NEW DELHI, MAY 5: In a severe embarrassment, ironically for both the UPA government and its Left allies — although for quite the opposite reasons — the Non-Aligned Movement countries which are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty have called for “complete prohibition” of any kind of nuclear cooperation with countries that have not acceded to the NPT. Iran, too, has jumped in, making this part of a formal proposal and calling all NPT members for an endorsement.

At the ongoing meeting of the preparatory committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference in Geneva, Indonesia, making a statement last week on behalf of NAM countries that have signed the NPT, stated: “Without exception, there should also be a complete prohibition of the transfer of all nuclear-related equipment, information, material and facilities, resources or devices and the extension of assistance in the nuclear, scientific and technological fields to states, which are not parties to the NPT.”

Going beyond this, the statement reads: “The recent developments, in particular the nuclear cooperation agreement signed by a NWS (Nuclear Weapon State) with a non-party to the NPT is a matter of great concern.”

Taking this forward, Iran today included “prevention of transfer of any nuclear material, equipment, information, knowledge and technology to and cooperation with non-parties to the NPT” as one of the key points of its seven-point strategy proposal to combat proliferation. Iran wants this to be taken up at the NPT Review Conference.

While some official quarters here claim that all this could be a reference to Israel given the historical position of the countries from the Middle-East in the NAM that have spoken against alleged US-Israel nuclear cooperation, the sense of disquiet is clear.

In fact, NAM has so long desisted from using such language in forums where India too is participating and would have to be consulted before framing a common position.

This being an NPT meeting, India and Pakistan — the two NAM countries that have not signed the NPT — were not there. Among individual countries, Egypt strongly objected to nuclear cooperation between NPT countries and non-NPT members “regardless of the motives declared and the intentions stated” while Iran associated itself to the statement by Indonesia on behalf of NAM, saying that it “fully supports the positions reflected therein”.

Ironically, while the Left has always asked the UPA government to develop a position closer to that of the NAM on pressing nuclear disarmament issues as a mark of independent foreign policy, NAM members have called for upholding the NPT and tightening the screws on countries like India by not showing any exception to the NPT regime.

What is worrying officials here is the growing confidence with which other countries are beginning to make statements that negatively impact the nuclear deal that has been held up for domestic political reasons.

For the past three years since the deal was agreed to, sources said, developing countries have been cautious not to annoy either India or US through any remotely negative statement despite grudging opposition among many of them.

But the first indication that the problem in domestic politics was derailing the momentum built internationally came when Egypt, a key member of the NAM, came out strongly against the exception being made for India at this year’s session of the UN Disarmament Commission last month.

“Among serious challenges which threaten to do away with the principles and objectives of the NPT, is the danger of working to amend the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group in order to enable cooperation in the nuclear area with states not party to the NPT. This categorically contradicts to the letter and spirit of the NPT.”

This clear reference to the Indo-US nuclear deal was treated with some surprise in New Delhi as Cairo had gone on to state: “Such a development will forever eliminate the opportunity to destroy nuclear weapons developed outside the NPT regime — the result will be loss of credibility of the NPT and the collapse of the global non-proliferation and disarmament regime for which the treaty represents the cornerstone.”

It may be noted that the nuclear deal would allow India access to civilian nuclear commerce while still allowing it to retain its strategic weapons programme. For this, special arrangements like an India-specific Safeguards Agreement with IAEA and an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group are in the works.

But given that the international opposition to the deal is incrementally coming out in the open, crossing each stage is going to be more difficult as many of these countries are in the IAEA Board and the NSG. All this, notwithstanding tough domestic opposition which has already upset the timeframe.