http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/13/obama.hu.nuclear.meeting/index.html
This week, national leaders are meeting in Washington to discuss the issue of the security, in specific regards to nuclear weapons. There has been much talk about the issue of enriched uranium, and what to do with this uranium so that it is not used for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons. A few countries, including Ukraine and Mexico, have taken bold steps to decrease the amount of enriched uranium in their country, and to convert this enriched and dangerous uranium to a low-enriched form that cannot be used for nuclear weapons. Most of this uranium is being transferred to plants in the US and Russia, to be converted.
These agreements and actions signify advancements in diplomacy, joint policy, and the use of transnational organizations to oversee efforts. It seems as though liberalism and constructivism best apply in this situation, for talks seem to be between international actors such as heads of state, and transnational organizations. However, a realist may be quite suspicious of the actors in this situation. Realism argues that every state is out for itself, and that defaulting in agreements may be the most beneficial in certain situations. In this situation, if a country defaults on lowering the amount of enriched uranium, while the other countries proceed to decrease their amounts, they are now at an advantage over other countries in agreement because of their higher nuclear capability.
Another interesting point is that most of the uranium will be converted in Russia and the US, two historically powerful nations in nuclear terms. While it makes sense that they would have the technology necessary to convert the Uranium, because of their advanced nuclear programs, it is a bit unnerving that so much dangerous material will be in the hands of the two historically rival countries when it comes to nuclear power.
Nonetheless, this sort of diplomacy and compromise is very impressive in todays political environment. Now we will have to wait to find out if, when nuclear weapons are taken out of the equation, the relationship between countries becomes more peaceful, or whether it becomes more aggressive with less threats of mutually assured destruction.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that this may be interpreted through both realist and liberalist perspectives. This is an example of game theory where the different actors are unaware of what the others real intentions are, and may be harmed if they cooperate while the other defects. However, the article mentions that the countries which have taken the incentive in reducing their nuclear arsenal are the Ukraine and Mexico, two countries that in my opinion do not need a developed nuclear arsenal to ensure their survival.
ReplyDeleteThis however may not be explained by realism, but does fall under liberalist theory. This is because according to liberalism multi-lateral organizations play a role in the international community, in this respect there are transnational organizations which are overseeing the negotiation process between the different states. Thus, an important party in this case is the organization as it may influence the way particular actors behave.
Realism could be used to explain this theory if you take into account the dangers present from politically unstable nations. It is in the best interest of countries like the US and Russia who have superior non nuclear forces to reduce the amount of Nukes in the world because a Nuke posses significantly greater danger to them than to the smaller insecure nations. However, realism would also have to acknowledge the multi-lateral organizations as well and i doubt most realists would be willing to go that far.
ReplyDeleteI agree that both liberal and realist policies can be used to explain this situation; however, I think it's really liberalism that explains it the best. In fact, this would be a prime example of arguing that an end to Cold War-like realist policies has come and the rise of a new age of liberal relations is upon us. Countries actually shipping uranium out of their country to be made less dangerous would have been unheard of forty years ago!
ReplyDelete