was "not fully cooperating" with the U.S.

"If the U.N. Security Council acts against Iran, this would make things easier for countries like India. But if things go in the direction of increasing economic pressure by a coalition of countries like the U.S, Europe and Japan, India will have to make a choice," he said. India would have to decide whether to join these countries in the economic measures they took. "It is India's prerogative to decide, but should it (not join), it would be a big mistake and a lost opportunity," he added.

The July 2005 Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement had "opened a door for India to further its integration with the industrialised world and it would be bad for India to squander this opportunity," Mr. Rademaker said. "So I hope India, for its own self-interest, decides to participate (in these measures)."

‘A low cost way’

As a "first step" towards tightening the screws on Iran, India should withdraw from the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project, the former U.S. official argued. "This would send a strong message to Iran, while not hurting India's economic interests" because the pipeline was unlikely to be economically viable, he claimed. "I am not sure what kind of investor would put up money for a pipeline running from Iran through Pakistan. What happens if there is an incident in Kashmir?"

Walking away from the IPI pipeline project, said Mr. Rademaker, would, therefore, be "a low cost way of India demonstrating its commitment to non-proliferation."

He clarified that the U.S. did not consider the Iran pipeline to be a "litmus test" for India. But scrapping the project "would be a smart thing for India to do." India, he stressed, "needs to stop thinking of itself as a Third World country... and start aligning itself with the First World countries."

Asked about the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran, Mr. Rademaker said, "I have never been a proponent of military strikes against Iran because I am not persuaded they would be effective."

Back to Contents








Curious Silence from India’s Government

'India coerced into voting against Iran'

Indrani Bagchi,TNN

The Times of

February 17, 2007


NEW DELHI: India has curiously kept its silence over a reported comment by a former US disarmament official, Stephen Rademaker, who said India was "coerced" into voting against
Iran at the IAEA in 2005.

The remarks, which raised the spectre of the political minefield that
India walked through in those days, are certain to create a political storm yet again as the government heads into a session in Parliament hoping to keep their Communist allies quiet.

US ambassador David Mulford, however, issued a statement denying Rademaker's contention. He said, "It has always been the US position that India will make decisions on the Iran issue based on its own national interests.

We respect the government of India's decisions on this matter. Rademaker is not a US official and the statements attributed to him are inaccurate."

Addressing a security conference on Thursday, Rademaker was quoted as saying that India had been coerced by the US into voting against Iran at the IAEA in 2005.

Rademaker was appointed acting assistant secretary for disarmament in the State Department but he was never confirmed by the US Senate. According to officials, Rademaker was not part of any of the discussions with India on the civil nuclear deal.

Rademaker quit the State Department earlier this year and is now a paid lobbyist of the Indian government in Washington.

He is part of the
India account of Barbour, Griffiths & Rogers, working with former US ambassador to India Robert Blackwill and Condoleezza Rice's former advisor, Philip Zelikow. India had recently renewed its contract with BGR.

Contrary to Rademaker's assertion, the statements made by US Congressmen like Tom Lantos in 2005 were actually counter-productive, said a senior official involved with the development at the time.

"India almost voted otherwise to fend off perceptions of having aligned with US policy," said the official. Describing Rademaker's remarks as "inaccurate, inopportune and impolitic", government sources said a complaint had been sent to BGR on Friday.


Back to Contents











Rademaker is not a U.S. official,’ says

U.S. Ambassador David C. Mulford

The Hindu
, India’s National Online Newspaper

Saturday, February 25, 2007

Special Correspondent


New Delhi: Responding to an article in The Hindu (‘India's anti-Iran votes were coerced: former U.S. official', February 16), U.S. Ambassador David C. Mulford said the individual quoted was "not a U.S. official."


The story quoted Stephen G. Rademaker, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation and international security, telling an audience at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses on Thursday that India's votes against Iran were "coerced" and that the U.S. would expect more of India in the future.


"It has always been the U.S. position that India will make decisions on the Iran issue based on its own national interests. We respect the Government of India's decisions on this matter," Mr. Mulford said in a short written statement issued by the U.S. embassy on Friday.


He added, "Mr. Rademaker is not a U.S. official and the statements attributed to him are inaccurate."


The Hindu would like to clarify that Mr. Rademaker spoke before an audience of approximately 20 people and that its Associate Editor, Siddharth Varadarajan, was present and took detailed notes of his remarks, and that the quotes attributed to Mr. Rademaker are wholly accurate.


© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu


Back to Contents







Evidence of U.S. coercion of IAEA

against Iran revealed

by Campaign Iran
(source: CASMII)

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Demands for an investigation into coercion of nations by the US during the vote against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), have been growing following the revelations by a former ranking official of the Bush administration acknowledging that India's votes at the IAEA in 2005 and 2006 had been "coerced."

In a talk just over a week ago at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, Stephen G. Rademaker — who left his job as Assistant Secretary for Non-proliferation and International Security at the U.S. State Department last December - said, referring to India’s changing attitude towards non-proliferation, "[t]he best illustration of this is the two votes India cast against Iran at the IAEA. I am the first person to admit that the votes were coerced."

The Indian government to date has not denied this accusation and has remained silent. Whilst the US Ambassador to India, David Mulford, issued a statement, reported in the Times of India, that the statements attributed to Mr Rademaker were inaccurate, the Hindu newspaper which first reported the story on Friday 16th February, has refuted Mr Mulford’s dismissals, pointing out that Mr. Rademaker spoke before an audience of 20 people and that the Hindu’s Associate Editor, Siddharth Varadarajan, had taken detailed notes. Ambassador David Mulford had himself caused controversy on this issue when he warned in January 2006 that a deal giving India US nuclear technology could collapse if India did not back the UN motion against Iran.

The growing storm comes ahead of the meeting of senior diplomats from the five permanent Security Council nations and Germany in London tomorrow over a new resolution to try and increase pressure on Iran. It also adds strength to those who have argued against the legitimacy of Iran’s referral to the UN Security Council and the subsequent passing of Resolution 1737. In 2005, the US and the UK concentrated their efforts in the Governors' Board of the IAEA to first condemn Iran for not meeting its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and then to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, when Iran’s enrichment programme had not in fact, breached any article of the NPT..

Professor Abbas Edalat of Campaign Iran said today;

"The revelation that the US coerced India into voting against Iran on this crucial issue is of global significance. It brings into question the entire legitimacy of the decision by the Governors' Board of the IAEA to refer Iran to the Security Council and the consequent passing of Resolutions 1696 and 1737 and any future resolutions against Iran the UN might pass. It also raises the question, “how many other members of the Governors' Board of the IAEA were coerced by the US to politicise Iran's nuclear file, refer it to the UN Security Council and bring about first resolution 1696 and then resolution 1737?”. As in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, UN resolutions are being used to give a veneer of legitimacy and provide a pretext for an illegal US pre-emptive strike against Iran. In Iraq, the invasion was ordered “in support of UN authority”. The same justification is likely to be used by the Bush administration for strikes on Iran. We are demanding an immediate high level investigation to the use of coercion by the US and its allies within the IAEA."


Mr Rademaker was appointed Acting Assistant Secretary for Non-proliferation and International Security in the State Department. He quit the State Department earlier this year and is now a paid lobbyist of the Indian government in Washington. In the US State Department's website he is still referred to as Acting Assistant Secretary for Non-proliferation and International Security.

The story has been reported extensively in the Hindu and the Times of India



Ambassador Mulfords statements of January 2006 are reported by the BBC


Back to Contents










Bush, Singh discuss

deal troubles

Dawn, Pakistan's most widely circulated English language newspaper

May 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, May 7: US President George W. Bush telephoned Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Monday to discuss a nuclear deal that seems to have run into trouble.

White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters at a briefing that the two leaders “welcomed the recent progress in the civil nuclear cooperation initiative. They also agreed on the need for negotiations to conclude the bilateral agreement on peaceful nuclear cooperation.”

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters earlier that the United States wants “political level” talks with India for removing differences over the nuclear deal the two sides are trying to conclude before a change of government in Washington.

Last week, the
US and India launched a diplomatic offensive to save the deal that the two countries hope can lead to a greater strategic partnership between them.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shanker Menon was in
Washington on April 30 and May 1 for talks with Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, the chief US negotiator for the nuclear deal.

Mr Burns is scheduled to visit New Delhi later this month for more talks.

Last week’s talks revived the hopes for a successful conclusion, with Indian diplomats saying problem issues like the treatment of spent fuel and India’s right to test nuclear weapons could be overcome.

But soon after the talks, seven
US senators wrote to Mr Singh telling him to reconsider India’s relations with Iran if he wants the nuclear deal and a strategic partnership with the US.

Washington is trying to isolate Tehran over its disputed nuclear programme and alleged support for terrorism but India does not want the US to determine its foreign policies in return for a nuclear deal.

New Delhi also wants the Bush administration to rewrite key elements of the law approved by the US Congress last year.

Indian negotiators are contesting a clause which states that the United States would withdraw civil nuclear fuel supplies and equipment if
India breached its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing.
India also wants the US not to place restrictions on its ability to produce weapon-grade nuclear fuel.

The Bush administration said that removing such differences would require the US to change its non-proliferation laws and it was unwilling to do so.

“It’s an issue that’s covered by our law and ... we’re not going to change our laws,” said Mr McCormack.


Back to Contents











What Dr. Singh told

Bush on N-deal

Rediff India Abroad


August 17, 2007


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made it clear to President George W Bush during negotiations on the Indo-US nuclear deal that
India could not agree to a 'bilateral' Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). He also said that it was not in India's interest for Iran to become a nuclear weapons power though it had the right to have nuclear energy as an NPT member.


"I told Bush that I can't be a cheer leader or be part of a war-mongering group. The nuclear dispute with Iran should be resolved through peaceful processes," he told a magazine in an interview.


he prime minister spoke to the magazine two months ago while he was returning from the G-8 Summit. The magazine said its understanding was that excerpts of the interview could be published once the 123 Agreement was reached.


Singh said the US President told him in July, 2005: "Don't expect me to help you to build bombs. I told him I didn't expect the US to do that because with our previous achievements, we didn't need anyone's help."


The prime minister said, "I made it clear during the negotiations that we can't agree to a bilateral NPT or CTBT. We have a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing and we will exercise restraint".


"We wanted to be transparent because of the deep suspicions about the US among our political, intellectual and scientific class. In Parliament,  we drew red lines on the deal that we wouldn't cross. I even told President Bush that just as he has a Congress, I have one too. My commitments to Parliament acted as a disciplining force without which we would have been vulnerable while negotiating with the US later," Singh said.


Singh, who has been under attack from the Opposition and the Left allies over the nuclear cooperation agreement, contended that the deal was a "logical fallout" of the Next Steps in Strategic Partnership that the National Democratic Alliance government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee had begun with the US.


"It was an outcome of that process. While we had successfully made nuclear weapons, on the power front there were too many shifting targets. We had set a target of 10,000 MW of nuclear power almost 35 years ago and now we have only around 3,700 MW. The deal would help us meet our targets for nuclear power," he told the magazine.


About the Bharatiya Janata Party, he said, "It requires a big leap in approach and the attitude of the BJP is disappointing. They didn't even believe I would last as the prime minister and some leaders even did havans that I should die on a certain day. But I have faith in a higher force. I believe it was my destiny to be the prime minister. I have the courage of conviction."


On nuclear scientists, he said, "I have a great respect for them. Although they don't have a veto on the deal, I felt we needed them to be on board. They had faced the bad side of the US  - the isolation and the suspicion - and I had to take them along. "


The prime minister said he felt dreadful about a world full of nuclear weapons. "Now there are even dangers of a dirty bomb and non-state actors using it. The world could end up with a catastrophe, he said.


Describing Bush as a "very easy person" to deal with, Singh said, "He is very nice to me and of all the US Presidents, he is the friendliest towards India."


Noting that the US had become the "sole superpower" almost 15 years ago, he said, "But all these years, no Indian government had the courage to change our policy towards the US.


"It was felt during the foreign policy review that Indo-US relations were the key in a globalised world and we needed to give them the highest importance," the prime minister said.


"I believe in being friends to all countries and we had to open new pathways to do that. We need to change the cycle. The guiding principle is to resolve disputes without creating fear and uncertainty. On Pakistan and China, we are on track. In Indo-US relations, the nuclear issue was an irritant and the deal works towards removing that. As regards our international status, in major forums now China and India are mentioned in the same breath. That is something deeply satisfying.


But there is no scope for complacency. We can't take our place in the world for granted. We need to work harder, harder, harder, the prime minister said.

© Copyright 2007 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.


Back to Contents









N-deal endgame in sight: U.S.
increases pressure on India

as IAEA meets in Vienna




September 19, 2007


New Delhi: There is growing pressure from the United States on the Indian Government to get on with closing the nuclear deal.


US Ambassador to India, David Mulford met India's Chief Nuclear Negotiator, Shyam Saran, on Wednesday and told him that the next steps — towards operationlising the deal — will have to be taken quickly.


Meanwhile, the committee set up by the Government comprising of UPA and Left leaders have had a second meeting to hammer out a compromise.


However, a compromise seems unlikely for Left leaders have rejected the Government's response to their objections on issue and it also seems that they are not going bow down to pressure.


Despite the Left's opposition to the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal, there seems to be a significant development at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna.

Back to Contents