Addressing regional conflicts is at the heart of disarmament
Throughout the 20th century, the threat of “mutually assured destruction” held nuclear war in check. Today, however, there is legitimate concern that rogue nations, reckless regimes, and international terrorists are intent on detonating a nuclear device in a major city.
While many argue that disarmament is impossible or even dangerous, measurable progress has been made over the past couple of decades and current global conditions present a unique opportunity to advance the goals of nuclear disarmament. The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty signed this spring by the United States and Russia marks a significant step in this direction. However, attempts to achieve further global disarmament must begin by settling regional conflicts that currently make certain countries very reluctant to disarm.
Despite widespread pessimism, nuclear nonproliferation has largely been a success. Matthew Bunn, professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said in an interview with the HPR that many falsely believe that nuclear technology is out of control and that nuclear weapons are easily accessible to determined dictators. In reality, the global effort to slow the spread of nuclear weapons has been fairly effective. Joseph Nye, professor of international relations at the Kennedy School, explained that at the time the international nonproliferation regime got its start in the 1950s and ‘60s, many thought that the spread of nuclear weapons was inevitable. “Kennedy said he thought there would be 25 nuclear states by the 1970s,” Nye said. Instead, as Bunn pointed out, the last 20 years have been “an amazing public policy success story,” as the number of confirmed nuclear powers has remained in the single digits.
It’s a Start
The Obama administration has placed nuclear disarmament at the forefront of its foreign policy. Nye said, “Obama raised the profile of the issue with his Prague speech in 2009,” in which he called for a global summit of nuclear security. That summit was held this year, and, according to Nye, these gestures “have caught the attention of world leaders and world press.”
On April 8, 2010, President Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia signed the new START treaty, which, if ratified by both countries, would cut each of their nuclear arsenals by a third. Dustin Tingley, assistant professor of international relations at Harvard, predicted that the new treaty would likely pass after the November elections. Once enacted, it will serve as a significant international confidence-building measure, powerfully demonstrating the renewed commitment of the world’s two nuclear superpowers to the aims of disarmament.
Securing the World
While the commitment of Russia and the United States to disarmament is important, global disarmament will require even more significant changes. As Nye explained, “You would have to have a world in which you would reduce some of the extreme mistrust which underlies state security dilemmas.” Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the HPR that before disarmament could be successfully executed, major issues such as the territorial status of Kashmir, the tension between Israel and its neighbors, and the rogue leaderships of Iran and North Korea must be resolved. As long as a nation is engaged in conflict, it feels the need to possess nuclear weapons to ensure its own security, whether because the enemy has nuclear weapons or because the enemy has superior traditional military forces.
This vicious cycle could eventually galvanize countries to take these underlying issues of state security more seriously, particularly if another wave of proliferation seems imminent. Iran’s nuclear program, for instance, has spurred proliferation in the Arab world due to mistrust of Tehran’s intentions. But the prospect of instability and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is not likely to be in the interest of any of the great powers.
Talk of a nuclear-free world can sometimes ring of naiveté. It is undoubtedly a hard-to-reach and far-off goal. Yet the past few decades have shown nonproliferation efforts to be far more successful than anticipated, suggesting that nuclear control is indeed possible. The new START treaty and Obama’s nuclear summit reflect a renewed global commitment to dismantling nuclear arsenals and keeping weapons out of the hands of rogue states and terrorists. This commitment to disarmament, combined with efforts to resolve regional disputes and assure other countries of their security, will be critical to maintaining the success of the nonproliferation regime.
Eliza Calihan ’13 is a Contributing Writer.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.