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 »
AT LEAST NOT YET
Paul Ryan Can’t Get Behind Trump
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Preet Bharara Learned at the Foot of Chuck Schumer
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."

Source:
DRUG OFFENDERS
Obama Commutes the Sentences of 58 Prisoners
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.

STAFF PICKS
Trump Roadmapped His Candidacy in 2000
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"

Source:
‘NO MORAL OR ETHICAL GROUNDING’
Sen. Murphy: Trump Shouldn’t Get Classified Briefigs
8 hours ago
THE LATEST
×