Essay on International Politics: Disarmament, Nuclear Proliferation, and Environmental Impact

Introduction

The world is currently facing several international political issues. Such aspects are controversial and hence calls for mutual deliberation at the international community level. Some of the critical political affairs at the moment are the need for disarmament, nuclear proliferation, and the artificial intelligence arms race. The other issues are the human impact on the environment, global catastrophic risk, politics of fossil fuels, and global warming. However, this research paper narrows its scope to the discussion on the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The latter refers to detrimental arms that can destroy a vast geographical area. The international community understands the WMD as an enhanced form of nuclear weapons. In this regard, WMD integrate the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological arms.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The issue of WMD in international politics has a history that dates back to the early nineteenth century. The discussion on whether a state can develop such lethal weapons for national defense started in the 1940s. However, the legal experts have argued that there is an ambiguity in the UN definition and classification of deadly weapons that ought to be eliminated. Historically, countries such as Iraq have opposed that the WMD does not go beyond the UN definition of CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear defense). The issue surrounding the development and the use of the WMD has remained at the top of the global political agenda. Interested parties strive to justify their decisions based on the definitions of the United Nations. States may misuse their conventional weapons and thereby causing massive destruction. This aspect is not allowed, and some people argue that it equals using CBRN weapons to inflict discrete effects.

Benefits and Disadvantages of the Issue

The debate on the use of WMD has brought to light the security threats facing the world. The problem, in this case, surrounds the proliferation of lethal weapons that have far-reaching impacts on human life. As such, it is argued that the focus on the security threats facing humanity is a great benefit of WMD as a political issue. It is no doubt that free use of lethal weapons undermines peace and security. The second benefit is the establishment of international regulatory agencies besides the ratification of treaties on the control of the WMD.

These bodies have established criteria for assessing whether the conventional weapons within specific jurisdictions fall under the category of the weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, the international issue has led to the establishment of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CMC) (Hashmi & Lee, 2004). These two international bodies play critical roles in addressing unresolved disputes such as the current crisis in North Korea. Hence, the issue is beneficial since it is the basis of ensuring that the WPD remains within the nuclear regime that currently has few member states.

However, global political issue of WMD has disadvantages. First, it has adverse impacts on international relations. It has caused unnecessary political disputes, especially among politically advantaged countries such as the US, China, North Korea, and Canada. These countries, among others, are struggling to join authoritative international bodies that control the proliferation of the WMD. For instance, there have been concerns about the discriminatory structure of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). Currently, the three nuclear powers are outside the treaty and hence causing disputes in the international politics on the states that ought to join NPT and other influential bodies such as CWC, and BTWC. Secondly, the issue has raised tensions in global politics because of the fears of the realignment of former cold war allies. In this regard, there are concerns that some partners may be designing the WMD as a strategy to gain political powers against the old Cold War foes. Therefore, it is evident that while the issue is essential in the control of lethal weapons, it also causes unnecessary disputes as powerful world countries push to advance their interests. Some of these reasons are to remain politically powerful and accordingly influence policies on WMD.

Pro-Proliferation and Non-Proliferation of WMD

Several authors have explored the topic to weigh whether independent states should develop and regulate the way they use their lethal weapons. According to Minor (2015), the global discourse to justify the deadly weapons are based on the argument of inter-state security. Independent nations, in this perspective, can use the WMD since its possession limits the likelihood of inter-state conflicts. Hence, the existence and proper handling of lethal weapons make countries to be cautious in their relations with other states. This idea according to the author has its foundation in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. The latter states that peace and security prevail where some countries are possessing lethal weapons. It lowers the likelihood that countries can engage in inter-state conflicts that trigger wars.

However, the author further argued that WMD has humanitarian consequences that outweigh its role in making states cautious in their approach to conflicts. Any accidental or deliberate explosion of the weapons of mass destruction has far-reaching impacts on humanity. This argument, therefore, shifts the benefits of developing the WMD from a security perspective to the unacceptable level of risk. This point has raised concerns on the acceptability of the WMD among dependent allies and armed states. Accordingly, its implications are incomparable with the underlying humanitarian considerations at hand. Such aspects raise questions whether it is acceptable for the states to retain or rely on using WMD for their self-defense. However, the international community has shifted its focus from a burden of proof to the legitimacy of using lethal weapons. It implies that it is not sound to allow armed states to defend their idea of WMD on its deterrence effects at the expense of potential humanitarian consequences.

O'Neil (2003) explored the concept of lethal weapons in international politics. The author's perspective is that allowing the development of WPD is a severe security threat. Terrorists currently have global networks and hence suggests that states' reliance on the WMD as part of their defense mechanisms makes it easier for terror groups to access lethal weapons. The previous analysts have argued that while it is difficult for terrorists to use WMD, it is a looming threat that the UN should not rule out. The fear that terror groups are well-organized and may use lethal arms is not something new both in the academic literature and international politics. Globalization and the proliferation of advanced technologies may support terrorists to acquire WMD either through theft or covert purchasing agreements. However, O'Neil further asserts that the collapse of the USSR has improved the physical security of the WMD assets.

Nonetheless, the pro-WMD states argue that the era of the Cold War is over and hence they can use the weapons to enhance their national security. The argument further goes that the US has self-interests in its non-proliferation ideology. The political issue may not respond well to the USSR and its former Cold War allies. While the non-proliferation policy played critical roles in deterring the aggression of the Soviet Union, it is not a sound policy to prevent terror groups from acquiring WMD (Blechman & Mackay, 2000). The authors further assert that the US non-proliferation policy is linked to possible threats from emerging states such as China. Also, it is because of the ambitious regional agendas of the US and other like-minded countries. Fidler (2004) noted that the threats of WMD had been a critical issue on the foreign policy agenda since the start of the 20th century. The author argued that international law on how the states may use force does not address the development of weapons, but this aspect does not justify the use of WMD. Also, it outlines the legal justifications that the state may use force, but it does not specify the kind of weapons.

Conclusion

The proliferation of WMD is one of the critical issues in international politics. The non-proliferation states and researchers view WMD as a potential threat that can cause a severe humanitarian crisis. Also, the proliferation of such arms increases terrorists' access to detrimental weapons that cause a threat to the world. The pro-proliferation people argue that the states cannot use WMD against other countries since the Cold War era is gone. They also say that it is a sound approach to reduce the chances of conflicts by minimizing the chances of disputes. The international law on humanitarian and the use of force further do not specify the nature of weapons, and hence non-proliferation is a discriminatory strategy to safeguard self-interests of specific states. After a thorough evaluation of the opposing arguments, this research paper concludes that WMD should not be used like conventional weapons since the adverse implications outweigh the benefits.

References

Blechman, B. M., & Mackay Jr, L. S. (2000). Weapons of Mass Destruction: A New Paradigm

For a New Century (p. 4). Henry L. Stimson Center. Retrieved 31 April 2019, from https://www.stimson.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/paradigm_mackay_blechman.pdf/url/

Fidler, D. P. (2004). International Law and Weapons of Mass Destruction: End of the Arms Control Approach. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 14, 39. Retrieved 31 April 2019, from https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1417&context=facpub/url/

Hashmi, S. H., & Lee, S. P. (Eds.). (2004). Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Religious And Secular Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511606861

Minor, E. (2015). Changing the discourse on nuclear weapons: The humanitarian Initiative. International Review of the Red Cross, 97(899), 711-730.DOI: 10.1017/s181638311600014x

O'Neil, A. (2003). Terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction: How serious is the Threat? Australian Journal of International Affairs, 57(1), 99-112. DOI: 10.1080/1035771032000073669