The US apart, did you come under pressure from Russia and China on the entry-into-force clause (EIF)?
It's not fair to say the US is pressuring us. It has said that while it regrets our position, it respects it. The Americans are realists, they know what's what, at least in Geneva. China and Russia were, in fact, adamant. The US was willing and keen to tie the five nuclear powers, but China and Russia said no. Even the UK had come around. It was clear during the negotiations who was adamant about the clause. We aren't talking N-disarmament.
What if it goes to the UN General Assembly (UNGA)?
In the UNGA you vote. If it goes there we'll vote against it. We held it up here because it names us after we said we won't sign.
What was the mood like in the meetings? Did anyone say you were a spoiler?
Well, some people tried saying only one country was not agreeing to the text. But three years ago, it was only one country, the US, which held up the expansion of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) on the issue of Iraq's admission. Twenty-three countries had to wait three years until a mutually acceptable formula was found. CD is a very clubby thing.
After India, is there a possibility of China and Russia backing out?
No. But China made a very interesting statement—that "despite what the text states, China retains the right to interpret the issue of national technical means in its own way." To which the US, the UK and France said the text stands on its own. The statement came the day I blocked the treaty. All the attention went on my blocking, but it was a very important statement.
A US official, John Holum, has said India will have to pay a price...
This you will have to ask Delhi. But you must remember, because we aren't an NPT member, we've been for the last 28 years under sanctions. We have sanctions at the moment against us. We aren't allowed access to any nuclear material, technology or equipment. Even for our power reactors.
But we are getting some nuclear material from China?
China is not a part of this group.
The nuclear suppliers' group?
Well, that applies to all countries, but
there is the Zanger committee, which only deals with non-NPT countries. So for 28 years, we have done quite well. Our technology in fact developed because of that.
Can the impasse be broken now?
Nobody has approached me. But if they change the EIF, then I will not block it.
There's a feeling here that India
won't sign even if the EIF is changed.
Sign I won't. They're two different issues. We wouldn't have blocked it on August 14 if they had changed the EIF.
And India's isolation?
Do we have so little self-confidence? It's our security. Who's going to protect our 900 million people? There must be a little more self-esteem. That apart, you do have in substance developing countries picking up and supporting our points. Nobody—I don't know of a single developing country we've spoken to—says they support the treaty. They've said 'we don't oppose it'. That doesn't mean they support it. Except South Africa, a member of the Zanger committee and the nuclear suppliers group, and Chile.
Wouldn't approaching the UNGA directly damage the CD?
How can it damage the CD? What damages the CD more is the adoption of a treaty with a clause against international law. Or does the fact that there's no consensus damage it? Three years ago there was no consensus on expanding the CD. Now did that damage the CD? In the CD, for long periods, there was very little happening. We're supposed to be a conference on disarmament. If we don't discuss disarmament, what are we going to do?
