While India says it’s committed to a unilateral moratorium on testing and is unlikely to violate IAEA commitments, sources said this “right to return” clause will need explanation. For this could allow US to reclaim a range of equipment, fuel and whatever has been produced from it in case it decides to terminate cooperation for some reason or the other.

It’s in this context that the issue of testing has become important. Sources clarified that there is no question of making a voluntary moratorium binding on India through this agreement, as has been interpreted by some quarters. The issue is to deal with the implications that would automatically get triggered in case India were to test a device. While these are issues that need to be resolved through negotiations, Washington is said to have been “disappointed” with the first Indian draft of the agreement. Clearly, the Department of Atomic Energy broadened the area of divergences through this draft that was passed on to the US when Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon went there last month.

Thereafter, Menon and US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, who is the principal US negotiator on the n-deal, have been carrying out regular consultations over the phone. With the US not too excited by India’s first draft, these conversations were important in laying the grounds for formal negotiations. Both sides are keen that the March 26 talks take matters forward and not end up in a stalemate.

POINT-COUNTERPOINT

1. US: Guarantee that safeguards will apply on all equipment, n-material and supplies from US.

... contd.