Introduction
This paper will be about arms control, sustainable development, and climate change from the standpoint of the United States. This essay aims to study the nation’s stance on these problems, provide background knowledge, and analyze the possible course of action for the United States. These issues concern both the United States and the rest of the world. Lack of weapons control raises the likelihood of nuclear conflict, while climate change may devastate the globe. On the other hand, sustainable development ensures a brighter future for everybody, especially low-income people. As a superpower and U.N. member, the U.S. influences global policy on these topics. Policymakers, scholars, and the public must comprehend its stance and policy choices. To advance this knowledge, this paper examines how the United States stands on these significant issues.
Issue one (arms control): Should the U.N. adopt a no-first-use treaty regarding nuclear weapons?
-
Background Report:
The United States, possessing an estimated 5,550 nuclear warheads as of 2021 (NTI), owns the most comprehensive nuclear armament in the world and is committed to a deterrence policy predicated on sustaining a credible deterrent to deter possible aggressors from utilizing atomic weapons against America and its allies. (Kang, p.1) On the other hand, a no-first-use protocol would signify that atomic arms are only to be manipulated in reaction to a nuclear attack and not for any other reasons (Misericordia University, p. 4).
Since the conclusion of the Cold War, America has espoused an academician doctrine of fissionable uncertainty: neither confirming nor repudiating possession of such arsenals. Notwithstanding this ambiguity, it is ordinarily conjectured that a vast cache of these weapons remains with them. They are devotedly willing to apply them when necessary for guarding national serenity or spurning adversaries (Kang, p. 2). Given how it might disable deterrence abilities or actuate oppressors into action, the U.S. haughtily declines to adopt such a no-first-use stance.
Recently, enthusiasm for refraining from the initial deployment of nuclear weapons has been swelling among some American statesmen and specialists (Kang, p. 4). Advocates suggest that implementing such a hypothesis would decrease the threat of nuclear war and bolster global security. Conversely, antagonists aver that adopting a no-first-use policy could give off the vibe of feebleness on behalf of the United States while inviting its opponents to act with greater impudicity.
The U.S.’s current establishment has not issued any official pronouncement regarding this matter; however, Biden has earlier manifested his endorsement for such a notion during his tenure as Vice President in Obama’s government. Whether or not Biden’s leadership will take concrete measures toward instituting it remains to be discovered at this stage.
The position taken by America on this principle is multifaceted, remaining on uncertain grounds inside both political circles and professional groups alike. Although there is burgeoning support for it amongst many quarters, it appears improbable that without tangible changes in international security affairs occurring around them, they are likely to adopt a no-first-use policy anytime soon while holding onto their commitment to upholding an immense nuclear deterrence capability simultaneously (United Nations, p. 2).
-
Policy Options Analysis:
Preference One: The United States should maintain its current deterrence policy, as a no-first-use policy would undermine its strategic stability.
For many years, the United States has sustained its policy of deterrence which has effectively warded off a major nuclear conflict between prominent nations. If America adopted a no-first-use stance, it would compromise the legitimacy of its atomic deterrent and make it liable to assailing forces from other countries armed with nuclear weaponry. Furthermore, this could result in misjudgments by adversarial nations who may presume that even if they launched an assault first, the United States would forego using any form of desolate nukes.
Preference Two: The United States should consider adopting a no-first-use policy in the future, but not at present.
Although the United States depends on deterring a nuclear attack, it might contemplate embracing a no-first-use doctrine shortly; for atomic weapons constitute an existential threat to humankind. Still, mandating such a policy would necessitate substantial alterations to America’s nuclear doctrine, which could require some delay before implementation (Foreign Policy Research Institute, pg 3). Moreover, the U.S. must be persuaded that other atomic states shall follow suit to avert strategic volatilities.
Preference Three: To show its dedication to nuclear disarmament, the United States should immediately implement a no-first-use policy.
A no-first-use policy might show the U.S.’s commitment to advancing nuclear non-proliferation. It may serve as an incitement for other countries with atomic armaments to pursue the suit. Even so, this methodology could reduce the U.S.’s capacity for deterrence and issue a sign of vulnerability. Beyond that, such a policy could lead to strategic indeterminacy if other nations possessing nuclear weaponry do not imitate it.
Issue Two (Sustainable development): “Should the U.N. adopt a treaty that taxes international transactions (e.g., trade, private equity investments) to fund sustainable development goals?”
-
Background Report
The United States stresses sustainable development and backs the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations (SDGs). No one agrees on whether a treaty that taxes foreign transactions to support the SDGs is ideal. The most affluent country in the world, the United States, significantly influences global economic policy. In addition to making great progress toward the U.N.’s sustainable development goals, the United States actively promotes sustainable development domestically and internationally (SDGs).
The size of the financial deficit and the sums required to support the SDGs are known to the U.S. A $2.5 trillion annual shortfall is predicted to be needed to achieve the SDGs by 2030, according to the U.N.’s 2021 SDG report. The research also highlights that existing financing efforts must be improved, with assistance flows stagnating and private investment not targeting the SDGs. So, creative finance strategies like taxing overseas transactions might fill this budget shortfall.
Nonetheless, the U.S. realizes the risks of a treaty that taxes foreign commerce. ODA and public-private partnerships finance the SDGs. A tax on foreign transactions might hurt businesses, investments, and developing nations that depend on them. Compliance and tax evasion may make such a tax ineffective.
In conclusion, although the U.S. understands the significance of supporting the SDGs, there may be better options than a treaty that taxes foreign transactions. We are open to novel finance options and partnering with other nations to accomplish the SDGs. Each funding method should consider risks and unforeseen effects to avoid harming international commerce and growth.
-
Policy Options Analysis:
Preference One: The United States should not support a no-first-use treaty regarding nuclear weapons.
The United States has historically adopted a philosophy of nuclear deterrence that embodies the possibility of first use in response to perceived threats. Governmental authorities have stated emphatically that utilization of such arms is only permissible under extraordinary circumstances and should be considered as an absolute last resort. By a report from the U.S. Department of Defense, “the United States retains entitlement to employ nuclear weapons firstly amid any altercation but solely in extreme cases to safeguard important interests about the country or its associates” (Nuclear Posture Review, 2018).
Moreover, discarding a posture encompassing no-first usage may encourage prospective opponents to behave more belligerently due to weaker total deterrence capabilities. The USA, regarded as one of the world’s foremost powers, confronts numerous occurrences involving potential harm from sovereign states and other non-state entities; thus, maintaining an effective atomic deterrent is imperative for averting clashes and upholding international serenity and equilibrium.
Preference Two: The United States should support a no-first-use treaty with certain conditions.
Although the United States has long opposed embracing a no-first-use policy, it may be wise to consider adopting a treaty with specific stipulations. This could involve incorporating provisions and regulations to guarantee compliance by other states and adding exceptions in case of an assault on the U.S. (Foreign Policy Research Institute, pg 2). allies or if faced with a biological or chemical threat. Acceding to such a treaty while preserving its current security objectives can indicate America’s dedication to mitigating the potential risks of nuclear warfare.
Preference Three: The United States should support a no-first-use treaty without conditions.
For decades, the United States has fostered a doctrine of nuclear deterrence; however, the world has seen considerable modifications since the conclusion of the Cold War. With the augmented prevalence of atomic arms and intensifying threat of unintentional or deliberate utilization thereof, it would be prudent for America to advocate for an unconditional no-first-use treaty (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, pg. 2). Such an approach could effectively convey our nation’s commitment to downscaling nuclear confrontation odds and further promote worldwide efforts aimed at disarmament.
In conclusion, the U.S. confronts difficult arms control and nuclear deterrent challenges. Under specific situations, the nation may endorse a no-first-use pact. As a global powerhouse, the U.S. must help minimize atomic war and promote peace and stability (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, p. 2).
Issue Three (climate change): Should the international community develop a binding international treaty that will be monitored by a newly created World Environment Organization that can hold cheaters and free-riders accountable for missed targets?
-
Background Report
All nations must cooperate to address the critical global threat of climate change. The U.S. is aware that real global cooperation is required to lessen the effects of climate change. The UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement have been discussed in negotiations in which the U.S. has participated. America has stressed the significance of both domestic and international climate change legislation.
However, a legally enforceable climate change agreement that would have been in charge of a new World Environment Organization has been stopped by the United States. The U.S. government believes that to achieve the desired outcomes, such an agreement may need to be more effective and advantageous. The U.S. has raised worries that a binding international treaty may constrain its sovereignty and freedom to make national interest-based judgments. Given further economic growth and national situations, the U.S. has questioned the possibility of enacting a worldwide convention(Kupchan et al. pg 2).
The United States promotes voluntary action and collaboration between governmental entities, enterprises, and the general public to address climate change effectively. It has furthermore called for increased investment in renewable energy research and applied domestic legislation to reduce microbial contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gases.
In conclusion, the U.S. supports international climate change collaboration but is wary of a binding international treaty administered by a new World Environment Organization. The U.S. thinks that voluntary methods and partnerships are better at attaining goals while respecting the country’s sovereignty and different national conditions (Kupchan et al., pg 3).
-
Policy Analysis:
As a significant greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. has a considerable climate change dilemma. American policy choices include:
A binding international treaty: that sets emissions reduction objectives and is overseen by a new World Environment Organization might be pursued by the U.S. This method requires the U.S. to reduce its emissions and satisfy its objectives (Foreign Policy Research Institute, p. 1). Continue voluntary efforts, including the Paris Accord, which the U.S. rejoined in 2021. This strategy lets the U.S. establish its carbon reduction objectives and pursue them at its own pace without external accountability (Foreign Policy Research Institute, pg, 3).
Raise domestic restrictions: The U.S. might cut emissions by increasing domestic controls and policies. This strategy would involve governmental resolve and popular backing but no international collaboration.
Develop and implement emission-reducing technologies: The U.S. might concentrate on renewable energy and carbon capture and storage. This solution would need considerable R&D expenditure but no legislative changes. American policy would change if it pursued a binding international treaty overseen by the World Environment Organization (Foreign Policy Research Institute, p. 5). It would force the U.S. to set and achieve carbon reduction goals. Given the urgency of climate change, this strategy may be essential to verify governments are taking practical steps to cut emissions.
Preference One: The United States must support the establishment of the World Environment Organization and its purpose to track and hold responsible countries who do not meet their climate obligations under a binding international agreement. With its substantial contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. should take the lead in combatting climate change. Embracing an authoritative international pact and establishing a novel World Environment Organization would demonstrate the U.S.’s stubborn adherence to tackling this problem globally. Moreover, such an entity could be instrumental in ensuring that all countries adhere to climate objectives and establish equitable environmental standards within each nation.s
A binding international convention would foster collaboration and clean technology transfer to underdeveloped nations. This would help address climate change holistically and guarantee that all countries have the resources to cut greenhouse gas emissions. A Global Environment Organization would also provide a venue for discussing best practices and developing innovative greenhouse gas reduction technology. As the U.S. leads renewable energy technologies, this would benefit it. The U.S. may lead by backing a binding international treaty and a Global Environment Organization to achieve a more sustainable future.
Preference Two: The United States should pursue bilateral agreements with other countries to address climate change.
A binding international climate deal may not be possible in the present political context. Bilateral agreements with other nations might be more realistic and still work. The U.S. might collaborate with tiny island nations and low-lying coastal regions to find answers to their climate change issues. This would foster international trust and collaboration, which might lead to a more significant accord. Bilateral agreements also encourage sustainable energy technology uptake abroad. The United States should provide funding and assistance to other countries so they can use sustainable energy, lower their emissions of greenhouse gases, and build their economies.
Preference Three: U.S. efforts to combat climate change should be centered on domestic programs.
The U.S. must take the lead on a global and regional scale. The United States might employ a cap-and-trade or carbon tax to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It would lessen the need for fossil fuels while promoting the use of renewable energy. Building sea barriers in coastal regions or improving water treatment facilities to withstand severe weather occurrences would also make the U.S. more climate change-resistant (United Nations, pg, 2). There may need to be more than domestic efforts to solve climate change globally. To solve this problem, other countries and the United States must cooperate.
Establishing a new World Environment Organization and a binding international agreement to combat climate change should be the top priorities for the United States. This would show the country’s global leadership and assist in constructing a sustainable future. The United States should concentrate on bilateral agreements and domestic climate change actions if a formal international treaty is not attainable. The United States must take local and global action due to climate change.
Works Cited
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2019, carnegieendowment.org/.
Foreign Policy Research Institute. “Foreign Policy Research Institute – International Policy Think Tank.” Www.fpri.org, www.fpri.org/.
G, Seth. “Foreign Affairs.” Foreign Affairs, 2022, www.foreignaffairs.com/.
Kang, David C. “The Washington Quarterly.” The Washington Quarterly, 2019, twq.elliott.gwu.edu/.
Kupchan, Cliff, et al. “The National Interest.” The National Interest, 2019, nationalinterest.org/.
Mackinnon, Amy. “Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 5 Jan. 2019, foreignpolicy.com/.
Misericordia University. “Databases by Subject – Misericordia University.” Www.misericordia.edu, 2019, www.misericordia.edu/library/search/databases-by-subject. Accessed 31 Mar. 2023.
OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS. “RAND Corporation Provides Objective Research Services and Public Policy Analysis.” Rand.org, 2008, www.rand.org/.
Schwartz, H. Andrew. “Center for Strategic and International Studies |.” Csis.org, 2019, www.csis.org/.
The Brookings Institution. “Brookings – Quality. Independence. Impact.” Brookings, 2019, www.brookings.edu/.
The Council on Foreign Relations. “Council on Foreign Relations.” Council on Foreign Relations, 2000, www.cfr.org/.
United Nations. “The 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” United Nations, 2015, sdgs.un.org/goals.
write