Yesterday, I reported how Stephen G. Rademaker, the former U.S. assistant secretary of state for non-proliferation and international security, admitted before an audience of Indian security-wallahs in New Delhi that India's votes against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Well, as one would imagine, the sh&^ hit the fan, leading to U.S. ambassador David Mulford issuing a statement basically disowning the guy, reiterating Washington's "respect" for the sovereignty of Indian decision-making (yeah yeah) and -- which is what really annoyed me -- claiming the statements attributed to Rademaker were "inaccurate".
The Hindu does not take kindly to being accused of inaccurate reporting so we have carried a rebuttal to Mulford's charge.
17 February 2007
The Hindu
`Rademaker is not a U.S. official'
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Sir, I read this as the Embassy claiming the quotes as reported by The Hindu are *accurate*, but the statements themselves are not accurate. There was no impugning of the newspaper here.
""He added, 'Mr. Rademaker is not a U.S. official and the statements attributed to him are inaccurate.'"
Anonymous - I think the line 'Mr. Rademaker is not a U.S. official and the statements attributed to him are inaccurate' has been craftily phrased to suggest either that Rademarker is a liar or the Hindu is a liar.
It is grammatically unambiguous: "inaccurate" is an adjective modifying "statements." Had the charge of inaccuracy been aimed at the newspaper, the Embassy would have written "inaccurately" to modify "attributed."
It seems pretty clear to me that The Hindu has gone looking for a fight (again).
Well, they have finally come out and said Rademaker was misquoted:
Lobbyist denies US 'coerced India on Iran vote
Times of India, Delhi [p. 11]
New Delhi: After US ambassador to India David Mulford's denial, it is now the turn of Barbour Griffith & Rogers International, one of India's top lobbyists in Washington, to deny that the US had "coerced" India into voting against Iran at the IAEA.
"I have followed the issue very closely," said Robert Blackwill, former ambassador to India and now presient of BGR International, in an exclusive conversation with TOI on Sunday. "I know there was no coercion applied by the US and non expected by India. Throughout the process of the civil nuclear deal, the Indian government has defended its vital national interests fiercely".
Blackwill maintained that former US state department official Stephen Rademaker, whose remarks created some furore here, had been misquoted.
In a lecture here on Thursday, Rademaker had reportedly said India had been 'coerced" into voting against Iran at IAEA in 2005. Rademaker's comments had been deemed particularly damaging since he is member of BGR International now. In fact, the Indian government recently renewed BGR's contract. (TNN)
Is it the case of the journalist filing a report on things he would have wanted to hear rather than reporting what he heard?
Post a Comment