Washington and other capitals are casting a critical eye on what could be a last-ditch bid to save a U.N. disarmament forum from paralysis.
A leader of the Conference on Disarmament has urged negotiators to reshuffle how they seek consensus among the body’s 65 member nations. However, the push prompted questions on Tuesday from both sides of a deadlock that has prevented the body from pursuing a formal agenda since 1996.
The forum’s acting secretary general urged participants to adopt a broad focus, by deciding first on “areas of common ground” they could refer to an informal working group for further discussion. Using that guidance, the working body could hammer out broad outlines for potential disarmament deals in so-called “framework conventions,” Michael MÃ¸ller said in a May 20 presentation of his four-pronged strategy for advancing disarmament talks.
Building off of broad outlines “is not a new idea” in diplomacy, the Danish diplomat said. He noted that governments have steadily expanded a conventional-arms treaty since the 1980s to include new categories of weapons.
The United States, though, on Tuesday joined several other nations in asking MÃ¸ller to flesh out his own proposal.
“Our preliminary reaction is that it is not evident to us that this approach would help to break the CD’s current impasse,” Christopher Buck, Washington’s delegate to the forum, said in prepared remarks.
Similar concerns were raised by Pakistan, according to a report by the nuclear-disarmament advocacy group Reaching Critical Will. Islamabad for years has acted alone in blocking agreement on a conference agenda, citing objections to formally discussing a potential ban on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
MÃ¸ller’s other recommendations included a call for the forum to consider possible foundations for pursuing “voluntary” arms-control agreements.
“To make a difference, the CD does not have to aim at negotiating legally binding instruments only,” he said in his May remarks.
Before entering its current stalemate, the multilateral disarmament body produced treaties that included bans on chemical arms and nuclear test detonations.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.