Militarisation and Negotiated Agreements: Avoiding the Pitfalls

Long-time and widely respected arms control watcher, Michael Krepon has written an interesting post on the Arms Control Wonk website about the perils of assuming that a negotiated outcome is always a good one. As the phrase goes, "the devil is in the detail" and looking very carefully at the relationship between militarisation and the provisions that get contained in treaties is all important.

Krepon puts forward his top three worst treaties or treaty provisions all of which "sought to constrain conflicts and eminently usable weapons without addressing the underlying reasons for war."

Very interesting reading in light of the on-going problems with the role of long-range conventional weapons (both offensive and defensive) in the US-Russian 'new START' treaty and any potential successor agreements. Also raises a number of issues that should be in the forefront of the minds of those trying to find a negotiated settlement to the Iranian nuclear dispute.

The full article can be accessed here.

Image source: UN.