Has the Nuclear Security Summit Contributed to Nuclear Nonproliferation and Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism?

PSPD’s Statement on

the Nuclear Security Summit

Has the Nuclear Security Summit Contributed to Nuclear Nonproliferation and Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism?

2010 April 15

President Obama, advocating for “the nuclear weapon free world, hosted the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC on April 12-13. Obama is attempting to make “nuclear security” as a main agenda for the nuclear free world while arguing for the necessity to manage fissile materials to prevent it from the nuclear terrorism. However, it looks that the ambitious summit loses its balance even in the beginning.

It is awkward that fissile materials which could be used for weapons are mentioned to be protected, not to be abolished. It does not mean the expression of “nuclear security” is not realistic at all since international cooperation action against to new nuclear terrorism threat is urgent while President Obama confessed “whether nuclear-free world will come in his life is unclear”. However, for the validness of the nuclear security agenda, at least the nuclear states are required to carry out aggressive and fair nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. Can we find it from the summit? The answer may be no.

More effort toward nuclear disarmament and elimination of double Standard needed

First of all, composition of the participated nations is problematic. While 47 states were invited to the Nuclear Security Summit, the main countries directly involved in charge of nuclear proliferation, was partly invited or was excluded. The non-member nations of NPT (Nonproliferation Treaty), Israel, Pakistan, and India were invited, but Israel did not attend intentionally. The member nations of NPT, Iran and Syria, and the withdrawal member, North Korea were not even invited.

What was the standard? To say ‘engagement’ was intended, it is not fair to North Korea and Iran. To try ‘exclusion and pressure’ was meant, it is unconvincing the reason of Israel, Pakistan, and India were invited. The order of NPT was denied fundamentally, and the fact that until now fissile materials are being produced in these governments and any sort of valid measures is not suggested, was hard to gain the sympathy. In this respect, Nuclear Security Summit looks like it did not succeed to suggest fair and strict standard to these countries to motivate disarmament and nonproliferation.

Secondly, it is still doubtful that disarmament wills of NPT members of nuclear power states, including US are as strong as “Nuclear Security” initiative. It is worth recognizing that the Obama administration of US is trying to reduce “the weight of nuclear deterrent” which is differentiated from the Bush administration, which nuclear hegemony became conspicuous. The evidences are the Prague Pledge April 2009, which appealed to a nuclear weapon free world, chairing the UN Security Council and sponsoring the Resolution 1887, and recently sign for the U.S.-Russian’s New START treaty. It is also worth appraisal that US is more positive toward FMCT (Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty), CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty), and so on.

However, even though US-Russia fulfills the promise of nuclear weapons reduction, it is estimated that both countries still have 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons. For only these measures until now, it is hard to say the U.S.-Russian nuclear monopoly is going through a fundamental change. The UN Security Council Resolution 1887 is also forward-looking regarding to nuclear power state’s disarmament duty, but it confronts to critics that it includes an abstract article on nuclear disarmament, whilst it includes very specific and practical articles on sanctions for non-nuclear power state’s failure in nonproliferation obligations.

Nevertheless, President Obama declared that US rather “maintain the efficient nuclear deterrent” in NPR 2010 which was presented last April 6, and said he will succeed the Bush administration’s doctrines, which launch a pre-emptive attack to so-called “rogue state”, even though they are non-nuclear nations. NPR 2010 never adopted, “No First Use” policy, which they will not first use nuclear weapons to nuclear nations. In addition, the will of disarmament and nonproliferation was curtailed, as the Obama administration will strengthen conventional weapons and missile defense, as the weight of nuclear weapons in US security relatively reduced.        

Third, the core subject of the Nuclear Security Summit itself is what makes this conference’s object doubtful, especially the fairness of the restriction on fissile materials like plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU). Also, the argument over the obscurity between the peaceful use of nuclear and the military use of the nuclear will be ignited intensely.       

Unlike the past, the Obama administration shows positive attitudes toward Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), but the problem is that the former US administrations preferred to exclude the provision of the existing fissile materials from the target of cut-off, and only includes that of the other fissionable materials that are to be produced in the future. It is certain that this will discourage other states to compromise the FMCT. There are approximately 2,100 tons of fissile materials in the world. It is tantamount to which 120,000 nuclear bombs can be produced, and most of these belong to Russia and US. During the Summit, although the discussion in terms of the security and management of the nuclear materials was done, any guideline about the dismantlement or restriction of them was not yet set on the table.

Not only did US make an agreement with Japan that allows running the reprocessing plant at Loka Shomura where plutonium and the HEU are produced, but also US reached the ‘commercial’ nuclear agreement with India who is not a party to Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). These arbitrary and slanted actions of US would discourage other countries from the effort of nonproliferation, and encourage them to develop and possess nuclear weapons. Other nuclear-possessed countries like France and Russia’s approach is the same as US.

President Lee Myung-bak’s remarks unprepared, awkward, and deviated from the Agenda

President Lee Myung-bak’s press conference at the Summit was out of focus and inappropriate because his speech was mostly concentrated on the North Korea and Iran’s nuclear development where the agenda was about nuclear terrorism. It was also infelicitous when President Lee called North Korea and Iran ‘rogue states’ because it reminded the unilateralism of the Bush. He should have been more careful about his statement especially when he has been looking for a summit with North Korea. His speech that seemed to grant the fact North Korea and Iran had not even been invited was also revealed that he might not have understand the sensitivity of the agenda and he might be a pro-American and pro-Western person since he did not raised any questions on Israel and Pakistan. Moreover, it was ridiculous that he was there for the sales of nuclear plants where the agenda was on fissile materials since the distinction between fissile materials for nuclear energy and fissile materials for nuclear weapons are obscure. Inappropriateness and impertinence of the Lee Myung-bak’s words and conducts reach the highness when we come to recall for his attempts to reform the nuclear agreement with US to attain the reprocessing of the spent fuel which produces plutonium.

Reflecting on the Obama administration’s nuclear policies so far, they seem to set the nuclear security as the first assignment for nuclear weapon free world, as putting the priority on nuclear security to the same level as nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, the right to peaceful use of the nuclear. While it is urgent, the prevention of the nuclear terrorism should go hand in hand with putting the effort into nuclear disarmament and reorganization of nuclear regulation on equity and impartiality; otherwise, it will not go successfully.

South Korea required taking initiatives for the world nuclear disarmament as well as nuclear abolition of North Korea

President Lee should participate in the world’s effort for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament with universal principles and his approach to abolish North Korea’s Nukes should be paralleled with such principles. Also, President Lee should persuade the six participant countries of the Six-party Talks, and international society in order to set up peace not only in the Korean Peninsula, but also in the world. That’s what the “global diplomacy” stands for as his slogan goes. Only under the premise that President Lee is to deal with the topics of the Korean Peninsula’s peace with the authenticity, the Nuclear Security Summit that is to be taken place in South Korea in 2012 would mean something.