Talking about the we are very delighted to be here to have an indepth discussion about the prospects for progress on a weapon of mass destruction free zone in the middle east with stink list with speaker assistant secretary for nationaltal customer. Ford. Istopher organizationrgest dedicated to nonproliferation issues. We have headquarters in Monterey California as part of the mill Berry Institute of national affairs, which is a graduate school of middle barry affairs, of national which is a graduate school of middle barry institute. The ges it is normally understood that it is very difficult to make ingress on Security Issues the middle east because there are so many moving parts. In the middle east, there hasnt been a moving part for quite a few years. Hat may be about to change the gridlock may be coming under pressure because of recent developments we will be hearing about shortly. Podium over to the director of the James Martin CenterNonproliferation Program and she will east have some marks. Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. The assistant secretary of state for International Security and nonproliferation here to speak with us. In 1974 at the u. N. Resolution to be expended from. Uclear weapon free zone the mass the weapons of mass destruction free zone has been discussed for many years. But despite Extensive International support and resolutions, include those andrsed by regional players progress has been hindered by sharp disagreements, both about terms and steps to promote the zone, mainly by regional players. Years onorked for many the zone issue. We talk about the legal aspects related to the zone. 2018, ther 2019, Unit Assembly adopted a resolution asking the secretarygeneral to convene a conference about weapons of mass destruction free zone from starting in 2019 and continuing until there is a legally binding treaty. Be isrst conference will 2019 planned for november in new york. We are delighted that dr. Ford agreed to speak about it today. Dr. Ford has an impressive career. Before becoming assistant secretary, he was the special assistant to the president and mass weapons. R of he had a position in capitol hill and is an Intelligence Officer at the international reserve. Went to Harvard University and yale law school. A less known fact about you, chris, is that you are a thirddegree black belt in judy to you di judiztu. You are going deeply in the topic and figuring out how we can operationalize it. It is a testament to the amazing amount of audience here that there is interest on the topic as well as we managed to get over 100 people on a friday afternoon in august. We are very excited to have you with us. Just want to mention that the talk will be on the house. Myt. Sec. Dr. Ford understanding is this is not on. It is on cspan. Asst. Sec. Dr. Ford it is great to be back here. Im serving this administration has killed my training. I have not been to the dojo since i started. Please do not assault me on the way out because i will be helpless. It is a pleasure to be back at the martin center. Me and for allng that you are doing on this particular issues on a number of fronts, literally around the world. This is interesting me and for l stuff. For this crowd, and i am mindful that i am between you all in what be a summer holiday. Tarting next week, as one does great to have the chance to talk a little bit about the middle east zone. About the framework more generally because they come up in the review conferences which they periodically destroy. Is to put it in context how we in the state department see the way forward to contextualize thinking about the zone. This is an important anniversary. Review conferences the 50th anniversary of the treatys entry into force. It is important to keep these debates over the zone in the context of the Bigger Picture of the nonproliferation regime more broadly and the challenges it faces. I would argue that there are a number of things countries absolutely should be thinking about and planning to discuss at the conference in order to protect and hopefully advance the integrity and effectiveness of that treaty. , mostill include obviously, the proliferation challenges the world faces right now. We should make sure we do not forget the importance of focusing on things like ensuring the final and fully verified denuclearization of north korea and how to get them to return to the table to implement the promises. From an mpt perspective, hopefully get it back into the treaty as a nonweapon state and in compliance with nonproliferative obligations. We should be discussing and remember to focus on the challenge iran has and continues to present to the nonproliferation regime and to figure out ways to make sure it never finds way out to break out obligations. We need to break them out of the process they are undertaking right now. Self why be asking our that hidime hide that as long as it did. We should be focused on how the Diplomatic Community can Work Together to ensure iran does not development the production capabilities. More broadly, it is important to keep focused as the review on what theocuses mtp focuses and continues to provide to weapon and nonweapon states alike by forestalling the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and discussing the way those series of nonproliferation assurances provide a foundation for so many other benefits that everyone in the International Community prizes coming out of the regime. Ensures that it is possible to share the benefits of Nuclear Technology as widely as we have all been committed to trying to do with a low risk of diversion. It is nonproliferation that provides a foundation for thinking about a future without Nuclear Weapons. Companies countries would not relinquish them if not being assured that others would not go into the vacuum that would create. We should remember the benefits the treaty has facilitated and help provide because that is the weight to make sure we do not lose sight the way to make sure we dont lose sight. Focusing upon that is part of the diplomacy and we should bear all those benefits and the importance of maintaining the integrity of that regime because it is critical that we not let the zone issue as important as it is destroy the rest of that edifice while facing considerable challenges. Back out a little and mentioned the prehistory of Nuclear Weapons free zones. Proposers proposals were made back in the early 1970s. The First Nuclear weapon free zone i am aware of having been proposed was advocated in the 1950s by poland and its warsaw pact allies. That is an interesting counterpoint. That proposal was a thinly veiled way of trying to preclude the deployment of Nuclear Weapons in west germany as the newly formed Nato Alliance struggled to of tent to deter aggressive aggression by the determy struggled to aggression by the red army. Is not in the spirit of what we think about to support. There have been a successful negotiation of a number of zones. You are right to point us to the longevity of the original proposal for a nuclear free 1995 zone area the zone. 1995 mtp review that everyone focuses on. Taking a thoughtful step beyond the nuclear focus idea of a middle east zone and focusing middle eastiable zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, biological, and their delivery systems. Calling upon the five Nuclear Weapon states under the mpt to give support to this. The history of how everyone has tried to, and so far not done so well, to live out the promise and the hopes is the kind of thing we dont need to get into too much detail here. If you are interested and our understanding, i would refer you to the working paper we submitted last year. It is publicly available on the u. N. Website. This process has been challenging. There have been two basic categories approached that people have taken to trying to live out the promise of the zone. The first approach, long taken by the Arab League States follows a model that relies upon next terminal pressure to mostly lateral means to try to compel progress on a regional zone. Trying to compel israel to accept the arab leagues approach to the issue. Rather than seeking to facilitate direct engagement between stakeholders on the acceptabletually arrangements and security concerns, this approach has attempted to use mpt processes or other resolutions and we see the one conference of being that in the present day to isolate or course regional diplomatic counterpart to the table from afar and based upon terms area of upon a small officials in one capital. From the tone and nature of my description, you will surmise i am not approving of that approach. We think that it is inconsistent with widely accepted principles and it must be based freely arrive to on states and that approach has proven deeply unproductive and damaging to the mtp if not diplomacy more broadly. That approach proceeds from a similar logic to the treaty on the prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which assumes that armscontrol progress can be achieved without brians from Key Stakeholders and the absence to address security challenges and through means that center upon demonizing and pressure those who disagree with that particular approach to solving the problem. The most recent example is the uns general assemblys adoption of the conference approach last fall. Ourave repeatedly voiced uncomfortableness with that and the degree to with the approach made no effort and was quite foreseen in very clear ahead of time that israel would not be willing to participate in discussions on the terms they were offered. We feel that is yet another example to weaponize multilateral institutions and in this case to use the procedures to dive forward with a solution everyone knew wasnt going to work, even though that might not necessarily be a problem insofar as this is a useful way to demonize opponents. I understand the logic and one should give technical merit to it that is not the way to get parties together to reach meaningful paths forward to a meaningful solution. We do not think the conference represents a constructive approach and we will not participate and we hope others will see the wisdom in not doing so as well. That is a problem. But what is another approach . We would like to argue the case for an approach more consistent with how it is that everyone that up until the middle east issue that everyone agrees with. It is out of the commitment of 1995 resolution and we remain firmly committed to it but it is because of that commitment to keepingmtp process and that institutional framework alive and thriving for another 50 years that we are doing our utmost to support regional coming up withng up practical steps and ways to a mill urate in mill ura in gos the approach taken to the wine conference. Way tok a constructive seeing a zone has to return to first principles. It is important to remember the principles and guidelines that were for the establishment of Nuclear Weapon free zones that were set forth by the human Disarmament Commission i consensus in 1999. These supposed and guidelines should be established on the basis of arrangements freely agreed by and should emanate from states within the region concerned and be pursued and all the states of the region. That is no description of the efforts so far in the mpt review process to address the zone and is not a scription of the current u. N. Conference. There is no reason to think that if some woulds put aside exogenous political pressure. They choose to engage directly and specifically on the issues with their neighbors. Should keephink we in mind the 1995 resolution itself, the emphasis on practical steps in appropriate forums aimed at making progress toward the establishment of a verifiable middle east zone. You do not have to see a scholar of middle east affairs to see how important that it specifies this degrees of breath given the problems we see in the released today, well beyond just nuclear ones. The middle east has been plagued by threats deriving from the repeated use of chemical weapons, both the nerve agents in syria and by isys in both syria and iraq. States have continued to pursue chemical weapons programs without the Significant International attention. The United States has had longstanding concern that iran maintains a chemical bins program it has failed to reveal. Have missile capabilities and agree just transfers of missiles and Missile Technology in yemen and missile production capabilities to has law ezboluah. You cannot ignore these robbins. Other forms are called out in the 1995 resolution. Cannot ignore these problems. Other forms are called out in the 1995 resolution. Any effort to vindicate the ideals of 1995 must begin by treating those threats very seriously and working to hold iran accountable for its efforts at nuclear extortion. These are most obviously the most significant proliferation threat that today affect the middle east. One could not imagine making progress toward a middle east zone without addressing them and trying to move towards a zone without trying to address these problems is a sign that the proponents of such a step are not serious about the shared goal of the zone and more interested in exploiting political divisions. As pointed out in the working paper i referenced four and also the case in the broader context of disarmament discourse. Needs to run and can only run through practical steps and confidence Building Measures aimed at Building Trust and the broader security environment that include movement. What stands in the way is not that we come together and wag our fingers and declare the importance, the lack of progress can be resolved by working to fix the challenges that beset the middle east. You will not see any woman of any sort unless you can do that you not see any movement of any sort unless you can do that. The current u. N. Process might undermine efforts in hopes of living up to the ideals set forth in the 1995 resolution. That all sounds very pessimistic. I do think there can be hope of finding a good way forward are beginning to develop one. I remain optimistic and i urge you to be as well. One reason for this is we saw and i was pleased to attend the recent conference in february on peace and security in the middle east held in poland. Some are describing it as the catalyst for a new socalled warsaw process to try to address the security challenges of that troubled region of the world. That was not especially described as an effort to can true to the security conditions that have presented prevented movement to the zone in the middle east but that is the case. Many attendees were from middle eastern countries, including at the foreign minister level are the prime ministerial level, including egypt, israel, jordan, saudi arabia, tunisia, and yemen, all sitting down together to discuss obstacles to peace in the region and potential ways to overcome those problems. Multiple meetings are also being planned as we hope to continue to build this process forward and could contribute to dialogue that addresses these challenges and build momentum behind the warsaw initiative. Another reason i am optimistic about the possibility to address this, though not through the traditional wisdom sorts of means is the recent kickoff meeting we held at the beginning of last month here in washington that we were crating an environment for a new disarmament working group. At this meeting, representatives from 42 countries, including some from the middle east, met to challenges in the International Security environment and improve prospects for disarmament negotiations. The first meeting but the purpose of this was precisely to begin to build the kind of dialogue we think it is necessary to have if the International Community is to that is chart a path viable towards goals of disarmament. The format was deliberately informal and designed to go beyond the traditional set piece throat clearings that some people see. I have participated in many of them over the years. We try to get into a more candid and free ranging discussion under house rules so one would be Less Beholden to notetaking and accountability and thought this worked well. We managed to have what was in two typetrack discussion with track one people is off to a very promising start. That is an example how it is possible to come together in a voluntary basis with a wide range of participants getting out of the polarized political ways set up. Of how it isample that there can be ways forward. Am i saying the worse all ministerial or the working group either have or will solve the problems of the middle east and usher us toward his own . But we are my point, optimistic that these dialogues can only help and they offer a model of good faith coming together in engaged i with International Partners across troubling ideological and political dividing lines. The cooperation and engagement these models address can inform and help provide installation for efforts in the middle east. You that as and when regional states come together with that kind of spirit and focused to work through the Security Issues that divide them and that have helped prevent progress on living up to the ideals of the 1995 resolution, they will have the strong and full support of the United States government as well as i trust that of many countries around the world and they have my support. When all countries are able to come together constructively and that will be the time for broader multilateral institutions like the United Nations to step in by voicing encouragement and offering offices to support these kinds of engagements. The time to step in is not now to pressure and compel recalcitrant parties to come together in ways that they find mutually unacceptable. That is not the way to get these dialogues going there are models and hopes for how to do this right and will very much encourage and facilitate and offer our support to those as the months and years ahead unfold. That is how we see it from the state department on these issues. I would be happy to engage in will be a rather broad ranging conversation about these and what other issues happen to be on your mind providing that they are in my lane and rolled and i dont get fired for talking about them. Thank you for having me and i look forward to our conversation. [applause] comments tonight on cspan2 and you can find them on line, and coming up shortly, President Trump will be talking about trade with the european union. Well have live coverage from the white house. It is scheduled to get underway at 145 eastern 1 45 p. M. Eastern. Then, leaders from the u. S. And japan talk about some of the Global Security challenges the countries face. That is live at 2 30 eastern on cspan. You can follow our coverage online at cspan. Org and on the free cspan radio app. Saturday morning at 10 30 eastern on cspan, we will show you the first of two democratic president ial primary debates in detroit hosted by cnn. Sunday morning at 10 30 eastern, the second round of president ial primary debates, saturday and sunday at 10 30 p. M. Eastern. I live in a country where there is no Public Transportation and a woman to leave the house to do anything in her life, she needs a car. To function or drive this car, she needs a man. Sunday night, Saudi Arabian human rights activists talks about herbook decision to challenge the saudi government ban on women drivers. Anthe right to drive is not act of civil disobedience. We show that we are able and capable of driving and being in the driver seat of our own destiny of doing this act of civil disobedience. Watch on cspans q a. She is with the health and Human Services department and is the assistant Inspector General for valuation. Welcome to the program. The k you for having having me. Yst can