The International Security: Disarmament - Assignment Example

Grade 15th December Disarmament The issue of international security is a very delicate matter that could possible result into catastrophic events if handled in the wrong way.1 Some countries like Iran have openly announced the ineffectiveness of the existent treaties- treaties that have been depended on not only by the UN but by the international community to prevent an unprecedented nuclear arms race. Treaties like NPT and CTBT have traditionally been seen as one of the safeguards against this arms race that could pose serious security threats to the world peace (Alva 72). The treaties are supposed to provide a means of approach to the disarmament exercise. The accumulation of protective nuclear weapons will catapult more countries to enter the race in anticipation of possible attacks and this could jeopardize the world peace to a great extent.2 A good and viable solution to the problem of nuclear weapons would be the multilateral disarmament that is supervised in order to guarantee effectiveness (Emmet 69, Marcus 290). Historical perspective The Eisenhower’s Atoms for peace program was launched in the 1950s. At around the same time, Iran with the backing of USA embarked on a mission to study the possibility of producing nuclear energy. USA agreed to provide Iran with enriched uranium to facilitate this research. The relationship was mutual since USA was getting an opportunity to invest in Iran while Iran was getting a chance to get an alternative to the expensive petroleum fuel. In the year 1968, Iran signed the NPT treaty and six years after the signing of NPT, they also signed the Safeguard Agreement with IAEA. France entered a joint cooperation for nuclear energy research with Iran in the 1970s in what was known as the Darkhovin project. Germany came on board the same year in the project that was codenamed the Bushehr project. The two countries supplied Iran with nuclear fuel and also helped in the construction of the nuclear plants (Marcus 200). The first sign of trouble came in 1979 during the Iran-Iraq war. America got concerned that Iran was not just after nuclear fuel but was also producing nuclear weapons. On hearing this, France and Germany withdrew their support from the projects that they were supporting in Iran. During the Iran-Iraq war, some nuclear reactors in Iran were hit and Iran seized US hostages. That was the beginning of bad diplomatic relations with US. The US became vocal in its disagreement to the production of the nuclear weapons by Iran. Through the influence that US had, it blocked the relations of Iran with countries like China, Russia, Argentina and others as a way of frustrating their efforts of making the nuclear weapons. The lack of heightened support to Iran’s research initiatives resulted in a go slow for them (Alva, 88). When Iraq’s nuclear weapons were discovered during the gulf war of 1991, coupled with the fact that America was increasingly becoming a force to reckon with, Iran was inspired to continue with its earlier mission of developing nuclear weapons. Iran’s efforts got a boost from Russia in 1995 when Russia agreed to support the program and even paid for the fuel of the program.3 They also continued constructing the reactors that Germany and France had abandoned earlier on. In the same year, Iran began soliciting support from china, North Korea and Pakistan in the Darkhovin project. Since America was no longer providing them with uranium enrichment, Iran decided to construct nuclear plants and other facilities. Most countries believed that Iran was using the guise of making nuclear fuel while it was actually working on making nuclear weapons. Many countries highly doubt that Iran has the sole purpose to meet energy needs in its own country but it’s also or just the disguise to develop nuclear weapons. In fact, a nuclear bomb project as intercepted and halted in the year 2003. Countries Response to Iran and DPRK’s Issues Israel - which is interestingly not a signatory of the NPT, and which is also armed with nuclear weapons threatens to attack Iran. America (under President Bush) pledges to support Israel if need to bomb Iran arises. The looming threat makes US develop a defense mechanism anticipating attack from Iran. Missile shield is a project that was developed as a defense mechanism against any possible attack. The missile shield is supposed to detect an attack from another missile and intercept and destroy the missile in any of the three stages of the missiles flight. Even though US made a proposal to Czech Republic to increase the interceptors and radars in the arrear, Czech was reluctant to implement the recommendations It consists on radar bases and interceptors that detect a coming missile and destroy it in any of its three stages of fly. USA made a proposal to Czech Republic and Poland to amplify the territory for radars and interceptors, the proposal is not a deal yet. Russia felt threatened by the missile shield and decided to renegotiate. The result of the negation was that America agreed to protect Russia as well and Russia on its side would put the missile detection radar Azerbaijan. The project is to protect Russia, Europe as well as all states that are party to NATO. Even after this deal, Russia still felt vulnerable and they decided to start a race of getting their own anti-missile shield. This resulted in USA sanctioning Russia and that caused strains in relationships of the two countries. During this time, USA negotiated with UK to amend the Mutual Defense Agreement (MDA) in order to allow the development and life longing of their nuclear weapons. The rationale was that it was a national security issue.Uk is categorical that even though Iran says they abandoned their search for nuclear weapons, their word can’t be taken for it. It makes UK start making improvements to its missiles and making submarines. Following some unfriendly exchange between USA and DPRK in 2005, the six party negotiations resulted in a unanimous remedy- DPRK should abandon its nuclear plans and come back to NPT. IT was to allow for supervision by IAEA. The member agreed to provide DPRK with food and energy in return for its cooperation. DPRK still continues conflicting with USA but China intervened in 2006 and managed to convince DPRK to go back to the drawing table and two years later (2007) DPRK agrees to forget its nuclear weapon plans (Feldman 91). The Middle East is one of the places that face the looming threat of a nuclear attack. Most of the nuclear activity has been going on there or in the regions nearby and this could easily result in a nuclear war which would have devastating consequences. The only foreseeable solution to avoid a nuclear war in the Middle East is to come up with a weapons-free zone treaty. This would mean that the region and the countries that subscribe to the treaty would get rid of, and desist from producing nuclear weapons. If such a zone was to be formed, then the five nuclear weapon states would have to agree to keep out of the region and that would be easy to achieve. What is hard to achieve however is to resolve the age old Arab-Israeli conflict. Other important bottle necks in the path of realization of an nuclear weapon fee zone is the regular threats of Israel to Iran, the refusal of the countries (India, Israel and Pakistan) in the middle east to be signatories of the NPT treaty, and the India-Pakistan struggle. The problem with their refusal of the countries to sign the NPT is that they continue living in an environment of mistrust f each other- a fact that makes the region even more unstable. It is also worth noting that the free zone is more than just appending a signature to a document. The treaty is about the spirit and not the letter. It is more of personal commitment of individual parties to abandon nuclear weapon production. The objective is the adherence those countries that are not parties to the NPT and CTBT to the treaties to be able to regulate their nuclear activities (in charge of IAEA). This will enhance trustworthy relations between Middle East countries, since there would be no nuclear threat. The free zone it’s not an ‘only treaty’ matter, it depends on the transparency of each country regarding their use of nuclear technology. Conclusion The process of disarmament can be successful if first of all, the India, Pakistan and Israel agree to sign the NPT thereby allowing for regulation of what they do with the nuclear energy they have now or ma have in the near future (Seymour 55). The treaties are supposed to provide a means of approach to the disarmament exercise. Countries that have access to nuclear energy and other related resources should desist from the temptation of making weapons as that would result in an arms race. Such a race would mean there would be too many countries with nuclear bombs and that will eventually make the world a pretty volatile and an unsafe place for everyone. Works Cited Alva Myrdal. The Game of Disarmament: How the United States and Russia run the arms race, New York: Pantheon, 1978 Emmet J. Hughes, The Ordeal of Power. Journal of contemporary History, (1963): 68-9. Feldman Jonathan M. From the From Warfare State to 'Shadow State': Militarism, Economic Depletion and Reconstruction," Social Text, 91, Volume 25, Number 22 Summer, 2007. Marcus G. Raskin. Draft Treaty for a Comprehensive Program for Common Security and General Disarmament, Essays of a Citizen:(1991): 227-291. Seymour Melman, Editor, Inspection for Disarmament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1958 Read More