ABSTRACT
The most important long-term issue raised by the application of CBMs relates to their wide, positive appeal and the possibility that the approach began to be emphasised to the detriment of other security initiatives. The original aims and objectives of governments entering into CBM agreements will obviously determine their attitude towards implementation. A change of leadership certainly ranks high on any list of domestic issues which can challenge the pursuit of a negotiated CBM regime. There are at least three ways in which a CBM regime can work against the security and military goals set for them: selective compliance, bad faith. While all inter-state arrangements are similarly hostage to such changes of circumstances, the voluntary and non-legal nature of most CBM agreements make them particularly vulnerable to any such changes. Negotiated agreements are only the beginning of a long process towards the successful use of CBMs. Negotiated agreements are worthless if not implemented, and potentially dangerous if badly implemented.
