Critics Blast Indo-U.S. Nuke Deal

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — More than a dozen former senior U.S. nuclear arms control and nonproliferation officials and other experts recently expressed reservations about a potential U.S.-India nuclear energy deal, while a senior Republican legislator this week came out in favor of the agreement (see GSN, Nov. 8).

In a letter to Congress last week, the 16 experts and former officials said the potential deal announced by President George W. Bush in July and awaiting possible resolution next year could significantly undermine U.S. nonproliferation efforts, while doing little to bring the two countries together.

“Unfortunately, the proposal for civil nuclear cooperation with India poses far-reaching and potentially adverse implications for U.S. nuclear nonproliferation objectives and promises to do little in the long run to bring India into closer alignment with other U.S. strategic objectives,” they wrote.

The potential U.S. supply of nuclear fuel to India, they said, could “free up” New Delhi’s existing stockpile of, and capacity for producing, nuclear weapons and would not permanently block it from using civilian facilities for military use.

“So far, India has pledged only to accept voluntary safeguards over ‘civilian’ nuclear facilities of its choosing. This could allow India to withdraw any nuclear facility from (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards for national security reasons. Such an arrangement would be purely symbolic and would do nothing to prevent the continued production of fissile material for weapons by India,” they wrote.

The authors of the letter include former State Department Office of Nuclear Affairs Director Hal Bengelsdorf; former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) Directors Ambassador Thomas Graham and John Holum and Assistant Director Lawrence Scheinman; former ACDA general counsel and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty negotiator George Bunn; former Assistant Secretary of State for Nonproliferation Robert Einhorn; former State Department Director of Nonproliferation and Export Policy Fred McGoldrick; former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Henry Rowen; and former Deputy for Nonproliferation Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense Henry Sokolski.

The potential deal could require Congress to revise U.S. nuclear export control laws passed in the 1970s after India conducted its first live nuclear test. The letter urged Congress to seek a number of key details from the administration about the potential deal and to insist upon more stringent terms than have been announced by the administration so far.

“On balance, India’s commitments under the current terms of the proposed arrangement do not justify making far-reaching exceptions to U.S. law and international nonproliferation norms,” they wrote.

India’s ambassador to the United States said this month that the imposition of additional requirements on India would break the potential deal (see GSN, Nov. 23).

“I think the authors of the letter believe there are numerous issues that have not yet been examined or explained. And part of the purpose was to help the Congress understand the complexity and the gravity of the proposal,” said Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball, who also signed the letter.

“It’s useful to note that the signers of the letter worked on Capitol Hill, the executive branch, [were] Republicans and Democrats,” he said.

Many of the signers were senior officials at the former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, disbanded by the Clinton administration in 1999 and folded into the State Department’s arms control and nonproliferation infrastructure. The agency’s functions included determining the arms control and nonproliferation implications of potential policy decisions.

The administration this year announced it would scale back that infrastructure, eliminating the arms control and nonproliferation bureaus and their director positions while creating a new consolidated bureau of international security and nonproliferation (see GSN, Sept. 30).

Meanwhile, Representative Dan Burton (R-Ind.), a senior member of the House International Relations Committee, said he is “leaning towards the nuclear agreement,” Press Trust of India reported yesterday.

“But we want a definite separation between civilian and military” elements of India’s nuclear program, said Burton. “If that is assured, I am quite sure it will be addressed.”

The potential deal has thus far elicited mixed reactions from congressional Democratic and Republican leaders.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.