Nuclear club and the security threats
These are perilous times and contemplating the possibility of ‘nuclear terrorism’ no longer seems far-fetched.
Theft, sabotage or a cyberattack on a nuclear facility could be
catastrophic. And the Islamic State (IS) has already reportedly used
chemical munitions against the Kurds in Iraq.
More than 1,800 tonnes of nuclear materials are stored worldwide in hundreds of sites, some guarded well, some not so. And no country, not even the US, has a perfect score. A security breach in one country has the potential to harm neighbouring countries.
Thus the need for governments to make all things nuclear more secure and impenetrable. The fourth and last Nuclear Security Summit being held in Washington on March 31-April 1 is expected to come up with an action plan for a more effective global nuclear security system, with a special session on threats posed by the IS.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and 50 other leaders will try to demonstrate that they carry the burden of nuclear materials with the seriousness they deserve, and that the store is properly locked to prevent anything from ever getting into the hands of terrorists.
Modi is said to be bringing some ‘house gifts’ — summit-speak for voluntary pledges — to show India’s continued commitment to nuclear security. The plan is to squeeze in a separate meeting with President Barack Obama and give him what possibly could be the last hug before the latter becomes a private citizen.
It would be a good opportunity to ask the Prez about pushing India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group in earnest when the organisation meets for its annual plenary in June. It would be a good, well, ‘return gift’.
Obama has proved his leadership by forcing world attention on the highly technical subject of nuclear security through four summits since 2010. First Manmohan Singh and now Modi have supported the idea in full measure. Meanwhile, India has shown itself as a responsible power by signing and ratifying various international conventions against terrorism, including one on nuclear terrorism.
It has been working the corridors of the United Nations since 2002, introducing an annual resolution on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The exercise helped create traction for UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 adopted in April 2004, which imposed legally binding obligations on all countries to prevent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation by passing domestic laws and enforcing them.
It’s a good time to remember that UNSCR 1540 was partly a response to the discovery of the proliferation network run by a certain A Q Khan of Pakistan. The main question facing leaders at the summit is to find ways to continue to keep the eye on the ball and not allow inertia to set in.
But how does India fare on nuclear security when judged by outside experts? Turns out, not too well. And that’s sobering.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a US-based non-partisan, non-profit organisation working to raise awareness, continues to rank India low in its 2016 Nuclear Security Index with a score of 46 on a scale of 100. China is at 60 and Pakistan at 42. Australia comes out on top for the third time in a row.
Even though India’s ranking improved by two points since 2014, the main reason it hovers in the 40s is the lack of an independent regulatory agency to provide oversight and ensure accountability. Unfortunately, here, India is in the company of Iran and North Korea, the only other countries with weapons-grade nuclear material and no independent regulatory agency.
India also gets below-average marks on insider threat prevention (33), physical security during transportation (0) and control and accounting procedures (29). It gets average scores for political stability (55), effective governance (38), on-site protection (60), domestic legislation (50) and international assurances (40). But it scores high and gets above-average marks in cybersecurity (75), international legal commitments (100), implementation of UNSCR 1540 (100) and capabilities to respond (86).
Indian diplomats, at least officially, dismiss the index as a ‘private initiative’ based on private assessments. They neither recognise nor accept the NTI rankings. “Let them make their own judgements. We are not going to talk about nuclear security with a private entity,” said one official.
But unofficially, India does pay attention to the NTI index. Sheel Kant Sharma, India’s former permanent representative to the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is on the panel of NTI experts. To continue to bolster its credentials as a responsible stakeholder, New Delhi knows it must engage all sides, even those who are in the business of ranking.
More than 1,800 tonnes of nuclear materials are stored worldwide in hundreds of sites, some guarded well, some not so. And no country, not even the US, has a perfect score. A security breach in one country has the potential to harm neighbouring countries.
Thus the need for governments to make all things nuclear more secure and impenetrable. The fourth and last Nuclear Security Summit being held in Washington on March 31-April 1 is expected to come up with an action plan for a more effective global nuclear security system, with a special session on threats posed by the IS.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and 50 other leaders will try to demonstrate that they carry the burden of nuclear materials with the seriousness they deserve, and that the store is properly locked to prevent anything from ever getting into the hands of terrorists.
Modi is said to be bringing some ‘house gifts’ — summit-speak for voluntary pledges — to show India’s continued commitment to nuclear security. The plan is to squeeze in a separate meeting with President Barack Obama and give him what possibly could be the last hug before the latter becomes a private citizen.
It would be a good opportunity to ask the Prez about pushing India’s membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group in earnest when the organisation meets for its annual plenary in June. It would be a good, well, ‘return gift’.
Obama has proved his leadership by forcing world attention on the highly technical subject of nuclear security through four summits since 2010. First Manmohan Singh and now Modi have supported the idea in full measure. Meanwhile, India has shown itself as a responsible power by signing and ratifying various international conventions against terrorism, including one on nuclear terrorism.
It has been working the corridors of the United Nations since 2002, introducing an annual resolution on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The exercise helped create traction for UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 adopted in April 2004, which imposed legally binding obligations on all countries to prevent weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation by passing domestic laws and enforcing them.
It’s a good time to remember that UNSCR 1540 was partly a response to the discovery of the proliferation network run by a certain A Q Khan of Pakistan. The main question facing leaders at the summit is to find ways to continue to keep the eye on the ball and not allow inertia to set in.
But how does India fare on nuclear security when judged by outside experts? Turns out, not too well. And that’s sobering.
The Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), a US-based non-partisan, non-profit organisation working to raise awareness, continues to rank India low in its 2016 Nuclear Security Index with a score of 46 on a scale of 100. China is at 60 and Pakistan at 42. Australia comes out on top for the third time in a row.
Even though India’s ranking improved by two points since 2014, the main reason it hovers in the 40s is the lack of an independent regulatory agency to provide oversight and ensure accountability. Unfortunately, here, India is in the company of Iran and North Korea, the only other countries with weapons-grade nuclear material and no independent regulatory agency.
India also gets below-average marks on insider threat prevention (33), physical security during transportation (0) and control and accounting procedures (29). It gets average scores for political stability (55), effective governance (38), on-site protection (60), domestic legislation (50) and international assurances (40). But it scores high and gets above-average marks in cybersecurity (75), international legal commitments (100), implementation of UNSCR 1540 (100) and capabilities to respond (86).
Indian diplomats, at least officially, dismiss the index as a ‘private initiative’ based on private assessments. They neither recognise nor accept the NTI rankings. “Let them make their own judgements. We are not going to talk about nuclear security with a private entity,” said one official.
But unofficially, India does pay attention to the NTI index. Sheel Kant Sharma, India’s former permanent representative to the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency, is on the panel of NTI experts. To continue to bolster its credentials as a responsible stakeholder, New Delhi knows it must engage all sides, even those who are in the business of ranking.
