I totally agree with you that there is no enforcement mechanism in the international legal system. However, this does not mean that countries can just stand by because “there is nothing anyone can do.” If all countries take this stance, what is the purpose of international diplomacy? Countries can influence other countries through diplomatic negotiations, economic incentives, “name and shame” techniques etc.

Furthermore, there is an obligation on the part of countries to adhere to international customs. Many issues, such as weapons proliferation, have ramifications beyond national borders. With every statute or convention that is passed, international law regarding this problem is strengthened. Your suggestion of letting international law evolve until it can “eliminate the issue with arms of all types” is not a solution to the urgent crisis of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons proliferation.

Law doesn’t evolve by itself; countries must act to create any sort of order in the inherently anarchic international system. As you said yourself, the evolution of domestic law took thousands of years, yet it is still not sufficient in dealing with weapons proliferation. How many thousands of years will we have to wait until international law is adequately developed in dealing with this crisis?

Shane Pye - December 1, 2006 EST (#163 of 164)

As I was perusing the postings in relation to the concepts of nonproliferation and arms control, I noticed that one of the common sentiments was that the NPT would never be effective until all the countries signed on to it decided to actually do what they have agreed to do, and that is eliminate their nuclear arsenals. This has led many people to suggest that the five nuclear weapon states (U.S.A., France, Russia, China, and the U.K.) take immediate steps to reduce their nuclear armaments and to comply with the NPT. They argue that this would reduce the need that others states such as North Korea and India feel that they need to pursue nuclear weapons. One person (Sylvia Young, posting #114) even went so far as to suggest that the West should lead by example and disarm first, in the hopes that the East will follow suit. With all due respect to Ms. Young, I think that this is a terrible idea for a variety of reasons. I feel that there are certain realities in place in the world today that prevent disarmament and that the whole concept of nonproliferation has to be re-evaluated based on these realities.

Perhaps the biggest reality preventing nonproliferation is that we have no way to make sure that we can enforce it completely. Even if all of the nuclear weapon states chose to disarm, we have no way to tell whether or not they have completely disarmed or if they have decided to hide a few nuclear missiles away just in case other nations have chosen to do the same. As long as this possibility exists, the nuclear weapon states, particularly the U.S., are not going to disarm. No one can blame them for this as it would be foolish for one of these states to give up its arsenal unless it was completely sure that all the other countries would do the same.

As far as Ms. Young’s suggestion goes, the U.S.A. is not going to lead by example and disarm first because, to put it quite simply, it can’t. As Aseef Daredia points out, the U.S. has made far too many enemies to expose itself to the dangers of not having a nuclear stockpile. I agree with Mr. Wall when he says it is not simply a case of Nation A having nuclear weapons, so Nation B should have them too. Although the U.S. has a somewhat deserved reputation of being a warmonger, I trust the U.S. a great deal more with nuclear weapons than most of the countries in the East. I view most non-Western countries as simply being too unstable to possess nuclear weapons. Look at Africa, for example. There always seems to be some sort of conflict going on in Africa. Because of this, I wouldn’t want any country in Africa to possess nuclear weapons because they are incredibly likely to use them. The same applies to other non-Western countries. There are some countries out there that have a strong hatred of the U.S. Combine this hatred with a sometimes religion-inspired fanaticism, add complete nuclear disarmament of the U.S. to the mix, and you’re just looking for trouble. The nuclear weapons club is a very exclusive, like the country club in Connecticut or the high-end nightclub in Toronto: they don’t just let anybody in.

So, if the NPT is not serving its purpose of obtaining a nuclear-free world and has no chance of realistically doing so, should we abolish it? The answer is no. Even if all the NPT does is maintain the status quo, that alone is desirable enough to justify keeping it. Is the NPT hypocritical in this context? Sure is. Is it fair? Of course not, but as long as we have it, even if it is completely symbolic, it will serve as a deterrent to non-nuclear weapon states becoming nuclear weapon states. After all, we don’t want every international Tom, Dick, and Harry running around with a nuclear weapon. It may not be fair, but, generally speaking, life isn’t fair, so why do we expect international politics to be? Establishing a world where no country has a nuclear arsenal and all countries command the same respect and authority would be the equivalent of establishing a classless society. In life, as well as in international politics, there are always going to be people on the top and people on the bottom. You could almost compare it to a food chain of sorts. It may not be moral, but that’s the way it is. These concepts of nonproliferation and world peace would make for a lovely T.V. special, but if you want to apply them beyond that, then you are going to run into some serious roadblocks; roadblocks that you cannot overcome.

Shane Pye - December 1, 2006 EST (#162 of 164)

This post is in response to Janicelee MacNeil’s post on November 10th (posting #124). The reason that I have chosen to respond to this particular posting is because it just may be the most optimistic thing that I have ever read. Here is an excerpt from Ms. MacNeil’s posting: “States may always compete for supremacy in one way or another but this competition does not have to be negative, it does not have to be about who has the biggest or most nuclear weapons. Why not compete over which state can provide the best standard of living for its citizens, which state can do the most to create alliances by helping develop more states in the Global South. In my last post I am advocating a change in the way the international community functions and is structured with the emphases on equality.”

Ms. MacNeil points out that because of the nature of her argument, some people may call her naive or idealistic, and will dismiss her idea as unrealistic. While I am not going to call her naive, I am certainly going to call her idealistic simply because she is. The day that all the countries in the world put aside their self-interests to help their citizens is the day that we will most likely never see. So far, the only citizens that the state helps on a regular basis are the rich who do not even need the help. To the best of my knowledge, the only national government that is making a sincere effort to help its citizens is the government of Hugo Chavez, and since Chavez has many enemies in the West, no one knows how long he will remain in power or be in a position to help anybody.

Ms. MacNeil also says that since we live in a democracy, we should be able to force our leaders to change the system anyway we see necessary. Such changes would include complete nuclear disarmament of all nations, as well as a new commitment to develop the nations of the global South. I will respond to that comment with a question: Just how democratic is our version of democracy? Sure, we elect our politicians and, in theory, they are supposed to carry out our wishes, but just how often does it happen? If politics worked like that, the U.S. wouldn’t still be in Iraq and governments would never hide things from their citizens. The simple fact of the matter is that while we call our democracy “representative”, it really isn’t. We elect Joe Blow, Joe Blow goes on to do things that we don’t like for four or five years (or however long his term is), we eventually get tired of Joe Blow and put someone else in his place, and then this someone else goes on to do the exact same thing.

The problem with Western democracy is the fact that it appears representative when it really is not. True representative democracy would be when every citizen is able to cast his direct vote on any matter before the government. Of course, because of our large population and the public’s lack of issue in many political issues, this type of democracy is impractical; however, the real problem is that our democracy doesn’t even come close to this. We may get to choose who we send to office, but once they get elected, they stay in office at least until the next election. This results in representatives we elected voting “yes” on many things that we do not approve of. What makes the situation worse is that these politicians can do almost anything without being impeached. Apparently, sheer incompetence alone is not enough to lose political office. Worse still, many politicians, no matter how “bad” they are, will be re-elected if their opponents have not been in power or politics as long as they have. To this extent, politicians, instead of being re-elected based on their merits, are often re-elected on the basis of how long that they have held that office. Even if a new politician is elected to power, after a few years, many, if not most, of these politicians come to resemble the politicians that they replaced.

All of the previously mentioned factors all combine to give mainstream political movements a degree of immunity from public opinion. This results in the current way of doing things replicating itself. All of this is related to non-proliferation because it means that governments will not get rid of nuclear weapons simply because the public demands it. Ms. MacNeil also points out that we need to stop assuming that everyone is out to get us. Well, Ms. MacNeil, everyone is not out to get us, but all it takes is one person armed with a nuclear device out to get us to potentially kill us all. Nuclear weapons are not pleasant, wonderful things (they were never meant to be), but they are necessary things for as long as one country has them, we need another country to have them as well to maintain the balance of power. If some countries started disarming and other countries didn’t, this would lead to a situation where one country or group of countries would hold the rest of the world hostage. Since everyone must disarm at once, this results in a “Mexican standoff” where none of the players can afford to move.

In conclusion, realism may not see the world through a pair of rose-colored glasses, but it is a realistic view of the world, no matter how depressing that may be.

Anna Jaikaran - December 1, 2006 EST (#161 of 164)

NACD General:

1. The main NACD threat facing Canada today is an increasing complacency about nuclear weapons. There is a surprising level of comfort with the original nuclear weapon states keeping their weapons despite the dangers of accidental launch. Even with the best intentions, no state with a nuclear option can be relied upon to never use it – people are sometimes irrational as Robert McNamara has said.

Of course, as has been stated already in this discussion, non-proliferation efforts will not succeed as long as the nuclear weapons states ignore their commitments to disarm.

The only thing preventing the use of nuclear weapons is our collective horror at the thought (which gave rise to the NPT). Arms control is unnatural and has failed many times since concerned citizens tried to ban the crossbow. Complacency about nuclear weapons could be fatal.

Also, although the new US Space Policy dismisses the possibility of an arms control treaty, Canada should continue to work towards a ban on space weaponization. The opportunity to prevent an arms race before it begins must pursued. Space is a uniquely fragile environment with established economic value (cell phones, satellite television, GPS) that would be quickly destroyed by warfare.

In addition, the notion that ballistic missile defence could provide protection against nuclear missiles must not ever be left unchallenged. BMD diverts attention from the only realistic solution to nuclear weapons - abolition.

2. The current deadlock at the Conference on Disarmament must not be allowed to prevent disarmament negotiations. Certainly, the idea that Canada put forward in 2005 with five other countries of establishing ad hoc committees for the discussion of specific topics at the UNGA’s First Committee seemed to have merit.

3. It is very sensible of the G8 to secure nuclear arsenals in Russia and find other employment for nuclear scientists. It is a great pity that the Nuclear Cities Initiative was cancelled. Nevertheless, I suspect that fears of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons have been overstated. Terrorist organizations could achieve their goals more easily by blowing up a nuclear power plant than they could by stealing a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation:

1. The nuclear weapon states have to demonstrate that they are sincere about nuclear abolition before anyone can take the NPT seriously. The absence of meaningful cuts to stockpiles, the refurbishment of arsenals and the use of nuclear threats all undermine the NPT. Of special note is the US nuclear agreement with India which has seriously damaged the authority of the NPT.

2. Canada can best promote a nuclear-free world by demonstrating an unconditional rejection of the use of or even possession of nuclear weapons by any state. This rejection must extend beyond discussion of nuclear weapons at NATO. The release of the US Nuclear Posture Review which described scenarios in which nuclear weapons would be used on non-nuclear states should have been met with censure by Canada and other like-minded states. Seymour Hersh’s article (April 17, 2006) about the possibility of a first strike nuclear attack on Iran should have generated comment and public declarations of non-use policies from other countries.

Nida Hussain - December 1, 2006 EST (#160 of 164)

In Response to Fred Bailey, responding to Joanna Santa Barbara:

Though it is true that currency of power is not reflected solely through nuclear capacity, limiting this highly volatile realm of competition and eliminating WMD is perhaps more beneficial than allowing it - states will naturally continue to compete for power, but the less availabilty of means for massive destruction, the better, would you not agree? Taking it one step at a time to creating a more stable and peaceful world is most desirable - and starting with the most contentious or destructive elements is arguably necessary, particularly given the wide spread agreement to eliminate ruthless tools of destruction.

(AND thank you for the comprehensive posting Joanna!)