,
22 tweets,
8 min read
Read on Twitter
First off, CEND= “Creating the Environment for Nuclear Disarmament”, an initiative outlined by Chris Ford at NPT PrepCom in April. Three main themes are: reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, strengthening institutions, and risk reduction. 2/
This meeting was the first step in a bigger initiative. So basically, don’t expect any silver bullets or immediate solutions to come out of the meeting. Rather, it was about gauging interest, starting an open conversation, and exploring an agenda for future work. 3/
CEND is not meant to challenge the NPT or CD, but rather to complement them and offer another forum that focuses more on creative thinking, less formality, and without “set pieces”. It is loosely modelled on IPNDV with some differences. 4/
Participants were from 38 states including nuclear possessors, members of the TPNW, NATO, and all regions. Random observation, there was great age diversity w/ participants in their mid-20s and gender diversity was better than most nuclear events (I’d estimate around 60-40). 5/
The goal was to discuss why the environment does not currently exist for further progress towards nuclear disarmament and we used informal (and lively) discussions to identify a way forward to address underlying issues. The vibe was the opposite of the CD. 6/
It was evident at the working group this has widespread support in the USG and is not just one individual. It has high-level support. With that said, going forward this is not meant to be US-led, but rather participants can direct and shape the initiative as they choose. 7/
The USG was pretty hands-off in shaping the agenda and format. I know this has caused some confusion but it was to allow others to shape the discussions and outcome. As a facilitator, at no point did they nudge me in any direction or censor me (always appreciated) 8/
At the end of the WG, there were clear areas of consensus where states want to continue discussing these issues and agreement this can contribute to the NPT review process. It showed states’ interest in bridge-building, transparency, and dialogue. 9/
As an NGO, I’m hopeful more NGOs will be involved in future meetings. Again, this was a first step. But very grateful to have been involved, and this builds on ongoing work at KCL @jamiekwong @amelia_morgan_ and w partners @theELN @ShataShetty @meier_oliver
When CEWG was launched at PrepCom, one ambassador commented, “When a nuclear weapon state wants to engage a diverse group of states in dialogue and transparency, we have to take them up on it.” This is a unique opportunity for bridge-building, so let’s see where it goes. 11/
Tagging in other potentially interested parties @UN_Disarmament @nuclearban @UnderSecT @USAmbCD @SicovanderMeer @PerkovichG @KCL_CSSS @DefenceResearch @KCLSecurity
I stand corrected: 40 countries as announced by @StateISN on 2 July
CEND is not meant to challenge the NPT or CD, but rather to complement them and offer another forum that focuses more on creative thinking, less formality, and without “set pieces”. It is loosely modelled on IPNDV with some differences. 4/
Participants were from 38 states including nuclear possessors, members of the TPNW, NATO, and all regions. Random observation, there was great age diversity w/ participants in their mid-20s and gender diversity was better than most nuclear events (I’d estimate around 60-40). 5/
The goal was to discuss why the environment does not currently exist for further progress towards nuclear disarmament and we used informal (and lively) discussions to identify a way forward to address underlying issues. The vibe was the opposite of the CD. 6/
It was evident at the working group this has widespread support in the USG and is not just one individual. It has high-level support. With that said, going forward this is not meant to be US-led, but rather participants can direct and shape the initiative as they choose. 7/
The USG was pretty hands-off in shaping the agenda and format. I know this has caused some confusion but it was to allow others to shape the discussions and outcome. As a facilitator, at no point did they nudge me in any direction or censor me (always appreciated) 8/
At the end of the WG, there were clear areas of consensus where states want to continue discussing these issues and agreement this can contribute to the NPT review process. It showed states’ interest in bridge-building, transparency, and dialogue. 9/
As an NGO, I’m hopeful more NGOs will be involved in future meetings. Again, this was a first step. But very grateful to have been involved, and this builds on ongoing work at KCL @jamiekwong @amelia_morgan_ and w partners @theELN @ShataShetty @meier_oliver 10/
When CEWG was launched at PrepCom, one ambassador commented, “When a nuclear weapon state wants to engage a diverse group of states in dialogue and transparency, we have to take them up on it.” This is a unique opportunity for bridge-building, so let’s see where it goes. 11/
I misspoke: it is "Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament." Apologies...
