"Non-binding agreements, such as the Nuclear Summit's communiqué ... have the benefit of being developed and implemented quickly. Countries can more easily reach agreement, in the knowledge that an inability to comply will not result in harsh sanction. Yet, these agreements are not toothless, as opponents would claim. By publicly committing to adhere to the communiqué's principles, countries signal their intentions, and can damage their reputation if they fail to deliver. Many countries made national commitments in addition to the communiqué, to which they can be held accountable. For example, Ukraine committed to removing all highly enriched uranium from its territory by the next Summit in 2012. Ukraine's progress can be monitored and pressure brought to bear if its commitment is not met."

Australia and other countries should redouble their efforts to fix serious gaps in an international arrangement to stop maritime shipments of materials destined for weapons of mass destruction programs, according to the Brief. It argues that heightened concerns over North Korea provide an opportunity to bolster the Proliferation Security Initiative, a 95-country arrangement to promote interception of transfers of cargoes related to weapons of mass destruction.

"Resisting the temptation to renounce all things Bush, President-elect Barack Obama has astutely thrown himself behind the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a Bush administration effort to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, he should be wary in what manner he proposes to institutionalize it, lest it lose the very attributes that make it successful...."