Arms Control And Disarmament Reduced Aggression And Tensions Between States

Abstract

The 2013 Noble Peace Prize was presented to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the same year that developments in the Syrian Civil War made clear the challenges and imperative for achieving global disarmament. This paper asks in relation to this situation whether arms control and disarmament are raising conflicts and tensions between states. Chemical weapons disarmament efforts have been fairly successful but there are significant challenges facing global disarmament that will be hard to resolve. To be sure, arms control and disarmament can be helpful to peace: they are not a cause of war, they can diminish the destruction of war, and even the possibility of war. When all weapons are eliminated or more closely controlled from the planet then lives can be saved. But the benefits are small and even efficient control of weapons on its own is only minimally effective. The elimination of chemical weapons removes one possible controversial issue. However, regulation of nuclear weapons coupled with deterrence appears moderately effective in avoiding war. This combination minimizes warfare between nuclear powers, lowers tensions, and lowers conflict at the lower level. Ultimately, arms control can only prevent war in conjunction with political and other military factors and yet is far from being a guarantor of peace.

Introduction

“The World is over-armed and peace is under-funded.”-Ban-Ki Moon

The planet is riddled with armaments. It is known that the planet has at least 875 million weapons, almost certainly more. And around the world, there are nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons, a substantial reduction from a height of over 60,000 during the Cold War but still enough to kill the planet. During the entire post-World War II period, war was going on somewhere in the world. War is, therefore, a major concern and the armaments by which it is fought become an important part of this issue. Moreover, arms control and disarmament are a mechanism by which the risk of war arising can be limited, or at least mitigated, by war.

In this paper, I will address the following question: Have arms control and disarmament reduced aggression and tensions between states? I aim to address the question and explore what makes multilateral arms control and disarmament successful, in particular, what role the geographic position of an agreement, the kind of weapons being restricted (or eliminated), how they are limited, and what role the involvement or lack of state and non-state actors plays in the effectiveness of a restriction. Two case studies, the Nuclear Weapons Convention and the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START), will be closely analysed. I am ultimately planning to conclude whether arms control and disarmament are effective in prolonging the peace reign.

Research Question

Have arms control and disarmament reduced aggression and tensions between states?

Literature Review

A variety of materials exists to analyze arms control and disarmament. Much of this substance comes from various arms control and disarmament regimes, international or state bodies and NGOs concerned with the issue. Not surprisingly much of the research is limited to one type of weapons and the arms control or disarmament involved. One of the two kinds of weapons with the extensive literature on them is chemical and nuclear arms. The CWC literature, which is generally regarded as a respectable achievement even though much of the debate regarding the alleged destruction of chemical weapons and the avoidance of their use is focused on the enormous difficulties facing them. The nuclear arms control literature is vast, particularly between the US and Russia / Soviet Union. Even when New START is seen as a betterment to the control of nuclear weapons, it is almost universally accepted as a modest treaty; especially in comparison with other potential options that might have been.

A vast amount has been written on war and peace, in which weapons control and disarmament will play a crucial role. It is true that there are significantly more factors affecting this dichotomy than mere arms control or arms races. But this doesn’t mean this arms control and disarmament can’t be effective, and in certain cases they can even be different-makers. The effectiveness remains a controversial issue in the literature. With several theorists, proliferation has also been debated, arguing that weapons control and disarmament regimes will greatly limit proliferation. It can be very successful when anti-proliferation is backed up by compliance by state parties. Because the arms control and disarmament treaties being studied are between states and conflicts, which aim to avoid or restrict may be defined as either interstate or intrastate, it is important to carry out an analysis of the state’s fundamental structure. It is clear that the State has much to do with war , peace, weapons control, disarmament and proliferation.

The State

The state is the principal unit of governmental organization in the modern world and is described by Gianfranco Poggi as ‘an organisation’ in which political power is acquired and exercised through a set of laws, a set of responsibilities, and a set of resources. States are the principal bodies under which arms control and disarmament treaties work. It is, after all, negotiations between states that form those treaties, and the states that sign and ratify those treaties. Naturally, states are made up of people and are not a completely united entity. So whoever is in power inside the government has a tremendous influence. It is important to consider how the state relates to arms control to distinguish government and the system in power from the more fundamental state and from the people. Some governments are more likely to enter weapons control or disarmament negotiations, or less so. It is important to remember that the dimensions of home affairs influence foreign relations.

It is necessary to note that state stability is directly linked to the credibility of the State and also to the willingness of a State to accede to and implement an arms control or disarmament agreement. The more vital a state possesses, referring to the state’s ability to retain a favorable role, the easier it is for a state to join an arms control treaty and also to persuade other states, particularly those with less vitality, to join as well. As illustrated by JDB Miller sovereignty plays a role as the State’s source of vitality. In fact, the more powerful a State’s authority over its territories is, the greater its capacity to implement matters and the greater its legitimacy. For arms control or disarmament a strong state is needed.

States have often engaged with one another throughout their life and diplomatic relations between states are significant parts of the international landscape. After all, this is what arms control and disarmament accords are focused on. It is because of this that through a state-level study, I address arms control and disarmament and their effects on conflict. The realistic theory of foreign relations considers the state to be the principal international actor. In liberal philosophy that is exactly the same. Both thought schools also accept an anarchic system of the world. It can be taken as a given that autonomous sovereign states have no central authority above them. Therefore states must enter into negotiations with one another to bring about weapons control or disarmament. The practical struggle for control, which is heavily based on the military aspects, may describe the current defense and security problem as a game of zero-sum. Hegemony attempts or the protection of the balance of power are essential motives of the state that inevitably contribute to increased instability and a sense of uncertainty as caution and constant planning for confrontation are part of the life of a state. Under this definition, conflicts are taking place and there is nothing to prevent them. Relations between the Soviet / Russia and the United States are more closely following the practical principles in my view. Liberalist views are far more positive in that state interdependence works to avoid war, and traditional structures, such as democratic ones, can avoid conflict and tension. Under liberalism, there is hope for global disarmament, for a world that is more interdependent and popular ideas among states. There are other think tanks that also challenge the anarchical world structure and clarify how states communicate with each other is a dynamic activity. Why arms control is required, how the state pursues it and how this has a relatively easier effect on ties between states.

The monopolization of violence is one part of the regime. As Max Weber affirms the state, ‘lays claim to a monopoly on the lawful use of physical force.’ Every right to use force, except by the self-defending person, comes from the state. This exclusive right to force derives from the State’s legitimization. This monopolization of power, combined with the state’s increased capacity to create, manufacture, store, and use armaments, has contributed to a greater imperative for arms control, but it also means that arms control can be accomplished by negotiations between states alone. Even poorer states are less stable and more vulnerable to violent conflicts. Weak, mostly post-colonial, states lack stability and their unconstitutional governance system creates opposition that is exacerbated when incompetent governments try to strengthen the state, leading to internal conflict that can spread beyond.

War

War is an extreme act of violence, a state of armed conflict, a time of organized party animosity. Throughout it has been with humanity. War does not involve the state, but the state must still deal with war even if only in preparation, indirectly. War is fundamental to the very essence of the state and the military and vice versa are affected very much by political shifts.In his book On War, Clausewitz states, ‘War is not merely a political act, but also a true political instrument, a continuation of political trade, a carrying out of the same by other means.’ However, much of the state structure is based on war. For Kant, ‘a country must be so organized internally that not the head of the government for whom, properly speaking, war has no cost … but the people who pay for it have the deciding voice as to whether or not war will take place.’26 The decision to go to war is not one that can be taken lightly, and wars consume most of the wealth of a state, potentially having a significant effect on the Homefront.

Clausewitz’s observations are of great value in considering nature or warfare. The importance of Clausewitz beyond the 19th century is illustrated by a ‘endless adaptation of Clausewitz to new circumstances’ like nuclear warfare and the War of Terror. The concept of total war and restricted war by Clausewitz is not present in the real world (and is not portrayed as such) but works well as two ends of a scale in which war differs. Knowing what battle one is fighting today is of utmost importance if one wants victory. For the prospect of nuclear attacks, total conflict, once just speculation, has become a greater possibility. Even Clausewitz’s adaptation but also the timeless essence of many of his thoughts on war.

Of course, the lack of ‘absolute war’ means war can be restricted, and its worst excesses can be controlled. Thus, weapons control is aimed at avoiding war but also at restricting it and minimizing the consequences if it does happen. A crucial aspect of the probability of disaster in a war is the policy and tactics used. The other main aspect is the weapons used. Both were the target of attempts by war laws and conventions (such as the famous Geneva conventions) to limit their worst excesses. Arms regulation addresses this in particular by restricting the weapons that are being used or threatened.

Peace

War and peace are two contrasting concepts. A distinction between negative and positive peace can and should be made. These ideas came up earlier, but Galtung articulated them famously. Negative peace is the absence of violence, the reverse of war where no active conflict exists. For much of history, this was the traditional concept of peace, but this peace makes conflict and arms races as well as abuses of human rights. Indeed, the concept of stability-instability is most widely used to refer to the Cold War and the many proxy wars that then took place, and the tension-filled relationships between India Pakistan. Especially this is suggested to hurt tensions as Pakistan is weaker than conventionally India, but its nuclear capabilities make the outcome of a war more unpredictable and deadly and allow Pakistan to behave more aggressively, thereby hurting the chances of peace and preventing full-scale war, causing more low-level conflicts that are nevertheless destructive to many.

B.H., also in 1954. Liddell Hart noted that ‘To the degree that the H-bomb decreases the probability of full-scale war, it increases the risk of limited war followed by widespread local aggression.’46 The understanding of mutually assured destruction offered by submarine missiles fired, Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles and Hydrogen Bombs led many to a similar conclusion. Glenn Snyder in the 1960s (in his 1961 book Deterrence and Security, and a chapter of the 1965 book Balance of Force, in which he accepted this concept of stability-instability, but added that the opposite could also be argued.

Proliferation

Proliferation occurs for a variety of reasons, but security is usually the primary concern when a state that is capable of adopting or not adopting a weapon technology, although legitimacy is also important, especially with WMDs.

Scott Sagan assists in investigating nuclear proliferation by questioning why states want to create nuclear weapons.47 He questions the then-common theory that nuclear proliferation happens only when a state poses a serious military danger that can not otherwise be met.

Arms Control and Disarmament

Simply put, arms control is the restriction of weapons by means of methods such as limiting the number of weapons, the types of weapons or delivery mechanisms, researching and producing such weapons or the extent or location of the deployment of such weapons.

Harald Muller postulates that three conditions must be met in order for arms control regimes to be successful: coherence of the Treaties, leadership and great cooperation in government. Arms regulation, as illustrated by Roach, Griffiths, and O’Callaghan, can be divided in many forms. There are horizontal constraints that deal with non-proliferation and avoid missile dissemination.

Obviously, arms control and disarmament are very closely linked to war and peace. Both are commonly supposed to be beneficial and help in preventing war and mitigating its effects. Arms control aims to avoid threats to peace by creating a world order to do so by restricting such armaments, or in the case of disarmament, fully removing them. It is necessary to remember that under some conditions, by controlling armaments, neither arms control nor disarmament can make any argument to avoid war altogether; rather, they try to prevent and restrict war. But war must still be fought, the reasons being mainly political, and arms control and disarmament aim to avoid the occurrence of certain wars and the use of certain weapons, usually those of great indiscriminate destructive force.

Methodology

For the purpose of the study “Arms Control and Disarmament: Legitimacy, War and Peace” of an analytical study follows the descriptive method. In this study, data have been collected by using secondary sources. Secondary data and information have been collected from different published books, journals, internet sources, published research papers and articles, newspapers, etc.

Case studies

Arms control lowers tensions and reduces destruction when war breaks out; however, war prevention is not the primary factor. If fully introduced, arms control has the reverse effect of an arms race leading to reduced conflict and a solution to the security problem.

Findings

The problem this paper still addresses today is still large: does the monitoring and disarmament of weapons restrict violence and gain peace? This paper primarily discusses the monitoring and disarmament of nuclear arms and chemical weapons, and their relationship to peace. This research has provided three results related to the effect of arms control and disarmament on global peace in search of a response.

Arms Control and Disarmament are not Detrimental

Thus there is the potential for disarmament to invite war, but I believe this is unclear, not disarming can be a cause belle, save for the case of nuclear weapons. Disarmament could remove a deterrent and invite invasion, Qaddafi gave up Libya’s chemical and nuclear programs only to be overthrown and killed, partially due to NATO intervention. However, there may be potential detriments with the case of nuclear disarmament; given the potential importance of mutually assured destruction and the nuclear deterrent in preventing war between the USSR and the USA. But global nuclear disarmament is extremely unlikely in the near future, being a suggestion that exists more on the fringe, leaving its potential effects to continued speculation.

Chemical weapons disarmament that has taken place thus far, and potential global disarmament of these weapons, seems to have no negative effects. The worst that the chemical weapons taboo, and the disarmament regime, have done is muddied potential intervention in Syria.

Do not attempt to estimate how many lives could be saved if chemical weapon disarmament becomes a global reality (such a calculation would be fraught with potential error anyhow and highly speculative). it is observed the same with disarmament, save for the major exception of nuclear disarmament, and believe that nuclear disarmament may lead to a more dangerous world and one with more conflict (due to the removal of the nuclear deterrent), though this is not certain. My findings on the matter are inconclusive, but I believe there is enough of risk and quite a large one at that, attached to nuclear disarmament in the present world.

With chemical weapons, however, I ascertain that disarmament is beneficial.

Conclusion

There are also good and poor opportunities for gun regulation and disarmament. Arms control and disarmament will save a few lives, and maybe even more. Nuclear weapons control has the ability to reduce war chances. Indeed one cause of stress is restricted by arms control all around. Yet regulation of nuclear weapons is excellent. If properly handled, management of nuclear weapons, in conjunction with nuclear deterrence, and alongside political and economic growth, decreases war in the nuclear center and periphery. This will ultimately lead to real nuclear disarmament, removing the possibility of nuclear catastrophe and the potential for human extinction arising from it. Yet there must be significant diplomatic work outside of arms control in order for peace to fully reign, and for war to become an unprecedented event, leading to a new stage of history. Arms regulation can, however, play a role in this, if not the most important role. It is believed that arms control and disarmament will help make this world of children more peaceful, and can help create a world governed by peace. In all possibilities, weapons control and disarmament will broaden in the immediate future. Yet, arms control must work in conjunction with other measures. Nonetheless, it is an integral part of building a more peaceful world.