Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Top U.S. official says Pakistan holding up FMCT negotiations
From The Hindu
A top Obama administration official has warned that though “a single country,” Pakistan, “has been standing in the way of launching negotiations” for the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), the United States' “patience won't last forever.”
Speaking to media after the opening session of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, Switzerland, Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance stopped short of naming Pakistan explicitly, but alluded to that country when she remarked, “Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled as to why the blockage.”
While Ms. Gottemoeller underscored the U.S.' renewed emphasis on nuclear non-proliferation following the passage of the New START Treaty in December in the Senate and the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference last May, she expressed disappointment with the lack of progress on FMCT saying, “A single country has been basically concerned about the start of negotiations.”
In the face of such resistance the work of the CD had stalled since its plenary session in June 2009, Ms. Gottemoeller argued, warning that if it did not get back to work the Conference itself would “wither on the vine.”
The Assistant Secretary described specifically the U.S.' efforts to engage with a number of delegations on how to move the negotiations forward, saying, “I for one hope that Pakistan will take these as serious efforts to bear in mind what their concerns are, but also to advance what was a consensus decision in 1864 of this entire organization.”
Laura Kennedy, U.S. Permanent Representative to the CD, added, “I would also again call attention to the fact that in terms of our dialogue with Pakistan, Secretary Clinton herself had inaugurated a wide-ranging strategic dialogue with Pakistan.”
Ms. Kennedy noted that the U.S. officials “certainly do discuss the full range of strategic issues with Pakistan on a very comprehensive, high-level basis,” touching upon the role of Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, in particular.
Last year Ms. Tauscher had issued similarly strong statements pressing Pakistan to end its opposition to the FMCT. Speaking at the NPT Review Conference she had said, “I think everyone shares the disappointment that the U.S. shares that there is a country that is blocking the programme of work that was a very hard fought agreement... to move forward ... to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.”
Ms. Tauscher added that the U.S. joined with its friends and allies in “trying to persuade that country to step away and let the programme of work go forward because it would be a long negotiation.”
On this occasion Ms. Gottemoeller was however emphatic that the CD was the ideal forum for any country with concerns about the FMCT to work with others and arrive at a consensus view. Ms. Gottemoeller said, “Every country, of course, makes decisions about joining in an arms control treaty based upon calculations of its national interest.”
However, she added, because the CD was based on “consensus rule,” any country in negotiation of the FMCT that did not see its interests being supported had full opportunity within the context of the CD not to join up with the final consensus.
In this sense “We see negotiation of a FMCT best conducted in the CD... [and] all countries should feel confident that if we begin negotiations of a FMCT... they will have full opportunity to ensure that their interests are well represented.”
Explaining that a consensus was required in order to launch formal negotiations under the framework of the CD, M. Gottemoeller warned, “If we are not able to accomplish that, and I think many delegations feel this way, patience will run out and delegations will be looking for other options to pursue negotiation of a FMCT.”
A top Obama administration official has warned that though “a single country,” Pakistan, “has been standing in the way of launching negotiations” for the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), the United States' “patience won't last forever.”
Speaking to media after the opening session of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, Switzerland, Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance stopped short of naming Pakistan explicitly, but alluded to that country when she remarked, “Frankly, I'm a bit puzzled as to why the blockage.”
While Ms. Gottemoeller underscored the U.S.' renewed emphasis on nuclear non-proliferation following the passage of the New START Treaty in December in the Senate and the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference last May, she expressed disappointment with the lack of progress on FMCT saying, “A single country has been basically concerned about the start of negotiations.”
In the face of such resistance the work of the CD had stalled since its plenary session in June 2009, Ms. Gottemoeller argued, warning that if it did not get back to work the Conference itself would “wither on the vine.”
The Assistant Secretary described specifically the U.S.' efforts to engage with a number of delegations on how to move the negotiations forward, saying, “I for one hope that Pakistan will take these as serious efforts to bear in mind what their concerns are, but also to advance what was a consensus decision in 1864 of this entire organization.”
Laura Kennedy, U.S. Permanent Representative to the CD, added, “I would also again call attention to the fact that in terms of our dialogue with Pakistan, Secretary Clinton herself had inaugurated a wide-ranging strategic dialogue with Pakistan.”
Ms. Kennedy noted that the U.S. officials “certainly do discuss the full range of strategic issues with Pakistan on a very comprehensive, high-level basis,” touching upon the role of Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, in particular.
Last year Ms. Tauscher had issued similarly strong statements pressing Pakistan to end its opposition to the FMCT. Speaking at the NPT Review Conference she had said, “I think everyone shares the disappointment that the U.S. shares that there is a country that is blocking the programme of work that was a very hard fought agreement... to move forward ... to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.”
Ms. Tauscher added that the U.S. joined with its friends and allies in “trying to persuade that country to step away and let the programme of work go forward because it would be a long negotiation.”
On this occasion Ms. Gottemoeller was however emphatic that the CD was the ideal forum for any country with concerns about the FMCT to work with others and arrive at a consensus view. Ms. Gottemoeller said, “Every country, of course, makes decisions about joining in an arms control treaty based upon calculations of its national interest.”
However, she added, because the CD was based on “consensus rule,” any country in negotiation of the FMCT that did not see its interests being supported had full opportunity within the context of the CD not to join up with the final consensus.
In this sense “We see negotiation of a FMCT best conducted in the CD... [and] all countries should feel confident that if we begin negotiations of a FMCT... they will have full opportunity to ensure that their interests are well represented.”
Explaining that a consensus was required in order to launch formal negotiations under the framework of the CD, M. Gottemoeller warned, “If we are not able to accomplish that, and I think many delegations feel this way, patience will run out and delegations will be looking for other options to pursue negotiation of a FMCT.”
Labels: disarmament, FMCT, Geneva meet
Friday, August 13, 2010
U.S. may press India on CTBT
From The Hindu
In an indication that the United States might press India to accede to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) during President Barack Obama’s November visit, a top administration official here said the U.S. would “strengthen our efforts to achieve ratification of both treaties by... China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan...”.
Arguing that the ratification of the CTBT by these countries was necessary for the treaty to enter into force, Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary at the Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, said the U.S. would also aim to get India and the other countries listed “negotiating a verifiable FMCT”.
Ms. Gottemoeller’s comments are particularly salient in the context of President Obama’s consistent emphasis on the U.S.’ commitment to get both treaties ratified during his time in office, a priority he outlined in a defining speech he made in Prague last year.
The White House’s keenness to step up efforts to get both treaties ratified was further exemplified in strong statements by Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, pressing Pakistan to end its opposition to the FMCT.
Speaking at the Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference this year she said, “I think everyone shares the disappointment that the U.S. shares that there is a country that is blocking the programme of work that was a very hard fought agreement... to move forward ... to begin negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.”
She added that the U.S. joined with its friends and allies in “trying to persuade that country to step away and let the programme of work go forward because it would be a long negotiation”.
Labels: CTBT, FMCT, India, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear policy, U.S.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
U.S. non-proliferation agenda caught in web of contradictions
From The Hindu
On the eve of the next big nuclear-related event of the Obama presidency, the United States’ non-proliferation engine is shuddering dangerously, indeed running the risk of choking itself in a web of contradictions.
At a press conference to preview of the upcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held in New York between May 3 and May 28, the tensions in the agenda, as well as a sense of gloom about what could realistically be achieved, were evident in equal measure.
As far as contradictions go, South Asia was clearly the elephant in the room. With ever more signs of weakness in the non-proliferation regime emerging, the administration has been fighting off the back foot to defend itself against allegations that it has contributed to this attrition. For example recent reports suggested that China was planning to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan, potentially disregarding views of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
To a question on whether the such potential risks of proliferation had grown in the region due to the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, said, “We do not believe we weakened the NPT in our peaceful civilian nuclear deal with India,” adding that it was a deal that came with safeguards and a number of other transparency mechanisms that “we think… add to the security and the non-proliferation concerns that we had prior to that.”
Yet she was quick to disclaim any responsibility that the U.S. might bear for events resulting as a consequence of the deal: “So I think that it is not our [fault] if something else happens, but certainly what we are for and what we make very clear we are for is that we want a strong NPT, we want a strong IAEA that is well funded, that has the authorities it needs to be the right watchdog for the time that we live in.”
If the China-Pakistan nuclear deal exposed some of cracks in the U.S.’s non-proliferation agenda in South Asia then Pakistan’s resistance to the Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty (FMCT) made the denial of these cracks impossible.
In a delicately balanced statement Ms. Tauscher said, “Everyone shares the disappointment that the United States shares that there is a country that is blocking the program of work that was a very hard fought agreement among the six Chairmen, somewhat historic, last year in the conference on disarmament in Geneva to move forward on a program of work, to begin negotiations on a FMCT.”
She added, “We join a lot of our friends and allies trying to persuade that country to step away and let the program of work go forward because it would be a long negotiation.”
And it is not only the FMCT but the NPT itself that the U.S. will attempt to tie India and Pakistan to. To a direct question on whether the U.S. would urge the nuclear-armed rivals to sign up Susan Burk, the President’s Special Representative for Nuclear Non-proliferation, said, “The U.S. has had a longstanding policy of supporting the universal adherence to the NPT, and I am quite confident that that issue will be raised during the review conference and there will be a desire to recommit the parties’ support for that.”
However, South Asia is hardly likely to give the U.S. much joy in this venture. The unspoken quid pro quo element of treaty ratifications, especially such high-profile treaties, would require the U.S. to resolve a massive contradiction at the very heart of global nuclear politics – that to bring get India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT the U.S. itself may have to accede to comprehensive test bans and disarmament on a much larger scale, proportional to the size of its nuclear arsenal.
Yet it is not South Asia, but Iran that is likely to continue to discomfit the U.S. during the meet. The State Department has consistently emphasised President Obama’s so called dual-track approach of holding out the possibility of negotiations while simultaneously seeking to build consensus around a sanctions regime against Iran in the event of it not cooperating.
But quite apart from the well-known resistance to sanctions by Russia and China and others like Brazil, the U.S. will also have to build a case around why it is pressing Iran so hard while Israel, which has nuclear weapons, may be considered equally responsible for jeopardising peace in the region.
In particular with regard to the 1995 Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-free zone resolution, Ms. Tauscher’s defence was: “Israel is a not a party to the NPT, will not be at the NPT.” However she added that the 1995 resolution “would also include, obviously, a nuclear-free zone... But we are concerned that the conditions are not right. And unless all members of the region participate, which would be unlikely unless there is a comprehensive peace plan that is being accepted and worked on, then you could not have the conference that would achieve what we are all looking to achieve.”
While the U.S. may be hard pressed to admit that it could be in a cul-de-sac, it came close to doing so on Friday when Ms. Tauscher said that the NPT Review Conference was not about a final communiqué or a product that comes out and the “real work of strengthening the regime “is not going to happen next week [but…] in the months and the years to come.”
On the eve of the next big nuclear-related event of the Obama presidency, the United States’ non-proliferation engine is shuddering dangerously, indeed running the risk of choking itself in a web of contradictions.
At a press conference to preview of the upcoming Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held in New York between May 3 and May 28, the tensions in the agenda, as well as a sense of gloom about what could realistically be achieved, were evident in equal measure.
As far as contradictions go, South Asia was clearly the elephant in the room. With ever more signs of weakness in the non-proliferation regime emerging, the administration has been fighting off the back foot to defend itself against allegations that it has contributed to this attrition. For example recent reports suggested that China was planning to sell nuclear reactors to Pakistan, potentially disregarding views of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
To a question on whether the such potential risks of proliferation had grown in the region due to the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal Ellen Tauscher, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security, said, “We do not believe we weakened the NPT in our peaceful civilian nuclear deal with India,” adding that it was a deal that came with safeguards and a number of other transparency mechanisms that “we think… add to the security and the non-proliferation concerns that we had prior to that.”
Yet she was quick to disclaim any responsibility that the U.S. might bear for events resulting as a consequence of the deal: “So I think that it is not our [fault] if something else happens, but certainly what we are for and what we make very clear we are for is that we want a strong NPT, we want a strong IAEA that is well funded, that has the authorities it needs to be the right watchdog for the time that we live in.”
If the China-Pakistan nuclear deal exposed some of cracks in the U.S.’s non-proliferation agenda in South Asia then Pakistan’s resistance to the Fissile Materials Cut Off Treaty (FMCT) made the denial of these cracks impossible.
In a delicately balanced statement Ms. Tauscher said, “Everyone shares the disappointment that the United States shares that there is a country that is blocking the program of work that was a very hard fought agreement among the six Chairmen, somewhat historic, last year in the conference on disarmament in Geneva to move forward on a program of work, to begin negotiations on a FMCT.”
She added, “We join a lot of our friends and allies trying to persuade that country to step away and let the program of work go forward because it would be a long negotiation.”
And it is not only the FMCT but the NPT itself that the U.S. will attempt to tie India and Pakistan to. To a direct question on whether the U.S. would urge the nuclear-armed rivals to sign up Susan Burk, the President’s Special Representative for Nuclear Non-proliferation, said, “The U.S. has had a longstanding policy of supporting the universal adherence to the NPT, and I am quite confident that that issue will be raised during the review conference and there will be a desire to recommit the parties’ support for that.”
However, South Asia is hardly likely to give the U.S. much joy in this venture. The unspoken quid pro quo element of treaty ratifications, especially such high-profile treaties, would require the U.S. to resolve a massive contradiction at the very heart of global nuclear politics – that to bring get India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT the U.S. itself may have to accede to comprehensive test bans and disarmament on a much larger scale, proportional to the size of its nuclear arsenal.
Yet it is not South Asia, but Iran that is likely to continue to discomfit the U.S. during the meet. The State Department has consistently emphasised President Obama’s so called dual-track approach of holding out the possibility of negotiations while simultaneously seeking to build consensus around a sanctions regime against Iran in the event of it not cooperating.
But quite apart from the well-known resistance to sanctions by Russia and China and others like Brazil, the U.S. will also have to build a case around why it is pressing Iran so hard while Israel, which has nuclear weapons, may be considered equally responsible for jeopardising peace in the region.
In particular with regard to the 1995 Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction-free zone resolution, Ms. Tauscher’s defence was: “Israel is a not a party to the NPT, will not be at the NPT.” However she added that the 1995 resolution “would also include, obviously, a nuclear-free zone... But we are concerned that the conditions are not right. And unless all members of the region participate, which would be unlikely unless there is a comprehensive peace plan that is being accepted and worked on, then you could not have the conference that would achieve what we are all looking to achieve.”
While the U.S. may be hard pressed to admit that it could be in a cul-de-sac, it came close to doing so on Friday when Ms. Tauscher said that the NPT Review Conference was not about a final communiqué or a product that comes out and the “real work of strengthening the regime “is not going to happen next week [but…] in the months and the years to come.”
Labels: Barack Obama, FMCT, NPT Review Conference, nuclear deal, U.S administration
Saturday, March 06, 2010
Obama calls for global fuel bank
From The Hindu
On the 40th anniversary of the birth of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) President Obama reaffirmed the United States’ intention to push forward with dialogue on the three pillars of the non proliferation question – disarmament, non-proliferation and civil nuclear cooperation.
First, to promote disarmament, the U.S. was working with Russia on a new START Treaty aimed at reducing nuclear arsenals, Mr. Obama said. “Our forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review will move beyond outdated Cold War thinking and reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, even as we maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent”, Mr. Obama stated, adding that he would also press for the ratification of CTBT and FMCT.
Second, in the context of non-proliferation Mr. Obama shifted the spotlight to the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit in April, during which 40 nations would come together “with the goal of securing the world’s vulnerable nuclear materials in four years”. This would be linked to enforcing the rights and responsibilities of every nation, he added.
Third, arguing that all nations have an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy Mr. Obama said he would seek “a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation among nations, including an international fuel bank and the necessary resources and authority to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency”. This would unlock advances in the fields of medicine, agriculture and economic development.
Alluding to his speech in Prague last year, the President recalled his ultimate vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.
On the 40th anniversary of the birth of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) President Obama reaffirmed the United States’ intention to push forward with dialogue on the three pillars of the non proliferation question – disarmament, non-proliferation and civil nuclear cooperation.
First, to promote disarmament, the U.S. was working with Russia on a new START Treaty aimed at reducing nuclear arsenals, Mr. Obama said. “Our forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review will move beyond outdated Cold War thinking and reduce the number and role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, even as we maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent”, Mr. Obama stated, adding that he would also press for the ratification of CTBT and FMCT.
Second, in the context of non-proliferation Mr. Obama shifted the spotlight to the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit in April, during which 40 nations would come together “with the goal of securing the world’s vulnerable nuclear materials in four years”. This would be linked to enforcing the rights and responsibilities of every nation, he added.
Third, arguing that all nations have an inalienable right to peaceful nuclear energy Mr. Obama said he would seek “a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation among nations, including an international fuel bank and the necessary resources and authority to strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency”. This would unlock advances in the fields of medicine, agriculture and economic development.
Alluding to his speech in Prague last year, the President recalled his ultimate vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.
Labels: Barack Obama, CTB, FMCT, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear weapons, United States
Subscribe to Comments [Atom]
