Leahy for President in 2008?

How does one vote in the upcoming presidential elections for 2008? I realize that there is no perfect way to research for the elections, but I thought I would share my own own limited method for those interested. The method I use is to choose two or three realms that I believe to be paramount in our nations future, then research how the candidates have acted/voted/preached on issues related to those realms.

In this years election one issue I am focusing on is international diplomacy: in particular non-proliferation as it pertains to Iran and North Korea. Over one year ago the US Senate decided to approve the sale of nuclear material and reactors to India with the passage of bill HR 5682 entitled the `United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006'. In this legislation the US Government reversed its history of abstaining from sharing nuclear material/technology with India. Why has America abstained from trading nuclear abilities with India in the past? Well, in 1954 the US government passed the Atomic Energy Act. One of the relevant statement from this act is as follows: "No nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology shall be exported to any non-nuclear-weapon state that is found by the President to have, at any time after the effective date of this section, detonated a nuclear explosive device..." (Section 129). India tested its first nuclear bomb on May 18th, 1974--roughly 20 years after the Atomic Energy Act was passed in Congress. Consequently, the US government has been legally unable to trade nuclear technology to India.

Then, why has the US government created new legislation (HR 5682) to begin trading nuclear technology with India? The recently passed legislation which exempts India from the 1954 Nuclear Energy Act lists several rational for trading with India. One is that "commerce in civil nuclear materials between India and the US and other countries has the potential to benefit people of all countries." This is a not so obvious way of saying that the growing Indian economy desperately needs energy. Another rationale listed in the legislation is that "strong bilateral relations with India are in the national interests of the United States." In other words, the current world is an incubator for two growing powers, India and China. We might as well make fast friends with one of them.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing phrases in the legislation is this: "such commerce (with India) also represents a significant change in United States policy regarding commerce with countries not parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which remains the foundation of the international non-proliferation regime..."

What is this Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and why is it disturbing that the United States policy is changing regarding countries not parties to it? The NPT was signed by countries to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the thin hope that we might not blow this earth to bits. Article I of the NPT reads: "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes...not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices." Language from HR 5682 includes this same word "encourage" when speaking of the US duty to avoid encouraging India from "in any way" increasing their fissile material for non-civilian purposes (Sec. 103.9). My take is that the inclusion of this word is an attempt to overtly endorse the NPT while winking coyly at India. After all, in what way does the American deal to send nuclear material to India not encourage production of fissile material for non-civilian purposes? Especially given the lack of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to monitor India's current nuclear weapons program. Allow me to ask this, if we are providing energy for civilian purposes does this not allow India to devote more of their indigenous nuclear material for weapons production?

My answer to the above question is, "It is probable and plausible that America is indirectly encouraging India to develop weapons." The one factor that would change this plausibility is if India would allow monitoring of all its nuclear facilities. As my Indian patient commented, the odds of a national power allowing access to its military facilities are slim to non. And yet without IAEA monitors at all of India's reactors (both military and civilian) there is no assurance that India is not increasing its nuclear arsenal.

India is one of a handful of nations (Israel, Pakistan, North Korea) who have not signed the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and one of several countries who flaunt their nuclear weapons program. "Who else flaunts their programs as overtly as India?" you might ask. Pakistan for one; and North Korea for a second; and Iran for a third. If we are indirectly encouraging India to produce nuclear weapons, then what becomes of our moral credibility as we continue to discourage Iran and North Korea from developing/enhancing nuclear weapons programs? With this recent legislation the United States government has unfortunately injured its credibility with regards to non-proliferation. I believe that this will in turn harm the US strategy to illicit multilateral pressure upon North Korea and Iran to halt their respective nuclear programs.


The United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006 was passed in congress last year. In the House the vote was 330 in favor and 59 against. In the Senate the vote was 85 in favor and 12 against. Here are the names of the Senators who voted against HR 5682:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)


From this list I recognize only two names: Kennedy and Leahy. For various reasons I would abhor having Kennedy as president. On the other hand, I know nothing about Leahy. Maybe I will write him in in the 2008 presidential election. Hmmm.