WORLD> Asia-Pacific
IAEA meets to consider Indian nuclear agreement
(Agencies)
Updated: 2008-08-01 16:24

VIENNA, Austria -- Nations setting policy for the International Atomic Energy Agency are considering an inspections agreement that is crucial to finalizing a landmark nuclear deal between India and the United States.

Related readings:
 Bush pushes US-India nuclear deal
 Sarkozy backs US-India nuclear deal
 IAEA visits India amid nuclear deal worries
 US and India settle negotiations on nuclear deal

The Washington-New Delhi pact, which the policy-setting nations for the IAEA are set to discuss at a meeting Friday, would reverse more than three decades of US policy by allowing the sale of atomic fuel and technology to India, which has not signed international nonproliferation accords and has tested nuclear weapons.

To seal the deal, India must strike separate agreements with the IAEA, as well as with the Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries that export nuclear material. Then, the US Congress must give its go-ahead.

The 35-nation IAEA board of governors is expected to approve the so-called safeguards agreement. The pact would give UN monitors access to 14 of the nation's nuclear reactors by 2014, despite criticism it could limit international oversight because of ambiguous wording and could help supply its arms programs with fissile material.

Some diplomats signaled Friday's session may not be all smooth sailing, while others suggested the US and India have lobbied exhaustively to quell detractors.

Pakistan, India's neighboring arch rival, has been especially vocal. Still, some diplomats seemed confident it won't stand in the way of unanimous approval.

The chief US envoy to the IAEA said IAEA monitoring of the Indian facilities was a "net gain" for global nonproliferation.

"The agreement is a sound one, based on the IAEA's approved safeguards system," Gregory L. Schulte said.

But Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, claims it raises fundamental questions and needs clarification.