I

n a letter from 1939 to then US president Franklin D. Roosevelt, in the wake of Germany’s pursuit of uranium-based weapons, Albert Einstein advised the president to secure a supply of uranium ore for the US and expedite the country’s nuclear experiment.

Through a series of processes, Einstein’s advice led to the Manhattan Project, which conducted the first nuclear-bomb test. But after knowing that the use of nuclear bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki had caused unprecedented horror in terms of human suffering and material damage, Einstein withdrew his support for nuclear bombs.

In a manifesto that he signed with other prominent philosophers and scientists in 1955, he urged governments of the world to never resort to nuclear weapons under any circumstance.

Einstein’s opposition to nuclear weapons would have been much stronger if he had known that the threat of nuclear weapons would become so much greater today, when nuclear materials can fall into the hands of terrorists. Concern over nuclear terrorism has been growing since the 9/11 attacks.

Although making a nuclear weapon requires proper procedures, high technology and sufficient materials, it is believed that terrorists may have the ability to simplify the procedures, and use even the crudest materials to make an improvised bomb. They may obtain crude materials from the black market or other clandestine sources.

Nuclear terrorism was high on the agenda at the recent Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul. The summit regarded nuclear terrorism as one of the most challenging modern-day threats to international security.

Unlike nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the subject of nuclear terrorism centers on individuals or groups of individuals. According to Article 2 of the 2005 United Nations International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (Nuclear Terrorism Convention), nuclear terrorism is an offense committed by any person using radioactive material or a radioactive device to cause death or serious bodily injury or substantial damage to property or to the environment.

Despite the centrality of nonstate actors in nuclear terrorism, the role of states in securing nuclear materials from the hands of terrorists remains critical. That is why the Seoul Communique, presented at the Nuclear Security Summit, stresses that states have a fundamental responsibility to prevent nonstate actors from acquiring those materials and from obtaining the information or technology required to pursue malicious purposes.

The level of nuclear security varies from one country to another. In a recent report about the Nuclear Materials Security Index, released by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) — a non-profit organization aimed at strengthening global security — Australia has the highest level of nuclear materials security out of 32 countries with weapons-usable nuclear materials. Denmark comes top out of 144 countries without weapons-usable nuclear materials, and Indonesia ranks number 54 in this category.

One interesting point of the NTI index is that it includes the assessment of societal factors within the countries studied, in addition to technical factors. These societal factors comprise three indicators: political stability (social unrest, orderly transfer of power, international disputes or tensions, armed conflict, and violent civil or labor unrest); pervasiveness of corruption indicator; and groups interested in illicitly acquiring materials.

The Seoul summit has assured the highest commitment to appropriate ways to secure, account for and consolidate highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium. It has opened new opportunities for progress in reducing the threat caused by nuclear materials. This has contributed new value to the existing global initiatives, including the Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction.

There are a number of measures that states can take to strengthen their nuclear security.

First, states may introduce a number of administrative measures. These include procedures in the protection of nuclear materials and in their control and accounting.

Second, through legal measures, states may accede to various international legal instruments. It is important that states have a sufficient national legal basis for the implementation of these international conventions; and this is not always easy for many states. That is why Indonesia has proposed the development of a “national legislation implementation kit”. Indeed, this is one of the most important contributions made by Indonesia to the summit.

Third, states may also promote institutional measures through establishing regulatory agencies. In the case of Indonesia, the Indonesian Nuclear Energy Regulatory Agency (BAPETEN) plays a key role in promoting the country’s nuclear safety and security.

Fourth, global collaboration is essential to enhance national technical capabilities in securing nuclear materials.

Through cooperation, states can improve their capacity in preventing terrorists from acquiring those materials. The role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is important in this collaborative effort. The Seoul summit has highlighted the central role of the agency in strengthening the international nuclear-security framework.

The agency’s Nuclear Security Plan 2010–2013 is aimed, among others things, with helping states to establish and maintain effective nuclear security through assistance in capacity building, guidance, human-resource development, sustainability and risk reduction.

Critical to global collaboration is nuclear diplomacy. Diplomacy at the summit level, as in Seoul, would help secure agreements and commitments at the highest level. Indonesia’s active role at the Seoul summit added new weight to its long list of credentials regarding its active role in promoting nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation and peaceful uses for nuclear energy.

Fifth, as states collaborate with each other, global governance on nuclear security is needed. This would include achieving the universal adherence to the various multilateral instruments, such as the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. For its part, Indonesia, along with other states, initiated the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and in December 2011, Indonesia ratified the treaty.

One final thing that states may develop is a culture of nuclear security. This kind of security does not stand alone; it is connected to a broader culture of security. It is also closely connected to the domestic stability of states. When instability occurred in Libya, there had been concerns over the risk of radioactive materials falling into the hands of unauthorized persons. Through Resolution 2017 (2011), the UN Security Council ordered the Libyan authorities to take steps to meet Libya’s arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation obligations under international law.

The third Nuclear Security Summit will be convened in the Netherlands in 2014. It will be another important occasion for states to reaffirm their commitment to nuclear safety and security. I believe that as always, Indonesia will continue to play a critical role in the next summit.

The writer is an assistant to Special Staff to the President for International Relations. The opinions expressed are his own.