Brian Bradley and Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
11/7/2014
Russia is boycotting the 2016 Nuclear Security Summit scheduled for the United States, dealing a blow to President Obama’s efforts to strengthen the security of nuclear materials. The 2016 summit is expected to be the fourth and final summit, where representatives from more than 50 countries and four international organizations will extensively discuss the threat of nuclear terrorism and the security of 2,000 tons of fissile materials spread among 25 countries.
Russia on Nov. 5 released a statement defending its position not to attend the upcoming summit, citing provisions in the 2014 Joint Action Plan which underscored the ongoing role of International Atomic Energy Agency in worldwide disarmament. “A fundamental agreement was reached conferring the central role in the coordinating efforts of the international community to the IAEA, which has the requisite expertise in this matter,” the statement read. “Therefore, most of the political commitments undertaken by the participants of the preceding summits have been implemented. Substantial progress has been made in enhancing nuclear security. These summits have thus nearly exhausted their agenda.” Russia’s announcement confirmed recent expectations of many State Department officials, and it comes on the heels of a Russian no-show at last week’s preparatory meeting.
Russia also criticized U.S. plans to unite state participants with international groups such as the United Nations, the IAEA, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, the Global Partnership, and Interpol, and the statement asserted that this blueprint could lead to interference in these bodies’ agendas. Russia also expressed concern that previous summit hosts—the U.S., South Korea and the Netherlands—would benefit from special privileges during the summit’s preparation period, a policy that would discriminate against other participants, the statement read. “The proposed framework for preparing the Summit makes it impossible for countries that do not agree to everything imposed by the organizers to be heard when devising work plans for international bodies, which is expected to be the main outcome of the 2016 Summit in the U.S.,” Russia said.
Russia Critical of U.S. Nuclear Security Actions
Russia also noted that the U.S. hasn’t ratified the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and its 2005 Amendment as well as the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. “Nevertheless, Washington is seeking to assume a central and privileged role in this field,” Russia said. “In view of the above, Russia does not see any possibility to take part in the preparations for the Fourth Summit on Nuclear security. Instead, we intend to focus on efforts to strengthen cooperation in the framework of the IAEA, in particular on preparations for the next IAEA high-level conference on this issue scheduled for 2016. We informed our US partners of this decision in mid-October of this year, as well as other colleagues.”
Obama in April 2009 initiated the biennial conferences as part of an effort to secure all loose nuclear material within four years. According to the Arms Control Association, there have been 16 confirmed cases of unauthorized possession of highly-enriched uranium or plutonium documented by the IAEA’s Illicit Trafficking Database since 1993, mostly in the former Soviet Union. Combined, Russia and the U.S. have about 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. Although the annexation of Crimea raised tensions between the U.S. and Russia in March, the two countries found enough common ground during The Hague summit to co-author a Joint Action Plan.
State Dept., White House Express Disappointment
The State Department and White House this week expressed disappointment about Russia’s lack of attendance in preparatory meetings, but spokespeople from both groups stated that the “door is open” for Russia to attend future meetings. “I would remind everyone that, of course, the summit is in 2016, as I just noted. That’s a bit of time away,” State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. “We hope that Russia still shares the view that securing loose nuclear materials and combating the threat of nuclear terrorism is a priority well worth the personal attention of world leaders and of which this summit provides an opportunity to discuss and coordinate on.”
White House spokesperson Josh Earnest lauded the progress of summit attendees since the first conference in 2010 in Washington. “The personal attention of world leaders at the biannual conference is a unique mechanism to spur more aggressive action towards success on this important security priority,” he said.
Picking Favorites on Nuclear Security
Statements by Russia and the U.S. each sought to highlight their own side as the prime leader of global nuclear disarmament. The Russian statement reads that the country has “always advocated nuclear security. Since 2010, the country has made an active contribution to the preparation of several summits on this issue and has consistently promoted the outcomes of these forums in various multilateral frameworks.”
Earnest had a different view. “President Obama is the one who has been leading this effort, that this idea of a Nuclear Security Summit is something that was conceived under President Obama, and more than 50 countries have participated in it,” Earnest said. “So it is clear which country and which world leader is driving this process in a way that not only enhances the safety of the American people, but also enhances the safety and security of people around the globe. And we certainly would welcome Russia making a tangible and constructive contribution to that effort.”
Expert: Opportunity for White House to Make Progress
Ken Luongo, the president of the Partnership for Global Security and the director of the Fissile Materials Working Group, noted that Russia in recent years had succeeded in recent years in withdrawing from the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reductive initiative, and then narrowing the scope of a follow-on agreement, and had been an impediment at previous summits. “What it does is it opens up the opportunity to do more in the summit than what has been possible previously,” Luongo said. “The Russians have bene extremely negative certainly for the last two summits.”
Luongo said “if the White House is smart they’ll look at this as an opportunity to draw a distinction between responsible nuclear countries and countries that treat issues of extreme international importance as political footballs.”
