|
Billed as the largest gathering of world leaders since the close of World War II, American President Barack Obama gathered 47 national delegations for the first Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) in Washington on April 12 and 13. The scale of the summit was mammoth and conveyed the gravity of the subject matter. The Summit was called ostensibly to guard against nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and alert nuclear powered nations about their responsibility to secure their nuclear arsenals.
The U.S. president told the summit the post-MAD (mutually assured destruction) era’s deadly new challenge requires “a new mindset”. To illustrate his point, he quoted Albert Einstein, “We are drifting toward a catastrophe beyond comparison”. Obama quoted Albert Einstein as saying in those early years, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.”
In trademark style, Obama offered rhetorical flourishes to fit the occasion: The president said that a tiny scrap of plutonium the size of an apple was now the biggest threat to world stability, with “just the tiniest amount of plutonium” in the wrong hands posing potential for catastrophe.
Before formally opening the summit with a reception and working dinner, Obama held a series of one-on-one meetings with leaders from China, Jordan, Ukraine, Armenia and Malaysia. Presidential aides billed the summit as the largest gathering of world leaders hosted by an American president since the 1945 conference in San Francisco that founded the United Nations.
The International Panel on Fissile Materials reported last year that something between 1,300 and 1,900 tons of weapons-grade uranium are stockpiled worldwide. Mere pounds, meanwhile, can make a city-leveling bomb.
The world’s oldest nuclear powers the United States, France, Britain, Russia and China sat at a table with India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed nations, and Israel, which is presumed to have nuclear weapons but abstained from the summit. The three are outside the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty aimed at stopping the spread of atomic weapons. Kenneth Luongo, head of US-based Partnership for Global Security said that it was important that developed and developing powers had come together and agreed, “there’s a problem with nuclear security and are prepared to deal with it.”
Civilian Nuclear Industry
Any step in nuclear security also has implications for the civilian nuclear power industry, which has seen a rebirth in recent years because it produces greenhouse gas emissions harmful to the climate. David Albright, a former UN arms inspector and head of the Institute for Science and International Security think-tank, noted disagreements over civilian use of plutonium.
“Obama is willing to set aside his objections (regarding plutonium use) to keep France involved,” he said. France is one of the world’s top producers of MOX nuclear fuel, which is made from recycled plutonium. Environmental activists and other critics of MOX say the transport of nuclear waste and reprocessed plutonium leaves the materials vulnerable to accidents or theft.
France, which gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, was concerned that Obama might use the summit to highlight the dangers of nuclear energy and play down its positive side. But Obama did not do that and France realized that the summit could prove helpful to the nuclear industry. Ultimately, Albright said, the success or failure of the summit will depend on whether individual countries live up to the commitments they made. Success will also depend on continued US leadership. Securing nuclear material would be a good start but not sufficient, analysts say.
Visible Gains
The Summit obviously produced several tangible dividends aimed at preventing what Obama labeled as the “world’s top security threat” – the risk of terrorists obtaining even a small portion of the estimated 2,000 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium that exists in dozens of countries.
As a sign of leading by example, Cold War rivals Washington and Moscow signed a deal to reduce excess weapons-grade plutonium. At the Summit, the United States, Canada and Mexico agreed to work together with the International Atomic Energy Agency to convert Mexico’s research reactor from the use of highly enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium fuel. Ukraine, which in 1994 gave up nuclear arms inherited in the collapse of the Soviet Union, announced it would get rid of its highly enriched uranium, and Canada said it would return spent nuclear fuel to the United States, its supplier.
Outcome
The Summit was certainly a test of Obama’s ability to galvanize global action on a broader nuclear agenda to rid the planet of atomic weapons. But some countries are skeptical about the seriousness of the nuclear terrorism threat, viewing it more of an American obsession after the September 11, 2001 air borne attacks by al Qaeda.
India’s concerns were expressed by Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in closed-door remarks that there are concerns about the potential proliferation threat from India’s nuclear-armed regional rival, Pakistan. Experts say Pakistan is a serious risk because of internal security threats from the Taliban and al Qaeda. But Pakistan insists it has adequate safeguards in place for its nuclear missiles.
|
The Communiqué Swears by Nuclear Security
|
|
Nuclear terrorism is one of the most challenging threats to international security, and strong nuclear security measures are the most effective means to prevent terrorists, criminals, or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials.
In addition to our shared goals of nuclear disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, we also all share the objective of nuclear security. Therefore those gathered here in Washington, D.C. on April 13, 2010, commit to strengthen nuclear security and reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism. Success will require responsible national actions and sustained and effective international cooperation.
We welcome and join President Obama’s call to secure all vulnerable nuclear material in four years, as we work together to enhance nuclear security.
Therefore, we:
-
Reaffirm the fundamental responsibility of States, consistent with their respective international obligations, to maintain effective security of all nuclear materials, which includes nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons, and nuclear facilities under their control; to prevent non-state actors from obtaining the information or technology required to use such material for malicious purposes; and emphasize the importance of robust national legislative and regulatory frameworks for nuclear security;
-
Call on States to work cooperatively as an international community to advance nuclear security, requesting and providing assistance as necessary;
-
Recognize that highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium require special precautions and agree to promote measures to secure, account for, and consolidate these materials, as appropriate; and encourage the conversion of reactors from highly enriched to low enriched uranium fuel and minimization of use of highly enriched uranium, where technically and economically feasible;
-
Endeavor to fully implement all existing nuclear security commitments and work toward acceding to those not yet joined, consistent with national laws, policies and procedures;
-
Support the objectives of international nuclear security instruments, including the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, as amended, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, as essential elements of the global nuclear security architecture;
-
Reaffirm the essential role of the International Atomic Energy Agency in the international nuclear security framework and will work to ensure that it continues to have the appropriate structure, resources and expertise needed to carry out its mandated nuclear security activities in accordance with its Statute, relevant General Conference resolutions and its Nuclear Security Plans;
-
Recognize the role and contributions of the United Nations as well as the contributions of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the G-8-led Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction within their respective mandates and memberships;
-
Acknowledge the need for capacity building for nuclear security and cooperation at bilateral, regional and multilateral levels for the promotion of nuclear security culture through technology development, human resource development, education, and training; and stress the importance of optimizing international cooperation and coordination of assistance;
-
Recognize the need for cooperation among States to effectively prevent and respond to incidents of illicit nuclear trafficking; and agree to share, subject to respective national laws and procedures, information and expertise through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms in relevant areas such as nuclear detection, forensics, law enforcement, and the development of new technologies;
-
Recognize the continuing role of nuclear industry, including the private sector, in nuclear security and will work with industry to ensure the necessary priority of physical protection, material accountancy, and security culture;
-
Support the implementation of strong nuclear security practices that will not infringe upon the rights of States to develop and utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and technology and will facilitate international cooperation in the field of nuclear security; and,
-
Recognize that measures contributing to nuclear material security have value in relation to the security of radioactive substances and encourage efforts to secure those materials as well.
Maintaining effective nuclear security will require continuous national efforts facilitated by international cooperation and undertaken on a voluntary basis by States. We will promote the strengthening of global nuclear security through dialogue and cooperation with all states.
Thus, we issue the Work Plan as guidance for national and international action including through cooperation within the context of relevant international fora and organizations. We will hold the next Nuclear Security Summit in the Republic of Korea in 2012. |
|
|
Making a New START |
|
In a ceremony filled with flourish and the echoes of history, President Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev on 8 April 2010 put aside the tensions of recent years to seal the New Start Treaty between the United States and Russia, by paring back their nuclear arsenals. The two leaders used the moment to showcase their growing personal relationship and a mutual commitment to cooperation on a host of issues. The celebratory mood in the majestic, gilded hall of Prague Castle masked stubborn divisions on matters like missile defense and European security.
Obama called his Russian counterpart a “friend and partner” and said “without his personal efforts and strong leadership, we would not be here today.” For his part, Medvedev said the two had developed a “very good personal relationship and a very good personal chemistry, as they say.”
“When the United States and Russia are not able to work together on big issues, it’s not good for either of our nations, nor is it good for the world,” Obama said. “Together, we’ve stopped that drift, and proved the benefits of cooperation. Today is an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation, and for US-Russia relations.”
New Page
Medvedev called the treaty “a truly historic event” that would “open a new page” in Russian-American relations. “What matters most is that this is a win-win situation,” he said. “No one stands to lose from this agreement. I believe that this is a typical feature of our cooperation. Both parties have won.”
The Russia signaled support for the American-led drive to impose new sanctions on Iran, saying that Tehran’s nuclear program had flouted international rules. “We cannot turn a blind eye to this,” Mr. Medvedev said, while adding that sanctions “should be smart” and avoid hardship for the Iranian people.
The friendly tone stood in contrast to the divide between Washington and Moscow after Russia’s war with its neighbour Georgia in 2008, when President George W. Bush shelved a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement to protest it and supplied financial aid to the Georgians. This time neither of them mentioned Georgia in public or the issue of Russia’s friction with its neighbours.
What it Means
Under the treaty, if ratified, each side within seven years would be barred from deploying more than 1,550 strategic warheads or 700 launchers. Because of counting rules and past reductions, neither side would have to eliminate large numbers of weapons to meet the new limits. But the treaty re-establishes an inspection regime that lapsed in December last year and could serve as a foundation for deeper reductions later. The rapprochement worries many in east Europe once dominated by Moscow. Hoping to soothe the concerns of Eastern Europe, Obama talked to President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia before leaving Washington and then hosted 11 leaders from the region in Prague for a dinner.
“He gave us reassurances that we are not in a vacuum, that we are anchored in Europe and NATO, that we belong somewhere,” Prime Minister Jan Fischer of the Czech Republic said in an interview. Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland told reporters that he asked Obama directly how the renewed Russian-American ties “may affect the security of countries in the region,” and added that “we received assurances on the part of the United States” that its commitment to its partners here remained undiminished.
Strategy
More than addressing East Europe’s concerns, President Obama’s new nuclear strategy carries a gamble of turning the ageing, oversized and increasingly outmoded nuclear arsenal to a new purpose to press Iran and North Korea to rethink the value of their nuclear programmes.
The “Nuclear Posture Review” of the US released on the 5th of April acknowledged outright that “the massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War era” is “poorly suited to address the challenges posed by suicidal terrorist and unfriendly regimes seeking nuclear weapons.”
Non-nuclear states that abide by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty would not be threatened with nuclear retaliation by the United States — even if they conducted conventional, biological or cyber attacks. But, he added, “If you’re not going to play by the rules, if you’re going to be a proliferator, then all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you.”
Obama’s new strategy makes just about every non-nuclear state immune from any threat of nuclear retaliation by the United States. But it isolates Iran and North Korea, labelled “outliers” rather than the Bush-era moniker of “rogue states.” The wording was chosen, to suggest they have a path back to international respectability — and to de-targeting by the United States.
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates quipped. “There is a clear message for Iran and North Korea here”.
|
|
|
