PHILADELPHIA // US president Barack Obama may have helped to raise awareness of the nuclear weapons threat with the recent Nuclear Security Summit, but what is really needed now is action on the issue, analysts say.
The leaders of more than 50 countries attending the two-day summit in Washington, DC agreed to step up vigilance to prevent nuclear material from falling into the hands of terrorists.
Yet with Mr Obama, the architect of the summit, leaving office in January 2017, the future of the biennial gathering is in doubt. Some media reports called this year’s summit, which ended on Friday, the final one.
Toby Dalton, co-director of the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a DC-based think tank, said that none of the current crop of US presidential candidates seem to consider nuclear security a high priority.
"That does raise questions about the sustainability of [the Nuclear Security Summit], but the focus ought now to be on implementation, rather than ... high-level summits," he told The National.
When Mr Obama hosted the first Nuclear Security Summit in 2010, its stated aim was to institute safeguards that protect all the vulnerable nuclear material in the world.
“There have been a number of assessments of the progress made toward the summit’s objectives, most of which conclude that it has come up short,” Mr Dalton said.
“That is true, but misses the point that the function of the summits was first and foremost to raise awareness and force bureaucracies to take the threat seriously.”
The shadow of the recent ISIL attacks in Brussels, in which 32 people died, hung palpably over this year’s summit, with Mr Obama referring to the extremists as “madmen.”
Reports that ISIL “scoped out nuclear facilities and personnel in Belgium ... clearly demonstrates the intention to conduct an attack on such a facility”, Mr Dalton said. “This is deeply concerning, and should add urgency” to the promises made at the summit.
During a special session of the summit on ISIL, Mr Obama called upon countries to halt the flow of foreign combatants joining the group in Iraq and Syria.
He said that since 2010, “our nations have made it much harder for terrorists to get their hands on nuclear materials. We have measurably reduced risks”. But around 2,000 tonnes of such material still remain stored around the world, and “not all of this is properly secured”, he added.
Other leaders also warned of the threat posed by terrorists obtaining nuclear materials, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi.
“Terror has evolved,” Mr Modi said on Thursday. “Terrorists are using 21st century technology. But our responses are rooted in the past.”
“State actors are working with nuclear traffickers, and terrorists present the greatest risk,” he added, referring to rogue governments feeding nuclear material into trafficking channels that can be accessed by terrorists.
On Friday an Indian spokesman announced that India would contribute US$1 million (Dh3.7m) to the nuclear security fund, a reserve of voluntary donations that finances activities to safeguard nuclear materials.
He said India would also join three groups established by the summit that focus on countering nuclear smuggling, nuclear security education, and monitoring the progress of states’ commitments to nuclear security. Membership of these groups is open to any country.
“These are important signals of India’s determination at the political level, but it isn’t clear as yet how they translate into concrete action back home,” Mr Dalton said.
“Among the key steps that India should take to demonstrate that it takes the NSS commitments seriously, understands the threat, and is committed to stronger practices, is to engage with the International Atomic Energy Agency in a peer review process,” he added. “This is considered best practice in the field and India is late in assuming this responsibility.”
India allows IAEA inspectors to survey its civilian nuclear sites but not its military ones, citing national security.
SSubramanian@thenational.ae
