Taking the Good and the Bad with Global Summitry

Share Button

 

 

 

For the second time in as many years global leaders are gathering to discuss nuclear issues.  Once again, over 40 leaders are sitting down – on this occasion in Seoul – to discuss nuclear security.  From the outside, however, it certainly seems as though the global public would not be blamed for wondering what this summit is in fact all about.

The early images being transmitted from Seoul largely cover the visit of a forceful US President Obama – I mean this is a US election year – in his first foray to the Demilitarized Zone  (DMZ).  This demarcation between the Republic of Korea – South Korea to most of us – and the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK)  – North Korea was established with the truce that ended the Korean conflict – though failed to reach a permanent peace agreement.

In addition the President has signaled that China needs to examine what it has said or is about to say to the DPRK leadership over the recent announcement from North Korea that it intends to launch a ballistic missile carrying a satellite into orbit in just a few weeks. The announcement has caused consternation and significantly raised tensions in East Asia.   It has put the recent US-DPRK agreement on  nuclear restraint in return for food shipments in question.   According to news reports Obama has publicly urged China to use its influence to rein in North Korea instead of “turning a blind eye” to the DPRKs nuclear program.

Is this summit then about the question of nuclear nonproliferation and the threat that North Korea – and yes Iran – pose to the spread of nuclear weapons and the increase in the number of Nuclear Weapons States (NWS).  Well – no!

Is it then about the consequences of the peaceful uses of nuclear power?  Since the last Summit – Washington 2010 – the global public was witness to the devastating triple disaster  at Fukushima Japan – first an earthquake, then a tsunami and then a nuclear meltdown at the nuclear power plant.  This meltdown – the worst since Chernobyl – has contaminated – for years into the future – a wide swath of northeastern Japan.  It appears that Japan’s Prime Minister Noda is likely to speak to the gathered leaders on lessons learned from the disaster and possible changes to emergency preparedness.

Is this a summit then called to deal with “nuclear safety”  issues – the term experts use to describe the area focused on the peaceful uses of nuclear power?  ‘Fraid not.  This is not a Summit dedicated to the issues of nuclear safety!

No, in fact this Summit of world leaders is tackling once again nuclear security – an experts’ term which in this case means reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism, and preventing terrorists, criminals, or other unauthorized actors from acquiring nuclear materials. Nuclear terrorism continues to be a significant and most security experts would suggest a real threat to the security of states in the global arena.  The President called together leaders in 2010 to work towards locking down loose nuclear materials – a challenging threat to international security. As the US President saw it, reining in this threat required strong national measures and significant international collaboration.  Any successful use of nuclear material by terrorists or criminals or others could have a devastating  impact on publics around the globe – politically, economically, socially, and psychologically.

As suggested by two nuclear security experts, Kenneth Brill and Kenneth Luongo in a recent opinion piece in the New York Times:

Obama’s initiative in launching the nuclear summit process in Washington  in 2010 helped focus high-level attention on nuclear security issues.  Unfortunately, the actions produced by the 2010 Washington Summit and that are planned for the upcoming Seoul Summit are voluntary actions that are useful, but not sufficient to create an effective  global nuclear security regime.

There it is – nuclear security – ending the threat of terrorists or others obtaining nuclear materials and threatening and then possibly using a nuclear device against innocent populations.  An important and critical issue that President Obama has taken the lead in organizing and then working with many other leaders developing a program to secure nuclear materials by the global community.  It sounds fantastic.  Then why the hint of dismay from the nuclear experts.  Indeed the article by Brill and Luongo suggest less than universal support for the outcomes of the summit.

The article in fact points to growing concern from experts on the efforts at this global summit – indeed there are many experts that don’t want the summits to continue after 2014 for fear that leaders will “kick the can” of nuclear down the road yet again.

On the face of it the chorus of concern from advocates and experts seems somewhat strange given that that the leaders have come together twice in two years to address loose nuclear materials.  And indeed experts suggest that over 80 percent of the commitments identified in Washington have been accomplished.  But the concern is the summits have committed states to far too limited  a program – and worse.  Once again Brill and Luongo:

The world cannot afford to wait for the patchwork of nuclear security arrangements to fail before they are strengthened. Instead, we need a system based on a global framework convention on nuclear security that would fill the gaps in existing voluntary arrangements.  This framework convention would commit states to an effective standard of nuclear security practices, incorporate relevant existing international agreements, and give the IAEA the mandate to support nuclear security by evaluating whether states are meeting their nuclear security obligations and providing assistance to those states that need help in doing so.

And there is no question that in the arena of nuclear security there is plethora of conventions, mandates, organizations and institutions that festoon the nuclear security landscape.  It is like an enormous alphabet soup.  And maybe a singular universal and “hard law” treaty might be the solution as the experts suggest.  But then again too many place too much weight in international relations on international law and obligations. And while voluntary standards may be less than ideal, experts could certainly provide a list of priority risks and priority countries that the summit could focus on for the next two year cycle.  That would at least help to focus global attention.

And as for a summit going  “off agenda” – there will never be a means to hold leaders to a defined agenda.  But this summit seems to me to be more – significantly more – than a photo-op – which is generally the knock on global summits.  And if Obama uses this to press forward on the DPRK – and possibly Iran – because he is able to sit down with President Hu Jintao – then we can take the advance in this area and redouble our efforts toward 2014 and the next Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands. Half a cake – is – as they say – far better than no cake at all.  So with summits.

Image Credit:  Official logo of the 2012 Korean Nuclear Security Summit

This entry was posted in Global Summitry by Alan Alexandroff. Bookmark the permalink.

About Alan Alexandroff

Alan is the Director of the Global Summitry Project and teaches at the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto. Alan focuses much of his attention on difficult global order issues including the appearance and consequences of the multilateral environment and the many global summits, especially the Informals such as the G7 and G20.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.