The Foreign Service Journal, December 2009

42 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9 that are complying and insisting on compliance, at least in the short term. For example, China, Russia and many European nations are en- gaged in significant trade with Teh- ran. Ceasing such trade may be a terrific tool for increasing the cost to Iran for its non-compliance, but it will also cause a loss of profits for the companies involved. One can well imagine the dilemma for politicians in any of these nations: Are massive job losses among vot- ing constituents a price worth paying in return for amor- phous progress toward strengthening a nonproliferation regime? And what if you can’t bring them back into compliance? Particularly when dealing with a multilateral treaty, other parties may decide that ongoing compliance is feckless, at best, and potentially risky for their national security, at worst, weakening enforcement across the board. Because of the detailed nature of the assessments, it is likely that civil servants will continue to take the lead on assessing noncompliance with arms control and nonprolifera- tion agreements. But it is our For- eign Service personnel, working closely with Civil Service experts, who will be at the forefront of the most difficult challenge: trying ei- ther to persuade other nations to come into compliance or to persuade the rest of the inter- national community to take action to enforce agreements. To be most effective, Foreign Service officers need to draw upon not just political/military expertise, but also eco- nomic, trade, public diplomacy and regional experience. Other nations may not admit it, but they generally under- stand that the United States has great expertise in all of these arenas and they look to us for informed, respectful leadership. ■ F O C U S We are the only government that produces published reports evaluating other nations’ adherence to existing arms control agreements.