A new report commissioned by the Henry Jackson Society warns that the ascendancy of authoritarian regimes across the nuclear landscape is an effective route to soft power that leaves the west trailing behind. To counter this, the document, titled ‘Harnessing the Power of the Atom’ and authored by Dr Theo Zenou and Thomas Munson, argues that a Western-led initiative, ‘Atoms for Democracy’ should be embraced to secure the energy future and counter China and Russia’s grip on the global nuclear market.
The wasted nuclear opportunity
The report contrasts the early promise of western nuclear technology, which was seen as a huge world-changing boon in the 1950s and 1960s, with the realities of today’s nuclear industry. The authors point out that just 9% of the world’s electricity comes from nuclear power, compared with 36% from coal and 22% from natural gas. Nuclear also trails hydropower as the world’s largest source of low-carbon energy with its 14% contribution. This analysis points to a narrative that nuclear power was phased out in the wake of headline-grabbing accidents like those at Three Mile Island, Chornobyl and Fukushima which saw America and the UK ultimately give up on nuclear power, Germany and Japan close their nuclear plants and Italy ban them altogether. This, the authors content, was a grave mistake given the safety record of the nuclear sector. They point out that nuclear is safer not only than oil and coal, but also gas, hydropower and wind, even including all the known nuclear accidents to date. Including both direct and indirect deaths, estimates put the total number of deaths linked to nuclear at fewer than 100, the report says. By contrast, the death toll from oil and gas pipeline accidents surpasses 4,000.
The authors note that events like Three Mile Island, Chornobyl and Fukushima have prompted concerns about nuclear power that popular culture has milked for entertainment, they cite Homer Simpson and the fictitious Springfield Nuclear Power Plant for example. However, climate change has now rewritten the script. To reach net zero and avert ecological meltdown, the report says, we need nuclear power because renewables alone cannot produce enough energy to meet the world’s needs. Nuclear power can.
Governments worldwide are rushing to build cutting-edge plants, big banks have pledged to finance the three-fold expansion of nuclear power by 2050 and Big Tech behemoths, from Amazon to Microsoft, plan to use nuclear to power Artificial Intelligence (AI) data operations. It is time, the report argues, to reconsider nuclear energy policies.
The dominance of autocratic regimes
While the first nuclear reactor to generate electricity was in the United States in 1951 and the first civil nuclear power plant was in the United Kingdom and which opened in 1956, the West is not in pole position anymore. Instead, the report says, Russia and China have cornered the global nuclear market. The authors emphasise that for the past five years, every new nuclear reactor construction project has been started by either Russia or China.
Pointing to Russia’s dominance and the Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation, the report observes that the state-owned company oversees nearly 45% of all nuclear reactors currently under construction, including in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and Asia.
Rosatom is a one-stop shop, delivering turnkey plants that include the power plant design and construction as well as fuel supply, maintenance and upgrades, and employee training. The numbers tell a story of unassailable dominance, the authors say, with 70% of global nuclear exports coming from Russia, worth $200bn. The country also controls 46% of the global uranium enrichment market, which gives it outsized influence over the nuclear supply chain.
Rosatom’s also offers financing packages with attractive terms, including long-term loans, low interest rates, and flexible repayment plans. For example, 90% of the cost of Bangladesh’s Rooppur nuclear plant is funded by a Russian loan, repayable over nearly 30 years with a grace period of 10 years and with the interest capped at
4%. Even following the invasion of Ukraine and the imposition of sanctions Rosatom also emerged unscathed with Russian nuclear- related exports, including nuclear fuels, exceeding $1bn. The explanation is a testament to Russia’s indispensability when it comes to running nuclear plants.
Nonetheless, while Russia is in pole position, China is catching up fast with the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) emerging as a major rival to Rosatom. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has set a goal for CNNC to build 150 new reactors over the next decade. This is more than the rest of the world combined has constructed in the past 35 years. And, as of 2024, the report says, every indicator appeared to show that the country will indeed hit its targets. Underpinned by a $440bn investment strategy, nuclear power is at the centre of the country’s energy transition plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. However, CNNC also has ambitions for overseas markets too.
The company already exports reactors to countries in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and South America as part of China’s “Belt and Road” initiative and also offers attractive financial terms. China is also distinguishing itself on technological innovation too, having invested heavily in SMRs, for example and in 2023 premiering the world’s first Gen IV reactor. Further, CNNC plans to begin building the world’s first thorium plant this year in the Gobi Desert and it is scheduled to go live in 2030.
Beyond the economic value of market dominance, the report identifies nuclear power as a vector of soft power and influence for both Russia and China. Civil nuclear exports, the report concludes, are used as an instrument of statecraft, known as nuclear diplomacy, to expand political influence.
Rosatom is a proxy of the Russian state while Chinese state media revealed the country’s strategy with CNNC, saying nuclear power is not simply an energy source but also an important cornerstone of strategic power, a vehicle for civilian-military integration, and a ‘China card’ to play in the country’s international diplomacy.
Both Russia and China are laying down their atomic cards in the global south where developing nations want to boost their economy and raise living standards. To do so, they need plentiful, reliable energy sources and if they are to adhere to sustainability goals, then they only the nuclear choice. That also means that they need Russia or China to provide the turnkey services they are looking for. However, signing on with Rosatom or CNNC means developing nations become dependent on them for decades to run and maintain their nuclear infrastructure.
Where is the west?
Nuclear energy diplomacy has been an incredibly successful strategy for Russia and China, but the report emphasises that the West is losing the race for nuclear power. This, it says, is an economic and political catastrophe. By letting Russia and China control the nuclear marketplace, the West is missing out on a hugely lucrative industry with global demand skyrocketing. Nuclear power is not just a climate imperative, it is an economic opportunity. The report asks if the West can turn its back on this opportunity and let Russia and China run away with it? In addition though, the report paints nuclear technology as a potential battleground between democracy and autocracy.
What kind of message, the report asks, does the West’s lacklustre record on nuclear send, does it prove democracy works and show that they can act decisively in harnessing the energy of the future, or does it instead show that we are stuck in the past, powerless to seize the moment?
The authors argue that autocracies have an advantage in the development of nuclear energy, since they can more easily ignore public opinion. Anti-nuclear sentiment cannot therefore impede their policy plans, as it has done repeatedly in the West. Furthermore, they can also act to use the state to deliver long-term plans. The report reaches the stark inference that to let the global south reach these same conclusions would imperil the very future of democracy globally. To prove that democracy works, the west must prove that democracies can harness the power of the atom around the world. The West can, and should, succeed in the race for nuclear energy though.
There is no shortage of scientific expertise, industrial capacity, cutting-edge companies, and innovative start-ups across the nuclear space in the west. The money to build out nuclear is also available. In October 2024, big banks including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley pledged to finance the expansion of nuclear power. However, the report states that what the West does lack is the vision to imagine an ambitious agenda, the will to make it a reality and the cooperation to see it through. It does not have to be this way though. There is an alternative.
Atoms for peace, atoms for democracy
Echoing Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace programme in which the US entered into partnerships with other countries under the aegis of the United Nations, the report calls for a similar initiative, Atoms for democracy. Again, led by the United States, the West can rally around a common agenda for nuclear energy. The report says that President Trump must show leadership on this issue. If he does, he would be following in the footsteps of one of his most illustrious predecessors. Atoms for Peace led to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and saw countries like Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and Israel go on to have nuclear power plants. However, while sharing nuclear technologies Eisenhower was also looking to advance American interests. It was the Cold War, and the US was locked in a contest for global supremacy with the Soviet Union. The report argues that Atoms for Peace was soft power at its finest. As nuclear energy lost its lustre in the US in the 1970s, so Atoms for Peace lost its appeal but, more than 70 years later, it is relevant again and nuclear still has a role to play in winning the new Cold War. The authors state it is time to update Atoms for Peace for the 21st century to counter Russia and China and win back market shares in the nuclear marketplace.
Recreating western nuclear leadership
Having established the grounds for developing a US-led Atoms for democracy programme, the authors make a series of recommendations on how to proceed.
Firstly, they say, the United States should, once more, create an umbrella organisation dedicated to advancing nuclear energy. As a working name, they propose calling this organisation Atoms for Democracy. The US should then invite democratic nations with technical and industrial capacities – such as the United Kingdom, Japan, France, South Korea and Canada – to join this organisation. Private sector companies in these democratic nations like Westinghouse, GE- Hitachi, and EDF should also be invited to join Atoms for Democracy along with big tech companies including Google, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon. All these private enterprises stand to benefit hugely from such an organisation, which would allow them to expand their footprint across the Global South. Besides, which, big tech firms have considerable funds to invest.
To work, Atoms for Democracy must have a leader. Members must therefore agree on a chief executive. This individual could be a former head of state or foreign affairs minister, or a former head of an international organisation or a well-known entrepreneur with a passion for nuclear energy. The first task for this chief executive is to build synergies between the organisation’s member countries and companies. The goal, as much as possible, should be to pool resources and increase efficiencies. The authors argue that public-private partnerships are essential, as are joint ventures and they cite the example of the GE-Hitachi joint venture between the American General Electric and the Japanese Hitachi. Another important step is that Atoms for Democracy should secure credit lines from both sovereign funds and big banks. Member states should invest in proportion to the size of their economies.
Atoms for Democracy should also develop a powerful narrative about nuclear energy and democracy and share it with the international media, explaining how the democratic world can help the Global South meet its energy needs. The organisation should also organise a yearly summit, modelled on successful summits like Saudi Arabia’s Future Investment Initiative, to court the Global South.
Furthermore, the report argues that Atoms for Democracy should actually bid for contracts to build nuclear power plants in the Global South, noting that with the backing of sovereign states and banks, it will be able to offer favourable financial terms and thus win contracts.
By successfully building nuclear power plants, Atoms for Democracy will be able to regain a bigger shares of the nuclear marketplace. And, because it pools the resources of multiple countries, it will be able to move at a much faster pace than if individual nations tried to rival the incumbents.
Conceding that such a plan sounds ambitious, the authors nonetheless state that the west must try pointing to multilateral organisations like NATO and the European Union as a testament to the power of cooperation. The report points to the annual US–Africa Nuclear Energy Summit first held in 2023 and organised by the US with the goal to strengthening Africa’s industries through nuclear power. As a result of this initiative the US is now looking to build a small modular reactor in Ghana that will also serve as a regional training centre. Similarly, the report points to the 2023 G7 where the US joined forces with Japan, the UK, France and Canada to create the Sapporo 5 group focused on increasing the depth and resilience of the global civil nuclear fuel supply chain outside Russian influence. The authors conclude that while these initiatives are important, they do not go far enough. To reclaim leadership in nuclear energy, the West must take bold, decisive action and launch an organisation like Atoms for Democracy to forge partnerships with developing nations and offer nuclear solutions. Public–private collaborations to expand nuclear capacity must be deployed quickly and strategically together with heavy investment in advanced technologies in a bid to stay ahead of competitors.
Even as the US under its current administration shows signs of retreating from international cooperation, the importance of such an organisation to facilitate Western-led nuclear growth is clear and does require leadership.
As the authors conclude, the West is at a crossroads. Falling further behind means ceding control of the future to autocrats, polluters and competitors. Nuclear energy is the way forward. The West has the tools and talent to lead, what it needs now is the will.
