NORWEGIAN VIEWS ON THE NSG DRAFT EXCEPTION TEXT

UNCLAS OSLO 000457 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC AORC IN NO SUBJECT: NORWEGIAN VIEWS ON THE NSG DRAFT EXCEPTION TEXT FOR INDIA REF: STATE 85948 ¶1. (SBU) Charge delivered reftel demarche to MFA Political Director Vegard Ellefsen on August 13. While recognizing India's need for non-carbon-based energy, Ellefsen said Norway's concerns are about the impact on the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He stated that Norway is still in the process of determining its final position. When asked directly whether he thought a decision was possible at the August 21-22 meeting, he stated that a single meeting was a short timeframe "for such a controversial deal," and suggested that some nations may balk and wish to have time for consultations with their governments. Ellefsen said that the Indians had not yet been in touch with the GON on this issue, or vice versa, but expected this would happen soon. Ellefsen promised to brief Foreign Minister Stoere on our comments and deep interest in this issue. Charge stressed that the US was anxious to discuss any detailed GON concerns before the NSG meeting. Ellefsen thanked us for the offer, saying his staff would take us up on it. ¶2. (SBU) Knut Langeland, Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs, told poloff separately that Norway's aim was a consensus solution, and many governments would find it very difficult to accept the draft exclusion without revision and without going back to their constituencies. Langeland said that Norway was by no means the country that would have the most problems with the draft as it currently stands. He said the GON sees the wisdom in the Canadian proposal, and wants a review mechanism. He also said that it is essential that the draft be more explicit that NSG guidelines will be adhered to. Furthermore, he believes that if India is to be excluded, the exclusion must make explicit that all cooperation between member states and India be equal, a provision that he said was in USG interest because of Russia's intentions. He also said the agreement would benefit from a more clear distinction between the supply of fuel and the supply of any other nuclear materials, the key being limiting the scope of cooperation. JOHNSON