Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07NEWDELHI813
2007-02-16 11:43:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy New Delhi
Cable title:
INDIAN RESPONSE TO SIX-PARTY TALKS AGREEMENT:
how-toVZCZCXRO0040 OO RUEHBI RUEHCI RUEHDBU RUEHLH RUEHPW DE RUEHNE #0813 0471143 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 161143Z FEB 07 FM AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3156 INFO RUEHAH/AMEMBASSY ASHGABAT 0693 RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0799 RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 5348 RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0648 RUEHEK/AMEMBASSY BISHKEK 0724 RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 1020 RUEHLM/AMEMBASSY COLOMBO 8837 RUEHKA/AMEMBASSY DHAKA 8920 RUEHDBU/AMEMBASSY DUSHANBE 0518 RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 2099 RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL 4030 RUEHKT/AMEMBASSY KATHMANDU 9550 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 2795 RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 1382 RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1066 RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 1125 RUEHNT/AMEMBASSY TASHKENT 0905 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 4474 RUEHCG/AMCONSUL CHENNAI 8957 RUEHKP/AMCONSUL KARACHI 6844 RUEHCI/AMCONSUL KOLKATA 8666 RUEHLH/AMCONSUL LAHORE 3609 RUEHBI/AMCONSUL MUMBAI 8120 RUEHPW/AMCONSUL PESHAWAR 4188 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0930 RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 3778 RUEIDN/DNI WASHINGTON DC RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI RHMFISS/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 6137 RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI RHMFISS/HQ USSOCOM MACDILL AFB FL RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC
C O N F I D E N T I A L NEW DELHI 000813
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EAP, ISN, VCI AND T
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/11/2012
TAGS: PREL PARM KNNP KN IN
SUBJECT: INDIAN RESPONSE TO SIX-PARTY TALKS AGREEMENT:
SUPPORT FOR DENUCLEARIZATION, BUT NO PUBLIC STATEMENT AT
THIS TIME
Classified By: Ambassador David Mulford for Reasons 1.4 (B, D)
C O N F I D E N T I A L NEW DELHI 000813
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EAP, ISN, VCI AND T
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/11/2012
TAGS: PREL PARM KNNP KN IN
SUBJECT: INDIAN RESPONSE TO SIX-PARTY TALKS AGREEMENT:
SUPPORT FOR DENUCLEARIZATION, BUT NO PUBLIC STATEMENT AT
THIS TIME
Classified By: Ambassador David Mulford for Reasons 1.4 (B, D)
1. (C) In response to reftel, Ambassador delivered points on
the announcement of the "Initial Actions" agreement at
Six-Party Talks to Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon on
February 15, noting the Six Parties have come up with a way
forward on resolving the North Korean weapons program. Menon
quickly acknowledged that the agreement has faced
controversy, mentioning he had seen former Ambassador
Bolton,s strong comments on CNN the previous night. Asked
by Poloff if the MEA planned to release a statement in
support of the agreement, Menon responded that the Indian
government decided in a meeting on the evening of February 14
that it did not want to be seen as &jumping at every stage8
of the North Korean crisis, and he added that he was not in
favor of MEA going on the public record at this time.
Questioning the current deal,s difference with the 1994
Agreed Framework, he wondered whether &we had seen this all
before.8 He noted that Bolton,s comments have "purchase8
in the Indian government, which views North Korea as an
&A.Q. Khan client state.8 &People will take a hard look
at this,8 he declared. Such a view fuelled the Indian votes
against Iran in the IAEA, he added.
2. (C) Comment. Poloffs also delivered reftel points to MEA
Under Secretary (Disarmament and International Security
Affairs) Jayant Khobargade and MEA Director (East Asia)
Rajashekhar. In contrast to Menon's seeming dismissal of the
significance of this important step toward implementing the
September 19, 2005 Agreement, Rajashekhar, speaking before
the February 14 MEA meeting, congratulated the U.S. for its
role in the agreement and welcomed the announcement as "a
positive step in the denuclearization process." At the time,
Rajashekhar told Poloff MEA was, indeed, preparing a
statement lauding the agreement. Apparently a decision was
made at the higher levels of MEA not to come out publicly at
this time, which Post interprets not as any lack of support
for the Six Party process, but rather as lingering antagonism
toward Pakistan's role in the DPRK's nuclear development.
Both Menon and MEA have consistently supported the Six-Party
Talks. We note that public opinion, at least that which is
represented in India's vibrant media, has noted the
significance through factual, front page reporting which
describes how Pyongyang has "capitulated," "yields," and
"agreed to give up nukes," or, as in an editorial in the
Hindustan Times, cites a combination of "America's new
flexibility" and China's coordinator role as averting a major
international crisis.
MULFORD
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EAP, ISN, VCI AND T
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/11/2012
TAGS: PREL PARM KNNP KN IN
SUBJECT: INDIAN RESPONSE TO SIX-PARTY TALKS AGREEMENT:
SUPPORT FOR DENUCLEARIZATION, BUT NO PUBLIC STATEMENT AT
THIS TIME
Classified By: Ambassador David Mulford for Reasons 1.4 (B, D)
1. (C) In response to reftel, Ambassador delivered points on
the announcement of the "Initial Actions" agreement at
Six-Party Talks to Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon on
February 15, noting the Six Parties have come up with a way
forward on resolving the North Korean weapons program. Menon
quickly acknowledged that the agreement has faced
controversy, mentioning he had seen former Ambassador
Bolton,s strong comments on CNN the previous night. Asked
by Poloff if the MEA planned to release a statement in
support of the agreement, Menon responded that the Indian
government decided in a meeting on the evening of February 14
that it did not want to be seen as &jumping at every stage8
of the North Korean crisis, and he added that he was not in
favor of MEA going on the public record at this time.
Questioning the current deal,s difference with the 1994
Agreed Framework, he wondered whether &we had seen this all
before.8 He noted that Bolton,s comments have "purchase8
in the Indian government, which views North Korea as an
&A.Q. Khan client state.8 &People will take a hard look
at this,8 he declared. Such a view fuelled the Indian votes
against Iran in the IAEA, he added.
2. (C) Comment. Poloffs also delivered reftel points to MEA
Under Secretary (Disarmament and International Security
Affairs) Jayant Khobargade and MEA Director (East Asia)
Rajashekhar. In contrast to Menon's seeming dismissal of the
significance of this important step toward implementing the
September 19, 2005 Agreement, Rajashekhar, speaking before
the February 14 MEA meeting, congratulated the U.S. for its
role in the agreement and welcomed the announcement as "a
positive step in the denuclearization process." At the time,
Rajashekhar told Poloff MEA was, indeed, preparing a
statement lauding the agreement. Apparently a decision was
made at the higher levels of MEA not to come out publicly at
this time, which Post interprets not as any lack of support
for the Six Party process, but rather as lingering antagonism
toward Pakistan's role in the DPRK's nuclear development.
Both Menon and MEA have consistently supported the Six-Party
Talks. We note that public opinion, at least that which is
represented in India's vibrant media, has noted the
significance through factual, front page reporting which
describes how Pyongyang has "capitulated," "yields," and
"agreed to give up nukes," or, as in an editorial in the
Hindustan Times, cites a combination of "America's new
flexibility" and China's coordinator role as averting a major
international crisis.
MULFORD