Below is the Fissile Materials Working Group’s response to the outcome of the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, including reaction from Center Deputy Director Duyeon Kim.

CONTACT: In South Korea Sean Harder (sharder@stanleyfoundation.org or 912-210-2862); in United States Jim Baird (jim@rethinkmedia.org or 202-510-7586)

Seoul Nuclear Security Summit Delivers Modest Results

Experts Call for Bolder Action to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism

The communiqué and commitments world leaders agreed to today at the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit mark a modest but important step forward in the effort to secure vulnerable nuclear materials around the globe. However, bolder action is needed to effectively counter the threat of nuclear terrorism, according to the Fissile Materials Working Group (FMWG), an international coalition of nuclear security experts.

"Several key steps should be taken prior to the next Nuclear Security Summit in the Netherlands in 2014. States should institutionalize binding, comprehensive standards for security that emphasize performance and accountability," said Ken Luongo, co-chair of the FMWG and president of the Partnership for Global Security.

"The current nuclear material security regime is a patchwork of unaccountable voluntary arrangements that are inconsistent across borders," Luongo said. "This system is not commensurate with either the risk or consequences of nuclear terrorism. Consistent standards, transparency to promote international confidence, and national accountability are additions to the regime that are urgently needed."

Outcomes of particular note from the Seoul Summit include setting a target date of 2014 for bringing the amendment of the Convention for the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials (CPPNM) into force; the addition of several nations such as Italy pledging to eliminate their stocks of fissile material; and an agreement between the U.S., France, Belgium and the Netherlands to produce medical isotopes without the use of highly enriched uranium by 2015.

"These pledges represent the most concrete results from the summit and represent some useful steps forward," said Miles Pomper, senior research associate at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and FMWG Steering Committee member. "If they are to be realized, however, the White House will have to be more active than it has been in winning congressional support for appropriate legislation and sufficient funding."

Duyeon Kim, deputy director of nuclear nonproliferation, at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, lauded the inclusion of the nuclear safety and security interface in the Communiqué in the aftermath of Fukushima that demonstrated that a Fukushima-like terrorist attack is plausible.

"Notable achievements [in the Communiqué] is a consensus on and vision for strengthening nuclear safety-security as well as raising the importance of radiological security since the 2010 Summit," Kim said. "Not only did world leaders acknowledge the overlap between nuclear safety and security, but they've agreed that the measures need to be incorporated in all stages including effective emergency preparedness. It's an extremely significant first step but the key is implementing and sustaining measures that strengthen the nuclear safety-security nexus beyond 2014 as long as we opt for nuclear power to meet our energy needs."

"Also, setting a target date to announce each country's plans on minimizing the civilian use of HEU by the end of 2013 is a positive step forward but so far it's an 'encouragement' to do so and the key is in the details, which are unclear."

By the end of the four-year effort, there will be major progress in reducing the risk of nuclear theft and terrorism, said Matthew Bunn, co-principal investigator of the Managing the Atom Project at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and FMWG Steering Committee member.

"But we won't be done - keeping nuclear materials out of terrorist hands will require a culture of continual improvement sustained as long as nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them continue to exist," Bunn said. "With at least two and probably three major terrorist groups having pursued nuclear weapons over the last 20 years, we cannot expect they will be the last," Bunn said. "Despite the death of Osama bin Laden, the world is likely to be confronting the danger of nuclear terrorism as long as nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them continue to exist."

Read more

Nuclear Security Summit (all tags)

The Netherlands has accepted Seoul's request to host the 3rd Nuclear Security Summit in 2014.

In a January 31 (local time) statement, its Foreign Ministry said," The Dutch government regards the request as a sign of trust and has responded positively. The chairmanship will be officially transferred at the 2012 Summit in Seoul in March."

Yonhap News cited (Korean language) similar comments made by Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal who, while submitting a report to parliament, said that "the (Dutch) government regards South Korea's request as an expression of confidence based on the Netherlands' contributions to nuclear nonproliferation efforts this year."

An official announcement is expected in late March during the 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit, as was case after the first 2010 Washington Summit.

At the 2010 Summit in Washington, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende had argued for a new international court or tribunal to investigate countries that provide nuclear material to terrorists, claiming the Hague would be the ideal site.

Read more

Netherlands, Nuclear Security Summit, Nukes on a Blog, nuclear terrorism (all tags)

Hi all, two new papers by yours truly:

1. Where Nuclear Safety and Security Meet co-authored with Jungmin Kang, KAIST visiting professor published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Jan/Feb 2012 issue found here or here:

- "Fukushima has implicitly exposed the relationship between the nuclear safety problem and the nuclear security problem. The disaster also suggests that nuclear power plant safety and security can be strengthened simultaneously through improvements in vital areas, including on-site power supplies, the cooling system for reactors and spent fuel ponds, and the main control room."

- "To guard against natural accidents, terrorist sabotage, and possible combinations of these, it is time for a combined approach that strengthens nuclear safety-security."

Abstract

A Fukushima-like nuclear accident does not have to be caused by nature. Similar results could be wrought by a dedicated terrorist group that gained access to a nuclear power plant and disabled its safety systems. To guard against natural accidents, terrorist sabotage, and possible combinations of these two classes of events, nuclear plant operators and regulators should consider a combined approach called nuclear safety-security. Although safety and security programs have different requirements, they overlap in key areas and could support and enhance one another. Nuclear facilities could improve safety-security in technical ways, including more secure emergency electrical supplies, better security for control rooms, and, at new plants, reactor containment structures built to survive attacks by terrorist-flown airplanes. At the institutional level, regulators could strengthen the safety-security interface by requiring that it be built into the life cycle of nuclear plants, from design to dismantlement. The authors offer technical and institutional recommendations on how, for example, the International Atomic Energy Agency can support improved safety-security at nuclear plants globally by creating design standards that relate to both accidents and threats while encouraging countries to accept International Physical Protection Advisory Service missions that review security and physical protection systems and provide advice on best practices.

2. UNSCR 1540 & the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit: A View from Seoul published by the new journal 1540 Compass Winter 2012 edition found here or here:

- "The Republic of Korea (ROK) has been and remains a staunch supporter of the global nonproliferation regime as it borders a grave security threat and proliferator of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). With the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit just months away, the Republic of Korea should be more interested in enhancing UNSCR 1540, not only as the Summit Chair but against the backdrop of a “Global Korea” policy and the nation’s growing prominence in the nuclear energy industry."

- [T]he most realistic and practical method to advance 1540 could come in the form of  house gifts” (national voluntary commitments) from individual heads of state."

Read more

nuclear security summit, 2012 NSS, nuclear safety-security, Fukushima, UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (all tags)

In a joint news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 9 in Berlin, South Korean President Lee Myungbak said,

"I offer a proposal to invite Chairman Kim Jong-il to the Nuclear Security Summit on March 26-27 next year if North Korea agrees with the international community that it will be firm and sincere about giving up nuclear programs."

This is in line with a similar comment he made after the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in which he said would "gladly invite" Pyongyang to the follow on Summit if the regime rejoins and complies with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and demonstrates clear commitment to denuclearization.

There are two notable points in Monday's quote: Click Read More

Read more

Lee Myung-bak, North Korea, Nuclear Security Summit, nuclear (all tags)

Duyeon Kim and I have a new piece in the World Politics Review on the status of the goal to secure all nuclear material in four years.  Here's how we lead off:

In his April 2009 Prague speech, President Barack Obama ambitiously pledged to "secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years." The goal is driven by the need to ensure that terrorists never obtain a nuclear weapon or materials usable for a nuclear device, and its urgency cannot be overstated.

Twenty countries are believed to possess bomb-grade nuclear material that is not secure. While fissile material security is usually associated with developing countries, developed countries such as the U.S. must also take additional steps to safeguard their own nuclear materials. What's more, despite a myriad of national laws and international agreements, there is no universal standard for how safe and secure nuclear materials need to be.

Significant progress has been made since the president's Prague speech. In September 2009, Obama chaired a special U.N. Security Council session on nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament, which endorsed a four-year timeframe for securing vulnerable nuclear material.

However, the administration's Fiscal Year 2010 budget request did not reflect the urgency of the threat. The overall request for threat reduction was less than that appropriated by Congress in FY 2009.

Though the drive to secure loose nuclear materials nevertheless gained momentum in 2010, even greater international financial and political support will be required to meet the four-year deadline.

Read the whole thing here.

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, nuclear terrorism, Nuclear Security Summit (all tags)

Stepping back from the past few frantic days on nuclear weapons issues, it is useful to realize how much has been accomplished. The last two weeks have arguably been the two most eventful weeks on reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons since the advent of the nuclear age.

• On March 29, President Obama, together with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen, announced that the U.S. and Russia had reached agreement on the “New START” nuclear reductions treaty.

• On April 6, the United States released the results of a year-long review of nuclear weapons, called the Nuclear Posture Review.

• On April 8, Presidents Barack Obama and Dimitry Medvedev signed New START in Prague, Czech Republic.

• On April 12-13, the President convened leaders of 47 countries to agree on steps needed to secure and safeguard vulnerable nuclear materials and to cope with the worldwide terrorist threat.

Critics will point to shortcomings in the treaty, the nuclear review and the Washington summit. The millennium has not come and nuclear weapons will not disappear the day after tomorrow. Iran and North Korea continue to break the rules. There remain about 23,000 nuclear weapons across the globe, most much larger than those used against Japan in 1945.

But there has been significant forward movement that had been lacking over the past two decades...

Read more

Nukes on a Blog, New START, Nuclear Posture Review, Nuclear Security Summit (all tags)