Arms Control /Disarmament and Nuclear Non proliferation Regime

1) Introduction
i. A stable and peaceful international order requires controls on
nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) and other types of
weapons and dangerous sensitive materials as well as regulation of
the behavior of both state and non-state actors.
ii. For almost a decade, however, there has been little progress
in multilateral arms control in general and some processes
have suffered severe setbacks.
2) Justifications for Armament
i. Weapons are not causes but the consequences of
conflictive relations.
ii. A historical survey of the arms race indicates that during the
past two centuries this form of international competition often
ends peacefully in recognition of the military superiority of one
side or the other.(Armament increases the chances of peace)
iii. Countries that have no adequate defense tempt aggressors and
therefore preparing for war is the best way to achieve peace.
(Keep all aspects in mind to make an intelligent opinion).
(Einstein and Openheimerís research lead to atom bomb)
3) Arguments for Disarmament
i. Arms and arms races are costly and potentially very bloody. (Saint
Augustine-book on the justification of war)
ii. Arms reduction can curtail defense burden and allow
economic investment for productive purposes.
iii. Unchecked growth of armaments without economic means can
lead to internal repression and external aggression.( backup your
argument with solid pragmatic approach, nothing is wrong)
4) Arms Control
i. Arms reduction implies partially disarmament based on mutually
agreed set of arms levels between a given groups of nation states.
ii. Arms limitation includes a wide variety of international accords
to limit impact of potential wars or to prevent their accidental
 outbreak(exchange of information or ban on particular types of
weaponry)
5) History of Disarmament
i. Disarmament attempts can be traced back to the Treaty of
Westphalia in 1648, which stipulated against the need for building
fortifications.
ii. In 1816, the Czar of Russia proposed to the British government
the reduction of armaments, this call was not very well received.
iii. In 1863 and in 1869, France made similar calls for
disarmament in Europe, but it too was ignored.
iv. In 1898, the Tsar of Russia called on European powers to
gather at The Hague to discuss disarmament, a suggestion
which was well received, leading to the First Hague Peace
Conference attended by 28 states.
v. In 1907, another conference was held at The Hague for the
same purpose. Both Conferences called upon military and
naval experts to propose reducing military expenditures
through disarmaments, but the major powers were not ready
for such moves in practice.
vi. Disarmament after WW1
i. The devastation caused by WWI impelled statesmen of the
world to give serious thought to disarmament. Woodrow
Wilson in one of his famous fourteen points asserted
armament should be reduced to ëthe lowest point consistent
with domestic safetyí.
ii. The treaty of Versailles (1919) also recognized that ëthe
maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national
armamentsí.
iii. The League of Nations was given the duty to secure a
general agreement on disarmament and its covenant
stated that only those countries be allowed membership
who accepted the proposed agreement. A permanent
advisory commission was established in the League, but
being compromised of military personnel, it failed to
make much progress on disarmament.
iv. The Council of the League appointed another commission
in 1920, the Temporary Mixed Commission, with a fixed
four
 year mandate and comprised primarily of civilians. This
temporary commission was asked to identify limitation of
land and naval forces for various countries according to their
national security needs. This commission also proposed
compulsory arbitration and international aid to victims of
aggression. This commissionís recommendations were not
accepted by League of Nations members.
v. In 1926, the League set up another preparatory
commission for disarmament which prepared a draft treaty
considered at the League conference in Geneva in 1932 by
61 states. Discussions on this draft continued for two
years but then the Japanese attack on Manchuria and the
German withdrawal from the treaty in 1933, dashed hopes
for the global disarmament.
vii. Disarmament after WW2
i. The devastation unleashed by WW2 again led to calls
for disarmament
ii. The UN Charter laid much emphasis on the need
for disarmament.
iii. The UN established a military Staff Committee to assist
the Security Council to regulate armaments and explore
means for disarmament.
viii. Atoms for Peace Plan
i. In 1953, Eisenhower proposed establishing a pool
of fissionable materials, donated by nuclear states
to the Atomic Energy Commission, to be provided
to other countries strictly for peaceful purposes.
ii. The Soviets opposed this plan arguing that an agreement
on prohibiting nuclear weapons was necessary prior to
disseminating nuclear technology.
6) UN disarmament Efforts
i. UN Atomic Energy Commission included all 5 SC members
and Canada.
ii. The UN Atomic commission was to explore mechanisms for
peaceful transfer of nuclear technology, to identify safeguards
for
 inspections of compliant states to prevent hazards or
violations, and work toward eliminating nuclear weapons.
iii. Both superpowers agreed to cooperate but their divergent
stances (US argued that control must take precedence over
disarmament and USSR wanted the reverse) failed to help
achieve the Commission goals.
iv. The UN General Assembly also established a Commission on
Conventional Armaments, which too fell victim to Cold War
divergence. Ultimately, the USSR pulled out of both
Commissions due to Chinaís representation on them.
v. In April 2004 the United Nations (UN) Security Council
unanimously adopted Resolution 1540 on the proliferation of
NBC weapons and their means of delivery.
vi. In December 2004 UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan released
the report of the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges
and Change. The two areas of concern were:
i. how to ensure universal adherence to multilateral
agreements intended to establish global norms and rules
of behavior; and
ii. how to ensure that those states which do adhere to the
agreements comply fully with the commitments that they
have made.
7) Other Notable Efforts
i. Many disarmament and arms control efforts were undertaken
through bilateral means between US and USSR, the biggest
proliferations of armaments in the post WW2 period (NTBT,
NPT, SALT I AND II)
ii. In 1985 six nation summits in New Delhi was indicative of
the growing concern amongst developing countries about
nuclear weapons.
iii. In 2001 the administration of U.S. president George W. Bush
announced that it would unilaterally withdraw from the ABM
Treaty, laying the groundwork for the deployment of defenses
against long-range ballistic missiles.
iv. The Bush administration, however, also pursued an arms
reduction agreement with the Russian Federation, and the
two
 nations signed a treaty in 2002 to deactivate about 75
percent of their strategic nuclear arsenals.
v. In December 2003 the EU also adopted a Strategy
against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD Strategy) setting out measures
to be used, ideally, to prevent proliferation from
taking place.
vi. In 2004, following up a proposal made by its
Director General in October 2003, the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) initiated a study of
multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle.
8) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
i. The NPT review conference was held in Geneva
in 1995 which recommended infinite extension of
the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty).
ii. Israel, Pakistan and India were criticized for not
acceding to the NPT nor to the subsequent CTBT,
which even forbids tests required for developing
nuclear weapons.
iii. Even France signed the CTBT after conducting
its last nuclear test in the South Pacific.
iv. India and Pakistan remain reluctant and argue that
the advanced nuclear states can keep their
weaponry safe and updated by tests stimulated in
lab settings.
v. In late 2003 the United States began funding a
research program that could lead to a new type of
nuclear weapon known as a mininuke.
vi. Some arms control advocates objected to the
research, saying it would lead to a new type of
nuclear weapon, which would violate the intent of
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
9) Conclusion