Bush official defends Russia nuclear deal

By Desmond Butler

Associated Press

June 12, 2008 Thursday 3:33 PM

A Bush administration official was seeking to convince skeptical lawmakers Thursday that a U.S.-Russian agreement on civilian nuclear power would not undermine efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program.

Although announcement of the deal last month provoked swift criticism from lawmakers, it remains unclear whether opponents have sufficient votes to block it.

The administration views the agreement as an important breakthrough in cooperation reached at a time of rising tension between Washington and Moscow over issues including missile defense, NATO expansion and differences on Iran. It would give the United States access to state-of-the-art Russian nuclear technology and would help Russia establish an international nuclear fuel storage facility.

John Rood, undersecretary for arms control and international security, was testifying on the deal to the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee.

The committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Howard Berman of California, opened the hearing with a statement that raised questions about Russia's commitment to stopping Iran's program. He promised a hard look at the agreement but did not come down clearly for or against it.

The committee's ranking Republican member, Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, left no doubt that the agreement should be rejected because of the Russian government's "continuing assistance to Iran."

"The agreement will inevitably be seen in Moscow, and elsewhere, as a political reward bestowed by the U.S," she said.

Another opponent, Rep. Edward Markey, a Democrat of Massachusetts, said "it is true Russia has supported sanctions against Iran," but he added, Russia continues to proliferate nuclear and missile technology to Iran, finalizing construction of the Bushehr nuclear reactor and providing Iran with advanced conventional weapons.

The agreement, he said, is part of President George W. Bush's program to support civilian nuclear reprocessing, which he called "unnecessary, horribly expensive and dangerous."

Throughout the hearing, Democrats joined with Republicans in registering their reservations about the agreement.

Veteran Republican Dan Burton of Indiana said, "we are dealing with a terrorist state," and the agreement "is of grave concern to me."

Burton described himself as otherwise a very strong supporter of Bush in international affairs.

"We have to be very, very careful who has nuclear weapons and nuclear technology," he said.

Rep. David Scott, a Georgia Democrat, said of Iran: "there is no question in my mind they are after nuclear weapons"

"I do not trust Russia, and I certainly do not trust Iran."

Defending the agreement, Rood said, "there are substantial advantages to us" in the agreement.

Under questioning, the State Department official said he had "deep, deep suspicians" that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

Critics of the agreement believe that Russia is not doing enough to help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and should not be rewarded. Some are also critical of Russia's human rights record.

In testimony prepared for delivery at the hearing, Rood noted the opposition of some members but called the proposal "a good, solid agreement" that "contains all the necessary nonproliferation conditions and controls that Congress has written into law."

He compared the agreement to those already in effect with China, Japan and the European Atomic Energy Community, which codifies cooperation with the 27 member states of the European Union. The pact is called a 123 agreement because its requirements are set in section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act. Rood said in the prepared text that a Russian 123 agreement was important "both to build a closer relationship as well as to improve our ability to address major challenges we face in the 21st century."

Among them, Rood said, are growing energy demands, nuclear nonproliferation and possible nuclear terror.

Under U.S. law, Bush's notification of Congress on May 13 began a process to complete the deal. The agreement will take effect unless both chambers of Congress pass resolutions blocking it within 90 working days.

Lawmakers would have to pass the resolutions by two-thirds majorities to avoid a presidential veto. That feat is unlikely. They could pass legislation, however, that would hinder the administration or its successors from implementing the deal, either by withholding money or imposing restrictions.

Members of Congress also are exploring whether the administration made a clerical miscalculation that could kill the deal. A report by the Congressional Research Service that was requested by an aide to Ros-Lehtinen found that the administration may have informed Congress too late to meet the requirement for 90 days of consideration. Republican aides conceded the full implications of the apparent glitch remain unclear.

Associated Press Diplomatic Writer Barry Schweid contributed to this report.