Global Social Economic Perspectives Global

Global Social Economic Perspectives

Global Socioeconomic Perspectives: Is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction inevitable?

Over the last several years, the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) has been continually brought to the forefront. Part of the reason for this is the sobering news that a number of countries around the world have been actively developing their own WMD programs to include: China, India, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea just to name a few. This has caused the levels of peace and stability to decline, as the possession of such weapons can be a threat to regional stability. At which point, the chances increase that there will be some kind of conflict, between those nations that possess these kinds of weapons. A good example as to how severe this situation has become can be seen with comments from the former leaders of: Great Britain (Tony Blair), France (Jacques Chirac) and Germany (Gerhardt Schroeder). With them saying, "As we look into the future, our greatest concern is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and chiefly nuclear proliferation. We have to face the stark fact that nuclear proliferation remains the major threat to world safety in the twenty first century." (Graham, 2004, pp. 17 -- 25) This is significant, because this statement underscores the reality that has been unfolding, as the total number of nations seeking to acquire these weapons has only continued to increase. The reason why, is because the proliferation of such weapons has been known to create a chain reaction of nations that must posses them. Part reason for this, is for the desire by a nation to change the status quo or for a nation to have the some kind detent against the perceived threat from larger countries. Then, when you combine this with the possible threat of other nations exporting or passing this material on to terrorist groups, means that the proliferation of WMD's is only continuing to increase. (Lia, 2004, pp. 39 -- 48) as a result, there has been heated debate, as to if the spread of WMD's is inevitable given the overall scope of the problem. The reality is that both sides are correct. Where, if effective procedures are not put in place soon, it will only be a matter of time until WMD's are available to a variety of countries and non-governmental actors (such as terrorists). However, if the world can agree upon and follow a set of standards to control / prevent the spread of WMD's, then there is the possibility that their proliferation can be prevented. To determine this, an examination will be conducted looking at the historical / social background of the issue and studying the conceptual perspectives on the topic. Together, these two elements will provide the greatest insights, as to how the spread of WMD's can be contained and what will happen if the status quo remains in place.

Historical / Social Background of the Issue

The history of WMD's has long past that goes back many centuries, with the first WMD being known as a poison bullet that was outlawed by the Franco German treaty of 1675. However, various treaties banning the use of WMDS's, did not gained traction until the 1928 Geneva Convention (which prohibited the use of these weapons during war). This was in response to the use of various chemical and biological weapons used by both sides during World War I. Then, in 1953 President Eisenhower would call for the establishment of some kind of international standards that would ban the proliferation and testing of these weapons. With him saying, "The dreaded secret and fearful engines of atomic energy are not ours alone. In the first place, the secret is possessed by our friends and allies (the United Kingdom and Canada); whose scientific genius made a tremendous contribution to our original discoveries and designs of atomic bombs. The secret is also known by the Soviet Union. To pause there would be to confirm the hopeless finality of a belief that two atomic colossi are doomed malevolently to eye each other indefinitely across a trembling world. To stop there would be to accept helplessly that all civilization will be destroyed. The annihilation of the irresponsible heritage of mankind handed down from generation to generation, and the condemnation of mankind to begin all over again the age old struggle from savagery towards decency, right and justice. Surely, no sane member of the human race could discover victory with desolation." (Heng, 2009, pp. 87 -- 95) This is significant, because it would shows how the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was continuing to evolve, as the statement from Eisenhower is warning to future generations about the possible spread of WMDs. This would lead, to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. While this had nothing to do with chemical and biological weapons, the implementation of an agency to monitor the spread of atomic weapons was the first sign that proliferation was becoming a growing problem. During the 1960's, both China and France would develop their own WMD programs. At which point, there were increasing concerns in the international community about the spread of these weapons, resulting in the implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. This is significant, because it would show how the world was becoming concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons, which would lead to implementation to the treaty. During the 1970's there were also treaties signed on banning the testing of various WMD programs. This is significant, because it shows that the historical approach, to dealing with the issue of nuclear proliferation was mainly focused a state centric approach, in limiting access to these weapon. The results, of such efforts were: that they helped to provide an initial framework for WMD proliferation. (Heng, 2009, pp. 87 -- 95)

Yet, they did little if anything to stop other countries from developing their own programs to include: Iraq, Libya, South Korea, Argentina, Brazil and Ukraine. During the 1990's and early 2000's, these countries abandoned their WMD programs, by handing over their stockpiles of different materials. This would cause many to claim that the various international standards are working. However, beyond this good news, the spreading of WMD's only continued to become worse. As many countries would engage in actions of proliferation, who were signatories of various international treaties, but they still continued to sell the technology to other countries. A good example of this can be seen with China and North Korea. Where, China would supply North Korea with the technology and knowledge to create their own WMD program. Then, once North Korea had disclosed that they had an active WMD program, they began selling technology to other countries. Evidence of this can be seen in 2001 with a Spanish ship called So San. What happened was, the ship had been stopped and boarded in the Arabian Sea carrying 15 Scud missiles from North Korea to Yemen. Where, North Korea was secretly selling the missiles and parts to Yemen indirectly through Spain. This is significant, because it shows how various efforts to contain the proliferation of WMD's are not working. Instead, the problem is only continuing to become worse. As those countries who publically says they support non-proliferation efforts are engaging in backroom deals, to secretly supply this technology to the highest bidder. At which point, the chances increase that these materials could be sold to non-governmental actors such as: terrorist organizations. (Heng, 2009, pp. 87 -- 95)

To make matters worse many countries now have WMD programs, but have not singed various treaties / conventions, banning the testing / proliferation of these kinds of weapons. A few of the most notable would include: India, Pakistan and Israel. Where, these three countries all have active WMD programs, yet have refused to sign and follow various non-proliferation treaties. This is problematic, because the inability of the three countries to sign and follow various international standards shows a break down in the system. Where, those who develop various WMD's, are allowed to continue to maintain their weapons programs, without facing any kind of pressure for not following acceptable international standards. This is indirectly telling those who want to develop WMD's, that if they engage in such actions, nothing will happen to them. The fact that there are no controls of various stockpiles or for countries that are not signatories to international standards; means that the possibility increases that these weapons could be passed on to terrorist organizations.

What this shows, is that the international standards to attempt to control proliferation have provided a good first step. That being said, there is no unity among some countries that are signatories of such agreements. As they will say they support non-proliferation, yet will sell the technology and materials to those countries who wish to start these programs. This is problematic, because if various international standards are not enforced among countries that sign these agreements, then they are equivalent of no standards at all.

Those countries who have developed their own WMD programs and have not signed various non-proliferation agreements, highlights this hypocrisy that is existing in the international community. Where, no one is willing to force new countries that develop their own WMD programs to commit to such standards. This is problematic, because it telling the world that those countries not committing to various non-proliferation efforts, can maintain their programs (in secrecy) despite the international standard that is in place. At which point, other nations will seek to start their own WMD programs, as they see this as a double standard. Where, you are not supposed to have these weapons, yet once you do they may not apply.

When you combine this with the fact, that those countries that have not signed various international accords are also not making such disclosures to the IAEA; will more than likely be inclined to pass this material onto to terrorists. Where, the lack of accountability can mean that the conditions are ideal for someone to sell various weapons and technology to these organizations. Then, there is also the possibility that various materials or weapons can purchased on the black market. This underscores, how the problem is continuing to become worse as time goes by. Unless new standards are in place and the international community agrees to follow / enforce them; means it will only be a matter of time until a WMD is used by one nation against another or in a terrorist attack. At which point, the various countries will more than likely do what it takes to have true non-proliferation efforts. Until that time, the status quo is highlighting how one day the above scenario will eventually occur.

The Conceptual Prospective for the Proliferation of WMD's

When you look at the different approaches towards the issue of WMD proliferation, there are several methods that have been use to address the issue the most notable would include: realism and neorealim. Realism is when you are taking a rational approach, to the issue by understanding that politics is affected by the forces of human nature. Where, there is no faith in the effectiveness of international institutions, to force compliance with various agreements. This is because there is the belief that the international community is increasingly chaotic. Instead, you must appeal to the country's own self-interest such as: their best interests of consolidating power and ensuring survival. At which point, you can have control of other states and their actions, by appealing to these basic principals of human nature. (Williams, 2007, pp. 945 -- 950) a good example of this theory in action can be seen during the Iran -- Iraq War. What happened was: the U.S. was engaging in a policy of realism towards both sides. Where, they did not want to support Khomeini, who was an enemy, while not wanting to see Hussein of Iraq succeed in his territorial ambitions. As a result, they would engage in a policy of providing technology and information on various WMD programs to Iraq. The idea was to give Iraq enough of an edge, that they can inflict heavy casualties on Iran, while not seeing overwhelming victory. This was occurring in the shadows of the Israeli air strike on the main facility for the country's nuclear program (Osrik). This would play a major role in helping to push both sides to build and maintain their own WMD programs. Where, Iran began to create their own programs, to counter any kind of possible threat from Iraq and Israel. This would push other countries to engage in similar programs, in response to the perceived threat from Israel and other nations seeking these weapons. In this situation, because the U.S. continued to fund the Iraq program, Iran and other countries in the region would seek to acquire this technology. What this shows, is that the use of realism helps to increase the proliferation of WMD's. This is because there is no effective standard in place, which increases the chances that the technology will be passed on to other countries. Then, when you combine this with the basic principal of each country acting based upon their own self-interest, shows that once one country has this technology, it is only a matter of time until others will acquire it. This is out of fears surrounding the possible use of these weapons against them in the future or the perceived invincibility (a country may have that possess them). At which point, the chances increase dramatically that the proliferation of WMDs will take place. In the above example, the use of realism failed to prevent the spread of WMD's, as the aggressive actions by the Israelis would increase these fears. Then, the United States and other countries providing support to Arab nations, wishing to acquire this technology, only makes the situation worse. In this particular case, realism is helpful in identifying the issue. Yet, when it comes to WMD proliferation, this theory only helps to perpetuate what is occurring. As a result, realism increases the possibility, that a number of nations will successfully acquire WMD's and that conflicts will increase among those nations that have this technology. (Gardner, 2007, pp. 81 -94)