i am a neighbor -- a member of the global zero commission. we held our first meeting here in washington, d.c., today. global 0 is an international movement focused on nuclear arms control that is specifically dedicated to the total elimination of nuclear weapons worldwide. it is an idea that has gained significant traction from the time early this year when we held a large meeting in paris, international meeting in paris, to begin the process of outlining a realistic plan to get to zero. as you all know, president obama endorsed strongly the idea of global 0 and the total

elimination of nuclear weapons in a meeting in london in april. they jointly enunciated this goal. since that time, president obama has fleshed out his vision, and prime minister putin has endorsed this goal. president obama and president medvedev will be meeting soon in moscow. our group's is focusing on reducing nuclear arms. what makes us somewhat different is we're not only focused on the near term, the negotiation which are now under way between the united states and russia on further strategic arms reduction, but we are in the process of putting together what

we call an end to end plan of how actually to get to zero. that means not only another phase of u.s.-russia reductions, but a multilateral reduction, which would include all nuclear powers to reduce and then go down to zero. i will be spelling them out in a few minutes. in work we did yesterday and today, the people i will surely introduce focused on the specifics of what a realistic, practical, hard-nosed plan to get to zero would look like. i want to take this opportunity to thank my fellow members of the commission for the work they have done. it is a work in progress. we have not solved all of the problems. we continue to believe this is a

realistic goal that can be achieved over the next two decades. let me take this opportunity quickly to introduce the members of the commission who participated in the meetings this week. i am not going to give you their fault backgrounds. we can provide you that. in the interest of time, beginning on my right is ambassador thomas pickering from the united states. ambassador woo. he is from china. i'm sorry. no, no. i know your name. i got the order on the list from. on my immediate right is from

the russian federation. this is ambassador from india. another ambassador, from pakistan. and the ambassador from japan. now, behind me, we have a general from the russian federation. tony lake from the united states. next a gas from the united kingdom. -- next a guest from the union

-- from the united kingdom. our next guest from the people's republic of china. i think that completes our list. we do have someone on the phone with us, from moscow. he is the chairman of the management board of the institute of contemporary development and enjoys close ties with the presidential administration in russia. i will give you briefly the main results of our deliberations to date. i would just make one introductory. . i think there is a general consensus amongst the commission that whatever impact , positive impact nuclear weapons may have had in terms of enforcing deterrence and

stability during the cold war, at any residual benefits of these weapons have been more than overshadowed in recent years by the growing risks of nuclear proliferation and the related risk of nuclear terrorism. that is why you can see a group like ours which is really representative of a group of over 150 former ambassadors, military leaders, government ministers who have joined this effort. the recognize the risks associated with nuclear spread out way any stabilizing a fact of nuclear weapons in today's world. with that in mind, i would like to show you a charge which, in

the presentation we have given you, i think it will be shown on the screen behind you, is page four. very briefly, what it does is lay out four faces which would take roughly 20 years -- four phases which would take roughly 20 years which would take stockpiles of nuclear weapons down to zero. if you follow me, on page five, we have the first phase in which the united states and russia would reduce its total stockpile of nuclear weapons down to 1000 nuclear warheads each. it would not be done in the current phase of negotiation. that phase is designed to be done by the end of the year.

that will reduce existing deployed warheads down to lower levels. we are talking about a follow on negotiation where the nine states and russia, because they possessed 95% -- were the united states and russia would take the lead in a second negotiant that would go down to 1000 weapons overall. we can move now to a second aspect which is outlined six. at the same time that the u.s. and russian sides are negotiating down to 1000 weapons, there would be preparations made for bringing in the other nuclear powers. that would consist of diplomatic efforts to purge those existing nuclear powers to show restraint -- to purge those

existing nuclear powers to show restraint and to ask for more transparency. it would ask them to provide more information on their nuclear weapons forces. it would create an inventory of warheads and create a process of creating a platform for a grand new -- for a brand new negotiation which is discussed on page 7. this would take place between 2014 and 2018. we would have a multi naps -- a multi national negotiating. other nuclear weapons states would also be at the table. in that framework, we would seek an agreement that would -- in which the united states and russia would continue their own reduction efforts down to 500

weapons, as long as the other nuclear states agreed first to freeze their stockpiles so there would be no longer a buildup on other states. that freeze would then be followed by proportional reductions in their nuclear arsenals which will be completed by 200021. that would be the one aspect of the second phase. the other aspect of the second phase would be to strengthen the existing regime for nuclear fuel cycle safeguards. you can see the steps we proposed on page 8. i think they speak for themselves. we need to create an international system for supervision and management of nuclear fuel cycle issues, especially focused on in

richmond and reprocessing facilities. -- focused on enrichment and reprocessing facilities. that will take this to our third phase where we would then, beginning in 2019, begin the process of actually trying to go to zero. we would propose doing this in two steps. we would like to achieve an agreement in which, by 2025, all nuclear countries would reduce their arsenals by their then existing arsenals by 50%, which would bring u.s. and russian warheads down to 250 warheads apiece. other nuclear powers would have lower levels. having achieved a 50% reduction, we would then work to achieve

zero deployment of nuclear weapons by 2030. it would not be enough simply by the nuclear powers to reach this agreement. all nuclear-capable countries, those countries that have the nuclear know-how and where were fall to develop nuclear weapons, would also be asked to ratify a global zero treaty. having achieved that, i know very rigorous and comprehensive verifications' and enforcement system would go into effect. the princess to the last phase on page 10. we would get down to zero by 2030. this enforcement system would go into effect.

we have tried to do here it is not out line the only plan for getting to zero. we have tried to come up with a reasonable, pragmatic, and we think is a credible pathway to getting to zero. other experts, groups, and there are other groups out there, may have alternatives. we are not saying we are the only alternative worth examining. but we do think that this is -- we are off on the right foot. this is a realistic plan. the commission will meet again, probably in moscow in the fall, to flesh out this plan. we will consult with governments in the interim. we hope we can in that way assist those governments in outlining their own plans. at the same time, we will also

try to engage public's around the world to generate greater support for the visions that president obama and president medvedev and members of this commission have embraced of getting to zero. what that would really like to do now, because we only have him briefly on the phone, is turned, if we are technically capable of doing that, to our guest who i believe is on the telephone in moscow. i believe he has a few words to make. igor, are you there? >> yes. thank you very much. can you hear me ok? >> we can hear you well. >> ladies and gentleman, i am

excited to speak from moscow, which is preparing for the visits from president obama. we -- richard gave a comprehensive picture. he was pragmatic. this is very needed. without practical steps, it will take longer than 20 years. of course, mankind stockpiles invented this and sophisticated those weapons sophisticated 60 years. this is a gigantic task. we hope the visit of president obama will be a huge step in the right direction.

the prime minister, mr. putin, are most influential men in the nation confirms that local zero is the target for mankind and the russian federation. and we hope that it will be in achieved in terms of negotiations with the visit of president obama. there have been great secrets on warheads. negotiations will be a step in the right direction. we wish them well. we will work in this direction. we are very thankful for the joint efforts. thank you very much, ladies and gentleman. " thank you very much for joining us, igor, and we look forward to seeing you at our

next meeting in moscow. take care. >> thank you. >> before i opened the floor to questions, we have a little audio-visual presentation to make for you. so to do that, be very brief, i would like to call on one guest of the global zero organization. >> ok. hello. i do not want to take too much of your time. as we have heard, there is a growing group of leaders that believe that zero is the only sustainable answer. sorry. did not start it? zero is the only sustainable answer. it is also -- there are also a growing number of citizens that are feeling compelled to act on

this issue, especially the younger generation. this generation feels empowered by the internet and the possibilities to communicate with each other. the more people learned about this issue, the more passionate they become about the. one of the first things we have done is develop an interactive map learning tool that allows people to tell their friends and family about the issue and teach them about it. i wish i had more time. why don't we watch the maps? i encourage you to go to our web site to seek other ways for people to get involved. if you can play that, it will be great.

>> all right. that is too underscore we're not just focused on high policy, if you will. we're also in gauge been out reach not only here in the united states but worldwide. i will open the floor for questions. i will try to beat a traffic cop. i will try to steer the questions to the appropriate person on our commission for an answer. >> if you could state your name. thank you so much. >> soap. yes. are you a journalist? >> i am from a german newspaper.

what do you say to the most primitive and may be strongest argument of the opponent of global zero which says you could destroy all the weapons but rebuild them. but there are plenty of examples where there is knowledge to do things where the international community has taken a strong position and created verifiable arms control regimes covering them. biological weapons, chemical weapons. there are, i think you never read the world of the knowledge. with a system of adequate verification of an inspection regime which would be very interested and in an

international enforcement mechanism, you will not be able to remove knowledge. we believe and are working on this as a high priority between now and our next meeting, to be able to elaborate both a verification and an enforcement mechanism that would be capable of not only detecting any cheating but dealing with it. yes. >> i am diane. i am with "huffington post." >> you have. business cards. >> i have more than that. they do not pay me. this is in response to the other

question. as a complementary and support process, and what is known as second order change, this is wonderful work. i appreciate the publicity and the imagery that you are doing. people asked about the enemies. there are fields of conflict analysis. there are other processes we could do also and not have to resort to think to resort to war. we can come up with nonviolent strategy is to work on the underlying issues and conflicts. they have signed on to this with steve colbert and he had this on his show.

people are more flexible and thinking about the other. just to support and make it easier. >> thank you for that. on the technical issues, we received a briefing yesterday from bruce blair, one of the coordinators of the global zero to prize. he made the interesting. -- he may be interesting point that there is not a case in history since the development of nuclear weapons in the mid 1940's where people were actually taken by surprise by the development of a country of its own nuclear weapon. there are a variety of activities associated with

developing and deploying nuclear weapons. in every case, whether it was after the united states or the soviet union or china, governments and intelligence systems were able to provide clear indications that those developments were under way. there is also -- there's always uncertainty about specific things, like whether someone will test or not or when they will weapon is and build nuclear weapons and how they will deploy them. it is pretty hard to hide the fact that you are developing and deploying a nuclear capability. yes. that is you. you.

>> think you very much. i am a staff writer of a japanese newspaper. thank you for giving us this opportunity. i have one question of -- you mentioned your approach is realistic and practical. is it possible to explain a little bit more which is realistic and which part is practical? thank you very much. >> i will turn the floor over in a moment to a guest from our commission. one thing that tells me that it is realistic is on the last page, if you look at this chart, you see one interesting reality

is, is people may not be focused or be knowledgeable of the. we have been engaged in a fairly substantial nuclear build down or reduction for several years. and in part, this is because of agreements that were reached. i worked on the start treaty that was negotiated in the early 1990's. it reduced u.s. and russian deployed weapons. since that time, there have been other u.s.-russian agreements that have led to fewer reductions. it is not just agreements that have done this. both for budgetary and technical reasons, the united states and russia have built down their forces. so this is a pre-existing trend,

if i can put it in those terms. i think that the discussions we have had on this commission represent most nuclear weapons states have at least convinced me that there is a growing constituency not only in governments but in the public for further nuclear reductions. i think because there is a growing recognition that nuclear weapons, particularly in an era when they are easier to obtain, when the know how exists, and when there are groups, some state groups, terrorists and others that could obtain them, makes the rest nuclear proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons much greater. i think that is an example of