The Hindu : Front Page : As NSG members take ‘political’ call, differences narrow

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Sep 05, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

Front Page

Front Page

As NSG members take ‘political’ call, differences narrow

Siddharth Varadarajan

Vienna: When they went in for the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting here on Thursday morning, the belief of diplomats from the states opposed to the text of the new India draft waiver was that this time around too the meeting would prove inconclusive and that India will have to make further compromises if it hopes to win approval for the proposed exemption.

But initial accounts from the first day’s discussions suggest a weakening of the hand of the six nations — Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland — most firmly opposed to granting India a clean and unconditional waiver from the NSG’s export rules. “It certainly seems like nobody really wants to be seen as blocking the consensus this time,” one diplomat told The Hindu. According to a Reuters report quoting diplomats, Japan and Canada have detached themselves from the Group of Six and are now in favour of the emerging consensus.

“At the end of the day, I think the logic that is prevailing here is what your foreign secretary, Mr. [Shiv Shankar] Menon told us here last month, that NSG members had to take a political call because the proposal was really about what kind of relationship they wished to have with India,” a European diplomat told The Hindu. Every one of the NSG members wanted India to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and give up nuclear weapons, he said. “But we also know that is not going to happen. So what we are trying to do is to square this very difficult circle. And we are getting there.”

In the run up to Thursday’s session, the release of the U.S. State Department letter containing a strong elaboration of the Bush administration’s approach to nuclear cooperation with India handed fresh ammunition to the waiver’s critics. “I think it is fair to say we will be quoting from bits of the letter,” one diplomat told The Hindu before the meeting. “When Washington is clear about its own benchmarks for [nuclear] trade with India, why should the NSG be asked to settle for something less?” said a diplomat from another country.

Asked whether the leaked State Department letter — with its unambiguous language on the termination of both nuclear cooperation and all fuel supply assurances in the event of an Indian nuclear test — might serve to allay fears in the NSG that Washington was being too “soft” on India, one diplomat said the letter was indeed reassuring. “I think the assurances contained in the State Department’s response are very positive,” he said. “But our concern is that they apply only to the United States. What we would like is for Russia and France to be also held to the same assurances and understandings.”

The bottom line for that diplomat’s country, and others with which it is consulting, he said, is that “we have to tie [the exemption] to the moratorium — that’s the minimum.” “If that’s not there, I can’t see us making headway,” said another diplomat.

However, these arguments failed to generate the sort of critical chorus that was on display last month within the NSG plenary. Diplomats from countries broadly supportive of India’s position say they will press for adoption of the waiver the way it stands, or at best with minor changes. “Everyone knows what India cannot accept so it is pointless to try and reach a consensus that India cannot support,” said a diplomat from a former Soviet Bloc state.

“But the main battle has to be waged by your principal partner, the U.S.”

The new draft adds more explicit language on consultations, including a reference to “acting in accordance with Paragraph 16 of the NSG guidelines” if one or more members “consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations.”

But critics within the NSG are not satisfied. “Proposing more consultations is not enough. Because of the requirement of consensus, there is every likelihood of lack of action in the event of [a test by India] happening,” said one diplomat. “So we feel the waiver should clarify that there will be disincentives for India to testing. The consequences should be clear and upfront.”

‘Compromise’ formula

The critics are also not very pleased with the ‘compromise’ formula in which their concerns will be reflected in a chairman’s statement. “There was a version of a chairman’s statement that was circulating when it was pulled at the request of the Government of India,” one diplomat said. “But from our point of view, this is not a runner. We want an unambiguous, clear waiver in one text.”

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

Front Page