NEW DELHI: A plan to separate the country's civil and military nuclear facilities was presented by Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran during talks with his American counterpart Nicholas Burns in Washington last month.

A top External Affairs Ministry official told The Hindu that the United States' response was expected when Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns came to New Delhi later this month.

The official said India's nuclear fast-breeder reactor programme was not included in the list of civilian facilities presented to the U.S.

Declaration with IAEA

The plan flows from the July 18, 2005 agreement that requires India to separate its civilian and military facilities in a ``phased'' manner and file a declaration about its civilian facilities with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

According to the official, India will have no problem if the U.S. side shares the separation plans with the U.S. Congress since it is a ``transparent'' exercise. However, details of the facilities to be classified as ``civilian'' are still to be made public in India.

Assurance to partners

During his visit to Washington, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that India could not accept safeguards on the non-nuclear state model.

``The objective of the safeguards is not to address India's strategic programme; it is to give our partners the assurance they legitimately expect, that, one, civil nuclear cooperation with India would not be diverted to assist India's strategic programme, and, two, it would not result in diversion to third countries.''

Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Mr. Saran said: ``Predictions have also been made that India would offer a minimal, even token, separation of its facilities. This displays a lack of comprehension of our objectives in entering into this understanding. India's energy security will be advanced by obtaining international cooperation on as wide a scale as feasible without accepting limitations on our strategic programme."

Lifetime safeguards

On the issue of safeguards in perpetuity, Mr. Saran stressed on December 21: ``Let me put it this way. As long as there is a guarantee of lifetime supply of fuel, I don't think India would have a problem with lifetime safeguards on such fuel."

In a veiled reference to Iran, the Foreign Secretary, addressing the concerns of those Americans opposed to the nuclear deal, said India did not want any more nuclear states, especially in its neighbourhood.

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