U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday acknowledged his staff’s pessimism about landing a breakthrough in a long-deadlocked disarmament forum.
“When I considered addressing you once again today, some of our senior advisers counseled against it. They said there are little prospects for progress this year,” the U.N. chief said in opening remarks to this year’s first gathering of the Conference on Disarmament in Switzerland.
Ban said, though, that he remains convinced the Geneva venue could achieve new strides.
“I decided to come and meet you. Why?” he said. “Because I am a strong believer in multilateralism.
“I want you to know that I have not given up hope for this noble body,” the U.N. head said. “I want to encourage you to live up to the international community’s expectations.”
The 65-nation conference was established as the primary global forum for negotiation of arms control accords. However, a proposal for an international prohibition on new nuclear-weapon fuel production has held the consensus-driven body at a standstill for more than 15 years.
The Conference on Disarmament and its predecessors have produced some key arms-control agreements in the past, including the Nonproliferation Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
Ban referred, as well, to its critical role in crafting the treaty under which Syria is now working to dismantle its chemical arsenal.
“The Chemical Weapons Convention is your legacy. The CD brought it to life,” Ban said. “The presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize to the [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons] is a recognition of the importance of disarmament and nonproliferation for world peace. I hope you will be inspired by this.”
States’ delegates voiced differing ideas on how to pursue substantive movement in the conference.
The United States noted that it was open to re-establishing an informal working group to support discussions on moving forward, but said it would do so only if an agreed agenda remains “elusive” over the course of 2014.
Germany, though, said the mechanism should be re-launched “without further delay.”
“A substantive schedule of activities should be agreed upon for 2014,” German Ambassador Michael Biontino said in a prepared statement. “We believe that the approach developed in the informal working group [last year] provides a valid basis.”
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."