Conference on Disarmament Shuts Down for Year with No Deal in Sight

Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Diane Barnes, Global Security Newswire
Sept. 16, 2013, 6:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — A glob­al arms-con­trol for­um on Fri­day wrapped up its work for the year stuck in polit­ic­al grid­lock that has hampered it since the 1990s, des­pite high-pro­file con­cerns among mem­ber na­tions and ob­serv­ers that the body faces a slide in­to ir­rel­ev­ancy.

The Con­fer­ence on Dis­arm­a­ment’s latest ses­sion in Switzer­land in­cluded the cre­ation of a new work­ing group aimed at break­ing the en­trenched stale­mate.

However, “it is too early to say” if newly pro­posed ap­proaches will get the Geneva-based for­um back on a pro­duct­ive track, Tim Caugh­ley, a one-time deputy sec­ret­ary gen­er­al of the for­um, told Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire by e-mail.

The con­fer­ence has not done sub­stant­ive work in re­cent years be­cause of a con­flict over a pro­pos­al for a world­wide ban on nuc­le­ar-weapon fuel pro­duc­tion. The 65-na­tion con­fer­ence in the 1990s laid dip­lo­mat­ic found­a­tions for even­tu­ally pro­hib­it­ing all chem­ic­al weapons and nuc­le­ar test ex­plo­sions.

Pakistan has ac­ted alone to block agree­ment on an agenda that in­cludes work on the pro­posed bomb-fuel man­u­fac­tur­ing ban. Is­lamabad has de­man­ded that any dis­cus­sions of a “fis­sile ma­ter­i­al cutoff treaty” also weigh po­ten­tial caps on ex­ist­ing nuc­le­ar-weapon ma­ter­i­al, but that pro­pos­al has failed to gain trac­tion in the 65-na­tion body.

“The Pakistanis are con­cerned that the FMCT would … not in­clude ex­ist­ing stocks, and that would lock Pakistan in­to an in­feri­or po­s­i­tion vis-à-vis In­dia,” Robert Lit­wak, a Clin­ton-era Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Coun­cil non­pro­lif­er­a­tion dir­ect­or, told GSN in a brief phone in­ter­view.

The long­time rivals have spent years aug­ment­ing their re­spect­ive nuc­le­ar ar­sen­als, and ex­perts on Thursday warned that the buildup ap­pears to be tak­ing an in­creas­ingly dan­ger­ous course.

Ad­dress­ing the con­fer­ence last Tues­day, Pakistani Am­bas­sad­or Zamir Akram re­af­firmed his coun­try’s op­pos­i­tion to “any ar­range­ment that is det­ri­ment­al to its se­cur­ity and stra­tegic in­terests.”

“As for the pro­posed fis­sile-ma­ter­i­al-cutoff treaty, Pakistan’s po­s­i­tion will be de­term­ined by its na­tion­al se­cur­ity in­terests and the ob­ject­ives of stra­tegic sta­bil­ity in South Asia,” Akram ad­ded in a writ­ten state­ment.

Broad­er nuc­le­ar-dis­arm­a­ment ini­ti­at­ives have faced op­pos­i­tion from nuc­le­ar-armed coun­tries and oth­ers covered by “nuc­le­ar um­brel­las,” said Caugh­ley, a res­id­ent seni­or fel­low with the U.N. In­sti­tute for Dis­arm­a­ment Re­search in Geneva.

The con­fer­ence last month es­tab­lished an in­form­al work­ing group as a means of fa­cil­it­at­ing con­ver­sa­tion among its mem­bers on how to move for­ward.

“The ar­gu­ment to Pakistan is you don’t have to go along with it, their ac­ces­sion is up to them as a na­tion­al de­cision,” said Lit­wak, now a vice pres­id­ent at the Wilson Cen­ter think tank in Wash­ing­ton. “But at least there could be mul­ti­lat­er­al dis­cus­sions and ne­go­ti­ations on it.”

As the for­um began this year’s dis­cus­sions in Janu­ary, U.N. Sec­ret­ary Gen­er­al Ban Ki-moon warned “it is es­sen­tial to end this con­tin­ued stale­mate to avoid jeop­ard­iz­ing the cred­ib­il­ity of the con­fer­ence.”

Speak­ing at that time, a Hun­gari­an dip­lo­mat who held the body’s ro­tat­ing pres­id­ency warned that 2013 could be the body’s “make-or-break year.”

What We're Following See More »
CARSON UP NEXT
Zinke Confirmed As Interior Secretary
1 hours ago
BREAKING
GOODLATTE SENDING LETTER TO SESSIONS THIS WEEK
House GOP Blocks Dems on Trump Ethics
3 hours ago
THE DETAILS

On a party-line vote, "the House Judiciary Committee defeated a Democratic effort Tuesday to obtain any information the Justice Department has on possible conflicts, ethical violations or improper connections to Russia by President Donald Trump and his associates. The committee’s Republican chairman, Bob Goodlatte, opposed the resolution, even as he acknowledged the Justice Department hasn’t acted on his own request for a briefing on alleged Russian interference with the U.S. election and potential ties to the Trump campaign." He said he'll be sending a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions requesting him to pursue "all legitimate investigative leads" into those matters.

Source:
WAITING FOR NEWS CYCLE TO REFRESH
Trump Holds Off on New Travel Ban
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

"President Donald Trump won’t sign a revised travel ban on Wednesday as had been anticipated, two senior administration officials confirmed. One of the officials indicated that the delay was due to the busy news cycle, and that when Trump does sign the revised order, he wanted it to get plenty of attention."

Source:
BUT THEY MUST PAY
Donald Trump Affirms Support For NATO
14 hours ago
UPDATE

Near the end of his speech Tuesday, Donald Trump made a firm proclamation affirming his support for NATO. "We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War that defeated communism," Trump said. However, he continued on, "our partners must meet their financial obligations."

UNITES GOP
Obamacare Repeal Portion Lacks Specifics
15 hours ago
UPDATE

In his address to a joint session of Congress, Donald Trump called on the two chambers "to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better Healthcare." The entire section of Republican members of Congress united in a standing ovation, while Democrats sat silently, with some even giving a thumbs down to the cameras. At one point, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was shown shaking her head in disapproval. While Trump called for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, he failed to give any specifics, though he did say those with preexisting conditions should have access to care and give flexibility back to the states.

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login