For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.
Elina Noor
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Leading experts from thirteen countries debate what it would take to achieve the immensely important yet equally difficult goal of reducing the world’s nuclear weapons to zero.
WASHINGTON, Apr 6—President Obama has called for a world free of nuclear weapons. But many influential people in the United States and abroad question whether this objective is desirable or feasible. In a follow-up to George Perkovich and James M. Acton’s groundbreaking paper, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, leading experts from thirteen countries debate what it would take to achieve the immensely important yet equally difficult goal of reducing the world’s nuclear weapons to zero.
The editors note that none of the nuclear-weapon states "has an employee, let alone an inter-agency group, tasked full time with figuring out what would be required to verifiably decommission all its nuclear weapons." Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate begins the serious discussion of the conditions necessary for total disarmament.
Perkovich and Acton invited a distinguished group of current and former officials and respected defense analysts—from nuclear-armed and non–nuclear-weapon states—to recommend new paths toward disarmament and the best ways to verify and enforce new measures. Their responses are published in this volume, together with the original Adelphi Paper, and a response by Perkovich and Acton.
###
INCLUDED IN THIS VOLUME
EXCERPTS
NOTES
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.
Elina Noor
Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.
Alvin Camba
Beijing believes that Washington is overestimating its own leverage and its ability to handle the trade war’s impacts.
Rick Waters, Sheena Chestnut Greitens
Tapping our network of China experts in the region, Carnegie China offers this latest “China Through a Southeast Asian Lens” report to offer preliminary assessments of whether the U.S. effort to reshape the global trading order will lead countries in the region to tilt toward Beijing.
Selina Ho, Khin Khin Kyaw Kyee, Joseph Ching Velasco, …
Beijing is trying to navigate the overall situation regarding Ukraine, especially the substance of interactions between Washington and Moscow.
Ellen Nakashima, Zhao Long, Pavlo Klimkin, …