The 2005 Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference attracted over 800
experts, officials, and journalists from around the world. The conference provided an open forum
for informed discussion on the most pressing nonproliferation issues facing the
world today, including
The acquisition of nuclear weapons by terrorists or any additional states would shake the international system. The more strategically important the state, the greater the potential threat to global security.
Many U.S. officials and experts are surprised by India’s reluctance to support Iran’s referral to the Security Council. They should not be. Politically, no Indian government can afford to appear subservient to U.S. interests. New Delhi values an independent foreign policy shaped, as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said, by its own geography, economics and domestic considerations. At a press conference in New York on September 16, Prime Minister Singh pointed out that India is located in the region neighboring Iran, that there are three-and-a-half million Indian workers in the Middle East and that India has the second largest Shiite population in the world, trailing only Iran itself. “Any flare up would present immense difficulties,” he said. (Read More)
Arabs indisputably desire more predictable, responsive, and fair laws, even as the Middle East presents acute challenges to rule-of-law reform. To achieve the most success, the United States should focus less on the performance of courts and concentrate on building a broad social understanding of legal rights and respect for the law’s authority.
A discussion on global proliferation dangers based on the new Carnegie study, Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Threats.
Words matter. When Deadly Arsenals hits the streets on July 12 (just slightly ahead of the new Harry Potter book) it will no longer use the expression “weapons of mass destruction.” The phrase confuses officials, befuddles the public, and justifies policies that more precise language and more accurate assessments would not support.
On June 27, the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, an extension of the 9/11 Commission, heard urgent testimony from three of America’s top proliferation experts. Convening in Washington, D.C., former Senator Sam Nunn, Harvard University’s Ashton Carter, and Monterrey Institute Deputy Director Leonard Spector made independent but complementary recommendations on how to better protect the United States from the threats of a nuclear terrorist attack and the global spread of nuclear weapons.
Responding to the testimony, Carnegie Endowment Director for Non-Proliferation Joseph Cirincione said, "If we would implement these recommendations over the next four years, America would be far safer than we have been in the four years since 9/11." The proposals made by these experts parallel many of the policies detailed in the recent Carnegie study, Universal Compliance. A summary of their recommendations follows. (Read More)
The 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference was a disaster. It was a major missed opportunity for the United States to advance either the agenda of the Bush administration or the broader agenda against the spread of nuclear weapons. It was demoralizing for almost all of the top nonproliferation officials from around the world who had gathered for this unique conclave. (Read More)