Are We Ignoring the Nuclear Threat?

As the world continues to focus and fear the asymmetric and non-linear attack style of ISIS, does the threat of nuclear proliferation still resonate as one of our biggest threats to domestic and international security today? Have the deadly tactics of low risk, high toll replaced the desire for non-nation state actors to obtain fissionable material and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information?

In 2010, world leaders gathered for the first time at the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS), to collectively address the growing threat of catastrophic nuclear terrorism. As the world prepares for its fourth and final summit to be held in March of this year in Washington D.C., plugged-in takes an in-depth look at the progress that has been made (or not) over the past six years, and measure the effectiveness of this initiative.

Through the lenses of how to safeguard nuclear materials from terrorists, the first summit was held with the purpose of establishing formal agreements and cooperation between the forty-seven countries and three international organizations participating at the summit. As a result, the 2010 NSS produced the Work Plan of the Washington Nuclear Security Summit, which laid out the ground rules, and established the framework, “consistent with respective national laws and international obligations, in all aspects of the storage, use, transportation and disposal of nuclear materials and in preventing non-state actors from obtaining the information required to use such material for malicious purposes.”

The 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit was held in Seoul, Korea and built on the foundation that was laid at the first summit. The organization developed 13 Global Nuclear Security Architecture points that can be read here.

And finally, the most recent meeting of the NSS included fifty-eight world leaders, and aimed to improve international cooperation and more specifically to assess which of the objectives that were set at the previous summits have not been accomplished in the previous four years and proposing ways of achieving them.

As the final summit approaches, the next NSS comes at a perilous time for global security and international relations. Attacks by ISIL and other organizations with deadly intent continue to rise. Cyber attacks are increasing in cost and sophistication. Conflicts, especially in the Saudi Arabian and Syrian regions seemingly give rise to one crisis after another.

“Today, 24 states still have one kilogram or more of weapons-usable nuclear materials, and although the amount is down from two years ago, nearly 2,000 metric tons of weapons-usable nuclear materials remain stored around the world, much of it still too vulnerable to theft.” — Sam Nunn Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Nuclear Threat Initiative

So, what has been accomplished? More importantly, what gaps remain, and how is this measured? Developed with the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and with input from a respected international panel of nuclear security experts, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) Nuclear Security Index assesses the security of the world’s deadliest materials: highly enriched uranium and plutonium.

According to the 2016 NTI Nuclear Security Index, “the current global nuclear security system still has major gaps that prevent it from being truly comprehensive and effective.” The report cites that no common set of international standards and best practices exists and that there is no mechanism for holding states with lax security accountable, a huge gap when assessing the effectiveness of our continued global dialogue.

Additionally, and perhaps one of the most glaring gaps in representation on the NSS is the omission of Iran and North Korea. The United States, which initiated the summit process, deliberately chose not to invite Iran to the first one. At that time, efforts to launch nuclear talks with Iran were stalled under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and US officials understandably had little desire to see Iran block progress in the new series of summits.

However, as Iran opens a new chapter in its ties with the world, President Hassan Rouhani and the IAEA have said Iran has complied with a deal designed to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, a giant step in international diplomatic relations between Iran and the world. Secretary of State John Kerry, an architect of the deal, said it had been pursued “with the firm belief that exhausting diplomacy before choosing war is an imperative. And we believe that today marks the benefits of that choice”.

The evolving global threat of nuclear proliferation in North Korea continues to remain a looming concern, seeing a trend toward a plateau or even an increase in nuclear material stockpiles in the country. Is North Korea rightfully seen as a disruptive actor in international forums such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conferences?

Where does this leave us today? Perhaps the most important issue identified in the NTI study is not connected to any single nation but rather to the lack of a global system of oversight. Lacking the ability to provide assurance, accountability and action, nuclear proliferation remains a very creditable and real threat in the world today.

Submitted anonymously by a member of Team plugged-in.

And on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pluggedin1504