Kenneth Fletcher
NS&D Monitor
1/31/2014
With negotiations ongoing on a number of civil nuclear agreements, lawmakers pressed Obama Administration officials this week on the need for more Congressional oversight of such deals. While the agreements, known as ‘123 agreements,’ currently must only sit before Congress for 90 legislative days before entering into force, a bill currently in the House would require Congress to approve new agreements. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) this week suggested that he may support such a change. “I’m concerned that Congress will be increasingly marginalized if we do not explore changes to the current process for congressional review. We should examine whether it’s time for Congress to provide a resolution for approval on all agreements, except perhaps in the case where an agreement reaches the gold standard,” Corker, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said this week at a hearing on 123 agreements.
Some lawmakers and nonproliferation advocates have pushed for a “gold standard” in 123 agreements restricting rights to develop enrichment and reprocessing technologies, which is modeled on a deal inked in 2009 with the United Arab Emirates. The Administration says that it is negotiating the agreements on a case-by-case approach to prevent the spread of sensitive technologies, noting that other countries will fill the void if there is no civil nuclear deal with the United States because of restrictions set in stone. But the issue has been controversial: The Administration and South Korea have sought to extend for two years discussions on a renewal largely due to enrichment and reprocessing restrictions, as the current agreement expires in March.
Meanwhile, an agreement with Vietnam inked by the Administration last year does not include legal restrictions on such technology, instead it has a non-binding commitment to only rely on existing fuel services. The Senate and House passed a bill approving the two-year South Korea extension this week, which buys time for the Administration to complete negotiations.
At this week’s hearing, Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Poneman explained the Administration’s philosophy. “We want other nations to enter into 123 agreements with the United States because our standards are the highest in the world,” he said. “When we enter into 123 agreements, we bring our nonproliferation standards to the partner country and thereby enhance our national security. Conversely, when a state opts to enter into an agreement for civil nuclear cooperation only with another country, not the United States, then U.S. influence on that nation’s nonproliferation regime decreases, as does our influence over the global regime.”
Corker: Congress ‘Plays Zero Role’
Corker this week expressed frustration with the current process for 123 agreements. “Congress plays zero role in this, really. The way this is now set up, it’s almost impossible for us to have an issue when you don’t, in essence, negotiate a gold standard,” he said. “Does it not make sense for us to have the ability, as a Congress, that if you don’t enter into an agreement that is in fact a pure gold standard agreement, for us to vote up or down on it versus going through this resolution of disapproval process, which in essence gives us no real say because obviously the Administration is negotiating these; they’re going to veto.”
But the Administration is avoiding the term “gold standard” and taking a more holistic approach, Poneman suggested. “With all due respect, Senator, I think the whole phrase ‘the gold standard’ has reduced to a bumper sticker something in a very unhelpful way because we are now focusing on one tool out of the toolbox instead of the goal,” Poneman replied. “The goal is stopping weapons. And the goal to get to that is stopping the technology. So if that is to be the standard, obviously, we welcome always the oversight of the Congress. But in terms of doing more things that could make the United States appear in the eyes of other countries less reliable and less likely to sustain the commitments that we make to them through the course of these negotiations, I think that it would create a problem in getting people to accept the 123 restrictions that we already have in legislation.”
Sen. Markey: Vietnam Could be Bad Precedent
Other lawmakers focused on the lack of legally binding restrictions in the Vietnam deal, which was finalized last October. “I think that the terms of the Vietnam agreement are going to make it more likely that South Korea is going to demand that they be given the same status as Vietnam, a communist country that we were at war with,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said at the hearing. “My question to you, then, is, will you insist on South Korea having a gold standard, so that Vietnam does not become the precedent that would then spread to country after country around the world?”
While the issue of enrichment and reprocessing is a central topic in the discussions with South Korea, the Vietnam deal is not closely influencing those talks, Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation Thomas Countryman replied. “I don’t quite agree that the Vietnam agreement has a precedential value for the [Republic of Korea] agreement. We’re already far along in our discussions and on kind of a different plane of discussion,” he said. “I’ll simply reaffirm that with the ROK, despite the fact that it is one of our very best allies, we continue to focus not on the political, not on the economic but on a consistent nonproliferation policy, what best strengthens the global nonproliferation regime. That remains our consistent guiding star.”
Several lawmakers were supportive of the current approach to negotiating the agreements. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that insisting on a gold standard could open countries up to competitors. “Tell us how it’s in the U.S. national interest to see Vietnam conclude a civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia or anybody else. How is it in any way in United States national security interest?” he asked, adding later, “If you think that these other countries would adhere to the same standards that we do I think flies in the face of past performances.”
Kaine: Better For U.S. to Have Larger Market Share
Meanwhile, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) suggested that a gold standard is an “ad hoc” requirement that is not currently in need of Congressional approval. “If it would be in the better interests of nuclear safety for the U.S. to have a larger market share, and recognizing that’s not the purpose of the 123 agreements, what are the current opportunities that we have, either technology opportunities or relationships with particular countries that are interested in safe nuclear power, what are the current opportunities that the United States has to maybe regain a little bit of our market share, to the good of the safety of these programs worldwide?” he asked.
Poneman responded, “Senator, I’ve been around the world a lot since March 11, 2011, the Fukushima accident, and I can tell you at the IAEA, at the International Nuclear Framework for Nuclear Cooperation, there is much more interest in U.S. fuel because it is safe, and reactor components, as well. Because of our importance that we attach to nuclear security and nuclear safety, there is an opportunity within this horrible situation that the world has endured to emphasize that particular American advantage.”
