Withdrawal of Russia nuclear agreement a double play for Congress

By Katherine Ling

Environment & Energy Daily

September 9, 2008

President Bush's decision to cancel the U.S.-Russian civil nuclear agreement not only sends a strong signal of U.S. disapproval to Russia but also does what a majority of lawmakers desired from the beginning.

Bush announced yesterday he was withdrawing the agreement he submitted in May because of Russia's recent military actions against Georgia. The 30-year pact would have allowed the trading of special nuclear materials and technology, including spent nuclear fuel, and collaboration on research into reprocessing.

Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the move to withdraw the agreement was a "wise decision."

"Given what has happened in the Republic of Georgia during the past month, Congress has little appetite at the moment for new and sweeping measures that would assist Russia," Berman said in a statement. His committee is holding a hearing today on U.S. relations with Russia after their military action against Georgia last month.

Lawmakers were already wary of the Russian agreement in the first place because of Russia's questionable ties to Iran's nuclear program.

"Even without Russia's incursion into Georgia, Russian support for Iranian nuclear and missile programs alone is enough to call into question the wisdom of committing to a 30-year agreement to transfer sensitive nuclear technologies and materials to Russia," said House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) in a statement yesterday.

In May, a bipartisan group of House and Senate lawmakers asked the president not to submit the agreement to Congress. And even after it was submitted, members repeated their request.

"I believe the soundest course would be to withdraw this agreement until a more appropriate time," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, at a hearing in June.

Despite their misgivings, the Foreign Affairs Committee passed legislation just before the August recess that approved the agreement if the president certified that Russia was not involved in nuclear trade with Iran. It had been unclear if the administration would have agreed to such terms, or when the bill would have made it on the busy schedule of the House floor.

Meanwhile, the Senate had been in an even tighter debate about approval of the agreement. Language disapproving of the agreement was in an Iran sanctions bill passed in June by the Senate Financial Committee -- again because of doubts surrounding the Russia-Iran relationship.

But Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and now the Democratic vice presidential nominee, was a strong supporter of the agreement and had been negotiating a way to pass it. It had been unclear what, if any, progress was made on the negotiations before the August recess and the Georgia-Russia conflict.

Future implications

Congress may not be completely off the hook, as Bush left open the possibility of resubmitting the agreement before leaving office.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the time wasn't right for the agreement, but she emphasized in a statement that the nonproliferation goals of the agreement "remain valid," and that the administration "will re-evaluate the situation at a later date." Bush included similar language in his notification letter to Congress.

Robert Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said portraying the agreement as something important to the United States and saying the decision is regrettable would allow the agreement to still be revived and resubmitted -- providing a possible starting point for Russia relations for the next administration.

Einhorn, a former assistant secretary for nonproliferation at the State Department under President Clinton, said it is in the best interest of U.S. nonproliferation efforts to have the agreement in place. "I understand the desire to make Russia pay a price for Georgia, but we shouldn't pursue measures that undercut America's interests," Einhorn said.

Another former top State Department official, Fred McGoldrick, said, "It's a strong signal and probably will not be the only one."

But McGoldrick, a principal at Bengelsdorf, McGoldrick and Associates LLC, said the withdrawal of the agreement has little real impact otherwise. "I don't think there was going to be a great deal of civil nuclear cooperation in terms of trade between the U.S. and Russia," he said. "And it is in the interest of both countries to continue to cooperate in the nonproliferation area. They both have a strategic goal of preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons."

Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, said that while U.S. industry supported the policy because it improved relations with Russia, the pact was not going to provide any short-term benefit to U.S. or Russian industries. It is more "passing up on an opportunity," he said.

"This was always an agreement that mattered more to the American administration then it ever did to the Russians," Reinsch added. "The Russians are probably chuckling a bit: 'Americans think this is such a big deal when really it is not something we are excited about.'"

The Russian agreement, along with another civil nuclear agreement with India, was a cornerstone in Bush's plan to expand civil nuclear energy, an important goal of the administration.

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said that while he opposed the Russian deal from the start, withdrawing the agreement appears to go against arguments the administration gave for why the agreement was necessary -- mainly, to establish better relations with Russia for greater cooperation on sanctions against Iran.

"They want to withdraw the thing which what they said was absolutely essential," Sokolski said.