NATIONAL SECURITY

Obama Team Reveals Nuclear Trade, Nonproliferation Decision on Capitol Hill

Jan. 11, 2012, 9:28 a.m.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion told key law­makers by let­ter on Tues­day how it in­tends to pur­sue up­com­ing nuc­le­ar trade agree­ments with one or more part­ner states, and the de­cision was be­lieved to shed light on wheth­er such pacts would con­tain spe­cif­ic con­di­tions aimed at dis­cour­aging the spread of nuc­le­ar weapons, Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire has learned (see GSN, Ju­ly 28, 2011).

Two seni­or Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials wanted to brief key law­makers in per­son or by phone this week, but lo­gist­ics proved im­possible and a writ­ten no­ti­fic­a­tion was sent in­stead, ac­cord­ing to sources.

De­tails were shrouded in secrecy even after the let­ters were sent to the chairs and rank­ing mem­bers of the House For­eign Af­fairs and Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions com­mit­tees, but the out­lines of a policy de­term­in­a­tion ap­peared to be emer­ging, sources and ex­perts said. 

Deputy En­ergy Sec­ret­ary Daniel Pone­man and Un­der­sec­ret­ary of State for Arms Con­trol and In­ter­na­tion­al Se­cur­ity El­len Tauscher were widely be­lieved ready to un­veil an ap­proach in which se­lec­ted non­pro­lif­er­a­tion prom­ises are sought on a case-by-case basis in forth­com­ing nuc­le­ar trade agree­ments. 

There was a chance that na­tions in the Middle East could be deemed eli­gible only for U.S. nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion pacts with strict weapons-pre­ven­tion terms, in­formed sources said. However, it re­mained un­clear this week wheth­er the volat­ile re­gion would be singled out for a dif­fer­ent policy ap­proach. 

Nuc­le­ar trade agree­ments al­low for U.S. com­pan­ies to build re­act­ors over­seas or provide sens­it­ive tech­no­lo­gies, nuc­le­ar ma­ter­i­als or know-how to re­cip­i­ent na­tions.

The En­ergy and State de­part­ments would neither con­firm the emer­ging policy de­cision nor re­spond to a re­port­er’s re­lated ques­tions by press time.

Of­fi­cials and is­sue ex­perts, though, noted that fa­cets of the ad­min­is­tra­tion ap­proach have ap­peared to sur­face on oc­ca­sion for more than a year.

“I think the ad­min­is­tra­tion will pay lip ser­vice to the idea of [a nuc­le­ar trade part­ner] for­go­ing en­rich­ment and re­pro­cessing, but I would be very sur­prised if they made re­nun­ci­ation a hard con­di­tion of any agree­ment,” said nuc­le­ar ex­pert Jef­frey Lewis.

If the emer­ging policy in­cludes a tough­er non­pro­lif­er­a­tion stance for the Middle East, it comes amid grow­ing in­ter­na­tion­al ten­sions over sus­pi­cions that Ir­an is secretly de­vel­op­ing a nuc­le­ar-weapon ca­pa­city (see GSN, Jan. 10). 

There are also ser­i­ous con­cerns about the pos­sib­il­ity that the en­tire re­gion could be on the verge of a race to de­vel­op nuc­le­ar weapons.

A mem­ber of Saudi Ar­a­bia’s rul­ing fam­ily re­cently sug­ges­ted the king­dom was in­ter­ested in build­ing or ac­quir­ing atom­ic arms to counter Ir­an and Is­rael, a no­tion that has ser­i­ously rattled many in Wash­ing­ton of­fi­cial­dom (see GSN, Dec. 5, 2011).

Oth­er Middle East­ern coun­tries have pur­sued nuc­le­ar en­ergy without overtly hint­ing in­terest in a mil­it­ary cap­ab­il­ity, though the po­ten­tial for sur­prises re­mains. The United States and Jordan are said to be close to an agree­ment in which Wash­ing­ton would give Am­man ac­cess to nuc­le­ar tech­no­lo­gies, ma­ter­i­als, and as­sist­ance. Ad­di­tion­ally, the Gulf Co­oper­a­tion Coun­cil — com­prised of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Ar­a­bia, and the United Ar­ab Emir­ates — has ex­pressed in­terest in de­vel­op­ing its nuc­le­ar en­ergy sec­tor un­der in­ter­na­tion­al guidelines.

Ever since Wash­ing­ton ini­tially inked a civil nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion pact with the United Ar­ab Emir­ates to­ward the end of George W. Bush’s ad­min­is­tra­tion, con­tro­versy has been mount­ing over what trade policy the na­tion should ad­opt. When Obama took of­fice in 2009, his State De­part­ment rene­go­ti­ated the UAE agree­ment, in­clud­ing in the doc­u­ment what had been un­til then the Middle East na­tion’s in­form­al pledge not to en­rich urani­um or re­pro­cess plutoni­um on its soil. 

En­rich­ment or re­pro­cessing activ­it­ies are use­ful in pro­du­cing re­act­or fuel for peace­ful pur­poses — such as en­ergy gen­er­a­tion, med­ic­al ap­plic­a­tions, and re­search — but also could open the door to a clandes­tine di­ver­sion of fis­sile ma­ter­i­al to­ward the de­vel­op­ment of nuc­le­ar weapons. Ir­an is widely ac­cused of launch­ing an il­li­cit nuc­le­ar arms pro­gram in this way, though Tehran in­sists that its atom­ic activ­it­ies re­main en­tirely peace­ful.

Shortly after the UAE deal was struck, the Emir­ates’ re­nun­ci­ation of a so-called ENR ca­pa­city be­came known as the “gold stand­ard” for nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion agree­ments. Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion ad­voc­ates called on the Obama team to seek ad­di­tion­al such pledges else­where around the world as part of the pres­id­ent’s com­mit­ment to lead glob­al ef­forts to stop the spread of atom­ic arms.

Ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials have said, though, that what was ap­pro­pri­ate for the United Ar­ab Emir­ates is not ne­ces­sar­ily use­ful in ne­go­ti­ations around the world.

Even though the Obama team min­ted the term “gold stand­ard,” its of­fi­cials “seemed very skep­tic­al” about ap­ply­ing it else­where “be­cause they be­lieved that the UAE un­der­tak­ing was vol­un­tary, and they had very few hopes of con­vin­cing oth­er states to agree to sim­il­ar re­stric­tions,” Lewis, who dir­ects the James Mar­tin Cen­ter for Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Stud­ies’ East Asia pro­gram, said in a tele­phone in­ter­view.

Seni­or lead­ers have in­stead counseled that a case-by-case ap­proach might al­low Wash­ing­ton to more ef­fect­ively cham­pi­on U.S. nuc­le­ar in­dustry in­terests abroad and ex­ert in­flu­ence on for­eign na­tions’ non­pro­lif­er­a­tion policies. 

“The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion is en­gaged in on­go­ing dis­cus­sions, in­clud­ing with friends and al­lies, in sup­port of the pres­id­ent’s com­mit­ment to build a new frame­work for civil nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion so that coun­tries can ac­cess peace­ful power without in­creas­ing the risks of pro­lif­er­a­tion,” an En­ergy De­part­ment spokes­wo­man said last Janu­ary. “That ef­fort is driv­en by the pres­id­ent’s firm com­mit­ment to re­duce nuc­le­ar risks around the world.”

The toughest non­pro­lif­er­a­tion pro­vi­sions might ap­pear in some, but pos­sibly not all, of Wash­ing­ton’s civil nuc­le­ar co­oper­a­tion agree­ments, which are gov­erned by Sec­tion 123 of the Atom­ic En­ergy Act, a seni­or White House of­fi­cial said in Novem­ber 2010.

“We will ap­ply the gold stand­ard,” Gary Sam­ore, the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Coun­cil co­ordin­at­or for arms con­trol and non­pro­lif­er­a­tion, said at a Wash­ing­ton event at the time. “The only ques­tion is wheth­er you try to do that across the board, on a uni­ver­sal basis — and we know that that’s go­ing to run in­to some very ser­i­ous dif­fi­culties in the case of some ‘123’ agree­ments — or wheth­er we’re go­ing to be more se­lect­ive about it.”

Sam­ore said it was “not as though we’re giv­ing up on the gold stand­ard,” but “the only ques­tion is how do you ap­ply it, how broadly do you seek to ap­ply it” (see GSN, Nov. 19, 2010).

De­bate over the mat­ter flared dur­ing the sum­mer of 2010. The for­eign af­fairs com­mit­tee chairs and rank­ing mem­bers learned then from an ad­min­is­tra­tion brief­ing that Jordan and Vi­et­nam were un­likely to ac­cept a no-ENR pledge and that bi­lat­er­al pacts would non­ethe­less pro­ceed without these non­pro­lif­er­a­tion terms.

“For Jordan and Vi­et­nam and oth­er coun­tries, [the ad­min­is­tra­tion] seemed re­luct­ant to push for a full, UAE-like re­nun­ci­ation of en­rich­ment and re­pro­cessing,” said Lewis, not­ing that Obama na­tion­al se­cur­ity of­fi­cials gen­er­ally have been more in­ter­ested in of­fer­ing com­pre­hens­ive fuel ser­vices for na­tions eager to use peace­ful nuc­le­ar en­ergy.

Oth­er na­tions on the ho­ri­zon for atom­ic pacts with the United States — to in­clude a rene­go­ti­ated agree­ment with South Korea by 2014 and a pos­sible first-ever atom­ic ac­cord with Saudi Ar­a­bia — could prove even more prob­lem­at­ic, ac­cord­ing to is­sue-watch­ers.

“It’s pretty clear that our dip­lo­mats had a hard time selling that kind of con­di­tion to the South Koreans or the Jord­ani­ans — to say noth­ing of the Saudis — and that they would prefer some­how to be let off the hook,” said Henry Sokol­ski, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Policy Edu­ca­tion Cen­ter.

Still, law­makers in both the House and Sen­ate said in 2010 they were alarmed that the ad­min­is­tra­tion was not work­ing harder to bring its nuc­le­ar trade part­ners on­board with the gold stand­ard. 

In the House, For­eign Af­fairs Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Ileana Ros-Le­htin­en, R-Fla., last year teamed with rank­ing mem­ber Howard Ber­man, D-Cal­if., and eight oth­er co­spon­sors to of­fer le­gis­la­tion, H.R. 1280, that would al­low Con­gress to take up-or-down votes on pacts that omit gold-stand­ard pro­vi­sions.

As the Atom­ic En­ergy Act cur­rently stands, a so-called 123 agree­ment must be sub­mit­ted to Con­gress for re­view but can enter in­to force if law­makers take no ac­tion with­in 90 days of con­tinu­ous le­gis­lat­ive ses­sion. The re­form meas­ure, which would ex­tend this looser con­gres­sion­al re­view pro­cess only to pacts that in­clude a no-ENR pledge, passed the House com­mit­tee last April but has not yet gone to a floor vote (see GSN, April 15, 2011).

Mean­while, the White House re­spon­ded to the bi­par­tis­an con­cerns by launch­ing an in­ter­agency re­view of its over­all non­pro­lif­er­a­tion policy for nuc­le­ar trade pacts, which ap­pears to have con­tin­ued through late last year. 

As the in­tern­al policy re­view played out in fall 2010, Pone­man not­ably squared off with then-Deputy Sec­ret­ary of State James Stein­berg over the is­sue (see GSN, Jan. 25, 2011).

Be­fore leav­ing gov­ern­ment ser­vice last Ju­ly, Stein­berg re­portedly ar­gued that ad­voc­at­ing for the gold stand­ard around the globe would help Obama hon­or his 2009 pledge in Prague to pur­sue “an end to the ded­ic­ated pro­duc­tion of weapons-grade ma­ter­i­als.” For his part, Pone­man is said to have held that de­mand­ing a gold-stand­ard prom­ise could po­ten­tially ali­en­ate part­ner na­tions and send their nuc­le­ar busi­ness to in­ter­na­tion­al com­pet­it­ors that im­pose few­er re­stric­tions on sales, such as Rus­sia and France.

Now that the ad­min­is­tra­tion ap­pears to have made a policy de­term­in­a­tion on wheth­er, or in which cases, to seek a no-ENR pledge with its nuc­le­ar trade in­ter­locutors, Pone­man and Tauscher were eager to quickly brief Ros-Le­htin­en and Ber­man on the House side and Sen­ate For­eign Re­la­tions Com­mit­tee Chair­man John Kerry, D-Mass., and rank­ing mem­ber Richard Lugar, R-Ind., ac­cord­ing to Cap­it­ol Hill sources.

“There is this cer­tain pres­sure for a brief­ing on a de­cision that they have made,” one con­gres­sion­al staffer said this week. “If it is about ENR, they made that de­cision long ago so it is un­clear why they need to talk to mem­bers im­me­di­ately.”

This staff aide and oth­ers agreed to con­trib­ute to this art­icle on con­di­tion of not be­ing named be­cause they were not au­thor­ized to ad­dress the is­sue pub­licly.

The ur­gent ad­min­is­tra­tion re­quests ini­tially were for Pone­man and Tauscher to dis­cuss the mat­ter with law­makers in per­son, but Con­gress will not be back in ses­sion un­til later this month.

With mem­bers on travel, it ap­peared earli­er that brief­ings for them might be­gin this week by tele­phone. Even that op­tion proved dif­fi­cult for at least some of the law­makers, though; Ros-Le­htin­en, for one, is sev­er­al time zones away, ac­com­pa­ny­ing House Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Eric Can­tor, R-Va., on a con­gres­sion­al del­eg­a­tion to the Middle East.

Now that the writ­ten no­ti­fic­a­tions were sent, brief­ings for staff and mem­bers might fol­low, though the tim­ing is as yet un­cer­tain, ac­cord­ing to sources.

Lead­ing up to the in­ten­ded brief­ings, Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials de­clined to pre­view the out­come of their policy de­lib­er­a­tions for con­gres­sion­al aides, who as is­sue spe­cial­ists are nor­mally ex­pec­ted to pre­pare law­makers for such meet­ings, sources said.

Out­side nuc­le­ar policy ex­perts sur­mised that Tauscher and Pone­man were hop­ing that law­makers would hear them out be­fore be­ing swayed by con­gres­sion­al staffers, who might be more read­ily armed with doubts about the ad­min­is­tra­tion ap­proach to the long-pending mat­ter.

“Law­makers would ask more in­formed ques­tions with the be­ne­fit of staff pre­par­a­tion,” Lewis said. “Pone­man and Tauscher ought to be more than cap­able of de­fend­ing the policy de­cision to well briefed law­makers. If they can’t handle the scru­tiny, maybe it’s not such a great policy.”

Sokol­ski, speak­ing in a phone in­ter­view, had a sim­il­ar take.

The Obama team’s de­cision not to pre-brief con­gres­sion­al staff “sug­gests that they don’t want the mem­bers to un­der­stand the com­plex­it­ies be­fore they check off on their new policy or that they are not all that proud of the policy they have pro­duced, or both,” he said.

“Whatever they are go­ing to brief the [com­mit­tee] prin­cipals about, I would be as­ton­ished if it didn’t some­how dis­ap­point, with re­gard to de­liv­ery on the kind of con­di­tions that were co­di­fied in the United Ar­ab Emir­ates-U.S. nuc­le­ar co­oper­at­ive agree­ment,” Sokol­ski said.

“If it did, they would be trum­pet­ing it pub­licly,” said the former George H.W. Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion Pentagon policy of­fi­cial, quickly adding that he could not fully eval­u­ate the policy un­til more de­tails be­come known.

The next U.S nuc­le­ar trade agree­ment an­ti­cip­ated for sub­mis­sion to Cap­it­ol Hill could be one with Jordan, which a key Wash­ing­ton dip­lo­mat said last March was “very, very close” to com­ple­tion, “but, to be fair, the Jord­ani­an gov­ern­ment had oth­er is­sues on its mind at the mo­ment.”

The dip­lo­mat, Richard Strat­ford, dir­ects the Nuc­le­ar En­ergy, Safety and Se­cur­ity Of­fice in the State De­part­ment’s In­ter­na­tion­al Se­cur­ity and Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Bur­eau. He ap­peared to be re­fer­ring to Am­man’s un­ease with pro­ceed­ing on a pact with Wash­ing­ton in the midst of the Ar­ab Spring.

Though it is un­clear wheth­er that ac­cord might soon be ready to pro­ceed, Strat­ford hin­ted last year that the near-fi­nal text in­cluded some form of non­pro­lif­er­a­tion pledge.

“One thing I would like to cor­rect is that you see again and again in the press that Jordan, of course, will nev­er do what the United Ar­ab Emir­ates did. Well, I wouldn’t count on that,” he said, speak­ing at a Wash­ing­ton con­fer­ence on non­pro­lif­er­a­tion. “If they are pre­pared to en­gage at some point in the fu­ture, I think we will come to con­clu­sion and I think that the Con­gress will like the res­ult.”

One widely dis­cussed pos­sib­il­ity is that Jordan might agree to set aside a right to en­rich or re­pro­cess for a cer­tain num­ber of years. However, it was un­clear wheth­er such a pledge might ex­pire be­fore the dur­a­tion of Am­man’s ac­cord with Wash­ing­ton was com­plete.

What We're Following See More »
SAYS CANNOT BE HELD IN HOUSE CHAMBER WITH GOVERNMENT CLOSED
Pelosi Won't Back Down on SOTU
10 hours ago
THE LATEST
SAYS HE WAS THREATENED BY TRUMP
Cohen Postpones Testimony
11 hours ago
THE LATEST
INCLUDES KUSHNER
House Democrats Investigating White House Security Clearances
13 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The House Oversight Committee is launching an investigation into the White House security clearance process, an inquiry that promises to put a spotlight on how President Donald Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, overcame concerns to gain access to highly classified information." Others to be investigated are former staffer Seb Gorka, National Security Adviser John Bolton, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, former Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland, and former White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter.

Source:
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE NEXT WEEK
House GOP Cancels Retreat
15 hours ago
THE LATEST
UNLIKELY EITHER BILL WILL PASS
Senate Will Vote on Competing Plans to End Shutdown
15 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"After spending weeks on the sideline, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has entered the shutdown fray, striking an agreement with Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) to vote on competing proposals to reopen the government. The two votes will happen on Thursday...Senators will first have an opportunity to go on the record on President Trump's proposal to extend legal protections for some immigrants for three years in exchange for $5.7 billion for a border wall....If (and when) that bill fails, McConnell will move on to… a 'clean' continuing resolution to reopen the government for three weeks, with no additional border wall money."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login