The Foreign Service Journal, December 2010

D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 0 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 43 Bush-Cheney approach, even though that also failed to make much head- way. The Obama administration did succeed in imposing some new sanc- tions on Iran through the U.N. Se- curity Council, and is likely to seek support for harsher measures, should they become necessary. The administration is also imple- menting the U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation agreement, which grants NewDelhi access to nuclear technology generally reserved only for NPT states-parties. The agreement itself contin- ues to get mixed reviews worldwide because it is seen by some as expedient for the U.S., but detrimental for non- proliferation in general. At the Nuclear Security Summit this past April, Pres. Obama hosted representatives from 47 countries, including 38 heads of government. The summit produced a com- muniqué and work plan, whose highlights were a renewed emphasis on countering nuclear terrorism and a pledge to strengthen nuclear security — in particular, by securing all vulnerable fissile materials within four years. A follow-on meeting of national “sherpas” is planned for October, along with another summit meeting in South Korea in 2012 to help sustain the momentum generated by the Washington Summit. Probably the most important recent nonproliferation event was the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Re- view Conference held at the United Nations in May. It was at least a qualified success, especially when compared to the dismal 2005 RevCon. One intriguing outcome was an agreement to hold a 2012 conference with the objec- tive of establishing a zone free of weapons of mass de- struction in the Middle East. The United States will be one of the sponsors. The success of such a conference, while by no means assured, would solve a key aspect of what has been an in- tractable problem for many years. Because it is not a party to the NPT, Israel was not involved in the earlier discus- sions to hold such a conference. Its attitude toward the idea is problematic, since it has traditionally maintained that a satisfactory Middle East peace settlement must pre- cede negotiations regarding its “nuclear potential.” The Conference on Disarmament The Conference on Disarmament, based in Geneva, is the world’s principal forum for multilateral arms control negotia- tions. Although it has had notable achievements in the past, it has been essentially paralyzed for over a decade since completing the CTBT Treaty. The current blockage is largely due to Pakistan, which is un- happy over the U.S.-India deal and unenthusiastic about the confer- ence’s proposed agenda. The NPT Review Conference’s Final Document urged the immediate negotiation of a treaty “banning the pro- duction of fissile material for use in nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” A Fissile Material Cut- off Treaty has long been a U.S. priority. Moreover, there is a linkage between the FMCT and another recommendation of the NPT Revcon: the estab- lishment of “a subsidiary body to deal with nuclear disar- mament.” It is not clear how this body will operate or whether it will be able to produce anything of value. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations opposed formal dis- cussions of disarmament within the CD. Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions The Obama administration continues the strong sup- port for the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biologi- cal Weapons Convention shown by its predecessors. About 60 percent of the world’s 71,000 metric tons of chemical weapons have already been eliminated, and more than 4,000 inspections have been conducted by the Organiza- tion for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, which the U.S. strongly backs. While Washington and Moscow are both behind schedule on eliminating their respective chemical weapons, both are making good- faith efforts to complete the task. As for the Biological Weapons Convention, the Obama administration has shown some flexibility in its willingness to consider whether an effective verification regime might be established. Most countries have welcomed this shift from the Bush administration’s approach. The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty The 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty — which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization frequently F O C U S New START returns to the idea that constraints on nuclear weapons should be effectively verifiable and reductions irreversible.