http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/world/europe/18clinton.html?ref=us
Clinton to Meet With Russian Leaders on Arms Control Talks
by Mark Landler
Russia and the U.S. are still struggling to agree on the final details of a long-awaited arms control pact. With hopes to reach an agreement by the end of March, Hillary Clinton has gone to Moscow in an attempt to finally tie up all the loose ends. This agreement would significantly reduce the nuclear arsenal of both Russia and the United States.
“Every time you think you’re done, new issues pop up in Geneva, and what seemed like trivia become major political issues.” The last treaty of this magnitude (The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991) dragged itself out for nine years.
I thought this article was an excellent example of the sheer complexity of all the red tape and political rigmarole that surrounds international treaties and negotiations. Russia continues adding additional conditions to the treaty before it will agree to sign, and the United States must attempt to predict its motives behind each change. As Realists would contend we will always see this constant power struggle between world powers (though most would argue Russia is now better classified as a former world power). The best way for a nation to insure survival is to constantly be building up its arsenal (and in a modern world, this includes nukes).
Arguably, two nations who back down together to form an alliance are strengthened as one powerful unit. Is it possible that because Russia and the United States are both influential states that they could serve as an example for the rest of the world? These two seem to be a perfect but difficult liason for change. Though they are both ammending the resolution like crazy, if they could come to a consensus they might motivate supporters of both nations (usually opposites) to form a general consensus against nuclear weaponry.
ReplyDelete