In the last part of the last entry, I covered the draft fissile material (cutoff) treaty presented by the US to the UN's Conference on Disarmament on May 18th. Arms Control Today offers an excellent analysis, putting the proposal in context.
On the same subject, Hans Blix last week published an editorial in the IHT, drawing attention to the stalled efforts to disarm nuclear powers, or at least to take existing nuclear weapons off hair triggers (where they're more vulnerable to almighty cock-ups). Blix also publicises the report of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Committee (WMDC), which he headed, and that report's recommendations that the US ratify the CTBT as well as pursue the FissBan. America has resisted pressure to ratify the CTBT, essentially because they still hope to develop some mini-nukes (i.e. usable ones) at some point in the future.
Update:
For those of you interested in the obstacles facing nuclear disarmament, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) in particular, there's an excellent article in this week's Economist on the subject.
And if anyone wants to read up on the background of the Fissile Materials (Cutoff) Treaty (FissBan), then the Nuclear Threat Initiative is the place to go.
-rp-
I'm horribly late with this update. Initially this was because I was too busy, but for the past couple of weeks it's been because I've consistently been between three and six days behind on the news. And there's been a lot of news.
Notable over here were the Czech elections, and surrounding scandals. Other stories have included the increased pressure on Hamas to compromise on its stance towards Israel (and a deadline extension), Islamist victories over the US-backed alliance of warlords in Somalia, and a sacking and political intrigue in the Kremlin.
In Iran, America has had something of a policy shift (towards diplomacy), and the EU has offered some new incentives, apparently including provisions that they can continue uranium conversion during talks, and hints that they might be able to continue some enrichment after a final deal. And, looking at the big picture, Mark Leonard (now working at the Centre for European Reform) says we have enough tools, and time, for diplomacy before considering airstrikes.
Gaining less coverage, quite a lot's been happening in North Korea, with a new economic deal with South Korea (dependent on the resumption of cross-border train tests), pressure from China for Pyongyang to resume disarmament talks, a final farewell from the company set-up to construct the light-water reactors promised in 1994, and worries about their improved missiles and possible testing.
However, all that aside, the real reason I started typing this blog entry was to post a link to this article, on the current state of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. With America's recent apparent (though doubted) shift to support a ban on the production of fissionable material (FissBan) useful for building bombs, perhaps there's still some hope for other cornerstones of the regime, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Then again, there's still a long, long way to go, and I'm just talking about the Americans' attitude to multilateral talks.
Although the FissBan proposal is a step forward, it is only a minor one: the proposal comes with a notable lack of verification procedures—sought by other parties to the talks—and a reiteration of America's wish to negotiate on this topic alone, while other states also seek to address other issues at the conference. As long as America refuses to even discuss, for example, the prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS—it would prohibit part of the development of their missile defence programme, or "starwars"), the impasse will remain.
In the last part of the last entry, I covered the draft fissile material (cutoff) treaty presented by the US to the UN's Conference on Disarmament on May 18th. Arms Control Today offers an excellent analysis, putting the proposal in context.
