The International Community Talks Nuclear Terrorism
Published in Le Temps
(Switzerland) on 12 April 2010
by Luis Lema (link to original)
A summit on nuclear safety begins Monday (April 12, 2010) in Washington. Barack Obama entered into a comprehensive strategy to fight against the spread of nuclear weapons.
The danger was obvious after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with these weapons and nuclear technology suddenly abandoned, seemingly ready to be sold to the highest bidder. Then it resurfaced around Pakistan before losing some of its relevance. The United States today, however, asserts bluntly: "The reality of the nuclear danger has only increased in recent years," said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.*
For two days in Washington, nearly 50 countries are invited to meditate on the issue of nuclear terrorism and to make their battle cry. In other words, they are looking to find a means to ensure "nuclear security" and to prevent terrorists, criminals and other players from acquiring nuclear materials.
A nuclear bomb exploding in Times Square, New York, and causing one million deaths. An atomic cloud floating over Paris or London... The draft of the final communiqué on which delegations will work on mentions that states "have a fundamental responsibility" to prevent the occurrence of such disastrous scenarios. The text remains vague on measures to accomplish this, merely calling on countries to "undertake liable national measures” and to achieve international cooperation that is "sustainable and effective." Behind these vague goals, those at the summit should, in the eyes of U.S. officials, try to revive two moribund international conventions that more clearly define the responsibility of states in the matter; for now, these conventions are largely ignored or have been pending ratification for years.
Pragmatism
In fact, gathering such a high number of heads of state and government is quite exceptional — even for a city such as Washington. The summit this week is a pawn in a much broader strategy designed by the White House to fight against nuclear proliferation. After the renewal of the START treaty with the Russians and the publication of a new doctrine for the use of U.S. nuclear weapons, the Obama administration is trying to close the gap with this conference, which will be followed next month by negotiations in New York on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to limit access the access of states to nuclear weapons.
In pursuing this strategy from all directions, the U.S. government appears ready to inject a good dose of pragmatism into the discussions. On the eve of the conference, Barack Obama has agreed to contribute to the legitimization of the contested leader of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, highlighting his own accomplishments in the fight against nuclear proliferation after the fall of the USSR. Similarly, India and Pakistan, who will receive the same preferential treatment in Washington, now seem to be able to walk straight into the club of nuclear states, after forcing the door for a dozen years.
Even if the act of fighting the terrorist threat seems more acceptable to states than the interference represented by the NPT, the game is far from won. The absence in Washington of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who fears being called out again about the "nuclear duplicity” of the Jewish state (he stands on the front lines regarding the risk of a nuclear weapon being deployed), shows how various issues are interrelated. It raises existential threats to the states and also interferes in the heart of their national prerogatives.
Thus, like France, with great suspicion, other countries view greater control over what they produce as something that could simultaneously contribute to nuclear terrorism: plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Potential jurisdiction over their production and storage will barely be mentioned in Washington; other than in promises, anything agreed upon will not be binding. But the 500 tons of plutonium and 1,600 tons of enriched uranium stored on the planet would be sufficient to achieve 120,000 times the grim prophecy of a massacre around Times Square...
*Editor’s Note: Quote could not be verified
The danger was obvious after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with these weapons and nuclear technology suddenly abandoned, seemingly ready to be sold to the highest bidder. Then it resurfaced around Pakistan before losing some of its relevance. The United States today, however, asserts bluntly: "The reality of the nuclear danger has only increased in recent years," said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.*
For two days in Washington, nearly 50 countries are invited to meditate on the issue of nuclear terrorism and to make their battle cry. In other words, they are looking to find a means to ensure "nuclear security" and to prevent terrorists, criminals and other players from acquiring nuclear materials.
A nuclear bomb exploding in Times Square, New York, and causing one million deaths. An atomic cloud floating over Paris or London... The draft of the final communiqué on which delegations will work on mentions that states "have a fundamental responsibility" to prevent the occurrence of such disastrous scenarios. The text remains vague on measures to accomplish this, merely calling on countries to "undertake liable national measures” and to achieve international cooperation that is "sustainable and effective." Behind these vague goals, those at the summit should, in the eyes of U.S. officials, try to revive two moribund international conventions that more clearly define the responsibility of states in the matter; for now, these conventions are largely ignored or have been pending ratification for years.
Pragmatism
In fact, gathering such a high number of heads of state and government is quite exceptional — even for a city such as Washington. The summit this week is a pawn in a much broader strategy designed by the White House to fight against nuclear proliferation. After the renewal of the START treaty with the Russians and the publication of a new doctrine for the use of U.S. nuclear weapons, the Obama administration is trying to close the gap with this conference, which will be followed next month by negotiations in New York on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to limit access the access of states to nuclear weapons.
In pursuing this strategy from all directions, the U.S. government appears ready to inject a good dose of pragmatism into the discussions. On the eve of the conference, Barack Obama has agreed to contribute to the legitimization of the contested leader of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, highlighting his own accomplishments in the fight against nuclear proliferation after the fall of the USSR. Similarly, India and Pakistan, who will receive the same preferential treatment in Washington, now seem to be able to walk straight into the club of nuclear states, after forcing the door for a dozen years.
Even if the act of fighting the terrorist threat seems more acceptable to states than the interference represented by the NPT, the game is far from won. The absence in Washington of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who fears being called out again about the "nuclear duplicity” of the Jewish state (he stands on the front lines regarding the risk of a nuclear weapon being deployed), shows how various issues are interrelated. It raises existential threats to the states and also interferes in the heart of their national prerogatives.
Thus, like France, with great suspicion, other countries view greater control over what they produce as something that could simultaneously contribute to nuclear terrorism: plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Potential jurisdiction over their production and storage will barely be mentioned in Washington; other than in promises, anything agreed upon will not be binding. But the 500 tons of plutonium and 1,600 tons of enriched uranium stored on the planet would be sufficient to achieve 120,000 times the grim prophecy of a massacre around Times Square...
*Editor’s Note: Quote could not be verified