Example collocations logo

Disarmament in sentence

291 examples of Disarmament in a sentence

Disarmament is back on the global agenda – and not a moment too soon.
Earlier this year, the 65-member Conference on Disarmament—the forum that produces multilateral disarmament treaties—broke a deadlock and agreed to negotiations on a fissile material treaty.
Other issues it will discuss include nuclear disarmament and security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon states.
In addition, Australia and Japan have launched a major international commission on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament.
My own multimedia “WMD—WeMustDisarm!” campaign, which will culminate on the International Day of Peace (21 September), will reinforce growing calls for disarmament by former statesmen and grassroots campaigns, such as “Global Zero.”
These calls will get a further boost in September when civil society groups gather in Mexico City for a UN-sponsored conference on disarmament and development.
Though the UN has been working on disarmament since 1946, two treaties negotiated under UN auspices are now commanding the world’s attention.
Next May, the UN will also host a major five-year review conference involving the parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which will examine the state of the treaty’s “grand bargain” of disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
My own five-point plan to achieve this goal begins with a call for the NPT Parties to pursue negotiations in good faith—as required by the treaty—on nuclear disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification.
Disarmament must be reliably verified.
Second, I urged the Security Council to consider other ways to strengthen security in the disarmament process, and to assure non-nuclear-weapon states against nuclear weapons threats.
I proposed to the Council that it convene a summit on nuclear disarmament, and I urged non-NPT states to freeze their own weapon capabilities and make their own disarmament commitments.
Disarmament must enhance security.
Disarmament must be rooted in legal obligations.
Countries with nuclear weapons should publish more information about what they are doing to fulfill their disarmament commitments.
Disarmament must be visible to the public.
Disarmament must anticipate emerging dangers from other weapons.
Of course, strategic stability, trust among nations, and the settlement of regional conflicts would all help to advance the process of disarmament.
Yet disarmament has its own contributions to make in serving these goals and should not be postponed.
Reaching an agreement with the FARC to end the conflict – which implies the group’s disarmament and demobilization – would allow Colombia’s star to shine more brightly than ever.
Putin’s gains there – arranging for chemical disarmament by June of this year, or orchestrating the Geneva talks on ending the civil war – have no beneficial endgame for Russia.
Other countries argue that it is about disarmament, and that the nuclear countries have clearly agreed to work towards giving up their nuclear weapons.
The obligation under Article 6 to reduce arsenals cannot be interpreted to require prompt disarmament unless that would enhance stability.
Whether it is the Chinese for the global economy, or Russia for nuclear disarmament, the United States will now work with whomever can help it get the results it wants – thus ensuring that it remains the “indispensable nation.”
In general, Obama has pursued a policy of nuclear balance in which steps towards disarmament are accompanied by measures to retain America’s nuclear primacy.
The administration’s policies strive to address the aspirations of global disarmament advocates in several ways.
The administration describes these lower ceilings, and its pursuit of other arms control measures, as meeting America’s non-proliferation and disarmament obligations under the NPT.
In fact, all are squandering billions of dollars on modernization of their nuclear forces, making a mockery of United Nations disarmament pledges.
But it must not take another Hiroshima or Nagasaki – or an even greater disaster – before they finally wake up and recognize the urgent necessity of nuclear disarmament.
In doing so, they are passing up an historic opportunity to take the lead on nuclear disarmament.
BackNext