![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The efforts of President Barack Obama and his administration to restore the United States as a driving force of multilateral arms control and nonproliferation negotiations are commendable, yet the lack of progress on such issues over the last eight years has ensured that U.S. policy has not kept pace with changes in the geostrategic environment and the evolving security agenda. Meanwhile, an alternative agenda has been articulated by non-Western countries. This article focuses on the arms control perspectives of Non-Aligned Movement states and others that have begun to embrace the idea of “disarmament as humanitarian action.” It explores this idea in the context of recent initiatives and argues that if the Obama administration wants to make progress on its arms control and nonproliferation priorities, it should consider a multifaceted approach that incorporates this emerging alternative agenda.
Notes
1. See, for example, Jeffrey A. Larsen, “Arms Control in the Obama Administration: Coming in from the Cold,” Strategic Insights, Center for Contemporary Conflict, April 2009, <www.nps.edu/Academics/centers/ccc/publications/OnlineJournal/2009/Apr/larsenApr09.pdf>.
2. “Senate Confirmation Hearing: Hillary Clinton,” New York Times, online transcript, January 13, 2009, <www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/us/politics/13text-clinton.html>, p. 23.
3. Barack Obama, “Remarks by President Barack Obama,” Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009, <www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/>.
4. Barack Obama, “Remarks by President Barack Obama,” Prague, Czech Republic, April 5, 2009, <www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered/>; “Arms Control Today 2008 Presidential Q&A: President-Elect Barack Obama,” Arms Control Today, December 2008, <www.armscontrol.org/2008election>.
5. Nomination of Ellen Tauscher, Hearing of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Project Vote Smart, June 9, 2009, <www.votesmart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=468969&keyword=&phrase=&contain=#>.
6. Alyson Bailes, “Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-proliferation: Lessons of the Last Forty Years,” speaking notes at the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, Beijing, May 8, 2007.
7. Alyson Bailes, “Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-proliferation: Lessons of the Last Forty Years,” speaking notes at the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association, Beijing, May 8, 2007.
8. Michael A. Levi and Michael O'Hanlon, “Arms Control and American Security,” Current History 104 (April 2005), p. 168.
9. Michael A. Levi and Michael O'Hanlon, “Arms Control and American Security,” Current History 104 (April 2005), p. 168.
10. See, for example, Olivia Bosch and Peter van Ham, eds., Global Non-proliferation and Counter-Terrorism: The Impact of UNSCR 1540 (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2007).
11. Tanya Ogilvie-White, “Facilitating Implementation of Resolution 1540 in South-East Asia and the South Pacific,” in Lawrence Scheinman, ed., Implementing Resolution 1540: The Role of Regional Organizations (Geneva: UNIDIR, 2008), p. 46.
12. Johan Bergenäs, “Beyond UNSCR 1540: The Forging of a WMD Terrorism Treaty,” James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, October 23, 2008, <cns.miis.edu/stories/081022_beyond_1540.htm>.
13. Joseph C. Bristol et. al., “A New Urgency for Nonproliferation: Implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540,” Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, January 2007, p. 12.
14. See, for example, George Perkovich and James M. Acton, eds., Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2009).
15. Global Zero, “Signatories: Lakhdar Brahimi,” <www.globalzero.org/en/who/lakhdar-brahimi>.
16. In May 2009, the sixty-five states of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) adopted a work plan for 2009, breaking more than a decade of deadlock over the FMCT within the conference. However, Pakistan has blocked further talks, citing unspecified national security concerns. China and Iran also expressed dissent over the emerging proposal for the work plan; however, only Pakistan has stalled negotiations thus far. Since the CD operates by consensus, Pakistan's actions could cause further deadlocks in the CD and continue to prevent work. See Paul Meyer, “Breakthrough and Breakdown at the Conference on Disarmament: Assessing the Prospects for an FM(C)T,” Arms Control Today, September 2009, <www.armscontrol.org/print/3816>.
17. Richard Weitz, “Obama's Election Spurs Global Hopes for CTBT Ratification, but Tough Questions Remain,” WMD Insights, December 2008/January 2009, <www.wmdinsights.com/I29/I29_G4_ObamasElection.htm>.
18. Chris Schneidmiller, “Obama Moving on Nuclear Arms Control Pledges, Expert Says,” Global Security Newswire, February 17, 2009, <www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/siteservices/print_friendly.php?ID=ts_20090217_6185>.
19. Chris Schneidmiller, “Obama Moving on Nuclear Arms Control Pledges, Expert Says,” Global Security Newswire, February 17, 2009, <www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/siteservices/print_friendly.php?ID=ts_20090217_6185>.
20. Desmond Butler, “Obama Facing Hurdles for Nuclear Disarmament Goals,” Taiwan News Online, September 4, 2009, <www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1048876&lang=eng_news>.
21. Recent statements from NAM states have noted the slow pace of progress “with concern” and have underlined “the urgent need to commence negotiations without delay.” See, for example, “Statement by H.E. Hasan Kleib, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement,” general debate of the 2009 UN Disarmament Commission, April 14, 2009; “Statement by H.E. Dr. R.M. Marty M. Natalegawa, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM),” general debate of the 2008 UN Disarmament Commission, April 7, 2008.
22. Graham S. Pearson, “The Biological Weapons Convention Sixth Review Conference,” CBW Conventions Bulletin, No. 74 (December 2006), pp. 5–19.
23. Richard Weitz, “BWC Sees Limited Progress in 2008,” WMD Insights, February 2009.
24. Graham S. Pearson, “The Biological Convention Meeting of States Parties, December 2008,” CBW Conventions Bulletin, No. 81 (December 2008), p. 27.
25. Jez Littlewood, “Managing the Biological Weapons Problem: From the Individual to the International,” Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, No. 14, August 2004, p. 13. Similar views were expressed in private discussions between the authors and governmental participants in the process.
26. Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, “World At Risk: Biological Proliferation and Terrorism,” December 2008, pp. 41–42.
27. Ellen Tauscher, “Preventing Biological Weapons Proliferation and Bioterrorism,” address to the Annual Meeting of the States Parties to the BWC, Geneva, Switzerland, December 9, 2009.
28. “Senate Confirmation Hearing: Hillary Clinton,” New York Times; Obama, “Remarks by President Barack Obama.”
29. Lewis A. Dunn, “Countering Proliferation: Insights from Past ‘Wins, Losses, and Draws,’” Nonproliferation Review 13 (Winter 2006), p. 479–89.
30. See, for example, Michael Moodie, “The BWC Protocol: A Critique,” Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, Special Report No.1, June 2001.
31. See Masood Khan, “The BWC Review Conference: The President's Reflections,” Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 84 (Spring 2007), <www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd84/84bwcpr.htm>.
32. This term has been closely associated, for example, with the work of John Borrie of UNIDIR. See John Borrie and Vanessa Martin Randin, eds., Alternative Approaches in Multilateral Decision Making: Disarmament as Humanitarian Action (Geneva: UNIDIR, 2005).
33. Holger Anders, “The UN Process on Small Arms: All is Not Lost,” Arms Control Today, March 2007, <www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_03/Anders.asp?print>.
34. Rachel Stohl and Rhea Myerscough, “Sub-Saharan Small Arms: The Damage Continues,” Current History 106 (May 2007), p. 228.
35. Boris O. Saaveda, “Transnational Crime: Small Arms Trafficking and Proliferation,” in Kimberley Thachuk, ed., Transnational Threats: Smuggling and Trafficking in Arms, Drugs, and Human Life (Oxford: Prager, 2007), p. 66.
36. Quoted in Kerry Maze and Hyunjoo Rhee, “International Assistance for Implementing the UNPoA on the Illicit Trade of Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects: Case Study of East Africa,” UNIDIR, p. 1.
37. “Report of the Open-Ended Working Group to Negotiate an International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, In A Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons,” UN General Assembly, A/60/88, June 27, 2005.
38. Anders, “The UN Process on Small Arms.”
39. Marcus Wilson, “'Landslide' UN Vote Set Global Arms Control Back on the Rails,” Comunidad Segura, August 25, 2008, <www.comunidadesegura.org/?q=en/node/40327>.
40. Paul Holtom, “Combating the Illicit Trade in Small and Light Weapons,” SIPRI Update: Global Security and Arms Control, July/August 2008.
41. Sejai Vora, “Moving the Small Arms Agenda Forward,” Disarmament Times 31 (Fall 2008), p. 7.
42. Sejai Vora, “Moving the Small Arms Agenda Forward,” Disarmament Times 31 (Fall 2008), p. 7.
43. Wilson, “‘Landslide’ UN Vote Set Global Arms Control Back on the Rails.”
44. Mark Marge, “Small Arms and Light Weapons,” First Committee Monitor, No.5 (2008), <www.reachingcriticalwill.org/political/1com/FCM08/final.pdf>.
45. Rebecca Peters, “Small Arms and Light Weapons: Making the UN Program of Action Work,” Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 82 (Spring 2006), <www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd82/82rp.htm>.
46. “Countries Sign Cluster Munition Convention,” Arms Control Today, January 2009, <www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2009_01-02/ClusterMunitionsConvention>.
47. “Countries Sign Cluster Munition Convention,” Arms Control Today, January 2009, <www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2009_01-02/ClusterMunitionsConvention>.
48. John Borrie, “How the Cluster Munitions Ban Was Won: Oslo Treaty Negotiations Conclude in Dublin,” Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 88 (Summer 2001), <www.acronym.org.uk/textonly/dd/dd88/88jb.htm>.
49. John Borrie, “How the Cluster Munitions Ban Was Won: Oslo Treaty Negotiations Conclude in Dublin,” Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 88 (Summer 2001), <www.acronym.org.uk/textonly/dd/dd88/88jb.htm>.
50. Ashley Deeks, “A Second Cluster Munitions Treaty?” Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 7, 2008, <csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/080707_cluster_munitions.pdf>, p. 1.
51. John Borrie, “Cooperation and Defection in the Conference on Disarmament,” Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 82 (Spring 2006), <www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd82/82jb.htm>.
52. Borrie, “How the Cluster Munitions Ban Was Won.”
53. Borrie, “How the Cluster Munitions Ban Was Won.”
54. “Cluster Munitions,”Department of State, U.S. Humanitarian Mine Action Program, <www.state.gov/t/pm/wra/c25930.htm>.
55. CBW Conventions Bulletin, Nos. 83 and 84 (July 2009), p. 29.
56. The Department of State discussion of cluster munitions, for example, makes the following points: “Cluster munitions have demonstrated military utility. Their elimination from U.S. stockpiles would put the lives of its soldiers and those of its coalition partners at risk. Moreover, cluster munitions can often result in much less collateral damage than unitary weapons, such as a larger bomb or larger artillery shell would cause, if used for the same mission.” “Cluster Munitions,” Department of State.
57. National Security Council, “National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats,” November 2009, <fas.org/irp/threat/cbw/strategy2009.pdf>, p. 19.
58. National Security Council, “National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats,” November 2009, <fas.org/irp/threat/cbw/strategy2009.pdf>, p. 19.
59. National Security Council, “National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats,” November 2009, <fas.org/irp/threat/cbw/strategy2009.pdf>, p. 23.
60. Kenneth Epps, “US Joins Efforts toward a Global Arms Trade Treaty: UN Resolution Promises Negotiations to Begin in 2010,” Ploughshares Monitor 30 (Winter 2009), p. 1.
61. Kenneth Epps, “US Joins Efforts toward a Global Arms Trade Treaty: UN Resolution Promises Negotiations to Begin in 2010,” Ploughshares Monitor 30 (Winter 2009), p. 2.
62. Nayef R.F. al-Rodhan, “Editorial of GCSP Policy Brief No. 23: Arms Control in a Globalized World,” Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP), Program on the Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transnational Security, December 6, 2006.