Disarmament as New World Order

Abstract

The concept of disarmament in the emerging new world order and the cause of World Peace can be understood when we go through a few terms like disarmament and its pros and cons in the modern world. While in transit to another world request we don't yet have a clue, The world is in a condition of motion, in a state of flux. Six features are particularly noteworthy: Sovereign states are reaffirmed as the fundamental building blocks of international relations. Economic sanctions, trade conflicts, and technological battles have all risen to the top of the international agenda. International norms, institutions, and treaties are disintegrating. In terms of geopolitics, the situation is tense The United States' and China's relationship is becoming increasingly dominating. New technologies foster new forms of power and the potential for violence. International affairs have become more unpredictable as a result of all of this. As a result, collaboration opportunities are limited. States have resumed unilateral security policies like those used during the Cold War. However, there is one overarching concern: avoiding nuclear war. To this end, stability measures as the primary objective of arms control are of the essence. The need for a global framework for responsible nuclear behavior, arms control, and disarmament that is both feasible and captures the vision of a world free of nuclear threats remains at least as strong as it was 60 years ago when arms control was first introduced.

Introduction

One of the major efforts to preserve international peace and security in the 21st century has been to control or limit the number of weapons and the ways in which weapons can be used. two different ways to achieve this goal have been- disarmament and arms control. disarmament is the reduction of the number of weapons and troops maintained by a state whereas arms control refers to treaties made between possible rivals to lessen the risk of the scope of the war, usually imposing limitations on military capability. although disarmament always involves in the reduction of military forces or weapons, and arms control does not. in fact, arms control agreements sometimes allow for the increase of weapons by one or more parties to a treaty.

History

arms control developed both in theory and in practice during the Cold War a period between the late 1940s and 1991 when the two military superpowers, the USA and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), dealt with one another from a position off mutual mistrust. arms control was devised as an alternative to disarmament, which for many had fallen into discredit as a means of reducing the likelihood of war. Germany had been forced to disarm following World War One but became belligerent again during the 1930s resulting in World War 2 although Germany’s weapons had been largely eliminated, the underlying causes of conflict had not Germany experience does illustrate that no simple cause and effect relationship existed between the possession of weapons and a tendency to create war.

Following World War II, advocates of arms control as a new method to decreasing antagonism between states and power believed it was impossible and even harmful for a country to seek complete weapon elimination, which would not necessarily lessen the likelihood of war. Previously, disarmament was thought to be a viable alternative to military strength, arms control was now viewed as an integral part of it. The goal of arms control was to achieve a power balance in which the forces that drive states to the conflict could be managed and regulated. The emphasis of arms control is thus on overall stability rather than the removal of weapons, and proponents acknowledge that an increase in weaponry may be necessary to maintain a balance of power at times. The creation of arms-control regimes is a huge step forward to the existence of nuclear weapons as well.

The Superpowers grew convinced that they couldn't securely disarm themselves of nuclear weapons by the 1950s when both the US and the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons. In the absence of guaranteed verification—the mechanism by which treaty signatories check each other's compliance with the agreement—neither party could disarm without exposing itself to cheating by the other. As a result, the goal of the Superpowers and other nuclear weapon-wielding states became the control of those weapons rather than total eradication in order to maintain a robust nuclear deterrence.

According to the idea of nuclear deterrence, a state possessing nuclear weapons is prevented from using them against another nuclear power because of the threat of retaliation. no state is willing to attempt a first strike because it can't prevent the other side from striking back. this idea has come to be called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Many experts see deterrence as a goal of nuclear arms control. many civilians believe that arms control and disarmament are the same things, there has been a public disappointment when treaties resulted in an increase in the number of weapons. An advantage of arms control over disarmament is that states with a high degree of suspicion or hostility towards each other can still negotiate agreements, on the other hand, disarmament agreements require a high degree of trust and their formation is unlikely between hostile nations. arms control is often used to avoid an arms race- a competitive build-up of weapons between two or more powers search erase can be costly for both sides and arms control treaties serve useful purposes of limiting weapons stockpiles while conserving social and economic resources of the state for other use.

Discussion

The concept of disarmament arose from the recognition that weapons are a source of tension, which can lead to conflict. Arms stockpiles create mutual fear and antagonism in international relations. It is stated that in order to prevent wars or hostilities and build trust between nations, weapons, which are at the base of all these ills, must be eradicated. Disarmament aims at the elimination of entire weapon system categories. The spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) constitutes a significant threat to international security.

Disarmament in the Era of Globalization

The end of hostilities between the USA and the USSR with the end of the Cold War started a new phase in international relations— the era of ‘globalization’. This was marked by the end of hostilities between the capitalist and the communist ideologically divided bloc of nations. A wave of liberalization started in the former closed or state-controlled economies of communist countries. Borders were increasingly being opened to a worldwide flow of goods, money, people, ideas, and information. Trade and financial transactions started between the countries of the former Soviet and American blocs. They moved from conflict to cooperation. This era is also marked by the emergence of a ‘supranational’ borderless global economy and institutions, with their own laws. National economies becoming integrated with the international market. In this changed scenario, both the US and Russia (former Soviet Union) started to pursue extraordinary efforts toward disarmament. Internationally, conventional arms cut, strategic arms disarmament, an extension of non-proliferation agreements, and comprehensive test bans marked the new trend of disarmament. Heavily guarded national borders became porous, and so did the ideological border. In this scenario, huge militarization and strategic nuclear stockpiles became redundant.

Disarmament is necessary for maintaining the peace and progress of human civilization. The invention and development of nuclear weapons have posed the threat of total annihilation of humans in the event of another world war. The invention and development of sophisticated military technology have made all countries vulnerable. None can be self-sufficient in defense.

'Through history, mankind has pursued peace one way or another. It is too optimistic to imagine that world peace may finally be within our grasp. I do not believe that there has been an increase in the amount of people's hatred, only in their ability to manifest it in vastly destructive weapons. On the other hand, bearing witness to the tragic evidence of the mass slaughter caused by such weapons in our country has given us the opportunity to control war. To do so, it is clear we must disarm.'

Disarmament can occur only within the context of new political and economic relationships; it is worth imagining the kind of peace process from which we would benefit most. initially, we must fight to eliminate nuclear weapons, followed by biological and chemical weapons, offensive weapons, and defense weapons. Furthermore, by eliminating all major militaries and subjecting all conflict, such as boundary disputes, to the control of the joint international force, large and small nations would be truly equal. Such reforms would result in a stable international environment.

Modern arms control:

Although disarmament and arms control agreements were forged prior to World War 2 (1939-45), the modern arms control effort began in earnest after the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. the situation erupted when the US discovered that the Soviet Union was constructing launch sites for nuclear missiles on the island of Cuba, thereby threatening to put nuclear weapons very close to the US soil.

numerous arms control agreements have been designed to improve communications between the Superpowers. first of these coming just after the Cuban missile crisis, was the 1963 hotline agreement setting up a special Telegraph line between Moscow and Washington. in 1978 the hotline was updated by a satellite link between the two superpowers. the USA and USSR also. sort to create protocols designed to prevent an accidental nuclear war this effort led to 1971 agreement measures to reduce the risk of an outbreak of nuclear war which required advanced warning for any missile test and immediate notification of any accidents or missile warning alerts. one of the celebrated 1968, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons treaty is designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries with 100 states under it, countries not possessing nuclear weapons give up their right to acquire such weapons, and countries with nuclear weapons waive their rights to export nuclear weapons technology to countries lacking that technology.

therefore, new world order was formed between 1989 and 1991, where several significant events brought about the end of the Cold War in 1989 Soviet Union gave up its decision to give up its control over Eastern Europe. by 1991, the Warsaw Pact unified group consisting of the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe were dissolved, but so had the Soviet Union itself.

Arms control and post-Cold War era:

In June 1992, President George Bush met with Russian President Boris Yeltsin. In a ‘joint understanding,’ two sides agreed to reductions of nuclear weapons beyond levels provided for the 1991 START agreement, with a goal of decreasing the total number of warheads on each side. the two presidents also agreed to eliminate MIRVs by 2003, Which was later signed as START II as early 1993.

during the early 2000s, US defense policy changed dramatically the election of President Bush signaled the rise of new conservative policy thinking about post-Cold War security, a framework that no longer prioritizes defense against nuclear attack from Russia are the states of former SU. Instead, Terrorism and so-called rogue states were set to post the greatest danger. in a profound burger from superpower analysis that had found the basis of Cold War planning, the threat was now from a smaller and weaker nation. defense identifies potential threats from North Korea, Iraq, and Iran which were said to be developing as in the case of Pakistan which had already developed nuclear weapons. they pointed to the failure of international non-proliferation agreements as reasons for you S2 to reconfigure its defenses and rethink its previous agreements.

India's approach:

India has been calling for global nuclear disarmament since independence. although at present India continues to express its thought, and support for any initiative that can lead up to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. the factors that contributed to its strong support for nuclear disarmament are gradually evolving. So, this will require India to reconsider its position on nuclear disarmament a task that New Delhi continues to wait for now. but this change for factor and its consequential impact of India's commitment can you clear disarmament is not really a new development. an examination of the development of India's nuclear weapons program captures a situation that questions India's commitment to nuclear disarmament.

For instance, since independence, India's “public and vocal stand against nuclear weapons”. Nehru first pm proposed a complete ban on a test of nuclear weapons. this band led to a partial test ban treaty (PTBT). However, in the 1960s with security Detroit in its neighborhood, a need to acquire nuclear weapons to deter eternal threats was felt. but when NPT was signed, India lagged a clear plan for nuclear disarmament thus didn't sign. this implied India’s inclination towards developing its own nuclear weapons considering the threat India proceeded from its neighborhood. There were three critical events that influence India's nuclear weapons policy to add the third session on disarmament at UNGA, 1988 (PM Rajiv Gandhi).

• Pakistan made progress in its own nuclear program.
• negotiation at a conference on disarmament for CTBT
• NPT was extended in 1995.
• So, India had decided to conduct the test in 1998.

This gradual shift closer to the group of nuclear haves will make politicians and bureaucrats in India reconsidered their traditional value of nuclear non-proliferation regimes as discriminatory and well, therefore, required them to reconsider India's position on nuclear disarmament.

• Few treaties and agreements
• Limited Test Ban Treaty (Aug 5, 1963)
• Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty (May 26, 1972)
• Arms Trade Treaty (June 3, 2003)
• Biological Weapons Convention (April 10, 1972)
• Chemical Weapons Convention (January 13, 1993)
• Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (September 24th, 1996)
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (July 1, 1968)
• Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, SALT I (July 1, 1968) and SALT II (July 18, 1979)
• START I (July 31, 1991), START II (Jan 3, 1993)

Barriers to Disarmament

In the new world order being the cause of the world peace, it is impossible if considered from a realist point of. The countries promoting the disarmament debate Like USA Russia China UK France agree over the debate of disarmament at the UN but outside the premises one of the major factors all their economy deals are with the sale of search weapons around the world that have been discussed by the scholars, for example, A deal of around 100 billion was reported by the police officials in America which showed that there is an active business of the weapon market. One of the finest examples is the allocation of USA military bases in almost all the ocean regions around the world. All these countries raising the defense system in the nation shows a clear indicator of the realist approach to establishing and protecting their borders in the struggle of power. Hans J. Morgenthau considers the conflict of powers as the main hindrance in the way of disarmament.

A recent example of the Israel and Palestine issue draws attention to how Israel has been one of the countries promoting arms control but is the biggest nuclear power and on the other hand, Palestine has no weapons and military to fight back even if they face threat to their Sovereign affairs. Leaders in emerging economies and regional powers appear to be encouraging nationalist sentiment to help expand those countries' influence and power overseas however this rises in nationalism affect issues of nuclear disarmament and more broadly prospects for a peaceful World order. This is accelerating nuclear tensions.

Civil society should work to identify these converging sentiments and interests in favor of nuclear non-proliferation and use them to advocate anti-nuclear policies. In a joint letter on 'nuclear policy and prospects for disarmament in the new world order 27th February 2018 by prof. Ramesh Thakur and Mr. Jayantha Dhanapala, former un under-secretary-general for disarmament affairs.

Conclusion:

So, disarmament is the only way to make the world safe. The increasing investment in the military industry is also consuming money and useful resources which otherwise could be diverted to the development sectors. In the context of the growing poverty in large parts of the world, the increasing investment in the military industry can further increase poverty and accentuate the social tension in every society of the world. The huge expenditure in the defense sector can only be stopped or decreased if the disarmament at least of partial type is achieved.

'We don't need more nuclear weapons; we need a new generation to face the unfinished challenge of disarmament started decades ago, will we further reduce our nuclear arsenals globally, aur will be spend a billion or maybe trillion dollars to modernize them.

This trillion-dollar could go a long way to feeding and educating and employing people all of which could reduce the threat of nuclear war to begin with.

We have to pursue an ambitious goal: ridding the world of nuclear weapons by 2045 the member states of such a community might agree to decide its defense and international relations policies together. There would be many opportunities for cooperation. The critical point is that we find a peaceful, nonviolent way for the forces of freedom, democracy, and moderation to emerge successfully from the current atmosphere of unjust repression.

Our planet is blessed with vast natural treasures. If we use them properly, beginning with the elimination of militarism and war, truly, every human being will be able to live a wealthy, well-cared-for life.

Normally, worldwide harmony can't happen at the same time. Since conditions all throughout the planet have differed, its spread should be gradual. Yet, there is no reason behind why it can't start in one region and then spread gradually from one continent to another.

Citations:

1. Erika Gregory at TED talks [lecture]; 25 Jan,2017: The world doesn't need more nuclear weapons.
2. In text: Erika Gregory, 2017
3. Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth W. Thompson, 1948; Politics Among Nations: The struggle for power and peace. New York, McGraw hill, 1993.
4. law.jrank.orgpages-4438Arms-Control-Disarmament-History. In text: [Jrank.org]
5. Mr Jayantha Dhanapala, (former under-secretary-general for disarmament affairs] and Prof. Ramesh Thakur, lecture: “Nuclear Policy and Prospects for Disarmament in the New World Order.”; LKI and the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network – APLN: 27th February 2018.
6. M. Muslim Khan, Rumki Basu (ed), 2012; International Politics; concepts, theories and issues. SAGE publications Pvt. Ltd; 2nd edition, (15 Nov 2012). P.25, 142
7. Rajdhani college- disarmament.pdf
8. Sverre Lodgaard (2019) Arms Control and World Order, Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2:1, 1-18, DOI: 10.108025751654.2019.1631243
9. Syed Hussain Musavia, Emad Kiwyaei,2020; A Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction: a new approach to proliferation, published by Roultedge, April 27, 2021, pg. 166.
10. The 14th Dalai Lama, disarmament for World Peace, published on October 13th, 2016.
11. Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Pub Co, 1979, MLA (7th edition)