|
Challenges
Ahead for Security After the Nuke Summit
BY
ERNEST COREA (IDN)
The
Nuclear Security Summit convened by President Barack Obama attracted 47
high-level participants – over 30 of them heads of state or government
– who collectively agreed on several small but important steps on the
path towards global safety from a “rogue” nuclear attack. This could
be mounted by “non-state” sources or by a state that does not
observe the rules.
"The agreement of 47 nations to specific steps to safeguard nuclear
materials and technology has to be welcomed especially in averting the
dangers of nuclear weapon proliferation and non-state actors acquiring
them,” says Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, who presided over the 1995
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review and Extension Conference. Formerly
the UN Under-Secretary General for Disarmament (1998-2003), he is
President of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, and
Jennings Randolph Senior Visiting Scholar, U.S. Institute of Peace.
“Norms with regard to this had already been established by the
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and Nuclear
Facilities and its Amendment. The problem of nuclear terrorism had also
been addressed by the Security Council Resolution 1540 and the
International Convention for the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism,”
Dhanapala added.
“Unfortunately,” he pointed out, “not all the 47 countries
participating in the Washington Summit have signed and ratified the two
conventions I have mentioned. We must also remember that the problem
really lies with nuclear weapons for which there are neither wrong hands
nor right hands".
The assessment that the real problem lies with the continued existence
of nuclear arsenals is consistent with Obama’s view, as stated in his
speech of April 2009 in Prague where he articulated a commitment “to
seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”
Security from the theft or loss and use of nuclear material is but one
segment of the broader search for a nuclear weapons free world to which
men and women of peace aspire.
OBLIGATION
The U.S. is considered a potential target of a “rogue” terrorist
attack because Al Qaeda has openly said that it considers the
acquisition of material for a nuclear weapon a prime obligation.
Other countries are also vulnerable to such attacks. Imagine, for
example, the extent of destruction that would have been caused had the
Mumbai terrorists possessed a “suitcase nuclear bomb.”
More than 18 cases have already been recorded of highly enriched urnaium
or plutonium being lost or stolen. Over 2000 tons of plutonium and
highly enriched uranium exist in several countries, some of which have
no safeguards against theft.
With those stark realities in mind, summit participants agreed that
“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.”
So the goal of the nuclear security summit was to start moving towards a
regime in which materials that can be used to manufacture a nuclear
device are protected to the fullest extent possible.
Obama told a news conference at the conclusion of the summit: “I said
this morning that today would be an opportunity for our nations, both
individually and collectively, to make concrete commitments and take
tangible steps to secure nuclear materials so they never fall into the
hands of terrorists who would surely use them.
“This evening, I can report that we have seized this opportunity, and
because of the steps we’ve taken -- as individual nations and as an
international community -- the American people will be safer and the
world will be more secure.”
An official summary of the summit communiqué sets out its highlights.
The communiqué:
- Acknowledges the need for all vulnerable nuclear material to be
secured in four years;
- Proposes that focused national efforts be made to improve security and
accounting of nuclear materials and that regulations concerning
plutonium and highly enriched uranium be strengthened;
- Seeks to consolidate stocks of highly enriched uranium and plutonium
and to reduce the use of highly enriched uranium,
- Promotes universality of key international treaties on nuclear
security and nuclear terrorism;
- Notes the positive contributions of mechanisms like the Global
Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism to build capacity among law
enforcement, industry, and technical personnel,
- Calls for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to receive the
resources it needs to develop nuclear security guidelines and provide
advice to its members on how to implement them,
- Seeks to ensure that bilateral and multilateral security assistance
would be applied where it can do the most good, and
- Encourages the nuclear industry to share best practices for nuclear
security, at the same time making sure that security measures do not
prevent countries from enjoying the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy.
In addition to the communiqué, the summit produced a work plan, and a
reference guide to the work plan.
INITIATIVES
The summit also provided participating governments with the opportunity
to announce initiatives some of them had already taken, or would be
taking. For instance:
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton signed an update to a 2000 agreement calling on each country to
dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium by burning it as
fuel in nuclear reactors. Additionally, Russian President Medvedev
re-confirmed plans to close a plutonium production reactor.
Ukraine announced that it would give up its 90-kilogram stock of highly
enriched uranium and convert its research reactors from highly enriched
to low-enriched uranium. It intends to accomplish these goals by 2012.
Canada informed the meeting that it would be returning a large amount of
spent highly enriched uranium fuel from its medical isotope production
reactor to the U.S.; championing the extension of the G8 Global
Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass
Destruction; funding highly enriched uranium removals from Mexico and
Vietnam; hosting and funding a World Institute of Nuclear Security best
practices workshop in Ottawa; and providing $100 million in new
bilateral security cooperation with Russia.
India made known its decision to establish a Global Centre for Nuclear
Energy Partnership, to create and disseminate the knowledge required for
nuclear security.
Chile, Kazakhstan, and Vietnam agreed to dispose of highly enriched
uranium used in civilian facilities.
This is only a representative sampling. Taken together, undertakings of
specific action by individual governments suggest that the momentum
towards nuclear security has actually begun.
NON-BINDING
Critics will undoubtedly argue that the main outcome of the summit is
merely a non-binding communique, and therefore hardly worth the drafting
effort.
Others have already complained that the summit neither discussed nor
agreed on action against Iran whose nuclear enrichment program they
consider the greatest potential source of nuclear insecurity.
It could also be said that clandestine nuclear stockpiles, such as that
said to be possessed by Israel, were not addressed and that Obama, in
fact, glided away from the question when it was raised at his news
conference.
The fact that participation at the summit was selective – selected by
the U.S. Government – and not universal, will also be seen as having
weakened the event.
SUPPORTIVE
These are significant issues and will continue to be raised. The fact
that a non-binding communiqué came out is not really a crippling
infirmity, however, because even “binding” agreements are known to
be broken. Moreover, a communiqué signed by over 30 heads of state and
government cannot be easily shrugged off.
On the other side of public opinion, meanwhile, there have been a number
of supportive assessments such as the comment from former Senator Sam
Nunn, a genuine expert on nuclear matters and for many years a supporter
of nuclear disarmament: "we are now closer to cooperation than
catastrophe."
Britain’s foreign secretary (minister) David Miliband, said that the
summit had succesfully broken “a culture of cynicism” about matters
connected with nuclear issues.
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association, and
Peter Crail, a Nonproliferation Analyst at the association, said
"the summit was also able to point out that this risk of nuclear
terrorism is a shared one and is not just a threat to the U.S.” They
called on the "U.S. Congress to fully support programs aimed at
enhancing nuclear security around the globe and combating illicit
nuclear trafficking".
AGENDA
For Obama, the nuclear security summit was one more action point to be
marked off on an agenda leading towards the goal of total nuclear
disarmament that he set out in his Prague speech of April 2009. He
reaffirmed that goal during a visit to Japan in a “Joint Statement
toward a world without nuclear weapons.”
A year after that initial exuberance of a Prague Spring, the U.S.
Government has sought to nurture more of that spirit. The U.S. issued a
redesigned “Nuclear Posture Review” that reduces dependence on
nuclear weapons while committing itself to strengthen the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty; signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(START) with Russia that reduces the number of strategic arms on both
sides; and convened the nuclear security summit. Next comes the NPT
Conference in May 2010.
Two years from now, a nuclear security summit will be held in South
Korea. The extent to which the promises and hopes of 2009 and 2010 –
in their full dimensions -- have been fulfilled by all parties, or are
approaching fulfilment by 2012, will show whether the world is ready for
nuclear disarmament, including nuclear security, or whether the great
hopes and initiatives of today are the great disappointments of
tomorrow.
[Source:
IDN-InDepthNews
| Analysis That Matters]
_____________
The
writer has
served as Sri Lanka's ambassador to Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and the USA.
He was Chairman of the Commonwealth's Select Committee on the media and
development.
|
