Civil nuclear energy vs nuclear weapons
Iskandar Hadrianto, An
Alumnus of Salzburg Diplomatic Academy and Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies (APCSS), is A Diplomat Based in Stockholm
SUMBER : JAKARTA POST, 30 Maret 2012
Indonesia’s ratification of
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in December 2011 and President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono’s attendance at the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit (SNSS) in
tandem with his state visit to the Republic of Korea on March 26-28, 2012 shows
Indonesia’s commitment to the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) to
eliminate nuclear weapons.
Indonesia’s bold act, which derives from its never-ending commitment to create a world safe from the abhorrent dangers of nuclear explosions, was praised by the Swedish government. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt asked his Indonesian counterpart Marty Natalegawa to launch “demarche” on the CTBT to appeal to the international community, not only parties to the NPT, to accept and adhere to the “regime of nonnuclear weapons”.
It is within the context of the principle that Indonesia is always committed to the creation of a peaceful world that is free from the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Korea sent a strong message to the international community by hosting the 2nd Nuclear Summit on March 26-27, 2012, stressing that nuclear security and safety must be enhanced.
The achievement of 40 world leaders, who approved the Washington Communiqué (WQ) was part of the success of the Washington Nuclear Security Summit (WNSS) two years ago. It laid the foundation to secure the transfer and trade of nuclear materials, especially “highly enriched uranium” (HEU) as the essential element of a nuclear bomb.
Contrary to that, today’s core issue is not only the danger of nuclear materials in the hands of nonstate actors, or even worse terrorists, nor is it only post-nuclear disasters as we saw in Chernobyl, Ukraine or Fukushima, Japan.
It is also relations between government and industry vis-à-vis the oil crisis and some countries that opt to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy (PUNE) as sources of nonbiomass energy.
US President Barrack Obama said in his speech in front of Hankuk University to students on March 26 that for the US, security was non-negotiable and the US would work (with the international community) to prevent nuclear terrorism. He added that the US-Russia nuclear arms control negotiation would resume in May, 2012.
Obama stated that the US had more nuclear weapons than it needed and could still pursue further reductions of its nuclear arsenal. Such a statement would have been more promising to the global community if the US had already ratified the CTBT and agreed to the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia.
The global community is still waiting for not only the success of US-Russia arms reduction dialogue and the other five-nuclear weapon countries’ steps to further eliminate their arsenals, but also for commitments from the so called “threshold countries” to give up their nuclear option.
Meanwhile, a further move to create a world that is free from the danger of nuclear weapons can take shape in a regime to prohibit not only the horizontal development of nuclear weapons but also their vertical or qualitative development.
Indonesia’s idea of denuclearization can only be realized via concerted action of the global powers. Since civil nuclear energy is still considered a great value by certain governments, it is deemed necessary for the international community to link governments and industries with a view to halt the transfer of fissile materials, including highly enriched uranium, to countries that build nuclear capabilities but have hidden agendas.
Second, is the need to enhance the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) verification of suspect countries.
The global dilemma of nuclear weapons vs civil nuclear energy as an energy alternative can only be solved through diplomacy. Even Obama in his Seoul speech stressed that the best way to address Iran’s nuclear issue was to negotiate and formulate a UN resolution as a military strike would be not only against a “radiological regime” but also create unintended consequences for neighboring countries.
Both the Washington and Seoul nuclear summits remind us that there is an acute need to avoid new geopolitical fault lines across the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East.
The international community has to act accordingly to prevent recurrence of a Cold War mentality that has an inclination toward a zero sum assumption.
Taking into account the issue of peaceful uses of nuclear energy vis-à-vis the suspicion of some countries that have intentions to acquire nuclear weapons, this should be seen as a challenge to be contained and counter-balanced.
The world must overcome today’s pressing issue through amicable solutions. Diplomacy, instead of military action, is the only option.
Only by engaging adversaries, countering reaction based on misplaced, worst case scenario assumptions of some countries’ intentions, the avoidance of excessive counter reactions, creating favorable environments and managing potential conflicts can mankind resolve the thorny issue of security. ●
Indonesia’s bold act, which derives from its never-ending commitment to create a world safe from the abhorrent dangers of nuclear explosions, was praised by the Swedish government. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt asked his Indonesian counterpart Marty Natalegawa to launch “demarche” on the CTBT to appeal to the international community, not only parties to the NPT, to accept and adhere to the “regime of nonnuclear weapons”.
It is within the context of the principle that Indonesia is always committed to the creation of a peaceful world that is free from the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).
Korea sent a strong message to the international community by hosting the 2nd Nuclear Summit on March 26-27, 2012, stressing that nuclear security and safety must be enhanced.
The achievement of 40 world leaders, who approved the Washington Communiqué (WQ) was part of the success of the Washington Nuclear Security Summit (WNSS) two years ago. It laid the foundation to secure the transfer and trade of nuclear materials, especially “highly enriched uranium” (HEU) as the essential element of a nuclear bomb.
Contrary to that, today’s core issue is not only the danger of nuclear materials in the hands of nonstate actors, or even worse terrorists, nor is it only post-nuclear disasters as we saw in Chernobyl, Ukraine or Fukushima, Japan.
It is also relations between government and industry vis-à-vis the oil crisis and some countries that opt to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy (PUNE) as sources of nonbiomass energy.
US President Barrack Obama said in his speech in front of Hankuk University to students on March 26 that for the US, security was non-negotiable and the US would work (with the international community) to prevent nuclear terrorism. He added that the US-Russia nuclear arms control negotiation would resume in May, 2012.
Obama stated that the US had more nuclear weapons than it needed and could still pursue further reductions of its nuclear arsenal. Such a statement would have been more promising to the global community if the US had already ratified the CTBT and agreed to the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia.
The global community is still waiting for not only the success of US-Russia arms reduction dialogue and the other five-nuclear weapon countries’ steps to further eliminate their arsenals, but also for commitments from the so called “threshold countries” to give up their nuclear option.
Meanwhile, a further move to create a world that is free from the danger of nuclear weapons can take shape in a regime to prohibit not only the horizontal development of nuclear weapons but also their vertical or qualitative development.
Indonesia’s idea of denuclearization can only be realized via concerted action of the global powers. Since civil nuclear energy is still considered a great value by certain governments, it is deemed necessary for the international community to link governments and industries with a view to halt the transfer of fissile materials, including highly enriched uranium, to countries that build nuclear capabilities but have hidden agendas.
Second, is the need to enhance the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) verification of suspect countries.
The global dilemma of nuclear weapons vs civil nuclear energy as an energy alternative can only be solved through diplomacy. Even Obama in his Seoul speech stressed that the best way to address Iran’s nuclear issue was to negotiate and formulate a UN resolution as a military strike would be not only against a “radiological regime” but also create unintended consequences for neighboring countries.
Both the Washington and Seoul nuclear summits remind us that there is an acute need to avoid new geopolitical fault lines across the Korean Peninsula and the Middle East.
The international community has to act accordingly to prevent recurrence of a Cold War mentality that has an inclination toward a zero sum assumption.
Taking into account the issue of peaceful uses of nuclear energy vis-à-vis the suspicion of some countries that have intentions to acquire nuclear weapons, this should be seen as a challenge to be contained and counter-balanced.
The world must overcome today’s pressing issue through amicable solutions. Diplomacy, instead of military action, is the only option.
Only by engaging adversaries, countering reaction based on misplaced, worst case scenario assumptions of some countries’ intentions, the avoidance of excessive counter reactions, creating favorable environments and managing potential conflicts can mankind resolve the thorny issue of security. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar