The entire tenor of INFCIRC/153 is solicitous. Clause 8, dealing with “Provision of information to the Agency,” states, “The Agency shall require only the minimum amount of information and data consistent with carrying out its responsibilities under the Agreement. Information pertaining to facilities shall be the minimum necessary for safeguarding nuclear material subject to safeguards under the Agreement. In examining design information, the Agency shall, at the request of the State, be prepared to examine on premises of the State design information which the State regards as being of particular sensitivity. Such information would not have to be physically transmitted to the Agency provided that it remained available for ready further examination by the Agency on the premises of the State.”

Similarly, Clause 9 binds the Agency to secure the consent of the State for the inspectors designated to inspect facilities: “The visits and activities of Agency inspectors shall be so arranged as to reduce to a minimum the inconvenience and disturbance to the State and to the peaceful nuclear activities inspected as well as to ensure protection of industrial secrets or other confidential information coming to the inspectors’ knowledge.”

A single example will show up the contrast. Regarding mining and processing activities, Clause 33 provides, “The Agreement should provide that safeguards shall not apply thereunder to material in mining or ore processing activities.” Contrast this with what Section 4(o)(2)(B) of the House Bill requires the US President to ascertain from India, and report to the US Congress:

... contd.