…… The Srazon-style meeting lasted for several days. Wang Yuanqing was also a little exhausted, and the black six in the chaotic city

Everyone understands the truth, but when it comes to the details, no one is willing to give in.

The comprehensive destruction of nuclear weapons is not as simple as a single sentence, but involves such details as monitoring, verification, spot checks, and technological blockade. In terms of supervision, how to ensure that destroyed nuclear warheads cannot be reassembled and that nuclear materials cannot be used is a very critical issue. According to the prevailing view, destruction must be carried out under supervision. But by whom, and in what way? After several days of talks, it was finally decided that all the countries involved in the negotiations would send technical personnel to form a "comprehensive nuclear disarmament destruction monitoring committee." "Full authority to supervise the destruction of nuclear weapons." Verification is more cumbersome than oversight.

After all, nuclear weapons are the most important weapons in any country, and verification is tantamount to revealing all secrets. From the position of the republic, it is certainly not believed that the United States will destroy all nuclear weapons, and vice versa. It can be said that every country is doubting whether other countries will actually fulfill their commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. This has led to spot checks, which means that after one country has signed a treaty on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, other countries have the right to conduct spot checks at any time. Finally, there is the issue of technological blockade, which is not a hassle for countries with some strength, and it is more important to ensure that nuclear weapons are no longer manufactured than to completely eliminate them. A technical blockade is necessary, but it does not solve the problem completely. This raises the question of whether and by whom the raw materials used to produce nuclear weapons should be regulated.

If we really want to let the heads of state and governments solve these problems, I am afraid that it will not be effective for several years.

In the past few days, Wang Yuanqing talked to Brandino several times. Although Brandino defeated his Republican rival in the general election and won re-election, in Wang Yuanqing's view, the biggest question is not whether Brandino will sign the treaty on the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, but whether the US Congress will ratify the treaty. Under U.S. law, if the treaty is rejected by Congress, the president's signature has no legal effect.

During the talks, Wang Yuanqing mentioned this point and also hinted that if the treaty is vetoed by the US Congress, even if the plenary congress of the Republic ratifies the treaty, the Republic will tear up the treaty and will absolutely not reduce nuclear weapons without the participation of the United States.

Regarding Wang Yuanqing's concerns, Blandino expressed enough sincerity.

According to him, the Democratic Party won the election, controlling more than half of the seats in both houses of Congress, and nearly a third of lawmakers have already expressed support for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and the treaty will not be blocked in Congress.

Unlike Wang Yuanqing, Blanche was more concerned with how to implement the treaty.

It can be seen from this point that the Republic and the United States have the closest position on the issue of destroying nuclear weapons, because after all, the Republic and the United States have the largest nuclear arsenals in the world and also have the most complete strategic defense system in the world, and the destruction of nuclear weapons will have almost no impact on the strategic security of the two countries. Because the Republic and the United States have the most powerful conventional military forces in the world, it is in the interest of both countries to completely eliminate nuclear weapons.

Now that Blandino has pledged to get the treaty ratified by Congress, Wang Yuanqing has shifted his focus to implementation.

According to the agreement reached privately between the two parties, after the entry into force of the Treaty on the Comprehensive Destruction of Nuclear Weapons, three international organizations composed of signatory countries should be established: the destruction monitoring committee, the verification and random inspection team, and the international management organization of nuclear technology and nuclear materials. On the basis of these three international organizations, it is necessary to make clear three main points: first, the supervision of destruction must be recognized and recognized by all countries; second, verification and random inspections must be carried out in an open and transparent manner; and third, international organizations that manage nuclear technology and nuclear materials must not be interfered with or influenced by any country.

Of course, when it comes to the details, the two still have different views.

For example, supervise whether the destruction work has legal effect after it has been recognized. In other words, if the Supervisory Committee finds that a State has not effectively fulfilled its commitment to destroy nuclear weapons, in what way should it be urged to do so, and should it achieve its goals through international sanctions or other means? Wang Yuanqing's view is very tough, and he should not only impose sanctions, but also take tough measures when necessary. Blandino, on the other hand, believes that the goal should only be achieved through sanctions, and that there should be no use of force, let alone force. In response to Blandino's views, Wang Yuanqing only raised one question, that is, how effective can the sanctions be? Addressing this issue. Brandino also raised the question of whether strong measures can achieve the goal of destroying nuclear weapons.

Of course, there are many related issues, such as whether verification and random inspections need to be notified in advance, and who will fund the international organizations that manage nuclear technology and nuclear materials.

It can be said that any one issue will determine the ultimate fate of this international treaty that can change the history of mankind.

Comparatively speaking, Wang Yuanqing and Blandino only have differences in the means of achieving this, and their attitudes on the essential issue are completely identical, and they both believe that comprehensive nuclear disarmament should be actively promoted. After deciding to leave their differences to the negotiators, the two men reached a final consensus that the strategic defense systems of the two countries cannot be expanded indefinitely, but must be controlled to avoid falling into a new round of the international arms race. As for the extent of the restriction and how to measure the level of the strategic defense system, it will require specific consultations between the negotiators of the two countries.

Compared with the Republic and the United States, the attitude of the other three nuclear powers is more complicated.

The situation is slightly better in the United Kingdom, which began to reduce nuclear weapons as early as the beginning of the second century. Although at that time it was mainly to reduce military spending, the stock was difficult. But in essence. Britain's statement on reducing nuclear weapons is positive, because Britain has the security guarantees provided by the United States, and the possession of nuclear weapons is only a symbol of maintaining Britain's status as a great power, and it does not make much difference whether Britain has nuclear weapons or not when it is no longer a great power.

France's attitude is extremely contradictory, because its political and diplomatic position in the international community is largely based on the nuclear powers.

Even within the EU, in addition to the advantages of land area, France's population and economic aggregate are inferior to Germany's, and without nuclear weapons, it is difficult for France to ensure the status of the EU leader. The problem is that if France resists the total elimination of nuclear weapons, it will be on the opposite side of the European Union, and even Germany and Italy will part ways with France. For France, it will either give up its role as the leader of the European Union, or it will be morally reprehensible. Both options are painful for the political integration of Europe that France is actively advancing. Rus' has the largest territory in the world, but it has a population of only 100 million, and its conventional military power is far inferior to that of the Republic and the United States, and even the European Union in some cutting-edge areas. For Russia, nuclear weapons are a magic weapon for itself, and giving up nuclear weapons is tantamount to abandoning the foundation of national strategic security. The problem is that Russia has no choice. With Russia's national power, it can support a nuclear arsenal of less than 2,000 weapons at most, and the interception capabilities of the strategic defense systems of the Republic and the United States are above this scale. The significance of nuclear weapons for Russia's national security is already less obvious. Against other neighboring countries, nuclear weapons are simply useless, and they are not even a threat.

With the republic joining forces with the United States, even a nuclear power like Russia has been cornered, and other countries that possess nuclear weapons, or are trying to possess them, have no choice. Of course, this does not mean that these countries will be tied down.

During the negotiations, Israel made it clear that it would never destroy its nuclear weapons if the security of the country and its nation was not guaranteed. Under the influence of Israel, the Iranian government has also made it clear that if Israel refuses to destroy nuclear weapons, Iran will still actively develop nuclear weapons.

Iran's threat can probably be taken as a deaf ear, as early as the year of the United States, in the Iranian war, destroyed Iran's nuclear weapons development base, otherwise it would not have withdrawn its troops from Iran with peace of mind. According to the estimates of the international community, even if Iran concentrates its national forces, it will not be able to develop a nuclear-capable nuclear warhead before four.

The key remains Israel's security.

Although Israel has only about a few nuclear warheads, and only the ones can be delivered by missiles, and the rest are tactical nuclear warheads that can only be dropped by aircraft, under the premise of the complete destruction of nuclear weapons, if Israel refuses to destroy nuclear weapons, it will undoubtedly be a death sentence for nuclear disarmament.

How can Israel's security be guaranteed?

According to Blandino's proposal, all countries involved in comprehensive nuclear disarmament, including the United States, the Republic, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, must commit themselves to providing Israel with strategic security guarantees, prohibiting the export of weapons and equipment to countries surrounding Israel, and providing military assistance in the event of Israeli invasion or threat. Proposal against Blandino. Wang Yuanqing pointed out that the republic can provide Israel with a strategic security guarantee and even send troops to help Israel in the event of an invasion, but Israel must sign peace agreements with neighboring countries, recognize the independent statehood of Palestine, and return the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, to the neighboring countries.

Security negotiations on Israel have almost become the fate of international nuclear disarmament

Although the Republic and the United States are very different on this issue, in order not to have too much impact on disarmament, both Blandino and Wang Yuanqing agreed to separate the Israeli question and resolve it through special negotiations. In addition to Iran, Syria, and Egypt, which are participating in the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament, the negotiations will also include Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, and other Arab countries in the surrounding region.

In addition to the Israeli issue, there is also the issue of Brazil and Argentina.

Comparatively speaking, this problem is much easier to solve. Although both Brazil and Argentina accused each other of developing nuclear weapons, the Republic and the United States quickly reached an understanding that they were willing to abandon their plans for nuclear weapons and to dismantle all facilities that could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons, within the framework of international nuclear disarmament.

There are many similar questions, and each one requires a lot of energy.

When it comes to the day of the thug month, one of the biggest questions comes to the surface.

At the conference, a number of "non-nuclear States" involved in the negotiations put forward a demand that, in addition to providing security assurances to all States that have signed the Treaty on the Comprehensive Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, the five nuclear powers must compensate the non-nuclear States for the losses incurred by the non-nuclear States after signing the Treaty.

There is no doubt that this request is directed at the three countries with the most nuclear weapons.

According to this requirement, the amount of compensation is determined by the number of nuclear weapons held by the five nuclear powers, and the demand put forward by many countries is to compensate the fighters such as 100 million US dollars, and the United Kingdom will pay US dollars to the many non-nuclear states.

As soon as the request was made, Blandino was firmly opposed.

In his words, the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is a matter for the benefit of all mankind, and it is not the five nuclear powers that will benefit, and if compensation is provided for the destruction of nuclear weapons, any country can do so.

Unlike Blandino's strong reaction, Wang Yuanqing said that compensation could be provided, but not for the complete destruction of nuclear weapons, but for the sake of promoting the common progress of human society. What's more, compensation is not in cash, but through technology and investment.

The Russian president's reaction was even stronger, and according to him, if compensation was to be provided for the total destruction of nuclear weapons, it would be Russia that should be compensated the most, because the total destruction of nuclear weapons would have the greatest impact on Russia's national strategic security, and Russia would have to build a more powerful conventional military force for this, and it should be compensated.

France and the United Kingdom have also expressed their opposition to compensation, as non-nuclear states are the beneficiaries rather than the victims.

Negotiations have reached an impasse here.

Actually, there are two ways to look at this problem. All States participating in the International Conference on Nuclear Disarmament want to gain from it, not to lose anything. In the interests of humanity as a whole, the total elimination of nuclear weapons would certainly bring benefits to all States, but on specific issues this is not the case. In the words of those who demand compensation, the total elimination of nuclear weapons is tantamount to lowering the threshold for war and dismantling the last defence of small and weak countries, and the biggest beneficiary is definitely not ordinary countries, but large countries with strong conventional military forces. To that end, the major Powers must bear the primary responsibility for the total elimination of nuclear weapons and compensate the small States whose interests have been suffered.

From a practical point of view, the demands of these countries are not excessive.

Imagine that without nuclear weapons, great powers like the Republic and the United States would no longer have to worry about going to war, and would almost always be able to fight whomever they wanted, while countries without strong conventional military forces would either choose to ally with a certain level of power or wait to be beaten. More importantly, some international organizations composed of small and medium-sized countries, which used to have considerable influence in the international community, will inevitably lose their influence and will no longer be able to provide protection to small and medium-sized countries. From a certain point of view, it may even lead to the collapse of the United Nations, depriving small and medium-sized countries of the basic guarantee of expressing their voices, striving for fair treatment, and safeguarding their national interests.

The question is,! The country wants benefits, but the big countries will not willingly cut their flesh because of this.

Not to mention that the United States, Russia, Britain and France are resolutely opposed to providing compensation to other countries, and even Wang Yuanqing's attitude is reserved, after all, the Republic is not obliged to provide any compensation to other countries other than its allies. On the other hand, if every country involved in comprehensive nuclear disarmament were to demand compensation, no matter how powerful the five nuclear powers were, they would not be able to bear such burdensome obligations, which would only lead to the end of comprehensive nuclear disarmament. From the point of view of individual countries, it is unlikely that comprehensive nuclear disarmament will be approved by parliaments if there is a compromise on the issue of compensation.

It can be said that before that there was a struggle between nuclear powers, and after that there was a struggle between large and small countries.

The question is, can compensation solve the most important problem for small States, which is security?

There is no doubt that economic compensation will not solve the security problem at all, and may even worsen the security environment of small countries.

On the day of the thug, the leaders of the five nuclear powers held a closed-door discussion.

The focus of the discussion was on how to establish an effective international security system.

Although France and Russia insist that the role of the United Nations in international security should be strengthened, the United States and the Republic believe that the United Nations does not have the basis for international security and cannot guarantee international security, and that if the United Nations had been useful, there would not have been so many wars.

Speaking of which, the contradictions between the great powers are already very obvious.

Russia and France are clearly inclined to strengthen international organizations with a global character, while the republics and the United States are more focused on regional international organizations with major powers at their core. To put it simply, Russia and France do not want international nuclear disarmament to become a feast for the division of territory among major powers, while the Republic and the United States are actively working in this direction.

Although in the long run, the proposal of Ross and France can truly ensure international security, from a practical point of view, the idea of the Republic and the United States is more realistic.

After World War II, the United Nations was founded, and just a few years later, the United States launched the Korean War in the name of the United Nations, using the United Nations as a tool; During the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the United Nations not only did not become the cornerstone of maintaining world peace and stability, but became the target of the use of the two major powers. After the end of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, the United Nations still failed to play its due role, and was either used by major powers or thrown aside; With the outbreak of the Cold War between China and the United States, the international status of the United Nations has become even more precarious, and it has basically become an ornament.

In Wang Yuanqing's words, if the United Nations had been useful, there would not have been so many wars.

The key reason why the United Nations has lost its influence is that there is no leading force, while small countries want to use the United Nations to safeguard their interests, but the big countries use the United Nations as a tool, and if the United Nations hinders the interests of a certain big country, it will be ruthlessly thrown aside by the big powers.

Although the reality is cruel, we have to admit that only a regional international organization with a certain big country at its core can provide real security guarantees for the small countries within the organization. Among other things, the fact that the NATO bloc has been able to survive to this day has a lot to do with the dominance of the United States in the NATO bloc.

With both the Republic and the United States advocating an international order based on regional security, the situation is difficult to reverse.

To this end, Wang Yuanqing made full use of this conference and actively worked for the global layout of the Republic.