Efficiency of International Institutions in Solving Collective Crises - Research Paper Example

Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty & the Role of International s: North Korean Nuclear Crisis Introduction: Soon after the end of World War II, the world had seen a glimpse of what the nuclear arsenal would bring to it; devastation, destruction and total annihilation. United States use of nuclear arms over Hiroshima and Nagasaki opened the eyes of the world and made it apparent that something had to be done on an international scale to truncate the use of nuclear armament as soon as possible. Therefore, by the end of 1945, US, UK and Canada proposed a formation of the International Atomic Energy commission (IAEC) that would work to eliminate all nuclear weapons being built for destructive purposes and promote peaceful means of the technology. A plan offered by the United States in 1946 also proposed that all nuclear arms and technology come under international control and ownership. However, the post World War efforts did not seem to work out too well and it was later on that countries started to pledge allegiance to the NPT (Non Proliferation Treaty) which kicked off in 1968 and became effective in 1970. A list of around 190 countries are signatory to the treaty. The NPT rests on the premise that the non-nuclear nations would agree to never pursue any sort of acquisition of nuclear arsenal whereas the nuclear weapon state would share the benefits of it with the non-nuclear states. The treaty is reviewed for changes every 5 years and as of now, stands as being extended till an indefinite period. North Korea & Its Status in the Non Proliferation Treaty: North Korea had the USSR as its strongest communist ally at the time of the cold war. When the cold war came to a close, Soviet Russia had weakened substantially. North Korea, that looked upon it as a security guarantee began to think that now it should itself do something to curb the situation. Therefore, in 1989 the United States, through its intelligence network, found that North Korea which had signed the NPT is in the early stages of building an atomic bomb. In 1992 North Korea allowed a team from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Commission) to undertake visitors to its nuclear facilities. The inspections seemed to not go as expected and North Korea had blocked the commission from visiting some of its facilities. In 1994 an “Agreed Framework” was reached between America and North Korea that stated that N. Korea would abandon its nuclear program and the U.S. would provide oil for electricity and better economic ties would be maintained .Also, the atomic plants would be replaced with light water nuclear power plants .However, the routine inspections would continue by the IAEA, However in late 2002, George Bush marked North Korea as the axis of evil, soon after which, the tensions between the two countries started to take a nasty turn. In December 2002, the Unites States suspended energy to North Korea that marked the end of the Agreed Framework. North Korea was now being deemed as enriching uranium and not cooperating towards the NPT. Dr. AQ Khan, a renowned nuclear scientist in Pakistan was blamed for transfer of nuclear Intel into North Korea. However, Mr. AQ Khan publicly refused involvement in it and the issue still stands on unknown grounds. In early 2003, North Korea announced that it would withdraw from the Non Proliferation Treaty that caused panic around the United Nations and the world. However, talks were established between South and North Korea which ended without bearing much fruit. Soon after, the United States strengthened deployment of its troops in South Korea, further heightening the situation. Also, South Korea and the US held joint military exercise later that same year. During 2006, it was identified that there were a total of 6 sites that were housing nuclear material. However, the talks had gone on for quite some time when finally in July 2007, North Korea announced that it is shutting down its Yongbyon reactor a news confirmed by the IAEA soon after a shipment of 7.5 tons of oil aid reached North Korea. However, very recently North Korea tested its third nuclear device and the matter is far from solved as yet. Role of International Institutions in World Peace: Peace has perhaps been more recently known than war. The League of Nations formed during the 1940s came with the mandate of upholding the integrity of every country and maintaining peace throughout the world. The United Nations however, has created all necessary forums, so far to rid the world from the menace of war. However, implementation holds the key. United Nations not only tried to come up with strategies to curb war but also to alleviate poverty and hunger from the world. The United Nations has although taken its mandate very seriously at all levels, but critics disagree at times with respect to its effectiveness in implementation. If we look at the African nations, the UN Peacekeepers have been deployed there for decades to curb the situation and bring peace to the land but that has not always been that easy. Poverty and unequal distribution of wealth are still the most important reasons for the rise in conflicts in many countries but issues like Israel and Palestine, the Kashmir issue and issues pertaining to terrorism are yet to be properly addressed. In many situations, the United Nations has seemed be a silent spectator. Although, no one can detriment the role of the United Nations in World peace, and the fact that it hold all the countries together under one umbrella, is a testimony of its importance but none the less the policies and mandates need to be more strongly practiced than just being written down on heavy piles of paper. If we go back in time we do find that the United Nations has had a direct linkage with respect to resolving major world conflicts. During the 1980s and 1990s United Nations helped solve many conflicts. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq war concluded after heavy loses of life and infrastructure on both sides. The tripartite agreement between Angola, South Africa and Cuba made the allowance for Namibian independence. The United Nations also helped resolve the subcontinent issue between India and Pakistan over the Siachen glacier and the Kargil conflict. It would not be correct to criticize the UN completely for not being able to completely address all concerns because we all know how equally important it is for the developed and powerful nations in the G20 to come out with all out support with regards to the peace issues and resolving them. The Effectiveness of the Non Proliferation Treaty: The Non Proliferation Treaty is by far one of the most universal arms treaties having about 189 countries under its fold. The countries are divided in ‘Nuclear Weapon states (NWS)’ and ‘Non-Nuclear Weapon states (NNWS)’. The only NWS states are America, United Kingdom, Republic of China, USSR and France. The other states being NNWS will have to abandon any nuclear r project pertaining to non-peaceful means but any nuclear technology requirements of the technology for peaceful means and energy would be shared by the NWS. India, Israel and Pakistan are the only states not yet under the flagship of the treaty. The NPT upholds the right of inspection of the NNWS in order to ensure any nuclear capability development by these states and it is believed that it has been extremely vigilant with respect to that and has helped inhibit the growth of nuclear arsenal around the globe. (DOMBEY 2008) South Africa had started its research and nuclear weapons program after the Cold War but it abandoned the program and came under the NPT. Despite of all the criticisms, what also needs to be understood is that this, is the only soul treaty that binds the world under the umbrella of abandonment of nuclear technology, and it is the NPT that legally binds the NWS to pursue and achieve nuclear disarmament. Because of the IAEA and its security benefits, the NNWS have the assurance that their neighboring countries are not pursuing any nuclear technology for purpose of weapons. (Kimball 2005) I believe that without this treaty the number of nuclear weapon states would have been far greater than being in single digit as of now. The Critics to the Non Proliferation Treaty: There have been a lot of criticisms with respect to the NPT and most of it is largely based on the NWS nations. The allowance of the NPT to the five strong nations as NWS has shed continuous concerns of many other nations and these are the same nations that hold the veto power in the UN Security Council. Although the NWS are legally bound to dismantle all nuclear arsenal but concerns are high that these countries would never relinquish their full power and stock of the nuclear weapons. For many states, the regional conflicts has led to be the determining factor as to undertake the nuclear arsenal technology despite of the NPT being in place. This is true for the subcontinent, the Korean peninsula and the Middle East. North Korea has recently carried out a nuclear test and Iran continues to enrich uranium to weapon grade, has raised concerns over the effectiveness of the NPT. (Goldemberg 2008) A major concern is that Non State actors may get a hold to this nuclear technology and that may cause great havoc to all nations worldwide. One of the major loopholes in the NPT is that the nuclear energy technology, the so called “peaceful” technology, that is supposedly the right of NNSWs requires only enrichment and reprocessing to turn it into weapon grade plutonium. Also, owing to the spread of science it is now not that difficult to find out the process of enrichment of uranium. It is also termed by many as a discriminatory treaty that allows five of the countries to build nuclear weapons whereas the rest are to use it, if allowed, for peaceful means only. It is kind of a chain reaction. After Russian tests of its nuclear technology, China also turned towards it and built nuclear enrichment plants. India followed China since it felt threatened and did its own nuclear tests. Pakistan, for obvious reasons, followed suit to use it as deterrence against India. Hence, we have come to realize that the technology is more of a deterrence factor then anything since no country feels safe around any other nation that holds this technology. (Kaplan 2005)The NPT seems to be surprisingly flawed on a number of cases, one being that it is now out dated. The dynamics of the world and hence the threat of proliferation are now profoundly different. Many critics have also termed it as somewhat permissive to a certain extent. Article X allows the use of nuclear power and enrichment in “extraordinary circumstances”, which, by the very nature of the NPT should not have been a clause. If the NPT seeks to rid the world of nuclear nuisance then the treaty should not uphold any sort of allowances under any sort of circumstances for nuclear arsenal building. Many countries had signed the NPT either because of some social or economic security or under threat and pressure. (Kusumi 2005) The Non-Nuclear Weapon States believe that they have been made to give in the highest sacrifices and the NWS have gained the most from this. It seems that United States seemed to be the most concerned with respect to proliferation but is itself adamant to keep the nuclear arsenal with itself. The NNWS are under scrutiny even for their peaceful nuclear programs whereas the Nuclear weapon states are exempt from inspections of their peaceful nuclear facilities. These biased approaches and some vague clauses have given great criticisms to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. (DOMBEY 2008) Korean Peninsula & the nuclear crisis: As discussed in the initial section, the Agreed Framework did not deem any results and Pyongyang has shown intentions to pursue its policy towards nuclear arms building. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has posed a very viable danger to the peace and stability of Eastern Asia. North Korean nuclear crisis is now much more threatening than what it was in the 1990s and the window seems to be slowly but surely closing, with respect to preventing it from going all out with respect to plutonium plants and nuclear weaponry. (Huntley 2009)North Korean crisis and its alienation from the NPT, holds great significance because it may trigger other countries to follow in its footsteps. If North Korea is to be recognized as a nuclear state, it would raise heavy concerns and undermine the power of the United Nations and the NPT. Many analysts perceive that United States, after North Korean missile test, has changed its stance from denuclearization to preventing proliferation from the Korean state. This would leave many countries with questions over American foreign policy. The Six party talks that started in 2003 between the US, North Korea, China, South Korea, Russia and Japan seems to be an American policy to make the North Korean nuclear issue a worldwide issue rather than a bilateral disagreement. (Bajoria 2012) Although, several inroads were made during 2008, when North Korea handed an 18,000 page document to the United States that listed and explained its nuclear programs. However, it seemed to have failed to address the issues of proliferation to Libya and Syria and also details regarding uranium enrichment, however, the inability to analyze the North Korean regime changes and its stance over its nuclear program had kept the entire international community in a perplexed situation. Pyongyang has said that it would return to six party talks but on no precondition, whereas the U.S and South Korea continue to demand that they should show some sort of intention to forego their enrichment plans. (Tanaka 2009) North Korean policy towards the nuclear crisis continues to stand strong since it seeks some sort of pledge from the US with respect to its security, since 25000 troops of the US are stationed in South Korea. South Korea however seeks a denuclearized North Korea as a means to reunite the Korean peninsula for greater power and authority in the region. (Pinkston 2003) China stands as an ally of North Korea and it helped Pyongyang come to talks with the six parties. China has still not acted strongly over sanctions for North Korea and has continued aid economically. Beijing has shown resistance over any strong sanctions towards Pyongyang. The United States continues to hold a strong policy against nuclear disarmament of North Korea and has been successful in making it an international threat. Its main concerns are with respect to proliferation to other non-nuclear states. If the Korean issue is to be resolved, the concerns and remnants regarding the Korean War would need to be addressed by the concerned parties. North Korea has viewed the stability of its regime with its nuclear technology and power. Sanctions over the peninsula are ineffective without Chinese buy in and this time Pyongyang would need more than just a security guarantee from the United States to satisfy its concerns. (Hecker 2012) In order to seriously tackle the issue, all concerned parties should come out and discuss all apprehensions of North Korea and seek agreement. North Korea has borne a heavy cost with respect to its nuclear program and it would only give it up, if the benefits outweigh its concerns and cost. It is believed, that any assumption that North Korea would abandon its nuclear initiatives for economic aid and pressures would be completely inaccurate. Recent economic recovery by North Korea has also led to expedited efforts by its regime in developing its nuclear arsenal. (Pinkston 2003) North Korea is expected to have medium range missiles that can be armed with nuclear warheads and have the ability to strike South Korea, Japan and U.S military bases therein. The United States assumes to completely dismantle nuclear technology from North Korea in a complete and verifiable manner but has not yet been able to do so. On the other front, North Korea believes that its nuclear powers would curtail its military spending and allow it to receive food and assistance from the outside world. It also believes that it is a security guarantee for Kim Jong il regime. (Huntley 2009) Conclusion: It is impossible and seems highly unlikely that the things would take a dramatic shift and North Korea would pull out of its nuclear program. North Korea would need strong reassurances from United States with respect to its security. For North Korea, its nuclear deterrence is far more important than any economic aid. The United Nations ,the International Atomic Energy Commission both need to come up with strong measures, revise their existing policies and come up with a more stringent and unbiased measures to tackle the issues. The Non Proliferation treaty should have a strong mandate to rid the world completely form nuclear arms and under no case should it be endorsed or permissible. The Korean peninsula would only gain peace after reassurance from all concerned parties and no talks would be fruitful without substantial compromises by all factions. Bibliography Bajoria, Jayshree. The Six-Party Talks on North Koreas Nuclear Program. February 29, 2012. http://www.cfr.org/proliferation/six-party-talks-north-koreas-nuclear-program/p13593 (accessed May 10, 2012). DOMBEY, NORMAN. "THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY." New Left Review, 2008. Goldemberg, Dr. José. The Erosion of the NPT. São Paulo: University of São Paulo , 2008. Hecker, Siegfried S. "Can the North Korean nuclear crisis be resolved?" Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, 2012: 1-18. Huntley, Wade L. "NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM." ASIAN PERSPECTIVE, 2009: 147-182. Kaplan, Fred. Slate. May 3, 2005. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/05/the_real_nuclear_option.html (accessed May 9, 2012). Kimball, Daryl. NPT Fact. April 2005. http://armscontrol.org/factsheets/nptfact (accessed May 4, 2012). Kusumi, Ryoko. "Recent developments in the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons." ISYP Journal on Science and World Affairs, 2005: 87-102. Pinkston, Daniel A. "Bargaining Failure and the North Korean Nuclear Programs Impact on International Non Proliferation Regimes." KNDU Review, 2003: 5-21. Tanaka, Hitoshi. "The North Korea Nuclear Crisis:The Five Principles." East Asia Insights, 2009: 1-3. Read More