A senior Bush administration official has indicated that while progress is being made to iron out details of the civilian nuclear agreement between the United States and India lingering issues will "take time to resolve."

Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph, speaking to reporters at the Foreign Press Centre in Washington on Monday, said in terms of the status of the civil nuclear agreement "both governments continue to believe that this is a very important arrangement for the future."

Asked whether a deal would be concluded before President George W. Bush's visit to India next month, Mr. Joseph said: "I don't have "clarity in my crystal ball, but my sense is we're making progress."

"The visit will be very important," the official said, adding, "But these issues take time to resolve. These are complex issues and we'll see where we are when the President visits." Noting that some progress had been made on the deal, Mr. Joseph said "We have made more progress that needs to be made." He said the Bush administration is working with the Manmohan Singh government to make this a "win-win" for both countries.

The U.S. and India have not been able to agree on the number of reactors India will classify as civilian and military. The Bush administration thinks India should list "a great majority of reactors" as civilian facilities for the deal to pass muster with the U.S. Congress.

U.S. Congress' approval is required before laws can be amended to allow the civilian nuclear deal to materialize. India has refused to list its fast breeder reactor programme as a civilian nuclear facility. Reports from New Delhi on Tuesday quoted Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Anil Kakodkar as saying such an exercise "will not be in our strategic interest."

David Mulford, the U.S. ambassador in New Delhi, recently told the Press Trust of India India must put a majority of its nuclear reactors into the civilian programme, otherwise, the U.S. Congress will think India "must have some different agenda."

Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institution in Washington told The Tribune "the deal is in the interests of both sides, and both will have to give up something to make it work … but it will go through."

Mr. Mulford stirred up a storm with his suggestion that the deal would collapse if India did not vote with the U.S. to refer Iran to the United Nations Security Council. India subsequently did vote with the U.S. over Iran's nuclear programme, which the West believes is intended to develop weapons.

Prof. Cohen said while it was very unusual for an ambassador to voice his personal opinion, especially to the Press, political appointees are usually given more leeway.

"When you read the transcript it was clear that he was trying to be a teacher of sorts -pointing out the consequences of certain actions (or inactions), however, he's not a teacher, and really should have not said anything publicly," he said.

However, India is aware that its vote at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna could be interpreted in some quarters as a consequence of pressure from Washington.

Mr. Joseph said India's vote against Iran was one that it made of its own free choice.

"I believe that standing up to Iran is a sign of being in the nonproliferation mainstream and I think the size of the majority that we saw voting on this issue on Saturday is an indication of that," he said.