Kenneth Fletcher
NS&D Monitor
7/11/2014
As a new controversial civilian nuclear deal with Vietnam sits before Congress, some members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee this week voiced opposition to the agreement. The Obama Administration sent the Vietnam deal to Congress in May, where it must sit for 90 consecutive legislative days before entering into force. The agreement has raised questions from some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle because it lacks legally binding restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing, known as the ‘gold standard.’ “I strongly oppose this agreement. Allowing Vietnam to enrich undermines our objectives in other areas in the Middle East where allies such as the UAE and Jordan are held to the gold standard,” Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said at a hearing the committee held on 123 Agreements this week.
The Vietnam deal, finalized last October, has instead a nonbinding commitment from Vietnam to rely on existing fuel services rather than developing its own sensitive nuclear technologies. In 2011, Ros-Lehtinen and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would impose the gold standard on new deals and would also allow Congress to vote on the agreements rather than the 90-day requirement. However, the legislation ultimately failed in the House. Late last year the pair introduced similar legislation that would allow an up-or-down vote by Congress, which has been referred to the committee.
The current process for approval of the agreement allows the president to veto opposition from Congress, which both Houses would have to override with a two-thirds vote. “I think that that is an affront to the doctrines that underlie the First Article of the U.S. Constitution. It is not meaningful review,” Sherman said. Under the pending bill “Congress would have to affirmatively vote on an agreement unless that agreement met what I call the gold standard-plus, that is to say it would have to have gold standard provisions dealing with a commitment by the country not to deploy enrichment and reprocessing, the two most proliferation dangerous technologies needed to produce a bomb-grade material and also agree to enhanced inspections and verification regimes known as the additional protocol.”
‘The U.S. Cannot be Left of the Sidelines’
The Administration’s approach on the agreements has been to take each on a case-by-case basis rather than applying one standard across the board. Administration officials have said that such an approach ensures continued U.S. influence in countries that otherwise would not accept the stringent standards. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) echoed the Administration’s position at this week’s hearing. “The U.S. cannot be left on the sidelines as more countries enter the nuclear marketplace,” he said. “In a perfect world, I’d want all of our nuclear cooperation agreements to include the gold standard. But in practice, such a policy would isolate the U.S. and give a clear advantage to our competitors.”
Engel continued: “We’re dealing with a paradox. To continue fighting nuclear proliferation, we need to be flexible in negotiating our civilian nuclear cooperation agreements. This approach is reflected in the nuclear cooperation agreement with Vietnam, which I support. That agreement stipulates that Vietnam will purchase nuclear fuel from the commercial market, but it does not include a formal commitment to forgo enrichment or reprocessing in the future.”
Opponents Cite Vietnam’s Human Rights Record
But Ros-Lehtinen argued that Vietnam should not be granted an exemption, especially in light of human rights issues. “Vietnam has an abysmal human rights record,” she said. “The practice of human trafficking is rampant and there are severe restrictions against religious freedom. Congress must be empowered in its oversight responsibility and we must ensure that such agreements not only protect our interests, but help guard against the rising threat of nuclear proliferation,” she said.
However, the nuclear industry does not believe that should be linked to civil nuclear deals. “Certainly Congress should raise this issue if it’s of concern, as it should be to all Americans who share the values of this country. However, it has not part in a 123 agreement, in our opinion,” Dan Lipman of the Nuclear Energy Institute said at the hearing. He added, “To be very, very clear, the industry is not against the gold standard, the industry is against universal application of one-size-fits-all policy. That’s what our problem is. And where there is a universal application of a standard, when countries operate in different regions, they have varying areas of expertise in their nuclear power programs domestically, a one-size-fits-all policy is just not workable and it excludes American companies from providing the technology that would better serve U.S. interests.”
Ros-Lehtinen said she believes that application of a gold standard would not cause countries to turn to businesses in other nations to fulfill nuclear energy technology needs. “Nuclear technology is not something you want to cut corners on, you want the best,” she said. “I believe that these countries will stay with American companies because they know what they can get from us. Congress should already have oversight responsibility over these sensitive agreements. Congress must have a final say in any agreement that includes enrichment, and we must be able to have an up-and-down vote.”
