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.

India-South Korea Civil Nuclear Cooperation Pact

India and South Korea signed a “historic” civil nuclear cooperation agreement on 25 July, paving the way for the possibility of Seoul exporting its atomic power plants. South Korea has now become the ninth country which had signed nuclear agreement with India after it got the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) in 2008. The other countries are the United States, France, Russia, Canada, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Argentina and Namibia.
The agreement, signed after summit talks between President Pratibha Patil and her South Korean counterpart Lee Myung-bak, provides legal ground for South Korea’s participation in atomic power plant construction projects in India. It is like other civil nuclear agreements signed between India and other countries.
Historic Agreement
Lee termed the nuclear cooperation agreement as “historic” and will act as “a milestone, demonstrating that our two countries have now truly become strategic partners.”
During the talks, Lee called for support for South Korea's efforts to make inroads into India's atomic power plant market, the statement said.
India is currently building six nuclear power plants and plans to construct around 40 more by 2032, while South Korea seeks to become a major exporter of its home-built nuclear power plants.
The state-run Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) signed a memorandum of understanding in 2009 with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited.
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy
South Korea has now become the ninth country which had signed nuclear agreement with India after it got the waiver from the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) in 2008. The other countries are the US, France, Russia, Canada, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Argentina and Namibia. The two countries have just concluded and signed a bilateral agreement on cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Both India and South Korea decided to start talks on civil nuclear cooperation during a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Lee on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Hanoi in October 2010.

The nuclear agreement was signed by Dr Srikumar Banerjee, Secretary Department of Atomic Energy and Kim Sung Hwan, Foreign Minister of the Republic of Korea.

Earlier, Patil and her South Korean counterpart Lee held a 20-minute restrictive meeting followed by delegation-level talks for over an hour at the ‘Blue House’, official residence of the Korean President. Patil is on a week-long tour of Korea and Mongolia.

Opportunities Emerging From New Economic Avenues
In addition to the agreement on nuclear cooperation, the two sides also signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) on media exchanges and another agreement on administrative arrangements to provide social security to people working in India and Korea.
Speaking at a banquet hosted by Lee in her honor, Patil said India would work with South Korea to enhance trade relations and tap investments opportunities emerging from new economic avenues.
She also called for greater people-to-people contacts between the two countries and cooperation in the UN.
Korean President Lee expressed hope that Patil’s visit will give a fillip to bilateral ties. “I firmly believe that Your Excellency’s visit will generate further momentum for the deepening of our cooperation,” he said.
Both presidents agreed to encourage greater people-to-people exchanges and stressed to start more direct flights between India and South Korea.
Forging Bilateral Ties
The pact provides legal ground for South Korea’s participation in atomic power plant construction projects in India
The two sides also signed MoUs on media exchanges and on administrative arrangements to provide social security to people working in India and Korea

Tension Rises in Korean Peninsula

The South Korean military has recently conducted a live-fire drill on Yeonpyeong Island in the Yellow Sea, several kilometers from North Korea. The reclusive state did not respond militarily, despite initial concern that its possible retaliation could cause a new explosion in the tinderbox region. For now, the crisis appears to have passed.

However, there is no assurance North Korea will stop its acts of armed provocation against the South. Future prospects for the Korean Peninsula still look uncertain. Nations around the world, including Japan, cannot afford to let their guard down regarding that regime.

About a month ago, the North Korean military launched an artillery attack on Yeonpyeong, killing four South Koreans, including two civilians. Pyongyang defended its action, insisting the shelling was a response to what it said was a South Korean artillery strike on North Korean territorial waters.

The two Koreas still disagree over the military demarcation lines drawn by each nation in the waters near the frontline island, a situation that has given rise to frequent armed skirmishes between them.South Korea's latest firing exercise was the continuation of military activity that it had been forced to suspend because of the North's artillery attack last month. In explaining why it did not respond to the live-fire drill, the North's Supreme Command of the Korean People's Army said it 'did not feel the need to retaliate against every despicable military provocation.

Did the statement mean no artillery shell fired from the island reached North Korean waters? Was Pyongyang influenced by Seoul's avowed readiness to take strong action -- even conduct an air raid--if North Korea struck the South during the firing exercise?

Examine Actual Motives

Whatever the case, the true aim of any North Korean action must be calmly analyzed. That country's recent conduct appeared to be a calculated attempt to upset South Korea. The unpredictable nation first made a military provocation, and then issued a threat that proved to be an unloaded gun.

Bill Richardson--a former US ambassador to the United Nations and a diplomatic troubleshooter--has said Pyongyang agreed to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect its uranium enrichment facilities. He also quoted Pyongyang as saying it would start negotiations over the sale of unspent plutonium fuel rods that could be used to build nuclear bombs.

Furthermore, the North has agreed to implement confidence-building measures aimed at averting military conflicts in the Yellow Sea. If North Korea honors these pledges, it would appear to mean that country had taken concrete steps to demonstrate a genuine commitment to denuclearization. Japan and other participants in the six-party talks over the North's nuclear weapons program have demanded such measures be implemented in exchange for returning to the negotiation table.Northern Promises UnreliableHowever, it should be remembered that Pyongyang has repeatedly broken its promises, reducing those pledges to waste paper. Given this, the details of the latest accord need to be closely examined while also trying to determine the true motive behind North Korea's agreement to the aforementioned measures.

The UN Security Council had to abandon efforts to issue a statement on the increasing tensions on the peninsula caused by North Korea's shelling. This was because China opposed wording the statement in a manner that denounced the North for its artillery assault on the South, despite most council members -- including Japan and the United States -- demanding the use of such language.As circumstances stand today, no progress can be expected in resolving the North Korean problem even if the six-nation talks are restarted.Japan, the United States and South Korea should further increase their cooperation in dealing with the North -- through both dialogue and deterrence.

Another important task for Japan will be to reconsider the Guidelines for Japan-US Defense Cooperation in preparation for any military contingency.

Inter-Korean Trade Falls Sharply
Inter-Korean trade has fallen about 30 percent this year, largely affected by South Korea's move to cut almost all business relations with North Korea after the North sank one of its naval ships in a torpedo attack in March. According to data provided by the Korea Customs Service (KCS), trade between the two Koreas amounted to $464 million during the January-November period, down from $649 million recorded a year earlier.

In May, a multinational team of investigators released a report saying that North Korea torpedoed the South Korean warship on March 26 near their disputed western maritime border, killing 46 sailors. The North has denied any involvement.In response, the Seoul government suspended almost all business relations with Pyongyang on May 24 with the exception of the industrial complex in the border town of Kaesong, where South Korean firms are doing business in cooperation with workers from the North.

South Korea's exports to the North came to $130 million during the cited period, down 28 percent a year earlier, while imports dropped 29 percent on-year to $334 million. Despite such a sharp shrinkage, trade through the Kaesong industrial complex, tallied in a separate statistic, remained robust. Trade amounted to $1.31 billion during the 11-month period, up 62 percent from a year earlier.

Seoul Should Regain Initiative in Fight and Talk

After a month of live-fire artillery drills and life-taking real attacks, the West Sea has calmed down -- for now. But the brief relief among South Koreans has quickly been replaced by a constant sense of apprehension about North Korea's next provocations.

The pseudo-peace cannot and should not last long. Seoul must relieve this uneasy calmness through its own initiatives.As some North Korea experts predicted, the reclusive regime returned to the dialogue phase of its two-track diplomacy just now. It was a vintage Pyongyang move when it proposed UN monitors' inspection and the sale of spent nuclear fuel rods following a deadly shelling on a populated island.

Seoul is right to doubt the sincerity of the North Korean proposal. Unless the communist regime allows the UN officials to inspect its uranium-enrichment facilities, the visit would end up as much ado about nothing. Nor has the belated fuel sale much meaning for the same reason.But these are no reasons for the Lee Myung-bak administration to spurn them as just political gestures, but to seize them as opportunities for a diplomatic counterattack.

Seoul, instead of adhering to the five preconditions it has set for resuming the six-party talks, will need to be bolder by accepting the dialogue offer and including the inspection of uranium power plants in inspection targets, to send the ball back to the North's court.The key lies in Seoul returning to the center of the diplomatic stage instead of shying away from it and only calling for the change in Pyongyang's attitude.

However, South Korea has maintained its own version of the 'strategic patience'-- waiting for either the North's voluntary denuclearization or implosion -- Pyongyang has gone even more wayward to insult Seoul with unprovoked violence, while the two Northern partners of China and Russia have come to admonish the South on self-restraint, unreasonably treating the villain and victim as the same. There is no reason whatsoever for South Korea to endure this insult and humiliation by remaining as a passive player.

The time has long passed for the South to drastically enhance both its defense and diplomatic capabilities. In any all-out war, the South is certain to win over the North, as there is more than 40 times' the gap in the economic powers of two Koreas. But an eventual reunification of the Korean Peninsula should be through cooperation and reconciliation, not through violence and war.

To persuade China and Russia that the Koreas' reunification under Seoul's control will not be harmful to them, the South needs a far more active and skillful diplomacy with the two northern powers. And such efforts should begin now by more flexibly responding to their proposals for regional dialogue. Seoul should of course maintain and even enhance military alliances with the United States and Japan, but that should be no reason to alienate Russia and China at least diplomatically.

China-Japan-South Korea Leadership Summit

Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak held a leadership summit at the international convention center at Jeju Island in South Korea recently. It was the third round of two-day China-Japan-South Korea leadership summit. At this summit the three countries passed the '2020 China-Japan-South Korea Cooperation Outlook.' The leaders said they would uphold history, face up to the future and persevere to promote good-neighborly trilateral relationship toward mutual trust, full cooperation among one another and to strive toward common development direction.

Crisis in Korean Peninsula
While the time, place and agenda of the third China-Japan-South Korea leader meeting have already been finalized, but because of the recent Cheonan fleet dispute in the Korean Peninsula, no one could expect in advance whether the meeting would come out with the expected results because the international community and media were watching and showing concern of the eminent crisis in the Korean Peninsula then.

Nevertheless, after the end of the meeting the gestures of cooperation as reflected by the three leaders and the concrete results obtained at the meeting have reflected the fact that the three countries would not let the Koran Peninsula issue to become a stumbling block for their further development and advancement in the triangular relationship.

Objective and Impartial Judgment
In recent years, it is a fact that China and South Korea have developed increasingly closer contact. However, the relationship between China and South Korea can never be compared with the 'clan' type of close relationship between China and North Korea. As such whether China would side North Korea over the Cheonan Incident has become the focus point of the three-leader summit. At the pre leadership summit, Wen Jiabao has already made clear to Lee Myung-bak that China would deal with the Cheonan Incident based on objective and impartial judgment. According to Chinese official news, China would not shelter any guilty party. The pragmatic and rationale attitude expressed by China over the Cheonan Incident was one of the reasons contributed to the successful holding of the meeting, and resulted in fruitful discussion.

The three leaders did not openly condemn North Korea, but agreed that the attacks on Cheonan fleet incident had caused casualties and was a serious incident that could affect Asian peace and stability. They sent their condolences to the victim families. Both the Chinese and Japanese leaders attached importance to joint investigation on the Cheonan Incident conducted by South Korea and other countries and noted the various responses. The leaders said the three countries would maintain communication, to properly deal with this incident, so that regional peace and stability could be maintained.

Free Trade Agreement
On economic cooperation, the three countries also agreed to strive forth that before the end of this year, to come out with the 'China-Japan -South Korea Investment Agreement' and that by 2012 the China-Japan-South Korea Free Trade Agreement can be materialized. In addition, the three countries will also expand and simplify the business environment in their respective countries at the same time establishing a mechanism to facilitate efficient transportation and logistic management. The three countries will also strengthen financial cooperation of financial institutions in one other's financial market.

It is understood that the total gross economic output of China, Japan and South Korea accounted for 70 percent of the total Asian economies. As of 2008, the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the three countries accounted for about 17 percent of the world economy; and the total value was $4.5 trillion. This accounted for 14 percent of total world trade. The data show that when the three countries further strengthen their economic and trade cooperation, it is not only conducive to economic development in Asia; it will also contribute to world economic recovery and prosperity.

The conclusion of the China-Japan-South Korean leader summit also resulted in the leaders' making a decision to set up the 'China-Japan-South Korea Coordination Secretariat' in South Korea in 2011. With such a permanent Secretariat mechanism in place, the three countries should be able to push their trilateral cooperation to a higher level. When the Secretariat is in place, it will also allow the cooperation among the three countries to become more solid than the current stage. This, in turn, will allow the three countries to face a more future-oriented and all-round cooperative partnership in various fields. Such development will also allow the mutually beneficial cooperation in different fields to become more fruitful. In the process the friendly feelings between the people of the three countries will also become more profound.

Differences and Contradiction
Of course the various historical factors and the contemporary reality factors, coupled with the different national core interest of the three countries will allow the trilateral cooperation mechanism formed by the three countries to become a kind of relationship that: 'amid cooperation, there will be competition, and that among the consensus there will be differences.'

However, just as the Chinese philosopher Confucius said: 'Gentlemen will maintain harmony with others but will not agree to differences, but the opposite kind of people will agree to differences but will not keep harmony.' We trust that no matter how many differences and contradiction exist among China, Japan and South Korea, as long as they can resolve their conflicts and disputes through using the dialogue and non-confrontational channel, the three countries can establish the type of gentleman relationship of 'keeping harmony amid differences.' This kind of trilateral relationship should be strong and can withhold the test of time.

Nuclear Security Summit Fails To Give Participants Enough Room for Discussion

The so called two-day Nuclear Security Summit, held in Washington recently, aimed to discuss nuclear weapon and nuclear material control and management hosted by the United States was but a venue used by President Barack Obama to express his view. There were no vigorous discussions among the participants and the conclusion of the Summit has already pre decided before the Summit began.

Most of the heads of states and senior officials from 47 countries who flew into the United States from far away land were not given the opportunity to say more words. The Nuclear Security Summit ended without giving participants enough room for discussion.

Platform for President Obama
This was not but another Obama Show. Except for Chinese President Hu Jintao who was granted more time to express his view, other participating head of states have given outsiders an impression that they rushed to the United States just to listen to President Obama's instruction. The moment President Obama finished all that he wanted to say, this round of international conference on a serious topic was considered done.

In this regard, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has the foresightedness than other international participants. He used the excuse of being too busy with the general election and declined to accept the invitation to attend the Nuclear Security Summit. While we can say Gordon Brown is indeed busy with electoral affairs, but it was also a smart side of him to use such an excuse to avoid listening to President Obama's lecture.

Among the international participants, the national leader who encountered a sense of loss was the Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. He was given a cold shoulder by President Obama even before the Nuclear Security Summit began. When Hatoyama arrived in Washington, DC his scheduled meeting with President Obama was listed as the least important one among other heads of states that President Obama scheduled to meet.

The meeting between Obama and Hu Jintao lasted more than an hour with discussion covering US-China trade and Iran's nuclear weapon development suspicion. This meeting with Hu Jintao has reflected the reality that President Obama did value China and the presence of Hu at the Summit.

Obama-Hatoyama Meeting
However, President Obama's meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama only lasted for ten minutes. The Japanese media described this Obama-Hatoyama meeting was but hand shaking, greetings and photo taking session. President Obama has clearly indicated to the Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama his attitude that between them, there was nothing to talk about. It was a rare sight in US-Japan diplomatic relations that happened in an important international event such as the Nuclear Security Summit. The underlying causes could be due the fact that back in Japan the high support rate of the Hatoyama government has dropped to a level when there are more opposing voices than supporting voices.

In addition to this political dilemma, on diplomatic front, the Japan under the Hatoyama Government has also shown its intention to keep a distance away from the United States. We believe President Obama has no intention to undermine the close friendship between Japan and the United States. The intention of President Obama is that instead of spending time to talk to the present Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama, he would rather wait until the next Japanese prime minister emerges and takes office to discuss serious stuff with Japan.

Advantage for South Korea
Hatoyama suffered even more cruel treatment during this visit to the United States when President Obama announced that the next Nuclear Security Summit to be held two years later would be presided by the Republic of Korea and not Japan. This announcement allowed South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to radiant with delight.

President Obama's choice of South Korea as the next Summit venue has allowed South Korea to enjoy the glory of handling this diplomatic event. However, at the same time, it has also reflected the political reality that President Obama has indeed given Hatayama an unfriendly or a rather rude diplomatic treatment.