Little of
significance despite the presence of the world’s most powerful leaders
The Nuclear Security Summit held on March 26-27 in Seoul, has turned
out to be a half-baked extravaganza that produced little of significance except
for proclaiming the lofty goal of a nuclear-free world vision – while one of
the world’s nuclear outlaws lurked just 65 km to the north, rattling rockets in
the face of the world’s most powerful leaders.
Much effort has been spent in the last several months through Sherpa
and sous-Sherpa meetings at the highest political level, the 51 heads of state
and global organizations including the leaders of the world’s most potent
nuclear-tipped countries, who gathered in Seoul for the second security summit.
They issued a 2200-word Seoul Communiqué that was long on words and short on
commitment except for a series of non-binding vows to take observable actions
around the end of 2013. They unanimously affirmed that “measures to strengthen
nuclear security will not hamper the rights of States to develop and utilize
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”
As well they should. These commitments will be supported by each of the
signatories in the hopes of promoting a global recognition that a nuclear
explosion anywhere is a serious danger everywhere, reflected by the tragedy of
the Fukushima earthquake and tsunami and the subsequent near-meltdown of the
Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plants, which continue to cook menacingly today,
more than a year after the temblor. Meaningfully, the leaders noted the nexus
between nuclear security and nuclear safety, while addressing these ‘different
chapters of the same book’ issues in a coherent manner.
In truth, the interface between nuclear security and safety will likely
represent another step toward expanding the perceptions of nuclear power in a
dangerous world. It also marks the opening of broader maneuvering to counter
the emerging nuclear threats of the 21st century. The United States currently
has 2,100 deployed strategic warheads, and Russia 2,600, according to the
Federation of American Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
In reality, nuclear terrorism has emerged as one of the most
challenging threats to global security – a danger that people began to
recognize after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the
Pentagon in Washington, DC, in which Al-Qaeda, a non-state actor, was able to
kill more people than the imperialist Japan killed at Pearl Harbor in 1941. A
nuclear 9/11 attack would certainly incinerate hundreds of thousands in a
single blow at the heart of New York, for example.
Unfortunately, there is a misbelief among numerous nuclear skeptics
that even if non-state actors like terrorists could obtain nuclear material
clandestinely and make a crude bomb, it would be the United States’ and
Russia’s problem, not a grave issue for other countries. It is a grave issue
for any country faced with a deranged and capable non-state organization.
Meanwhile, the political leaders underlined the importance of securing,
accounting for and consolidating highly enriched uranium and separated
plutonium, while encouraging each state to take measures to minimize the use of
HEU, including efforts to down-blend HEU into low enriched uranium. Given that
approximately 25 kg of highly enriched is needed for making one nuclear
warhead, it is realistic to point out that the United States and Russia in
particular should take a more urgent action to speed up their own rates of
down-blending and dismantlement rather than focusing attention on securing
fissile materials globally.
That’s why the leaders, if not participating in the summit meeting
merely for a photo opportunity, should continue to find common ground necessary
to make ‘binding’ efforts toward strengthening nuclear security. Coming up with
obligatory actions is, to be sure, a tough nut but it should be, after all,
made in one way or another, since another fuzzy communiqué which embraces
voluntary arrangements cannot secure the global security, safety and
safeguards.
Bland commitments and sterile debates over unpredictable nuclear
threats emanating from non-state actors and over dangers beyond men’s
imagination will do nothing to fend off the opponents of the summit who are in
strong favor of eliminating all nuclear weapons and dismantling nuclear
reactors on the planet.
Equally alarming, waste and spent fuel which are stored on an interim
basis in pools of water or in casks are of the greatest concern about the
vulnerability of the materials to disasters like the Fukushima accident or
possible terrorist attacks. Given that the effectiveness of concrete to contain
nuclear waste is much less than 100 years, it raises rational questions about
whether these sensitive materials can be effectively stored for periods that
will exceed recorded human history so far, many times over.
Nevertheless, it is worthy to note that the Seoul Summit set a target
date of 2014 for bringing the 2005 Amendment to the Convention on the Physical
Protection of Nuclear Material into force by 2014. Plus, agreement between the
U.S., France, Belgium, and the Netherlands was made to produce medical isotopes
without the use of HEU by 2015. The move could encourage other countries to act
boldly over time.
Lee Byong-chul
Asia Sentinel
Business & Investment Opportunities
YourVietnamExpert is a division of Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd, Incorporated in Singapore since 1994. As Your Business Companion, we propose a range of services in Strategy, Investment and Management, focusing Healthcare and Life Science with expertise in ASEAN. We also propose Higher Education, as a bridge between educational structures and industries, by supporting international programmes. Many thanks for visiting www.yourvietnamexpert.com and/or contacting us at contact@yourvietnamexpert.com
No comments:
Post a Comment