Nuclear Proliferation in International Relations - Research Paper Example

RЕSЕАRСH РАРЕR ОN NUСLЕАR РRОLIFЕRАTIОN IN INTЕRNАTIОNАL RЕLАTIОNS Student’s Name: Course Code: Tutor’s Name: Date of Submission Introduction Nuclear proliferation is the process of spreading nuclear technology and information to states that are not recognized as nuclear weapon states. Some policies and treaties have been put into place to minimize the spread of nuclear weaponry in states that are not recognized such as North Korea and Iran (Homan 2013). International relations theories try to explain how the spread of these weapons can be minimized and controlled. The nuclear nonproliferation treaty which entered into force in 1970, seeks to inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons (Hymans 2006). The realism theories of international relations try to show how states strive to pursue their interests in order to have power over others. In nuclear proliferation, realists suggest that use of military power can help in reducing the spread of nuclear weapons. They are more pessimistic in their struggle to minimize the spread. Liberalism on the other hand is guided by hope. They advocate for peaceful relationships between states and view the welfare and security of all people as a compassionate ethical concern (Jones 2012). Realism theories can be used in nuclear proliferation in Iran, North Korea and other affected countries (Hymans 2006). This research paper will analyze how realism theory versus liberalism theory can be used to compare the spread and minimization of nuclear weapons, particularly in Iran and North Korea with the incorporation of the non-proliferation treaty. Nuсlеаr Рrоlifеrаtiоn in Intеrnаtiоnаl Rеlаtiоns There have been growing nuclear threats and fear for countries that are not friendly to the US acquiring nuclear weapons such as North Korea and Iran. This makes it important to use realism versus liberalism framework to lay down policies that minimize the spread of nuclear weapons in these countries (Gustafsson 2014). There have been a number of options that can be put into place to achieve this as speculated in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty with realism and liberalism theories in place. This would allow these countries to peacefully use nuclear energy without making weapons (Kinnvall 2006). According to Kirby (2006), the first option is launch a preemptive military strike in North Korea and Iran. This option will be aiming at eliminating the two countries nuclear capabilities by destroying their reactors as well as processors which produce weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. The US will also be aiming at passing information to other countries that the spread of nuclear weaponry is unacceptable in the world. The policies which can make this achievable is to use the US military in destroying Iran and North Korea’s weapons production facilities as well as being prepared to respond to any of these countries attacks. The belief underlying this option is that military power is the only language that leaders of these countries would understand without any negotiations (Nia 2010). This would be due to containment policy failure since 1994; it would result to violation of international law and a corresponding economic disaster resulting from the destruction. The attack can also be associated with thousands of people being killed from the radiations that will be released hence a need for a better option (O’Reilly 2012). Mun (2011) argues that the US can use their economic pressure to make North Korea engage in the six party negotiations which attracts other countries like South Korea and Germany in the negotiations. Here the US will be aiming at containing the threat from North Korea as well as to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. The US would also be protecting its interests in the region as it contains the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Policies to be put into place include engaging North Korea and Iran only as part of multi-party talks without rewarding their threatening method with direct negotiations (O’Reilly 2012). North Korea, for example, can be brought back to the negotiation table by impressing upon regional powers as well working with them to advocate for UN sanctions. The US believes that giving North Korea an opportunity to make the guide lines and friendly negotiations will bring more problems. They also believe that if the country refuses to holding talks is not an indefinite decision; they can be brought back to more talks and negotiations. The act of involving other countries in the talks and negotiations is found un satisfying in that it may fail to dress the real problem of the countries’ fear of tampering with their national security (Sagan 2011). The process would also consume a lot of time since the US is not welcomed in Asia and South Korea as well. The other option is to engage North Korea and Iran in bilateral negotiations directly with the involvement of concessions on both sides (Mun 2011). The fact is that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea is a source of insecurity in the world and therefore they need to be engaged directly if the six party negotiations fail to yield fruits. This will be aiming to end the development of long range missiles and nuclear weapons in North Korea as well as Iran. Their motivation to hold these weapons of mass destruction can be removed through friendly engagement (Kirby 2012). This will be done through bilateral negotiations which will be designed to improve the political as well as economic relations between North Korea and Iran with the US. The countries should be given economic aids as well as energy aids in order to bring to an end the plutonium programs (Hymans 2006). There should be secure agreements for resumed international atomic energy agency inspections. It is evident that North Korea and Iran do not want to engage in suicidal war, but simply wants word’s attention and economic aid (Homan 2013). Negotiations cannot cause loss of lives, resources are used economically and the political environment remains good other than engagement in war due to employment of diplomacy devices. This has been criticized in that the talks will make the United States look inferior in the eyes of the world. It is also possible for North Korea and Iran to sell their weapons to terrorists in the course of negotiations. There is the danger of double standard perception due to refusing to hold talks with Iraq (Sagan 2011). There is also the option of complete withdrawal from the Korean peninsula because the US presence in North Korea has not stopped them from acquiring nuclear capabilities (Hymans 2006). If anything, it has been fueling their desires to build more weapons. This will be aimed at lowering the US profile on the peninsula and in Asia as well. The growing pattern of manipulation and threat by the North Korean government will be eliminated through the removal of American troops from the peninsula (Jones 2012). Countries such as china, japan and Russia can play a significant role in the Asian security and this can make the proliferation to minimize and the spread of the weapons to be minimal. There is a possibility here since North Korea and Iran are not ready to fight with the US but they want to be recognized by other countries of the world (Gustafson 2014). It is clear that putting more strict sanctions on North Korea will increase their resentment and lead to a humanitarian crisis in the world. On the other hand withdrawal can make these countries continue or even increase their production of nuclear weapons or sell them to terrorists. The US might also be seen as escaping and not dealing with a clear and well stipulated danger. It is the responsibility of US to help maintain security in small countries like North Korea and Iran because it is a super power hence its withdrawal is not recommended (Mun 2011). Other than the laid down options, putting realism and liberalism theoretical frameworks into place with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty can also minimize the spread in the following ways: Bearing in mind that US has huge stakes in security interests; it should lead as a role model and mobilize the international community in rolling back North Korea’s weapons programs as well as be in the fore front to head off Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons capabilities and this will make significant progress to impede proliferation (Jones 2012). Working closely with japan, china and South Korea as well as Russia can combine incentives and put into place the September 2005 joint statement on doing away with North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and the February 2007 agreement on for the implementation of that joint statement which will play a significant role in minimizing the spread of nuclear weapons (Kirby 2012). Jones (2012) says that cooperation with European countries and Iran neighbors should put more pressure to Iran’s capital city to leave its uranium enrichment and plutonium production programs. This will end its support for Middle East terrorists groups which are a threat to the US in the efforts to destabilize Western Asia (Kinvall 2006). Its opposition to other countries like Israel and support for violence in Iraq should play a major role in disarming the Iranians nuclear weapons. Additionally, the building on the July 2005 offer of incentives to the countries by the five countries and Germany, the U.S. should try to bring changes in the Iran’s current benefits as well as the potential danger by moving beyond Security Council sanctions and advocating for strong financial and other economic pressures against Iran (Jones 2012). Pressures alone will not be able to persuade North Korea and Iran to give up or withdraw their nuclear weapons ambitions (Jones 2012). Incentives will also be significant and necessary. If North Korea and Iran are genuinely ready to change their nuclear holding behavior, the U.S. should be prepared to make relationships friendly and normal with the countries’ governments which are currently in power and to leave the change of governments to the people of those countries (Hymans 2006). The U.S. should look for support from international community for measures over the longer term to contain and prevent Iran and North Korea from making nuclear weapons and eventually move back to their nuclear programs if they persist in pursuing them (Mun 2011). The US and other key governments should be firm in making North Korea and Iran aware that their nuclear weapons will never be allowed or accepted due to their security threats. Nuclear forces in the US remain very important in preventing nuclear attacks against them as well as their allies through existing or nuclear weapon states to come in future. The weapons are less credible in preventing convectional, biological as well as chemical weapon attacks (Nia 2010). The president should be given a wider range of credible response options which will effectively deter and defend against nuclear and non-nuclear attacks (O’Reilly 2012). As it is impossible to prevent suicide terrorists, measures should be put into place to prevent states and countries such as North Korea and Iran from assisting terrorism groups in accessing nuclear capabilities. O’Reilly (2012) says that a country should be held responsible if found to have assisted a terrorism group and measures of reprimanding will be taken as if the state itself had conducted the attack. This would further minimize the usage as well as proliferation of nuclear weapons significantly. Using conventional military force can be used for prevention purposes in the acquiring and using nuclear weapons by non-state actors like terrorists as well as hostile states. This can prevent terrorists in using the weapons as well their efforts to spread nuclear weapons (Sagan 2011). Conclusion The prospects of acquiring and using nuclear weapons have been growing in countries that are hostile to the US such as Iran and North Korea. Using the realism theory there are several options that the United States can put into place for minimizing the spread of these weapons. Launching a preemptive military strike in these countries can help, but there is the fear of breaking international law. Economic pressures can be exerted in North Korea as well as Iran with the aim of reducing nuclear proliferation. Bilateral negotiations can yield fruits if well administered in the countries through the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. Returning the six party negotiations would be maximum benefit to make the two countries reduce their manufacture as well as using the nuclear weapons. In the same line US can withdraw completely from the countries’ peninsula which can have positive as well as negative impacts. The issue can also be handled with cooperation between the US, Japan, China and South Korea, where they can provide incentives to the countries in order to discourage them from using nuclear weapons. The U.S. should seek for international support for measures that would contain and prevent Iran and North Korea from making nuclear weapons in the long run and eventually roll back their nuclear programs if they persist in pursuing them. In conclusion, it is hard to prevent North Korea and Iran to have nuclear weapons or even terrorists to use the weapons but measures can be put into place to reduce. References Gustafsson, K 2014, Memory Politics and Ontological Security in Sino – Japanese Relations. Asian Studies Review, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 71 – 86. Homan, P 2013, Exploring the next generation of proliferators. The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 63 - 80, Hymans, J. E. C 2006, Theories of nuclear proliferation. The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 13, No.3, pp. 455-465, Jones, P 2012, Learning to live with a nuclear Iran. The Nonproliferation review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 197 - 217. Kinnvall, C 2006, Globalization and Religious Nationalism: Self, Identity, and the Search for Ontological Security. Political Psychology, Vol. 25, No.5, pp 741-767. Kirby, P 2012, How is rape a weapon of war? Feminist International Relations, modes of critical explanation and the study of wartime sexual violence. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 797–821. Mun, S. A 2011, What Is the Root Cause of the North Korean Nuclear Program? Asian Affairs: An American Review, vol. 38, pp. 175–187. Nia, M.M 2010, Understanding Iran’s Foreign Policy: An Application of Holistic Constructivism, Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.9, No. 1, pp 148–180. O’Reilly, K.P 2012, Leaders’ Perceptions and Nuclear Proliferation: A Political Psychology Approach to Proliferation. Political Psychology, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp 767 – 789. Sagan, S. D 2011, The Causes of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.14, pp. 225–244 . . Read More