By
Sajjad Shaukat
From 31
March to 1 April, 2016, heads of more than 50 countries and the leaders of four
international organizations will negotiate and finalize new commitments to
improve nuclear security protocols around the world at the fourth Nuclear
Security Summit (NSS) in Washington, D.C. Two years ago, in Berlin, the US President Barrack Obama had
formally announced his plan to host a fourth and final Nuclear Security Summit
in 2016.
The NSS process has been
President Obama’s flagship initiative since his first term when he underlined
security of nuclear materials as a priority of his administration in Prague
speech of April 5, 2009. He initiated an international effort to secure all
vulnerable nuclear material around the globe within four years. This ambitious
goal was not fully achieved by March 2014; however, the process has observed
few successes. Since Prague speech, three nuclear security summits have taken
place so far—Washington in 2010, Seoul 2012 and Hague in 2014. So, this will be
concluding summit, as President Obama completes his final term this year. The
NSS process has survived two presidential terms and will become part of
President Obama’s legacy.
The United States seeks
a strengthened global nuclear security architecture which is comprehensive, is
based on international standards, builds confidence in nations’ nuclear
security implementation, and results in declining global stocks of nuclear
weapons-usable materials. We cannot afford to wait for an act of nuclear
terrorism before working together to collectively raise our standards for
nuclear security.
However, Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif will represent Pakistan at the forthcoming nuclear security
summit. The conference will discuss the future of nuclear security summit
process and will determine pathways to secure and build on the achievements of
the whole process. In this regard, Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States
Jalil Abbas Jilani has said such high-level participation by Pakistan reflects
its strong commitment to nuclear security. He elaborated that The US has been
very appreciative of Pakistan’s participation in these meetings. It has
periodically recognised Pakistan’s active engagements with global community on
the issue of nuclear security.
Meanwhile, in a policy
statement on Pakistan’s nuclear programme, the US State Department admitted
that Islamabad is well aware of its responsibilities with respect to nuclear
security and has secured its nuclear arsenal accordingly.
Nevertheless, the
forthcoming summit meeting will discuss future of nuclear security summit
process and will determine pathways to secure and build on achievements of
whole process. It will continue discussions on the evolving (nuclear terrorism)
threats and highlight steps which can be taken together to minimize the use of
highly-enriched uranium, secure vulnerable materials, counter nuclear smuggling
and deter, detect, and disrupt attempts at nuclear terrorism.
In fact, terrorism is an
international phenomenon and the prevailing global security landscape is
characterized by instability, volatility, and the reshaping of geopolitical and
geo-strategic order due to both traditional and other emerging challenges and
threats. Terrorism which has long been evolved and recognized as a serious
domestic and international security threat is capable of instigating a
systematic crisis at the global level. The contemporary trend in terrorism is
towards loosely organized, self-financed, international networks of terrorists
who are usually religiously or ideologically motivated. Notwithstanding several
threats to international security, looming over the entire issue of
international terrorism is the specter of proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs).
In this respect, the
concluding Nuclear Security Summit is likely to take place in a differently
characterized international strategic environment. The emergent global nuclear
order being shaped is focusing on a greater role for India’s nuclear weapon
status, transfer of nuclear technology and materials especially uranium, and
behind the door hectic diplomatic pressure by America to convert India’s
Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) waiver into a full-fledged membership. And
Government of Pakistan is being subjected to the renewed pressure to freeze its
nuclear weapon and ballistic missile capabilities in an internationally
shifting political and geo-strategic alignment, dividing the West and India on
one side of the global polarization, while Russia and China on the other. The
unstated rationale for Pakistan’s discrimination is due to its unique position
in the Muslim world, facing the increasing specter of terrorism. In these terms
double standard of the US-led West is quite obvious.
It is notable that
Indian nuclear weapons and their related-material are unprotected, as various
cases of smuggling and theft have verified.
In July
1998, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation seized eight kg. of nuclear
material from Arun, an engineer in Chennai, including two other engineers.
It was reported that the uranium was stolen from
an atomic research center. On November 7,
2000, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicated that Indian
police had seized 57 pounds of uranium and arrested two men for illicit
trafficking of radioactive material. IAEA
said that Indian civil nuclear facilities were vulnerable to thefts. On January 26, 2003, CNN disclosed that Indian
company, NEC Engineers Private Ltd. shipped
10 consignments to Iraq, containing highly sensitive equipment including
titanium vessels and centrifugal pumps. Indian
investigators acknowledged that the company falsified customs documents to get
its shipments out of India.
On June
12, 2004, Berkeley Nucleonics Corporation, an American company was fined US $
300,000 for exporting a nuclear component to the Bhaba Atomic Research Center
in India.
In December 2005, United States imposed sanctions on two Indian firms for selling missile goods and chemical arms material to a Muslim country in violation of India's commitment to prevent proliferation. In the same year, Indian scientists, Dr. Surendar and Y S R Prasad had been blacklisted by the US due to their involvement in nuclear theft. In December, 2006, a container packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian fortified research atomic facility near Mumbai.
In December 2005, United States imposed sanctions on two Indian firms for selling missile goods and chemical arms material to a Muslim country in violation of India's commitment to prevent proliferation. In the same year, Indian scientists, Dr. Surendar and Y S R Prasad had been blacklisted by the US due to their involvement in nuclear theft. In December, 2006, a container packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian fortified research atomic facility near Mumbai.
It is mentionable that
correspondingly, in the recent Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) report, Pakistan
has been placed at the bottom in ranking for nuclear weapon usable material. To
put the records straight, this criterion ignores Islamabad’s stellar role in on-site
physical protection, control and accounting procedure, and physical security
during transportation. Interestingly, it is difficult to empirically measure
how effective nuclear-related material control is unless theft, pilferage or
sabotage is reported. Not a single such incident has ever been reported in
Pakistan. Contrary, by setting aside Indian poor records as already mentioned,
Indian regulations for nuclear sites are written as guidance rather than as
binding requirements.
Additionally, India lacks
an independent regulatory agency even if it has vowed to establish one. Thus
the said report has clearly shown biases against Pakistan, while India has been
taken softly.
Conversely, Pakistan has
played an active role in international nuclear security summits. Islamabad has
accepted President Obama’s proposal for securing all vulnerable materials
within four years (i.e. by 2014). Several safety and security measures have
been put in place as part of this commitment. Pakistan acceded to the Convention
on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. But, it has refused to endorse
the Convention’s 2005 amendments, because the original articles covered nuclear
material in international transport; the amendments sought to extend it to
nuclear facilities and to material in peaceful domestic use and storage.
Notably, the recent
statement of Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA)
which carried a reference of deep satisfaction to country’s national nuclear
safety and security measures, and another regarding the NSS process for which
NCA members were briefed, hints toward Islamabad’s commitment to nuclear
security. The statement reads; “NCA noted with satisfaction that Pakistan has
the requisite credentials which entitle it to become part of all multi-lateral
export control regimes, including the NSG, for which Islamabad seeks adoption
of a non-discriminatory approach. Pakistan was considering ratification of
the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (Amended), for which
NCA gave approval in principle for its ratification’. That is a pitch repeated
in 2014 and has echoed in the NCA most recent meeting.
In the same vein, Islamabad has
repeatedly reiterated its stance that we have revisited our safety parameters,
emergency preparedness and response, and operators’ training and yet again
these measures should be recounted in the upcoming international platforms.
As a matter of fact,
Pakistan maintains that nuclear security within a state is a national
responsibility because then the fundamental responsibility lies at the state.
It is difficult that third party can be asked to come and access them,
irrespective of their national or international obligations.
Nonetheless Pakistan has
lost nothing by joining these summits, but gained, and thus as a responsible
nuclear state, Pakistan will continue to contribute meaningfully towards the
global efforts to improve nuclear security and nuclear non-proliferation
measures. While, internationally, there is an urgent need to develop a
mechanism which can provide a process for sustained review and improvement of
the nuclear security regime beyond 2016. This is crucial in an environment
where an increasing amount of nuclear material and the terrorism threat is
escalating.
Sajjad Shaukat writes on
international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,
Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations
Email:
sajjad_logic@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment