U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday promoted the Bush administration’s planned U.S.-Indian nuclear sharing agreement in both houses of Congress, the Washington Post reported (see GSN, April 5).
Some lawmakers expressed support for the deal, while others asked for more details and other information that could significantly delay approval of the agreement. “I know that there is a history that we are trying to overcome,” Rice said on Capitol Hill. “But the time comes when you must deal with the realities and, indeed, overcome that history.” Senators Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), key Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that while displeased by certain parts of the deal they would support it. The House International Relations Committee had tough questions for the secretary, but a number of members said they support the idea of nuclear sharing with India. For the deal to move forward, Congress must amend the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, an agreement with the Nuclear Suppliers Group must be reached, and a safeguards agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency and New Delhi must be finalized. The White House would like Congress to act before the administration pursues international approval. India has begun discussions on safeguards with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, but also would prefer that Congress act before an agreement is completed. No dates have been set for committee votes on the legislation, the Post reported. “What we actually are trying to do is move on several fronts together,” said Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran last week. “Each is linked to the other as well, but I think the critical thing is the legislation. Nothing else is possible unless the law is changed.” Some lawmakers said that they would be reluctant to take the steps necessary for the deal to move forward without knowing what safeguards would be placed on Indian reactors. Congress is not privy to the safeguard negotiations between the nuclear agency and India. As a compromise, Rice said that any changes to the law would not be made until President George W. Bush signs off on the safeguards. Some lawmakers were not happy with this idea. The compromise would “move Congress out of the decision-making process,” said Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.). The White House could also seek a waiver to current law, which would make the agreement subject to annual review. Rice indicated that solution would be a barrier to businesses looking to sell nuclear technology to India. A Democratic staffer said it is important whether changes to U.S. law or international safeguards come first as “this is a president who has a very low stockpile of trust left.” The staff member said lawmakers are likely to insert requirements into the legislation that India would not divert nuclear materials from civilian to military sites and that U.S. technology would not be used to make weapon-grade materials. The Bush administration plans to delay pursuing approval of the deal from Nuclear Suppliers Group until Congress acts, officials said. Representatives from the group reacted skeptically when briefed on the deal recently (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, April 6). White House officials are confident that the support of lawmakers like Senators Biden and Kerry will help built momentum for a May or June vote on the agreement, the New York Times reported. Senate Foreign Relations Committee officials said that a vote might be put off until July. On the House side, International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) has not expressed support for the plan but has not ruled out backing it, an aide said. Rice told lawmakers that the United States was urging India to join international conventions that address shipment of nuclear technology and chemical weapons, as well as enter into a treaty that blocks the exports of material that could be used for making nuclear arms. Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Russell Feingold (Wis.) argued that India was not a deserving nuclear partner no matter its desire to improve ties with the United States. Other lawmakers said India could be used as a counterweight to China, the Times reported. A senior State Department official said that the White House would accept conditions on the deal as long as they did not require renegotiating the deal with India. For example, a provision that the deal would not take effect until safeguards are in place would be acceptable. India said it would be amenable to such an arrangement as long as no additional burdens were required. “We’re moving ahead on all the things we've committed ourselves on,” said Raminder Jassal, deputy chief of mission at the Indian Embassy (Steven Wesiman, New York Times, April 6). Rice also told lawmakers that the United States would work for some nuclear limits in South Asia to reduce tensions between Pakistan and India, Agence France-Presse reported. “We would like to see, obviously, in the regional sense in the relationship between India and Pakistan and others, a look at regional moratorium on fissile material production,” she said. “We've made it very clear that we would encourage that; that we would encourage India and Pakistan to look at their nuclear relationship and the way that in some of the earlier days people were concerned about safety and security between the U.S. and Soviet arsenals,” Rice added. Rice made these statements in response to questions from Kerry, who asked if the United States could offer “real leadership” for India and Pakistan. Neither country has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Kerry said it was difficult to comprehend why either country would need a nuclear arsenal beyond a deterrent against China and each other. He said he raised this point with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, and “there seemed to be a genuine spark of interest in the notion of trying to arrive at some agreement regionally on the numbers of nuclear weapons.” Rice said the United States could not persuade South Asian nations to agree on nuclear controls. “Well, what we couldn't achieve — and I think it was unlikely — was a constraint unilaterally by any one state,” she said. “But the idea that has been pursued in some second-track arrangements, some second-track of discussions between the parties about not just absolute levels but also safety and security and confidence-building measures, I think is something we're very interested in and we'd like to pursue,” she added. (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, April 5). House committee members expressed concerns about ties between India and Iran, Reuters reported. Some on the panel predicted that conditions would be placed on the pact. “It is my view that this is in trouble here,” said Representative Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.). Representative Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) warned that “any (Indian) military cooperation with the present terrorist regime in Iran will certainly derail this deal in Congress.” Rice said U.S. assistance to India’s nuclear power industry would “ease its reliance on hydrocarbons and unstable sources like Iran” (Giacomo/Allen, Reuters/AlertNet, April 5).
The Bush administration yesterday unveiled a modernization plan for U.S. nuclear manufacturing and research facilities the size of which has not been seen since the end of the Cold War, the Los Angeles Times reported (see GSN, March 31). The United States has for decades focused on maintaining aging nuclear weapons, but the Bush administration seeks to build the capacity to manufacture 125 new bombs annually by 2022, Thomas D’Agostino, head of nuclear weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in congressional testimony yesterday. D’Agostino said the administration’s plan was part of a wider effort to accelerate dismantlement and replacement of aging bombs. The plan also provides for consolidation of all of the country’s plutonium into a single facility to make security more effective and less expensive, according to the Times. D’Agostino acknowledged, however, that the administration might have a difficult time convincing other countries that it is not pursuing a new arms race. The United States case would rest upon its public intention to cut the number of operational nuclear missiles. Critics have said that the plan does not move fast enough to consolidate plutonium and could lead to an arms race, the Times reported. A task force led by physicist David Overskei in 2005 recommended that the Energy Department consolidate its eight existing weapons complexes into one facility. Overskei said yesterday that the cost of security for the plants stands at approximately $25 billion over the next 20 years. Peter Stockton, an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, criticized the consolidation plan in House testimony. He said it needlessly delays the difficult work. Full implementation of the plan would not occur until 2030, according to the Times (Ralph Vertabedian, Los Angeles Times, April 6).
The United States and North Korea should conduct bilateral talks in order to revive the stalled six-nation negotiations on Pyongyang’s nuclear program, South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said today (see GSN, April 5). Lee said top North Korean and U.S. officials were likely to meet directly next week on the sidelines of a security conference in Japan. “Dialogue between the U.S. and North Korea is necessary regardless of format,” he said. Lee also said a summit meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao set for this month in Washington was unlikely to revive the nuclear talks (Associated Press I/China Daily, April 6). North Korea’s top nuclear negotiator and four other North Korean officials today received a Japanese entry permit for next week’s conference, AP reported. China’s chief nuclear negotiator, Wu Dawei, is also expected to meet with his counterparts from the six-nation talks but will not attend the conference, the Chinese Foreign Ministry announced today. Japan plans to urge the top U.S. and North Korean negotiators to hold bilateral talks on the sidelines of the conference, Kyodo News reported (Associated Press II, April 6).
A senior U.S. State Department official said yesterday that investigations continue into the nuclear black market once led by former top Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, March 20). “It is an ongoing thing. We expect it to continue,” said Richard Boucher, U.S. assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, in response to questions about whether Washington is still seeking to question Khan. Pakistan has not allowed access to Khan, who was pardoned and placed under house arrest (Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, April 5). Boucher met yesterday with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, but it was not immediately known if they discussed Islamabad’s demand for a nuclear technology sharing deal akin to the proposed agreement between India and the United States. Boucher acknowledged that the issue came up during earlier discussions with Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, April 5).
| 
Back to top
