The Nuclear Security Summit will open without the participation of Russia, North Korea and Iran. In the absence of important players, delegates will discuss the DPRK's demarche and the security of Pakistan's nuclear stockpile

During preparations for the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on March 31, 2016 (Photo: Zuma\TASS)

On Thursday, March 31, a two-day nuclear security summit opened in Washington. The summit meetings were initiated by US President Barack Obama in 2009 to develop new mechanisms to significantly reduce nuclear threats to the planet. This fourth meeting of world leaders (summits have been held every second spring since 2010) is planned to be the last, but it will discuss not a reduction, but an increase in threats to nuclear security both from individual countries, for example the DPRK, and terrorist groups .

Double threat

The problem of North Korea will become a priority for the summit participants, according to analysts from the Stratfor agency (which is called the “shadow CIA”). In mid-March, North Korea announced its intention to conduct new tests of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. During these two weeks, North Korea launched several short-range missiles, a medium-range missile (for the first time in two years), and tested a solid rocket motor.

The Korean topic will be raised at bilateral meetings, including between Obama and the leaders of China, South Korea and Japan. The aggressive policy of the DPRK leads to strengthening of military-political ties between Washington and Seoul and Tokyo, which worries Beijing about its influence in the region. RBC's interlocutor in Japanese diplomacy confirmed on Wednesday that Tokyo considers the military activity of the DPRK and the PRC as the main threat.

The situation in the Middle East is of no less concern to the summit participants. “We are aware of the desire of terrorist groups to gain access to materials and acquire nuclear weapons,” Obama's deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, said this week. “This was the case with al-Qaeda, and this is now the case with ISIS” (both organizations are banned in Russia as terrorists).

After the terrorist attacks in Brussels, it was announced that the perpetrators of the attack had previously conducted surveillance of an expert at the Belgian Nuclear Research Center, “who had access to radioactive isotopes.” And the next day it became known about the murder of a nuclear power plant security guard in the Belgian city of Charleroi and the theft of his official pass.

According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, of the 45 countries with stockpiles of fissile materials, only 24 provided reliable protection of nuclear facilities from cyberattacks, and many countries did not take basic measures against potential sabotage.

RBC Pro development program Leadership: the first skill New leadership: how to manage a business in conditions of uncertainty The power of the environment: how a leader can grow together with the team Dictator's dictionary: what 6 phrases will betray an authoritarian manager Psychology in business: 6 types of destructive leadership A leader from whom people will not leave: how to earn the loyalty of subordinates Growing the pie. How great companies achieve goals and make profits

Washington is particularly concerned about the security of nuclear facilities in Pakistan, the only Muslim country with nuclear weapons. The New York Times notes that while Obama's administration officials said early in Obama's presidency that Pakistan's nuclear stockpile was secure, they no longer mention it. The West is dissatisfied with the fact that in its nuclear program Islamabad is focused on creating small-sized nuclear warheads, which are theoretically easier for terrorists to take possession of.

Slow progress

The goals stated in 2010, such as ensuring the nuclear security of all fissile materials in the world, have not been achieved over the years at summits. In addition, while in the period 2012–2014 seven countries abandoned fissile materials suitable for military use, over the past two years only Uzbekistan has joined this club.

At the previous summit in The Hague in 2014, Japan made a landmark decision, pledging to transfer 500 kg of weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium to the United States and Great Britain. 331 kg of it - enough to create 50 bombs equivalent to those used in Hiroshima - went to South Carolina.

But this is just a drop in the bucket. Washington wants assurances from Tokyo that Japan's gigantic stockpile of weapons-grade plutonium will not increase. The country began its production in the 1970s, hoping to later use it in breeder reactors, but this technology never became widespread, and Japan eventually accumulated 47.8 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, or 18% of the global level (for comparison, Russia - 52 tons, the USA - 49 tons).

The question of his fate may be raised at Obama's meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Negotiations can begin as part of consultations on the extension of the bilateral treaty on peaceful nuclear energy, which expires in 2018. Tokyo must give guarantees to limit the production of plutonium to the real needs of Japan, the construction of new storage facilities and the transfer of part of the fuel to Great Britain and France - 37 tons of Japanese plutonium are stored under bilateral agreements in these countries, argues (*.pdf) Carnegie Endowment expert James Acton. But, in his opinion , Abe is unlikely to push the issue of extending the treaty, postponing it until the inauguration of the next American president.

Taken globally, the stockpiles of plutonium and highly enriched uranium accumulated throughout the world are sufficient to repeat 200,000 tragedies similar to the one that occurred in Hiroshima, according to a 2015 study by the International Group on Fissile Materials.

The United States and Russia together account for 90% of all highly enriched uranium in the world, but Moscow will not be represented at this summit. “The absence of Russia is like the absence of the elephant in the room,” Olga Oliker , director of Russia studies at the CSIS think tank, told The Financial Times. In addition to Russia, representatives of the DPRK and Iran refused to take part in the summit from countries with nuclear technologies. The Kremlin’s refusal to participate in the meeting in Washington already casts doubt on its results, Oliker is sure .

Russian demarche

The Kremlin refused to participate in the summit back in November 2014. Then Moscow motivated its decision by the political nature of the event. The letter from the Russian side, which was quoted by an American diplomatic source by The Associated Press , said that meetings on nuclear safety should be devoted to technical issues, and they should be organized exclusively by the IAEA. This same event is entirely an American project, Oliker confirms. Obama declared the fight against the global nuclear threat as one of the goals of his presidency during the 2008 election campaign. For this, in many ways, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, without serving even a year in the White House.

At the last nuclear security summit, which took place in March 2014 in The Hague, Russia was represented by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and the contradictions were obvious even then. At this summit, Moscow set the condition that it would not undertake obligations to reduce its stockpile of nuclear materials. It was about signing the Strengthening Nuclear Security Implementation Initiative, which implies the consent of the signatory countries to periodic international inspections of nuclear facilities and the implementation of recommendations formulated based on their results. Moscow was then supported, among others, by India and China. The United States and 34 other states have entered this format of cooperation.

On Wednesday, presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov explained the refusal to participate due to a lack of interaction during the preliminary preparations for the summit. “Moscow believes that the development of issues related to nuclear safety requires common and joint efforts, and mutual consideration of interests and positions during preliminary work,” he clarified.

The West declared Russia’s refusal to participate in the summit as part of a strategy aimed at self-isolation. Obama adviser Rhodes said Russia's decision "is first and foremost a missed opportunity for Russia." By refusing to participate, Moscow “isolated itself,” he believes.

But the matter is not limited to refusal to participate in the summit. According to Washington, Russia is “slowly but surely” working to revise the security architecture established in Europe after the end of the Cold War. This statement was made by Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control Frank Rose, citing as an example Moscow’s decision to suspend its participation in the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in March 2015 and its alleged violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Russia also refused the proposal made by President Obama back in 2013 to begin negotiations on further nuclear disarmament - Moscow considered that reducing its arsenals below the level of the START-3 Treaty concluded in 2010 would pose a direct threat to it. Russia insisted that in this case other members of the nuclear club, such as Great Britain and France, should be involved in disarmament negotiations. With the deterioration of bilateral relations due to the annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine, new obstacles to negotiations have arisen. In February of this year, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov ruled out the possibility of continuing dialogue with Washington on reducing nuclear arsenals.

Without Russia: what will be discussed at the nuclear summit in Washington