Now this is the type of foreign policy objective that Canada should be pursuing.
"Hundreds of Order of Canada recipients, representing some of the country's leading scientific, cultural and political luminaries, are joining a growing global groundswell calling for a multilateral agreement to end the use of nuclear weapons."
Too bad it couldn't come from the Conservative government... you know, the people whose job it is to construct and pursue Canada's foreign policy.
- blenCOWe
Showing posts with label disarmament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disarmament. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
One Scary Number
Sir Richard Branson and a number of world dignitaries have come together to form a group called Global Zero who want to see the renewal of Cold War efforts for disarmament, with the eventual goal of eliminating nuclear weapons within 25 years.
There is nothing wrong with their goal to decrease the number nuclear weapons but the number "zero" is a scary concept. Nuclear weapons have provided stability and predictability to the international order since their first use at the end of WWII. Removing all nuclear weapons will likely create a more volatile situation where states, especially rogue states and other troublemakers, will act more readily because they would not have the fear of annihilation.
The deterrence function of nuclear weapons has been one of the most important factors of the decline of inter-state wars in the relations of nations. As nuclear weapons spread to more states, stability ensured from the fear of nuclear war. If you take out the nuclear weapons then the fear dissipates and the world will revert to greater instability. It is also important to note that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 so it is not like they have become a mass tool of destruction. Their power is what stabilizes the balance of power amongst nations and makes states' actions predictable. Thus, the presence of nuclear weapons are necessary for stability in the relations of nations.
- blenCOWe
There is nothing wrong with their goal to decrease the number nuclear weapons but the number "zero" is a scary concept. Nuclear weapons have provided stability and predictability to the international order since their first use at the end of WWII. Removing all nuclear weapons will likely create a more volatile situation where states, especially rogue states and other troublemakers, will act more readily because they would not have the fear of annihilation.
The deterrence function of nuclear weapons has been one of the most important factors of the decline of inter-state wars in the relations of nations. As nuclear weapons spread to more states, stability ensured from the fear of nuclear war. If you take out the nuclear weapons then the fear dissipates and the world will revert to greater instability. It is also important to note that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 so it is not like they have become a mass tool of destruction. Their power is what stabilizes the balance of power amongst nations and makes states' actions predictable. Thus, the presence of nuclear weapons are necessary for stability in the relations of nations.
- blenCOWe
Friday, October 24, 2008
Ban Ki Moon's Calls for Disarmament Will Fall on Deaf Ears
Today, Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the members of the United Nations community to re-invest themselves in the disarmament process to rid the world of nuclear weapons. He spoke mostly to those states that are part of the exclusive nuclear weapons club. These states, the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty in 1968 which required them to take serious steps to reduce their nuclear weapon stockpiles. Also targeted in the Secretary-General's call for disarmament were the unofficial nuclear powers: North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and India. Unfortunately though, Mr. Ki-moon's pleas will likely fall on deaf ears and for three main reasons. These reasons are that 1) states enjoy the power that nuclear weapons bestow on them, 2) disarmament does not reduce the threats states face and, 3) the NPT is not an effective tool for disarmament.
It is no coincidence that the states that have nuclear weapons, for the majority, are also the ones with vetoes in the UN Security Council. Like the vetoes, nuclear weapons allow states a certain level of freedom in their policies. Nuclear weapons provide states with a deterrent from its adversaries that also possess nuclear weapons and act as a source of fear for non-nuclear states. This results in a sort of perceived invulnerability and confidence that states can get away with almost any policy they want. These states know they can get what they want and have gotten used to it. As with the case of Security Council reform, those with the power are not likely to be eager to give it up, yet it is these states that determine how successful these reform initiatives are. This is the most likely reason that Ki-moon's pleas will not yield any real result; until these states can be offered some sort of reward for giving up one of their major sources of international influence.
Secondly, disarmament does not prevent conflict. This is essentially the "guns don't kill people, people kill people argument." Disarmament assumes that by removing weapons, states will be less likely to engage each other in conflict. While I concede that states may, at times, build up their armaments/capabilities in response to other states' buildups, conflicts are not caused by the presence of weapons. International conflicts arise out of tensions over such things as natural resources and ethnicity. Long past are the times of the Cold War where the presence of weapons can create conflicts (e.g. Cuban missile crisis). A weapon is a merely a tool and is not a threat to anyone until a person makes it so. Therefore, disarmament is ineffective in attaining international peace because it only addresses the presence of the weapons and not the users or their intentions.
Lastly, to hold signatory states of the NPT to their treaty obligations to reduce their armaments is ineffective because it only regulates against the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and not the vertical proliferation. Horizontal proliferation refers to increasing the total number of weapons while vertical proliferation refers to the expansion of weapon capabilities. The NPT has been somewhat effective in controlling the number of weapons that exist but has been ineffective in curtailing the expansion of these weapons' capabilities. There may be less nuclear weapons than in 1968 but the weapons that do exist are more deadly than ever so in effect the NPT has only been successful in strengthening the hierarchy of states in world affairs. Disarmament would be much more effective if the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was to receive the kind of widespread support that the NPT has received. This treaty would address the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as some of the inherent environmental risks that are associated with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this has not happened as of yet and as such disarmament has remained largely ineffective in achieving international peace.
In conclusion, these three realities will prevent Ban Ki-moon's efforts for disarmament from any true realization or effect. For these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that disarmament is largely an academic concept and not practical for reducing the threat of international conflict.
- blenCOWe
It is no coincidence that the states that have nuclear weapons, for the majority, are also the ones with vetoes in the UN Security Council. Like the vetoes, nuclear weapons allow states a certain level of freedom in their policies. Nuclear weapons provide states with a deterrent from its adversaries that also possess nuclear weapons and act as a source of fear for non-nuclear states. This results in a sort of perceived invulnerability and confidence that states can get away with almost any policy they want. These states know they can get what they want and have gotten used to it. As with the case of Security Council reform, those with the power are not likely to be eager to give it up, yet it is these states that determine how successful these reform initiatives are. This is the most likely reason that Ki-moon's pleas will not yield any real result; until these states can be offered some sort of reward for giving up one of their major sources of international influence.
Secondly, disarmament does not prevent conflict. This is essentially the "guns don't kill people, people kill people argument." Disarmament assumes that by removing weapons, states will be less likely to engage each other in conflict. While I concede that states may, at times, build up their armaments/capabilities in response to other states' buildups, conflicts are not caused by the presence of weapons. International conflicts arise out of tensions over such things as natural resources and ethnicity. Long past are the times of the Cold War where the presence of weapons can create conflicts (e.g. Cuban missile crisis). A weapon is a merely a tool and is not a threat to anyone until a person makes it so. Therefore, disarmament is ineffective in attaining international peace because it only addresses the presence of the weapons and not the users or their intentions.
Lastly, to hold signatory states of the NPT to their treaty obligations to reduce their armaments is ineffective because it only regulates against the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons and not the vertical proliferation. Horizontal proliferation refers to increasing the total number of weapons while vertical proliferation refers to the expansion of weapon capabilities. The NPT has been somewhat effective in controlling the number of weapons that exist but has been ineffective in curtailing the expansion of these weapons' capabilities. There may be less nuclear weapons than in 1968 but the weapons that do exist are more deadly than ever so in effect the NPT has only been successful in strengthening the hierarchy of states in world affairs. Disarmament would be much more effective if the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was to receive the kind of widespread support that the NPT has received. This treaty would address the vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as some of the inherent environmental risks that are associated with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this has not happened as of yet and as such disarmament has remained largely ineffective in achieving international peace.
In conclusion, these three realities will prevent Ban Ki-moon's efforts for disarmament from any true realization or effect. For these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that disarmament is largely an academic concept and not practical for reducing the threat of international conflict.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
