Date:31/08/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/08/31/stories/2008083159770800.htm

Front Page

Narayanan says India nearer NSG goal

Says no to periodic review, ENR ban and mention of testing

The following are edited excerpts from the interview of National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan by Karan Thapar for the Devil’s Advocate programme of CNN-IBN to be broadcast on Sunday:

CNN-IBN: As you prepare for the second meeting of the NSG on September 4, are you confident you can get a clean exemption from the NSG?

M.K. Narayanan: We have gone through these efforts many times. There are periods when you are highly elated [and then] sometimes you feel rather despondent. In the first round, I think many of the concerns were suitably dealt with, some still remain. I think our problem with the NSG is primarily that we are not members of the NSG and therefore, we have to depend entirely on other countries to put forward our case. But I must say that countries like the United States, Russia, France, the U.K. and number of others have done Herculean efforts and I think we are nearing the goal.

Q: Are you anticipating a very comprehensive [review], or are you hoping for cosmetic changes [to the draft]?

A: We have already flagged our concerns. I think most countries recognised the validity of our concerns.

Q: Are you saying you will accept only cosmetic changes rather than anything more substantial?

A: There is no question of cosmetic or otherwise. There are certain issues that have been drawn in red lines by us because those are the commitments made by our Prime Minister.

Q: And on those red lines you can’t give way?

A: We can’t, because we have told Parliament. These are sacrosanct, if these are not met we cannot endorse the agreement.

Q: Some NSG countries are talking about a condition that the exemption will terminate if India were to carry out further nuclear testing. Is there any way it could be reflected in the new exemption or would it be a deal breaker in any shape or form for India?

A: I think you should give credit to creative diplomacy in these matters. I presume we will find a way out.

Q: Could you accept the language used in the 123 agreement if it were to be used in this new NSG draft. In the 123, there is no actual mention of the specific word ‘nuclear testing.’

A: We have always made this point that testing is a word that we find difficult to adjust with. Not because of anything else but because Parliament has mandated us to do so. Testing would be difficult for us. So, we will find ways around it.

Q: Second condition mentioned by NSG countries is that the exemption should exclude Enrichment and Reprocessing (ENR) technologies. Can you live with that exclusion or would that be a deal breaker?

A: The U.S. has certain conditions about allowing ENR technologies to countries but the NSG does not have a ban. There is a broad ban which the NSG has on many items with India which includes any kind of nuclear commerce and related matters. What we are saying is that if you are giving us exemption on those items please, give us exemption.

Q: Don’t introduce a specific ban for India in this exemption?

A: Definitely, we don’t want ourselves to be singled out for this.

What we have made clear — if any country does not wish to give us ENR technologies and still wishes to have nuclear commerce, we’ll draw our guidelines according to that. We don’t want each country’s individual predilections forming a huge package of items in the NSG exemptions.

Q: There’s also a demand for periodic review of India’s compliance. Is that acceptable to you in any shape or form?

A: No, we believe this is uncalled for. We don’t understand what is the need of a review. This is a civil nuclear cooperation agreement, it involves commerce, it involves people investing money, countries investing money, it is a long-term agreement. They are putting money for 30-40 years, so if you have a review at the end of three years and somebody says ‘oh, well this shouldn’t be done’ then nobody is going to invest in this agreement.

Q: If the NSG were to grant you a clean exemption but the NSG chairman were to make a statement with a prescriptive list of suggestions, could India live with that?

A: I presume it is the Chairman’s prerogative to [say] what he likes but as long as they are not laid down as conditions. We have talked in terms of a clean exemption, an unconditional exemption. We have not said there should be no whisper about what anybody wishes to say. We recognise that countries have problems. If the Chairman is making a statement which reflects, to some extent, some of those points, may be. But as long as it does not inhibit us from what we believe is a clean and unconditional exemption.