What Were The Agreements That Both Presidents Made To Prevent Another War

After the Cuban crisis of October 1962, President Kennedy and Prime Minister Khrushchev acknowledged that they had come dangerously close to nuclear war. The two leaders have tried to ease tensions between their two nations. Politics and history have also complicated relationships. Stalin was deeply suspicious, even paranoia, of both Roosevelt and Churchill. He knew that his capitalist allies would probably refuse any attempt to extend Soviet influence in Eastern Europe when the war was over. Stalin repeatedly complained that before June 1944, the Allies had not launched a second front in Western Europe. This front, he said, would reduce the pressure on the Soviet Union by forcing Hitler to move troops from Russia to deal with the Anglo-American invasion. The treaties signed by the two men to control the growth of nuclear weapons were of permanent importance. The agreements – a treaty on the limitation of strategic weapons and a treaty to combat ballistic missiles – did not end the arms race, but they paved the way for future pacts to reduce and eliminate weapons. Nixon also negotiated and signed agreements on science, space and trade. “Now that the treaty is over, we will see the development and use of new weapons,” Pavel Felgenhauer, a Russian military analyst, told AFP.

“Russia is already ready.” During World War II, the three great Allied powers – Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union – formed a great alliance that was the key to victory. But the allies had no common political objectives and did not always agree on how to wage war. France, I can say, has, in principle, immediately endorsed the idea of a multilateral treaty. France, however, proposed that the treaty only provide for the renunciation of wars of aggression and stated that if France could conclude a bilateral agreement with the United States, which provides for the total renunciation of war, the conclusion of a similar multilateral treaty, taking into account France`s obligations under the League of Nations, treaties such as those signed at Locarno in October 1925 and other international agreements aimed at ensuring neutrality raise some concerns hardship. The French government also pointed out that in September 1927, members of the League of Nations adopted a resolution condemning the aggressive war as an international crime. In these circumstances, France considered that the best way to achieve the common goal of the two governments was to develop the proposed anti-war treaty, which covers only wars of aggression. I could not accept that reservation. It is up to the constitutional authorities of each member to decide, referring to the obligation to preserve the independence and integrity of the members` territory, the extent to which the member is obliged to ensure compliance with this obligation through the use of its armed forces.

Comments are closed.