When assessing nuclear security, what do you think a lay person may identify as a primary consideration?  Would you consider various emotive factors?  Does it matter if the risk is uncontrollable, the surrounding social conditions, or the innocence of the victims?  What about if it was a serious risk only for future generations? I suppose it's the age-old question that every politician struggles to understand:  what do the citizens care about and what is the best way to separate the rational from the irrational?  In reflecting on my own interest in the interaction between economics and military conflict, I thought about the very foundation of peacekeeping and the good, the bad, and the ugly of policy options.

On October 12, 2010, the Financial Times published an opinion by Madeline Albright and Igor Ivanov.  They advocated restarting the stalled nuclear talks, stressing the need for mutual cooperation and keeping the channels of dialogue open despite the delicate nature of the topic for both Russia and the United States. On October 15, 2010, The Brookings Arms Control Initiative hosted a discussion of how the United States and Russia can shape a more secure nuclear future and promote a stronger relationship between the two countries.

The presentation covered four key recommendations in the Brookings-Institute of World Economy and International Relations paper, "Next Steps on U.S.-Russian Nuclear Negotiations and Nuclear Non-Proliferation." The discussion was also a reflection on activities since the signing of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) by Presidents Obama and Medvedev in April, the April nuclear security summit addressing steps to secure highly-enriched uranium and plutonium stocks, and the NPT review conference held later in May of this year.

Panelists included Brookings President Strobe Talbott, Ploughshares Fund President Joseph Cirincione, and Senior Fellow Steven Pifer, Director of the Arms Control Initiative. I heard several key messages on how Washington and Moscow could improve the non-proliferation regime: hold the line and do no more harm; continue stable and transparent dialogue; reinforce strategic and practical solutions for missile defense cooperation; develop broad political resolutions to coordinate policies on non-proliferation and agree on common priorities; improve third world country accession protocols and facility inspection processes; and, finally, forge an international "gold standard" and rely less on rhetoric. Overall, there was an impassioned message to avoid treaty "fetishism" and to instead focus on using keen diplomacy (and economic sanctions) to get things done.

I found the Brookings' event a great introduction to understanding these sensitive negotiations.  Interestingly, there was no talk about the core legal considerations; the principles of treaty law did not come up in the conversation beyond the exhortation to avoid them.

On this note, I turn my thoughts to shoes.

While not decisive, logical, or necessarily rational, I always look at a person's shoes to gain a small insight into their personality.  To me, shoes symbolize security, resilience, and economic status. To another, a shoe may be a status symbol, seasonal, and a temporary appendage of current fashion's tastes.  Before attending Brookings, I met a gentleman that had suffered extreme heat stroke from working a double shift in a Washington manhole.  His clothing was covered in a white soot that I dare not guess at its' origin.  His boots, however, while well worn and past the point of usability, still evidenced great care and attention. Perhaps as an easy source for distraction, he was interested in my reading, which was the report I mentioned above.  He did not offer comments so much as listen intently, and reflected that such talk was best left to the White House.

It is an interesting situation.  Granted, he was simply more anxious about learning whether he had to take the day off or not, but it made me think about the role of law when the next steps on US-Russian nuclear negotiations continue.  Which comes first, a concern from the citizen or one from the President?

After the Brookings' event, I asked a fellow attendee about the talks on the sanctions found within START, and received a reply that such things were better left to the United Nations.  Just like that, law and politics divided as swiftly as the gentleman simply dismissed nuclear strategy.  I would like to think that both must work together.  If I knew the best approach, I guarantee I'd be writing a book now, and not just this reflective opinion.  My week began with a pair of aged workman's boots and ended with a dismissal of the law from a pair of shiny, barely-used patent oxfords.  The key was that both contain the sole of the matter.  I needed both to truly understand sustaining the focus on nuclear security.  Neither was a key for a multilateral solution, but sometimes you don't know enough about a man until you spend a day walking in his shoes.