The United Nations claims that a key Security Council resolution adopted unanimously back in 2004 has been instrumental in keeping weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) from the hands of terrorists and insurgent groups worldwide.
The upcoming event at the United Nations is being billed as something politically unique.
If Syria eventually agrees to relinquish its stockpile of chemical arms under the 1993 international Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), what of the six other countries that have either shown reluctance or refused to join the treaty?
When Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was South Korea's foreign minister during 2004-2006, his answers to reporters were so predictably evasive the press corps in Seoul affectionately dubbed him "the slippery eel".
Now that we have heard Secretary of State John Kerry's emotional plea for us to believe the still rather ambiguous intelligence on chemical weapons use in Syria, there are far more substantive answers to be sought from the Obama administration.
When the United States invaded Iraq back in March 2003, one of its primary objectives was to track down and destroy weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) reportedly stockpiled by the regime of President Saddam Hussein.
The world's nuclear environment has increasingly turned politically toxic, replete with threats, accusations and open defiance of Security Council resolutions.
Twenty-five years ago, on Dec. 8, presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. This historic agreement eliminated a modern class of land-based “theatre” weapons - the SS20s, cruise and Pershing missiles - that had been brought into Europe in the early 1980s.
Despite a rash of new U.S. charges accusing Iraq of hiding its weapons of mass destruction, the 15-member U.N. Security Council remained divided Wednesday over the need for a military attack on Baghdad.