A little over a month ago, I posted a reflection on the danger of failing to live up to the international security guarantee the nuclear powers gave to Ukraine in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal.
Today's New York Times article reporting Japanese concerns over the U.S. reaction to Russian takeover of the Crimea should, therefore, come as no surprise. The article makes it clear that failure to carry out the security guarantee to Ukraine not only complicates efforts at nuclear non-proliferation, it also complicates conventional diplomacy.
It is a bit reminiscent of the inter war diplomacy of France. After World War I, France signed a guarantee to defend the independence and territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia. But France lacked a common border with Czechoslovakia and besides that, had built a vast fixed fortress (the Maginot Line) and a military designed to operate behind that line. How were they to come to the aid of Czechoslovakia if necessary?
It created a mismatch between miltary planning and diplomatic efforts. In the end, it didn't work.
I would hope we have learned something useful in the intervening eighty years.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Ukraine, Nuclear Weapons And Japan
Topic Tags:
diplomatic,
Europe,
history,
international,
military,
national security,
nuclear
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment