Nuclear Deal: NSG Stuck on the 'TESTING'
VIENNA: The Nuclear Suppliers Group is beginning to tire under the relentless pressure to take a decision on the N-deal. As the 45-country nuclear cartel sat down this morning to consider the new US draft text for the India waiver, the debate had narrowed down to the infamous ''testing'' clause.
..........
By the close, though diplomats remained tight-lipped, it appeared a deal may have been struck. A possible compromise on Friday could be that concerns of those who objected will be included in a tough-sounding chairman's statement, which will be attached to the waiver.
..........
The new draft is not substantially different from the old one. Last time, consensus broke down on three main points - what happens if India tests another nuclear device, whether India should get enrichment and reprocessing technology and whether India should come under some kind of a review programme.
..........
The first is the hardest and is the subject of heated debate. The new draft says, ''in the event that one or more participating governments consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, participating governments will act according to paragraph 16 of the guidelines''. (Article 16 says if there is a ''violation of supplier/recipient understanding... particularly in the case of an explosion of a nuclear device, or illegal termination or violation of IAEA safeguards by a recipient, suppliers should consult promptly through diplomatic channels... Upon the findings of such consultations, the suppliers, bearing in mind Article XII of the IAEA Statute, should agree on an appropriate response and possible action, which could include the termination of nuclear transfers'').
..........
Many countries feel the language is too weak. When the Austrians were shown the draft, their officials boiled over. "You think we should go house to house to explain that this actually means a nuclear test?'' Certainly, this debate has got a new lease of life after Howard Berman released the State Department letter on Wednesday in Washington.
..........
A number of countries in the 'holdout pen' are asking for similar language from the NSG that the US is asking for bilaterally. The debate continues. A diplomat said, "We're stuck on the testing clause''.
..........
The transfers of ENR are not even mentioned in the waiver. This happened under severe Indian pressure, which said that since ENR was not in the NSG guidelines, it should not show up for India.
..........
The concession by India is on the "review" demand. The new draft asks NSG members to tell each other about their N-dealings with India. The NSG chair will also have to "confer and consult" with India under the rubric of "greater partnership" and discuss any changes in the guidelines with India before execution - this gives India a handle on the future.
..........
By the close, though diplomats remained tight-lipped, it appeared a deal may have been struck. A possible compromise on Friday could be that concerns of those who objected will be included in a tough-sounding chairman's statement, which will be attached to the waiver.
..........
The new draft is not substantially different from the old one. Last time, consensus broke down on three main points - what happens if India tests another nuclear device, whether India should get enrichment and reprocessing technology and whether India should come under some kind of a review programme.
..........
The first is the hardest and is the subject of heated debate. The new draft says, ''in the event that one or more participating governments consider that circumstances have arisen which require consultations, participating governments will act according to paragraph 16 of the guidelines''. (Article 16 says if there is a ''violation of supplier/recipient understanding... particularly in the case of an explosion of a nuclear device, or illegal termination or violation of IAEA safeguards by a recipient, suppliers should consult promptly through diplomatic channels... Upon the findings of such consultations, the suppliers, bearing in mind Article XII of the IAEA Statute, should agree on an appropriate response and possible action, which could include the termination of nuclear transfers'').
..........
Many countries feel the language is too weak. When the Austrians were shown the draft, their officials boiled over. "You think we should go house to house to explain that this actually means a nuclear test?'' Certainly, this debate has got a new lease of life after Howard Berman released the State Department letter on Wednesday in Washington.
..........
A number of countries in the 'holdout pen' are asking for similar language from the NSG that the US is asking for bilaterally. The debate continues. A diplomat said, "We're stuck on the testing clause''.
..........
The transfers of ENR are not even mentioned in the waiver. This happened under severe Indian pressure, which said that since ENR was not in the NSG guidelines, it should not show up for India.
..........
The concession by India is on the "review" demand. The new draft asks NSG members to tell each other about their N-dealings with India. The NSG chair will also have to "confer and consult" with India under the rubric of "greater partnership" and discuss any changes in the guidelines with India before execution - this gives India a handle on the future.
