How Much More Secure is the Global Community?

At the conclusion of the first-of-its-kind nuclear safety conference, host U.S. President Barack Obama said, “Now U.S. citizens and the world community will be safer than before. We have made real progress in making the world safe.”* Indeed, if this conference has prepared the foundation of making the international community safer from the threat of nuclear terrorism, there is no greater achievement for the world at this moment. The purpose of organizing the security conference was the aim, as stated by Obama, of finding a way to end the threat of nuclear terrorism hovering over the world. In his inaugural address, he said that terrorist groups wanted access to the nuclear weapons, and if ever it came into their hands, they would surely use them.

The world community does not have the details of when terrorists tried to get the nuclear weapons, but it cannot be denied that the fear of nuclear material falling into their hands is prevalent throughout the world. Our own Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, while referring to this, mentioned that along with the world, it is especially a threat to India. Needless to say, the prime minister was signaling towards Pakistan. The most worrying factor at the conference was that Pakistan’s nuclear institutions were insecure. Has this conference approved compulsory work-plans that create a trust that nuclear weapons and materials will really not fall into the hands of terrorists now?

The importance of this conference is proven by the presence of the world’s 47 leading countries, along with the International Atomic Agency and the European Council. Except for Iran, North Korea and Israel, none of the countries with military-civilian nuclear capacity stayed away from attending the conference. There wasn’t even a single voice raised over any differences over the original goal of the conference. This proves that the world’s collective psychology is in favor of working on it. Two documents were released at the conference unanimously: a declaration and a work-plan. In the declaration, Obama’s suggestion about securing the prevailing loose nuclear material worldwide in the next four years, so that none of it falls into the hands of the militants, was accepted. Obama had made this suggestion about a year back in Prague. The second includes the work-plan about how this goal is to be achieved. The analysts of the world differ in their opinion about the results of this conference. One side believes that no compulsory concrete steps to achieve the target have been discussed. The whole thing is confined to theoretical understanding.

There is an international treaty for strengthening the prohibition of nuclear terrorism, but there is no mention of the necessary approval by all countries. Similarly, there is only a discussion on the importance of the defense treaty on nuclear materials in it. There is also nothing new in strengthening the International Atomic Agency by providing adequate resources, experts and an efficient team. In fact, there is no discussion here on securing the supposedly insecure Pakistan’s nuclear institutions. Based on these criticisms about the conference, there sure is a lack of hope. Anyway, even our current prime minister, himself, declared the present nuclear non-proliferation regime as failing to prevent the proliferation, while when asked about strengthening it, the prime minister expressed satisfaction with the conference decisions.

Nevertheless, to say that the conference failed is not fair at all. All the countries that were present made a commitment to exchange information and work together on nuclear research and for the prohibition of secret nuclear trafficking. Thus, a new structure has been introduced globally. If we think of it as a concrete conclusion, countries with highly enriched uranium, such as the Ukraine, Mexico, and Canada, expressed the intention of abandoning it. These countries argued that if terrorists do not get enriched uranium, it will be hard for them to build nuclear weapons. There has also been progress in this direction. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico have spoken about turning the highly enriched uranium into low-enriched uranium fuel. In this case, the treaty between the U.S. and Russia has the highest importance. Both the countries have completed the much delayed agreement of using 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium for developing civilian power reactors capable of generating electricity. Wouldn’t we call this moving towards a safer world?

We should not forget that only six days before the conference, the U.S. and Russia signed an agreement to bring about massive cuts in their nuclear arms. The U.S., in its security policy, had also announced its intention to not develop nuclear weapons in the future and not use them against a non-nuclear country. All these steps have been able to actually create a better environment and foundation for the conference. World leaders standing together for keeping the world safe from nuclear terrorism — that is favorable for the present. If they also are able to sustain it in the future, this will be considered one of the most important events in modern world history. In fact, the closing of the conference happened with a global commitment toward making sure that the weapons of mass destruction or their products do not fall into the hands of terrorists, and at this point, there is no reluctance in accepting that the subsequent steps will definitely involve the implementation of the steps involved in the declaration.

We should never forget that nuclear diplomacy is at the top of Barack Obama’s agenda. Last year in Prague, he had made the world aware about his views on nuclear disarmament, and he has been moving in that direction continuously. At the end of the Washington conference, he said that the U.S. cannot take responsibility for implementing all the goals, because it is the responsibility of all countries. In reality, all countries will need to fulfill their obligations. New problems will arise when U.S. forces all countries to do so, and this is why it will be better if the U.S. plays the role of a motivator, partner, supporter and helper.

Editor’s Note: Quote could not be verified