Science, Technology, and Public Policy

This seminar considered how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reacted to nuclear crises. The IAEA often appears not just to have weathered such crises, but to have successfully leaped through windows of opportunity presented by them. This has resulted in periodic expansions of its mandate, capabilities, and resources. The 2011 Fukushima disaster appears to be a puzzling exception, raising the question of what concatenation of factors needs to be present for the IAEA to take advantage of nuclear crises.

Professor Findlay analyzed the response of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to the March 2011 nuclear reactor disaster at Fukushima, Japan. He compared the expectations that the Agency, its member states, and other nuclear stakeholders had of the IAEA's role in such a situation with the harsh reality. Drawing on these insights, he suggested possibilities for strengthening the Agency's capacities for handling the next Fukushima.

Vipin Narang, a research fellow with International Security Program and Project on Managing the Atom, discusses nuclear security and terrorism.

More, more severe, and new types of disasters can be expected to occur as a result of new types of threats (e.g., biological, cyber, nuclear/radiological) and more as well as more severe threats due to increased global interconnectedness and climate change. Yet, most Americans are not adequately prepared to respond to or recover from a catastrophic disaster, and many expect the government to take care of them. Even those who have experienced many common disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes may not make appropriate preparations or exercise proper judgment in responding to new disasters that may require different responses. Although community disaster preparation is considered the purview of state and local governments, when a disaster strikes, the federal government is often called in to respond or to help with recovery. For example, New Orleans estimates that the federal government role in rebuilding that city will be $15 billion. Although all rebuilding costs cannot be averted, better citizen preparation and community standards have been shown to reduce the costs of catastrophes.

President Barack Obama took office in a world where the danger that terrorists could get and use a nuclear bomb remains very real. He should take several key steps in the opening weeks of his administration:This article is adapted from "Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: An Agenda for the Next President" (November 2008) by Matthew Bunn and Andrew Newman. For full text, see: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18673.

"...Besides leading to bad governance and a deplorable law and order situation in the country, police failures also have compounded the threat of religious extremism and terrorism. Poor data collection on crime and criminals and inadequate analytical capabilities hamper effective law enforcement. In many instances, banned militant organisations continued with their publications and in some cases wanted criminals, and terrorists changed their party affiliations (hurriedly joining groups that were not under government scrutiny after theirs were banned) and the police remained clueless. Here the police was also handicapped as many militant groups were producing "freedom fighters" for Kashmir and Afghanistan and had working relations with the intelligences services, and hence police officials were reluctant to go after some of these elements thinking that they might be the assets of some "other state institution." Things are reported to be progressively changing in this sphere lately, but the serious challenge remains...."

"In facing the disaster, China lacked the well-established infrastructure, an adequate crisis management system, and well-trained disaster-relief professionals like in Western countries. Yet it was the ordinary people who made up for those deficiencies. The solidarity and cooperation of the Chinese people, which the government swiftly and effectively mobilized, restored the country to normal operations quickly. Some foreign observers exclaimed that another country affected by a disaster of the same scale would have been paralyzed."

In a country where those who lose elections instinctively blame it on rigging . . . , and where divisions in the society are entrenched, these elections can open up a Pandora's box of political grievances, unmet expectations, ethnic rivalries and people's disenchantment with the system.

"It is clear that most Pakistanis wanted Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) leader Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi to be held accountable for his vigilantism and for trying to enforce his extremist version of Islam on society. The public's views have changed, however, now that it has become obvious that the government used indiscriminate force during the operation and since its claims about the presence of foreign militants inside the mosque complex have not been independently verified."