Barriers to Effective Global Governance - Research Paper Example

Part I: The Essay Introduction In their history, humankind has created all types of weapons. Of them all, nuclear weapons are the most destructive(Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, n.d.). Besides the massive scale of damage they cause, the effects of nuclear weapons can be felt several decades after their detonation. One nuclear bomb detonated over a big city is capable of killing millions of people. Nuclear powers have declined to disarm. This scenario has increased the risk of other countries acquiring nuclear weapons. The surest way of eliminating the danger of nuclear weapons is for the nuclear powers to disarm. To this end, The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) was initiated in 2007. This paper examines two approaches the global community has resorted to in the fight against nuclear weapons and the challenges faced thereof. Background on Nuclear Weapons Today, nine countries are in possession of over 16,000 nuclear weapons (Adamsk, 2014, p. 91-134). These are the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia among others. The United States and Russia alone have about 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high alert. This means that that the weapons are ready for launching within few minutes of the declaration of war. Many of these weapons are several times more powerful than the atomic bombs America detonated on Japan in 1945. The most certain way of eliminating the dangers nuclear weapons pose to humanity is for the world’s nuclear powers to disarm(Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, n.d, p.51-80.). The leaders of some nuclear powers have uttered their support for the eradication of nuclear weapons. However, none of them has unveiled an elaborate plan for the elimination of their arsenals. Instead, they are in the process of modernizing them. Nuclear weapons possess massive power to destroy human life and the environment(Tannenwald, 2006, p. 677). When detonated, they release colossal amounts of energy in the forms of radiation, heat and blast. No amount of humanitarian assistance would be sufficient to handle the damage caused by a nuclear weapon. A regional war in which about a hundred nuclear weapons the size of the Hiroshima atomic bomb were used would result in the immediate death of tens of millions of people. Moreover, the war would alter the global climate so grossly that over a billion people would starve. Based on these facts, the international community swung into action to eliminate these lethal weapons. This paper examines two approaches that have been employed for this purpose and the challenges encountered in each. Approaches to Dealing with the Nuclear Menace There are two broad approaches to addressing such global challenges as that of nuclear weapons: top-down and bottom-up approaches(Krasner, n.d.). Top-down approaches involve states initiating processes in the hope that the effects of those processes will trickle down and benefit their citizens. Bottom-up approaches, on the other hand, are initiated by non-state actors, usually civil society organizations, who seek to influence, persuade or lobby governments to take certain actions. Many international bottom-up approaches take the form of transnational advocacy networks (TANs), which are a component the regimes theory[ CITATION Top \l 1033 ]. TANs possess certain characteristics. First, their memberships are voluntary and are drawn from organizations that are independent of government. Secondly, they transcend national borders and address issues of international concern. Third, shared values tie them together. In the area of weapons, at least two TANs have been formed in the history of the world. The first is the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)(Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, n.d.). The second one is the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). These two organizations appear very similar. They also have similar goals. The two campaigns have had different results so far. Six NGOs formed ICBL in 1992 to champion the global ban on the use of landmines. The activities of ICBL culminated in the signing of an international treaty that bound world governments to ban the use of landmines in their countries. 122 states approved the treaty in Ottawa, Canada in December 1997. ICAN is discussed in the paragraphs that follow. ICAN: A Form of Bottom-Up Approach Inspired by the success of, and modelled after ICBL, ICAN was established in 2007 as a global campaign whose goal was to motivate, persuade and compel governments to start negotiations that would lead to treaty that banned nuclear weapons(Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, n.d.). Today the campaign has 300 partners, most of them NGOs, spread in 70 countries. ICAN believes that discussions on nuclear weapons must focus on the broader effects of the weapons on humankind and all the aspects of their life – health, environment and livelihoods among others. They also believe that the processes that led to the treaties that banned landmines in 1997 can be replicated in the area of nuclear weapons. Since its inception, ICAN has made a number of milestones in the journey toward their goal. In September 2006, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War identified ICAN as their top priority during their world congress held in Helsinki, Finland (Butfoy, 2012). Affiliate organizations committed to the launch of the campaign in 2007. In November of the same year, ICAN set up their first office in Melbourne, Australia. Felicity Hill, a disarmament campaigner with considerable experience, was appointed the coordinator. It not clear what led ICAN to locate their first offices in Australia even though the country is not their list of countries with nuclear weapons, even the organization has identified Australia as being in an alliance with one of the nuclear powers. Perhaps, the campaign would have been more formidable had ICAN first located in a nuclear power’s territory. Currently, there is no evidence of how this initial location has impacted the campaign thus far. Some of ICAN’s achievements in 2008 included the signing of a treaty in which African states affirmed their resolve for a continent free of nuclear weapons and support for a global treaty that would lead to the ban of nuclear weapons(Butfoy, 2012). In the same year, ICAN was launched in Australia and Canadian campaigners welcomed the organization. However, these campaigns appear to have been misplaced priorities. Not a single African state, according to ICAN’s list, has nuclear weapons, hosts them or has entered into an alliance with a nuclear. Canada is reported as being into an alliance with a nuclear power. Maybe the organization would have done better to take their campaigns to nuclear powers and their partners. Nonetheless, on a more positive note, in the same year, the organization secured the support of Indian doctors, not government. India is one of the nine nuclear powers. In 2012, ICAN achieved several "milestones". Possibly, the most significant of them all was the launching of the initiative that urged nuclear powers to divest from nuclear powers(Butfoy, 2012). The initiative followed the launch of a major study that catalogued companies that produced nuclear weapons and their financiers. Campaigners pressurized financial institutions to stop funding those companies. Unfortunately, the majority of ICAN’s activities in this year still took place in non-nuclear states. Apparently, the campaigners were not daring enough to take their campaigns to the door steps of the nuclear powers. Back in 2007, ICAN had managed to get 127 countries (among them North Korea, China, Pakistan and India) to endorse a resolution that called on nations to start negotiations on a convention on nuclear weapons. However, as of 2013, the possibility of the convention was still being discussed at the Conference on Disarmament. Little progress was being made. So far, compared to ICBL, ICAN has been less successful(Butfoy, 2012). ICBL successfully achieved a treaty banning landmines. However, all states are yet to endorse the treaty and landmines still exist. Thus, the IBCL regime has some way to go before it can be deemed fully successful. Even though ICAN has been less successful thus far, there still exists significant declared global backing for a ban on nuclear weapons. Problem is, this support excludes some of the leading nuclear powers. For instance, in 2009 President Obama declared their support for a world without nuclear weapons. However, the United States has not shown any support to that end. In addition, Obama is yet to announce any plan to disarm. In order to better understand the wanting level of ICAN’s success, we turn to the game theory. Games Theory: A Form of Top-Down Approach The game theory is a conceptual framework for making decision in competitive situations(Anon., n.d.). The nuclear weapon debate can be seen as a game involving major and minor players(Neuman, n.d.). The major players are the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons. The minor players on the other hand, fall into three categories: those countries that host the nuclear weapons of other countries, but have none of their own, those countries that have entered into strategic alliances with nuclear powers and other countries that possess nuclear weapons, and those states that that neither produce, host nor belong to alliances involving nuclear weapons. The game theory makes a number of assumptions. First, every player is rational and seeks to maximize their benefits while keeping losses to a minimum. Secondly, every player has full knowledge pertaining to the situation. They know what is best for them. They also know what option are available to their competitors. The biggest problem with nuclear weapon proliferation is lack of cooperation among nations. This lack of cooperation stems from the fact that the countries that have nuclear technologies benefit from them in different ways(Shipman, n.d, p. 37.).While nations will use nuclear weapons and technologies for economic gain, others feel more secure hoarding them. Still, other nations use nuclear weapons to further their geostrategic interests. All these interests give the states involved incentives to lie. Thus, a state may lie that they only use nuclear technologies to generate electricity, arguing that of all the technologies available to them, nuclear energy is the best alternative. In reality, the state could be making nuclear weapons out of the fear of an impending war. Given the selfish interests of states and the resultant lack of cooperation, the solution to the nuclear weapons threat lies in creating robust international organizations with the power to inspect and enforce. Otherwise, left to their discretion, no state will abandon their nuclear program. The unwillingness to abandon nuclear programs is born out of mistrust. Because no nuclear power knows for certain what the other is doing, disarming would be a risky venture(Brown, n.d, p 51-91.). The enemy could be developing the weapons behind their back. A Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) would create a more open platform for sharing and verifying information relating to nuclear programs. However, the NPT must be accompanied by a strong body with the power to enter and inspect states. Conclusion Nuclear weapons are certainly the deadliest weapons man has ever made. Besides causing wanton destruction, their effects can be felt for decades after their detonation. Even though the surest way to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons is for nuclear powers to disarm, they have long declined to do so(Corry, n.d.). This situation has led to smaller countries arming themselves with nuclear weapons for fear of being attacked by the nuclear. In 2007, a group of NGOs came together and formed ICAN with the aim of pressuring governments to get to the negotiating table and enact a treaty that would ban the lethal weapons. Seven years later, ICAN is yet to realize their goal, mainly due to the lack of cooperation from the nuclear powers and their allies. Part II: Justification of the Case and the Approaches Besides terrorism, nuclear weapons constitute one of the biggest threats to world peace(Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, n.d.). A hundred nuclear bombs the size of the Hiroshima atomic bomb of 1945, when used in a regional war, could kill tens of millions of people instantly. In addition, their impact could be felt for several decades to come. Russia and the United States are reported to be holding approximately 1,800 of their nuclear weapons on high alert. These weapons can be unleashed within minutes of the outbreak of a war. This scenario poses a major threat to world peace. So far, efforts to get the nuclear powers to disarm have unsuccessful, largely due to mistrust among them. The two approaches used to analyse this case are the most appropriate. The top-down approach, involving world governments, and exemplified by the game theory comes in handy because the development of nuclear weapons is a manifestation of the arms race that has long persisted among the world’s superpowers(Corry, n.d.). It is a competition for global dominance. The bottom-up approach, on the other hand, comes in hand because ICAN has exemplified it. Here is a situation where a number of NGOs joined hands with the aim of persuading and pressurizing governments to come together with the explicit goal of signing a treaty that would ban nuclear weapons. References CITATION Top \l 1033 : , (Anon., n.d.), Read More