In an interview with IPS, the head of the Indian delegation, Dilip Lahiri, said that while claiming to be ''champions of the ICC and extolling the virtues of non-proliferation and nuclear abstinence'', the member states of the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) had no problem whatsoever in seeking ''shelter under a nuclear umbrella''.

Three of the NATO members - the U.S., Great Britain and France - are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and together with China and Russia have been in possession of nuclear weapons for the last 50 years or so.

Others like Belgium, Canada, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain do not have any atomic weapons of their own, but enjoy the protection of the NATO nuclear arsenal.

Many delegations, including the Non-Aligned Movement, favour the inclusion of nuclear weapons in a list of weapons, among them biological and chemical weapons, that are "inherently indiscriminate" in the Statute. But many also concede now that it is likely to be left out, not least because of opposition from the big powers that are also nuclear states.

Many European countries in the group of like minded group of nations had supported the nuclear arms provision, but the US and NATO are adamantly against it. American officials say the ICC conference is a "negotiating", not a "lawmaking", meeting. Likewise, critics have described efforts to declare illegal the use of nuclear weapons as trying to get a ban through the back door. The latest Bureau paper has a provision allowing the addition of the banning of other weapons systems, but discussion on that is still ongoing.

Without naming any countries, Lahiri said there was no convention yet to ban the use of nuclear weapons ''only because those who until recently had a monopoly on these weapons have refused to negotiate one''. Lahiri is additional secretary at India's external affairs ministry.

India and Pakistan carried out nuclear tests in May, hoping to gatecrash into the exclusive club - an expectation which has not yet been fulfilled, because the five are refusing to treat them at par. ''There is no international law or treaty which entitles the five to accept India (and Pakistan) as nuclear power states,'' explained S. Pal, a senior member of the Indian delegation, in an interview with TerraViva. ''The fact is that we are a nuclear power state and they have to accept it,'' said Pal, who is India's deputy permanent representative at the U.N. Lahiri told the Committee of the Whole Monday that India would not accept a ''shameful compromise'' that was tabled in a draft proposal on the jurisdiction and admissibility of the ICC. The International Court of Justice in the Hague had, in its advisory opinion, ''confirmed that the use of nuclear weapons would be a contravention of international humanitarian law'', argued Lahiri.

But Indian support for the inclusion of nuclear weapons in the list of arms whose use constitute a war crime - given atomic tests it carried out in May - was characterised as ''doublespeak'' by some delegates in brief reactions.

Some critics called it "hypocritical". In response however, Lahiri said India's statute as a nuclear weapons state precisely lends it greater credibility in the nuclear ban proposal. He said he hoped it would not be ignored in order ''to ensure the widest possible acceptance of the Statute''. On moves to have the draft ICC Statute put to vote given the slow pace of negotiations, Lahiri said such a procedure would not violate any rules of the game but would nevertheless be ''divisive'': The more one could achieve agreements by consensus on such an important issue as the ICC, the better for its effectivity. However, no ''shameful compromises'' should be striven for, Lahiri added.

A decision whether the draft would be put to vote or accepted on the basis of a consensus was not expected to be taken before Wednesday, he said. Ramesh Jaura/IPS