In International relations disarmament is a concept to eliminate all types of weapons for preserving world peace and to save world from war. Though war has led this world towards destruction therefore doctrines of International relations (liberalist) gave the idea of “disarmament”. Disarmament is the dismantling and destruction of all forms of military weapons or all weapons of a particular type (as in the elimination of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons) 1. In other words “disarmament is reducing to zero either all weaponry in national arsenals (as in general and complete disarmament) or all weapons for a particular type or kind (as in elimination of biological and chemical weapons). Before further discussion on disarmament one must clear common confusion which has misled many of us; arms control and disarmament are two terms with distant meanings and discrete issue in International relations.
Disarmament VS Arms Control:
Students of International Relations and of other disciplines usually consider arms control is synonym of disarmament. But as we see deeply and comprehensively, these two words are distinctively different with each other according to the terms of International Relations. Arms control refers to agreements designed to regulate arms level by lifting their growth or by restricting how they may be used. Hence arms control is bilateral or multilateral agreements to contain arms race by setting limits on the numbers and types of weapons states are permitted2.
Arms control is successor of disarmaments. When one argue disarmament is fantasy or utopias desire of people of world and this goal cannot be achieved then its counter argument take us in the realm of “arms control”; modest goal of placing restriction on the number and types of weapons. Elimination refers to disarmament and restriction on use of weapons refers to arms control. So we can conclude that difference between disarmament and arms control is very minor and faded but that ambiguity of difference in itself is huge. The most distinctive difference between these two terms can be drawn as “elimination of all kinds of weapons is disarmament” while “treaties between two and more states about how and when to use their weapons is taken as arms control”.
Brief History:
No historian has as yet produced a broad history of arms control and disarmament that can be described as comprehensive. Berkowitz 1987 and Burns 2009 purport to provide this range, but they are not derived from deep historical research and give short shrift to large swathes of history. Freedman 1986, Gray 1992, and Mueller 1989 deliver powerful arguments about the general nature of arms control and disarmament by invoking history, but the arguments take precedence over breadth. Croft 1996 and Towle 1997 address major facets of arms control in general terms, but they do not take on the entire subject3.
Disarmament attempts can be traced back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. In 1816, the Czar of Russia proposed to the British government the reduction of armaments, a call that was not well received however 4. Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907 were held for disarmament and establishing International Court with binding powers 5. In 1932-1934 World Disarmament Conference was held by League of Nations in order to actualize the idea of disarmament. Ten Nation Committee on Disarmament (TNCD) (1960) was one of several predecessors to the current UN disarmament organization, the Conference on Disarmament (CD). The TNCD preceded the Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament (1962-69), which was succeeded by the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD) (1969-78) until the CD was formed in 1979 7.
All of above mentioned treaties and conferences had vision to maintain peace in world and even in contemporary world lot of campaigns are aimed to see world free of weapons but all of their struggle and efforts are not enough to save people in future from destructive war because game of interest and lust of power has encouraged every state to build up military arsenals and enhanced moderate weapons than past. None of the state is ready to compromise on her national security because insecurity has pushed every actor and non-actor state in arms race.
Disarmament: Public Pressure and International Agreements
Disarmament involves two important factors; first public pressure and second international agreements. Both factors are overlapped with each other. Public offence and public pressure has shaped many international agreements because statesmen can never ignore completely public behavior on issues which encompasses their rights to the large extent. Many public groups have formed to campaign for disarmament, including the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) in Great Britain, SANE and the Nuclear Freeze in the United States. Disarmament groups have long opposed nuclear testing, beginning with the protests leading up to the Moscow Agreement of 1963, a partial test ban. More recently, the international ecological group Greenpeace tried to disrupt French nuclear testing in the Pacific, and there were coordinated protest campaigns against testing in Kazakhstan and in Nevada 6. Likewise there are several treaties which were designed to dismantle warheads with the vision of no-war. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SALT I, Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SALT II, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles ICBMs, Anti Ballistic Missiles ABMs, Strategic Arms Reduction Talks START, Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces INF are among few treaties which were merely signed and barely ratified in true sense. Hence argument of shaping international agreement on behalf of public pressure does not elaborate nature of those agreements which were never ratified. Public pressure could be helpful for bringing states on table of disarmament and arms control negotiation but agreements would be followed only if interests of particular state are not being compromised. Due to the overlapping nature of both factors on each other importance of public pressure cannot be denied during shaping international agreements. Agreements are successful or failure it depends vastly on undergoing situation between countries. SALT I was and SALT II for instance, explicit this argument. After SALT I, SALT II went on pending due to highest ebb of intensified relations between USA and Russia. NPT is another instance, Pakistan and India has not signed this treaty, one of the main reasons behind it is public opinion. Public pressure of both countries in this regard is about zero and no government has been asked to eliminate nuclear assets by public unlike UK, USA, Russia, China and France.
Disarmament: Major Powers VS Third World Countries
Disarmament and arms control are issues related with humanitarian security across all over the world. Elimination of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons was assured by major powers. After World War I, threat from Germany forced USA to develop most sophisticated weapon of century, nuclear weapon, while lust of power led USA to use atomic bomb on Japan leaving behind destruction and worst effects on humans for rest of their lives. Russia emerged as another super power after successful experiment of nuclear bomb in 1949. Britain, France and China also became the member of nuclear club in 1952, 1960 and 1964 respectively. Third world countries India, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea and many others started to join nuclear arms race for posing threat to their conventional enemies or for gaining regional power status. Major Powers were not ready to afford multi-polar world and took initiative step to stop nuclear arms race among third world countries by putting sanctions on these states. Dramatically a concept emerged of “free world from nuclear weapons”. No doubt threat of third world war during cold war and intense critical relations between Russia and USA paved the path of disarmament and arms control treaties but none of them gave effective result of elimination of weapons. After the collapse of USSR in 1992, USA and other big powers continued developing more modest and sophisticated weapons. UNO passed thousands of resolutions on disarmament and arms control from cold war to current era but the monopoly of five big powers showed their consensus against them.
Here question arises that when issue of disarmament, arms control, non proliferation and peace of world lies under auspices of those states who were the beginners of killing humanity and those who compromised peace of world for the sake of power or posing threat to enemy, how can they be sincere in preserving, maintaining or bringing peace? If they are not aimed to bring peace than what are their intentions? Why all of them stress on the necessity of “free world from nuclear weapon”? Answer is quite familiar, all of these major powers wanted to dominate on whole world if not physically than with the means of soft power. By disarming the third world countries knowingly or unknowingly it is to depend on the major powers for their present and future security 8. Hence their intentions are clear that they are aimed to use resources of poor states, as naturally less developed countries are rich in valuable resources, for their beneficial purposes and yes, no they are not taking steps for better life standards of humans. If disarmament and arms control is really most essential key near to developed states for humanitarian security than military expenditures should not be spent more on weapons than humans. Stance on disarmament is not clear by any state as it has become trend to proclaim that their nuclear assets are for peaceful purposes. In 2000 disarmament exhibit showcased an inverted triangle called “Overspending on Weapons vs. People”, which depicted the world’s misplaced priorities. It showed annual military world expenditure about $800 million while all humanitarian and developmental expenses, such as shelter, clean energy services, water, health care, elimination of starvation and illiteracy, prevention of ozone depletion, deforestation, global warming, acid rain, stabilization of population and strengthening of democratic instructions is about $224.5 million 9. According to SIPRI fact sheet military spending fell in the West—North America, Western and Central Europe, and Oceania—while it increased in all other regions. The five biggest spenders in 2013 were the United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and France. A total of 23 countries doubled their military spending in real terms between 2004 and 2013. These countries are in all regions of the world apart from North America, Western and Central Europe, and Oceania 10. Increasing military assets across the world in third world countries is alarming situation. Rate of manufacturing arms stockpiles are larger than dismantling of weapons. One should understand that when a state spent almost all of her budget on arsenals and chemical and biological weapons, she would never consider dismantle those assets. And if state do not build national arsenal factory than she choose to buy arms. India has become world’s largest arms importer, with almost 12% of global share. Pakistan stood third in arms imports with 5.6% of the world share similarly Morocco is fourth in arms import. These less developed countries are enlarging their army and weapons because of nature of anarchical world. Hence it clearly shows the intentions of states that how much they are ambitious in eliminating their warheads and arsenals. If these less developed or third world states are importing arms than who is exporting weapons? Exporters are none other but so-called peaceful states; USA, Russia, Britain, China and France, five big states who have occupied veto status. The abuse of consensus (veto power) is a common factor behind all the stalemates and failures in disarmament. “Consensus” at the UN is often more a barrier to commitment than the engine of its development. In this context, it too often means a consensus of the lowest-common denominator, failing to meet the UN’s high calling to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war 11.” That’s how a handful of countries hold back and design destiny of the rest of the international community. UNO took several steps in order to prevent of use these modest weapons. But veto authorities of peaceful organization, UNO, has never shown keen interest in execution of treaties. To some extent both USA and Russia has dismantled their assets but it couldn’t pursued other countries as USA and Russia shares 90% of total weapons assets on earth and if they did so, still both posses enough arms to harm their enemy. Third world countries are building up their warheads and enhancing weapons with modest means which threatens security of big powers, therefore, USA has made policy to dismantle all nuclear weapons on earth leaving security of these states dependent on developed countries. USA’s dismantling policy of nuclear weapons of third world and less developed countries is supported by other major powers too as their interests are same in this regard. Almost all states are signatories of Chemical Weapon Conventions CWC and The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention BTWC yet no state follow these conventions properly. Thus super powers and including less developed countries are not ready to compromise on national security by dismantling and eliminating all of nuclear assets and weapons. Albeit states seem pretending like disarmament is their first priority but the truth is, weapons can’t be reduced to zero and no state will do it due to anarchy, self interest and lust of power.
Conclusion:
Disarmament is a key factor which can prohibit war and save succeeding generations from war. Many public groups who serve for humanitarian peace are aimed to bring peace in world by eliminating nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons or similar nature of weapons which may harm humans. Disarmament is advocated by the idea of “no-weapon no-war” with further argument of eliminating army to zero point by state. . Disarmament has become only utopias desire of liberals as no state is determined for disarmament and arms control. Those who are so-called champions of nuclear disarmament, exports arms to those to whom they ask for elimination of weapons. Insecurity, anarchy and lust of powers are factors which will never let the disarmament happen in true sense.
References
Comments
Post a Comment