|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
IAEA Provisions in U.N. Reform Act Limit U.S. Nonproliferation Funding to New Nuclear Programs By David Francis WASHINGTON — The U.N. Reform Act recently passed in the U.S House of Representatives requires that funds provided to the International Atomic Energy Agency by the United States for safeguards inspections are used primarily to monitor countries with new nuclear programs (see GSN, March 21). Nuclear weapons experts fear that the language could be interpreted to exclude countries like Iran that have long-established nuclear programs, and that the reform legislation might be viewed as a heavy-handed attempt by the United States to wield its influence. However, a House Republican aide familiar with the legislation said the funding language includes countries that use existing nuclear facilities for uses not approved by the U.N. nuclear watchdog and would focus nonproliferation efforts on countries that do not comply with IAEA regulations. “If Iran starts to pursue weaponized nuclear reactors, that would be initiating a new program,” the aide said. “It’s not a sanctioned use of nuclear power under IAEA rules or guidelines.” “A lot of what the language in this section did was strengthen what was already there to focus the efforts of IAEA to catch programs like North Korea and Iran and places where they weren’t supposed to have programs,” the aide added. The section also dictates that U.S. funding for the U.N. agency is voluntary and must be primarily used for nonproliferation and nuclear verification activities as opposed to the development of nuclear energy. Countries that support terrorism or have not dismantled nuclear facilities as mandated by the U.N. agency would not be eligible for U.S funding. In addition, nations under investigation for breach of compliance with IAEA regulations and countries violating their IAEA obligations would also be barred from receiving U.S. funding for nuclear science. The goal of using voluntary funding primarily for nonproliferation activities is to make the International Atomic Energy Agency “more accountable, more efficient, more results oriented” to ensure countries like North Korea do not develop weapons, according to the aide. Since 2001, the United States has voluntarily contributed approximately $50 million a year to the agency, according to the nonprofit Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation. The aide was not familiar with a Senate version of the bill, which is to be drafted by members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “We’re working with the committee members to try to come up with a bill that we will have a hearing on in July,” said Andy Fisher, spokesman for committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). Language Called Ambiguous, Heavy-HandedSome weapons experts said they fear the language in the House bill is too vague and that other U.N. members would perceive the legislation as arrogant. “It’s clumsily written,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. “It should be up to the IAEA to determine where and how and why and how safeguards should be focused rather than have Congress dictate where they should go. IAEA is in a better position to determine where inspections should take place.” Kimball said he also worries that the bill could be viewed at the United Nations and by foreign countries as an attempt for Congress to influence the agency. “The larger question is to what extent is that larger bill going to affect the credibility and the ability of the U.S. to achieve these objectives” of curbing nuclear ambitions. “Will it be perceived as an arrogant attempt to dictate what the U.N. and IAEA should do?” The lack of specificity in the language also concerned Rose Gottemoeller, a nuclear policy adviser in the Clinton administration and senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “What are they trying to accomplish?” she said. “It could be tighter, it could be cleaner, it could be neater about what they’re trying to do.” “They should take another careful look at it and really do some consultations with experts,” she said, adding that she doubted the language would significantly change IAEA operations. In addition to the changes to safeguard inspection funding, the bill also calls on the United States’ IAEA representative to work to create a compliance office at the agency. This office would be made up of technical experts charged with monitoring compliance to and recommending penalties for breaches of IAEA regulations. The U.S. ambassador would also establish a Special Committee on Safeguards and Verification, which would seek to improve the agency’s ability to monitor and enforce compliance to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and IAEA statutes. This committee would also work to detect undeclared nuclear activity in member countries, according to the U.S. legislation. Penalties for noncompliance are also included in the bill. Countries being investigated for violating agency regulations would not be permitted to vote when the IAEA Board of Governors votes on its case. Noncompliant member nations could also not receive technical assistance for civilian nuclear programs and could not host IAEA meetings. Finally, the bill would require IAEA officials to provide the United States with a detailed annual report on how U.S. money is spent on nuclear inspections.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
