| Font Size - |
Rice is expected to recommend US Ambassador to Russia William Burns to replace him as under secretary of state for political affairs, said a US official, who asked not to be named.
"This is a very bittersweet time for us because Nick Burns had decided that it is time for him to retire," Rice said. "He has decided that its the right moment to go back to family concerns."
Nicholas Burns, a former US Ambassador to NATO and State Department spokesman, has been a key player in negotiating the two UN Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.
The United States believes Iran aims to acquire nuclear weapons and the UN sanctions are designed to force Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities, which can produce fuel for nuclear weapons or nuclear power plants. Iran says its program is for power generation.
Burns, 51, has also been the lead negotiator on a US-India civil nuclear deal that would give India access to US nuclear fuel and equipment for the first time in three decades.
Rice said Burns, who will not formally leave until March, will keep a role after that in working on the US-India nuclear deal. The agreement must clear several hurdles, including final approval by the US Congress, before it can take effect.
| Bookmark this Page |
|
RatingHe may be a good man, but had to meet failure for two reasons:(1) On Iran, after the Iraq debacle, anyone Bush engaged for doing the work of concocting something against Iran, similar to Iraq chemical weapons, was doomed to fail. Burns just happens to be the one(2) On India, when Sonia and Manmohan were dealing him in a stealthy manner, it should have struck him that there could be unknown hindrances. In July 2005, Manmohan went to the US without any whisper that he had nuclear deal on the agenda. He wanted to do it stealthily, probably because Sonia wanted some bribes from the US for signing India into submission to the US, and such things cannot be public. (He announced it publicly only AFTER signing the July 2005 agreement, though he and Sonia later shouted from the rooftops that they have been transparent). But Bush/Rice/Burns should have judged that, when things are done in a secret fashion, there could be some risks UNKNOWN TO BOTH THE PARTIES. It is always better to be transparent in which case the opposition to the deal by the Left would have been known right at that time, and Bush might have considered the relative strengths of the Left, BEFORE signing the 'nuclear deal cooperation' agreement in July 2005.
It will never take effect.
| Most Read Articles |
 |
