Indeed—and it was noted by the earlier witnesses—there has been some significant progress in the Conference on Disarmament, a 65-nation body in which all the states that are considered to have nuclear weapons are represented, but it has not been able to officially agree on a work plan with these four areas that were enumerated: the fissile material cut-off treaty, which is just a treaty to stop the production of the stuff with which one makes nuclear weapons; the nuclear disarmament theme; the prevention of an arms race in outer space; and so-called negative security assurances, which are simply the assurances given to non-nuclear-weapons states by nuclear weapons states that they will not be subject to the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons.
Through skilful diplomacy, I think a package has been developed that enjoys widespread support, but—and this is the big “but”—this is a body of 65 nations that does everything on consensus, so you need every representative there to be in accord. On this package that's currently before the conference, China, Pakistan, and Iran have indicated that they have some problems. Though they aren't actually coming out and saying they're opposing it, we're in a situation right now where they've raised some concerns and are saying that they really would like these concerns addressed. It is unfortunately looking as if some of the very positive momentum that was building up may be lost.
I think it is crucial that we keep the public scrutiny and the political scrutiny on these three states in particular. There is a very fair compromise deal on the table. It should be accepted, and if we want to see multilateral work in the realm of non-proliferation and disarmament move ahead, we need that basic kind of cooperation.
I would hope that all of you, in your contacts, could also be promotive of this. This is the best hope in many years to get this machinery back into gear, and we shouldn't lose it because of reservations by two or three of these states.