•Suman Jha: With regard to the Indo-US nuclear deal, what, in your opinion, will happen if India decides to conduct another test?

Mutzelburg: To a large extent, that is an artificial debate. India has declared a unilateral moratorium that it will not test. The difference between a unilateral moratorium and a binding national treaty is that it can be lifted. You can renounce the treaty under certain circumstances. Secondly, if a state thinks that its vital interests call for a nuclear test, then it will go ahead and test — treaty or no treaty. Of course, such testing will cost India a political price. You are duty bound by a unilateral moratorium; if you test the deal is off. There is also the question of what circumstances prompted the test and then one will have to discuss how valid the reasons were. If there is a threat from any country, then it would be a different situation. But there would always be a political reaction to a nuclear test. It is an understood fact that India will not test. So, it is rather an illusory debate.

•Alia Allana: What is your view on Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

Nobody is contesting Iran’s right to a peaceful use of nuclear energy. The problem is that once you know how to use the process of enrichment, you can also produce nuclear weapons. There is reason for a certain mistrust of Iran’s ambitions and therefore, we must insist Iran provide answers to the issues before it and offer enough transparency in order to ascertain that it cannot acquire nuclear weapon capability. We agree with India that there must not be an Iran with nuclear weapons. That would lead to further proliferation.

... contd.