Some U.S. lawmakers are worried that the U.S.-Indian nuclear technology sharing agreement could damage international nonproliferation efforts, the Associated Press reported yesterday (see GSN, March 2).
These worries could make it difficult for Congress to give its required approval for the deal, the lawmakers said. “The administration must show Congress it will make us more secure by bringing India into closer compliance with international nonproliferation norms,” said Senator Joe Biden (D-Del.). “While I believe that the Congress will support this agreement, it is important to take into consideration the nonproliferation concerns raised by some of my colleagues. I look forward to receiving detailed briefings,” added Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). Under the terms of the deal, 14 of India’s reactors would be open to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, while eight would remain under military control and therefore be exempt from international oversight. Representative Jim Leach (R-Iowa) said Congress must decide whether the agreement strengthens the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty “or whether it symbolizes an irreparable breach.” Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said the agreement is a “historic nuclear failure” and a danger to U.S. security. “With one simple move, the president has blown a hole in the nuclear rules that the entire world has been playing by,” he said. Bush “has, thus far, done a horrendous job of convincing Congress that the agreement is a good idea,” said Representative Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), who noted his support for the deal. The president has to “get to work and make the case to Congress, or else the nuclear deal will blow up in his face,” he added (Foster Klug, Associated Press/Baltimore Sun, March 2). The deal’s opponents are likely to allege a double standard by the Bush administration for permitting India to have nuclear arms and providing it with aid while opposing similar allowances for “rogue states” such as Iran and North Korea, the New York Times reported today. “The comparison between India and Iran is just ludicrous,” said Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs. “India is a highly democratic, peaceful, stable state that has not proliferated nuclear weapons. Iran is an autocratic state mistrusted by nearly all countries and that has violated its international commitments.” Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said he has more than 80 questions that wants answered before he will approve the deal Diplomats close to negotiations over the deal said France, Germany, the United Kingdom and probably Russia would support the deal because it gives them the opportunity to sell nuclear fuel and equipment to New Delhi, the Times reported (Steven Weisman, New York Times, March 3). Asian and Pacific nations have largely shown optimism about the agreement, with Australia and Japan backing the deal and China urging caution, Agence France-Presse reported. Japan said India should not be held to the same standards as North Korea. “India is a country that shares the values of freedom, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law with the United States and Japan,” Chief Cabinet Secretary and Japanese government spokesman Shinzo Abe said. “It is wrong to discuss the Indian nuclear issue and that of North Korea on the same level,” he added. Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer also praised the deal. “It's a good step forward in what's been a difficult situation,” he said. However, Downer said his country would not lift restrictions on shipping uranium to India as long as New Delhi refuses to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty. Australia’s policy of refusing to export uranium to countries that have not signed the treaty dates back to the 1970s. “It would open up questions of whether we’d export uranium to countries like Israel and Pakistan as well and I think it’s probably easier for us to support the current policy,” he said (Karl Malakunas, Agence France-Presse I/Yahoo!News, March 3). Meanwhile, experts said that separating India’s nuclear facilities into civilian and military reactors would be difficult, Agence France-Presse reported. Operation of the reactors was integrated outside of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty restrictions. The Nuclear Suppliers Group excluded India following a test of a nuclear weapon in 1974. Due to this, construction of the facilities has been “indigenous,” creating reactors used for both military and civilian nuclear work, according to national security professor Bharat Karnad of the Center for Policy Research. “India refused to be part of the NPT because of national security concerns and built a unique, indigenous program by linking civilian and military. To change that drastically would be unwise; small changes may be desirable in part for geopolitical reasons,” he said. India has 22 reactors. Fifteen of these are on line and produce 3,310 megawatts of power. The remaining seven are under construction, according to AFP. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will have a difficult time convincing experts in India that the deal is good policy, according to K.P. Vijayalakshmi, a professor of Canadian, U.S. and Latin American studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, “This is a group of scientists that have been working on all sides of the nuclear fuel cycle for civilian and military use. To get them to change the way they operate would be a problem initially,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/Daily Times, March 2). U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley said yesterday that India, in addition to separating its nuclear facilities, agreed to match its export controls list with those set up by the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Missile Technology Control Regime, The Hindu reported. “What this means is that India, which has had a good record in safeguarding technology, but has largely stood out — from outside the global nonproliferation arrangements, is moving inside those arrangements. It is adopting practices and procedures, export controls and other safeguards that are much more in line with the international community’s efforts to police proliferation and avoid proliferation,” Hadley said (The Hindu, March 3).
A two-hour meeting today between the European Union and Iran to discuss Tehran’s nuclear ambitions ended with no progress, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, March 2). EU representatives demanded “full and complete suspension” of Iran’s uranium enrichment-related work, said French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy. “Unfortunately we were not able to reach an agreement,” he said. Douste-Blazy, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and a high-level British official met with top Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in Vienna. A Russian nuclear agency official, meanwhile, said Iran’s refusal to freeze enrichment has stalled talks on a Russian compromise offer. Iranian opposition figure Alireza Jafarzadeh told AP yesterday that Iran “significantly increased the production line” of Shahab 3 missiles in 2005. Jafarzadeh claimed Tehran was now on track to produce some 90 missiles annually (George Jahn, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, March 3). Elsewhere, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today accused the International Atomic Energy Agency of making politically motivated decisions heavily influenced by world powers, Agence France-Presse reported. “Regrettably most international organizations have turned into political organizations and the influence of great powers prevents them from taking fair and legally sound decisions,” Ahmadinejad said. “[The] IAEA’s treatment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the Board of Governors of the IAEA for that matter, their approach towards the Islamic Republic of Iran is a purely politically motivated action,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, March 3). “If Iran has a problem with the state of affairs and the situation it finds itself in, Iran has only itself to blame,” U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said yesterday. “If they want to point fingers, they’ll need more than 10 of them to point,” he added (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, March 2).
U.S. sanctions against North Korean firms Washington accuses of financial misconduct are aimed at the crime and not the country, the U.S. point man on the North Korea nuclear issue told Reuters today (see GSN, March 1). “I want to stress to you that the actions we took with respect to the bank in Macau are actions we have taken with respect to other banks in other parts of the world having nothing to do with North Korea,” said Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill. Washington last year prohibited U.S. institutions from doing business with Banco Delta Asia over allegations it helped launder money acquired by the North Korean entities through illegal activity, according to Reuters. “Our actions in this regard are not directed at North Korea but they are directed to the activities that we have seen from North Korea and from other places,” Hill said. Asked when Pyongyang would return to six-nation talks on its nuclear ambitions, Hill said: “You ... have to ask the North Koreans and when you get the answer please let me know. I just don’t know.” “Nuclear weapons will not solve any of North Korea’s problems,” he added. “I hope they will come back” (Reuters, March 3).
A high-level Russian military official has indicated that Moscow might abandon the 1987 Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, United Press International reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 28). Moscow might look at redeploying intermediate-range, nuclear-capable missiles banned under the treaty, the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta on Wednesday quoted Gen. Vladimir Vasilenko, the head of the Russian Defense Ministry’s Research Institute, as saying. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov last year suggested doing away with the treaty during a meeting with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to UPI. Rumsfeld argued against such a move. Under the treaty, the former Soviet Union scrapped its intermediate-range, multi-independently targeted vehicle (MIRV) missiles. While renouncing the treaty would do little to enhance Russia’s direct strategic deterrent threat to the United States, it would pose a threat to Europe, according to U.S. military analysts. Analysts said Vasilenko could be speaking for ultranationalist hard-liners within the Russian military, or possibly testing the waters on behalf of leaders in Moscow who could later deny his statements. Any indication of serious intent to pull out of the treaty would come from Ivanov or Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, analysts said. Moscow could be contemplating a strategy to challenge the United States and the European Union, said Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “Russia is staking a geostrategic position separate from the United States and Western Europe and reverting to the Soviet-era military thinking,” Cohen said. Redeploying the MIRV-ed missiles would also pose a challenge to missile defense systems, according to UPI, because the weapons are fired over relatively short ranges and have low trajectories (Martin Sieff, United Press International/SpaceWar.com, March 2).
| 
Back to top
