Jul 10 - McClatchy-Tribune Business News Formerly Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Stephen J. Hedges Chicago Tribune

Even as it condemns North Korea and Iran over nuclear proliferation, the Bush administration, with the help of Congress, may soon extend an unusual package of nuclear aid to India, a nation engaged in its own volatile arms race with Pakistan.

Last week key Senate and House committees approved legislation, sponsored in part by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), that would give India nuclear technology and nearly 150 tons annually of enriched U.S. uranium, in addition to the 300 tons that India produces each year. The measure still requires full House and Senate approval.

The administration is promoting the legislation as a means of keeping India on its roster of important allies, though critics say the measure will promote India's efforts to improve its nuclear weapons. With the committee approvals, the bill is now more likely to win full congressional approval.

India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a required step among nations seeking UN respectability while pursuing nuclear technology. It exploded a bomb in 1974 and has made no secret of its nuclear capabilities, especially in its tense border standoff with Pakistan. On Sunday, India announced a test-firing of its longest-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

"There's a lot of mixed feelings about the Indian deal," said a U.S. government official familiar with the issue. "The issue is that we want to recognize India as a major country, as a major democracy and as a possible counterfoil to growing Chinese power. But this is a fairly controversial policy within the government."

Complicating matters further is that the U.S. considers rivals India and Pakistan to be key allies in the global war on terror; Washington has provided millions in military aid and sales to each since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Is the administration's Indian uranium deal a bit of clever brinkmanship in an increasingly nuclear Asia? Or does it send a mixed message to terror-war ally Pakistan and to nuclear aspirants Iran and North Korea, with which the U.S. is taking a harder diplomatic line?

There aren't ready answers to those questions, which critics say reflects the uncertainty and internal contradictions in the Bush administration's non-proliferation policy. It may also reflect the difficulty in crafting a consistent international nuclear policy at a time when an increasing number of smaller nations, not just world powers, are trying to develop nuclear weapons.

As if to underscore the complexity of the Bush non-proliferation policy, the White House has acknowledged Bush is considering reversing a long-standing prohibition against nuclear cooperation with Russia. The deal would allow Russia to import spent nuclear fuel from U.S.-made power reactors operating in third countries.

"There do seem to be some contradictions," said Nicholas Eberstadt, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who has written on negotiating with North Korea. "My impression is that the U.S. government does not have a North Korea policy, or for that matter, an Iran policy. We've got an attitude, but we don't have any coherent approach to connect that attitude to results."

That became evident last week when North Korea test-fired seven missiles July 4 and 5. The test flights included the long-range Taepodong-2 missile, which apparently failed within a minute of its launch.

President Bush consulted with North Korea's neighbor states, including China and South Korea, and urged unified condemnation of the tests. A UN Security Council resolution condemning the tests is also likely although it may not be as strongly worded as the Bush administration wants.

But those steps stand in contrast to the hard line that Bush and his non-proliferation team took with North Korea just a few years ago. After declaring a decade of negotiations a failure, Bush's negotiators in October 2002 exposed Pyongyang's clandestine nuclear enrichment activities. The president bundled North Korea into his "axis of evil" speech, which also labeled Iran and Iraq as rogue states.

Since then, however, efforts to negotiate a solution with North Korea have settled into a game of international name-calling. Pursuing a strategy that also engaged North Korea's four influential neighbors--China, South Korea, Japan and Russia--the administration has little to show after three years of talks.

After the diplomatic uproar over its tests last week, North Korea defiantly threatened to conduct more missile tests.

During his visit to Chicago on Friday, Bush said, "Part of our strategy, as you know, has been to have others at the table, to say as clearly as possible to the North Koreans, 'Get rid of your weapons, and there's a better way forward.'"

U.S. wants China's help

Nicholas Burns, an undersecretary of state, said Sunday that the U.S. is counting on help from China when it comes to curbing North Korea's missile and nuclear programs.

"Frankly, we think it's time for China to use its influence with North Korea," Burns said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "The Chinese have influence, certainly more than the United States, and the other members of the international community dealing with this problem."

Japan hopes for a vote Monday on its proposed Security Council resolution calling for sanctions against North Korea. But South Korea said Japan may be overreacting to the tests.

"There is no reason to fuss over this from the break of dawn like Japan, but every reason to do the opposite," said a statement from President Roh Moo Hyun's office.

Some arms-control analysts counsel against a rush to judgment on North Korea. The tests, they argue, may be as much a political necessity inside North Korea, where leader Kim Jong Il remains heavily dependent on his million-man military.

Kim needs military backing

"He is anchored on the military," said Lawrence Scheinman, an arms-control negotiator during the Clinton administration who now teaches at the Monterey Institute in Washington. "Without the military, there's not Kim Jong Il. They need each other."

Flexing the missile muscle, Scheinman said, is a way for Kim to keep his military leaders happy while shoring up his own power. Recognizing that internal dynamic is one reason some counsel against a harsh response to the North Korean tests, he said.

But talks alone don't resolve the inconsistencies in the administration's policy. Scheinman recently co-wrote a paper urging the U.S. to recognize the nuclear weapons programs of Israel, India and Pakistan, none of which has signed the non-proliferation treaty.

The Bush administration last spring backed the India uranium deal, despite the fact that India already produces enough uranium for use in its nuclear power industry. Shipments of U.S. uranium to India, critics of the deal argue, could be diverted to Indian efforts to build a smaller, lighter nuclear warhead.

As for international scrutiny, it will be limited to India's 14 civilian nuclear facilities if the U.S. aid deal goes through. India isn't a non-proliferation treaty signatory and may have to renounce the production of nuclear weapons if it were to join.

 

 

shedges@tribune.com