Opinion Busy on the sidelines
The Nuclear Security Summit,called by US President Barack Obama and attended by either the heads of state or senior leaders of 47 states seems to have gone to the satisfaction of all participants.
The Nuclear Security Summit,called by US President Barack Obama and attended by either the heads of state or senior leaders of 47 states seems to have gone to the satisfaction of all participants. This is not surprising since,except for the US,none of the others had any pressing interest on the subject of nuclear security. They had other interests from mundane reasons as getting a photo-op with Obama to getting legitimacy for their own nuclear programmes. Even in the US,there were many more reasons for the summit than just concerns about nuclear security. For the US,Iran was a subject matter of considerable interest in the various bilateral talks with the heads of state attending the summit.
Nuclear security and nuclear terrorism are matters of concern to all. However,the work plan that finally emerged from the summit did not bind states to commit to any specific action. But there are certain benchmarks that will enable the international community to evaluate the sincerity of the states that attended the present summit by the time the next summit meets in 2012 in the Republic of Korea.
In two international conventions the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear terrorism (ICSANT) and the 2005 Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials (Amendment to CPPNM) the participating states agreed to achieve universality of the two conventions. This will be one of the benchmarks to evaluate the summit. Of the 47 states attending the summit,only 19 have ratified the ICSANT. Of the remaining 28 states which includes the US as well as some other nuclear weapons states 21 have signed but not ratified it,and another seven are yet to sign the convention. Given the fact that the convention was open for signing and ratifying since 2005 and with the overwhelming majority of the summit participants not having ratified the convention,the progress of the summit participants in ratifying the convention will be a test of their commitment to the objectives of the summit.
As regards the Amendment to CPPNM,31 countries are yet to ratify that as well,and that includes the US. This amendment has been open for ratification since 2005 and only 35 of the 142 states party to the CPPNM have ratified it. Incidentally India has ratified both these while Pakistan has ratified neither. Once again,how far and how soon the summit attendees ratify the amendment will be test of their commitment. In fact only eight of the 47 states attending the summit have ratified both these India being one of these eight states. It is not surprising,therefore,that India was reportedly satisfied with the summit outcome.
As mentioned earlier,many of the states participating had their own agenda in addition to nuclear security issues. The US was able to highlight matters involving the Iranian nuclear programme. Pakistan was able to claim that its nuclear programme was given legitimacy even going to the extent of offering to host an international nuclear fuel cycle services enrichment facility in Pakistan. This was a bold move considering that it has neither sufficient uranium resources even to fuel its own programmes nor any competitive technology to offer. Its own enrichment facilities were based on clandestine pilferage of technologies from elsewhere,and its facilities are still dependent on the clandestine network established by A.Q. Khan.
India for its part,offered to host a Global Centre for Nuclear Energy partnership with an initial focus on developing proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies. This is a move as bold as the Pakistani one,considering that Indias three-stage civilian nuclear programme is an intensively proliferation-friendly one. The fast breeder programme requires reprocessing of spent fuel to obtain plutonium and the thorium route resulting in the production of U-233,a fissile material as usable in nuclear weapons as HEU 235.
China offered to draft a UN resolution that would address the Iranian nuclear programme,all while working behind scenes to water down any meaningful sanctions against Iran,as working towards encouraging North Korea to engage in its nuclear weapon programme by shielding it from any meaningful international action.
So all in all,while the summit did address some real issues,its usefulness lay more in the non-summit agenda of the participating countries. The US aimed to get a more meaningful NPT review conference outcome,given the fact that US will not be ratifying the CTBT for some time. Pakistan aimed to get some international recognition on nuclear issues,other than being always cited for its proliferation activities. To Indias credit,it has signed all the conventions,has a good non-proliferation record and its programme is not dependent on any foreign inputs. To that extent,Indias participation was not one motivated by any hidden agenda but one whose purpose was one in consonance with the summit objective namely to prevent nuclear terrorism.
The writer is visiting fellow at IDSA and the National Maritime Foundation
Share
