Royce: White House in ‘Dramatic Retreat’ from Security Norms in Nuclear Trade

Students look at a model of a Russian nuclear power plant at a 2012 international exhibition in Hanoi. Some U.S. House lawmakers on Thursday voiced reservations about a nuclear-trade pact the Obama administration has signed with Vietnam.
National Journal
Elaine M. Grossman
July 10, 2014, 11 a.m.

The chair­man of a key House com­mit­tee on Thursday charged that the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion is gut­ting non­pro­lif­er­a­tion norms in its ne­go­ti­at­ing stance to­ward Ir­an, es­pe­cially in light of its policy ap­proach to­ward ink­ing nuc­le­ar trade agree­ments else­where around the world.

“For an ad­min­is­tra­tion that has held out non­pro­lif­er­a­tion as a sig­na­ture is­sue,” its nuc­le­ar-trade ne­go­ti­at­ing policy “is a dra­mat­ic re­treat from the so-called gold stand­ard, the gold stand­ard policy un­der which coun­tries were pressed to forgo ac­quir­ing “¦ po­ten­tially dan­ger­ous tech­no­lo­gies,” Rep­res­ent­at­ive Ed Royce (R-Cal­if.) said at a com­mit­tee hear­ing.

“In Novem­ber,” he said, “the ad­min­is­tra­tion con­ceded that Ir­an will be al­lowed to re­tain a urani­um en­rich­ment cap­ab­il­ity, a bomb-mak­ing ca­pa­city, in any fi­nal deal. That is the ef­fect­ive melt­ing of the gold stand­ard.”

A State De­part­ment spokes­man coined the term “gold stand­ard” in 2009 to de­scribe a nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion agree­ment the Obama team had just rene­go­ti­ated with the United Ar­ab Emir­ates, form­al­iz­ing the Per­sian Gulf na­tion’s pledge to ab­stain from do­mest­ic­ally pro­du­cing nuc­le­ar fuel.

Ir­an is in the midst of ne­go­ti­at­ing with world powers po­ten­tial con­straints on its nuc­le­ar en­ergy pro­gram — which oth­ers sus­pect could lead to a nuc­le­ar-bomb ca­pa­city — in ex­change for re­lief from in­ter­na­tion­al eco­nom­ic sanc­tions.

Tehran of­fi­cials in­sist they should be able to con­tin­ue some level of urani­um en­rich­ment for civil-en­ergy and re­search needs — a de­mand that the West may yet ac­cept.

But non­pro­lif­er­a­tion ad­voc­ates worry that a con­ces­sion on this point could set a dan­ger­ous pre­ced­ent that may lead to ad­di­tion­al such fuel-mak­ing world­wide and ul­ti­mately a great­er spread of nuc­le­ar arms.

In­flu­en­tial Wash­ing­ton law­makers from both parties have em­braced the idea of du­plic­at­ing a gold-stand­ard prom­ise in fu­ture atom­ic co­oper­a­tion pacts with oth­er coun­tries world­wide, po­ten­tially as a key tool in pre­vent­ing nuc­le­ar-arms pro­lif­er­a­tion.

They ar­gue that the United States should press its pro­spect­ive nuc­le­ar trade part­ners harder to fore­go en­rich­ing urani­um or re­pro­cessing plutoni­um — two civil en­ergy pro­cesses that could feed in­to mak­ing il­li­cit nuc­le­ar bombs — in ex­change for re­ceiv­ing ac­cess to U.S. re­act­or tech­no­lo­gies, sens­it­ive nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­als and know-how.

Fol­low­ing sev­er­al years of in­tern­al re­view on how best to stanch arms pro­lif­er­a­tion while sup­port­ing the U.S. atom­ic in­dustry de­sire to sell re­act­ors and nuc­le­ar-en­ergy ser­vices world­wide, fed­er­al lead­ers an­nounced late last year they would take a “flex­ible” ap­proach to ne­go­ti­at­ing such co­oper­a­tion pacts with for­eign part­ners.

They would de­mand a no-fuel­mak­ing pledge where pos­sible, but in some cases would agree to more per­missive nuc­le­ar ac­cords as a means of ad­van­cing U.S. in­dustry in­terests and pre­serving in­flu­ence in Wash­ing­ton’s bi­lat­er­al re­la­tion­ships, ac­cord­ing to ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials.

Rep­res­ent­at­ives Ileana Ros-Le­htin­en (R-Fla.) and Brad Sher­man (D-Cal­if.) in Decem­ber filed a bill, H.R. 3766, in­ten­ded to strengthen Con­gress’s hand in re­view­ing and ap­prov­ing nuc­le­ar-trade pacts that lack the strongest non­pro­lif­er­a­tion terms. The bill would newly re­quire a pos­it­ive vote from both the House and Sen­ate be­fore Wash­ing­ton could im­ple­ment atom­ic co­oper­a­tion ac­cords in which the gold stand­ard is waived.

The bi­par­tis­an meas­ure is based on sim­il­ar 2011 le­gis­la­tion that un­an­im­ously passed the House For­eign Af­fairs Com­mit­tee, but the nuc­le­ar in­dustry lob­bied against it and the pre­vi­ous bill nev­er went to the House floor for a vote.

It is un­clear wheth­er Royce will ul­ti­mately sup­port the cur­rent Ros-Le­htin­en-Sher­man le­gis­la­tion. Dur­ing the Thursday hear­ing, the com­mit­tee chair­man al­luded to a need to bal­ance what he sees as con­flict­ing U.S. ob­ject­ives in the mat­ter.

“Nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion agree­ments have the dual goals of ad­van­cing the U.S. non­pro­lif­er­a­tion policy and also en­han­cing op­por­tun­it­ies for the U.S. nuc­le­ar in­dustry in for­eign mar­kets,” Royce said. “Both are of great im­port­ance, but there is an un­avoid­able ten­sion between these two.”

Earli­er this year Royce in­tro­duced le­gis­la­tion, co-sponsored by com­mit­tee rank­ing mem­ber Eli­ot En­gel (D-N.Y.), aimed at tight­en­ing sanc­tions against Rus­sia and oth­er na­tions sup­port­ing Ir­an.

Royce asked hear­ing wit­nesses on Thursday to ad­dress the ques­tion of how a con­ces­sion to Ir­an that could al­low for some level of urani­um en­rich­ment might af­fect pro­lif­er­a­tion con­cerns around the globe: “The ad­min­is­tra­tion agreed up front in its ne­go­ti­ations with Ir­an that Ir­an would be able to con­tin­ue to en­rich urani­um. How can this dan­ger­ous tech­no­logy be con­ceded to a state spon­sor of ter­ror­ism?”

Henry Sokol­ski, one of three is­sue ex­perts ap­pear­ing at the House pan­el’s ses­sion, sug­ges­ted that on­go­ing nuc­le­ar-trade talks with oth­er Mideast states and else­where around the world could be af­fected by what is ul­ti­mately agreed to with Ir­an.

“[Do] Saudi Ar­a­bia, South Korea, [or] Ja­pan start re­pro­cessing? What does that do with China? Those things are go­ing to keep you up at night,” said Sokol­ski, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Policy Edu­ca­tion Cen­ter. “If we don’t up the ante and push on the oth­er sup­pli­ers to raise theirs, you know where we’re headed.”

An­oth­er wit­ness, Daniel Lip­man of the nuc­le­ar-en­ergy in­dustry’s lob­by­ing arm, said U.S. atom­ic-en­ergy com­pan­ies don’t ob­ject to in­cor­por­at­ing non­pro­lif­er­a­tion stand­ards in­to nuc­le­ar trade pacts, but feel each ne­go­ti­ation must be ap­proached on a case-by-case basis.

“The in­dustry is not against the gold stand­ard,” said Lip­man, the Nuc­le­ar En­ergy In­sti­tute’s ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or for sup­pli­er pro­grams. “The in­dustry is against uni­ver­sal ap­plic­a­tion of one-size-fits-all policy.”

He ad­ded: “When there is a uni­ver­sal ap­plic­a­tion of a stand­ard, when coun­tries op­er­ate in dif­fer­ent re­gions [and] they have vary­ing areas of ex­pert­ise “¦ in their nuc­le­ar power pro­grams do­mest­ic­ally, a one-size-fits-all policy is just not work­able. And it ex­cludes Amer­ic­an com­pan­ies from provid­ing the tech­no­logy that “¦ would bet­ter serve U.S. in­terests.”

The House hear­ing also touched on a spe­cif­ic U.S. atom­ic-trade agree­ment with Vi­et­nam, which is now pending be­fore Con­gress for re­view. Un­der cur­rent law, this pact and oth­ers like it can simply pro­ceed in­to im­ple­ment­a­tion after 90 days of con­tinu­ous ses­sion, un­less law­makers act to stop them.

Sev­er­al com­mit­tee mem­bers voiced con­cern about the bi­lat­er­al Vi­et­nam agree­ment’s lack of a bind­ing gold stand­ard, even if Hanoi’s “in­tent” not to pro­duce fuel do­mest­ic­ally is con­tained in a non-en­force­able pre­amble. The agree­ment also ef­fect­ively con­tains no end date, a de­par­ture from the usu­al 30-year term that past nuc­le­ar-trade ac­cords have in­cor­por­ated.

Ros-Le­htin­en said she would “strongly op­pose” the Vi­et­nam pact, based on its lack of a bind­ing no-fuel­mak­ing pro­vi­sion and what she called Hanoi’s “abysmal hu­man rights re­cord.”

“We can­not ex­am­ine these agree­ments in a va­cu­um,” she said. “When these 123 agree­ments are pro­posed, we must take in­to ac­count our for­eign policy and na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terests, as well as a coun­try’s hu­man rights re­cord.”

The term “123” refers to the sec­tion of the U.S. Atom­ic En­ergy Act that gov­erns nuc­le­ar-trade pacts.

In re­sponse to a ques­tion from Rep­res­ent­at­ive Ted Poe (R-Texas), all three ex­pert wit­nesses — to in­clude Le­onard Spect­or, who heads the James Mar­tin Cen­ter for Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Stud­ies’ Wash­ing­ton of­fice — agreed that at least a 30-year time lim­it for the Vi­et­nam pact and oth­er such ac­cords makes sense.

Lip­man said the in­dustry has “no quar­rel” with a 30-year lim­it­a­tion rather than auto­mat­ic ex­ten­sions, as the Vi­et­nam pact would in­volve. Both he and Spect­or noted that pre­dict­ab­il­ity is a key is­sue for the U.S. nuc­le­ar in­dustry.

Sokol­ski said giv­ing nuc­le­ar pacts end dates also would help lever­age U.S. in­flu­ence, with spe­cif­ics de­pend­ing on the hu­man rights and se­cur­ity re­cords of the par­tic­u­lar ne­go­ti­at­ing part­ner in­volved.

“If you dis­trust, you need to do more veri­fic­a­tion; there­fore, you want more fre­quent rene­go­ti­ation,” he said. “If you trust, you need less.”

Sher­man sug­ges­ted that the Vi­et­nam pact of­fers an ex­ample of the prob­lems he sees in the level of con­gres­sion­al re­view of nuc­le­ar-trade agree­ments gen­er­ally.

“So-called 123 agree­ments, in­clud­ing the Vi­et­nam agree­ment which is now sit­ting be­fore Con­gress, need to be de­lib­er­ated more than is the cur­rent prac­tice,” said Sher­man, who serves as rank­ing mem­ber of the pan­el’s Ter­ror­ism, Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion and Trade Sub­com­mit­tee. “The cur­rent law puts Con­gress not in the driver’s seat, not as a co-equal branch of gov­ern­ment, not in the back­seat, but in the trunk when it comes to de­cid­ing what our policy will be on nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion agree­ments.”

The cur­rent law — lack­ing a re­quire­ment for an af­firm­at­ive vote of Con­gress — “is an af­front to the doc­trines that un­der­lie the First Art­icle of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion,” Sher­man de­clared. “It is not mean­ing­ful re­view.”

Spect­or noted that ab­sent a change in law re­gard­ing con­gres­sion­al re­view and ap­prov­al au­thor­ity over nuc­le­ar trade pacts, Cap­it­ol Hill could ef­fect­ively put the brakes on im­ple­ment­a­tion of a par­tic­u­lar agree­ment by passing a bill to freeze li­cens­ing of atom­ic ex­ports to a na­tion.

“This was done with China and I think they were on hold for quite a num­ber of years,” he said, not­ing Wash­ing­ton’s ob­jec­tions at the time to Beijing’s mis­sile trans­fers abroad. “It’s not el­eg­ant and it’s not easy to do, but it is a tool that’s avail­able.”

What We're Following See More »
“CLINTON MUST BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT”
Bernie Sanders Seeks to Unite the Party
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Instead of his usual stump speech, Bernie Sanders tonight threw his support behind Hillary Clinton, providing a clear contrast between Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump on the many issues he used to discuss in his campaign stump speeches. Sanders spoke glowingly about the presumptive Democratic nominee, lauding her work as first lady and as a strong advocate for women and the poor. “We need leadership in this country which will improve the lives of working families, the children, the elderly, the sick and the poor,” he said. “Hillary Clinton will make a great president, and I am proud to stand with her tonight."

“MUST NEVER BE PRESIDENT”
Elizabeth Warren Goes After Donald Trump
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In a stark contrast from Michelle Obama's uplifting speech, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke about the rigged system plaguing Americans before launching into a full-throated rebuke of GOP nominee Donald Trump. Trump is "a man who has never sacrificed anything for anyone," she claimed, before saying he "must never be president of the United States." She called him divisive and selfish, and said the American people won't accept his "hate-filled America." In addition to Trump, Warren went after the Republican Party as a whole. "To Republicans in Congress who said no, this November the American people are coming for you," she said.

FLOTUS OFFERS STRONG ENDORSEMENT OF CLINTON
Michelle Obama: “I Trust” Hillary Clinton
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"In this election, and every election, it's about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives," Michelle Obama said. "There is only one person who I trust with that responsibility … and that is our friend Hillary Clinton." In a personal and emotional speech, Michelle Obama spoke about the effect that angry oppositional rhetoric had on her children and how she chose to raise them. "When they go low, we go high," Obama said she told her children about dealing with bullies. Obama stayed mostly positive, but still offered a firm rebuke of Donald Trump, despite never once uttering his name. "The issues a president faces cannot be boiled down to 140 characters," she said.

SANDERS BACKER CONFRONTS STUBBORN SANDERS SUPPORTERS
Sarah Silverman to Bernie or Bust: “You’re Being Ridiculous”
5 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Many Bernie Sanders delegates have spent much of the first day of the Democratic National Convention resisting unity, booing at mentions of Hillary Clinton and often chanting "Bernie! Bernie!" Well, one of the most outspoken Bernie Sanders supporters just told them to take a seat. "To the Bernie-or-bust people: You're being ridiculous," said comedian Sarah Silverman in a brief appearance at the Convention, minutes after saying that she would proudly support Hillary Clinton for president.

‘INEXCUSABLE REMARKS’
DNC Formally Apologizes to Bernie Sanders
10 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Democratic National Committee issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders today, after leaked emails showed staffers trying to sabotage his presidential bid. "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," DNC officials said in the statement. "These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not—and will not—tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates."

Source:
×