• 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.

... contd.