Probability of Nuclear Weapons’ Disarmament from the
Perspective of the Great Powers
Abstract
The article elaborates upon and analyzes the notion of
nuclear weapons non-proliferation and clarifies its importance. Nevertheless,
we demonstrate that total nuclear disarmament in contemporary competitive
international politics is almost unattainable due to various factors.
Initially, some countries that possess nuclear weapons strive to preserve their
dominant position in the international arena, that’s why complete disarmament
is impossible, and leading powers utilize them for their self-defense. Therefore,
it’s out of the question to abandon ownership of them. The paper seeks to
demonstrate the importance of “hard power” (regarding nuclear weapons) as a
main tool for great powers to preserve preference. We mean maintaining power
and primacy as much as they can, compared to other countries. In this article,
it is determined whether nuclear delegitimization and stigmatization are
effective or not. This paper aims to illustrate the idea of delegitimizing
nuclear power and whether it is implicit or legitimate to use such a term. The
primary concern is whether disarmament can be achieved with nuclear weapons.
From our perspective, in competitive world politics, non-great powers have a
desire to relinquish their nuclear weapons.
KEYWORDS: nuclear non-proliferation, great powers, hard
powers, disarmament, delegitimizing.
Introduction
The article seeks to determine the probability of nuclear
weapons complete disarmament. The main goal of this article is to elaborate on
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and its intended
purpose, as well as to highlight the significance of possessing nuclear weapons
as a form of hard power. As IR scholar Joseph S. Nye, Jr states “The capacity
to know when to use hard power, when to use soft power, and when to combine the
two, I call smart power”. (Nye, 2019) Therefore international actors,
especially owners of nuclear weapons, engage in competitive maneuvers in the
realm of international relations, utilizing both smart powers to seek dominance
in world affairs.
Simultaneously, the global community urges nations with
significant nuclear capabilities to preserve peace worldwide. But what
happened? Some of them desire to be an advanced country or become a dominant
power however, from our perspective, the target objectives of countries are not
aspiring to relinquish control of nuclear weapons. As Joelien Pretorius
explained: “I don’t see a ban treaty as a tool that can force nuclear-armed
states to give up their nuclear weapons…” (Kurosawa, 2018) We agree with
her viewpoint as there are no treaties or mechanisms in place that impact their
decisions. Are there any countries willing to relinquish their current status
or abandon their ability to defend themselves? It is not feasible in
competitive global politics because there is always at least one country (such
as Russia) that follows an aggressive foreign policy, making negotiations
nearly impossible in most cases. Hence, the article concludes that the
possibility of nuclear weapons disarmament is almost impossible. Moreover,
from our viewpoint, it could prevent countries from escalating into a
full-scale war. The following countries possess nuclear weapons:
the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India,
Israel, and North Korea.
Without a doubt, the United States aspires to maintain its
dominant position relying on the US Security strategy under the Biden
Administration. The United States has declared publicly that it will establish
a strong alliance with countries that share similar values and principles, but
they aim to maintain their dominant position. Russia, deemed an aggressor
country, is still engaged in an unjust and unprovoked war against Ukraine.
Russia has consistently cautioned against the use of nuclear weapons on its adversaries.
China is making an effort to achieve dominance and compete with the US. Israel
is still at war with Palestine. In addition, Israel has not signed the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has not agreed to IAEA safeguards for
certain of its major nuclear activities. (ICAN, 2023) The United Kingdom which
separated from the European Union and even the UK is going to defend Sweden and
Finland if they attack. (GALLARDO, 2022) Those countries won't attain total
nuclear disarmament. Losing power is not something that any of them desire.
Nuclear non-proliferation
The NPT is a Treaty that was adopted in 1968 and entered
into force two years later in New York. The treaty has the following
objectives: Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons is the goal of the UN
General Assembly’s adoption of multilateral nuclear disarmament. (Nations,
2015) From our viewpoint, nuclear non-proliferation will not eliminate
the presence of nuclear weapons, and the approach of total “multilateral
nuclear disarmament” is utopian. (Kurosawa, Stigmatizing and Delegitimizing
Nuclear Weapons, 2018) Nevertheless, the agreement advocates against the
expansion of nuclear weapons and their accessibility to all countries, and in
addition expansion, from our viewpoint, would cause real catastrophe. We would
like to emphasize that this strategy and enacted policies are essential;
however, the latter does not completely prevent the possibility of nuclear
weapons existence. In addition, the treaty represents a kind of safeguard
system under the responsibility of the IAEA, which plays a central role in the
treaty to fulfill the aims effectively.
The article aims to demonstrate the impossibility of
completely disarming nuclear weapons and explores the idea of using WMDs for
self-defense, as well as promoting the prevention of large-scale conflicts. To
begin with, to address the first problem, we suggest the aspiration of
preference in international politics. Leading powers are adversaries, competing
to solidify their position on the global stage. They possess nuclear weapons, a
source of immense power and accountability. Understandably, they will never
relinquish their control of nuclear weapons since doing so would signify a loss
of their authority and dominancy, a situation that is not within the realm of
possibility. However, the balance should be preserved, and promoting
international order is vital. Hence, the international community calls on the
owner countries of nuclear weapons to maintain a peaceful international arena.
According to IR scholar Mitsuru Kurosawa discusses the
concept of stigmatizing and delegitimizing nuclear weapons in his article
"Nuclear Weapons Stigmatization," and aims to develop effective
strategies for achieving a world free of nuclear weapons. Mitsuru Kurosawa
suggests two methods to attain a nuclear-free world discrediting and
delegitimizing nuclear power. A term is referenced for stigmatizing nuclear
weapons which means “to set a stigma upon; to make with a sign of disgrace or
infamy.” Thus it is mentioned many times in the article how to stigmatize
nuclear weapons and cause “multilateral nuclear disarmament” as the UN General
Assembly adopted. In this sense “delegitimize” would mean unconformable to law
and rule. The author suggests the term delegitimization which means to diminish
and destroy the legitimacy, in this case nuclear weapon. But at the same time
positive side is his attempt to find a way to eliminate weapons of mass
destruction. The issue is whether achieving complete nuclear disarmament
is possible through the use of stigmatization and delegitimization.
Nevertheless, from our perspective, his approach is utopian and irrelevant to
real competitive global politics.
To bring counterarguments regarding stigmatization and
delegitimization of nuclear weapons, there is no doubt the presence of nuclear
weapons poses a threat to the civilian population, and from our perspective,
the world would be more peaceful without nuclear weapons however unfortunately
we face a different reality. The International Community desires to achieve
“perpetual peace,” as Kant in his article suggests; however, we believe that
this approach is too idealistic. Therefore we are attracted to a peaceful world
but is complete disarmament possible in the real world? From our
point of view, the truth is that the world is shaped by conflict more than
cooperation, and strong power experiences “hard power” vs. cooperation.
Nevertheless, questioning the feasibility of achieving a nuclear-free world by
stigmatizing and delegitimizing nuclear power is uncertain.
We mentioned above, nuclear weapons as a means of
self-defense, and in our view, nuclear power serves as a tool for maintaining
the equilibrium of power. To discuss the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
In 1994, it is worth noting that Ukraine possessed nuclear weapons at that
time; nevertheless. Ukraine relinquished control of nuclear weapons in exchange
for assurance of security and independence. The Budapest Agreement, once known
as the protocol, now reflects a changed reality with Russia's invasion of
Ukraine. In our opinion, Russia would not have attacked Ukraine if Ukraine
possessed nuclear weapons. One could infer that nuclear power provides a
certain level of security among near-peer states or powers. (Budapest
Memorandum at 25: Between Past and Future, 2020)
Ultimately, the aforementioned argument and approach about
advocating to prevent large-scale conflicts, the article suggests another
argument about advocating to prevent large-scale conflicts. In addition, to
prove the relevance of this argument the article demonstrates the event of the
Cuban Missile Crisis. This was a moment in history when two powerful nations -
the USA and the USSR - were on the edge of a nuclear war. (Lebow, 2020)The
prevention of a nuclear war occurred because both nations had nuclear weapons,
and the deployment of these arms would lead to disastrous consequences.
Therefore, in some cases, nuclear weapons possession promotes the balancing of
power and even prevents harmful results. Furthermore, if we recall the conflict
between Pakistan and India, which have a territorial dispute over the Kashmir
region, we will verify the relevance of the argument mentioned above. Both
possess nuclear weapons which is why these countries are hesitant to escalate
the conflict further. (BBC, 2019)
Conclusion
The purpose of this article has been to outline an analytic
framework to assist us in making a judgment on whether nuclear disarmament is
implementable or not. We have strived through historical examples and
argumentative discussion to prove that in a world where great powers compete
with each other for dominance, obtaining leading and prior position, there is
not enough will for disarmament and nuclear weapon stigmatization.
Because the possession of nuclear weapons represents a noticeable means of
self-defense and gaining a prominent place in world politics. We would like to
emphasize that nuclear weapons provide a means to avoid full-scale
confrontation with potential adversaries.
Unfortunately, Kantian “perpetual peace” is utopian from
our perspective for the reason that world politics rely on power and hard power
in particular and there is no place to achieve “perpetual peace” for the simple
reason that power and gain have a greater role in international interaction vs.
cooperation and the benefits of peace. Sovereign countries strive to protect
and be responsible for their national interest and self-defense. For the
nuclear powers, this is a deterrent against adversaries that might use them. In
considering the first scenario about the possibility of nuclear disarmament,
which superpower possesses the necessary determination and capability to carry
out complete nuclear weapons elimination? From our perspective, none of the
great powers, in an anarchic international system and especially great powers,
strive to maximize their power to provide their national security. The second
situation could occur if one of the powers desires to abandon nuclear weapons
however there will not be mutual trust at least regarding nuclear disarmament
because there is no guarantee that all of the nuclear-owner countries fulfil
the promise. It is important to highlight that maintaining a balance of power
is crucial when it comes to global powers possessing nuclear weapons.
Bibliography
BBC. (2019, August 8). Kashmir: Why India and Pakistan
fight over it.
(2020). Budapest Memorandum at 25: Between Past and
Future. Harvard Kennedy School.
GALLARDO, C. (2022, May 11). The UK commits to defending
Sweden and Finland if they are attacked.
ICAN. (2023). Retrieved from
https://www.icanw.org/israel
Kurosawa, M. (2018). Stigmatizing and Delegitimizing
Nuclear Weapons. p. 35.
Kurosawa, M. (2018). Stigmatizing and Delegitimizing
Nuclear Weapons. p. 36.
Lebow, R. N. (2020, August). THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS. pp.
2-5.
Nations, U. (2015). Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Nye, J. (2019). International Politics.
Comments
Post a Comment