The era of globalization is making us change the conventional ways
and facing us with increasingly complex tasks. The international
community will only be able to tackle them if it acts in unison,
using the credentials of coeval science and technology and the
entire economic and cerebral potential for the benefit of all the
States of the globe. Not even the most powerful states economically
and militarily can find answer to new challenges that would threaten
international security in the 21st century.
Order Your
APA Research Papers Now!
This issue becomes more vital relating to arms proliferation and
disarmament where all pros and cons of the globalization era are
most noticeable. It is the threat of a global nuclear dispute that
has swapped the perception of those things upon which every State
should build its security and paved the way to disarmament
negotiations. The United Nations has played an active role in it
since the onset of this process multilateral diplomacy. In this
respect, the Conference on Disarmament and "the Geneva process" are
noteworthy. In this conference the multilateral agreements
prohibiting whole classes of weapons of mass destruction have been
elaborated and bilateral agreements have been reached which enabled
Russia and the United States to begin slackening in strategic
offensive arms.
The era of globalization now asks for a joined and collective
approach to nuclear non-proliferation issues, maintaining that
search for solution should not be at the hands of a small number of
the nuclear powers or States possessing the largest military
capabilities. An arms race is bound to affect the interests of all
States and influences the general international environment wherever
it emerges. Under these circumstances the process of disarmament has
become the process of global security and inevitable in nature. The
outcome of this fact follows the Millennium Summit and Assembly held
within the framework of the United Nations. For the disarmament
process to develop in a functional manner, each State must be fully
aware that its security is akin to that of the whole international
community and is assured by political means and international legal
accouterments. Collective proviso of strategic stability in the
world is an essential element for a steady and incremental
disarmament course of action. In this way only a safe and democratic
model of the world order can be constructed that meets the
conditions of today's eon. Various material incentives have been
used throughout the history of international relations to affect the
conduct of recipient countries and promote collaboration. It is only
in recent years have gurus of international politics started to
garner systematic empirical evidence on the use of such incentives
in fields of international trade, environmental policy, and arms
control.
International issues
The politics arms control raises the question whether or not it is
reasonable to "buy" cooperation from critical states and examines
various recent cases of nuclear nonproliferation diplomacy,
including experiences with Ukraine and North Korea. As arms-control
issues remain high on the international agenda, this shows that
positive incentives can add to the resolution of global governance
problems. This politics of “positive incentives” in arms control
shows that under certain situations positive incentives are much
better than threats and sanctions. Acquiring, retaining or
eliminating weapons of mass destruction have abstruse effects on
global security. These decisions fill in an important place in
international relations, especially in the relations among the big
powers. “During the Cold War, arms control and disarmament were
called a “barometer” of U.S.-Soviet relations”. Today, in this
relaxed international situation arms control and disarmament are
still significant means to supplement the security of all countries
and conceive a commending international environment. The development
of international arms control and disarmament will exert significant
influence on trends in the overall international security situation.
Order Your
APA Research Papers Now!
The events in line of the cause
The international debate over the anti-ballistic missile issue
concerns the controversy between “uni-polarization” and
“multi-polarization” and also between two security concepts of
“absolute security’’ at the cost of other countries’ security
interests and that of universal security based on international
cooperation. Relatively, the US National Missile Defense system (NMD)
has attracted concerns from all over the world and big powers in
particular. In 2000-01 US added US$2.7 billion for NMD research and
development and conducted two missile interception tests.
Protest in the international horizon against this NMD program grew
stronger. Moscow opposed revision of the Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty and stated that if the United States does not comply by
the Russia would do the same, and launched a series of diplomatic
initiatives, proposing the establishment of a global missile control
mechanism. It also suggested that Europe and Asia cooperate on
developing missile defense system.
Meanwhile, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation witnessed
certain progress. In 2000, Russia put forward a series of proposals
on the anti-ballistic missile; Russian President Vladimir Putin
pushed the Duma to ratify START II and relevant protocols and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This stirred the international
community to the point of acclaim. Washington did not approve the
relevant START II protocols and the Senate refused to ratify the
CTBT. In the Sixth Conference on Deliberation of the Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the final documents
of the treaty were passed. In the meantime, the negative
developments in the field of international arms control and
security, such as nuclear tests in South Asia and the U.S. refusal
to ratify CTBT and its threat to retract from the ABM Treaty,
alarmed the future of nuclear arms proliferation.
Issues concerning non-proliferation
In the current scenario, the international community intensified
efforts in missile non-proliferation. Different countries have
different views on the causes for missile proliferation, assessment
of missile threat and systems to resolve the issue of missile
proliferation. It is now a clear understanding that resolving the
issue of missile proliferation cannot be achieved by relying on
discriminatory export controls, sanctions, pressure or
extra-territoriality. Settlement of this issue cannot rely on the
development of an anti-missile system or armed intervention, but
depends solely on the universal participation of the international
community in seeking a comprehensive and non-discriminatory
multilateral solution.
Order Your
APA Research Papers Now!
Another important issue of small arms proliferation came up in
recent years. Therefore, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution
requesting all countries to take necessary actions. The resolution
called for an international conference in 2001 on the illegal trade
in small arms and light weapons. The overall result of all these
efforts were that the multilateral treaties were executed well, but
there are still many difficulties in the multilateral arms control
negotiations. Talks on strengthening the effectiveness of the
Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) have continued and major issues
were settled. In previous years China has continued to play an
active role in international arms control and disarmament activities
and made various contributions to furthering the progress of
international arms control and disarmament.
Debate over NPT
According to the opening statement of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
which affirms that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would
seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war and that all parties to
the Treaty are entitled to cooperation in the further development of
the peaceful applications of nuclear technology. It also asserts the
operation of International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on
peaceful nuclear activities, seeks the ending of all nuclear
explosions for all time, and the eradication of all nuclear weapons
and the methods of their delivery.
The NPT is accused of favoring Non-proliferation of weapons (NWS),
by placing most of the responsibilities on the Non-proliferation on
nuclear weapons (NNWS). Additionally, the unequal responsibilities
of the NNWS place them at a continuous military disadvantage and
make them more unprotected to nuclear aggression. Furthermore, NNWS
were economically and industrially disadvantaged in developing
nuclear energy for peaceful uses. Proponents of the NPT assert that
the Treaty is a coactive device for insuring greater international
stability and security. Some opponents of the Treaty argue, however,
that its nuclear nonproliferation pledges and safeguards are
ineffectual.
Order Your
APA Research Papers Now!
National Perspective
Germans and many European countries think of arms control first of
all as a way to stop proliferation. In the United States, however,
arms control is seen as deterrence, passive and active defenses, and
preemptive attacks against nuclear, chemical, and biological
arsenals in countries hostile to the United States. The United
States stance with respect to this arms proliferation and
disarmament has two clauses. First, the United States does not seem
to take arms control seriously enough as existing arms control
programs are not implemented according to the respective treaties,
as is the case with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Nor does the
United States show leadership in negotiations to rectify existing
treaties where effective verification provisions are urgently
required, as is the case with the Biological Weapons Convention.
Secondly, it seems the United States is taking a more unilateral
pose in that it prefers military preparations to fight in an
environment of more and more countries armed with nuclear,
biological, or chemical (NBC) weapons rather than using arms control
as a multilateral tool to prevent proliferation.
The control of traditional arms and technology transfers must become
an integral element of United States foreign and defense policy if
the overall goals of nonproliferation are to succeed. But “the major
suppliers remain in economic competition for the sales of
conventional weapons, and this economic competition is perhaps the
greatest remaining obstacle to developing a cooperative control
regime among suppliers”. It is high time the public and the
politicians were alerted to the dangers inherent in the present
situation. This crisis must be averted in developing into a threat
to the entire non-proliferation movement and the successes of
nuclear disarmament. The goal must be set to achieve a worldwide ban
on all weapons of mass destruction.
References
Dhanapala, Jayantha: Reinforcing the NPT Regime: International
Challenges & Opportunities, address to UN Under-Secretary General
for Disarmament Affairs, 1999.
Fischer, David: Safeguards: Past, Present and Future,
(http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/Periodicals/Bulletin/Bull394/fischer.html)
Bernauer, Thomas and Dieter Ruloff: Soliciting Cooperation from
Critical States The Politics of Positive Incentives in Arms Control,
2000
IVANOV, Igor (Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation)
statement at the plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament,
Geneva, 1 February 2001
Kissinger, Henry: AMERICA AT THE APEX, The National Interest, 2001
Holum, John: Assessing the New U.S.-Russian Pact, 2002
A Forecast and Analysis, Washington, DC, Department of Defense,
December 1994.
Jones, Walter S. The Logic of International Relations, 8/E, 1997
|
