Conference: 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Symposium
Seoul, South Korea
March 23, 2012
“2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Symposium” was held at the Grand Hilton Hotel in Seoul, the Republicof Korea, 23rd March 2012, three days before the “2012 Nuclear Security Summit”. The Symposium was co-hosted by the Korea Institute of Nuclear Nonproliferation and Control (KINAC) and theInstitute ofForeign Affairs and National Security (IFANS). The KINAC, a government-affiliated organization, carries out both research and regulatory functions on nuclear security, safeguards and nuclear export control.
The IFANS, also a government-affiliated think tank, is a leading research and training organization on foreign policy and national security fields inKorea. Featuring the theme of “Innovating Global Nuclear Security Governance”, the symposium covered various nuclear security-related issues such as nuclear terrorism threats and nuclear security status, nuclear security challenges and solutions, interface between nuclear security and safety, and global nuclear security governance beyond 2014.
There was also a nuclear security exhibition during the symposium. Experts from international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, research laboratories, and governments had joined the symposium. SASSI’s delegation had also participated in the Nuclear Security Symposium 2012.
The symposium was started with the opening remarks of Sang-Ku Chang President, Korea Institute of Nuclear Nonproliferation and Control. He welcomed the guests and said that the symposium is to innovate global nuclear security governance and ask friends to work together to enhance nuclear security and prevent the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Mr. Chang Sun Kang Chairman and Chief Regulatory Officer, Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, said that after 9/11 attacks, the threat of nuclear terrorism has been increased. He said that if there will be no proliferation, there will be no terrorism and no accidents. There are two fundamental issues in this regard, first is of management at national level and the other is at global level.
Mr. Graham Allison,DirectorBelferCenterfor Science and International Affairs atHarvard University,USAwas the keynote speaker at the symposium. He said, in three questions I have summarized my debate. First is that what is the problem? What is the solution? And what this has to do withKorea?
While answering the questions he mentioned that nuclear terrorism is the challenge. It can be prevented by a feasible and affordable agenda of actions. As a fact of physics: no highly enriched uranium and plutonium, no fission nuclear explosion, no nuclear terrorism. It is that simple.
A global strategy to prevent nuclear terrorism can be organized under the doctrine of three numbers: No loose Nukes, No New Nascent Nukes and No new Nuclear weapons states.
No Loose Nukes requires securing all nuclear weapons usable materials, on the fastest possible timetable, to a new “gold standard”. All states that possess weapons-usable materials even non nuclear weapons states must be included in an international coalition to guarantee the security of such materials from theft by terrorists or criminals group. Nuclear Terrorism presents a plan for a Global Alliance against Nuclear Terrorism to achieve this goal.
No New Nascent Nukes requires any new national capabilities to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium. This effort should begin with intrusive inspections of suspected nuclear sites as required by the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s Additional Protocol. Nuclear Terrorism outlines a strategy for persuadingIranto stop now. No New Nuclear Weapons States draws a line under the current eight nuclear powers and says unambiguously: “No more”. The test case for this principle isNorth Korea. Nuclear Terrorism outlines a strategy for freezingNorth Korea’s nuclear activity and backing it down step by step.
2. Session I | Nuclear Terrorism Threats and Nuclear Security Status
First session of the symposium was titled as “Nuclear Terrorism Threats and Nuclear Security Status”. Mr. Ramamurti Rajaraman, Emeritus Professor,Jawaharlal Nehru UniversityIndia, was the moderator of this session.
2.1 Frank von Hippel
First speaker of the session was Mr. Frank von Hippel, who was Professor atPrincetonUniversityand International Panel on Fissile Materials. He talked on Global Nuclear-weapon Material Stocks and Risks. The two nuclear weapons usable materials of principal security concern are highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium. Both are used fro weapons and fuel. And of course the nuclear weapons are more dangerous. They could be used as a result of madness, mistake or without authorization.
Or they could be stolen and used by terrorists or mined for nuclear material of internal locks made unauthorized use of the weapons impossible. Mr. Hippel also discussed that how much material today exists in which countries and for what uses? He said there are two approaches to reducing the risks of theft of HEU and Plutonium first is to secure disposition and the second is consolidation in higher security facilities. He later gave some recommendations to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism.
He said that first is that US,UK,RUSSIAandIndiashould design their new naval reactors to use LEU (China,FranceandBrazildo so already). Second is that almost all HEU and Pu fueled critical and pulsed reactors are no longer required and should be decommissioned. The six countries that reprocess power reactor fuel (China,France,India,Japan,Russiaand theUK) should phase it out and dispose of their separated plutonium.
The weapons states should declare more HEU and plutonium excess to their military needs and further consolidate the storage and processing of these materials into a very few high security facilities. Finally IAEA should safeguard non-military nuclear activities in the weapon states including stocks of excess weapon materials.
2.2 Anthony J.Thomas
Second speaker was Mr. Anthony J.Thomas CBRNE Program Manager, INTERPOL. His topic of presentation was “Nuclear Security: The threat based, prevention-oriented, intelligence- Driven Approach”. He addressed the focus of finite resources based upon the identification of threats and assessment of vulnerability. He said nuclear security is a diverse topic with multiple components. The goal of security effort must be prevention of the loss of control of radioactive and nuclear material.
The goals of an effective Police CBRNE Programme are the prevention of initial attack, to address the attack, prevent follow on attacks and bring perpetrators and conspirators to justice .Later he also presented the information regarding the malicious use of radioactive material.
2.3 Miles A. Pomper
Third speaker of this session was Mr. Miles A. Pomper, Senior Research Associate,JamesMartinCenterfor Non proliferation Studies,USA. He talked on “Progress Since the 2010 Washington Nuclear Security Summit: Successes, Shortcomings and Options for the future”. He said since the 2010Nuclear summit in Washington the international community has made modest but significant progress in its efforts to secure, eliminate and consolidate vulnerable nuclear materials.
Over the past two years states completed 80% of their individual commitments and only one pledge has yet to see any verifiable progress. However, he mentioned that the outcomes of 2010 Nuclear Security Summit left much room for improvement. Especially it did not clearly define the meanings of vulnerable or secure. And not it did establish a verifiable implementation framework to ensure that all commitments had been made and to set universal standards.
The 2010 summit and the subsequent implementation of individual commitments represented positive steps toward the large goals of protecting sensitive nuclear materials from terrorists and other non state actors. He said the 2012 summit and beyond should set more ambitious agenda and demand larger commitments. Moreover such commitments should be held to a higher standard of verification such as a binding convention to unify disparate nuclear security initiatives and peer review to ensure compliance.
2.4 Page O. Stoutland
Last speaker of the first session was Page O. Stoutland, Vice President nuclear threat initiative,USA. His topic of presentation was “The NTI Nuclear Materials Security Index”. He started his presentation by saying that the nuclear the nuclear threat initiative (NTI) nuclear material security index is a first of its kind public bench mark assessment of nuclear materials security conditions on a country by country basis.
The NTI Index, prepared with the economist intelligence unit (EIU) and guided by an international panel of nuclear security experts, was created to catalyze an international discussion about nuclear materials security priorities, and to encourage governments to provide assurances and take actions to strengthen the nuclear materials security. He added that theSeoulsummit will result in important commitments but a comprehensive frame work is still needed to identify the required policies and actions and also to measure the progress.
He said that the states must begin to build the foundation for a global nuclear materials security system. And as a global system is being developed, improve in each state’s materials security conditions through individual actions is needed. He also recommended steps for individual action that included to strengthen the security and control measure and to ratify relevant treaties and fulfill existing treaty obligations. There is a need to bring all civilian production facilities under international safeguards.
3. Session II | Nuclear Security Challenges and Solutions
The second session focused on the challenges faced by the countries on nuclear security and their solutions which were proposed by the speakers. The moderator of the session was Mohammad I. Shaker Chairman, Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs (EFCA),Egypt.
3.1 Anton Khlopkov
The session’s first speaker was Anton Khlopkov Director, Centre for Energy and Security Studies, Russia verbalizing on “HEU Minimization: Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return Program” Among his the most recent articles are Russia and Myanmar and nuclear technologies (2011), U.S- Russia 123 Agreement Enters into Force: What Next? (2011), Russian- Chinese Cooperation in Uranium Enrichment: From Gas Diffusion to the Centrifuge (2010),
The Bushehr NPP: Why Did It Take So Long? (2010). His research interests are nuclear nonproliferation regime and safe and secure development of nuclear energy. The speaker initiated by explaining the Agreement between Russia, U.S and IAEA named Russian Research Reactor Fuel Return (RRRFR), endeavored to minimize the use of HEU for civilian purposes.
This program encapsulates Soviet made research reactors, stockpiles of irradiated HEU and 14 countries. Since 1950s and 1970sSoviet Unionbuilt about 25 of the reactors which used weapon grade HEU fuel whereas U.S built 52 reactors. These reactors were converted to LEU where technological conversion was feasible. Since 2007 Russia and U.S developed legal frameworks which include Russian and U.S agreement on cooperation in the removal of Russian – made nuclear fuel from third country research reactors back to Russia (May 27, 2004) and bilateral agreements between the two countries.
Till January 2011 some 604 kg of fresh and 986.7 kg of irradiated fuel has been removed toRussia, for a total of 1590.7 kg of highly enriched uranium enough for 64 nuclear devices. He informed the audience that all HEU has been removed from some countries likeKazakhstan,Ukraine,Vietnam,Poland,BelarusandSerbia. It is estimated that by 2016 approx 2,357 kg of HEU will be removed from 14 countries.
He was of the view that this agreement is a unique of its kind as it is focused to strengthen nuclear security and have accumulated valuable experience in R&D, building infrastructure and developing the required legal framework. Further arguing he added that there are no enough funds for the removal of the HEU from the third countries.
3.2 Maurizio Martellini
Maurizio Martellini Secretary General, Landau Network Centro Volta, Italy, Executive Secretary of the international Working Group (IWG), Professor of Physics at the University of Insubria (Como, Italy), Member of the Pug wash General conference and director of the Insubria Center on International Security (ICIS). He published in the field of International security and physics on specialized journals and authored about a hundred articles on national international geopolitical/security affairs. He is an advisor of the Italian Ministry of foreign affairs.
Secretary General spoke on the topic Cyber security for nuclear power plants. His argument was based on that a cyber attack can be carried out on nuclear power plants which can result to a massive release of radiation, loss of lives, sickness and psycho trauma, extensive destruction and economic upheaval. He identified that the threat prevails internationally from foreign governments, groups hostile to the government of a given state, or individuals motivated by greed, hatred or curiosity may carry out cyber-attacks.
He suggested and presented recommendations for the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit that domains of engagement should be decided such as threat definition focused on the description of terms including nuclear cyber threat, nuclear cyber attack and nuclear cyber security. A legal framework should be formulated which encapsulates the national and international nuclear cyber attacks and measures and precautions from such an attack.
The focus of the summit should also fall on the technical and administrative investigation. Marteilini was of the view that human resource, education, R&D, computer hardware and software, security systems such as detection of the source and security protocols can be helpful in reducing the possibility of a cyber attack. He added that the summit should provide encouragement and possibly funding as needed to assist states concerned about their ability to protect against nuclear cyber attacks and international intelligence sharing is the need of the hour.
3.3 Il Soon Hwang
Soon Hwang is a Professor atSeoul National University,South Korea. He has been leading R&D efforts on nuclear power systems integrity and aging management and playing a key role in establishing Korean Periodic safety regulations as the founding director of the Nuclear Power Performance Research Center (NUPERM) as a Leadership Council Member of the international Forum on Reactor Aging management (IFRAM).
Prof Soon commenced his speech on “International and Regional Cooperation for Spent Nuclear Fuel Security” by saying that even after the disastrous incident of theFukushimacountries are still demanding for peaceful nuclear technology. He suggested that nuclear spent fuel should be stored in naturally cooled dry casks. But he feared that these dry casks are also under threat in the Korean peninsula so these facilities should be placed under military tension but in multi national territory with security assurance by all member states and nuclear weapon states under UN security resolution.
He encouraged that global proliferation can only be banned when these states surrender under the NPT article 4 and making immune to such threats and attacks. The development of safe, peaceful, clean and inexpensive energy including renewable energy and small reactors may play a key role in balancing the energy requirements worldwide.
He added that a new multi- national approach named SHAPE Summit of Honor on Atoms for peace and Environment will serve as a forum of technical experts, policy makers and disarmament activists who seek a rational framework suited to attaining the objective of non proliferation, safeguards as well as sustainability of nuclear energy.
3.4 Steve Henry
The last speaker of the session was Steve Henry Deputy Assistance Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters, US Department of Defense. Henry played a key role in developing the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, improving nuclear weapons physical security, and structuring the current Department of Defense Countering Nuclear Threats program.
The definition of Nuclear Security Culture is the combination of physical security, programs and personal diligence that creates a consistently secure environment was given by Steve. He added that U.S is committed to a variety of programs to assure high levels of security performance and awareness among headquarters and facility personnel in order to enhance our nuclear security culture.
An important aspect of commitment to improved security and to assure the readiness of nuclear security systems has to be performance assessment and testing programs. No amount of technology can compensate for shortcomings in the reliability of people. For this reason, even small deviations from standards have to be responded to quickly. Fixing a problem earlier on is easier and less expensive than dealing with the long term consequences of a broken system. Global threats require international solutions and that understanding is central to our efforts in this arena. Innovative ideas are required for the maintenance of security systems.
4. Session III | Interference between the Nuclear Security and Safety
Third Session of the Nuclear Security Symposium 2012 was about the Interference between the Nuclear Security and Safety. The moderator for the session was Michael F Weber who is the Deputy Executive Director, Nuclear regulatory commissionUSA.
4.1 Kaoru Natio
The first Speaker for the session was Kaoru Natio who is the President of the Nuclear Material ControlJapan. He gave presentation on the “Lesson Learned from Fukushima Accident”. He said that the Earth quake ofJapanwith the upsetting Tsunami escort it caused the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power Station. He told that there is an Advisory Committee on Nuclear Security created under Atomic Energy commission ofJapan.
The committee produced a report in October 2011 and presented it to JAEC in November 2011, abridgment the result of the appraisal and recommending apposite measures to overcome the nuclear security. So by that the pertinent regulatory organizations are now taking more effective measures. He further stated that IAEA has been publishing the Nuclear Security Series to give guidance to a State for establishing and maintaining as effective security regime.
While taking about the ACNS October 2011 report he said that the basic recognition of theFukushimaaccident are that the nuclear disaster can tremendously impact economy and society. That had contained extensively the people’s Living environment. He further said that it is the duty ofJapanto pull out the lesson that is learned from the accident.
He further tells about the report that it describes that terrorist’s threats are the biggest threat to Nuclear Security. He said that In December 2011 NISA (Nuclear and Industry Safety agency) revised relevant regulations in order to accommodate the additional measures proposed by the report. He said that the utility Companies are taking the relevant measures in consolations with NISA and security forces. In the end he said that ACNS was also asked to review the Fukushima Accident to extract lesson learned from nuclear security perspective.
The new regulatory body is nuclear safety and Security Authority that has been created to overcome theJapanpervious Safety Regulations. The new body is planed to be operational by April 2012.
4.2 Jukka Laaksonen
The next Speaker for the Session was Jukka Laaksonen who is the Former Director General, Radiation and Nuclear Safety AuthorityFinland. He gave presentation on “Experiences from integrated enhancement of nuclear security and safety caseFinland”. He said that the IAEA took the lead role in developing new guidance for nuclear security and for integrated Safety and security. He said that National legal and regulatory frame work has been un-mitigated inFinland.
He said that the most import lesson learned from 9/11 was that terrorists are ready for almost any action that could cause serious hurt to the society. He further said that mandatory Statues for the integrating safety and security shall be established in national nuclear legislation. He said that good cooperation is required for development of the safety and security approaches for the nuclear facilities. He said that many design and equipped aspects serve equally both safety and security.
He further stated that it is important to consider both safety and security aspects in the development of the safety and security regulations, facilities design features and operation and maintainer practice. He further said that training should be given to the security staff on nuclear safety.
In his concluding remarks he said that possibility to cause harms to nuclear faculties and the interests of potential interest aggressor to cause the incident that call the major media attention. He said that clear definition of the safety and security is necessary. He said in the end that IAEA has issued useful guidance for enhancing safety and security of nuclear faculties and has established mature services to provide direct practical advice to its members.
4.3 Edwin Layman
Third Speaker for the session was Edwin Layman who is the senior Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientist, andUSA. He gave presentation on “A comprehensive approach to protecting the Nuclear Facilities and Material from the terrorist threats”. He said that it has been now more then ten year after 9/11 but the terrorist attack continues to revolve. He said that one of the major goals of the Obama administration going into2010 Nuclear Security summit was to lock down the vulnerable nuclear weapon- Usable material by the end of 2013.
He said that Security Strategies must have well defined contingency plans for coping with the beyond- design based threats attacks. He said that the main question is to how to response to the attacks. He said that the basic element of the robust security program for nuclear facilities is the defense in depth. He said to protect against the DBT of the radiological sabotage at the power rector the requirement is to prevent the momentous core damage and spent fuel sabotage.
He said that if a radiological sabotage is not prevented and a complete target set is destroyed then one should consider if the penalty of such events could be mitigated. He said that to deal with the hostile action based events the NRC has recognized that emergency preparedness measure design to protect the public need to be modified. He further said that for the past several years, theUSha led the charge internationally for increasing the security of Weapon useable material.
He further said that over the same period, theUShas taken measurements that have feeble the domestic protection of such material. He said that NRC has also granted permission for the use of alternate security method at Mox fuel fabrication plant which is under construction. In his concluding remarks he said that terrorist attacks have the potential .all fissile material must be rigorously safeguarded to detect diversion by a state and provided the highest level of the physical protection to prevent theft by subnational groups.
He said that no silver bullet fuel cycle has been found that will permit the relaxation of current international safeguards or national physical security protection levels. He said that security requirement for MOX fuel, a mixture of Plutonium and Uranium is being downgraded in theUS. While talking about downgrading and other actinides he said that in addition to plutonium, some isotopes of the other actinides, such as neptunium are weapon usable and should be protected accordingly. He said that NRC has voted repeatedly not to require such protection for americium and curium.
4.4 Khammar Marbit
Fourth Speaker for the session was Khammar Marbit, who is the Director of Nuclear Security International Atomic Energy Agency. He gave presentation on “Role and Activates of the IAEA in Nuclear and radiological security. He said that IAEA has been assisting states national efforts to establish and improve nuclear security since the 1970’s. Assistance was enhanced following the adoption by the board of governor. He further said that IAEA is currently providing the support under Nuclear Security Plan 2010-2013.
IAEA also provides bilateral assistance at the request of the states through the provision of the physical protection upgrades to facilities holding the nuclear or other radioactive material. All programme activates are, where relevant underpinned by a research programme to ensure that advice and assistance symbolize the state of the art.
Mr Khammar said that Nuclear Safety and Nuclear security have in common the aim of protecting people, society and the environment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation. He further stated that security measurements have to be designed in an integrated manner so that security measures. Effective implementation requires robust planning, communication and coordination at all organizational levels and across all programmes.
While talking about the peer reviews & advisory services he said that evaluating the national security infrastructure using the appropriate IAEA guidance and accept the international practice. He said that identification of the general needs and priorities to improve a broad spectrum of nuclear security.
He further stated that for contributing to the global effort to enchase nuclear security through an effective and collaborative network of nuclear security. He said that objective of the centre of excellence is to promote high level of the nuclear security training and support services as a corner stone in the development of the sustainable nation, regional and global security training support centers.
5. Session IV | Global Nuclear Security Governance
5.1 Kenneth Luongo
Mr. Luongo is the President and founder of the Partnership for Global Security (PGS). From 1997- 2004 he also was a Senior Visiting Fellow and Visiting Research Collaborator withPrincetonUniversity’s Program on Science and Global Security. Prior to these positions, from 1994-1997, Mr. Luongo served as the Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Energy for Nonproliferation Policy and the Director of the Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation at the U.S. Department of Energy.
Mr. Luongo was also the Senior Washington Representative for Arms Control and International Security with the Union of Concerned Scientists and was a Senior Program Associate at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Mr. Luongo gave a detailed presentation on “Global Nuclear Security Governance Beyond 2014”. He said that the 2010 Washington Nuclear Security Summit was successful in both, generating political commitment and substantive achievement in the fight to prevent nuclear terrorism.
Meanwhile there is an urgent need to improve the nuclear security governance to protect the global expansion of nuclear power/technology and growing fissile material stockpile against emerging threats. Furthermore 2012 Seoul Nuclear Security Summit and upcoming Netherlands Nuclear Security Summit 2014 offer a unique opportunity to strengthen the nuclear security regime’s capabilities and requirements.
He said that the nuclear security regime is not as developed as the nuclear safety, nuclear non-proliferation or arms control regime. In addition he highlighted the gaps and shortcomings which exist in the present nuclear security regime. The nuclear security regime lacks of regularized peer-review of security, transnational transparency, international confidence and uniformity of standards.
Mr. Luongo emphasized that there is a growing need to create new global nuclear security architecture. The new architecture needs to focus on transparency of action, shared standards, confirmed performance and accountability by nations. According to Mr. Luongo there are five pillars that nuclear security summit should build on as it moves forwards. These pillars can both channel and organize new ideas and provide the substantive framework for the future summits.
In his concluding remarks, he said that the nuclear security summit has given an opportunity to make progress on a scale that otherwise would not exist because of the large numbers of countries involved and the attendance by national leaders. Furthermore policy evolution should be initiated inSeoul, built on at the Netherlands Nuclear Security Summit in 2014 and continued until real progress is achieved.
5.2 Ima Arguello
Ms. Irma Arguello is committed to public service as Founder and Chair of the NPS Global Foundation, a private and non-profit initiative. She developed a managerial career at international organizations such as Exxon Mobil Corporation and the Latin American Petrochemical Association, where she held several local and international managerial positions. After she left the company, she became a consultant, specialized in strategies formulation and implementation, new projects, and management of change.
As a part of her academic activities, she is presently Director of the Regional Postgraduate Course on International Security, Disarmament and Nonproliferation, launched in 2009. For several years she has been teaching a four-week Seminar on the matter, open to the public.
Her former teaching experience also includes topics like Modern Physics and Management, at several universities and institutes. She is usually appointed to lecture different audiences and wrote many articles, papers and OpEds related to her fields of expertise and, specifically to disarmament and nonproliferation.
Ms. Irma Arguello talked about the “Coordinating and Consolidating Global Nuclear Security Structure”. She said that the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit inSeoulhas been repeatedly pointed as the unique opportunity to put to work the idea of the weal current regime into the required robust and efficient global nuclear security governance. The inclusion of the this essential issue as part of the upcoming presidential discussions appears to be an auspicious sign on the road towards such transcendental change but the more relevant steps are yet to be taken.
She said that the current nuclear security architecture needs to be changed. It should be based on agreed long range strategic goals and on shares understanding of threats and their transversal impacts worldwide. Furthermore it should also integrate and harmonize present instruments to make them a part of a substantially improved model.
Ms. Irma Arguello further said that we need to make efforts in order to achieve the more suitable model; a set of essential issues must be successfully resolved before the 2014Summit, in order to get there the required decision. Perhaps the more challenging tasks to face are: to get a draft text for a framework agreement, with chance of reaching universal acceptance; to define proposal for integration of current mechanisms and for implementation of universal baseline standards.
5.3 John Carlson
John Carlson is Counselor to the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), Washington, and Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute, Sydney. Other appointments are: Chair of the Asia-Pacific Safeguards Network; adviser to the Asia Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament; member of the Advisory Council of the International Luxembourg Forum; and member of VERTIC’s International Verification Consultants Network.
His previous appointments include: Director General of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office from 1989 to 2010; Chairman of SAGSI (the IAEA’s Standing Advisory Group on Safeguards Implementation) from 2001 to 2006; and member of the Advisory Board of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, which reported in 2009. Mr Carlson is a Fellow of theInstituteofNuclear Materials Management.
Mr. Carlson presented a paper on “Revisiting Principles of Nuclear Security for the 21st Century”. He said that the key lesson of the Fukushima Nuclear accident is that the 20th century emphasis on national sovereignty in nuclear affairs is increasing out of step with international needs for assurance, technology, transparency and accountability. Moreover effective management of nuclear programs needs a high degree of international cooperation.
He further highlighted that the current nuclear security principles primarily relate to national implementation of security responsibilities. The additional principles are needed to better address states responsibilities to the international community. In this regards nuclear safety remains a long way behind safeguards.
Furthermore the major change which occurred in nuclear safety governance is resulted from major crisis and we can not wait for a nuclear security catastrophe before to strengthen security governance.
5.4 Yong-Sup Han
Han Yong-Sup is Vice President of Korea National Defense University and professor of military strategy at KNDU, specializing in arms control and defense policy studies. He received Ph.D. in Public Policy from theRANDGraduateSchooland a Masters in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Harvard University. He graduated fromSeoulNationalUniversitywith BA and MA degrees in political science. He has been a staff member of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in the Monterey Institute for International Affairs, a visiting fellow at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, and the RAND Corporation.
He has also been a consultant for the Korean National Security Council. He has been the Director of the Research Institute for National Security Affairs at theKoreanNationalDefenseUniversity. Currently he has been an Advisory Member for the ROK Preparation Committee for the 2nd Nuclear Security Summit and an Advisory Member for the ROK-China Experts Research Committee.
Han Yong-Sup presented a paper on “global nuclear security governance andKorea”. He explainedSouth Korea’s role in enhancing the global nuclear security governance and remaining tasks for the further strengthening of nuclear security. In spite of the limitations of the just born nuclear security regime and the first nuclear security summit, the South Korean government made pan-national efforts to outreach the Korean public to raise their awareness and knowledge of the nuclear security, while making sure that all stakeholders involve in the preparation process.
He further said that althoughKoreais a middle power but she has played a facilitator and honest broker role for the strengthening the nuclear security governance by establishing the eminent person group and engaging very participating country through Korean embassies abroad.
He said that there is need of creating a comprehensive framework agreement on nuclear security, building a central monitoring system, organizing international expert’s network and integrating international convention, initiatives, organizing and partnerships for building an overarching architecture.
6. Closing session
Both the speakers highlighted the importance of nuclear security summit and urged that this process should continue in the future as well. Kenneth Luongo emphasized that today world is facing threats of nuclear terrorism and it is the right moment to get together and fight against this global phenomena.
Yong-Sup Han said that nuclear safety and security should be given equal importance and resources furthermore the nuclear security summit process has created unique channel for improving global nuclear material security and governance.
Both speakers stated that the global nuclear security governance e cannot be strengthened by only two nuclear security summits; it is a long term process. Therefore, it is important that the international community led by Nuclear Security Summit process should set up a long term goal of creating a more peaceful and secure worlds through tightening the nuclear security.