2017 Arms Control Association annual meeting. Im the executive director of the Arms Control Association and as most of you know were an independent nonpartisan Membership Organization established in 1971 and dedicated to reducing and eliminating the threats post by the worlds most dangerous weapons which could, of course, be nuclear, biological as well as conventional weapon that is that pose particular waharm and risk to civilians. You can find out more about the Arms Control Association, its history, ongoing work and to get more information about these issues through our website, armscontrol. Org and you can follow us on twitter on arms control now. The latest issue of our arms control today just went online, so you can check that out there and you can check out resources on our arms control app which is simply arms control on all of the app stores. We are very pleased to see so many of you here today, members, friends, colleagues from the Diplomatic Community and we welcome you those who are with us watching in on cspan and for those of you following on social media, the twitter handle for todays event to be part of the conversation is armscontrol17. So the theme of this years Arms Control Association annual meeting is arms control and nonproliferation restraint at risk and they are, we are facing serious and unprecedented challenges this year in ongoing cast to reduce the nuclear danger. The bedrock of all nonproliferation efforts, the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty faces implementation challenges. We have key commitments and nonproliferation obligations that are unfulfilled and thats led many of the world nonnuclear states to begin negotiations on a treaty to prohibit Nuclear Weapons and well talk about that later today. With the deterioration with the u. S. Russia relations, key arms control treaties including the new strategic arms treaty are at risk as well as the Nuclear Forces treaty and worst still all of the worlds Major Nuclear arms states are either replacing, upgrading or in some cases, expanding their nuclear arsenals. And last but not least, unless we can work with our allies to engage north korea in talks to halt and reverse its Nuclear Missile pursuits, its capabilities will become more dangerous in the years ahead. So how the United States will respond to these challenges and whether the United States continues to provide Global Leadership is not entirely clear and thats part of what we are going to be talking about today. President trump has made statements that concern key allies, hes made statements about expanding u. S. Nuclear capabilities, hes been highly critical of some agreements like the new start treaty and the iran nuclear deal. Weve got great lineup of speakers and experts and panelists to address these issues. We are specially happy to have later today senior white house adviser christopher ford, during lunch hour and the new u. N. High representative for disarmament who is going to be closing out the conference with perspectives from the International Community and the United Nations. But before we move to the first part of the program, i want to give a brief bit of thanks and shoutout to individual members and contributors who made todays event possible. Some of their names are on the tables here at the Carnegie Endowment for national peace. Thats important because we are a Small Organization and we try to have a big impact and it means that your donations make a huge difference. And in response to these challenges we are really gratified that our members have responded over the last few months. Weve seen an up tick in contributions at this very important time. So we are very happy to have several organizations and individuals help with contributions in this conference including colleague organization in the Nuclear Peace foundation, which is committed to world free of Nuclear Weapons, our partners at womens action for new directions, empowers women to be able to support peace. And our individual sponsors for todays event. Pierce gordon, andrew weber and two members of the Arms Control Association who wish to remain anonymous. So thanks to you all and thanks to everyone who is here, we cannot do it without you. And we could also make cannot make progress on the issues without leaders in arms control and thats why ten years ago we launched the arms control person of the year award. We felt it was important to recognize the important work of key individuals who in various ways in different parts of the world have catalyzed awareness and action to deal with these weaponsrelated challenges. Each year the staff and the board of directors nominate several individuals about 10 to a dozen who we think have provided notable leadership in the Previous Year and then we put it all to an online vote and the top vote getter becomes the arms control person of the year. So its an imperfect process, perhaps, but so far our elections have been free of any cyberhacking and we think its a free and fair process that is about as democratic as it can be. And the republic of the marshal islands and former foreign minister of the marshal islands, tony debroom gathered the highest votes of 2016 and they are our arms control persons of the year. Over 150 people from countries participated in the voting this year back in december and that is a record for this contest. Our winners were nominated and are being recognized for pursuing a formal legal case in the International Court of justice against the worlds nuclear arms states for failing to meet their obligations to initiate Nuclear Disarmament negotiations. The people in the marshal islands were subjected to 67 u. S. Atmospheric test explosions. So unfortunately tony who had accepted our invitation to come here to fly all the way from his home in the South Pacific is unable to be with us due to Health Difficulties and the republic of marshal islands is out of washington today on official business. So weve asked john boros who is the executive director and a member of the legal team that brought the suit to aa few words about tony and the significance of the case in the larger scheme of things. John, thanks for being with us to explain the importance of this. [ applause ] thank you, darrell. In bringing the Nuclear Disarmament cases before the International Court of justice, the marshal islands in then foreign minister tony debroom showed courage and determination rooted in tragic experience. They also showed good faith in seeking lawguided solutions. Tony and the marshal islands have shown similar courage and determination in confronting Climate Change. Tony played a catalytic role at the negotiation that is yielded the paris climate agreement in december 2015. He helped to bring together a Large Coalition of nations the High Ambition Coalition that strengthened the agreement and perhaps even made it possible. So in light of developments yesterday, i think i should quote a couple of things that the marshal islands and the High Ambition Coalition has said. President hilda heine said yesterday that president trumps intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement she said this, well, todays decision will have grave impacts, we must not give up hope. The High Ambition Coalition convened by marshal islands as released a statement for people around world most vulnerable to Climate Change, the Paris Agreement represents the best hope for survival. The arms control persons of the year award, of course, was about arms control, so let me return to that. We were, of course, very disappointed that last fall by the narrowest of margins the International Court of justice decided not to adjudicate the Nuclear Disarmament cases on the merits, however, simply bringing the cases raised the world attention the failure of the Nuclear Powers to fulfill the obligation to negotiate and reach the global elimination of Nuclear Weapons. That was what the court said in its 1996 advisory opinion unanimously, thats what the court said the obligation is. For those of you who like to dig into things, the marshal islands pleadings are also a Rich Resource for the development of political and legal arguments for disarmament. In the uk memorial, in the uk case, the International Legal team argued the merits because thats just the way the case unfolded. So as darrell mentioned from 1946 to 1958 the u. S. Conducted 67 atmospheric tests. In the marshal islands at the atolls at bikini. They included the First Hydrogen bomb test, m. I. K. E. In 1952 and the infamous bravo test in 1954, 15 mega tons, 1,000 times the size of the hiroshima and nagasaki bombs. Up tony debroom was a young child fishing with his father when he witnessed the test. The sky bled red, he told in march 2016, the marshal islands cases before the International Court of justice were not about compensation for the effects of testing. When the cases were filed in april 2014, tony said, our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again experience these atrocities. Tony also said in accepting the 2015 right livelihood award, i have seen with my very own eyes Nuclear Devastation and know with conviction that Nuclear Weapons must never again be visited upon humanity. This is not just an issue of treaty commitments or international law, though it is that, and not just an issue of ethics or morality, though it is that too, but this is an issue of common sense. How could any one common person walking down the road, street, ever permit the possession or use of such weapons. So i think that the marshal islands and tony debroom richly deserve this award and i thank darrell and the Arms Control Association very much for arranging it. [ applause ] its an actual award. I want to ask you, john, to help us get this to the marshal islands to tony. Thanks a lot. All right, and thank you, john, for helping to explain and to remind us about humanitarian impacts of the work that we are discussing here today and the interconnectedness of these issues for all of the earths inhabitants. Now its time to turn to the first panel of the day which is the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty and the Nuclear Weapon ban talks, a status report. And id like to ask our three panelists to come up to the podium. We are going to make a quick transition here. Theyre already miked up. As they come up to the stage our moderator is ambassador susan burke. Susan along with a panelist were selected to join the Arms Control Association board of directors and susan among other career accomplishments was the head of the u. S. Delegation to the successful 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty review conference. So with that, susan, the floor is yours and we are going to begin. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Is that the feedback . Our first panel today is going tackle the challenges facing the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty as it approaches 50th anniversary of the entry into force. Itll be in 2020, the review conference and in particular the panel is going to address the efforts that are currently under way under u. N. Usaupises. Challenges are not new and in pursuit of measures to strengthen implementation is ongoing. The negotiations on a ban treaty are the results of growing International Frustration over the pace of progress on Nuclear Disarmaments and new to articles and this frustration has fueled deepening concerns about the humanitarian consequences of Nuclear Weapons use among many nations and Civil Society. Now, supporters of the ban treaty believe that it will fill a legal gap in the mpt and give a boost to disarmament in a way that complements the npt, not competes with the npt. Another group of states including ntp weapon states are insisting that they are a stepbystep or progressive approach to Nuclear Disarmament has been and remains a proven way to reduce existing arsenals. Now, this morning we will hear from two experienced diplomats and experts on this subject. Theres a brief biography of each gentleman in the program. Tom countryman, career member of the Senior Foreign Service achieving the rank of minister councillor and he served as the acting undersecretary for arms control and International Security and simultaneously as the assistant secretary of state for International Security and nonproliferation where i had the honor of working for him for about a year. Ambassador jan kick earth is an ambassador in austrias permanent representative in new york. He was the director general for Political Affairs in the austrian Minister Foreign Affairs and also served in government positions. His government as many of you know has been among the leaders in the humanitarian consequences movement. Now we will start with ambassador kikert who is prepared to address the goals, value and the possible shape of a new prohibition or ban treaty. Then we will have mr. Countryman focus comments on the convention, on what the convention needs to contain, what its sponsors need to do to make progress towards its goals and hopefully to address the intersection of the ban and the npt. After about 15 minutes of remarks by each, whether he open the floor to your questions and so without further ado i will start off with ambassador kikert. Thank you very much. I dont think ill need the 15 minutes for introductions. Okay. But rather save time for the q as. I also have to say i am not a disarmament specialist. I am a diplomat for decades and i also deal with disarmament. Im not the peace negotiator for the peace meeting which is going to be started 15 june at the United Nations with the view of hopefully concluding such a treaty by the end of the three week span beginning in july. I just wanted to explain a little bit to you how did we come here . You said the role of austria in disarmament, its not only Nuclear Disarmament, you would have always found austria at the core group, the van guard of any initiative. So because we believe that a world with less weapons, especially deadly weapons, is a safer one and not vice versa. This is our general approach to it. And being here i want to give you a little bit of perspective of those countries who are behind the prohibition. I have a feeling that the United States discussed among themselves, maybe also with other Nuclear Weapon states but dont hear so much what you mentioned, the frustration of all those involved parties to the nonproliferation treaty because it has really built up this frustration. If i want to very, very sharp in saying, of being cheated. The npt said out a set of commitments and nonNuclear Weapon states, they are sticking to that commitment of not acquiring a Nuclear Weapon on the other hand, some do not stick to their commitment. So the whole result of this treaty is the result of this frustration and the feeling that there needs to be some added element so that we will fulfill. The npt in its entirety. So how did this come to today . It all started out with the initiative based on a speech of then president of the international in february of 2010. And this was taken also to be in 2010 and there was also a mention then of the humanitarian consequences. And built on that we have three conferences in mexico and vienna to just go in depth and ask experts about the humanitarian consequences of Nuclear Weapons. And actually this was an extremely sobering experience. I was there in vienna. And to be honest, i was shocked to learn that the dangers of Nuclear Weapons are so much graver than we i was aware of. And i think we all are aware of. And that somehow, this was shoved under the carpet. The huge danger Nuclear Weapons pose to each and