Interview with Mr Amit Baruah, Foreign Editor, Hindustan Times
High Commissioner, Mr John McCarthy - 10 April 2008
Mr Amit Baruah: My first question is – how come your Prime Minister skipped India - he is going to the US, Europe and to China?
High Commissioner: Well, he hopes very much to get to India as soon as he can and we are aiming at an early date. We are discussing dates with the Indian Government and have been for over a month trying to work out the precise dates that suit both Governments. If it is convenient to both Governments, he would like to visit more than just New Delhi, if we can arrange that. So, it has been very much on his schedule since he came to power. He discussed it with me when I was down in Australia last month and he would like to come to India. There is no question about that. It is really a question of finding mutually acceptable dates.
Mr Baruah: So, High Commissioner, what is Australia’s position on India’s case in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group?
High Commissioner: It is a fair question. The answer is simply this. We have yet to take a position on it, as we have yet to be presented with all the relevant data including the draft agreement with the IAEA. We are a member of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group. We have said that we want to look at the issues with a totally open mind. I have heard no suggestion that we wish to pose difficulties for the United States-India agreement. But we do have to look at all the issues on their merits. Non-proliferation issues are a serious matter for this Government.
Mr Baruah: So, you have to look at all the issues.
High Commissioner: We have to look at all the relevant issues before making a decision. But we come to the issues with an open mind.
Mr Baruah: What you are saying is that essentially you have still to take a view on it.
High Commissioner: Ministers are still to meet and take a view on the position to take in the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group which they will do when the relevant data is available. At present you see, we do not yet know whether India will have available for the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group the relevant documentation…that is still a matter of domestic political debate in India.
Mr Baruah: I thought that the US will do..
High Commissioner: But they said they have to have the agreement with the Government of India, with the IAEA, and that depends on the discussions which are taking place internally in India right now.
Mr Baruah: What is your sense of the internal discussions in India? Will this go forward?
High Commissioner: I have to say, listening to all the views…we are hearing a very mixed bag of views right now in India. You are hearing optimism that it will go forward. For example, just yesterday, Shyam Saran was optimistic. But you are also seeing a lot of commentary which is pessimistic mainly because of the time lines now. But, we would see, at this stage, we would favour developments which are positive for the United States-India relationship.
Mr Amit Baruah: What about the time-lines ? Do you have a view ?
High Commissioner: With regards timing, there are people who are far more expert on this than I am. There are people in India and the United States and Vienna who have much more accurate perception of what the timeline is. But quite clearly, with the United States moving into election mode, with Congress increasingly concentrating on the elections at the end of the year, there is not a great deal of time available in the US.
I would be guided most by comments by a group of United States Senators who were over here recently. After all, they are pretty close to it. They were here a few weeks ago and they said that July was about the time when they needed to get it…going much beyond July, to get the deal into the United States Congress would be difficult. But, I do not think we have any judgement independent of that.
Mr Baruah: What is Australia’s, the new Australian Governments position on selling uranium to India?
High Commissioner: There has been a certain amount of confusion, I think, on this issue by observers. It is a separate issue from the approach we take at the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group.
Mr Baruah: It is separate from the NSG issue.
High Commissioner: It is separate from the NSG issue in the following sense. It has long been a matter of Australian policy that we do not supply uranium to countries that are not signatories to the NPT. Under the former coalition Government, that policy was changed. That’s partly because under the former coalition Government, the issue did not have such significant political resonance as it does within the Labor Party. And because under the system employed in the Coalition Government that sort of decision could be taken by a small group of Ministers.
The Labor Party has long had a very profound interest in and a set of policies on non-proliferation generally, including on the mining and export of Australian uranium. They are opposed also to the use of nuclear energy in Australia itself. Now, there is a long history to this. It goes back to the fact that there was nuclear testing in Australia in the 50s by the British, and more recently there was nuclear testing by the French in the Pacific. Whatever the reasons, views are very strongly held.
Now, the Labor Party Conference has reiterated long-standing policy that uranium should not be supplied to countries which are not signatories to the NPT. That was in the Labor Party election platform. Now, that means that any sort of reconsideration (inaudible) would have to go through an extensive process of canvassing within the Party and probably have to go back to the Party Conference…It is a very complex issue for the Australian Government, for this Government.
Mr Baruah: When was this Party conference held?
High Commissioner: The last Party Conference was last year.
Mr Baruah: I saw a comment of Kevin Rudd earlier. He said, I will tear up any agreement [to supply uranium] or something like that he was quoted as saying. ….
High Commissioner: That was before the 2007 election.
Mr Baruah: In August 2007. Do you think there is any possibility of a change? You spelt it out how it is would have to happen.
High Commissioner: Well, I have learnt that you never say never in politics. But I would have to state that at this juncture, views on the issue of the export of uranium to non-NPT signatories within the Party appear fairly firm.
Mr Baruah: What you are saying is that in your mind and in your approach the NSG issue is quite separate from the supply of uranium, in future if possible. That is what you are saying. As far as you are saying on the NSG issue, basically the new Government is looking at it with an open mind.
High Commissioner: That is right.
Mr Baruah: And it has not taken a decision one way or the other to support or not support.
High Commissioner: That is right. I would also add by the way, a very large number of countries have not made their position known pending the result of domestic discussions here and whatever emerges from those domestic discussions and, of course, discussions between India and the IAEA.
Mr Baruah: Do you have any idea of how many …
High Commissioner: My guess is that … up to half might have declared their positions on this publicly. I do not think anybody would be totally categorical until they have seen the documentation……
Mr Baruah: There is no effort here to stall India’s chances or ….
High Commissioner: No. What I have said is I have detected no disposition on the part of the Australian Government… [to do that]
Mr Baruah: Any comment on this quadripartite dialogue from the new Government or any sense of opposition that you might think?
High Commissioner: There has been. That is a fair question. Before it came to power, the Labor Party took a position that the, as it was then called, the Quadripartite Strategic Initiative [as envisioned by then-Japanese PM Abe], was unnecessary. There already was in existence a tripartite security initiative between the United States and two of its allies - Japan and Australia. The position it took was that to create a second model which included India was probably unnecessary to regional requirements. We would note that Japan’s enthusiasm for the concept diminished with their change of the Prime Minister and both United States and India also had reservations about the concept as it was first mooted. When the new Government came to power, it merely reiterated the position it had taken [on the quadrilateral dialogue] whilst it was in opposition.
Mr Baruah: Which is that?
High Commissioner: It was unnecessary.
Mr Baruah: In any case, I think it is quite a dead topic. I spoke to our Prime Minister before he went to China.
In looking at India and China, would there be a bias towards China now in your policy?
High Commissioner: Look, I would disagree with that. I have seen that sort of accusation made from some sources here in India.
Mr Baruah: Why is that?
High Commissioner: I think, partly it is because Mr Rudd is well known as an expert on China…lived in China…worked in the Embassy in China, speaks Mandarin and he has made a great study on China. He has gone on to China early in his term. But China is, after all, a very important trading partner to Australia …. He is justified in taking considerable interest in China.
But I would argue, not at the expense of his principles or at the expense of the interests of other countries. I would note that on the issue of Tibet for example, he has been very straightforward. For example, he said that it was clear that there were human right abuses in Tibet. That is clear cut. We need to be upfront and absolutely straight about what is going on.
Now, Rudd has considerable respect for China... but not at the expense of Australian foreign policy principles. He also has considerable interest in and respect for India and wants to strengthen that relationship. It was notable that in the early remarks made by the Prime Minister after his election, the two countries singled out for attention by the new Australian Government, were China and India as the rising giants in the Asian region and I think he will stand by that.
ENDS – E&OE