This article discusses Clinton's visit to Moscow. During a news conference, a difference in strategy regarding Iran was brought up. Clinton stated that “We think it would be premature to go forward with any project at this time, because we want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians.” In response, Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the Russians planned on finishing a nuclear power plant in Iran.
This disagreement highlights two different theories: liberal and realist. Clinton is taking a liberal approach to the Iranian problem. She wants all the states to act together to put pressure on Iran. She wants the world to send the Iranians the message that they will not tolerate an increasingly nuclear Iran. Lavrov's strategy is more realist. Not only has the power plant already been started, but in completing it, Russia would make a huge profit. In addition, by continuing to reach out to Iran, Russia could potentially have a large market in other services, such as weapons. Larvov does not want to join Clinton's strategy because he is protecting his country's own interests.
Lavrov has stated that Russia would continue to support sanctions against Iran, but that Iran has the right to nuclear energy (the US acknowledges this as well.) In supporting the sanctions, Russia is in some ways supporting the liberal approach. However, does its completion of the nuclear plant undermine the goals of the sanctions? Or could liberal and realist theories work together in this case?
No comments:
Post a Comment