Obama's Nuclear Summit: Did It Matter?
by Matthew Wallin
This week, President Obama convened agathering of 47 nations in Washington, D.C., for the world's first Nuclear Security summit -- deemed the "largest gathering of world leaders on U.S. soil" since the founding of the UN in 1945.
The results of the conference appear promising, with solid commitments by a number of nations to reduce stockpiles and to take actions that would help lessen the threat of proliferation. Notably, Ukraine, scarred by the experience of Chernobyl and still battling its aftermath, agreed to convert its existing reactors to low-grade status and remove its entire stock of highly enriched uranium.
As a bonus to the new START treaty, the U.S. and Russia also signed an update to a 2000 agreement on the reduction of weapons-grade plutonium. And in a win for the Obama Administration, China has warmed to the idea of discussing sanctions against Iran. Perhaps best of all, the attendees promised to secure all nuclear material within four years. Appropriately, the next summit will be held in Seoul in 2012.
But not all is rosy in Washington, as the summit has not been without its hiccups.
Highlighting tensions between the U.S. and Israel, at the last moment, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu elected not to attend. Reasoning that the conference would be used as a platform by Arab nations to attack Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity, his decision could preclude the opening of an important dialogue on a topic that is of the utmost concern to Israeli security. Pointing out that Israel is not a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatory, Foreign Policy's Avner Cohen notes that Netanyahu's participation in the Nuclear Summit would have helped the image of Israel as a responsible nuclear power. Interestingly, Obama ducked the reporters' questions about Israel, saying that his position is consistent with that of previous administrations.
A key element of the summit was loose nukes. Buzz about the ability of terrorist or criminal organizations to get their hands on loose nukes has circulated wildly over the past decade. Of particular concern has been the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal -- security that was especially questionable when, in 2009, Taliban elements seized control of areas within 70 miles of the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. While American and Pakistani leaders have publicly stated that the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons is not at risk, questions remain about the Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence's alleged support of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Though Obama expectedly reconfirmed U.S. commitment to Pakistan's nuclear security, he gave no specifics as to what this actually entails.
Finally, there are Iran and North Korea. In a move hardly considered surprising, Iran announced its own upcoming summit, titled "Nuclear Energy for All, Nuclear Weapons for No One." More than 60 nations have been invited and the Iranians insist the summit will be successful. While success may be relative, the Obama administration must consider the pull that this conference may have on Russian or Chinese interests.
With regards to North Korea, Obama appeared to have one foot set in fantasy, and another in reality. Though he correctly recognized that "sanctions are not a magic wand," he expressed hope that continuing pressure on the North Korean government will bring them back to the six party talks -- a process widely regarded as failed.
Nuclear security efforts will take time. Time is a luxury that nuclear half-life affords, and security does not.
Matthew Wallin is a second-year master's candidate in the Master of Public Diplomacy program. This op-ed is part of a partnership between Neon Tommy and the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars.
No comments:
Post a Comment