What to Expect from the Nuclear Security Summit

By John K. Warden

In conjunction with the release of its report, “Nuclear Security and Nuclear Counterterrorism: Streamlining and Updating the Legal Framework,” the Center for International Trade and Security (CITS) hosted a panel discussion about the upcoming international summit on nuclear security.

The panel featured short presentations by Igor Khripunov, CITS Interim Director, Charles Ferguson, President of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Ken Luongo, President of the Partnership for Global Security, Mary Beth Nikitin, Senior Researcher at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), and Sharon Squassoni, Senior Fellow and Director of the Proliferation Prevention Program at CSIS.

Luongo began, providing details on the summit’s agenda.  The summit will span three days.  The main meeting of forty-four heads of state on April 13th will be sandwiched between a non-governmental summit on the 12th and a nuclear industry summit on the 14th, both of which should have a lot of international participation.

The main focus of the summit will be Obama’s pledge to rid the world of vulnerable nuclear materials in four years, a goal which all the panelists called far-fetched.  Each country has been asked to come with something to offer, but it’s unclear whether their statements will be made public.  However, Luongo expects that the summit will produce some sort of communiqué or work plan.

In some ways, the summit will be limited.  For example, the summit will not address radiological issues, which both Luongo and Ferguson believe is as important as nuclear security.  The summit is also not expected to result in any new initiatives or funding, which Luongo described as a disappointment.

Instead of establishing initiatives, the main goal of the summit is to raise awareness and gain consensus on the seriousness of the nuclear terrorism threat.  The Obama administration hopes to make nuclear security into a multilateral, international priority.  All the panelists argued that the summit should highlight the importance of a stronger IAEA, and Nikitin said that one important achievement of the summit could be to get Israel, India, and Pakistan together with other countries to talk about nuclear issues (this has been difficult in the past because none of the three are members of the NPT).

Asked what would be the best sign of a successful summit, Luongo said that it would be difficult to judge.  However, he said that if there is a joint statement that says nuclear security is a serious and immediate threat that requires rapid and effective action, it would be an important step.

However, each of the panelists emphasized that even a successful summit would only be a first step.  Khripunov emphasized the importance of creating a comprehensive legal framework for nuclear security, and Squassoni talked about how difficult it will be to maintain security if nuclear energy takes off around the world.

Squassoni and other panelists argued that one of the most important steps will be establishing a safety and security culture in countries that develop nuclear energy.  They stressed that making promises or agreeing to international agreements does not guarantee that the best security practices are being implemented.

Finally, Nikitin spoke about the Congressional dynamics of nuclear security. She noted that to Congress nuclear security is equated, first and foremost, with nuclear weapons security, hence the popularity of the Nunn-Lugar program.  Congress also tends to prefer programs that provide easily understood benefits for security.  As a result, funding to check cargo coming into the country is very popular.  She concluded that overall, the budget before Congress includes a substantial increase in funding for nuclear security.

Between the nuclear security summit, the release of the NPR, and the expected signing of a new START, March and April will be important months for nuclear policy and nonproliferation.