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 »
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
4 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
4 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
4 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
6 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
BUSINESSES CAN’T PLEAD FIFTH
Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
6 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."

×
×

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