[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 30241-30242]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       13 IS THE NUMBER BEFORE US

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, unlucky or not, 13 is the number before 
us. That's how many predominantly Sunni nations in the Middle East have 
declared in the past year that they want nuclear power. We know that 
Iran is building a nuclear capacity which it claims will be used solely 
for power generation. Iran is predominantly a Shiite nation. While both 
are Muslim, Sunni and Shiite are different. At the grass-roots level, 
everyday people intermarry and get along just fine, until the 
governments in power decide they want religious ideology to govern 
everyone.
  Sunni-Shiite dominance was behind the Iran-Iraq war two decades ago 
when Don Rumsfeld went to Iraq to pledge U.S. support to Saddam 
Hussein. Today the Iraq war has inflamed Sunni-Shiite passions and U.S. 
forces are in the middle of it, fighting and dying in a fight that we 
shouldn't be in. There's been a lot in the news about Iran's nuclear 
program, including threats by the Vice President that Iran will never 
be permitted to acquire nuclear capacity. In other words, the 
administration's international diplomacy with Iran begins with an order 
from the U.S. military to lock and load. A military strike directly 
ordered by the administration, or indirectly sanctioned by the 
administration, is considered a foregone conclusion by many in the 
Middle East.
  Given this, let's renew the bidding, because 13 other nations in the 
Middle East are not being threatened by the administration. In fact, 
quite the opposite is true. A recent article in the Christian Science 
Monitor lays out the fact. I submit it for the Record.

           [From the Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 1, 2007]

   Middle East Racing to Nuclear Power--Shiite Iran's Ambitions Have 
    Spurred 13 Sunni States to Declare Atomic Energy Aims This Year

                            (By Dan Murphy)

       Cairo.--This week Egypt became the 13th Middle Eastern 
     country in the past year to say it wants nuclear power, 
     intensifying an atomic race spurred largely by Iran's nuclear 
     agenda, which many in the region and the West claim is cover 
     for a weapons program.
       Experts say the nuclear ambitions of majority Sunni Muslim 
     states such as Libya, Jordan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia are 
     reactions to Shiite Iran's high-profile nuclear bid, seen as 
     linked with Tehran's campaign for greater influence and 
     prestige throughout the Middle East.
       ``To have 13 states in the region say they're interested in 
     nuclear power over the course of a year certainly catches the 
     eye,'' says Mark Fitzpatrick, a former senior 
     nonproliferation official in the U.S. State Department who is 
     now a fellow at the International Institute for Strategic 
     Studies in London. ``The Iranian angle is the reason.''
       But economics are also behind this new push to explore 
     nuclear power, at least for some of the aspirants. Egypt's 
     oil reserves are dwindling, Jordan has no natural resources 
     to speak of at all, and power from oil and gas has grown much 
     more expensive for everyone. Though the day has not arrived, 
     it's conceivable that nuclear power will be a cheaper option 
     than traditional plants.
       But analysts say the driver is Iran, which appears to be 
     moving ahead with its nuclear program despite sanctions and 
     threats of possible military action by the U.S. The Gulf 
     Cooperation Council, a group of Saudi Arabia and the five 
     Arab states that border the Persian Gulf, reversed a 
     longstanding opposition to nuclear power last year.
       As the closest U.S. allies in the region and sitting on 
     vast oil wealth, these states had said they saw no need for 
     nuclear energy. But Fitzpatrick, as well as other analysts, 
     say these countries now see their own declarations of nuclear 
     intent as a way to contain Iran's influence. At least, 
     experts say, it signals to the U.S. how alarmed they are by a 
     nuclear Iran.
       ``The rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout 
     the whole region,'' Jordan's King Abdullah, another U.S. 
     ally, told Israel's Haaretz newspaper early this year. 
     ``Where I think Jordan was saying, `We'd like to have a 
     nuclear-free zone in the area,' . . . [now] everybody's going 
     for nuclear programs.''
       Though the U.S. has been vociferous in its opposition to 
     Iran's nuclear bid, particularly since the country says it's 
     determined to establish its own nuclear fuel cycle, which 
     would dramatically increase its ability to build a nuclear 
     bomb, it has generally been tolerant of the nuclear ambitions 
     of its friends in the region.
       ``Those states that want to pursue peaceful nuclear energy 
     . . . [are] not a problem for us,'' State Department 
     spokesman Sean McCormack said in response to Egyptian 
     President Hosni Mubarak's announcement on Monday.
       Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation 
     Policy Education Center in Washington and a former Defense 
     Department official focused on containing the spread of 
     nuclear weapons, says he finds that hands-off approach of the 
     Bush administration alarming.
       ``I think we're trying to put out a fire of proliferation 
     with a bucket of kerosene,'' he says. He said he recently 
     spoke with a senior administration official on the matter, 
     who argued that it was better for the U.S. to cooperate with 
     Egypt and other countries since, in the official's view, 
     nuclear power in these countries is ``inevitable'' and it's 
     better to be in a position to influence their choices and 
     monitor the process.
       Egypt has had an on-again, off-again nuclear program since 
     the 1950s. In the 1960s, Egypt threatened to develop a bomb 
     largely out of anger over Israel's nuclear pursuit. Under Mr. 
     Mubarak, who has ruled since 1981, the country has been 
     consistent in saying it does not want nuclear weapons, and 
     Egypt has been at the forefront of diplomatic efforts to 
     declare the region a nuclear-weapons-free zone--a strategy it 
     uses to target Israel's nuclear weapons.
       Today, the country has a 22-megawatt research reactor north 
     of Cairo that was built by an Argentine company and completed 
     in 1997. A drive to develop a power plant in the 1980s 
     stalled after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Russia.
       In a nationally televised speech Monday, Mubarak said 
     nuclear power is an ``integral part of Egypt's national 
     security'' while also promising that the country would not 
     seek the bomb. Other Egyptian officials say the

[[Page 30242]]

     country is planning on having a working reactor within a 
     decade, though analysts say that's an optimistic time line.
       Egypt's nuclear plans have been reinvigorated in recent 
     years, with Mubarak's son, Gamal, widely seen in Egypt as his 
     father's favored successor, calling for the building of a 
     reactor. Mubarak discussed nuclear power cooperation on state 
     visits to Russia and China last year.
       ``They feel politically threatened by Iran's nuclear 
     program, they've pointed out rightly that Israel [hasn't 
     been] a member of [nonproliferation] treaties for many 
     years,'' says Jon Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation expert at the 
     Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. 
     ``Of course there is economic logic: If they can sell 
     whatever oil they have for $93 a barrel instead of using it, 
     that's attractive . . . but it shouldn't be assumed that it's 
     all benign.''
       For Egypt, the allure of nuclear power is apparent. Its oil 
     consumption is growing and electricity demand is growing at 
     about 7 percent a year.
       ``Egypt can absolutely make a legitimate case for nuclear 
     energy,'' says Mr. Fitzpatrick. ``Its reserves are dwindling, 
     it needs the oil and gas for export, and it needs to 
     diversify its energy resources.''
       Even major oil producers such as Saudi Arabia are, along 
     with Iran, arguing that they need nuclear power. They say 
     it's better to sell their oil than to burn it at home.
       But some analysts argue that nuclear power remains an 
     economic loser. Mr. Sokolski says that when state subsidies 
     to nuclear power are removed, nuclear plants are not 
     economically viable. ``If it was, private banks would be 
     financing nuclear plants without loan guarantees. They can't 
     do it and make money yet.''
       Of course whenever the topic of nuclear power comes up, 
     particularly in the Middle East, concerns about the possible 
     spread of nuclear weapons are not far behind. Experts who 
     follow the nuclear weapons question say assurances of only 
     pursuing peaceful objectives, as have been given by all the 
     countries pursuing nuclear power, Iran included, shouldn't be 
     taken at face value.
       ``Although Egypt does not feel directly threatened by Iran, 
     it does feel its own power and influence in the region 
     threatened by a resurgent nuclear armed Iran,'' says 
     Fitzpatrick.
       ``There are a lot of countries in the region who have 
     expressed interest in nuclear power, and I think there are 
     good reasons to be concerned about this interest and the 
     timing of this interest,'' says Mr. Wolfsthal. ``Nuclear 
     power has had economic arguments in its favor for a decade, 
     but the fact is these programs are only coming to a head in 
     light of the Iranian program.''
       Wolfsthal says the key issues in the coming years will be 
     whether Egypt contracts a turn-key plant from a foreign 
     company--which would minimize the amount of skill and 
     technology transferred to Egyptian engineers--or if it will 
     pursue nuclear partnerships that broaden its knowledge and 
     skills bases.
       Will they pursue their own nuclear fuel cycle, which, he 
     says, would make little economic sense and would be a clear 
     ``red flag'' of intent to develop a weapon, or will they buy 
     nuclear fuel from abroad? ``If you are interested in having 
     the capability of building a nuclear weapon, the best way to 
     start is by building up your nuclear power infrastructure,'' 
     he says. ``The same people that help you design and build 
     nuclear reactors have many of the skill sets you will need if 
     you are going to build a nuclear weapon.''
       Fitzpatrick agrees that if Egypt promises not to develop a 
     nuclear fuel cycle and would agree to more intrusive 
     inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, there 
     would be little reason for concern, though he doubts those 
     commitments will be made. ``Egypt won't take those steps 
     because it says its hands can't be bound anymore while 
     Israel's hands are unbound. They already resent the nuclear 
     asymmetry with Israel, and a nuclear armed Iran on top of 
     that adds too much for them.''
  The conclusion is clear: a nuclear Iran is not acceptable, but a 
nuclear Israel, a nuclear Egypt, a nuclear India, a nuclear Pakistan, a 
nuclear Yemen, a nuclear Saudi Arabia and nuclear all the others, well, 
that's a different story.
  There was a time when world leaders hoped for a nuclear-free zone in 
the Middle East. Instead, while we try to shoot our way to peace in 
Iraq, other world leaders are watching the creation of a nuclear excess 
zone in the Middle East. We threaten Iran, while we encourage the 
others.
  The President has used two terms to implement a nuclear double 
standard. Today's U.S. friends can have nuclear power because they 
really only intend to use it for power generation. But today's U.S. 
foes must be stopped from acquiring nuclear power because they might 
use it in a bad way.
  Today's friend is the President's standard for supporting the 
proliferation of nuclear capacity in the world.
  Timing is everything. Not many years ago, Iran was our friend. Under 
the Shah of Iran, maybe they should have started their nuclear work 
sooner because that would have met the President's definition for a 
nation deserving of nuclear power.
  But let's not forget Rumsfeld's meeting with Saddam. He may not have 
been our friend that day, but we sure acted like it.
  Today Pakistan is in political crisis. And we know they have nuclear 
weapons, not just nuclear power. What will the President do about it? 
His State Department spokesman said the other day the administration 
doesn't have a problem with nations developing peaceful nuclear energy. 
That's diplomatic-speak for today's U.S. friends get to develop nuclear 
energy, while today's U.S. foes get threatened with bunker-buster 
bombs. The administration has been drumbeating for months against Iran, 
but how much have we heard about the other 13 nations who intend to 
develop nuclear capacity?
  A double standard is no standard at all. And history shows that in 
the Middle East, today's friend can be tomorrow's foe. What kind of 
policy is that?
  The President has destroyed the philosophy, the practicality, and the 
prudence of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Instead he has 
embarked on a new policy that will guarantee, that will guarantee, that 
we live in a much more dangerous world.
  So much for security from this administration.

                          ____________________