U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement

Floor Speech

U.S.-INDIA NUCLEAR COOPERATION AGREEMENT -- (Senate - October 02, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss my vote against the India Nuclear Agreement.

In 2006, I voted in favor of the Henry J. Hyde United States and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act, primarily because of the safeguards included in the act that would ensure that assistance to Indian's civilian nuclear program to meet its domestic energy needs, would not assist the Indian nuclear weapons program. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act that we voted on last night has the full scope of necessary protections.

India is the largest democracy in the world. Its economy is growing by 8 percent annually. Their domestic energy needs are enormous and they simply do not have enough indigenous resources to meet them. India is an important ally and our nation has benefitted from a strong trade and defense relationship for decades. Furthermore, my State of Rhode Island has prospered because of a vibrant Indian community. I believe that the United States should do all that it can to assist India and further strengthen the partnership between the two countries.

However, our country's relationship with India must be balanced with concerns about nuclear proliferation and the stability of the Middle East and Asia.

I believe that proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons material and technology is the greatest threat facing our country today. The most effective method of controlling such proliferation is a multilateral regime where all countries are subject to the same standards.

The agreement that was approved by the Senate last night establishes a separate and unique regime for India. This particular agreement would allow India to be treated like a nuclear weapons state but not impose upon India the responsibilities and commitments placed on other nuclear weapons states. As such I believe that this particular agreement is flawed. This agreement has the potential to actually weaken the carefully constructed, long-standing nuclear nonproliferation regime that the world depends on to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

This agreement does provide some benefits. Under this agreement India will put 14 of its nuclear reactors under safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. This will help to ensure that these reactors and the fuel supplied to them will be used only for the peaceful production of nuclear poser. In addition the IAEA will bring its expertise to help to improve the operational safety of the reactors.

On the other hand the rest of India's nuclear reactors will not come under the IAEA and these reactors can be used as India wishes to produce power or to produce more material for nuclear weapons. But it is troublesome to me that India retains the right to deny IAEA access to some or all of the reactors that it has now agreed will come under IAEA agreements.

While this agreement will help India with its energy needs, India is also now free to use its limited indigenous uranium for to support a build up of its nuclear weapons stockpile. India has specifically preserved its ability to increase the number of nuclear weapons in its arsenal, its ability to increase the amount of nuclear weapons materials that it produces and its right to conduct a test of a nuclear weapon.

While India has a voluntary moratorium on testing, India still refuses to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to support a fissile material cut-off treaty. Finally, I am greatly concerned about the effect this agreement will have on the region, particularly the reaction of Pakistan. Pakistan will undoubtedly seek a similar agreement if it perceives an increased threat from India. Pakistan may seek to partner with China--and the United States would have few grounds to protest. In such a case, Pakistan will have additional access to nuclear technology.

While I believe that the United States should help India with its urgent energy needs, I believe we missed an opportunity to provide assistance with adequate and necessary safeguards in place. For these reasons, I reluctantly decided to vote against this agreement. It is my hope that the United States and India continue to work together to make the world safer from nuclear proliferation.

Source