couple weeks ago, they were fairly inchoate, and then i read a couple days ago an article by george perkovich about the draft convention that prohibits nuclear weapons. if you have 15 minutes, it is probably better spent reading george's article on the subject than listening to me. but you already seated and i'm already seated so we will go right ahead. [laughing] >> 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 mert discourse. it merits even pressure upon the nuclear weapons state to move faster, to realize the commitments that they've made in article six. white 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 trea

here again, george perkovich has some good ideas. i would add that 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 weapons 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 re

your again, george perkovich has some good ideas.i would add that the nuclear weapons, the non-nuclear weapons states 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 weapons 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 would 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 diplomat 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 ju