And in doing so, for the first time, the an international body, in this case the UN nuclear watchdog, has acknowledged India’s nuclear weapons programme. For the Indo-US nuclear deal, the bigger hurdle is up next — the Nuclear Suppliers Group which is likely to meet here on August 21.

With IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei making a strong case for the India-specific safeguards agreement and Pakistan deciding against pressing for a vote, the coast was clear for New Delhi. Moreover, there was full endorsement from countries like UK, France, Finland, Russia, Germany, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, Canada, Algeria and Chile. Other countries like Ghana, Ecuador, Thailand, Morocco and Bolivia also supported the deal.

However, despite all the hectic diplomacy in recent days, the surprise came from Iran. Even though it is not a board member, Tehran took special permission to speak and expressed “serious concern” at what it called US “double standards” and said that the agreement was only a “precedent” for legitimizing Israel’s “clandestine nuclear programme”.

Two other non-board members, Malaysia and Egypt, also took special permission to put on record their reservations.

“There is serious concern that the US has taken this step with an intention to create precedence and pave the way for Israel to continue its clandestine weapon activities...Bearing in mind the disappointing status vis-à-vis parties to the NPT...Iran expects member states, while considering the safeguards agreement of India to consider the above mentioned concerns,” said Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran’s Ambassador to IAEA.

Similarly, China hoped that today’s decision would be “conducive” to realizing non-proliferation objectives and called for a “non-discriminatory” approach as this would now become a precedent for other countries outside the NPT. This was later emphasized by Pakistan, which demanded this agreement be now considered as a “new standard” for non-NPT states (read Pakistan).

Reading out from an earlier resolution of its National Command Authority, Pakistan stated that the nuclear deal would adversely impact the strategic balance in South Asia. It may be noted that Pakistan chose to speak after the agreement had been adopted, therefore forgoing any chance to push for a vote.

The nuclear deal now moves on to the 45-member NSG, which is going to be a major diplomatic challenge for both New Delhi and Washington. Going by some serious doubts raised by NSG countries in the IAEA Board today, the next three weeks will require an even stronger diplomatic push from both countries.

Apart from China, which did not quite show a distinct change of heart today, countries like Austria, Switzerland, Ireland and Norway voiced serious concerns over the impact this would have on the NPT regime.

Ireland went to extent of saying that if the safeguards agreement had been put to vote today, it would have abstained. However, South Korea, an NSG member spoke with special permission and supported inclusion of India into the nuclear mainstream.

Consider these:

• Switzerland: “For principle, we are not satisfied with the proposal put to us today. This is not standard text...Acceptance will take us down the way of exceptions and this would put beyond our grasp the goal of global non-proliferation...If adopted, we will have to note that the non-proliferation treaty that we all know will seem to have come to its end, and we will have to think of its successor.”

• Austria (speaking for itself and the Netherlands and Norway): “We regret that (nuclear) facilities are not listed in the annexure...This is a shell not an agreement...we ultimately put our trust in the recommendation of the DG, but are clear that any questions of operation can be discussed at any time in the board...this by no way means we are also giving endorsement under NSG.”

• Ireland: “This decision is one of a series in the US-India (nuclear ) agreement. Ireland will be engaged with the NSG with a view to maintain the views of the non-proliferation regime. The established practice here is to take consensus...if there would have been a vote, we would have abstained.”

• New Zealand (non-Board member): “We would like greater clarity. As a member of the NSG, we will continue to pay close attention.”

Despite these reservations and doubts, ElBaradei in his summing up statement made it clear that the agreement was in the interest of non-proliferation. “I have been saying for many years that if you really want a universal non-proliferation regime, you cannot achieve that when one-fifth of world population is excluded. That is common sense...India is not coming as a non-nuclear weapon state but they are taking a step in the right direction...As Director General, the agreement is solid and there is no exception to basic rules.”

Reading Vienna, looking NSG

The debate, which saw over 30 countries speaking for over 5 hrs, had pointers to how the Nuclear Suppliers Group will look at the deal. While none of the 19 NSG countries that spoke was against granting an exemption, the degree of opposition could boil down to an insistence for attaching more conditions.

NSG countries saying yes

• US, UK, France, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Japan, Australia, Canada, Germany, Finland and South Korea. Their refrain: Good for nonproliferation

• Japan did refer to the need for India to sign NPT and CTBT. At the G8, it had backed the deal.

NSG countries saying no

• Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Norway, China, New Zealand and Ireland: Undermines NPT, should sign CTBT, one-off exception for India not justified

Non-NSG countries who stood up to say no

Iran: Double standards, will help Israel

Pakistan: We need one too, creates strategic imbalance in region

Egypt and Malaysia: Preferential treatment, unfair to non n-weapon states who signed NPT