Advertisement

May 18, 2013

U.S. Nuclear Aid May Be Going to Countries Like Iran and Syria

The State Department is refusing to block United Nations nuclear technology aid to countries that are on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism because it does not want to set back other countries in the program.

The United States provides $20 million a year to help finance the International Atomic Energy Agency, which promotes peaceful use of nuclear energy. But some IAEA funds have gone to countries that could potentially use nuclear technology for weapons, Congress’ watchdog warns.

Neither the State Department nor IAEA have sought to limit the so-called technical cooperation (TC) aid to terror-linked nations such as Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria, or countries which are not party to the non-proliferation treaty, such as India, Israel, and Pakistan, the Government Accountability Office warned.

“State officials told us that the United States did not systematically try to limit TC projects in Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria—which the department designated as sponsors of terrorism,” the report said. “These four countries received more than $55 million in TC assistance from 1997 through 2007.”

During the same time frame, India, Israel and Pakistan received $24.6 million in technical assistance even though none is a party to the non-proliferation treaty.

Nuclear equipment and technology, even if geared towards peaceful purposes, can also contribute to the development of nuclear weapons. Yet, the former head of the TC program told GAO that requests for technical assistance are evaluated strictly on technical merits, thereby thwarting efforts to assess national security concerns.

The GAO has repeatedly suggested the State Department withhold the U.S. contribution to IAEA that would go to countries of concern.

“The United States has applied several types of sanctions limiting foreign assistance and trade to states it has designated as sponsors of terrorism and to other countries. To avoid the appearance of an inconsistent approach and to foster greater cohesion in U.S. policy toward such nations, we believe that it is fair for Congress to consider requiring State to withhold a share of the U.S. contribution,” the GAO said.

Withholding funds would undermine the Department’s ability to convince other member countries to contribute to the fund, and since the funding is not traced to specific projects, it would punish all recipients in the program, the State Department said in response.

The IAEA provides minimal information on project proposals, usually just project titles, which further hinders efforts by the Department of Energy to assess the risk of proliferation in countries requesting assistance.

This story is an update from our previous March 17th, 2011, entry in the Daily Watchdog.

Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Laurel Adams graduated cum laude from the University of Delaware in May of 2010 with majors in international relations, Spanish, and Latin American studies. She interned at Voices Without Borders in Wilmington, Del., and the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. While at the University of Delaware, Adams studied abroad in Argentina, helped start a Spanish conversation club, and served as an editor for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.