Over at our Proliferation Prevention Program blog, you can see what my boss and I wrote regarding “The Dog That Didn’t Bark: Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation at the US-ROK May 2013 Presidential Summit.”
The first result of the decision to delay for most in my former line of work is likely to be relief. But two years is not that far away. And in terms of difficulty, may not be enough time to agree on a longer-term, 30- or 40-year agreement if the South keeps pushing on the enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) door. Congress has a role, and while it may be an imperfect place, our Constitution and our laws give us no other for adjudication of such matters.
It’s incumbent on the Administration to submit proposed language allowing this “extension” to come into force, and on Congress to examine it. At a minimum, the cognizant Committees ought to hold a hearing to establish clear legislative history, just in case we find that in 2015 we see another extension of this agreement being considered along side other, tough 123 agreements.
So far, only Voice of America has covered this matter. Note to Jack Spencer over at Heritage.org: What exactly is “proliferation-resistant used-fuel-management technology”? What makes it resist proliferation? And if it’s so good, why don’t we let everyone use it?