Matthew Rojansky
{
"authors": [
"Matthew Rojansky"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Nuclear Dynamics
The Nuclear Security Summit is the largest U.S.-hosted gathering of world leaders in 65 years. Its focus was on the threat of nuclear terrorism and the importance of global cooperation in the effort to secure nuclear materials.
Source: Russia Today: The Alyona Show
The leaders of nearly fifty nations have come to Washington, D.C. to attend the Nuclear Security Summit. This is the largest U.S.-hosted gathering of world leaders since 1945 founding of the United Nations in San Francisco. The goal of the summit is to address the role of nuclear weapons in the world and to discuss how to keep them out of the hands of terrorists. President Obama has made nuclear nonproliferation one of his top priorities and this summit comes right on the heels of the Obama administration’s release of their Nuclear Posture Review and the signing of the replacement START treaty with Russia.
Live on Russia Today, Carnegie's Matthew Rojansky explained the significance of this summit, which gathered world leaders together and excluded those leaders whose countries are believed to be engaged in the illicit development of nuclear weapons, like North Korea and Iran. While last week’s new START treaty was about existing nuclear weapons, Rojansky stated, the Nuclear Security Summit is about the potential to create nuclear weapons and securing the nuclear material found in a number of nations with advanced civilian nuclear capabilities.
Rojansky suggested that the exclusion of Iran had two potential benefits. On the one hand, Iran’s presence could have pulled attention away from nuclear materials and onto nuclear weapons. On the other hand, he pointed out, bringing American, Chinese, Russian, European, and other world leaders together builds a momentum that could be used in the future to engage with Iran as a unified front.
The chief challenge for Obama is to separate the long-term goals, and keep the focus of the summit on nuclear materials security rather than nuclear weapons.
About the Author
Former Deputy Director, Russia and Eurasia Program
Rojansky, formerly executive director of the Partnership for a Secure America, is an expert on U.S. and Russian national security and nuclear-weapon policies.
- An Opportunity for Ambition: Ukraine’s OSCE ChairmanshipPaper
- Presiding Over the OSCE: Challenges and OpportunitiesIn The Media
Matthew Rojansky
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
- Lebanon Should Try to Place Hezbollah on the U.S.-Iran TableCommentary
As talks begin between Washington and Tehran, Beirut has an opening to advance a regional plan for the party’s disarmament.
Michael Young
- Board Up Donald Trump’s Failed Board of PeaceCommentary
What is behind Marco Rubio’s announcement that the body is now an international nongovernmental organization?
Zaha Hassan
- Looking Past the Wall on Palestine-IsraelCommentary
Policy discussion is ignoring that the Palestinian national project is hollowed out and apartheid is a present danger.
Nathan J. Brown
- Israel’s Security Means Insecurity in the Middle EastCommentary
As negotiations with Iran and Lebanon continue, chaos is at the heart of the Netanyahu government’s calculations.
Michael Young
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is InsaneCommentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young