2nd Nuclear Security Summit: Tightening Nuke Weapons Design and Programs

The two-day second Nuclear Security Summit concluded in Seoul (South Korea) on March 27. The first was held in Washington DC in April 2010 after US President Barack Obama mooted the idea in a speech in Prague in 2009. President Obama, who singled out nuclear terrorism as the most serious threat to international security in his speech, was in Seoul. Leading the Indian participation in the summit was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The gathering of 58 world leaders saw discussing the various issues surrounding nuclear security. The 9/11 attacks in 2001 appear to have spurred countries across the globe to discuss measures that are needed in the event of nuclear materials and facilities actually falling into the hands of non-state actors. Nuclear security is hence seen as a step to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Joint Communique
Seeking strong national measures and global cooperation against nuclear terrorism, world leaders have underlined the central role of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in strengthening the atomic security framework and insisted that the rights of States to peaceful use of nuclear energy will not be hampered.
The leaders said: “We stress the fundamental responsibility of States, consistent with their respective national and international obligations, to maintain effective security of all nuclear materials, which includes nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities under their control.”
The communique, adopted by 53 world leaders and five multilateral organizations, also highlighted the fundamental responsibility of the States to prevent non-state actors from acquiring such materials and from obtaining information or technology required to use them for malicious purposes.
In the backdrop of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the idea of nuclear safety came to the fore at Seoul, with India underlining the need for synergy between nuclear safety and nuclear security. The Seoul communiqué too touches on this aspect. After all, the release of dangerous radioactive materials in sufficient quantities from a legitimate nuclear power plant is no less dangerous than a terrorist stealing and unleashing a dirty bomb.
At a more practical and feasible level, at the Seoul summit, India pushed the expansion of its bilateral ties with South Korea to include the purchase of civilian reactors and military hardware from it, in addition to engaging in space cooperation under which this country would launch South Korean satellites. Maritime security was discussed too between Singh and President Lee Myung-Bak, in addition to stepped up Korean investment in Indian infrastructure.
India’s Stake
Addressing the summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that India had made a strong pitch for membership of four exclusive nuclear clubs contending that it would help strengthen its export control systems and maintain highest international standards of its nuclear program.
He added that India had never been a source of proliferation of sensitive technologies and the country was determined to further strengthen its export control systems to keep them
At the summit, the prime minister said on par with the highest international standards. He underlined that India had already adhered to the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NBG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
Singh said: "As a like–minded country with the ability and willingness to promote global non-proliferation objectives, we believe that the next logical step is India's membership of the four export control regimes."
India is keen for membership of the NSG, MTCR, Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group. At the same time, Singh said an agreed multilateral framework involving all states possessing nuclear weapons was necessary to attain the goal of a nuclear weapons free world.
"This should include measures to reduce nuclear dangers by reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in security doctrines and by increasing universal restraints on the first use of nuclear weapons," he said.
The prime minister also announced a contribution of one million dollars to the IAEA’s Nuclear Security Fund for the years 2012-13.
India has also made some progress, albeit slowly, on its commitment to set up a Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership. It announced that the centre will have a 200 acre campus in Bahadurgarh, Haryana and comprise four different schools covering nuclear security, nuclear energy systems, and radiation safety.
On India's nuclear program, the prime minister said comprehensive reviews of nuclear safety measures have been undertaken at nuclear facilities.
Concern for Pakistan’s Arsenal
President Obama has voiced concern over safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, saying the world cannot allow non-state actors and terrorists to get their hands on the nuclear weapons and end up destroying cities.
“We can’t afford to have non-state actors and terrorists to get their hands on nuclear weapons that would end up destroying our cities or harming our citizens,” Obama told reporters alongside Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani before the two leaders held private talks on the sidelines of the summit.
The West is concerned over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as it remains vulnerable because the atomic facilities are located in areas where “Taliban and Al-Qaeda are more than capable of launching terrorist attacks”.
In their first meeting since the killing of Osama Bin Laden in a covert US raid on Pakistani soil in May 2011, the two leaders tried to rescue a troubled anti-terror alliance which has been full of mistrust and recriminations in recent times.
North Korea and Iran Warned
The US President has warned North Korea and Iran that their options are few and their friends fewer as those nations refuse to back down from actions the world sees as menacing.
Seoul warned that it might shoot down parts of a North Korean rocket if they violate South Korean territory, as worries about what Washington calls a long-range missile test overshadowed an international nuclear security summit.
Nuclear Terrorism
The leaders at the summit reached a consensus that nuclear terrorism is among the top global security challenges and that strong nuclear material security measures are the most effective way to prevent it. This may not seem like much, but getting 47 nations to agree on any nuclear issue, however innocuous, is not always easy.
In addition, 29 of the countries present made voluntary commitments to enhance nuclear security. Country-specific steps — colloquially termed “house gifts” — were taken ahead of the summit. Thus, Chile removed all its Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) — 18 kg — in March 2010, while the Philippines joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. Several countries, including India, announced that they would create new “centres of excellence” to promote nuclear security technologies.
The outcome Seoul summit, as much as the first one hosted by US President Barack Obama in Washington in 2010, are traceable at the level of theology to President Obama’s Prague speech of 2009. And therein lies the weakness of the enterprise. In that address, the US President had highlighted the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands, and envisioned a world free of the atom bomb. But until such time as that happens, Obama was quite clear in his vision that the United States would stand ready with its own nuclear weapons to take care of any potential adversary.

Attack on Libya: West To Repeat Mistakes

The allied forces headed by France, the United Kingdom and the United States launched air attacks against the military base of the Libyan Government a few days ago. More than a hundred of missiles were fired over the course of several attacks. From early March until today, the US government has been hesitant over the matter whether or not it should launch military attacks against Libya.

Apparently, US President Barack Obama has taken into consideration how the Islamic world will view the United States if the country starts the third battleground now while the two wars the United States has involved in Iraq and Afghanistan have yet to come to an end. Will all the previous efforts Obama has taken since he assumed the presidency to restore the relations with the Islamic world go in vain?

Unwanted Troubles
The world may not remember. The day the allied forces fiercely fired missiles against Libya was also the 8th anniversary of the attacks of the US-UK allied forces against Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime. Eight years have passed since the battle in Iraq subsided. But the pains and wounds that war has brought to the people of the United States and the United Kingdom have not gone away completely as time goes by.

If we look at the statistics, the United States and the United Kingdom had mobilized nearly 1 million troops and spent $420 billion on the war. Close to 4,000 troops of the allied forces killed in the war while the death toll of the Iraqi Government troops is 14,000. On top of that, more than 200,000 Iraqi civilians were killed or wounded in the war. From the perspective of the social cost, the two countries had not only gone to war in Middle East afar, a "civil war" was also in full swing back home. The upsurge in the anti-war campaign posed the most severe crisis to the United States and the United Kingdom since the Second World War. The opposition between the people and the government became increasingly intense.

Change of Security Order
From the perspective of the national strength, the vain involvement in a war in a foreign country that lasted for years has seriously jeopardized the national strength and international reputation of the two countries. The "Kingdom of Dollar" has turned into a "sick giant." From the perspective of international relations, the allegation that "Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction" was proven a lie. It has become a total test to the capability of the United States as the "defender of the world of freedom" and the "world police." The country's defense pledges to its allies became dubious. The change of the security order in Middle East has affected the strategic situation of the entire world.

At best, the decision of George W. Bush and Tony Blair to get involved in the Iraq War was a natural reaction to a "domino effect". The United States and the United Kingdom were worried that Saddam would control the strategic interest of the oil resources in Middle East once his power expanded. The decision-makers in White House proposed that Saddam was a strategic design of Russia and China in their plan to expand their Great Middle East Oil Strategy, the ultimate goal of which was to control Middle East. The United States and the United Kingdom strongly believed that they would definitely put down the internal strife in Iraq and win the war within a short period given the most modernized weapons and equipments of the allied forces. Ironically, the two countries had never devised a feasible Iraq War blueprint with a set of unambiguous goals.

Series of Mistakes
Militarily, their strategic arrangement was inappropriate, their tactics were bad, the efficacy of their high technology military equipments was limited and they landed in a passive position in so many aspects. The Iraq War was a non-traditional war - there was no frontier and their enemies were not readily visible. Politically, the United States and the United Kingdom had restricted themselves. First, they failed to end a war by waging another war; second, they did not want to overly offense other Middle Eastern countries. The two countries could not get out of the dilemma of peace or war; instead they became more and more entangled. They overthrew Saddam Hussein but failed to establish an Iraqi government that has the support of the Iraqi people. Both US- and UK-backed Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are not leaders with top qualities; instead they are fraught with corruption. They have no way to clean up the mess.

The Iraq strategy of the US and British Governments designed under the mentality of anti-terrorism was founded on ignorance, arrogance and a series of mistakes. They misjudged the intentions of Russia and China and the relations between the Shiite and Sunni sects; they underestimated the determination of the Shiite to commit in an armed confrontation and the combat capability of Al-Qaeda.

The United States and the United Kingdom knew nothing about the history, politics, society and culture of Middle East and did not have any expert on the issues of Iraq. They made a hasty "upholding justice" move in a completely strange country as the world police. Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who had served in the Bush administration as high-level officials, have broken the silence one after another by openly admitting that the US involvement in the Iraq War was a "big mistake." Because of the mistake and muddled thinking of the decision-making system, the United States experienced a defeat after the Vietnam War. The Iraq War and the collective lie of the Bush administration have totally changed the political and spiritual conditions of the United States.

Man-Made Calamities
The US people should be able to learn their lessons from the bitter experience of the Iraq War. They should draw wisdom from the history and avoid making the same mistakes. Unexpectedly, while the flames of war in Iraq have yet to cease, the United States and the United Kingdom once again plunge into another vortex of unmeasurable depth. Apparently, the Americans and British have not gained better knowledge and understanding about themselves from the painful outcome of the Iraq War. They have not learned that the powers of their countries are actually limited and not invincible. In other words, the United States and the United Kingdom have not learned their lessons from their defeat in the Iraq War!

To be fair, in the tragedy of war, the defeated party of course gains no fame, but the winner has to pay a heavy moral price, too. The second decade of the new century has just begun, the new world order is not established yet. Genocide, terrorism, various forms of natural disasters and man-made calamities are found all over the world. Obviously the human race is still not able to get out of the plight of conflicts and disasters. As we enter into the 8th anniversary of the Iraq War, it is time for all human beings to reflect on how to get rid of war and save themselves out of disasters.

Repercussions of 9/11

The events marking the 9/11 anniversary this year have a special significance for Afghanistan, India and the United States for several reasons. Some of the major are presented to understand the objectives of the United States.

First, it was after this fateful day eight years ago that the Pakistani military decided to carry out a massive operation against the Taliban in Swat. The notorious terrorists were either captured or killed and now the military is ready to fight Al-Qaeda in Waziristan as well.

Internal Threats to Pakistan,
This big advancement outlines the reality of the internal threats to Pakistan as a consequence of the US attack on Afghanistan. Second, the Pakistani Government, the opposition, the military and the media have finally agreed on the fact that this is Pakistan's war not America's and that this war has become compulsory to mitigate the possible threats to the country even though it might not guarantee success if used in isolation.

Third, the Pakistani military has accepted this public opinion that India is no longer Pakistan's enemy even if it remains a permanent threat to Pakistan's security. Thus, it is necessary to continue the peace process that was started by Nawaz Sharif and was carried forward by former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

The fourth reason is that the Obama administration has identified the need to look for a way to end the conflict that is not only related to actors in Afghanistan but also seeks to bring an end to hostilities between Pakistan and India, and Pakistan and Afghanistan.

This supports Pakistan's viewpoint that for durable peace and stability in Afghanistan, it is necessary for Afghanistan to at least maintain friendly ties with Pakistan politically or else she should be willing to fully cooperate with Pakistan.

New Political Strategy
The fifth reason is that the Americans have finally reached this conclusion that the new political strategy to expand the scope of legitimacy in Kabul is as important as the military operation to stop the resistance.

To prove this contest right, the strategy to make use of this year's presidential elections was not ignored as evident from accusations of massive vote rigging and fraud on the Afghan President Hamid Karzai. This will make it even harder to achieve stability in Afghanistan. The United States will become more dependent on Pakistan to draw the Taliban's attention toward devising a feasible formula to end the conflict. This would be a more realistic way forward for Afghanistan as compared to the military strategy, which was dependent solely on Karzai.

Support for Afghan War
The sixth reason is that the support for Afghan War amongst the American public is weakening. Like the European nations, majority of Americans are demanding the withdrawal of their soldiers. The Obama administration is looking for ways to achieve several victories in Afghanistan by next year's Congressional elections. This mission could not be achieved without a stable Pakistan and full support for her strategic interests as Pakistan cannot separate her Jihadi elements to be used against India from Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

Pakistan had to pay a huge price in the form of Pakistani Taliban for this unfinished business. Likewise, the United States cannot assert this viewpoint that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are one and they pose a real threat to it. The Pakistani Taliban and other jihadi groups in the country are Pakistan's problem; they have nothing to do with America.

In fact, Pakistan and America would only need to work hand in hand against the Taliban until they break the ties between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. To separate the Taliban from Al-Qaeda, the Taliban must be given a part in the government in the future. This is the ultimate solution to the Afghan problem.

Attaining Regional Peace
The seventh reason is that India is being asked to play an important role in attaining regional peace. India's secret war against Pakistan in Afghanistan and Balochistan, which was started to bring a halt to Pakistani intrusion in Kashmir, is closing its end. So the sooner India resumes the unconditional dialogues with Pakistan, the better it is.

This should not be a problem for the Congress-led UPA Indian Government as it has the capability to look into the future and strengthen Pakistan's hands in her fight against extremism both at home and abroad.

Spirits of 9/11
If 9/11 does not remain an issue for anybody, the next 12 months would be extremely crucial. Each and every party would definitely have to make compromises. The United States would have to create circumstances that bring the Taliban's representation back to Kabul. Pakistan would have to realize that some of its assets have become her liability, which needs to be taken care of.

India would have to realize that you reap what you sow and that the plans with a zero sum game are no longer viable. Now she needs to solve her issues with Pakistan through the give and take principle. Otherwise the spirits of 9/11, which have not been dead for very long, would come alive again to spread chaos in the region.

Fresh and Better Understanding
Former Pakistani President Musharraf's decision to become George W. Bush's right hand was mostly correct. However, both of them did not trust each other and kept playing games, which led to destruction. That is the reason the new Governments of the US and Pakistan must unite and try to gain a fresh and better understanding of the ground facts.

The sooner Karzai's Afghanistan and Manmohan Singh's India become part of this new arrangement, the better it is.