On March 12, the U.S. Institute of Peace’s (USIP) Center for Conflict Management and the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs co-convened a closed briefing on the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit for senior diplomats of countries whose head of state will be participating in the summit. Ambassadors, Deputy Chiefs of Mission, and Heads of Political Section from over 30 embassies participated in the briefing.

March 15, 2012

On March 12, the U.S. Institute of Peace’s (USIP) Center for Conflict Management and the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs co-convened a closed briefing on the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit for senior diplomats of countries whose head of state will be participating in the summit. Ambassadors, Deputy Chiefs of Mission, and Heads of Political Section from over 30 embassies participated in the briefing. The summit will be the largest of its kind in the security field that focuses on international cooperative measures to protect nuclear materials and facilities from terrorist groups.

This closed briefing was the final activity of the USIP-initiated Seoul Nuclear Security Summit Study Group (SNS3G). Launched in fall 2010, SNS3G builds on the key findings of the USIP-facilitated Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, which was directed by Paul Hughes. USIP placed early emphasis on the need for comprehensive preparations for the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit at the Institute’s 4th U.S.-South Korea-Japan Trilateral Dialogue in Northeast Asia Track 1.5 conference, which was convened in Seoul in January 2011. SNS3G’s key objective has been to work with U.S. and South Korean officials and technical experts to help ensure that the March 26-27 summit in Seoul leads to concrete progress in improving nuclear security. Speakers included Matthew Bunn (Harvard University), Michelle Cann (Partnership for Global Security), Kelsey Davenport (Arms Control Association), and Abiodun Williams (USIP). The experts highlighted the need for and specific ways to bolster nuclear security and prevent nuclear terrorism. John Park (USIP), who directs the Institute’s Korea Working Group, moderated the session.

During March 20-22, USIP’s Academy will be launching a new course titled “China's Nuclear Posture, North Korea's Nuclear Challenge, and U.S. National Security” that explores nuclear security and other nuclear-related issues in Northeast Asia. For more information regarding registration, click here.

Related Publications

Report of the Expert Study Group on NATO and Indo-Pacific Partners

Report of the Expert Study Group on NATO and Indo-Pacific Partners

Monday, February 19, 2024

By: USIP Expert Study Group on NATO and Indo-Pacific Partners

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its four partner countries in the Indo-Pacific—Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and New Zealand—have entered a period of increased engagement. This engagement is taking shape in the context of the war waged by the Russian Federation (Russia) against Ukraine, NATO’s growing awareness of the security challenges posed by the People’s Republic of China (China), and important structural changes in the international system, including the return of strategic competition between the United States and China and Russia. It is occurring not only in bilateral NATO-partner relations but also between NATO and these Indo-Pacific countries as a group.

Type: Report

Conflict Analysis & PreventionCivilian-Military RelationsGlobal PolicyMediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

Two Years Later, What Has the Indo-Pacific Strategy Achieved?

Two Years Later, What Has the Indo-Pacific Strategy Achieved?

Thursday, February 15, 2024

By: Carla Freeman, Ph.D.;  Mirna Galic;  Daniel Markey, Ph.D.;  Vikram J. Singh

This month marks the second anniversary of the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS). USIP experts Carla Freeman, Mirna Galic, Daniel Markey, and Vikram Singh assess what the strategy has accomplished in the past two years, how it has navigated global shocks and its impact on partnerships in the region.

Type: AnalysisQuestion and Answer

Global Policy

Revisiting the Two-State System for Peaceful Coexistence on the Korean Peninsula

Revisiting the Two-State System for Peaceful Coexistence on the Korean Peninsula

Monday, January 22, 2024

By: Bong-geun Jun

The mounting tensions and risk of nuclear war that plague the Korean Peninsula today are typically attributed to a combination of North Korea’s aggressive nuclear posture and doctrine and the U.S.-South Korea alliance’s proactive deterrence countermeasures. However, while these factors are proximate and important, they themselves stem from a deeper, fundamental cause. The longstanding division of the Korean Peninsula has trapped the two Koreas in an endless unification competition to outcompete and take over one another, which drives the arms race and confrontational military postures against each other. Advancing a “two-state system” that mitigates the unification competition may help promote peaceful coexistence between South and North Korea and reduce the risks of conventional and nuclear war on the peninsula.

Type: Analysis

Global Policy

70 Years After the Armistice, the Korean Peninsula Still Struggles for Peace

70 Years After the Armistice, the Korean Peninsula Still Struggles for Peace

Monday, September 11, 2023

By: Bong-geun Jun

On July 27, 1953, military commanders from the United States, North Korea and China signed an armistice agreement that ended the hostilities of the Korean War. The parties agreed to a “complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force until a final peaceful settlement is achieved.” They also recommended holding a “political conference” within three months for “the peaceful settlement of the Korean question.” After 70 years of truce, however, peace on the Korean Peninsula is still elusive.

Type: Analysis

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue

View All Publications