The nuclear security summit was opened yesterday in Seoul. The presidents of Russia and America met within the summit. Experts think that the meeting between Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama has a significant importance. Ahead of the summit the video bridge Moscow-Washington was held, Russian and American experts discussed prospects of the non-proliferation regime.
Sergey Oznobischev, head of the sector in the International Economy and Foreign Affairs Institute of the Russian Academy of Science
The simplest starting point is that nothing bad had happened in the sphere of nuclear security. It means our activity – “our” in a global sense, activity of experts and politicians – proves that all measures, systematic or not, work. Even though there were pessimistic predicts. Very serious authors were writing that a nuclear bomb could be created at a garage, that a whole country could be brought down, and nuclear terrorism threatened the planet. The shadow of nuclear terrorism falls on all events, which are being held. The main aim is to prevent this threat. We see that we avoid it successfully. Unprecedented measures were taken. However, I remind you we live for the day, as speaking about terrorism, the document between Russia and NATO, the basic act, was signed in 1997 only. There terrorism takes the last place as a threat to the international security, 13-14. In 1997 other things were on focus. But the tragedy of 9/11, 2001, made everybody reconsider the nuclear security. The summit and meetings at various levels were conducted; new programs were adopted, they are operating, global initiatives and conventions are developed. In general everything is intensive and effective. I hope the effectiveness and luck will be with us and nothing bad happen in the nuclear sphere.
Douglas Sho, expert of Elliot Foreign Affairs School under George Washington University
The nuclear summit defines the agenda. The summit of 2010 created the context where states could accept the so-called “domestic gifts,” i.e. national measures. And we see how these duties are being fulfilled. In 2012 the context includes more complex measures, for greater number of countries were involved in free-will measures on strengthening of nuclear security. When we see changes, we can see important succession of nuclear summits. 1996 – physical security in Moscow. Now we are more sensitive and better understand nuclear security. However, the process began in 1996.
Vladimir Sotnokov, senior scientist of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the RAS
It is true, fortunately, nothing catastrophic had happened in the sphere if international peace and security. I think the biggest problem, which all countries face, is the problem of terrorism, nuclear terrorism. After September 11, 2001, the terrorist threat became real for many countries. I don’t want to list certain countries, as experts know them, where the problem of nuclear security is acute, problem of nuclear materials and nuclear facilities security. Heads of these countries, except for Iran, agreed to come to the summit 2012. The problem of nuclear terrorism, physical security of nuclear materials and adoption of new documents, which would codify behavior of countries in the sphere of nuclear security and assign free-will responsibilities, I think it is the main problem. I believe it would be discussed at the summit.
I expect new agreements, countries will take new responsibilities, and the final document will probably fix them. This summit will show that the measures taken by states in the world will shift to a higher level, considering previous experience. Sometimes it seems times work against members of the international society, I mean terrorist threat, first of all. 2 years is a sufficient term for development of new norms and involving them into documents.
Michelle Cann, senior analyst on budget policy in the institute “Partnership for Global Security”
The main aim of the summit is providing fulfillment of duties on security. National responsibilities of countries show limits of the non-proliferation regime, and we will consider national and regional responsibilities. It should be noted that all promises that would be made are political statements, they are not legally binding. There are no landmarks in the sphere of nuclear security in the world. Everything is based on free-will mechanisms and duties. Maybe some countries will try to move beyond it, but they will hardly succeed.
Sergey Oznobischev, head of the sector in the International Economy and Foreign Affairs Institute of the Russian Academy of Science
Events happened in recent years put in doubt the adequacy of some directions of non-proliferation. On the one hand, some countries were not prevented from gaining nuclear armament or striving for it by any duties and international agreements. We know a series of examples when countries rejected nuclear ambitions and trusted their fate to the international society. Such examples are contagious in a good sense of the word. A lot depends on the great nuclear powers. There is serious criticism of little attitude to the sphere of limitation and reduction of nuclear strategic armament. Recently the Prague Treaty has been signed, tension has been reduces, but we should move forward. It is an important factor of non-proliferation too. If we take a sheet of paper, cross it into halves and write pros and cons, I think we will have more positive things than negative. Due to the system of non-proliferation we managed to secure our world. I think without it threatening hot points would be even more dangerous.
Michelle Cann, senior analyst on budget policy in the institute “Partnership for Global Security”
I think that NPT has problems, but it isn’t dead. It is one of three bases of nuclear security. You can disarm, prevent proliferation of nuclear armament or develop peaceful using of nuclear energy, if you fulfill duties on security of nuclear materials. However, this treatment got countries together, and certain results were achieved. Now discussion of nuclear issues comes beyond traditional limits of the NPT, for other countries could participate in it.
Vladimir Sotnokov, senior scientist of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the RAS
Pakistan and other similar countries – considering the fact today nuclear Renaissance is taking place in the world – they could be codified… It is good that some countries take free-will responsibilities, which are non-obligatory. But it would be reasonable to develop an international document, and the NPT is the document, which should be renewed.
Douglas Sho, expert of Elliot Foreign Affairs School under George Washington University
It is great we have no examples of nuclear terrorism. But I think it is more about luck than effective activities of the international society on preventing it. That is why many people in the USA, including the dean in Kennedy School, call nuclear terrorism the only preventable disaster. Influence of it could be so huge that we should do our best for prevention of it. We know there is a certain point concerning plutonium and HEU. If there are no HEU and plutonium, there is no nuclear terrorism. Our society should protect plutonium and HEU. I think in this sphere NPT works successfully, as development of nuclear technologies were limited by measures of nuclear security.
Michelle Cann, senior analyst on budget policy in the institute “Partnership for Global Security”
We agree that the most difficult target for terrorists is getting nuclear materials. That is why the summit is focused on measures of their security. Secondly, illegal traffic of these materials, and the summit will deal with it as well, and Interpol will deal with it as the international organization and member of the summit in Seoul. Illegal traffic is a hole. The IAEA has the data base which traces when materials got lost, when they were found. The most surprising thing is that often materials, which were not lost or stolen, return. Of course, the threat remains. Speaking about rigged bombs, traditional agenda of the summit was enhanced in comparison with the Washington summit.
Douglas Sho, expert of Elliot Foreign Affairs School under George Washington University
The key issue is prevention of purchasing HEU and plutonium. I hope we will succeed in the mission, even though it is more difficult and dangerous today. We see that arrangements on nuclear cycle are being provided all around the world. This risk cannot be excluded completely, but nuclear resources exist and some certainty appears, as we have to take intensive measures on management and preserving of these resources. Nuclear terrorism is a threat for all countries and governments, the whole civilization, prosperity and order. The summit shouldn’t include debates only, we should move forward.
Vladimir Sotnokov, senior scientist of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the RAS
We need responsible behavior not only from the countries which are suspected of disturbing the non-proliferation regime and are suspected of development of nuclear armament and terrorists in these countries could capture nuclear materials. Collective cooperation of all countries and all members of the international society is needed. First of all, responsibility lies on five nuclear powers which have taken duties, according to the 6th article of NPT, which say that they are obliged to provide negotiations on nuclear disarmament. Any measures could be taken, treaties could be signed, special analysis could be provided, situations connected with development of rigged bomb could be played through. But the main thing is collective cooperation and responsible behavior of all countries.
