|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
House Committee Questions U.S. Support for Chinese Membership in Nuclear Export Control Group By Mike Nartker WASHINGTON — U.S. lawmakers expressed concern yesterday over China’s efforts to join a multilateral export control regime that regulates trade in nuclear-related technology, citing Beijing’s planned nuclear assistance to Pakistan (see GSN, May 12). The United States supports China’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation John Wolf said during a House International Relations Committee hearing. “By joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group, China is stepping up to a set of responsibilities that reflect and will incorporate the kind of position that China … aspires to have around the world,” Wolf said. Several lawmakers, though, questioned China’s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, specifically regarding Beijing’s intention to construct a 300-megawatt civilian nuclear reactor in the Pakistani city of Chashma. The facility would be the second nuclear plant that China has built for Pakistan; the first is also at Chashma. “China, in joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group with a contract in hand to provide a new nuclear power reactor to Pakistan is a very serious issue. Is the administration confident that this nuclear assistance to Pakistan does not pose a proliferation threat?” said Representative Tom Lantos (Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, in his opening remarks. NSG members have agreed not to transfer nuclear technology to any country that does not allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor all of its nuclear activities, such as Pakistan. The Chashma reactor contract would be “grandfathered” in and allowed if Beijing became a regime member, Wolf said. “The United States would prefer that no country provide Pakistan the benefits of peaceful nuclear cooperation. But the Chashma 2 plant will be under IAEA safeguards, and the NSG full-scope safeguards provisions have always made allowance for the completion of agreements and contracts entered into before NSG membership,” he said. Lantos also expressed concern that China might seek to further provide nuclear assistance to Pakistan after becoming a regime member by couching such assistance as “follow-on contracts” to the second Chashma plant. Wolf said that the Bush administration has called on China to provide “prompt” information about its commercial support for foreign civilian nuclear programs, including the Chashma reactor. When asked, though, Wolf said he was “unaware” if the Bush administration had requested to examine the Chashma reactor project contract, prompting a heated exchange with Representative Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). “There’s a difference between asking for full information and asking for the contract. If they say they have a contract, that’s a legal document. Any first year, you know, law student in doing due diligence would ask to see the contract,” Ackerman said. “I’m not sure that if a third party asked us to see the contract of a Westinghouse contract with somebody else that Westinghouse would necessarily show that third party the details of the contract,” Wolf replied. The administration itself is concerned about possible information exchanges between Chinese and Pakistani scientists during the construction of the Chashma reactor, according to Wolf. “It will be important that they make sure that no information is passed that shouldn’t pass,” he said. Lawmakers at yesterday’s hearing also discussed China’s record of enforcing its national export control regulations (see GSN, April 15). “It is not enough for the Chinese government to say they share our objectives. They must provide us with foolproof evidence that every Chinese company, whether owned by private entities, the Chinese military, or whatever organization, is fully under control of the central government of China when it comes to the issue of nuclear proliferation,” Lantos said. Wolf acknowledged the administration’s broader proliferation-related concerns regarding China, especially related to chemical- and missile-related exports, but cautioned against linking NSG membership to progress on the issue. “Tying NSG membership to a host of other issues at the last moment, we do not believe would bring us progress on the other issues. But it could well cause the cessation of cooperation on nuclear issues that we care about and on which we are now engaging even today,” he said. Instead, by admitting China into the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the United States and other countries may be able to increase their pressure on China to better enforce its export-control system, Wolf said. “I think it adds to the influence that can be brought to bear, because instead of just the United States having a bilateral discussion with China, it will now be several dozen other members,” he said. Wolf denied that the Bush administration’s support for China’s membership into the regime was based on U.S. commercial interests. He said, though, that the United States was “interested in promoting the sale of U.S. nuclear technology” to the Chinese civilian sector. “We think that it’s both good for the U.S. economy, but it’s also good in terms of giving us influence, in terms of an evolving civil nuclear program in China,” Wolf said of China’s membership. “It’s a program that’s going to evolve. … To the extent that U.S. technology provides the basis for that, it does give us the means to have a direct discussion with China on how that technology is used, and we think that that’s valuable,” he said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
