Group assignment
Diplomatic negotiations
Diplomacy stands to be accepted by all nations as the mainstay and the key process of establishing good relations among different states around the globe. We have therefore come to this international summit to pass our thoughts through negotiations which we believe are the most important but hardest to master aspect of diplomacy (Parsi, 2012). This is a group from the United States’ Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) who will conduct diplomatic negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran on the matters of abolishing the nuclear weapon production and use. We all know that the diplomatic international relations between these two countries are at a critical juncture after an unstable historically troubled relationship had cherished (Entessar & Afrasiabi, 2015). This is a golden chance that neither Iran nor the united states can afford to pass up because we have come along with a list of a thousand benefits and implications that both countries would love to take pleasure in. It is very clear that the two nations are currently lacking a diplomatic relation and instead of exchanging their ambassadors, the United States maintains its own interests at Swiss Embassy while Iran, on the other hand, maintains a corresponding interest at Pakistani Embassy in Washington D.C (Simpson, 2016). The relations between the two nations have a worrying historical background with so many of their opinions differing which makes the relationship to be “cold”. With this regard, the United States sent us to represent its plea on a nuclear deal which aims at limiting the nuclear weapon capabilities and all its disastrous consequences (Parsi, 2012). This discussion will, therefore, provide a detailed step by step negotiation strategy that will establish a relation that exists with other countries on a long-term basis.
It would wise for us to consider the impact of using the nuclear force both to the environment and the humans. From the basic knowledge of nuclear firearms, they are incredibly dangerous and disastrous weapons, especially in the current modern society. They have the capacity to poison entire regions because of their emissions such as radiations, destructive unstable isotopes, and fallouts. Scientists have confirmed that when these emissions enter into the human and animal food chain, both the sea life, human life and all dimensions of life get endangered (Simpson, 2016). The effects are life-long and pass on to all preceding generations. From the history of America, it is evident that most citizens who were born before 1970 are prone to cancer because they carry Strontium 90 in their bones. Much more destructive consequences of using the nuclear force exist which keep the world unsafe every day. From this perspective, I would, therefore, like to respond to my colleague who holds that nuclear weapons are safe. They are too dangerous to serve as arms of maintaining law and order among other security measures. We should keenly consider how destructive the nuclear weapons are to the adjacent world because they are only safe to the arm holders. It is, therefore, our plea that the republic of Iran should seek other alternative firearms for the sake of global welfare and the future gen generation. There is also no any moral justification that could support massive threatening of cities and countries and the overall planet using the nuclear weapons. The destructive nature of the weapons is, therefore, a threat to the future and all the development strategies and plans could be drained in a matter of minutes (Simpson, 2016).
It has been our interest as the government of the United States to enhance our national security which can only be established through the process of stabilizing the strategic balance between the republic of Iran and the United States. This treaty will limit the nuclear arms production and use by deploying at least 15,000 warheads and ICBMs whom we all know are heavily equipped with nuclear armaments (Entessar & Afrasiabi, 2015). The treaty we shall agree upon will lead to the determination of the armed structure such that as much as nuclear arms exist,the two nations will maintain a safe and secure environment that supports innovation and other industrial developments. The new strategy will also allow transparency and visibility so that various mitigate risks such as mistrust, surprises and miscalculations are done away with (Simpson, 2016).
On the same note, the main interest of the United States has been to maintain high levels of security commitments. We have already turned up for the strategy because we have significantly reduced our nuclear arsenal by 50% within the last fifteen years. This has been through the deployment of strategic nuclear weapons and much more reduction strategies are already in place. So far the United States has cut down its nonstrategic nuclear weapons since 1991 by 90% to the highest levels seen during the ODSNW move. In exchange, United States has substituted the nuclear weapons with other arms that can easily adapt to change and also those which are responsive to the industrial and infrastructural development to improve the existing capabilities (Entessar & Afrasiabi, 2015). There are therefore two reasons only that make us maintain the nuclear forces. The first is since the international environmental security is highly unpredictable; the United States shall apply the nuclear forces for the purpose of bringing back international order. This would help the world handle the security complications when peace seems negligible (Simpson, 2016). The second application would only be used for a unique and specific purpose of supporting the United States’ national security. Basing on the purpose of the nuclear forces, it is evident that the United States is not relying on the nuclear weapons to maintain security standards. The republic of Iran, therefore, ought to deploy and minimize the massive destructive arms for the sake of future security interventions (Entessar & Afrasiabi, 2015).
I would also strengthen our emphasis concerning the flexibility of the nuclear weapons. They are usually less prominent but their application is more of massive destruction. Just as the United States maintains the nuclear firearms for various specific purposes, we would also require the government of Iran to specify a policy that will limit their use and also their production. The united states will, however, carry forward in serving two main necessities; one to use the nuclear weapons to deter any acts of aggression and two; offer assistance of deterring concerts of general-purpose forces and other major attack conventions. United States will also use the nuclear weapons to support deterrence by taking hold of risky targets because its power to deter cannot be compared or duplicated by any other weapon (NETANYAHU, 2016).
The United States is currently seeking constructive relations with every nation around the globe. We are considering the industrial base and ways to boost the growing economic power that will become our stronghold in supporting the various strategic objectives on a global basis. We all know that the global economic development is dependent on the kind of relation that exists between us and all the other nations and therefore our diplomacy will definitely affect the world economy. Various reports have singled out that trade and immigration policies are also reliant on the international relations that we shall establish at the end of this summit. The use of nuclear weapons in the United States has significantly undermined democracy (Simpson, 2016). These weapons have been the major reason for the consolidation of the executive branch’s power and the creation of “imperial presidency” has been noticed. The investment in the nuclear weapon has also been a contributing factor why other basic social needs had been neglected. In addition, the use of the nuclear weapon goes against the requirement of the international law which provides that the possession of the mass destructive instruments is illegal. We are therefore negotiating to ensure fairness and safe environment from all the dimensions of life (Entessar & Afrasiabi, 2015).
Lastly, the interest of our government is to prevent similar experiences that have been experienced from nuclear bomb blasts in the history of the world. We, therefore, invite Iran to join hands to prevent a repeat of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; which killed over 129, 000 people and other effects on the environment and the future generation (NETANYAHU, 2016). A similar experience was that of Cold War whereby nuclear arms were intensively used between the United States and USSR during the World War I. By signing a treaty on the boundaries beyond which nuclear weapons should not exceed, we shall have answered the most frequently asked question on whether nations should possess the nuclear weapons. Safe and secure political environments are more productive because they affect all the other sectors such as economic development are dependent on how peaceful a nation is. This diplomatic negotiation will, therefore, become a baseline of our relationship with numerous benefits expected to result (Simpson, 2016).
Conclusion
As a board of politicians in various states of America, we strongly believe that Iran can be won back because we have domestic politics that are potential in derailing a peaceful negotiation. With this regard, we shall first create a mutual understanding of the chary and suspicious in bringing current relation. We have a duty of employing PD to as the safest tool that we shall use to hurriedly better the relationship between the two countries. Using the PD strategy we shall gain all the required potential to reach a diplomatic solution to the crisis of nuclear weapons among other differences that exist between U.S. and Iran.
The Iranian government finally got convicted and yielded to our negotiations. The diplomacy was not a straightforward task which implies that much intelligence was employed in order to fully convince the Iran government to adhere to the treaty we made. Some of the factors that contributed to the win-win achievement were the use of advocates. The selected few but intelligent politicians provided a shuttle diplomacy which is a semi-independent way of intermediating (Matz, 2004). We also had objective criteria which were able to frame our thoughts from the basis of facts and arguments that are goal oriented. As much as the negotiations were run and driven well, we were able to build a golden bridge which shows how beneficial the treaty would be to the Iran and its citizens. For instance, safety and security are global necessities which both negotiating nations need. Iran will even enjoy the benefits because the current challenges that result from the use of nuclear force will be diminished. The national threat would have reduced by a significant percentage. The conversation ended with Iran sounding victorious in the negotiation. Our advocates also used code words which ensured that criticism was very polite. No arguments were encountered because all the discussions were very frank (Matz, 2004).
Our argument was majorly reflecting the violation of the international humanitarian law which warns against the killing of civilians and the long-term environmental effects that would befall the globe. It is also a reality that there are no safe hands in handling the nuclear weapons but we gave room for controlled use and production because even the United States has maintained a certain number of controlled nuclear weapons. This has played an important role in convincing Iran that our diplomacy is for good will and not to paralyze their capability. The various concerns that were raised by the opponents were intelligently responded to from various detailed angles of explanation. Comparison between reality and facts was monitored and therefore all the arguments were argued from facts. For instance, one advocate presumed that nuclear weapons were a useful tool to deter a terrorist. It was our duty to emphasize that the weapons place the country on more vulnerable conditions than before.
References
Parsi, T. (2012). A single roll of the dice: Obama's diplomacy with Iran. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Simpson, K. (2016). U.S. nuclear diplomacy with iran: From the war on terror to the Obama administration.
Entessar, N., & Afrasiabi, K. L. (2015). Iran nuclear negotiations: Accord and détente since the Geneva Agreement of 2013. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
NETANYAHU, B. (2016). WHY IRAN MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Vital Speeches Of The Day, 82(5), 134-136.
Ahmad, A., & Snyder, R. (2016). Iran and multinational enrichment in the Middle East. Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists, 72(1), 52-57. doi:10.1080/00963402.2016.1124663
Matz, D. (2004). How Much Do We Know About Real Negotiations? Problems in Constructing Case Studies. International Negotiation, 9(3), 359-374. doi:10.1163/1571806053498814Bottom of Form
