Arms and International Relations - Essay Example

Arms and International Relations International political changes and other influencing factors have pressurised most Western Europe nations to procure arms. Their long established patterns of production of arms and procurement were changed by these new requirements. The sophistication of technology engendered weapons that were more complex and expensive. The relationship between the military and civilian technology had changed drastically, and there was limited regulation regarding arms production, in the industrially developed nations. These were the contributing factors for the increased production and procurement of arms among the Western European countries. There had been considerable unrest and tension between the countries of Eastern and Western Europe. As such, the West European Arms Industry suffered a serious setback due to European integration. There have been rapid developments to address the disruption of the relations between the military and the industry. These changes in the production of arms resulted in several issues, relating to employment, technology, national security and foreign policy. It was perceived that the European nations would find a solution for these challenging tasks. The decisions taken by these countries will invariably affect the employment of a large number of workers in the arms production industry. Furthermore, these decisions could also affect national and international policies, in the areas of technology, economics, arms procurement and international integration (Brzoska & Lock, 1992. Page 4 – 5). The annual toll in human life, exacted by small arms, all over the world comes to nearly half a million. Furthermore, the number of people who succumb to small arms is more than the number of people who are slain by missiles or weapons of mass destruction. The international arms control agreements are deeply concerned about this extremely distressing situation; and almost a hundred companies are lobbying to suitably change arms regulations, so as to address this alarming phenomenon. These companies want to form a new treaty that will be aimed at regulating the trade in small arms. The United Kingdom, Japan and several other nations are forging ahead to create such a new treaty. This new treaty would prohibit the sale and purchase of small but lethal weapons, like hand guns and grenade launchers (Falby, October 15, 2007). In the earlier stages this prohibition will be implemented on the rogue states that have a dismal record, regarding human rights. It would also be applied to countries, which employ these arms to wage war against other countries (Falby, October 15, 2007). Proponents of this new treaty have submitted several draft proposals to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. It is now, up to the Secretary General to appoint an expert committee to study these proposals and determine their feasibility. The United States is the largest producer and exporter of small weapons. It had export agreements, worth $13 billion, with regard to such arms, in the year 2005. The US refused to submit its proposals in this regard; and utilized its veto power to prevent the establishment of this treaty by the UN. The other major exporters of small arms are Russia and China. However, they submitted proposals with less stringent controls, and refrained from commenting about the position of their arms’ industry; in the event of the creation of the treaty. As such, the treaty faces the machinations of the powerful US arms lobby that is against it (Falby, October 15, 2007). Proponents of the treaty had contended that other measures would have to be taken into consideration, such as the ban on landmines. Such measures were established and came into force against the will of the US. However, it will not practically viable if the world’s biggest producer and exporter of small arms is ignored, during the creation of the new treaty which addresses it (Falby, October 15, 2007). Several arms control agreements had been ratified, since the nineteenth century. These agreements and subsequent changes in arms procurement policies had resulted in international concern for arms control. The UN Security Council had imposed control on the use of arms and their procurement by Iraq, since the year 1991. The UN had included arms control restrictions in the Dayton Peace Agreement, in respect of the former Yugoslavia; and the compatibility of the 1972 ABM Treaty with the National missile defence principles of the United States had been discussed several times, at the international level. Moreover, India and Pakistan had tested nuclear devices in May 1998; and North Korea had test launched a three stage missile on the 31st of August 1998. These incidents alerted international organisations to exert nuclear arms control and to be prepared for ballistic missile attacks (Dekker, 2001. Page 1 – 2). In the year 1948, Israel was founded as an independent nation. Its, first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion had harboured a number of far reaching plans about the future of Israel. He recognised the possibility of a war with the neighbouring Arab nations, in the not so distant future. This prescience strengthened his resolve to make Israel more powerful than its neighbours, by developing nuclear technology and weapons. To achieve this objective Ben – Gurion appointed Shimon Peres to take charge of the nuclear project. This resulted in the Israeli quest for nuclear capability; and France provided the necessary technology and structural help to manufacture nuclear reactors and to test nuclear weapons (Karpin, 2007). There is considerable ambiguity regarding Israel’s capability to produce nuclear weapons. Israel has not confirmed, officially, that it can produce such weapons. However, there are occasional disclosures in this regard. France provided Israel with the required technology and resources to develop nuclear weapons. The existence of the Dimona reactor in the Neglev Nuclear Research Centre had been discovered by the United States in the early 1960’s. This reactor is operated clandestinely by Israel. Moreover, the Jericho missile was tested by Israel. The Jericho was a medium – range ballistic missile, which was developed by Israel under its nuclear weapons programme (Freedman, 2006). The Israeli Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement in 2006, whereby it prohibited the ban on Israel’s assassinations programme. The court ruled that international law constrained the assassination of persons suspected to be terrorists. Therefore, to justify an anti –terrorist strike, Israel would have to prove that the suspect was planning to mount a terrorist attack against it. It would also have to establish that apprehending the suspect involved significant risk. The court required a separate investigation to be made for each anti – terrorist attack made by Israel (Case, Mar/Apr2008. P30-33). The various American watchdog groups have never attempted to contest or legally challenge the aerial assassinations carried out by the US, in any court, because the US courts do not restrict the president to compromise on national security. Although, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 1991 requires the president to stop covert missions, the US government circumvented it by contending that such requirements were inapplicable during times of terrorist attacks (Case, Mar/Apr2008. P30-33). The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in its 2005 yearbook, discussed armament, disarmament and international security issues at length. According to the Institute, the world is not secure, and that it is imperative to provide security for all individuals and nations. In the year 2004, military expenditure by all nations of the world exceeded $1 trillion. The major portion of this expenditure, around forty – seven percent, was incurred by the US. The war on terror during the period 2003 to 2005 entailed an expenditure of $238 billion, which exceeds the combined military spending of the developing nations, for the year 2004, which was $214 billion. Total arms sales by the weapons manufacturing companies were $236 billion in the year 2003. The top five companies sold arms that amounted to forty – four percent of this amount. Forty – seven poor countries required external funding, amounting to $ 2.5 billion per annum, for promoting education in their schools and to achieve the Millennium Development Goal, with regard to universal primary education. In addition, they required $2.4 billion to provide safe drinking water to their people (Ferguson). The international law, served to place countries in a subordinate position. This created several problems with regard to national weaponry; because countries that were in a position to deal with the problems of arms control by themselves were unable to do so, due to their subordinate position. During the Cold War, the international political order was bipolar and there was interdependence among the countries. Subsequently, the situation changed; however, this change did not affect the fundamental characteristic of Western, Eastern and Non-Aligned states, in the context of arms control and regulation. Moreover, there had been several negotiations, which had proceeded for a number of years, without yielding any success. An instance, of this was the CTBT treaty. It is almost impossible to regulate the behaviour of states, by means of arms regulation law, because their national weaponry is not only complex but also difficult to access. Different states have different national security interests, with regard to arms control; which renders the process of achieving a consensus on fundamental issues, problematic and complex (Dekker, 2001. Page 1 – 2). List of References Brzoska, M., & Lock, P. (1992. Page 4 – 5). Restructuring of Arms Production in Western Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0198291477. Case, D. (Mar/Apr2008. P30-33). Bombs Away! Mother Jones , 03628841, Vol. 33, Issue 2. Dekker, G. d. (2001. Page 1 – 2). The Law of Arms Control: International Supervision and Enforcement. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN: 9041116249. Falby, P. (October 15, 2007). A New Call To Arms Control. Newsweek . Ferguson, J. (n.d.). Between the Lines: Let them Eat Guns? Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0601&article=060142a Freedman, L. D. (2006, March/April). The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World. . Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301fabook85229/michael-karpin/the-bomb-in-the-basement-how-israel-went-nuclear-and-what-that-means-for-the-world.html Karpin, M. (2007, January 9). The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What That Means for the World . Retrieved May 18, 2008, from http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=25&pid=523896 Read More