In the Issue

• WMD Security, Arms, Drugs, and Criminal Gangs in Central America.
• Does Peacebuilding Work?
• From Toronto to Seoul: The G-20 Evolves.
• Is START a Nonstarter?

Features

WMD Security, Arms, Drugs, and Criminal Gangs in Central America. Few regions of the world better illustrate the intersection between human development and security than does Central America. A region of inherent economic and social promise, its fortunes have been frustrated by an array of overwhelming security challenges related to small arms, drugs, and criminal gangs. A new report from the Stanley Foundation and the Stimson Center illustrates how implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 provides a holistic approach to curbing security challenges while simultaneously addressing the global concern of the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

Does Peacebuilding Work? Five years ago, the United Nations embarked upon a new experiment in shaping peace. The UN Peacebuilding Commission’s goal is to support weak post-conflict countries as they transition into more stable societies. But what does its work look like, five years later? Last month, a long-awaited review of the body was released. As the commission’s work is evaluated, freelance journalist Jina Moore is on the ground in Africa reporting on the places and the people who are supposed to benefit from peacebuilding. From Guinea Bissau, Burundi, Sierra Leone, and Central African Republic, Moore is preparing a series of reports as part of a reporting project made possible through collaboration between the Stanley Foundation and the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. Read more about the commission and Moore’s reporting.

Beyond the Headlines

From Toronto to Seoul: The G-20 Evolves. Global governance marked an important milestone this summer with the meetings of the G-8 and G-20 heads of state in Canada. The G-8 leaders have met annually since the 1970s, but the G-20 was only a gathering of finance ministers from 20 large economies until the global financial crisis pushed it into the spotlight. The G-20 heads of state met on a temporary, emergency basis in Washington, DC (November 2008), London (March 2009), and Pittsburgh (September 2009) before deciding to make the G-20 a permanent global leadership forum for dealing with economic and financial issues. The gathering in Toronto marked the first of these more regular G-20 meetings. This June's summit was preceded by a meeting of the G-8 (often described as the Western, industrialized nations), which pledged increased support for maternal health but failed to renew funding for an important global partnership on curbing weapons of mass destruction. Some questioned whether the G-8 still has a meaningful role in international relations given that the G-20 is far more representative of today's global power realities. While the G-20 is more diverse than the G-8 (which in theory could inhibit its decision-making abilities), some experts noted alignments of interest within the G-20. Still, the meeting in Toronto failed to find the same sense of urgency and common purpose that marked the G20's 2008 and 2009 gatherings. And the lack of blockbuster news from the summit meant headlines were mostly consumed by the massive police presence and protests that rocked Toronto. As Seoul, South Korea, prepares to host the G-20 in November, the organization continues to evolve both in its relationship with other international organizations (like the United Nations) and in its agenda, which will include international development assistance for the first time. Follow the best G-8/G-20 articles and resources here.

Is START a Nonstarter? The Senate has been deliberating not only whether to ratify the New START bilateral agreement with Russia but also when to hold its vote on ratification of the first nuclear arms reductions treaty to be negotiated in nearly two decades. The Obama administration sent the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent in May, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee weighed its merits in a total of 12 open and closed-session hearings. While Committee Chair Senator John Kerry described the broad array of support expressed by witnesses in the hearings (via Politico), sharp criticism was raised by presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a Washington Post op-ed, though Romney’s arguments themselves received a strong rebuke from longtime analyst Fred Kaplan. A number of key Republican senators are reportedly inclined to support ratification of New START, with the key vote of Senator John Kyl apparently hinging on talks with the Obama administration over funding of the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons laboratories. As to the timing of the Senate vote, the ranking Republican on Foreign Relations Senator Richard Lugar has said it is vital for the vote to happen in September––particularly since the December 2009 expiration of the previous treaty with Russia leaves the two sides’ arsenals without a binding framework, or associated verification measures.