I think this could be a lengthy discussion. There are many elements, but certainly one element is that arms control negotiations generally have always been difficult for states, because they are so basic to states' interests. So anything that's being introduced, particularly from civil society, into that forum is seen with a certain amount of suspicion as interfering in the typical area that states negotiate themselves.
I think there are also industry interests that potentially can be problematic here. We know that the global arms trade at the moment is actually increasing, according to the latest results we've heard from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It's now up somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50 billion a year. So there are significant industry and economic interests at stake.
We know there are political interests at stake. Arms, for the longest time, particularly during the Cold War, were seen as a way of influencing other states. During the Cold War, of course, they helped with the whole system of proxy nations, and I think there's some legacy of that.
There are a number of different possibilities, and I've mentioned only a few of them.