Login/Logout

"I find hope in the work of long-established groups such as the Arms Control Association...[and] I find hope in younger anti-nuclear activists and the movement around the world to formally ban the bomb."

– Vincent Intondi

Author, "African Americans Against the Bomb: Nuclear Weapons, Colonialism, and the Black Freedom Movement"

July 1, 2020

The 2017 Arms Control Association Annual Meeting

Events

Arms Control and Nonproliferation Restraints at Risk

Friday, June 2, 2017
9:00am to 3:00 pm
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Root Room
1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C.

Program and Speakers

9:00 a.m.	Welcome	Daryl G. Kimball Executive Director, Arms Control Association	Video Clip Transcript
9:00 a.m.	Welcome	Presentation of the 2016 "Arms Control Person of the Year" Award John Burroughs, accepting on behalf of Dr. Tony de Brum and the Republic of the Marshall Islands	Video Clip Transcript
9:30 a.m.	Panel 1	The NPT and the Ban Treaty Talks: A Status Report Thomas Countryman, former Acting Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; former Assisting Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation Ambassador Jan Kickert, Austrian Ambassador to the United Nations Moderator: Susan Burk, head of U.S. delegation to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and incoming member of the Arms Control Association Board of Directors	Video Clip Transcript
10:45 a.m.	Panel 2	Curbing the North Korean Nuclear and Missile Threat Michael Elleman, Senior Fellow for Missile Defence, International Institute for Strategic Studies Suzanne DiMaggio, Director, the U.S.-Iran Initiative; Senior Fellow, New America Moderator: Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy, Arms Control Association	Video Clip Transcript
11:45 a.m.		(Luncheon Buffet)
12:15 p.m.	Luncheon Keynote	Christopher Ford Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Counterproliferation, United States National Security Council	Video Clip Transcript
1:15 p.m.	Panel 3	Reducing Nuclear and Security Risks with Russia Ulrich K¸hn, Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and Fellow, Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH) Anya Loukianova, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow, RAND Corporation Moderator: Kingston Reif, Director for Disarmament and Threat Reduction Policy, Arms Control Association	Video Clip Transcript
2:15 p.m.	Afternoon Keynote	Izumi Nakamitsu United Nations Undersecretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs at the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs	Video Clip Transcript
3:00 p.m.	Closing	Daryl G. Kimball Executive Director, Arms Control Association

We would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their support towards this year's annual meeting and reception: Pierce Corden, Deborah Fikes, Deborah Gordon, Jan Lodal, Andrew Weber, Anonymous (2), the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Women's Action for New Directions, and Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.

If you have any questions about the meeting, your registration, table or event sponsorships, or complimentary registration for congressional staff and media, please feel free to contact us at [email protected] or 202-463-8270 ext. 105.

TRANSCRIPTS:

Introduction and Panel #1

KIMBALL: All right, good morning ladies and gentlemen. Good morning and welcome to the 2017 Arms Control Association annual meeting.

I'm Daryl Kimball, I'm the executive director of the Arms Control Association. And as most of you know, we're an independent, non-partisan membership organization. We were established in 1971 and we're dedicated to reducing and eliminating the threats posed by the world's most dangerous weapons which would, of course, be nuclear, chemical, biological weapons as well as certain conventional weapons that pose particular harm and risk to civilians.

You can find out more about the Arms Control Association, its history, its ongoing work, and get more information and analysis about these issues through our website: armscontrol.org. And you can follow us on Twitter at @ArmsControlNow.

The latest issue of our journal -- Arms Control Today -- just went online so you can check that out there. And you can also check out our resources on our Arms Control app, which is simply Arms Control on all of the app stores.

We're very pleased to see so many of you here today; members, friends, colleagues from the diplomatic community, journalists, and we welcome those of you who are with us watching in on CSPAN. And for those of you following on social media, the Twitter handle for today's event to be part of the conversation is #armscontrol17.

So the theme of this year's Arms Control Association Annual Meeting is Arms Control and Nonproliferation Restraints at Risk. And they are; we're facing serious and in some ways unprecedented challenges this year in the ongoing task to reduce the nuclear danger.

The bedrock of all nonproliferation efforts -- the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty -- faces serious implementation challenges. We have key commitments and nonproliferation obligations that are unfulfilled and that's led many of the world's non-nuclear weapon states to begin negotiations on a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons. And we'll talk more about that later today.

With the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations, key arms control treaties, including the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, are at risk as well as the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. And worse still all of the world's 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 that's part of what we're going to be talking about today.

President Trump has made statements that concern key allies. He's made statements about expanding U.S. nuclear capabilities. He's been highly critical of some agreements like the New START Treaty and the Iran nuclear deal. We have a great lineup of speakers and experts and panelists to address these issues.

We're especially happy to have later this -- today senior White House adviser, Christopher Ford, during the lunch hour and the new U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Izumi Nakamitsu, who's 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 our program, I just want to give a brief bit of thanks and a shout out to some of our individual members and contributors who made today's event possible. Some of their names are on the tables here at the Carnegie Endowment for National Peace.

And that's important because we're a small organization. We try to have a big impact, but 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. We're seeing an uptick in contributions at this very important time.

So we're very happy to have several organizations and individuals help with contributions for this conference including our colleague organization, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which is committed to a world free of nuclear weapons; our partners at Women's Action for New Directions ñ WAND - which empowers women to be agents of change in support of disarmament and peace; and our individual sponsors for today's event; Pierce Corden, Deborah Fikes, Deborah Gordon, Jan Lodal, 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 also cannot make progress on these issues without leaders in arms control. And that's why 10 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 weapons-related challenges. And so 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 it's an imperfect process perhaps, but so far our elections have been free of any cyber hacking and we think it's a free and fair process that is democratic as it can be.

And the Republic of the Marshall Islands and former foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, Tony de Brum, garnered the highest number of votes for 2016 and they are our Arms Control Persons of the Year. Over 1,850 people from 63 countries participated in the voting this year back in December and that's a record for this contest.

Our winners were nominated and are being recognized for pursuing a former legal case in the International Court of Justice against the world's nuclear arms states for failing to meet their obligations to initiate nuclear disarmament negotiations.

And it's also important to remember the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the people there were subjected to 67 U.S. atmospheric nuclear test explosions from 1946 to 1958.

Now unfortunately, Tony de Brum, 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 the Marshall Islands ambassador is out of Washington today on official business.

So we've asked John Burroughs, who's the executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, who is a member of the legal team that brought the suit to the International Court of Justice, to say a few words about Tony and the significance of the case in the larger scheme of things.

So John, thanks for being with us to explain the importance of this.

(APPLAUSE)

BURROUGHS: Thank you, Daryl.

In bringing the nuclear disarmament cases before the International Court of Justice, the Marshall Islands and its then, foreign minister, Tony de Brum, showed courage and determination rooted in tragic experience. They also showed good faith in seeking law-guided solutions.

Tony and the Marshall Islands have shown similar courage and determination in confronting climate change. Tony played a catalytic role at the negotiations that 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 Marshall Islands and the High Ambition Coalition has said. President Hilda Heine said yesterday, that President Trump's intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, she said this, "While today's decision will have great impacts, we must not give up hope."

The High Ambition Coalition, convened by Marshall Islands, also released a statement, "For people around the 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 and 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 to not adjudicate the nuclear disarmament cases on their merits.

However, simply bringing the cases raised to world attention the failure of the nuclear powers to fulfill the obligation to negotiate and reach a global elimination of nuclear weapons. That was what the court said in its 1996 advisory opinion unanimously -- that's what the court said the obligation is.

For those of you who like to dig into things, the Marshall Islands pleadings are also a rich resource for the development of political and legal arguments for disarmament. In the U.K. -- a memorial in the U.K. case, the international legal team argued the merits because that's just the way that the case unfolded.

So as Daryl mentioned, from 1946 to 1958, the U.S. conducted 67 atmospheric nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands at the atolls Bikini and Enewetak. They included the first hydrogen bomb test, Mike, in 1952; and the infamous Bravo test in March, 1954: 15 megatons, 1,000 times the size of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombs.

Tony de Brum was a 9-year old boy fishing in a canoe with his grandfather when he witnessed the Bravo test 200 miles away. "The sky turned blood red", he told the International Court of Justice in March 2016.

However, the Marshall 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 street ever permit a possession or use of such weapons?"

So I think that the Marshall Islands and Tony de Brum richly deserve this award and I thank Daryl and the Arms Control Association very much for arranging it.

(APPLAUSE)

KIMBALL: And it's an actual award. I want to ask you, John, to help us get this to the Marshall Islands to Tony and to the RMI. Thanks a lot.

All right and thank you, John, for helping to explain and to remind us about the humanitarian impacts of the work that we're discussing here today and the interconnectedness of these issues for all of the Earth's inhabitants.

PANEL 1:

Now it's 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 I'd like to ask our three panelists to come up to the podium. We're going to make a quick transition here. They're already mic-ed up.

As they come up to the stage, let me note that our moderator is Ambassador Susan Burk. Susan, along with panelist Tom Countryman were just 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're going to begin. Thank you.

BURK: Great. Thank you. Good morning.

Our first panel today is going to tackle the challenges facing the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as it approaches its 50th anniversary of the entry into force. That will be in 2020, the Review Conference. And in particular, the panel's going to address the effort currently underway, under U.N. auspices, to draft a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons leading towards their total elimination.

Now challenges to the NPT are not new and pursuit of measures to strengthen its implementation is ongoing.

The negotiations on a ban treaty are the result of growing international frustration over the pace of progress on nuclear disarmament pursuant to Article VI of the NPT. And this frustration has fueled deepening concern 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 NPT and give a boost to disarmament in a way that compliments the NPT, not competes with the NPT. Another group of states, including the NPT nuclear weapon states, are insisting that their step-by-step 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 the subject. There is a brief biography of each gentleman in your program so I will be even briefer in introducing them.

Tom Countryman, who's a career member of the Senior Foreign Service, achieving the rank of minister-counselor 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 Kickert is Austria's permanent representative to the United Nations in New York. He was the director general for Political Affairs in the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has also served in a number of other 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 Kickert, who is prepared to address the goals, value, and the possible shape of a new prohibition or ban treaty. And then we'll have Mr. Countryman focus his 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.

So after about 15 minutes of remarks by each, we'll open the floor to your questions. And so without further ado, I will start off with Ambassador Kickert.

KICKERT: Thank you very much and I don't think I will need the 15 minutes...

BURK: OK~.

KICKERT: ... for introduction. But rather save time for Q&A. And at the outset I also have to say I am not a disarmament specialist. I am a diplomat for decades and I happen to deal also with disarmament, but I'm not a specialist. I'm not the Austrian chief negotiator for the treaty which is going to be negotiating starting the 15th of June at the United Nations with the view of hopefully concluding such a treaty by the end of the three week span at the beginning of July.

I just wanted to explain a little bit to you how did we come here. You said the traditional role of Austria in disarmament, it's not only with nuclear disarmament. You would have always found Austria at the core group, the vanguard of any initiative be it mines be it ammunitions because we believe that a world with less weapons -- especially deadly weapons -- is a safer one and not vice versa. So 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 the feeling that the United States discuss among themselves, maybe also with other nuclear weapon states, but don't hear so much what -- what you mentioned, the frustration of all those , the bulk of the parties at the Nonproliferation Treaty. Because it has really built up this frustration. If I want to give a very, very sharp insight of being cheated.

The NPT set out a set of commitments and non-nuclear weapon states, they are sticking to that commitment of not acquiring a nuclear weapon. But on the other hand, some of the other states do not stick to that commitment.

So the whole -- the result of this treaty is out of this frustration and a feeling that there needs to be some added element so that we will fulfill the NPT in its entirety.

So how did we come to today? It all started out with the humanitarian initiative that's based on a speech of then the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross Jakob Kellenberger in February of 2010. And this was taken also to the Revcon in 2010 and there was also a mention then of the inherent consequences. And built on that we have three conferences in (inaudible), in Mexico and Vienna to just go in-depth and ask experts about the humanitarian consequences of the 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, than I was aware of and I think we all are aware of. And that somehow this was shoved under the carpet that the huge danger nuclear weapons pose to each and everyone on this planet. Be it in the nuclear weapon states, be it those who just happen to be near those, like Austria.

And the thing with Austria, we are situated not so far away from North Italy. I should (inaudible) anything (inaudible) of the air base there where the (inaudible). If anything happens, we will -- we will feel the consequences of -- like the North Italians as much as them.

And so it is a bit of some shocking details. And one of them I like to cite because -- because of the huge potential impact of nuclear weapons, some (inaudible) are saying that the likelihood or that the danger for our children to die from a nuclear incident is actually higher than from a car accident. Because if something happens, it will be so devastating that the numbers are -- are so huge that those who -- who die from car accidents -- the danger is smaller.

So -- and then everything about the annihilation of humankind. And that we're just damned lucky that nothing has happened until today, accident, the human error and we can never (inaudible). That nothing has ever happened. It is a wonder and we're playing Russian Roulette here and why do we want to continue that?

So this was the motivation why we pushed. And this was not by coincidence, before the 2015 NPT Revcon, which, unfortunately, yielded no results.

There is no -- from our point of view, from the non-nuclear weapon states -- no willingness of the (inaudible) from the nuclear weapon states to disarm, to fulfill their obligation under Article VI of the NPT~. And yesterday, the nuclear weapon states, you have to disarm. But then one can turn also the others around as Article VI say -- working for nuclear disarmament -- that is also an obligation for non-nuclear weapon states to help fulfill Article VI and therefore the motivation for this prohibition treaty, which has the overwhelming support of the international community.

The General Assembly Resolution was supported by two-thirds of the member states who were against this process are the nuclear weapon states, the umbrella states and those countries' informal alliances with the nuclear weapon states.

And we were actually astonished also to see the -- the (inaudible) of -- of -- of working against, lobbying against our prohibition treaty which we believe, as you said in the beginning, a compliment to the NPT.

For us, the Nonproliferation Treaty is and stays the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. But add the word "cornerstone" (inaudible) this is not the whole building. And we have had other instruments to compliment the NPT -- the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty is an example for that.

We also see how important is to have more -- more and more weapons (inaudible) have nuclear weapons (inaudible). And maybe one day we will have a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty. These are all complementary to the goal. We have all committed ourselves, namely getting rid of all nuclear weapons. And I'd like to remind everybody also that the first General Assembly Resolution after the foundation of the United Nations was exactly on the issue of getting rid of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

And we believe, the proponents of the Prohibition Treaty, that it is a good instrument to go ahead, to create a legal norm prohibiting it as we have done with the biological or chemical weapons. And the argument that we always hear is that it cannot be universal and they fail that (inaudible). Then yeah, well, the biological and chemical prohibition treaties were also not universal at the beginning. Even at NPT was not universal and (inaudible) today and so we believe that our endeavor could add a very important element to our common goal of ridding the planet of nuclear weapons.

BURK: All right. Thank you very much.

COUNTRYMAN: OK~. Microphone good?

Well, thanks, Susan, Ambassador Kickert. It's an honor to be here with you and it's especially an honor to be with the Arms Control Association for the annual meeting.

Among the many public issues that the American people have to be ready to discuss and to raise their own consciousness, arms control threats of nuclear, biological, chemical weapons have to be near the top. So it's important for all of us in this room to go beyond and to do further public outreach on these issues.

Now as I started jotting down ideas a couple weeks ago, they were fairly inchoate and then I read a couple of days ago an article by George Perkovich about the draft convention to prohibit nuclear weapons. And if you have 15 minutes, it is probably better spent reading George's article on the subject than listening to me. But you're already seated and I'm already seated so we'll plow right ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

Just a few words first about the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which, as Ambassador Kickert said, is the cornerstone of the global nonproliferation regime.

There is widespread, as he said, frustration and disappointment that the goals of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty have not been achieved. And that frustration merits analysis. It merits discourse. It merits even pressure upon the nuclear weapon states to move faster to realize the commitments that they've made in Article VI.

What is not sensible is to doubt the treaty itself. What makes no sense is to say that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is the problem. That's absolutely aiming at the wrong target.

And I think that the current review process for the NPT -- the treaty -- is always at risk of being confused with the treaty itself. There is no question that the five year review cycle is a matter of great frustration to diplomats who's professional specialization is disarmament and nonproliferation. It is very difficult to get 180-some countries to come to consensus on a final document.

And that frustrates those who see that there ought to be progress. That there ought to be better reports on commitments made by both nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states on the progress that they've made.

But a couple of quick points about the Nonproliferation Treaty process. An unhealthy process, an overly complex, overly ambitious and overly contentious review process is one thing.

It does not mean that the treaty itself is failing or even that it is sick. The treaty continues to be, in my view, the single treaty that in the history of the world has done more to contribute to the security of every nation in the world by greatly restricting what could have been an unbounded nuclear arms race.

And even those countries that are frustrated continue to benefit from the essential agreement at the core of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. No other treaty has done as much for the security of non-nuclear weapon states as well as nuclear weapon states.

So this leads to just one point of connection between the NPT and the convention that is currently under discussion in New York, and that is the single strongest recommendation I have for those who are drafting the treaty, is to make explicit that membership and adherence to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a precondition for adherence to the convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

There is no inconsistency at all between the goals and what is likely to be the final language of the convention on prohibition of nuclear weapons.

I have heard the concerns by some about what they would call "forum shopping." That is that there may be countries that for political reasons are tempted to embrace the convention -- the new convention -- but then to withdraw from the NPT. It doesn't sound very logical and yet I've done enough in the nonproliferation field to know that logic does not always win over politics. And it is possible to envision a situation in which for political, tactical reasons a country like Iran or Egypt could make that choice.

Why create an issue? Why create a circumstance in which the nuclear weapon states you are trying to convince have an argument about inconsistency between the most important treaty we have now and this new convention? Just avoid the argument by including a specific recommendation. A specific requirement for NPT membership in the CPNW. And don't hide behind frustration that we're not happy with how that treaty has been implemented.

And just one very small point, Ambassador, believe me, the frustration expressed by Austria and other leaders of this effort has been heard in Washington. Whether it's being heard today, I'm less qualified to judge.

All right, let me talk a little bit about the process so far. First I want to express my great respect for what's been accomplished so far in the draft of the convention. It's at the upper end of what I thought achievable in the first session of the negotiation.

And I think it is in the direction of what Ambassador Kickert said is the task. What can non-nuclear weapon states do to help to fulfill Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? The requirement freely accepted by the U.S. and all the other nuclear powers to work towards nuclear disarmament?

It is a contribution in that regard. What is crucial and what I'll talk about more is what can be done in the next negotiating session within the text and in the statements that states make outside of the negotiation that actually moves us closer, makes a contribution to the very long-term undertaking of achieving its purpose.

So here -- as you draft -- I've been in enough of these things to know that a draft, especially if it is going to take the form of a treaty, is going to have some incoherence because it represents compromises among different states or groups of states.

I hope that the drafters seek to avoid that incoherence by focusing on what is the ultimate goal. And the ultimate goal is to persuade nuclear weapon states that they can go to complete nuclear disarmament without damaging their own security.

Much of the argument on the margins of the convention negotiation is not about security, it is rather about political pressure -- which matters -- about morality, about establishing norms. All of those are important -- none of those are going to win the argument. The argument will be about security.

So just a few free points of advice, you don't have to pay for them, honest. First, during the negotiation and afterwards, stay on the high road. Staying on the high road does not mean assuming an air of moral superiority. It does not mean giving lectures to nuclear weapon states. It does not mean taking a disdainful attitude or accusing them of bad faith, even if that's what you believe.

And I'm very conscious of the need to avoid giving lectures even at a time when we have a president who likes to lecture our closest allies. But don't reciprocate that urge to be hectoring and lecturing.

Rather, take seriously the real security dilemmas that both nuclear weapon states and those states that you referred to as umbrella states, I prefer the term those who enjoy extended deterrence, take seriously their security issues.

Second, pick carefully the targets that you want to persuade. And by that I mean above all, don't delay, don't avoid choosing the hard targets. Again, as George Perkovich points out in his article, it's natural with a movement that depends largely upon civil society, upon NGOs in democratic countries, to start by seeking to persuade the democracies and to leave aside those nuclear weapon states -- Russia, China, and above all, North Korea, that are impervious to any kind of outside rational argument -- but to focus only on the democratic states that are part of the Western alliance or the Asian states that are under extended deterrence. This being perceived as a discriminatory movement and it risks having that used against the movement.

It will be easy for people not only in this city but elsewhere to say that this is a one sided movement that seeks to damage Western national security without addressing what is happening in -- or the nuclear policies of non-democratic countries.

And in fact, again, I think Perkovich makes this point well. It actually risks emboldening the nuclear posture and the doctrine of use of those non-democratic countries.

How do you persuade those countries? Well, I know and I think anybody who has worked in arms control as a diplomat knows that one of the built-in frustrations is that the issues that we care passionately about and that we get immersed in and become expert in seldom rise to the level of our presidents or our prime ministers.

President Obama was an exception in terms of the time and serious thought and study that he gave to these issues. But in most countries, no matter how deeply the director general for arms control feels about the issue, it is unlikely that the president or prime minister is going to raise that or make them -- make that subject a primary topic of conversation with other world leaders, particularly with the leaders of nuclear weapon states.

So there's a need not only to make sure that your national leadership cares about this issue as deeply as you do, but also cares about it enough to apply equally the outreach to all the nuclear weapon states.

Now it's not only the five recognized nuclear weapon states and the others who are outside of the NPT, but it's clear from the discussions in New York that civil society intends to focus on those allies in NATO and in -- and in Asia who are covered by extended deterrence or, as you say, a nuclear umbrella. And that's understandable.

But just a word about the practical effects that you're likely to get in Europe. You should not expect great results within NATO, whether the goal is removal of the small number of tactical nuclear weapons that the U.S. has pre-propositioned in a few European states, or whether it's convincing NATO to change its self-definition as a nuclear alliance.

It is, for me, very difficult to see any of these governments changing fundamentals of their security policy at a time when there is a genuine threat of aggression. When, in fact, European countries are occupied by their neighbor and that there is a willingness to use both conventional and non-conventional means of warfare to destabilize NATO members.

Indeed, I think a lot of European countries, members of NATO, would see a change in that policy -- declared policy of NATO as inviting additional aggression, whether overt or covert. But again, I'd like to warn the advocates of the convention against giving lectures. I know I'm giving a lecture, I've got the irony.

(LAUGHTER)

A NATO ally or the Republic of Korea or Japan facing a genuine security threat will not take well, a lesson about their defensive policy from a state that is unwilling to give the same lecture, or even condemnation, or even condemnation backed by painful action against those who perpetrate aggression, whether it's in Pyongyang or in Moscow.

Just a further point on Europe and NATO -- even if one ally or five allies decides that they would like the U.S. to remove these tactical B61 bombs, it is a limited step and it doesn't fundamentally change -- it's an important change -- but it doesn't fundamentally change NATO security policy nor does it fundamentally change the United States nuclear posture.

While I'm sure it would be welcome by advocates of the convention as an important step forward, it's important to be aware of how limited that would be.

It's a huge step from discussing or changing policy on tactical weapons to questioning what not only the U.S., but other nuclear weapon states have defined as their central purpose of possessing nuclear weapons, which is to deter anyone else using them.

So to try to sum up, what can you do to make this current effort to negotiate a convention on prohibition live up to its potential? Well, a couple of things that are in the treaty that need attention and one I think others can talk about, which is to strengthen and make specific what kind of safeguard regime would be necessary for adherence to the convention.

And as I mention, my very strong recommendation to link this to the Nonproliferation Treaty by making mandatory membership as a prerequisite.

Second, I hope that the advocates of the convention, both in the next month and afterwards, will do all they can to elaborate a verification mechanism that would give confidence to actual declarations of non-possession.

Here again, George Perkovich has some good ideas, I would add that if the nuclear weapons -- the non-nuclear weapon states would be smart, work hard on initiatives such as the International Partnership For Nuclear Disarmament Verification. It is a concrete area in which nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states can work together towards a specific goal.

Third and very difficult, requiring long-term work is to elaborate what would be the actual process of disarmament. It is not something that you can dictate to the nuclear weapon states, but it is something where you can give serious thought to how to get, step-by-step -- I know people don't like that phrase -- you'd like it better if you wrote some of the steps yourself and it would add credibility to the movement itself.

And finally, on suggestions, once this convention is drafted, I would hope that the excellent diplomats who worked on it put their attention not just on public opinion on propagating the text, but on working with diplomats and military officials who are experts not just on negotiation, but on real world security challenges.

What can be done? What would you do if you were in the position of London or Paris or Beijing or Washington? What are the security challenges that could be addressed that would give those states confidence in building down and building towards zero?

And I would even suggest something that I think is of enormous practical value which is very extensive simulations of such discussions. If the U.S. and Russia are having a hard time talking to each other about their strategic stability challenges, I think we could learn something from diplomats, from Mexico and Austria and elsewhere, playing the role of Washington and Moscow and talking to each other.

And last point, this is what I would hope would be the U.S. position, and I hope we'll hear it from Dr. Ford today, and I think it's very well summarized in an article on the same topic by Michael Krepon. And just to summarize his summary; I hope the U.S. will express understanding of the sincere motives of those who are pushing for this convention. I hope that the U.S. will offer respectfully specific concerns about the text and about what comes after.

That the U.S. can articulate in detail the circumstances under which it will be possible to build down and to move to zero. And most concretely, I hope to see the U.S. agree with Russia on the extension of the New START Treaty and reassert its commitment to further strategic arms reductions.

A lot of this is very ambitious. I think it's no more ambitious than the convention itself. I hope that the sponsors will keep their eye on the long-term calendar not just to get through June with a text that elicits champagne and hugs, but a strategy that actually addresses the real world concerns of those who feel that nuclear weapons offer them security and that can lay the basis for a very respectful partnership between the non-nuclear weapon states and the nuclear weapon states. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

BURK: I want to thank you both for tuning up this issue in such a substantive and creative way. And I think ambition these days is something we all ought to strive for and positive energy.

I just want to ask one question before we open up the floor. You both focused on the ban negotiations and the ban treaty and I think we have a lot of great food for thought here and can have a conversation.

Looking ahead to 2020 and the NPT, if the negotiations are completed this year or next, the question I would have if I were active duty would be; will the nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states be able to agree to disagree on this issue when they convene for the NPT Review Conference and be prepared to move on to find common ground and also a constructive discussion of how do we -- how do they ease the growing tensions between the states?

I mean, there's real serious questions about security, instability. Tom, you made some clear references to that. Can we move with this now beyond that to again come together in a creative surge for common ground under the auspices of the NPT? And I open it up to both of you. Ambassador Kickert?

KICKERT: Again, from more a political and less of a disarmament specialist point of view, yes, I think we can.

I think -- thank you very much, Tom. I think that was extremely constructive and -- and -- and yes, we also use -- being used to be lectured so we -- we can take that. And -- but it was very constructive proposals. And I think there we find a lot of common ground.

For us and others who are in a bit of a core group, drive this process like Ireland, which we just begin -- as an outset of the NPT, we would do anything not to undermine the contrary strength of the NPT. And the suggestions you made and also on the safeguards and verification well taken. This is also our intention.

The big question is how do we integrate the nuclear weapon state at some stage? And we're not naive. We also understand the security dilemmas and discussion. And we want to keep that treaty open. And we do not -- and that maybe where we disagree a -- a bit.

We don't want to prescribe anything in this treaty to the nuclear weapon states, but once they would come in, together with them, define the circumstances that you select the landing zone.

And coming back to your question about the NPT. I think if we work on the spirit of complementarity and then look back to the goals of the NPT -- we had a 2010 action plan -- maybe we can make some progress there because the -- the -- the issue in 2015 was that -- that we looked at it and said, "What was fulfilled there?"

So I think this is not a competition. I think that's the most important w -- what we want to stress. Nothing to undermine the NPT, but something to add to it. And we would have in Austria and other countries really proponents that that we have to work together for security for all. And -- and we can have long discussions now on security, but what means that?

But I -- but I think we need to acknowledge. And our approach was always that we want security for all. Also for those in the nuclear weapon states, not just for us.

BURK: Thank you, Ambassador. Tom?

COUNTRYMAN: I think the best way to focus for success in the 2020 Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is to be less obsessive about it.

I mean a couple of things. First, we have a pattern through several Review Conferences which there is broad, painful consensus -- sometimes on an important -- important advances, sometimes on minor advances, that is then taken hostage to the issue of establishment of the WMD-free zone in the Middle East. And that is what caused the last review conference two years ago not to fail, because I don't believe it failed, but it did not reach a consensus document.

The more that we obsess about how crucial it is that we avoid another such outcome in 2020, if we label the failure to get a consensus document as a failure of the treaty, what we are doing is raising the leverage that the states that are obsessing about the Middle East zone have and raising the likelihood that we will fail to have an agreement. That's been -- so that's the first sense in which I say obsession is the enemy of focus in this process.

The second sense is a new one and it will have to do with what is likely to be by 2020 a new convention on prohibition of nuclear weapons that will already be in force by that point.

If that convention is tightly linked to the Nonproliferation Treaty along the lines I suggested, and if building out from adoption of that convention there has been a sincere effort by its advocates who engage with nuclear weapon states and the beneficiaries of extended deterrence in the ways that I suggested, there is no reason for that to become an obstacle to a meaningful conclusion at the 2020 Review Conference.

If, on the other hand, the NPT review process itself is used as a lever or as a shaming tool in a way similar to what Egypt does with the Middle East Zone, but in case with regard to the convention itself, it will be defeating to both purposes.

The nuclear weapon states that will have to one day change their policy, if this effort is to succeed, are not going to be moved by a deadlock and hand wringing over a deadlock at a conference in New York.

They're going to be moved by concrete actions and assistance in solving persistent security dilemmas. So I would hope, if we don't over think it, we can actually have a more beneficial outcome in 2020 that squares well with the purposes of this convention.

BURK: All right. Well, thank you. Great answers. And again, lots of food for thought.

We're going to open it up to questions. Is there someone with a microphone? So when you ask your questions, please identify yourself and to whom you're directing your question.

So front row?

QUESTION: Thank you very much. My name is Randy Rydell with the organization Mayors For Peace.

Susan, I would like to ask you...

BURK: Wait a minute.

(LAUGHTER)

I'm the moderator.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: ... if I could draw upon your your vast professional experience and comment on the lack of any infrastructure in the government for disarmament?

There are no disarmament agencies in any of the states that possess nuclear weapons. When the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was abolished in the mid-1990s, the "disarmament" term even disappeared from business cards and the organization charts in the State Department.

There's very little sign of institutional support for disarmament in the government. What extent is this a problem, is this a barrier, is this an obstacle to future progress in disarmament from a policy perspective?

And to Tom, I'd like to ask him: during the 1960s, the Lyndon Johnson administration was faced with the problem of whether nonproliferation should be a goal of U.S. policy. And they created the Gilpatric Commission, which produced this consensus report that, yes, it should. And that it should not -- be nondiscriminatory.

Now we hear that there's a nuclear posture review where disarmament is now being assessed as to whether it should be a goal of policy. What do you think would be the outcome of this assessment and what would be the effects if this goal is abandoned? Thank you.

BURK: All right. Well, very quickly, because I'm really not answering the questions. But the Arms Control Agency was abolished on April Fool's Day, 1999. No -- and I won't say anything further.

I think, from my experience, we always had a robust -- arms control safeguards, nonproliferation bureaucracy, and in contrast to many other countries that -- that do not, I think that gave us the opportunity to -- we had a responsibility to do more work interacting with our foreign partners, you know, through diplomacy. Engaging with foreign partners, educating, providing information and that sort of thing.

And I think, because we had this large bureaucracy, we could do that if we wanted to do that. I can't comment on today, because I've been retired now for four and a half years. But Tom can address that issue, since he's only recently departed the government.

COUNTRYMAN: Well, on your first question for Susan, what concerns me is not the absence of the word "disarmament." What concerns me is the absence of officials who are charged with implementing a coherent policy. I'm looking forward to Chris Ford speaking to us at lunch time. He's well qualified and leads this effort at the White House.

But, to actually move something ahead, we should have an undersecretary and assistant secretaries in these fields. And the Department of State has shown unprecedented lassitude in nominating anybody for any positions. Very good, fantastic, well qualified career professionals acting in those slots, but they are not in a position to move ahead on policy objectives.

Now, the nuclear posture review that the administration is undertaking, and to which it has assigned lead responsibility to the Department of Defense, is supposed to be completed by the end of the year.

I do have some concerns about it. I have no idea how it's going. I would love to be reassured by Mr. Ford today that, in fact, not only the Department of Defense but the Department of State and Department of Energy are deeply involved in the discussion. That would be reassuring.

The part that concerns you, I think, concerns me a little bit as well -- that the last time this nuclear posture review was undertaken, at the beginning of the Obama administration, nobody was putting on the table the idea that we need more nuclear weapons and more diverse types of nuclear weapons. Some people, some NGOs, some thinkers are putting that on the table this time. I'm completely unable to gauge their influence or the likely outcome.

Now, I know that, for example, on climate change, you can give a speech that says, "I love the environment. The environment is huge, it's a great thing."

(LAUGHTER)

But I am breaking a commitment that we've made. The effect is actually even more serious if the nuclear posture review were to conclude what you suggested -- that disarmament is not a goal.

That would be breaking not just a commitment to an agreement, but a binding, ratified commitment to a treaty that the United States has upheld for nearly 50 years. And that would be an extremely serious step. So let me not alarm you by speculating on how likely it is.

BURK: OK. Now that we're all depressed...

(LAUGHTER)

... over there.

QUESTION: Thank you. Richard Fieldhouse, I'm an independent consultant, but a former Senate Armed Services Committee staffer who worked on plenty of these issues.

I'm sorry to say, Susan, I'm not going to cheer up the crowd, perhaps...

(LAUGHTER)

... with my question. But Tom, I wanted to...

(CROSSTALK)

BURK: Just ask them to these two gentlemen here. OK.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: ... I'm just warning you, lowering expectations.

Tom, I want to explore the other side of what you are suggesting about trying to do things in a way that's constructive, that won't undermine the NPT through this process.

And the question is: do you see a risk to the NPT or the possibility of undermining it, if those wise, constructive steps are not taken?

Could there actually be a result that would undermine the treaty -- commitment to it, et cetera? You know, it's the darker side of how this should run. Thank you.

COUNTRYMAN: I'm not very concerned about that, to be honest. A few of my colleagues in the U.S. government last year and some of my colleagues in the governments of other nuclear weapon states said that this effort would undermine the NPT. That's hard for me to see.

As I noted, there are definitely colleagues from some foreign ministries for whom disarmament is a game, is a tactic, rather than a goal, a pursuit.

And you could expect them to at least be tempted by that idea that, if I have two different treaties to demonstrate what a great world citizen I am, I'm going to pick the less restrictive one. I think it's possible. I think it's unlikely. It depends very much upon a couple of things I already mentioned.

If it's very explicit that everybody who's signing this convention loves the NPT and wants to push forward the goals of the NPT with a new convention, and you make that not just a preamble clause but a requirement in the new convention, I think you've minimized that danger.

And then, secondly, the other thing that could create or increase what is a small risk is what I think is a very unfortunate trend among some who advocate -- who portray themselves as great advocates of disarmament, which is to say we can't do any more steps on nonproliferation, no matter how rational they are, no matter how much they contribute to global security, until the nuclear weapon states do more on disarmament.

You know, it's this vision of hostage-taking, and it really makes no sense. So if states that advocate this convention begin to be obstacles in the path of improving the safeguard system, improving the nonproliferation system, then they will be doing the work of undermining the NPT.

So these are possibilities, but I am really not that worried about it -- any fundamental inconsistency between the NPT and the new convention.

BURK: OK. And we'll give out Tom's contact information so you can get in touch with him whenever you get worried, and he'll give you a comforting pep talk.

(LAUGHTER)

Back there. Alex?

QUESTION: This is for Ambassador Kickert. I have heard some say that, when they talk to the Chinese about abolishing nuclear weapons, they said, "That's an American plot, because if everybody does away with nuclear weapons, the U.S. will be by far the superior military power because of its conventional superiority."

What can you do to convince countries like China and others? I mean, obviously, this is not, you know, something that will happen tomorrow, but what can you do to convince countries like that that this is not what's going to happen, that their security is -- is preserved even under -- even in a world without nuclear weapons?

KICKERT: I mean, I personally would not be concerned as China concerning their conventional weaponry. And then on China, I find it interesting that they have limited themselves in the amount of nuclear weapons.

They don't -- my perception is that they -- they didn't expand to -- to a degree where -- where -- where Russia is, and the United States. So I -- I think they're -- they're quite happy to have this -- this -- this, let's say, necessary, from their point of view, limited amount of that -- nuclear weapons, and don't expand further.

I mean, let's not forget, 90 percent of our nuclear weapons are in the possession of the U.S. and Russia still. So I think it is -- it is still those two countries who have the key to press forward the nuclear disarmament agenda.

China, I think, is -- is conventionally beefing up. So I don't see China as an obstacle for the abolishment. They were even a little more engaged than other nuclear weapon states.

You had total disengagement by Russia. China was at least, now, at the first phase, also there as an observer. It, through (inaudible) participated also in the Vienna conference on the humanitarian consequences.

I think it even abstained in the General Assembly when we voted on going down this prohibition path. So I'm not so concerned that China is the biggest obstacle at the end of the day.

COUNTRYMAN: That's actually -- that's a concern or a comment I've heard more often from Russian colleagues than Chinese colleagues, and it's understandable. First, neither of them take very seriously the near-term prospect of going to zero.

But secondly, of course, China is a global power for a number of reasons. For Russia, there are only two things that make Russia a global power, and that is nuclear weapons and innovative computer programming.

(LAUGHTER)

BURK: OK. Ambassador Kennedy?

QUESTION: Thank you. Laura Kennedy, and, like Tom and Susan, I was proud to represent the Obama administration in this area in both Geneva and Vienna, and also honored to join the board today along with them.

I wanted to pick up on a point that Tom made about the importance of the nuclear ban proponents lobbying equally the non-democracies as well as the democracies. And specifically, I wanted to ask about North Korea, because my understanding is that they are in, you know, part of the process.

And I'm -- if that's the case, how do you deal with that? I mean, this is a country -- I mean, theoretically, if you pick up on Tom's point about making NPT membership a key part of the treaty, you could say, "Well, gee, that would bring them in."

But don't you run the risk of, having them part of the process, conceivably either allow them to discount the pressure to deal with a very real international security threat, or conceivably bring, frankly, some -- undermine the arms control process by having, say, a North Korea part of it, whereas, you know, the U.K., the France, the Japans, the Australians not part of it?

Thank you very much.

KICKERT: I recollect North Korea voted in favor of the G.A. resolution. But they are -- I haven't seen them -- I was not there the whole time, just sneaking in and out -- participated.

And one important aspect we implemented in the rules of procedure is that it would be a majority vote and not consensus, so that those who participate in there cannot block a decision by, I would say, the sane majority.

And it was, interestingly enough, proposed by some countries who want to have it exactly their way. It was Egypt, Iran. So -- but this was thwarted. So they are -- again, I -- I don't see North Korea playing any role in there. I mean, the North Korea dilemma is a different issue, and I think it will be discussed at the next session.

BURK: Daryl?

QUESTION: Thank you, Susan. Daryl Kimball.

I wanted to just note that, in the current issue of Arms Control Today, there are two very in-depth articles on the issues concerning the prohibition treaty and verification that are worth a look as we explore this subject.

I wanted to come back to one of the questions that Tom Countryman raised about the relationship between the prohibition treaty (OFF-MIKE) mentioned, Tom, that one way to deal with this would be to have (OFF-MIKE) obligations, all of the (OFF-MIKE) the prohibition treaty (OFF-MIKE). That might be problematic for India, Pakistan and Israel.

(OFF-MIKE) by (ph) the NPT, which is one of the problems with (OFF-MIKE). One other approach, I wanted to get your reaction, Ambassador Kickert (OFF-MIKE) require states that are already members of the NPT to remain (OFF-MIKE) other approach that still leaves the door open to those countries like (OFF-MIKE).

And also, I mean, Tom, you've brought this up a couple of times. You talked about what a successful (OFF-MIKE). I've always argued that the real threat to the NPT is not (OFF-MIKE) other than the U.S. and Russia (OFF-MIKE) why (ph) that (OFF-MIKE) the conference, which is a litmus test (OFF-MIKE).

COUNTRYMAN: OK. Well, on -- on the first point, not to be flippant about it, but the problem with India, Pakistan, and Israel is not a clause in the treaty. It's a lot more fundamental.

And if we were ever to get to a point where those countries are seriously considering joining this convention, it will not be a decision based upon whether or not that NPT membership clause is in the convention. It will be a decision based upon fundamental changes in their national security perceptions.

And that's very long-term. It's not going to happen soon. And I think that the advocates of this convention would do a disservice by not making that linkage and thus opening themselves up to the criticism that they have created an alternative pathway to the Nonproliferation Treaty. So yes, you're right in a technical sense. I don't think it's a terribly important factor in my productive lifetime.

On the New START Treaty, as you all know, the New START Treaty negotiated between the U.S. and Russia went into effect in 2011. It lasts for 10 years. It has a clause for automatic re-extension by an additional five years, until 2026, if both parties agree.

President Putin has already indicated -- has already suggested this extension. President Trump, by contrast, has said -- as he has said about anything that the previous administration has done -- it's a poorly negotiated deal, and has so far refused to consider it.

I would hope that, for all the right reasons, the United States comes around in the very near future to agreeing with Russia on this automatic five-year extension. It costs nothing.

It prevents, at least for the moment, an escalation -- an arms race in the number of weapons that both countries possess. It preserves important capabilities that cannot be replaced for verification and monitoring of the deal. And it would be the single easiest and most visible step for the United States to address the legitimate concerns of countries all around the world about our actual commitment to disarmament, so.

BURK: Thank you.

OK. Other questions. In the back, right in the middle. The lady there? Sorry, can't see that far.

QUESTION: Thank you. I'm Diane Perlman, George Mason School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. So this is for Tom.

Well, the logical implication of what you're talking about, and I think the next stage for us to go to, is what's known as a second-order change. First-order changes focus on eliminating the weapons and how -- you know, the humanitarian consequences and how bad they are.

Second order of change deals with the underlying -- analyzing the underlying conflict and looking at the needs of the parties and, you know, challenging flaws in -- or raising flaws in deterrence theory, addressing spiral theory and illusion of security, but also looking at how to reduce tension and work on addressing the underlying conflicts so that nuclear weapons are, like, unnecessary or irrational.

And -- so anyway, I just would appreciate if you would address that. And also, I registered -- I got three groups accredited for the ban treaty: Mediators Beyond Borders, TRANSCEND network of conflict transformation, and Psychologists for Social Responsibility. So I want to sort of build some energy around addressing second-order change.

COUNTRYMAN: Look, I have great respect for the academic work being done. I'm not an academic. I don't think in those terms. I think that the academic work could help to inform those who are trying to bring about what you term both the first-order and the second-order change.

But to be honest, I'm not sure how I would use that terminology or that typology to advance the subject.

BURK: OK. Any other questions?

Ed

QUESTION: Edward Levine, Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation.

One of the recurrent problems under the NPT has been the feeling on the part of some states that the treaty allows them to build up as much of a peaceful nuclear infrastructure as they wish, even if that brings them to the brink of nuclear weapons capability.

And I wonder what the risks are that the convention would increase the pressure on the nuclear suppliers group to stand down and stop putting roadblocks in the way of what it sees as incipient nuclear proliferation?

COUNTRYMAN: Good question. I haven't thought about it. I think it would be tremendously counterproductive for the advocates of this prohibition to either promote or to tolerate effort of some non-nuclear weapon states who claim to the argument that you've made -- that this allows us to develop nuclear capability right up to the edge of weaponization.

That would be damning to the credibility of the movement if that were tolerated. Now, the nuclear suppliers group includes a number of countries, not only nuclear weapon states, those under extended deterrence, but it also includes those who are advocates of this process.

And I simply can't picture that the nuclear suppliers group would say, "This has changed the reality, and it allows us to have more confidence in Iran's peaceful intentions because they've signed a new convention." I don't see it happening that way. So it's an interesting risk but, I think, a small one.

BURK: OK. I think we have time for one more question.

Larry, you get the last word, or the last question.

QUESTION: Larry Weiler. I'm old enough that I -- I often think I'm in error, but I'm never wrong.

(LAUGHTER)

And I've lived through 65 years of this business. And I was asked by a group where I now reside to do a little talk on arms control. And I haven't finished preparing the talk, but I took time to go through the whole history.

And I have a couple of things to add here, and that is, if you look at where we are, from the day when we first announced the American plan to take care of nuclear weapons and look at what's been accomplished.

And it's an interesting history because it's jerks and glides and jerks and glides. And we didn't know what to do about dealing with the problem for a long time. And then we started, and we got some first steps.

And, thinking about why we moved forward and why we stopped, in large part, there's a bit of accident involved. Personalities are involved. We could have started long ago with Harold Stassen, but Allen Dulles decided that the problem with Germany was such that he had to stop his program of negotiations.

One little step -- there are three or four of them as you go down the line. But, after you look at it, where we are today we -- with the -- with the test ban -- we haven't ratified the test -- the full test ban, that's true.

But there is a -- there is a -- basically, there's a test ban, and basically, there's a cutoff. And basically, we've learned how to deal with a lot of these problems. And we've dealt with the missile problem.

What we have -- and I could go on -- we've got pretty much the first stage of the original general and complete disarmament programs that people talked about in theory.

So don't give up. It's a long haul and we've really got stage one, we've got the cutoff. We've got all these other things. So don't begrudge that we haven't gone all the way further.

I have a question, however, that I would like...

BURK: OK, Larry.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: ... my question is what is the difference -- what is the difference between the new proposal and the effect of having nuclear-free zones all over the world? I mean, just a -- it's a simple question. But what's the difference in practical terms?

KICKERT: Well, Tom is the specialist, but from the Austrian perspective, the big difference is we don't have a nuclear-weapons-free zone in Europe. And we have studied this also, this -- this proposal.

We're jealous about the other areas of the world where this -- this happens. Austria happens to be a neutral country, not in any military alliance, and we're in the middle of this -- it's a competition.

So yeah, if you would have nuclear-weapon-free zones all over the world, then we will have a nuclear-free world. And we can -- we can continue that. And if we expand it to Europe, we will be the first to -- to be happy about it.

COUNTRYMAN: Yeah, it's essentially -- those countries that have formed nuclear-weapons-free zones argue, and with great merit, that they cannot fully enjoy the benefit of security and safety that comes from living in such a zone if nuclear conflict can occur anywhere in the world.

You cannot isolate the nuclear-weapons-free zones from a place where a nuclear conflict could occur. They have a legitimate reason to raise that as a point in favor of a global ban.

BURK: OK. I think we're going to have to wrap up.

I've got to say that while I attend this group, and I know a lot of you tend to focus on the challenges, on the problems, and we're all high anxiety -- is that a Mel Brooks movie?

But I think what we're taking away -- what I take away from this panel is that we need to be -- we need to be positive, we need to be creative, we need to keep our eyes focused on the big picture and the prize and we can't afford to forget all of the accomplishments that we have over the years.

Larry summed it up: There's far more good things than there are -- and then I would say -- and we have to persist.

So let's give our speakers a round of applause.

(APPLAUSE)

PANEL 2:

DAVENPORT: All right. We're going to get started. So, thank you all for sticking around for our second panel.

I'm sure it comes as no surprise that we would be discussing North Korea today, given the increased tensions on the Korean Peninsula, and the North Korean Policy Review that President Trump has just completed.

So, for North Korea watchers, 2017 has certainly been an interesting year. President Trump decided to review policy toward North Korea shortly after his Inauguration. And he came back with a policy that emphasizes maximum pressure and engagement. But there has been some mixed signals on what exactly the United States might be looking for from North Korea before entering into negotiations.

South Korea also has a new president, Moon Jae-in. He has expressed an interest in talking to the North Koreans, but again, under what conditions still remains somewhat of an open question.

And then of course in North Korea we've seen a number of ballistic missile tests already in 2017, including some new systems. And all of this is leading up to the summit that Trump and Moon Jae-in will hold in Washington, D.C. later this month.

So, to help make sense of all of these developments, we're very fortunate to have with us today Michael Elleman and Suzanne DiMaggio. We're going to start today with Mike Elleman.

Mike is a senior fellow for Missile Defense at the Institute for International and Strategic Studies. He has spent some time at Booz-Allen Hamilton. He spent some time working on cooperative threat reduction programs.

And I would be remiss if I didn't add that he also has written several excellent pieces for "Arms Control Today," which I would encourage you to take a look at. And his full bio is available in your program.

Then we're going to move on to Suzanne DiMaggio. Suzanne is a director and senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She has years of experience working on Track II diplomatic initiatives on a range of issues, including nonproliferation and international security with countries like Iran, Myanmar and North Korea.

She's formerly been at the Asia Society. And she was most recently in Pyongyang in February. And she has met with the North Koreans, I believe, just this past month, in a Track II dialogue.

So, I will turn it over to Mike to get the discussion started.

ELLEMAN: Great. Thank you, Kelsey. And thank you to the Arms Control Association for the opportunity to speak here today.

I'm going to try to keep my comments as brief as possible. And Kelsey's agreed to kick me if I go over my time. It'll be good entertainment for TV anyway.

So, I want to focus on making three essential points, instead of kind of rehashing the different systems and such that North Korea is currently developing. And I want to highlight them for a reason, and I hope this comes out at the end clearly.

One, we've - well, we've seen just this new pattern of missile testing under the regime of Kim Jung-un. His grandfather, Kim Il-sung, under his reign from 1984 to 1994 -- I know he began before 1984, but they started missile testing in 1984. He conducted a total of I think it was 15 tests, about 1.5 missile tests per year.

Kim Jung Il, under his reign there were 16 or so tests. This includes a few satellite launch attempts. But they came in clusters of in 1998 you saw the Taepodong-1. And then in 2006 the Taepodong-2, along with a number of other missiles were fired in a single day. And then again in 2009 you saw a cluster of testing.

In both instances, this would be inconsistent with testing to develop new systems, even though they were attempting to develop the satellite launcher, the Unha-2, as it turns out to be. But it seemed that the rationale for testing was to train troops, you know, to create operational readiness, and for political purposes, especially the July 2006 testing.

Under Kim Jung-un we've seen this ramp-up of testing. I think he's now done -- it's at last count 78 missile launches. There may have been more that failed, I don't know. But I think the number is right around there. That's 13 to 15 tests per year. That's consistent with a missile development program.

Compare that, say, what Iran is doing. Iran on average tests maybe three to five missiles a year. They make minor modifications and test them out. They use them in war games. That is far less, and it's not enough testing to develop a new capability in a short period of time. When I say a short period of time, I'm talking three to five years.

So, it's clear to me. And what we've seen is a number of new systems emerge. And I'll talk about them in a moment. But what is clear is North Korea is trying to create new capabilities. And they're going about it in a reasonably technically valid way.

The second point I want to make is that we've seen North Korea move beyond a legacy Scud and Nodong technology. All the missiles up until Kim Jung-un came to power were basically powered by either the Scud or Nodong engine. This includes the Unha space launcher, which it uses Nodong and Scud technology.

You can see it results in a very large system. It could, in principle, be converted into an ICBM. It'd still have to be tested as an ICBM to prove it as a missile, but also to validate the reentry technologies and warhead survivability. But this would be an immobile missile.

It would be launched and prepared to launch from a fixed site. It would be vulnerable to preemption. You would probably have few in number. The preparation time is on the order of days, not hours.

In 2016, we've seen the emergence of three new propulsion systems. And I think this is very important.

One, we've seen the Musudan. This is a very different engine, much more sophisticated than the Scud, Nodong technology. It's derived from the old Soviet-era ARS-27 or SSN6 technology. It's a retired system now. But it appears that North Korea was able to import the engines at least, if not more technology.

All this technology, by the way, comes from either the Makeyev or the Isayev design builds. Makeyev is the builder of Russia's submarine launch missiles. Isayev makes the engines for I think almost every Makeyev missile. And they had a very close working relationship. So, that's -- you know, up until a few months ago I thought that was the primary procurement network for North Korea.

With this new engine that we see in the Musudan, even though that missile has failed a number of times -- I think it's out of six to eight launches it's had one apparent success and one partial success. It uses a different type -- higher energy fuels. It's a much more sophisticated engine.

With that type of technology, you can now build, in principle, a road mobile ICBM. And in fact, the presumption has been that the Musudan engines would be the main power plant for the KN-08 or the KN-14s that have not yet been tested, but they've been paraded by the North Koreans.

We've seen -- and this is very puzzling to me. I still haven't quite been able to figure out exactly what new engine this is. In September of last year, they did a ground test of a, what they call an 80-thrust engine. The statements that came out after the test was that it was destined for use on a satellite launcher.

Then earlier this year, I think it was in March, they tested the same engine, but they attached four steering or veneer engines to it that operate in parallel. And they suggested that this would be used for a new capability. And they basically said be prepared.

And lo and behold, two weeks ago they tested the Hwasong-12, an intermediate-range system. It flew to a very high altitude of I think it was 2,200 -- 2,100 kilometers, but only about 500 kilometers range. If flown on a standard trajectory this missile could reach ranges of 4,000 to 4,500 kilometers. In other words, it's a real intermediate-range missile.

It's not clear if that was the first test launch of this particular missile. There may have been one or two that occurred before that failed. It's uncertain at this point, mostly because the intelligence agencies around the world have been less than forthcoming for us -- for Seoul to rely on open source literature.

I'll talk about why this new missile is really important, along with the Musudan. But I also wanted to note that we've seen North Korea expand beyond liquid propellant technologies. We've seen them employ solid propellant motors for the Pukguksong-1 and 2. This is a submarine launch missile, and then this new land mobile system that they launched out of a canister on a tracked vehicle.

I think they're in the first steps of mastering the production of solid propellants. I believe this is indigenously produced. It was probably designed locally. It is not a copy of any known system, although it shares the central features of all first-generation submarine launch missiles.

That is -- it's two stages. It's about 1.5 meters in diameter and about 9 meters long. There are technical reasons why you come to that design solution. So, I don't think they've copied this from anyone.

But it's a worrying trend that if they master fully the solid propellant technologies, they can make any missile of any size and any range that they want in the future. It'll just take a lot of time. And I'll discuss that a bit in comments on timelines for an ICBM.

This HS-12, the engine that powers it, it's a little unclear to me. It's certainly not from the Isayev Design Bureau or Makeyev. It appears to be consistent with the RD-250 engine that was developed by Glushko. It's another Russian concern. It's now called Energomash. It's the premier engine manufacturer for space launch vehicles in Russia.

This engine was used for a number of medium-lift space launch vehicles, but also for the R-36, I think we called it the SSN-9 -- or the SS-9 ICBM, which was produced in, of all places, Ukraine, back when they were part of the Soviet Union.

This means that North Korea probably has an expanded network for illicit procurement. And this is really worrying to me for two reasons. One, this engine in particular could be the basis for an ICBM.

But two, we now know that they probably have expanded their procurement capacity beyond Makeyev and Isayev. Therefore, we don't know how large it is anymore. We don't know what else they might have. So, predicting what systems they could develop in the near term to mid term is now complicated by this diversification of sources of technology.

The other thing I would note that because HS-12, or the Hwasong-12 is the new system and it's important, you know the outrage that we always associate with any missile launch, I think that we need to stop -- or start looking at those launches which are most consequential versus those that are just kind of standard and politically oriented.

I don't worry if they test a new Scud or -- a Scud or a Nodong type system. I do worry and I do think it's important when they test Musudan or this Hwasong-12.

I would be -- I would preserve my political capital to express sanctions or other punitive measures or preventive measures, and reserve those for the missiles that matter like HS-12, like Musudan. I would -- those are far more important than even satellite launches, in my view. I think we should rethink how we express our concerns about what North Korea is doing.

I want to wrap up with timelines for an ICBM, because that's what everyone seems to be interested in these days. It's always challenging to forecast the future. A lot of things can change. But if they wanted a near-term solution, meaning something that would be operationally viable at the end of 2018, 2019, they could try to transform the Unha satellite launcher into an ICBM.

They'd have to replace the upper stages with something new, test it and then validate the design as well as the reentry technologies. So, you could see something for what I call emergency use at probably 2019 or so.

A more practical approach would be to use either the Hwasong-12 or Musudan engines to create a road mobile ICBM. They need to continue testing and more fully develop the intermediate range capability. But with a few more successful flights of Hwasong-12, I think they could, from a technical perspective, move toward ICBM testing.

When they could create that capacity and operationalize it really depends on what the requirements North Korea imposes on their systems. How reliable does it need to be, 50 percent, 75 percent, 99 percent like U.S. and Chinese systems or Russian systems? That's an open question. And that's why it's difficult to project a timeline with any real fidelity.

But assuming they want something that's as least as reliable, that it's successful most of the time, you can define most as you wish. But I think that you would have -- you would see at least a dozen flight tests with 75 percent of them being "successful." Then they would be operationally viable in my view, granted it would be under a more relaxed criteria.

That could occur in 2020 at the very earliest. 2021 is a more likely date, assuming everything went well for them. It could stretch out even further. But it might be, you know, good for emergency use, say if they were being attacked, by 2020.

Third option they have is to use this new solid propellant technology. Now, it's one thing to make solid rocket motors the size that you see in the KN-11 or Pukguksong-1 and KN-15 or Pukguksong-2. Quite another thing to build a 25- to 30-ton rocket motor for a first stage for an ICBM.

Typically, it takes countries five to 12 years to move from the size you see in the KN-11 to an ICBM size. So, it's a long-term project that North Korea would have to embark upon to create an ICBM based on solid technologies. Therefore, I would be very surprised if they had something that was operational by 2025.

I think the more likely date would be 2030. It will result in a lot of embarrassing mistakes. That's just the nature of the development. We see it with the Musudan.

So, I think that will be a long-term project. The most likely and viable system they could develop would be based on either the Musudan or the HS-12 technology. As I said, we could see that as the next president takes office in -- you know, after 2020. If it's not Trump, it's someone else.

So, I'll conclude there. And leave room for questions, comments, outrage, whatever.

(LAUGHTER)

DAVENPORT: Thank you, Mike.

And for those of you in suspense in the back, I did not even have to kick him. He stayed on time.

So, now to talk about how we might be able to address the rising tension, and to think about some of the options for engagement with North Korea going forward, I'm going to turn it over to Suzanne.

DIMAGGIO: Thanks. And please kick me if I go over, which I'll try not to do.

First, let me extend my thanks to the Arms Control Association, to Daryl, Kelsey, Kingston, everyone. It's such an important organization at this moment, maybe more important than ever. And if you aren't already supporting them, I urge you to do so. That's my pitch.

DAVENPORT: Thank you.

DIMAGGIO: Let me focus. I want to focus first on -- mostly on the policy options for the U.S.

So, as Kelsey said, the administration now has completed its policy review, and for all intents and purposes, it seems like it was a fairly cohesive interagency review. It declared that the end of strategic patience is over. I think an actual funeral was held...

(LAUGHTER)

... here in Washington. And that a policy of maximum pressure and engagement was replacing it.

Frankly, to me it still seems very unclear if this new policy is very much different from the old policy, or if it's just -- it's been given a new wardrobe. That being said, there appears to be several key elements to this policy as far as I can see. One is that it puts back on the table all options, including military action, more aggressive action.

For example, just today we know that there are naval maneuvers happening in the area of North Korea. And for the first time in a few decades, it includes two U.S. aircraft carriers.

Also, the joint ROK-U.S. military exercises that just happened in April included Navy Seals, a Special Op team that reportedly was focused on so-called decapitation exercises. So, this does seem like a little bit of a ratcheting up on that side of the equation.

And during his visit to the region in March, Secretary Tillerson's statements hinted at the possibility of a preemptive strike to destroy nuclear capabilities. He also stated that all options are on the table when questioned about a military option, opening a door to the idea of preventive war.

The problem with this approach, if we rely on it exclusively, is that when you threaten the use of force, you have to be prepared to use it. It's a major risk. The fact that we do not know how the North Koreans would retaliate.

We would imagine that they would respond in one way, shape or form. And that could escalate. It could inflict mass casualties, severe damage to our ally South Korea, as well as to our other ally Japan, and potentially to the U.S. forces that are based in the region.

And this leaves out the question how would Beijing react. A regional war? A full-scale war? We all know that there's really no military solution to the North Korea issue, and I feel very strongly about that.

The second element I see is a greater reliance on China to mount more pressure against North Korea, at least rhetorically. China, of course, is Pyongyang's biggest trading partner. Last year I think 90 percent of the total trade came from -- was China, including most of North Korea's food and energy supplies. So, it is a very unique position.

I think today the U.N. Security Council is considering a new -- a resolution, additional sanctions. While Japan, South Korea and the U.S. are pushing the more pressure, more sanctions, it seems China is resisting and is instead pushing for dialogue at an emergency meeting of the U.N.S.C. That happened last week and is continuing today.

President Trump recently tweeted that "China is trying hard" to reign in North Korea. And U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley recently stated that Beijing is using a back channel to try to stop the DPRK from testing. This indicates -- this is worrisome to me because it indicates, do they not have direct channels?

We've heard rumors of worsening relationship between the two. The fact that Kim Jung-un, since he's gained power, has not visited Beijing. He's not met Xi Jinping. So, we really have to question whether or not a reliance on China to help solve this issue is a wise approach. I'm very skeptical about it.

And of course, China's national interests are not necessarily aligned with ours when it comes to North Korea. We can go through a whole litany of things, everything from a fear that the regime's downfall could lead to a mass refugee influx. A collapse could allow U.S. troops to have direct access to the Chinese border. And of course, the recent implementation of THAAD is threatening to the Chinese.

The third element of this new policy I see is an emphasis on more sanctions. Of course, President Obama's administration also focused on sanctions as well. So, it's not necessarily new.

The fact is, is that this approach hasn't worked so far. In fact, I would argue, as was outlined in the previous presentation, as we layered on more sanctions against North Korea, we see them steadily accelerating the progress on their nuclear missiles program, in the face of increased sanctions.

There was a study done by researchers recently at MIT that found U.S. sanctions imposed against North Korea have been largely unsuccessful at curbing the country's illicit procurement. Because of, in part, North Korea has been able to adapt, there's a growing capacity to work around sanctions.

So, could sanctions and pressure on North Korea alone resolve the nuclear issue? It's very unlikely.

I think even if we look at the case of Iran, extensive sanctions on their own didn't bring the Iranians to the table. There were other factors. We can talk about them. And this is even less likely in the case of North Korea because Pyongyang is not as reliant on the global financial system as Iran.

So, in this new policy, it also leaves room for engagement. So, that's the fourth element that I see. And my thinking on this is with a new U.S. administration comes an opportunity to try to forge a diplomatic path, especially when it's clear that the current approach is not working.

Relying on a pressure-only approach is dangerous because it is inherently an approach of escalation that either leads to conflict or backing down by one side, and not necessarily to a potential political agreement, political solution. So, we risk falling into a cycle of tit for tat escalation with real potential for conflict either by design or maybe more so by accident. So, we need an off-ramp.

The Trump administration has left open room for engagement. Still remains to be seen if that will be pursued. President Trump warned in an interview in late April that a major, major conflict with the North was possible. He also said he'd prefer a diplomatic outcome to the dispute.

Although the U.S. has explicitly ruled out talks with Pyongyang unless the government took verifiable action to freeze its weapons program. The president then said he would be honored to meet with North Korea's leader Kim Jung-un, under the right circumstances. I think these are very mixed signals, mixed messages that urgently need to be clarified.

That being said, it's interesting that following that, senior North Korean diplomat Che San We, also their lead nuclear negotiator, recently said that the DPRK is open to dialogue with the U.S. under the right conditions. South Korean President Moon has said something similar.

So, I think the task now at hand is to find out what those right conditions are. And the best way to do this of course, the only way to do it, is through dialogue. So, what's needed now is what I would call aggressive diplomacy, backed up by all the leverage that the maximum pressure that I just talked about brings.

Now, when we talk about a diplomatic approach, I do think there are some lessons to be learned from the Iran deal that might be worth considering for negotiating with North Korea. Of course, both cases are completely different. I've traveled to both countries. I've experienced it firsthand.

The biggest difference is of course North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran has never possessed a nuclear weapon. And of course, Iran is a member of the NPT. The differences go on and on and on.

So, I'm not advocating that the JCPOA is a model for North Korea. It's technically quite different. But I do think the process of diplomacy that the U.S. pursued with Iran could offer some insights on how to begin engagement with a very strong adversary whose leadership is extremely distrustful of the United States, and of course vice versa.

There are three elements of diplomacy with Iran that I think we should be looking at. First is initiate a low-key diplomatic channel authorized at the highest level.

Prior to the start of official negotiations with the Iranians, both -- diplomats from both countries engaged in a series of meetings that were held secretly. There were 12 such meetings convened in Muscat, Geneva and New York over a period of about 16 months. This eventually led to the multilateral, P5+1 talks, and an interim agreement called the Joint Plan of Action, JPOA, in November 2013.

I think, given the level of mistrust between Pyongyang and Washington, I think it would be a good first step to try to have dialogue without preconditions to find out what is possible. We can call them talks about talks, to help clarify what those conditions that would be acceptable, what are they? How can we identify them? How to meet or overcome them? What are the non-negotiables? And then move ahead with the negotiations with our allies and others.

I think this work before the negotiations begin, that American diplomats and Iranian diplomats engaged in, really helped pave the way to not only a successful interim agreement, but then to the JCPOA, which by the way is an agreement that is working.

The second element of diplomacy with Iran I think that should be considered is to focus on a limited set of realistic objectives, not a grand bargain. The U.S.-Iran discussions, when limited to what both sides deem to be very specific, manageable set of items in the nuclear field.

And of course, the U.S. priority has placed on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Iranian priority was in exchange sanctions would be lifted.

So, now the U.S. really must decide on its highest priority with North Korea at this time. It must zero in on what that key goal could be. And also, something that's in the realm of achievability at this time.

So, to diffuse tensions I think the best bet would be to begin by pursuing an agreement that would freeze DPRK's nuclear missile testing. One of the key goals here would be to get IAEA inspectors, who do not currently have, and haven't for years had access to any aspects of North Korea's program, back into the country.

And when we look at the JCPOA, one of the things that's so remarkable about it is the extensive verification, monitoring requirements that come along with it. And that certainly is something to emulate.

So, suspension of testing of course is an interim step. Probably if we set the goal of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula as the end goal, this would be an interim set. It's not a solution.

As Graham Allison wrote in "The New York Times" this week, he said "Is United States national security really strengthened if a 33-year-old dictator with a record of executing his enemies can define red lines as left with an arsenal of 20 warheads and missiles that can deliver nuclear strikes against Seoul and Tokyo? We know the answer."

So, it's an important interim step, but it's not the final solution. It should be seen as part of a phased process.

The third element is what I would call pursuing a win-win approach. The U.S. and Iranians, in those early secret talks, both agree that they needed a win-win outcome, where at the end of the day, each of them could come forward and say they succeeded in filling their goals. This, of course, also came with the understanding that they would have to make compromises along the way so that both sides would be able to claim victory.

And then I think moving on, looking forward to what that phased approach might be. Bob Einhorn recently has written about this at Brookings, and I think it makes a great deal of sense.

Starting with the negotiations on nuclear freeze and missile freeze, setting the stage for an interim agreement that would freeze nuclear and missile development, and end proliferation. And then followed by further negotiations over next steps, with benchmarks that would be worked out over time.

Potential end goal could be a comprehensive regional security strategy, which I know is something Tom Pickering and Mort Halperin have been working on. That could take years.

So to conclude, I was on a panel recently and one of the experts on the panel was I think very much opposed to what I was proposing. And the reason was, is that he said we've tried this. We've tried diplomacy with the North Koreans. It's too hard. They cheat. They can't be trusted.

You know, I heard the same arguments with Iran for years. In fact, during the 35 years before the JCPOA, there were countless failed attempts, missed opportunities. And yet we now have an agreement that is working.

As Nelson Mandela put it, it always seems impossible until it's done. And I would apply that in that case. Because we've failed in the past doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt it again. We should learn from those failed attempts and move forward and try it. Test it.

That being said, there's no question the difficulties, obstacles of such an approach, the mutual demonization on both sides, the lack of interaction over years, the lack of relations, the lack of exchanges both on both the governmental level but also on a societal level, makes this all the harder.

So, I would just end on this note. If the administration decides to go down this path with any chance of success, it should also follow what President Obama did with the Iran deal. And that was put together an A team of diplomats, scientists, other technical experts to carry this out.

As I said at another event, this is not something you farm out to your son-in-law, if I may say that. So, this will require filling key staff positions, senior positions, a real negotiating team like we had with the Iran talks.

And it also means filling ambassadorial positions in key capitals throughout Asia and elsewhere. This would be a major undertaking of diplomacy.

Diplomacy is hard, especially with an adversary. But as the Iran deal showed, it's not impossible.

DAVENPORT: Thank you, Suzanne.

(APPLAUSE)

I'm now going to open it up for questions. And in addition to the standard instruction of please introducing yourself and asking a question, I'm going to ask everyone to make sure that they're really holding the microphones close, given the fact that we are trying to pick this up for the C-SPAN audience.

So, we'll start over there with Paul.

QUESTION: Thanks, Kelsey and Daryl, for a great event. Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action.

It's my understanding -- and I agree that we need to touch out with North Korea on the diplomatic front. It's my understanding that there's some several thousand remains of U.S. soldiers that are still there from the Korean War. And that actually North Korea would like to give those back.

And that is touchpoint in which I think we can get even bipartisan support here in Congress. Because as we know, no member of Congress has been not elected for bashing North Korea too hard.

So, is there a way that we could touch out? It's my understanding that the Obama administration didn't do so on that specific issue. And maybe even get support, bipartisan support, even from Republicans, bringing our -- the remains of our servicemen home.

DIMAGGIO: I'm not so sure that the Obama administration didn't approach that. I think maybe they had tried. But I'm not certain. I can't verify that.

But I think that is -- you know, the fact that the North Koreans have indicated a willingness to talk about an issue like that of course should be pursued. I think what I had proposed, a quiet channel a secret channel, I think it'd be very hard to keep it secret. But a very quiet channel would be a way to begin discussions on these issues.

The fact is, given, like I said, the high level of mistrust, any effort that can be made to build confidence, wins along the way that could help do that, gestures by both sides that could help do that. We're in desperate need of that.

DAVENPORT: Greg, here in the front?

QUESTION: Greg Thielmann, Arms Control Association Board of Directors.

Suzanne, I very much agree with the objective of seeking an interim freeze on nuclear and missile developments in North Korea.

One of the things that I'm wondering about, though, and this is a question for Mike, is, is there also value in pursuing as an interim a limit on the kind of testing of systems that you were most alarmed by? That is to say, would it be worth presenting to North Korea a proposal to ban any flight tests of missiles above short range, for example?

Or even allowing space launch vehicles of the Unha series, as a bone to throw to Kim Jung-un? Wouldn't that still give us a very valuable security advantage in stopping testing of all these systems that you're most alarmed by?

ELLEMAN: Thank you, Greg. That was a nice softball you threw me. We've talked about this before.

I think it would be an interesting subject to explore with North Korea, that is a flight test ban on missiles that fly over -- or have the capacity to fly over some given range. That would be the subject of part of the negotiations what it might be. But it would certainly include intermediate-range systems, which you know anything that flies like more than 2,500 or 3,000 kilometers. So, it would capture Musudan. It would capture this latest HS-12.

Why would that be important? Well, in order to develop a missile, you have to test it. And that's why we see North Korea testing missiles. If you don't test it, and you look back you know from a systems engineering approach, or you look at kind of historical data from other countries that have developed intermediate or long-range missiles. Over the course of the first five to 10 launches the failure rate is greater than 50 percent, with few exceptions. Sometimes it's even much greater than -- you know, much greater than 50 percent fail. And that's just the nature of creating new technologies and new capabilities. So, if they're not allowed to test, they can develop or create a system, but they'll have no confidence that it works. And to field it would -- they would necessarily have to accept great risk that this system wouldn't work. If it's a systemic failure, it's likely all of them will fail. If it's something different with each launch, you know, then they have a 50-50 chance of getting -- there's -- 50 percent of them might actually reach their destination. So, I think that's something worth pursuing.

Now, what would you ask -- or what would they ask for in return? I think something logical would be allowing space launch activities. You know perhaps even providing some technological assistance.

But this -- you would have to have certain restrictions on what they could use and couldn't use. I would say they would be limited to using either Scud type fuels, which are low performance. It would necessarily result in very large launchers or very large, cumbersome ICBMs or long-range missiles if they tried to convert it at some later time.

You would -- if they want to use solid strap-on boosters, you would have some limitations there. You could provide them, say, with cryogenic technology, which would be less suitable for a missile system which has to work rather rapidly, 24-7.

There's a range of things you could do. And in fact, there is a small effort going on in trying to establish what those requirements might be. You would also need transparency, which would provide us with better insights as to what -- how they think, what they're doing. And I believe it would be worthwhile.

Now, this approach is not without risk. There is a risk that things will be diverted. There is risk that they're going to learn from their experiences in developing satellite launchers that they could apply to missiles later on. But I think those risks are much less than what we have now where they're allowed to launch whatever they want and learn specific lessons and develop specific technologies that are destined for long-range missiles.

So, yes, I think this is something worth pursuing. It would be outside the nuclear track. So, you know, you could get -- kind of get by with you know, not addressing the nuclear topic while addressing something strategic. You would lead to some confidence building, greater insights, et cetera.

So, in my view this would be worth -- a risk worth taking. But one has to understand that it's not a risk-free venture.

DAVENPORT: The woman here at the middle table.

QUESTION: Thank you. Hi. I am Kathy Crandall Robinson with Women in International Security. Thank you very much to both panelists.

My question is about the THAAD missile defense that we're delivering and deploying in South Korea. And Suzanne mentioned the concern and tension that's created in China. But it's also faced a lot of very serious protests from the civil society, the grassroots in South Korea. And a lot of tension around cost and so forth with the new presidential regime.

And I'm just curious if there's any value in changing the policy, if that would help in any way in moving forward with diplomacy and engagement with China. And if at this point any change is even possible?

DAVENPORT: Great. Thank you, Kathy.

Maybe we'll start on that question first. Mike, if you could just tell us a little bit about what THAAD can do and what THAAD can't do. And then, Suzanne, if you want to talk about how THAAD fits into the diplomacy?

DIMAGGIO: OK. Great.

ELLEMAN: OK. First, I want to separate regional missile defenses like THAAD, Aegis, Patriot from national missile defense here in the U.S., which is the ground-based interceptors, the system that was tested successfully a couple days ago.

Regional missile defenses are primarily aimed at blocking conventionally armed missiles. It's much like air defense. You're trying to limit what your opponent can inflict upon you, using aircraft or missiles. And when you combine something like THAAD with Patriot, you create a layered defense. And this greatly improves the efficacy of your capacity to block say 50 of 50 missiles over a given period of time.

You know, with what we presume to be the performance capabilities of Patriot, which is demonstrated, and what THAAD is currently tested and demonstrated in the design criteria, you could have 90 percent confidence that you could block 50 out of 50. Maybe one gets through, maybe two get through. But that would allow you to sustain military operations at key facilities, things of that nature.

This would be a great improvement over a single layer based only on Patriot. So, that's why it's being introduced into South Korea, in my view.

Now, against nuclear weapons or nuclear armed missiles, you know, there's a possibility that something gets through. It's not an umbrella. You know, no missile defense provides you with a perfect defense. And that's -- we need to recognize that, especially when making decisions over potential actions.

And it's important to remember, you know a 50-kiloton device is going to kill hundreds of thousands if not a million people in very dense cities. Is that a risk worth taking?

So, in my view, if you're looking at a conventionally armed threat from North Korea, THAAD makes some sense in preserving, probably military capabilities and protecting some critical assets within the Republic of Korea. It is expensive, yes. I think they probably need two THAAD batteries, by the way, maybe three, to really create a layered defense across the lower peninsula. And they would have to use Aegis to protect against a submarine launch missile. It's not the answer to all their questions.

As to the threat to China, THAAD does not pose a threat to China's current nuclear forces. There's a limited set of circumstances where THAAD can -- the radar can detect and track an ICBM that's headed to the West Coast, primarily, of the U.S. from I think it's three launch sites in China.

The information that would be gained is really minimal because you already have so many other sensors positioned around the world and in space. So, I don't know why China is so concerned with the deployment of this particular system.

I think it's a political maneuver by China. What they're concerned about is what comes next. Are they going to be -- is there going to be a ring of THAAD radars and other sensors as part of a larger architecture aimed at China?

That's why I think they've been protesting so vehemently, and using some really pretty crass tactics, if you will, in you know boycotting Lotte Industries and things of that nature. For that reason, I think it's difficult for South Korea now to back away from the deal because it would appear, whether it's done that for that reason or not, it's caving to the Chinese.

You know, I'm not a South Korean and I can't say what they should do in these circumstances. I'm not sure that it would lead to a more cooperative China in terms of solving this particular problem. So, I'd be inclined to leave it. But that's just a personal view.

And I think we also have to keep in mind that China cannot solve North Korea problem. But the North Korea problem cannot be solved without China's cooperation. And I think we're getting some. But remember, China's priorities are no instability, no war, and then no nuclear weapons in North Korea. So, it's going to be a difficult task.

DIMAGGIO: Well, just briefly I would just agree. I think it would be difficult for ROK to back out of THAAD now.

But of course, President Moon is coming to Washington later this month. We'll see if President Trump continues to insist that the South Koreans pay for it. That might have an impact on their decision.

Also, I also agree that you know the Chinese have overstated the case. So, I think for now I would agree to leave it at this stage. But I think the process by which we've moved forward with it, and now with a new administration in South Korea, I think we need to do better to be communicating with them on what they want and how they see it, and working with them in cooperation.

DAVENPORT: I think there's a question way in the back.

QUESTION: Thank you. I'm Professor Wayne Glass from University of Southern California School of International Relations.

A depressing topic to some extent, but I have good news. We have a whole next generation of policy wonks on arms control sitting with us from the University of Southern California.

(APPLAUSE)

My other comment here is from my experience with respect to the issues with North Korea. Congress's cooperation or involvement in this process is critical. And as we look forward to new moves, maybe if you look at it from the glass half full, pun intended, that the current political galaxy in Washington with the Congress under control of the Republicans, and the White House.

There's an opportunity to engage Republicans in Congress, as we strategize and take steps forward. And given the divide between the Congress and the White House, that produces an interesting dynamic as well.

Am I dreaming? Or are we going to be able to get ahead of this curve and incorporate Congress as talks about strategy and tactics move forward? Or is this a lost cause? I'm asking for some optimism. Thank you.

DAVENPORT: Well, not to load the answer ahead of time, but...

DIMAGGIO: Well, unfortunately I think...

(LAUGHTER)

... you know when you look at there're so few issues where there's bipartisan agreement these days. Unfortunately, I think one of them is North Korea, getting tougher on North Korea. I think Iran would be the other. But it's certainly worth trying.

You know, I also think Congress is part of the problem when we look at this because in the case of Iran you see Congress, especially the Republican side, trying to actively undermine the JCPOA.

And of course, this would lead -- if I was a North Korean considering engaging the U.S., entering into discussions on agreement, an interim agreement and so forth, I would really question whether or not the United States is prepared to fulfill that agreement, given the issues that are being placed against the JCPOA.

So yes, of course, we should always engage Congress in these discussions. But at the same time, we also have to be cautious about them playing the role of the spoiler as well.

When you look at the recent hearings on the Hill, there was one hearing recently where I think among the dozen or more senators who spoke there was really only one that even mentioned the word "diplomatic engagement," which shocked me.

ELLEMAN: Yes. I would just add one thing, and that is -- I mean, I do agree, Congress should be involved and co-opted, if you will. I mean, you want their inputs.

But I would urge some caution. Is what I would be afraid of is especially the more hawkish people in the Congress opposing any attempt to maybe work out a nuclear freeze as a first step. You know, tie the hands of the administration and not allow them to negotiate kind of interim steps. That would be dangerous and unwelcomed in my view.

So, in terms of what Congress -- it's more about what Congress shouldn't do than what they should do. So, I'll leave it at that.

DAVENPORT: We have just a few minutes left. So, I'll take a question there from that middle table. Right in front of you. Yes.

QUESTION: Michael Klare. I'm on the board of the Arms Control Association.

I have a question for Mike. You spoke about North Korea's missile development. Could you say a few words about North Korea's nuclear weapons development?

Because part and parcel of the process is, are they able to develop a warhead that would fit on an ICBM? (OFF-MIKE) anything about the timeline for that process, how that's pursued?

ELLEMAN: Well, the honest answer is no, I don't. You know the nuclear program is much more opaque than the missile program.

I mean, because you have to test missiles you can track them and you can get a sense of what their performance parameters are quite easily. Even the photographs that they provide and video can -- it offers many insights into what they're doing.

My presumption right now is that they can probably fashion a nuclear warhead that can be fitted upon the Nodong missile, you know, the larger diameter systems. Nodong has a diameter of 1.25 meters.

It's unclear if that would also apply to the Scud, which has a smaller diameter of 0.88 meters. But I think it's a safe assumption that they can shrink it.

I think the larger question is would it be rugged enough to withstand the reentry environment, and that is you know it has to be rugged. And you know there will be a lot of vibrations associated with launch and reentry.

What they haven't clearly done is develop the reentry technologies for a long-range missile. And I'm speaking specifically of an ICBM. But I think -- I don't think that's the long pole in the tent for an ICBM capability. I think that would be developed in parallel. But it would have to be tested to prove it right.

So, I think that's about as far as I can go because we just don't have the knowledge. And it's the reason -- suggestion that the IAEA should -- we should negotiate their reentry into the country would be so important because you learn so much just talking to people on the ground.

DAVENPORT: I agree with Mike that they certainly are likely to be able to fit a warhead on some of these missile systems.

But I think it's also important to note that the satellite imagery demonstrates that they're still operating their reactor at Yongbyon. That there is activity at the reprocessing facility. So, it's very likely that North Korea is continuing to produce fissile material that also expands the size of its particular arsenal.

So, just very quickly at the end, I wonder if each of you could just say a few words on what you might like to see come out of the U.S.-ROK Summit that's set to happen later in June. What do you think would be a positive outcome?

DIMAGGIO: I think some clarity on what their approaches are. I think obviously in order to move forward with the diplomatic approach they have to be on the same page.

As I said, we've heard some mixed messages from our administration and President Moon's administration is fairly new. So, I think you know, a joint statement that maybe spells out what they're willing to do. Not just on the pressure side, but on the engagement side as well, would be quite important at this time.

DAVENPORT: Mike, anything you'd like to see?

ELLEMAN: What I'd most like to see is very coherent collaboration and agreement between the U.S., the ROK and our Japanese allies in the region that whatever we decide as a policy is -- everyone concurs. And everyone understands the full risks because this notion that we can apply more and more pressure, and this talk about you know, left of launch solutions for missiles, destroying them on the launchpad is -- if they're not -- our allies are not completely on board, that could result in some real surprises or disastrous results.

So, I just want to -- I want to hear them make an offer, a very coherent strategy that everyone agrees upon.

DAVENPORT: Well, I guess we will see in a few weeks what happens.

After you join me in thanking our speakers, if you could all just stay seated for a few quick announcements from Daryl about lunch and moving forward.

So, thank you both so much for being here.

(APPLAUSE)

KIMBALL: Thank you, Kelsey, Suzanne and Mike. That was a great discussion. Very helpful.

We are now ready for lunch. We're going to take a 30-minute break. And then we're going to resume as promptly as possible at 12:15.

There are two food lines. So, please jump up, get in line, bring your food back to your table, and enjoy your break. Thank you.

END