WASHINGTON : India and the United States on Wednesday began crucial talks on the landmark bilateral nuclear deal, with visiting Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran asserting that the separation of civilian and military sites should not affect New Delhi's strategic programme.

Mr. Saran began his parleys here after calling on U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the morning and followed it up with detailed discussions with Under Secretary of State, Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, who is Bush administration's pointsman on the proposed civilian nuclear deal with India.

Mr. Saran and Mr. Burns were joined in the discussions by senior officials of the two Governments. The focus was on the civilian nuclear cooperation issue, a senior Bush administration official said.

Ahead of the talks with Ms. Rice and Mr. Burns, Mr. Saran was at the Carnegie Endowment answering a few questions and used the occasion to outline India's parameters for the talks on the nuclear deal signed on July 18.

Separation plan

He made it clear that ``we will be addressing the separation plan on the basis that this has to be efficient, credible, transparent and it should not, at least as far as we are concerned, impact adversely on our strategic programme." It would be incorrect to apply to the India-U.S. nuclear deal the safeguards which were applicable to non-nuclear weapon states who are parties to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

"The important thing to remember here is that the July 18 [joint] statement is not about India's strategic programme. It is an agreement about civilian nuclear energy cooperation between India and the United States.

India's assurance

"And in pursuing that civilian nuclear cooperation, what India is willing to do is to give assurance to its partners that whatever is coming as technology or cooperation from partners would not be diverted to India's strategic programmes and would not be diverted to third countries," Mr. Saran said.

"With regard to the kind of safeguards that would be applicable ... those safeguards would have to take into account what the joint statement has recognised — that India has a civilian programme but also has a military programme. And therefore, if you say that safeguards which are applicable to the non-nuclear weapons states, parties to the NPT, is what would be applicable here, it is not really correct," the Foreign Secretary said.

"While we are not recognised as a nuclear weapon state under the NPT, there is a recognition that India has a military programme and a civilian programme and whatever safeguards are finally agreed upon with the IAEA will have to take this factor into account," Mr. Saran said.

Asked why India insisted in having the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) off the table, Mr. Saran argued that it was important to go back to the July 18 statement and see what this was all about.

"As far as the FMCT is concerned, we are committed to the negotiation of a multilateral, certifiable fissile material cut-off treaty in the Conference of Disarmament," the Foreign Secretary said.

Safeguards

On the safeguards and perpetuity, Mr. Saran said the issue was being raised every now and then and that as long as there was a guarantee or assurance of lifetime supply of fuel, India would not have a problem with lifetime safeguards.

The Foreign Secretary noted it was the responsibility of the United States to get the civilian cooperation agreement through the U.S. Congress and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

"... we can't negotiate with the Congress,'' he remarked adding that India will play its role in ``building up'' the case. — PTI

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail