4 ms·

> The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not

by davmre 11y ago

> The USA and a few other countries have not yet signed or ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. If your goal is zero nuclear weapons there is not much harm doing so. Zero nuclear weapons is Obama's goal; it's unfortunately not the formal policy of the US government. Treaty ratifications require Senate approval, which will not be forthcoming anytime soon. Yes, that's a valid criticism of the US political system. > If you want something you offer something in return, you don't take the other party as a hostage. What Iran is being offered in return is access to international markets. We -- in the broad sense of all six parties including Russia and China -- are offering to sell them new technology and equipment, invest in their businesses, buy their oil and other products, etc. That kind of commercial relationship is not something that any nation is obligated to offer to another (barring free trade agreements). Iran could keep bumbling along by itself, trading with whatever states are willing. But the incentive of commerce with major, wealthy powers seems to be a strong one.

danbruc 11y ago
You are of course right when you say that no country is obliged to trade with other countries but I would still argue that trading with other countries is the normal status. Then putting an embargo on a country and only lifting it under conditions you dictate is a form of punishment to achieve your goals. The nice way to achieve your goals is to offer something in addition to the normal status. Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you. Or an even better analogy, I deny you access to gas stations - I own all of them - making the car useless for you. Here too I have no obligation to sell you gas but the normal status is that I sell it to everyone asking for some.
- davmre 11y ago
  > Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you. I'd argue a more apt comparison would be saying "I'll buy your car, but only if you stop waving that gun around". In any case, the point of foreign policy isn't to be nice or fair; it's to create norms and incentives that lead to a stable and peaceful world. If the international community pays off Iran, above and beyond normalized participation in international commerce, to dismantle its nuclear program, then the incentive is clear for other nations to start such programs in hope of a payoff. Regardless of the fairness arguments (which cut both ways - it's not really "fair" to peaceful nations if Iran gets rewarded and they don't), that is a precedent you don't want to set.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    If the international community pays off Iran, above and beyond normalized participation in international commerce, to dismantle its nuclear program, then the incentive is clear for other nations to start such programs in hope of a payoff. You want something from them, waiver of nuclear weapons to which they have the same right as any existing nuclear power, why would you expect to get this for free? And nuclear programs are expensive, I don't think starting one only because of possible compensations when you stop it would be a worthwhile move. But let me turn the thing around. Would you say it would be good foreign policy if the rest of the would put an embargo on the USA until the USA dismantles all its nuclear weapons and facilities? If the rest of the world would start sabotaging those weapons and facilities? Ignoring for the argument that the USA is as power
    - davmre 11y ago
      > waiver of nuclear weapons to which they have the same right as any existing nuclear power No one has a "right" to nuclear weapons. You can search the Magna Carta, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the United Nations Charter, etc. No international agreement recognizes any such right. In fact the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is a party to, does exactly the opposite. > Would you say it would be good foreign policy if the rest of the would put an embargo on the USA until the USA dismantles all its nuclear weapons and facilities? If the rest of the world would start sabotaging those weapons and facilities? Anything that forces the current nuclear powers to give up their weapons would be excellent. In the current balance of power, that's unlikely to occur outside of mutual disarmament agreements. I will point out that it's not like the rest of the world is refraining from sanctioning the US out of some sense of higher morality. International relations is power politics for everyone. Aside from the pure power differential and the economic consequences of refusing US trade, many countries (not all, obviously) benefit from the security of the American military umbrella. Many countries (e.g. much of the EU) refrain from developing their own nuclear programs precisely because of American security guarantees. Those guarantees would still exist in a post-nuclear world, but only if everyone disarms at the same time, which is, again, hard to coordinate.
      - 11y ago

by davmre 11y ago

danbruc 11y ago

You are of course right when you say that no country is obliged to trade with other countries but I would still argue that trading with other countries is the normal status. Then putting an embargo on a country and only lifting it under conditions you dictate is a form of punishment to achieve your goals. The nice way to achieve your goals is to offer something in addition to the normal status. Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you. Or an even better analogy, I deny you access to gas stations - I own all of them - making the car useless for you. Here too I have no obligation to sell you gas but the normal status is that I sell it to everyone asking for some.

davmre 11y ago
> Essentially I see it as the same difference as between giving you money to buy your car and forcing you to hand me the key by pointing a gun at you. I'd argue a more apt comparison would be saying "I'll buy your car, but only if you stop waving that gun around". In any case, the point of foreign policy isn't to be nice or fair; it's to create norms and incentives that lead to a stable and peaceful world. If the international community pays off Iran, above and beyond normalized participation in international commerce, to dismantle its nuclear program, then the incentive is clear for other nations to start such programs in hope of a payoff. Regardless of the fairness arguments (which cut both ways - it's not really "fair" to peaceful nations if Iran gets rewarded and they don't), that is a precedent you don't want to set.
- danbruc 11y ago
  If the international community pays off Iran, above and beyond normalized participation in international commerce, to dismantle its nuclear program, then the incentive is clear for other nations to start such programs in hope of a payoff. You want something from them, waiver of nuclear weapons to which they have the same right as any existing nuclear power, why would you expect to get this for free? And nuclear programs are expensive, I don't think starting one only because of possible compensations when you stop it would be a worthwhile move. But let me turn the thing around. Would you say it would be good foreign policy if the rest of the would put an embargo on the USA until the USA dismantles all its nuclear weapons and facilities? If the rest of the world would start sabotaging those weapons and facilities? Ignoring for the argument that the USA is as power
  - davmre 11y ago
    > waiver of nuclear weapons to which they have the same right as any existing nuclear power No one has a "right" to nuclear weapons. You can search the Magna Carta, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the United Nations Charter, etc. No international agreement recognizes any such right. In fact the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is a party to, does exactly the opposite. > Would you say it would be good foreign policy if the rest of the would put an embargo on the USA until the USA dismantles all its nuclear weapons and facilities? If the rest of the world would start sabotaging those weapons and facilities? Anything that forces the current nuclear powers to give up their weapons would be excellent. In the current balance of power, that's unlikely to occur outside of mutual disarmament agreements. I will point out that it's not like the rest of the world is refraining from sanctioning the US out of some sense of higher morality. International relations is power politics for everyone. Aside from the pure power differential and the economic consequences of refusing US trade, many countries (not all, obviously) benefit from the security of the American military umbrella. Many countries (e.g. much of the EU) refrain from developing their own nuclear programs precisely because of American security guarantees. Those guarantees would still exist in a post-nuclear world, but only if everyone disarms at the same time, which is, again, hard to coordinate.
    - 11y ago