scholarly journals START-3 Treaty prolongation: views of the U.S. political elites and experts

Author(s):  
M. Solyanova

The article focuses on the domestic U.S. discussion on prolongation of the 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START), and on this agreement’s compatibility with the U.S. national interests. The debate involves experts in nuclear weapons and non-proliferation, the American political elite, and the Congress. The author compares expert views on the feasibility of the U.S. administration’s idea to involve China in the negotiation process on a new agreement. The article considers the key factors that, according to the U.S. experts, may be in favor of extending the New START Treaty by the United States. The practice of applying legislative mechanisms by the Congress to exert pressure on the U.S. administration for extending of the START agreement is also analyzed.

Author(s):  
Peter Kolozi

The paleoconservative critique of capitalism offered by Patrick Buchanan and Samuel Francis focuses on the threat to national independence and the nation’s culture and values by free trade. For paleoconservatives, the United States’ independence is undermined by a business class that prioritizes corporate profits over national interests. Likewise, the global capitalist economy has opened the U.S. to an immigrant population that has gradually eroded the values of white “middle Americans,” the population that is the repository of a unique American culture.


1996 ◽  
Vol 146 ◽  
pp. 643-645 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roxane D. V. Slsmanidis

Author(s):  
Sergey Rogov

In his presentation, the speaker focuses on the problems in relations between the United States and its European NATO allies. Firstly, he talks about the withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan, that Sergey M. Rogov considers the first serious defeat of the Western countries since the foundation of NATO. At the same time, he notes the significant military and economic contribution of the U.S. allies to the operation in Afghanistan, and the fact that the US did not take into account the opinion of its allies as well as the issues that may await European countries and the alliance as a whole in this regard. Second, the speaker notes the huge difference in military spending and military capabilities between the United States and the European allies, and concludes that NATO countries will continue to be militarily dependent on the United States. In nuclear sphere, despite the approval of the START III extension by the Biden administration, European countries did not actively resist the collapse of the INF Treaty and the U.S. withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty. The forthcoming deployment of American missiles in Poland and the Baltic states will further exacerbate of the NATO-Russia crisis. J. Biden's support for the sole purpose concept, which to certain extent implies no first use of nuclear weapons, jeopardizes the U.S. security obligations towards its European allies. Fourth, there is the problem of "new" NATO members, which make minimal contribution to common security, but require economic support and protection from possible Russian aggression. In conclusion, the problem of the U.S.-China confrontation is considered, where the US is actively seeking to involve European countries.


Author(s):  
Gisela Mateos ◽  
Edna Suárez-Díaz

On December 8, 1953, in the midst of increasing nuclear weapons testing and geopolitical polarization, United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower launched the Atoms for Peace initiative. More than a pacifist program, the initiative is nowadays seen as an essential piece in the U.S. defense strategy and foreign policy at the beginning of the Cold War. As such, it pursued several ambitious goals, and Latin America was an ideal target for most of them: to create political allies, to ease fears of the deadly atomic energy while fostering receptive attitudes towards nuclear technologies, to control and avoid development of nuclear weapons outside the United States and its allies, and to open or redirect markets for the new nuclear industry. The U.S. Department of State, through the Foreign Operations Administration, acted in concert with several domestic and foreign middle-range actors, including people at national nuclear commissions, universities, and industrial funds, to implement programs of regional technical assistance, education and training, and technological transfer. Latin American countries were classified according to their stage of nuclear development, with Brazil at the top and Argentina and Mexico belonging to the group of “countries worthy of attention.” Nuclear programs often intersected with development projects in other areas, such as agriculture and public health. Moreover, Eisenhower’s initiative required the recruitment of local actors, natural resources and infrastructures, governmental funding, and standardized (but localized techno-scientific) practices from Latin American countries. As Atoms for Peace took shape, it began to rely on newly created multilateral and regional agencies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) of the United Nations and the Inter-American Nuclear Energy Commission (IANEC) of the Organization of American States (OAS). Nevertheless, as seen from Latin America, the implementation of atomic energy for peaceful purposes was reinterpreted in different ways in each country. This fact produced different outcomes, depending on the political, economic, and techno-scientific expectations and interventions of the actors involved. It provided, therefore, an opportunity to create local scientific elites and infrastructure. Finally, the peaceful uses of atomic energy allowed the countries in the region to develop national and international political discourses framing the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean signed in Tlatelolco, Mexico City, in 1967, which made Latin America the first atomic weapons–free populated zone in the world.


Daedalus ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 149 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-68
Author(s):  
Li Bin

The U.S. government considers “power competition” to be the nature of the relations among big powers, and that it will have an impact on the evolving nuclear order in the near future. When big powers worry about power challenges from their rivals, they may use the influence of nuclear weapons to defend their own power and therefore intensify the danger of nuclear confrontation. We need to manage the nuclear relations among nuclear-weapon states and nuclear-armed states to avoid the risk of nuclear escalation. The fact is that big powers including the United States have neither the interest nor the capability to expand their power, and understanding this might cause big powers to lose their interest in power competition. If we promote dialogue among nuclear-weapon states and nuclear-armed states on their strategic objectives, it is possible to reduce the power competition that results from misperceptions and overreactions. Some other factors, for example, non- nuclear technologies and multinuclear players, could complicate the future nuclear order. We therefore need to manage these factors as well and develop international cooperation to mitigate nuclear competition.


Worldview ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 19-20
Author(s):  
John A. Marcum

Contrary to popular perceptions, the governments of the United States and Angola share a core of compatible foreign policy objectives. Each government, for its own reasons, believes that its national interests may be best served by reducing border conflict and external intervention in highly flammable Southwest Africa. This congruence of interests became increasingly apparent and even led to a measure of bilateral cooperation dur ing the last years of the Carter administration.


Author(s):  
D.I. Uznarodov

The article reviews the dynamics of migration flows from Russia to the United States in the period from 1992 to 2018; the article also analyzes the transformation of the US migration policy over the past twenty-six years. The main stages that characterize the scale of emigration of Russian citizens to the United States are indicated, as well as their key features. Using the method of statistical data analysis, the most preferred regions of the country for Russian migrants are identified. It is concluded that two key factors can contribute to changing the dynamics of migration flows from Russia to the United States after 2020: the configuration of forces within the US political elite after the November 2020 election cycle, and also the socio-economic and general domestic political situation directly inside Russia.


Global Mind ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Devih Desdian Dwihendra ◽  
Tom Finaldin

AbstractDevih Desdian Dwi Hendra, C1A170167, Conflict of the United States and Iran       Post-Killing of the Head of the Quds. Corps of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Major General Qasem Soleimani In 2020, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences International Relations Studies Program Al-Ghifari University, 2020, Advisor Tom Finaldin, A.Md., SIP, M.Sc..The purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which the attacks carried out by the United States againts Iran on the orders of President Donald Trump, which killed the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Corps Major General Qasem Soleimani were actually motivated by US interests alone. Even if the reason given is to stop the war and not to start a war and save from a major attack on the citizens of the United States in the Middle East, the US therefore prevents it by attacking first. The results of this study indicate that in this conflict case, the United States has violated international law. There are two things that are volated by the United States. Firts, it violates international law, commits assassinations of other countries in a state of non-war and secondly, violates agreements between Iraq and America itself, which include no violation of sovereignty. Despite the loss of an influential military leader, the death of Mayor General Qasem Soleimani could benefit Iran in the short term. Iran has the opportunity to show its ability to unite in times of crisis, unite the political elite that has been divided. Thus the realization of national interests for the future in the aspirations of its people as a sovereign nation. Keywords : Conflict, United States, Iran


2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 138-148
Author(s):  
Remmer Sassen

Risk management is one of the main corporate governance components or management tasks. This paper details a comparison of risk management regulation from a corporate governance perspective of listed stock corporations in Germany and the United States (U.S.). Obviously, there are differences and commonalities between the national legal norms and the regulatory levels of risk management in both countries. The comparison helps to understand different traditions and practices in terms of how significant corporate governance rules are for risk management. Therefore, this article intends to inspire future research on the regulation of risk management across different regions and explore the relevance of national interests in the regulation of risk management. A principal finding of the comparison is that the U.S. corporate governance system seems to be more strongly regulated than the German system. This results from the powerful and coordinating role of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Thus, the seemingly more liberal system of non-binding standards in the U.S. has a higher impact on the regulation of risk management than in Germany.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie E. Sheils ◽  
Gregory D. Lyng ◽  
Ethan M. Berke

AbstractObjectivesTo understand what levels of herd immunity are required in the COVID-19 pandemic, given spatial population heterogeneity, to best inform policy and action.MethodsUsing a network of counties in the United States connected by transit data we considered a set of coupled differential equations for susceptible-infectious-removed populations. We calculated the classical herd immunity level plus a version reflecting the heterogeneity of connections in the network by running the model forward in time until the epidemic completed.ResultsNecessary levels of herd immunity vary greatly from county to county. A population weighted average for the United States is 47.5% compared to a classically estimated level of 77.1%.ConclusionsCommon thinking argues that the nation needs to achieve at least 60% herd immunity to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. Heterogeneity in contact structure and individual variation in infectivity, susceptibility, and resistance are key factors that reduce the disease-induced herd immunity levels to 34.2–47.5% in our models. Looking forward toward vaccination strategies, these results suggest we should consider not just who is vaccinated but where those vaccinations will do the most good.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document