How Nuclear Weapons Help to Maintain Global Peace - Case Study Example

 Peaceful Weapons With reference to the post-Cold War world, critically discuss the argument that nuclear weapons bring stability. Introduction Even since the Manhattan project, various countries around the world have seen nuclear technology as the ultimate deterrent, the only method to protect their sovereignty and the one solution to all their problems (Russell, 2003). In fact, some nations like Pakistan have gone to the extent of developing nuclear programmes at the expense of social programmes that could have helped their people live better lives (Sagan, 1994). At the same time, there have situations where some nations have rolled back their nuclear agenda and used the atom for peaceful purposes only. However, for the most part, it seems that countries seeking nuclear weapons are looking for safety and security and in some ways it can bring stability to a region where the threat of conventional war is high. It must be noted that the stability brought by nuclear weapons is often a tense stability since nations who have such weapons tout the strategic or defensive capabilities of nuclear arms. That in itself is perhaps a misnomer since these countries maintain that they would only use such weapons if their security is threatened (Paulikas, 2006). In this regard, LaFranchi (2006) suggests that some developed nations can be considered smart enough to possess nuclear weapons with the restraint which comes along with their possession as a responsibility. However, Carter (2006) maintains that those countries which currently have the bomb should not seek to distribute it to others since it would only create higher levels of proliferations and create greater instability. Seeking and Having Weapons Iran and North Korea are primary examples under the topic since Korea has gone nuclear and shown the world that it does have the power to stand up to America. On the other hand, Iran is actively seeking nuclear weapons and continues to defy international bodies as well as western nations in its search for nuclear armaments (Cortright, 2006). However, the way the case of Iran has been handled by the international community led by the United States is quite different from the case of North Korea (Palmer and Palmer, 2004). It can be shown that while North Korea obtained a higher level of stability through their bomb, Iran’s search for nuclear weapons and the resulting reaction of western nations could destabilise the region tremendously. It seems that the essential difference between Iran and North Korea is seeking and having weapons. Countries which are seeking nuclear technology may be handled differently from those who confess to have it in their arsenal. Kilgore (2007) suggests that Iran is seeking these weapons precisely because the region is unstable and the procession of nuclear arms would mean the supremacy of Iran in the region which would bring some form of stability on its own. It may not allow the ‘right’ country to be in power in the Middle East but it would establish a hierarchy which would be difficult to challenge in military terms. This measure of Iran behaving in a way which is contrary to the wishes of the western world comes from historical lessons which Iran learnt before the Second World War. In 1941, the Allied powers had to find a way through Iran to aid the Russian effort against German armies. Reza Shah raised objections to this violation of his sovereignty and he was quickly was removed from the throne by western powers. He was quickly exiled to South Africa, replaced by his son Reza Shah Pahlavi and the allies got what they wanted. It was said that the old king had Nazi sympathies but as a matter of fact, he was more anti-Russian than pro-Germany (Kilgore, 2007). The problems between Iran and the west did not end there since in 1953, the Americans removed Iran’s elected Prime Minister on the suspicion that he had communist leanings after he had nationalised the oil companies working in Iran. Rather than a communist, he was an Iranian nationalist, opposed to the exploitation of his country’s resources at the hands of oil corporations. In the post 9/11 world, President Bush declared Iran a part of the famous ‘Axis of Evil’ due to the apparent sympathies Iran has with some fundamentalist Muslims groups whereas that support is more because of these groups opposing the Saudis rather than these groups harming American interests. In such circumstances, it is easy for Iran to see that stability and aid is poured into North Korea by virtue of it being an established nuclear power and this is certainly an attractive proposition for the Iranian government (Kilgore, 2007). The lessons learnt from not having nuclear weapons become clear in the case of Iraq since she was attacked under the pretext of possession of WMDs which have not been found. Saddam Hussein was said to be providing a safe harbour to Al-Qaeda but there was no significant evidence supporting the presence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq (Jackson, 2006). The same rhetoric is being produced against Iran as it is said to be the next hot bed for terrorists and the source of all the problems that America may face today or in the future. The Reaction of Major Powers This leads Kilgore (2007) to blame the Israeli lobby in Washington which is feeding strange information to the American media regarding Iran’s plans to attack American interests with nuclear weapons. At the present rate of development in terms of weapons arsenal and technological ability in Iran, Negroponte reports that the country could take more than ten years to actually create a nuclear bomb. On the other hand as reported by Jones (2006), Israel already has more than two hundred such bombs some which have more or less guaranteed its safety for many decades and the technology required for these bombs was provided by Britain. Kilgore (2007) further says that: “Israel's real goal is to stampede a reckless and unpredictable American president into militarily attacking Iran before his term expires, out of fear his successor would not do so. Thus the frenzy of the Israel lobby's accusations… …The International Atomic Energy Agency has found no proof that Iran aims to acquire the bomb (Kilgore, 2007, Pg. 25)”. Kilgore (2007) then concludes that, “Taking the experience of North Korea and the fanaticism of the Israel lobby into account, it would be easy to understand if Iran seeks to acquire a nuclear weapon. The Iranians feel that they have been mistreated by history, and they are looking for some respect (Kilgore, 2007, pg. 25)”. Thus Iran and the region itself could be stabilised if Iran acquires nuclear weapons which Israel already possesses and the treatment given to Iran is the same as the treatment given to North Korea. Rather than attacking Iran to prevent her from getting nuclear weapons, the west has to bring stability through aid and developmental support. This is because an attack on a nation like Iran or North Korea could possibly bring more instability in the region since regional powers could take it negatively. An attack on an Islamic country like Iran could fan the religious elements in countries like Pakistan or Turkey. Additionally, China has made significant investments in Iran with regard to their oil industry and this has given considerable amounts of cheap oil to the growing Chinese economic system (Savage, 2007). The connections between the countries in the region need to be carefully studied before a decision can be made about the presence of nuclear weapons in countries like Iran. In fact, as much as china may be invested in Iran, she may not accept Iran to have nuclear weapons where in the same geographic location India and Pakistan have regular border skirmishes while they are both nuclear powers. Similarly, the possession of nuclear weapons by Iran may not be taken lightly by Russia. At the same time, Savage (2007) is quick to say that Russia does support Iran’s search for peaceful uses of nuclear technology. Therefore, it becomes easy to say that nuclear weapons themselves become a secondary issue for countries that declare themselves to be nuclear powers and the reaction taken by other nations will be what causes stability or instability in the region. For example, North Korea was brought into a closer relationship after it tested the bomb since the country was given a comprehensive aid and developmental support package in order to bring it back from conducting further tests and to encourage it to dismantle some of the weapons factories it had. According to Savage (2007), to prevent the Iranian government from going towards becoming a nuclear power, “Iran could be made to see that obtaining nuclear weapons could set off an arms race in the region with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and many other nations following suit. Such a scenario would actually reduce Tehran's current military superiority in the region (Savage, 2007, Pg. 31)”. In effect, the stability and safety guarantees which are being sought by Iran by placing itself at the head of the table in the Middle East can be created through diplomatic means. It seems that while America and other great powers are trying to stabilise the world and protect their interests, smaller are nations are seeking nuclear weapons to stabilise their own relationships with their neighbours at a regional level. This idea of stability also means the continuation of current regimes as has become obvious in the recent case of Pakistan where President General Pervez Musharrif has done everything he can to keep himself in power. In many ways, the presence of long standing governments could be useful for other countries which are also in favour of a certain level of stability even if it comes at the price of giving up complete democracy in such regions. The support for that idea comes from the admission of America that they would have to seek comprehensive confidence building measures with North Korea to bring about stability in the region rather than use brute force which can cause more instability. Many European governments also seem to recognise the need to use similar tactics with Iran by using economic, diplomatic and political means rather than simply browbeating Iran into following American dictates (Savage, 2007). This points towards the notion that lasting stability can come to the region if Iran is recognised as the major regional power that it is and if Iran needs to find nuclear weapons to get that recognition and to bring stability to the middle east, there is little which can be done to stop the country from going in that direction. North Korea also went in the direction Iran is now headed at and the package which the country got from accepting cutbacks in its nuclear programme only highlight what stability can be bought through WMDs. The talks between American, North Korea and other nations in the region are only the first step towards a possible normalisation of relationships between these nations and the deal between the countries took away all economic sanctions from North Korea. Of course the plutonium producing plants had to be closed down but North Korea is also getting 50,000 tonnes of crude oil with another 950,000 tonnes to follow in later years (Slavin, 2007). As a voice of reason, The Economist (2007) criticised this solution and stated that such things could be seen as rewards for going nuclear and this could encourage other nations to seek out WMDs. The editorial for the Economist said that such polices can only succeed in, “Encouraging nuclear wannabes to believe that the more rules they break, the bigger the eventual pay-off; and in the process eviscerating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and setting off a dangerous series of nuclear chain reactions, from East Asia to the Middle East (Economist, 2007, Pg. 14)”. However, the facts speak for themselves since the stability level and normalization of relationships with North Korea has only increased while the situation with Iran is getting closer to a flashpoint. Conclusion In conclusion, it becomes apparent from the example of North Korea that a state with nuclear weapons can bring stability to a region but only if the major powers and regional powers handle such a situation correctly. On the other hand, the case of Iran shows that a country which is seeking nuclear weapons or is even suspected of seeking nuclear weapons can cause a region to destabilise if the reaction of the major powers is negative. Therefore, the possession of nuclear weapons becomes a secondary consideration even though it is a catalyst for the world reaction to a given situation. The primary consideration remains how the world deals with a country like North Korea or Iran obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place. Works Cited Carter, A. 2006, ‘America's New Strategic Partner?’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 33-44. Cortright, D. 2006, ‘The New Nuclear Danger’, America, vol. 195, no. 19, pp. 18-22. Economist. 2007, ‘Trust me?’, Economist, vol. 382, no. 8516, pp. 14-15. Jackson, D. 2006, ‘EU leaders lend U.S. support on Iran, N. Korea’, USA Today, 23 Jun., p. 7a Jones, M. 2006, ‘Britain’s dirty secret’, New Statesman, vol. 135, no. 4783, pp. 18-21. Kilgore, A. 2007, ‘Does Iran Need the Bomb to Protect Its Security?’, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 25-26. LaFranchi, H. 2006, ‘Is Iran Studying North Korea’s Nuclear Moves? Christian Science Monitor, vol. 98, no. 146, pp. 1-10. Palmer, G. and Palmer, M. 2004, Bridled Power, Oxford University Press. Paulikas, G. 2006, ‘Nuclear Naïve Faith’, Aviation Week & Space Technology, vol. 165, no. 18, pp. 4-5. Russell, R. 2003, ‘The Nuclear Peace Fallacy: How Deterrence Can Fail’, Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 26, no.1. Sagan, S. 1994, ‘The Perils of Proliferation: Organization Theory, Deterrence, Theory, and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons’, International Security, vol.18, no.4. Savage, L. 2007, ‘Will Bush Bomb Iran?’, Maclean's, vol. 120, no. 7, pp. 26-32. Slavin, B. 2007, ‘Diplomacy could define end of Bush's term’, USA Today, 1 Mar., p. 10a. Read More