A report by the National Intelligence Council issued in November 2008
warned that the risk of nuclear proliferation will increase in coming
years as nuclear technology spreads to nations that are currently
non-nuclear.

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20081121_7561.php

Such a finding should come as no surprise. The peaceful atom and the
bellicose atom are one and the same. India's "peaceful nuclear
explosion" in 1974 showed how civilian nuclear power can be a cover for
weapons development, as do the activities of North Korea and Iran.
Uranium enrichment technology can be used to make reactor fuel or
weapons-grade material. The difference is one of degree and not kind.

Is there a way, short of prohibiting the development of nuclear energy
in countries that presently lack it, of minimizing the proliferation
risk? Are there ways of determining which countries are trustworthy
enough to have nuclear power?

The research of Professor R. J. Rummel provides a clue, The author of
"Death by Government" has found that states which are peaceful are the
ones that are free and democratic.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM

Having a free, open society, with a limited, democratically elected
government with a commitment to human rights is correlated, according to
Professor Rummel, with a state not being murderous. A free, democratic
country is therefore less likely to use civilian nuclear technology to
create weapons of mass destruction.

In other words, when it comes to nuclear power, totalitarian states need
not apply.

Should every country that wants nuclear power be allowed to have it,
even if the country is free and democratic? Should a country rich in
petroleum reserves and with ample solar and wind energy potential have
nuclear power reactors?

Such are legitimate questions that ought to be probed. The U.S.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that need for the
project and evaluation of alternatives be considered for nuclear power
plant licensing in the United States.

An international NEPA-type analysis ought to be a prerequisite for
introducing nuclear power to a non-nuclear nation.

Having selected criteria then leads to the next issue: who will
enforce them? At first glance, it would appear that the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would be a logical choice. However, a
closer examination of that agency disqualifies it.

The IAEA was created in 1957 as the world's Atoms for Peace agency. It
both promotes civilian uses of nuclear technology and tries to limit
military uses. It thus has an inherent conflict of interest, as
evidenced by this article:

http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20081125_8832.php

Note that the IAEA has been working with Syria since 1979 to develop
nuclear power.

The IAEA suffers from the same fatal defect that the old U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) did. Like the IAEA, the AEC's mission was both
to promote and regulate nuclear technology in the United States. Public
criticism of this inherent conflict led Congress to enact the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, which abolished the AEC and gave its
functions to two new agencies: the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
which would be the regulator, and the Energy Research and Development
Administration (which later became part of the U.S. Department of
Energy), which would handle the promotional aspects.

What is needed is a similar reorganization at the international level.
The regulatory functions of the IAEA need to be stripped from the agency
and given to a new body, which will have regulatory powers only. The
IAEA can retain its promotional functions.

Or, in the alternative, the promotional functions of the IAEA can be
abolished altogether, and the IAEA can have regulatory authority only.
Why do we even need an international agency to promote nuclear power?
This isn't the 1950s anymore. The technology is mature, and the private
sector is more than capable of promoting itself.