When I joined the UK Diplomatic Service in 1986, I started in the East-West Relations section of the Foreign Office. These were the final years of the Cold War and the eyes of the world were all on the nuclear security and disarmament discussions necessary to prevent it from turning into a Hot War. Nowadays, of course, the world has diversified in the direction of multi-polarity; the strategic balance has changed, and the likelihood of a global war has, one hopes, receded. Yet global security arrangements still need to be kept in good repair for all eventualities; and this was the third annual summit convened for that purpose.

The agenda showed exactly how much things have in fact changed in the last quarter-century; it focused not on the strategic balance between states, but on the need for all powers to cooperate against proliferation, particularly in regard to non-state entities such as terrorist organisations. In fact, the two sovereign nations of the greatest proliferation concern, North Korea and Iran, were excluded from the summit by mutual consent of the other attending nations.

Even the leader of Russia, always a central figure in nuclear security discussions of the past, was absent; President Putin, not desiring a confrontation with Western leaders over Ukraine, stayed at home, although he was represented by his Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Accordingly, the summit concentrated not on the avoidance of inter-state hostilities, but on cooperation in reducing the amount of dangerous nuclear material in the world and in improving the security of all nuclear material and sources of radiation.

Notwithstanding, it was the same East-West relations I studied in 1986, which were the main focus in the margins of this week's summit in the Netherlands; the difference was that the U.S. President's main interlocutor was the leader not of the Soviet Union, but of China. President Obama said that the United States and China "have made incredible strides over recent decades." In his own statement, President Xi said that "China is firmly committed to … building a new model of major-country relations between China and the United States," adopting "a positive attitude and more vigorous actions to strengthen cooperation with the United States."

Obviously, the talks did not run quite as smoothly as that exchange would suggest; Obama did not hesitate to note several issues on which the two sides are somewhat at variance, for instance differing views on cyber security, certain human rights issues, maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas, climate change and nuclear-related engagement with Iran. However, both leaders were anxious to project their confidence that the attitude of both sides was constructive and aimed at making solid progress. Further diplomatic and military exchanges are being planned to put flesh on these bones.

As always, the issue of North Korea proved a tricky one for both leaders. While agreeing that "a clear message must be sent that there needs to be denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula," there was no agreement on a resumption of the Six-Party Talks; both sides would like them to be resumed, but Obama maintained that preconditions were necessary in the form of "actions taken by North Korea, which has not yet demonstrated its willingness to come to the table seriously." China's view is that a resumption of the talks would be advantageous under any circumstances. The fact is that neither side has any real means of bringing influence to bear on North Korea, whose actions remain very hard to predict. Nevertheless, at least this is a disagreement on means rather than ends and the aims of both sides are compatible.

However, the favourite topic of nuclear summits in the 1980s -- bilateral arms control -- was a notable absentee from the agenda of the two presidents. Obviously this is in one way a good thing as there is no sense of imminent mutual threat between China and the United States. On the other hand, it points to a potential problem in the wider arms control context; China feels that her own nuclear stockpiles are too small to be a valid subject of disarmament talks with the heavily-armed United States, but Russia has recently shown its disinclination to look at further reductions without engaging "second-tier" nuclear powers, such as China, in the negotiations. In that sense, the absence of President Putin was a significant bar to discussions.

In any case, it wouldn't have made any real difference whether he had attended or not. China is not currently in the market for disarmament negotiations. It is not the quantity of nuclear weapons which determines the level of security, but the attitudes of those who control them. And, as long as the governments of China and the United States maintain a constructive and pragmatic approach both to common interests and differences, and are prepared to work together to oppose dangerous nuclear proliferation, the world will be a safer place.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit: http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/timcollard.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn