Neola Hestu Prayogo

University of Brawijaya, Faculty of Social and Political Siences

Oktober, 2014

Arms Control and Disarmament

Study Case: CFE Treaty

Background

Some people may believe, arms control and disarmament, is just like a way to make a
peace and security in international relations. But along with this statement inviting many
question that ask the importance of arms control and disarmament. Is it an importance thing
in achieving the international security? What is the effect with the existed of arm control and
disarmament into peace and security or is it relevant or not? Other side of people also trying
to push up their idea by look the contribution of arms control and disarmament in make
international stability and peace. However, what have they believe is in the reality, is never
try to believe in arms control and disarmament as a panacea that can give the peace and
security.
Many writers rise up this topic, and major they rise in 1960s. in 1960s is the era after
world war II that give many destruction in the world. Followed by the absence of war among
strong state and cold war era that the race of military strength between US and Soviet.
According to John Baylis, the record of arms control and disarmament in the post-cold war
era is confusing. In the early 1990s, considerable euphoria existed over the opportunities that
promised a major surge forward in arms limitation agreements. The START I and START II
treaties, the conventional forces in Europe (CFE) agreement, and significant unilateral
reductions in short-range nuclear forced seemed to launch a new “golden age” in arms control
after the disappointments and frustrations of the cold war and pre-cold war years. The
indefinite extension of the non-proliferation Treaty in 1995, the signing of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996 and discussions about a START III agreement
appeared to confirm this judgement.
Definition and Approach
The terms ‘arm control’ and ‘disarmament’ are sometimes uses interchangeably, they
reflect different views about international politics. Hedley Bull give definition disarmament
as ‘the reduction or abolition of armaments, while Arms control involves ‘restraint
internationally exercised upon armaments policy, whether in respect of the level of
armaments, their character, deployment or use’.
Other expert also give the definition for arm control and disarmament, these two John
Spanier and Joseph Nogee, they give more specific definition to seek the differences between
arms control and disarmament. They believe, ‘while disarmament refers to the complete
abolition or partial reduction of human and material resources of war, arms control deals with
the restraints to be imposed upon the use of nuclear weapons’.
From them, there are three important distinctions arise. First, there is the distinction
between reduction and restraint. Arms control can involve ‘reductions’ in armaments and also
can overlap with disarmament, it also can involve increases in military capability if this
secures objective of achieving ‘restraint’ between adversaries. Second, they give different
views about the causes of war. The last distinction is that the final of disarmament’s is
abolishing weapons completely, thereby transforming international relations. But, arms
controllers do not believe that with eliminate weapons will change the world. Arms control
advocates also believe that all that can be hoped for is to reduce the risk of war, to limit
consequences if it occurs, and to contribute to peaceful change. 1
There are three approaches in disarmament. The first approach is by Liberal
Education. Education can create greater understanding. The second approach is by focuses
on political divisions between states. This approach shows that seeking and achieving a
political settlement between hostile states will erode the need for armaments. The third
approach is emphasizes the importance of disarmament itself in helping to achieve more
peaceful relations between adversaries. This can be done in stages, by reducing armaments
will helping in building up trust until eventually all weapons are abolished.
Along with arms control emphasizing ‘restrain’ rather than abolition, theorists give
two model of arms control. Structural arms Control and operational arms control. The theorist
believes that structural arms control is more important because it addresses the quantity and
quality of armaments themselves. The aim is to try to achieve stability in the balance of
armaments between hostile states. On the other hand, operational arms control aims to

1
John Baylis, “Arms Control and Disarmament,” in John Baylis, James Wirtz, Eliot Cohen and Colin S. Gray,
(2009), Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies. p. 189
contain the behavior of armed forces by preventing military deployments and actions that
may be regarded as provocative that will be increasing the chances of war.

The Historical Record

Based on the definitions and approaches that have been elaborated on disarmament
and arms control, it can be seen that both the process and the effort which essentially aimed
to realize the goal of peace and stability in relations between countries so that the
international system can fulfill common interests. In practice, both disarmament and arms
control required the trust of each party that get involved, or arranged to do so.
In general, the difference of the two is, disarmament was aimed to eliminate weapons
which assumed as a potential cause of war. Because basically, enough military force, even
very strong, it would be the bargaining power that raises monopoly power. On the other hand,
although the military force has the potential to be a power to hurt and a significant bargaining
power2, but still must be controlled to apply. In implementation, the action to do so weapons
demilitarization was impressed very idealistic abolished. Thus, the abolishment of weapon
enhanced by a mechanism got involved actors with interest in a more comprehensive way.
The joint mechanism was a form of control over gun ownership that tried to achieve stability
and peace by restricting guns. Because based on historical experience to abolish totally
weapons, it actually became a mechanism that was difficult to be implemented such a too
high expectation. On the other hand, arms control arms assumed the weapons not only as a
source of conflict as assumed by the disarmament, but it could be a source of stability and
instability. Therefore, the weapons of a country must be managed properly.
Practically, disarmament and arms control was an attempt to create conducive
conditions to inter-state relations. Effective implementation of disarmament and arms control
can be seen from the implementation both of them in every phase that was being outlines of
arms control history. Four main phases that can explain the relationship between
disarmament and arms control measures, is the first phase in 1900 to 1939, the second phase
in 1945 to 1962, the third phase of 1962 to 1985, and the fourth phase of 1985 to presents.
First Phase (1900 – 1939)
Some examples of disarmament imposed in this phase were the establishment of The
Hague conferences in 1899 and 1907, the Treaty of Versailles (1919), The Washington Naval

2
Thomas C. Schelling, “Arms and Influence”, in Thomas Mahnken, (2008), Strategic Studies: A Reader,
Abingdon: Routledge, p. 87.
Treaty (1922), The Geneva Protocol (1925), the Preparatory Commission for a World
Disarmament Conference (1925), The Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), The London Naval
Agreement (1930), The World Conference on the Reduction and Limitation of armaments
(1932), and The Anglo-German Naval Agreement (1935)3. From those some efforts that can
be an example with its own significant impact to be highlighted was Hague conferences that
aimed to limit the level of armament among great powers4. However, the effectiveness of
effort to realize common security was not running optimally as European leaders viewed
Hague Conferences as a Russian ploy to reduce the production of armaments to reduce the
burden of the Russian economy. Since the arms race would require a very large expense and
burden as a consequence of the power balancing that aimed.
Further effort to make real disarmament continuously improved till the First World
War. The existence of The Treaty of Versailles was an attempt to prevent the development of
German weapons that can further triggered aggressiveness to be ruler of Europe. Then
proceed with the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922 between Britain, America, and Japan. It
achieves better results and can be considered as a remarkable effort to implement
disarmament. But still have not been able to prevent World War II. This was what can be
used as an opening for criticism from arms control functions. The first was the international
climate. Conduciveness of international system can support the establishment of treaty
negotiations that may bind the parties to the fullest without any coercion to achieve common
interests. The second was the form of government and internal domestic conditions of a state.
Non-totalitarian state would be more responsible in fulfilling agreements that made because it
involved people's participation in overseeing the government. This can increase the potential
effectiveness of the agreements. The third, the type of system in response to the
implementation of arms control. In example, democracy would be better suited to be the
premise to implement effective arms control.
Second Phase ( 1945 – 1962)
Historical records of disarmament and arms control in the second period was still
contained in some effort to implement the agreements related to the stability by the balancing
of weapons power. They were The U.S. Baruch Plan (1946), The Open Skies Proposals

3
John Baylis, “Arms Control and Disarmament,” in John Baylis, James Wirtz, Eliot Cohen and Colin S. Gray,
(2009), Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies. p. 189
4
Ibid., p. 186
(1955), The Rapacki Plan (1957), Comprehensive General Disarmament Proposal (1959),
The Antarctica Treaty (1959), and The McCloy - Zorin Talks (1961)5.
By the fall of Baruch Plan as the best plan to eliminate nuclear, it was also proof
that disarmament has not managed to be an attempt to bring peace. It was related to the strong
influence of the interests of a country and the amount of vulnerable mistrust going on
between the states, as well as international system conditions prevailingg. As it was known
that in the Baruch Plan proposed, the international system was being conditioned by the
dominance of the two major bloc have sought to strengthen its influence. Disarmament
negotiations may be done, but its success was still difficult to achieve since each state
involved still act on security gains to be obtained without the advantaging the opponent state.
In addition, the disarmament failure also would trigger an arms race. To deal with the
specific security issues then emerged the partial measures. On implementation, the Open
Skies proposal filed by Eisenhower was also an attempt to restore the distrust between the
western and eastern blocks. Then, it followed by that Geneva agreements negotiated ban
nuclear testing, atomic free zone, and a reduction in the strength of the critical areas such as
central Europe6. Forms of power reduction was actually reinforce the role of arms control
disarmament after those some that not optimal. Even the new thinking was technically
characterized by the emergence of the theory of arms control in 1950. Arms control
disarmament seen as more comprehensive in scope. Thus the international stability was
expected to create by arms management itself. Those which categorized as arms control were
based on the mutual interest of military cooperation aimed at reducing the potential of war
and prevent it escalated into violence when the war was already happening, was reciprocal to
achieve the common interest and cooperation with potential adversaries 7.
Arms control was also a weapon restriction that tends to lead to a strategy for
deterrence rather than abolish. Besides, the deterrence itself was more potential to achieve
stability. Nonetheless, the disarmament effort in the second period history still emerged by
the shaping of General Comprehensive Disarmament and McCloy - Zorin Talks though these
agendas were not significantly affected on the realization of total disarmament agenda.
Phase Three (1962-1985)
Because the condition of the super powers state in that time was in high tension, they
realize the importance of mutual interest for crisis management with the existence of nuclear

5
Ibid., p. 191
6
Ibid., p. 190
7
Ibid
weapon. Then they made some agreements to reduce their tension. But at this time, began to
appear consciousness to cooperate with other small countries.
In 1962, Cuban missile crisis gave more support to the arms control project 8. Cuban
crisis prioritizing on the dangers of misinterpretation in political confrontations. It’s also
concentrate in the key decision making on the issue of nuclear testing. There was some
agreement that created to prevent the crisis, which is:
 Hot-Line Agreements (June 1963): this first agreement that made between
US and Soviet (Superpower). This is a secure and instant channel of
communication between the leaders of both states. Hot-line is to prevent the
superpowers in order not to interfere or support issues of each ally. But is not a
secure and lasting agreement 9.

 Partial Ben Treaty (August 1963): this treaty is about prohibition of nuclear
testing in the atmosphere, but is allowed in the basement. Also mentioned in
the treaty allowed in nuclear testing after three months notice 10.
 NPT (Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapon): is to prevent the spread of
nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the
peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear
disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents
the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of
disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States11. It is the culmination of the
expansion of the nuclear agreement. But China and France refused to sign,
while some other countries refuse commitment to disarm their nuclear force12.
 SALT (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) I: signed in May 1972 by US and
Soviet. It is agree about limitations on anti-ballistic missile deployment, an
interim agreement on offensive strategic missiles and a protocol dealing with
submarine-launched missiles. The goal of this agreement is to prevent
weapons development race13.

8
John Baylis on the journal of Arms Control and Disarmament. 2009
9
Ibid
10
ibid
11
Acces from http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml acced in Mei 10, 2013
12
John Baylis on the journal of Arms Control and Disarmament. 2009
13
The bulletin of the Atomic Scientist by William D. Jackson on Policy assessement at the crossroads: the
Soviets and SALT. 1979. Pg. 11
  Vladivistok Accords: agreement between Soviet dand US. Soviet agree to
reduce 2400 MIRved missiles become 2250, than 1320 MIRVed missiles
become 1200 MIRVed ballistic missiles alone14.
 SALT II (1979): here are the U.S. and Soviet efforts to equally prohibit new
missile program. It is a treaty to limit strategic launchers that helped the
United States to prevent the Soviets from arming their third generation ICBMs
of the SS-17, SS-19 and SS-18 type with more reentry Multiple Independently
Vehicles targeted (MIRVs). Although SALT II resulted in an agreement in
1979, but the United States chose not to ratify the treaty in response to the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which took place later that year. Americans
felt the Soviets had damaged agreement with invasion Afghanistan. United
States eventually withdrew from SALT II in 198615.
Phase Four (1985 to the present)
At this phase, is the period of more productive for arms control and disarmament.
During the cold war, it is difficult to imagine how the Cold War would end if each country is
a super power aggressively to develop nuclear. Then formed INF (Intermediate-range
Nuclear Forces treaty) to stem the range of nuclear with a range between 500 and 2500
kilometers.
The end of the cold war, there was an agreement between the U.S. and Soviets to both
reduce its nuclear arsenal agreements, through a few of them STAR I, CFE, STAR II,
Chemical Weapon Convention, Indefinite extension of the NPT, Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, and NPT review conference. STAR I is agreement between both super powers that
agree to reduce their nuclear arsenals to 1.600 strategic delivery vehicles and 600 warheads.
Subsequently further enhanced STAR II arms reduction trough two phase. Fase pertama
meneruskan dari STAR I dengan perpanjangan tujuh tahun, sedangkan fase kedua limited
both sides to between 3000 and 3500 warheads by january 2003.

The Lessons of the Cold War and post-Cold War eras

The role of arms control in preventing war and its contribution in ending the Cold
War became a fairly important question in this discussion, because after all, arms control
carried out to achieve the goal of peace. In answering that question, there are two
contradictory answers. The first answer explains about the role of arms control, which is

14
Ibid pg. 12
15
Ibid
considered important in achieving peace, both before and after the cold war, while the other
16
answers explain how arms control is not effective to achieve peace.
According to the first opinion, arms control has provided a lot of influence in
preventing the escalation of the conflict, one example was the Cuban missile crisis in October
1962. At that time the situation occurred was the heated relations between the United States
and the Soviet Union in the Cold War (The Cold War). Where spy planes the United States,
the U-2 find a remote sensing. They found the Soviet Union to enter the middle of Medium
Range Ballistic Missile to Cuba. There are about 32 missiles. While these missiles are
missiles with a range of 1000 miles with 3 megaton nuclear warhead that led to the United
States.17 In this case, arms control provided a role in preventing the outbreak of war between
the two superpowers.
In addition, the arms control, also have an important role in realizing the various
agreements between countries that have a mutual interest, namely to prevent nuclear war, and
such agreements such as the Hot-Line Agreement, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, the Non -
18
Proliferation Treaty, the Strategic Arms and Military Talk (SALT) 1 & 2 treaties. Because
according to this view, the advancement of technology and suspicion between nations has
triggered competition of firearms in this anarchic world system, which can lead to the worst
effects of a threat to international security.
In addition to these reasons, the proponents of this argument also suggests another
reason that support his opinion, namely that arms control has a crucial battle in preventing the
emergence of a dominant force during the cold war.
Moreover, in the Post-Cold War, arms control also has a major contribution to end the
Cold War. One example is the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force) treaty, namely the
treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on
the elimination of their intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, 19 these agreements
have an important role to minimize suspicion and mutual trust which functions lower the
tension of hostility between East and West blocks.
In addition to these things, the post-Cold War arms control is also regarded as a
trigger to increase cooperation between countries. This is because the agreements previously
agreed upon in the cold war was also continued in the holding of new agreements that serve

16
John Baylis, James J. Wirtz and Colin S. Gray, 2009. Strategy in Contemporary World: An Introduction to
Strategic Studies, Oxford: OUP.
17
Taken from http://www.history.com/topics/cuban-missile-crisis, accessed on 11/05/13.
18
Ibid
19
Taken from http://www.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm, accessed on 11/05/13.
as a tool to raise awareness about collective security, these agreements include the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I & II , CTB Treaty ratification, as well as the extension of
the NPT. The parties believe the positive role of arms control is also convinced that with
more agreement on arms control would be very helpful in preventing the re-emergence of the
cold war situation.
Furthermore, according to a second opinion, arms control is not considered significant
20
in its role as peace-building, both during the cold war and post cold war. According to the
another answer that rejected the positive role of arms control, treaties such as the NPT, SALT
I and II, as well as MBFR are not enough to measure the effectiveness of arms control in
achieving of peace, given the fact that conventional arms limitation still fail to be realized, it
is often because the treaty agreed can not force these countries to control arms, besides it is
also considered to be ineffective because it will increase the mutual suspicion between the
superpowers.
Another rebuttal on the positive role of arms control is that arms control is only
possible when not needed, and impossible to do when needed. What is meant here is some
agreement on arms control, such as INF, START I & II, and is considered the CTBT will
only work if there is a more cooperative relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Thus, the
actual effect on the peace can finally realized not to those agreements, but political relations
have improved between the two countries, so that actually the agreement is not so necessary.
The skeptics also argue that in the post cold war, just a lot of problems to deal with in
a process of negotiations on arms control, because it is considered more negotiations raises
new problems rather than solve the existing problems. An example is the Test Ban Treaty that
still waiting for ratification, as well as the difficult issues that arise related to the United
States are reluctant to commit to the deployment of its national missile defense system. 21

Arms Controls Contestation.

In the previous part has been state that there are d two position about arms control.
One state that Arms control is significantly contributing to keep the conflict from escalating
to high and preserving stability, on the other hand, the second position state that arms control
is irrelevant and unnecessary since arm control can cause more problem rather than solving

20
Ibid
21
Ibid.
the existing one. Baylis divide the analysis of Arms control significance into three key
Areas:22
 International Stability
Arms control originally create to deal with instability that rise from arms race
between superpowers. Arms control also has been used to enhance crisis stability,
so that states not prone to surprise attack at the time of crisis. In early post cold
war, arms conrol helped to enhance perception of stability, but the growing interest
in national security making arms control is harder to implied. Arms control is
affecting international stability by creating different perceptions from states about
their security.
 Norms of Behaviour
Eventhough there are two different position on the significance of arms
control, Arms control itself has already creating and maintaining some norm of
state behaviour that increase international security.
However, the critics see that the norm that created is weak or only reflected the
preferences of the powerful status quo states, thus many states still able to violated
in order to seek for more power,
The support however argue that Arms control treaty increase political price for a
state to develop weapon. Thus eventhough arms control is imperfect, it give some
value in international behaviour.
 Peaceful Change
Regarding the contribution of Arms control to peaceful change, the position is
once again divided into two, the critics say that Arms control reflect political
relation, not creating it. in order for Arms Control is possible, the relation
between states has to be improved first. Thus making arms control play little to
none part for a peaceful change.
On the other hand, the supports argue that arms control played a part in
mitigating the conflict between East and West. At the end of cold war, the arm
controls treaty helped to reduce mistruss between Soviet and U.S.A, and
preventing the open war from happening.

22
John Baylis, “Arms Control and Disarmament,” in John Baylis, James Wirtz, Eliot Cohen and Colin S. Gray,
(2009), Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies.
 Chapter II
Case Study

Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty)

Treaty of conventional armed forces in Europe or CFE Treaty was first stated on
November 19th, 1990 during the CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe)
Summit in Paris, France. This agreement was signed by 30 member states consist of NATO
and Warsaw Pact state members. This agreement was mainly established by two big
international organizations that divided Europe into two blocks NATO and Warsaw Treaty
Organization states. Warsaw Pact itself was an alliance formed by Soviet Union/USSR,
which then continued by Russia after its collapsed in 1991, and Eastern Europe countries
(such as Albania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Democratic
Republic of Germany) with aimed to balancing NATO forces in Europe. 23 The main purpose
of CFE Treaty was to reduce the possibilities of surprise attack and the emerging of offensive
power by the armed forces. Then in May 15th, 1992, the member states signed Tashkent
Agreement which arranged rules and procedures of the implementation of CFE Treaty. 24
The CFE Treaty then set the distribution of ex-USSR weapons and the restrictions of
each group’s armaments. According to Article IV, 1st Paragraph each member states have to
implement equal limitation of armaments including:
1. 20.000 battle tanks (no more than 16.500 active units)
2. 30.000 armored vehicles (no more 27.300 active units), which is the number of
armored infantry fighting vehicles not more than 18.000, and not more than 1.500
units heavy armament combat vehicles
3. 20.000 artillery pieces (with 17.000 active units)
4. 6.800 combat aircrafts
5. And 2.000 attack helicopters
Moreover, each stated should not deploy troops and military equipment not above the limits
which are:
1. 13.300 main battle tank
2. 20.000 armored vehicles

23
Milestone.(1953-1960).Warsaw Treaty Organization-1995. Accessed on January 4th, 2013
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/WarsawTreaty
24
the data received from CFE Treaty document accessed on January 3rd,2013.
http://www.bits.de/ac-archive/r-kontrolle-multilateral/on/cfe.pdf
 3. 13,700 artillery pieces
4. 5.150 combat aircrafts
5. and 1.500 attack helicopters

Besides all of those requirements, the CFE Treaty also restraint all of the member states to
have not more than one-third of armed forces in the determined region which are the entire
European region from Atlantic seas until Ural mountains (Ural Zone) including all European
island territories of the states members. The CFE Treaty also obligated each state to equalize
their holding of armaments and equipment (for a country with a large army level) in
accordance with the predetermined limitations.
In Article VII, CFE Treaty obligated each state member to provide immediate
information to other members regard the maximum level of weapons own by the state based
on the previous rule in the treaty. And they were allowed to change its maximum level within
90 days after the first notification. Furthermore, in Article VIII, each state obligated to
achieve Treaty limitation by reducing executes in three phases and complete it not more than
40 days after the creation of the treaty. The reduction that was meant here are including
weapon destruction, turning into non-military, deactivation, and so on. And states were not
allowed to restrict or refuse any inspection regarding those subjects. While for the non-active
units, they should be saved in the permanent storage where the location was also informed to
other states.
Furthermore, there was also a revision regard the CFE Treaty which arranged about
the national and territorial boundaries. Based on this revision, each state did not allowed to
trainee or deploy its military armed forces exceed the territorial number. And if a state want
to place their military in other territorial, they must get approval from UN Security Council or
OCSE. This agreement then was approved by all member states, including Russia, which was
shown by its withdrawal of military forces in Moldova and armed reduction in Georgia. The
Treaty also allows for the establishment of additional accessions, so that the new member
states to join NATO in this regime. Adapted Treaty will become an obligation after all the
countries that adopted the ratified treaty
For a long time, CFE Treaty had seemed to be an effective agreement in maintaining
security, especially in Europe. it was proven by the use of the treaty a s a tool to resolve post-
war crisis and to avoid misunderstanding that might be happened during crisis. Some
inspection that were carried out by this treaty also able to reduce tension between NATO and
Russia during the transition time after the broke down of USSR. CFE Treaty indeed, had
been successfully became a regulator in European politics and security by managing states
behavior to not creating conflict.25 But this stable regime was threatened by Russia’s
decisions, to no longer apply and implement this agreement in 2007.
On July 14th, 2007, Russian government under the role of President Vladimir Putin
made an announcement in which his country would no longer implement the CFE Treaty. 26
The reason was because of Russia sees that this treaty no longer has an important meaning to
make the treaty become an adapted treaty. Therefore, Russia would no longer provide the
annual report of its military forces and also all of the inspection information related to the
arms limitation agreement, such as the amount of tank, armored vehicle, helicopter, and
combat aircraft that Russia’s possessed.
Russia claimed that its action was a response to NATO member states’ decision to
condition their ratification of the 1999 Adapted CFE Treaty on the resolution of a dispute
over Russian military deployments in parts of Moldova and Georgia. It was because until
2009, there were only 4 states that ratified the adapted CFE Treaty which are Russia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, and Austria. Regarding the Adapted CFE Treaty, Russia had to withdraw its
military forces from Georgia and Moldova. But until 2004, there still no withdrawal because
Russia thought that the existence of peacekeeper in both country were still necessary in order
to maintain security in CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) region. And as one of the
ex-USSR country, Russia considered itself to be the peacekeeper in CIS region. 27
In response to this action, the government of the United States, and on behalf of
NATO, began to follow Russia’s action by suspended CFE Treaty in November 2011. This
decision was came after the US and NATO have tried over past four years finding diplomatic
solution following Russia’s decision in 2007. A long these years, US always try to find
resolution in resolving CFE dispute through the development of a draft framework for new
negotiation in order to strengthen the CFE Treaty regime. But Russia did not seem to have
the same intention to start talks nor to agree to resumption of compliance with the original
CFE Treaty. The United stated told that they would resume full CFE Treaty implementation
only if Russia did the same to its Treaty obligations. 28

25
Witkowsky, Anne; Garnett, Sherman; McCausland, Jeff.(2010). Salvaging the Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe Treaty Regime: Options for Washington.Brooking Arms Control Series, Paper 2.
26
Boese, Wade.(2008). Russia Suspends CFE Treaty Implementation.the data was accessed from Arms Control
Web site, on January 4th 2013. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_01-02/cfe
27
Lachowski, Zdzislaw.(2009). The CFE Treaty One Year After Its Suspension: A Forlorn Treaty.SIPRI Policy Brief.
28
Kimball, Daryl G.(2011).U.S. Suspends CFE Treaty Implementation.Arms Control Web site. Accessed on May
12th,2013. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2011_12/US_Suspends_CFE_Treaty_Implementation
Conclusion

Arms control and disarmament could be seen as a way to create peace and
maintaining security. But there are differents between arms control and disarmamaent.
Disarmament known as the reduction or abolition of armament. While arms control is
restraint excercised upon armament policy. Disarmament aimed to completely abolishing
weapons which then tranforming international relations. But arms control have different point
of view. Arms control advocates argue that eliminating weapons might change the world. The
only thing to believe is reducing the risk of war to contribute in peaceful change.
Arms Control and Disarmament indeed had gone through some phases in their
development. Untill know there are still some effort to implement arms control and
disarmament agreement in order to create peace and security among states. States still
learning the lessons from the past cold war to be able to implement and maintaning peace
through an effective arms control and disarmament agreement.
One case example this effort could be seen in CFE Treaty. CFE Treaty is one of the
arms control agreement between US, include NATO, and Russia. CFE Treaty is still
changing and being revised to be able to adapt by all CFE Treaty state members so then the
security and peace will be able to achieve.