Put simply, nuclear proliferation refers to the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. Given their lethal powers, nuclear weapons attract a great amount of space in the discussions involving strategy. Complex as it is, strategy unfolds multiple and often contrasting aspects of nuclear weapons and their spread. With a multitude of divergences in terms of stands one takes on nuclear weapons, there is a broad understanding that nuclear proliferation is not in the larger good of the global community. It is here that the question of proliferation and the ways of preventing it come up. This discussion will take into account the journey to limit proliferation and challenges involved in the same. It will also try to delve into some systemic factors that make non-proliferation difficult.
Before we go forward, it will be helpful to go through the basics of the nuclear world order along with some terminologies regarding the same. The United states of America became the first country to have successfully tested a nuclear capable device on July 16, 1945. The test was conducted under the Manhattan project which was spearheaded by Robert J. Oppenheimer. Thus, the US became the first country to get hold of the Atom bomb. Later on, the erstwhile USSR also acquired nuclear capability in 1949 to fuel the fire of the cold war which was then at a nascent stage. Later on, in 1952 and 1960, Britain and France tested their own nuclear weapons and joined the A-league. China became the first country from Asia to test a nuclear device on October 16, 1964.
As discussed above, by the year 1965, there were already five nuclear weapon states in the world. Also, more alarmingly, the world had been through the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. The degree of terror and suspicion that the existence of nuclear weapons could cause was understood well by 1965. A need to stop the spread of nuclear weapons was felt. By 1965, steps were already being taken to quell the spread of the nuclear technology and fissile material. However, the very first concrete step came into existence in the form of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (The NPT) which was brought up for signatures in 1968 and came into effect in 1970. However, the NPT was not welcomed by all the countries and met genuine criticism and ire for reasons that we shall discuss.
The NPT proposed a system of two tiers of nation-states namely Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) & Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS). The criterion to differentiate between the two was simple but arbitrary. The NPT signatory country had to agree that those states that successfully tested a nuclear device before the first day of January 1967 were to be considered as NWS and the rest all were by default, NNWS. Discriminatory as it was, many states refrained from signing and being a party to the NPT. India put on record one of the most strongly worded criticisms to denounce the exclusionary character of the document. Till date, India leads the few countries that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Looking back at the history of modern day multilateral organizations of which the NPT is a type, the league of nations arrangement post WWI comes to mind naturally. The 14 consequential points proposed by the then US President Woodrow Wilson in his League of nations charter put the idea of self-realization and the natural right of nations to have sovereign authority on matters relating to their safe-keeping and well-being. These cardinal points were significant in shaping the world order as we know it today in the form of the United Nations. The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 was essentially a cooperative endeavor to manage and mitigate future conflicts and prevent the disaster that WWII brought upon the world. However, one single glance at the NPT underlines the inherent contradiction in the lines of thought that the UN Charter and the NPT stand for.
Clearly, the NPT excluded the majority of small countries from possessing nuclear weapons and granted the same to five great powers of the world. Given the difference in the capabilities of the smaller and these five great powers of their times, there was not much hope for the small nations but to comply. However, it was not the same case with countries as big as India. It was difficult for a country of India’s size and potential to let others dictate matters relating to its sovereignty and security. Thus, there was a major fault-line that existed in the design of the NPT which did not take into account countries like India.
India tested its nuclear device in 1974, much later than the deadline and called its test a peaceful nuclear explosion. India faced sanctions nonetheless. Pakistan followed a similar trajectory and tested its own nuclear weapons in 1998 after India declared itself a fully nuclear capable nation. This series of proliferation sparked an arms race in the South Asian region making the horrors of an all-out nuclear war in the subcontinent very real.
Article six of the NPT talks about limiting the present stock of the nuclear arsenal in the world and completely dismantling all the nuclear weapons as its final goal. Not many countries have endorsed the idea of complete nuclear disarmament. It has been argued that given the sophisticated technology involved in the development of nuclear weapons, only a handful of countries have the resources and diplomatic wherewithal to acquire and sustain nuclear weapon capability. Subsequently, those who already have the nuclear capability do not want to lose the biggest arrow in their quiver. Interestingly, most of the countries with nuclear capability have a disproportionate influence in setting the agenda in how the world operates.
Among the critics of the NPT, the creation of two tiers of states in terms of nuclear weapons capability and drawing a line between the haves and have nots is essentially understood as the classic realist phenomenon. Countries with greater economic and military strength drafting treaties to perpetuate their hold on the global order. The existence of Article six in the NPT and the commitment to dismantle all stocks of nuclear weapons appear to be a hoax when looked at from this perspective. The half-hearted approach taken by the P-5 towards disarmament further emboldens this argument.
Headly bull’s statement from his paper titled Arms control and world order, 1976 explains this situation rather interestingly;
“When we decide that it is the horizontal spread of nuclear weapons rather than their vertical spread that calls for urgent preventative action, that biological weapons should be foregone by the rich powers because they are "the poor man's atom bomb," or that there should be measures to stop poor countries from buying conventional arms from rich countries, but not measures to stop rich countries from producing these arms for themselves, we are choosing arms control arrangements which leave those countries which now possess preponderant military power secure in the enjoyment of their position.”
Given the present state of affairs of the world order, the prospects of a complete nuclear disarmament are not very bright. The pre-eminent power of the world, the United States of America has withdrawn from a multitude of international forums, bringing to their legitimacy, great harm. To understand and if at all, conduct disarmament, understanding the raison-d'etre of arming oneself is a prerequisite. Also important it is to understand as to why does a country arm itself and get ready for securing its interests by the way of violence. This line of query will directly take us to the very genesis of strategic thought, into the realm of realism.
However, the present day world learnt to devise tools that facilitate common platforms and mitigate differences. The United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and the IAEA are all testimonies of global cooperation and the state of the world at that time. Most of the present day multilateral organizations are a creation of the post WWII discussions. Needless to say, the world has changed drastically since then. Europe is no more the center of the world’s major powers. Various other countries have risen on the world stage and they are asking for their share of say in the global institutions and it is nowhere more visible than in the domain of military strategy.
For the international community to realize any tangible success in disarmament, it is essential to take forward the true mandate of the NPT and its plan to bring total nuclear disarmament. For that to become reality, a global order bereft of suspicion, threat, and security dilemmas is a prerequisite. Mutual cooperation and confidence building will need to take precedence over eternal suspicion about other countries.
For an atom to be stable, there has to be a heavy nucleus at its core, only then can the electrons rotate around it in a balanced manner. Similar to that, the supranational organizations will have to take greater responsibilities and ownership of what happens in the world. For this to materialize, the United Nations can no longer be a tiger without teeth. Greater investment and trust will have to be invested in multilateral organizations. A greater and wider spread of confidence in the legitimacy of the United Nations can play a pivotal role in bringing the global order and thus the goal of disarmament to fruition.
Comments