The Disarmament Sculpture outside the UN building, New York. Luke Redmond/Flickr. Some rights reserved.To the vast majority of people 'disarmament' may sound like an ancient practice that Cold War rivals developed to maintain
the balance of power. The concept itself has fallen into abeyance as it has failed
to remain high on the agenda of policy-makers. Now considered to be a
second-class issue, disarmament affairs rarely attract society’s attention and
top officials usually prefer to put them on the back burner and focus on issues
deemed more pressing.
The 2015 Review Conference of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) held at the United Nations in New York this year mirrored particularly well this profound malaise at all levels in
disarmament affairs.
Sliding backwards?
Weapon modernization has become synonymous with 'national security'. US Air Force/Flickr. Some rights reserved.If it were only about the present lack of
political will to put diplomatic muscle behind action points, it would not be
of great concern – as reluctance to constrain national armed forces and
aversion to changes that might affect national military capabilities have
always been states’ main reasons to slow down, if not derail, any progress in
disarmament. But what is more worrying than the predictable and expected
stalemate in disarmament affairs, is that the international community seems to
have engaged in a dangerous backwards slide.
Several disarmament mechanisms upon
which an international cooperative security framework was built have ceased
functioning or are shaky at best. The United Nations’ Conference on
Disarmament, which has the mandate to negotiate disarmament treaties has been
deadlocked for almost 20 years. Its latest product was the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty negotiated in 1996 which has never entered into force.
On a more recent note, in March this year, Russia ceased its participation in the Joint Consultative
Group within the framework of the Treaty on Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe (CFE), which provided a platform for NATO countries, and
Russia to discuss military issues. In the same vein, the US and Russia have
threatened to withdraw from the Intermediate Range Nuclear (INF) Treaty over
alleged claims that the other side has violated the Treaty.
In addition to the disarmament and arms control
architecture falling apart, one can observe that the US (see Arms Control
Association’s fact sheet)
and Russia (see US Congressional
Service Report) have both embarked on expensive weapons
modernization programs. Other regional powers such as China, India and the Gulf
countries have not waited long before following suit (see the International
Institute for Strategic Studies’ World Military Balance
2015 and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s 2015 Fact Sheet).
This increasing investment in military
capabilities and development of new weapon systems, when set against the
backdrop of the growing tensions in Europe (Ukraine), Middle East (Syria, Iraq,
Yemen) and Southeast Asia (South China Sea), should remind us of what
preceded a very dark period of human history.
In the present geopolitical context where
enhancing national security is understood as modernizing and building up
military capabilities whilst testing each other’s reaction capacities, the
disarmament agenda has lost political ground and diplomatic traction.
Shortsighted national security calculations have gained the upper hand over a
more balanced strategic approach in the long term and project a worrying shadow
onto the future. Indeed, the conceptual fathers of the 'security dilemma' have
long warned us that flexing muscles may make sense from a national perspective
but is likely to result in eroding trust and furthering instability at the
international level.
It is true that the Cold War dynamics of
superpower confrontation no longer apply to the present international context
and threats of major inter-state wars have diminished as new threats have come
to the fore. Nevertheless, the disappearance of major inter-state wars cannot
be taken for granted. From the South China Sea to Ukraine, renewed regional
tensions are increasing with conventional weapons systems and WMDs lurking in
the background of policy making.
The case for dialogue
UN conference on disarmament, Geneva. United States Mission Geneva/Flickr. Some rights reserved. There is certainly no point in adopting an
alarmist rhetoric or giving in to hysteria but it would not hurt to remember
what history has taught us: the potential costs of overlooking these issues are
too high to be ignored. A failure to fulfill the disarmament commitments made
will not only put at risk the entire disarmament and arms control regime but
will also deprive leaders of mechanisms designed to defuse tensions and foster
dialogue on sensitive security issues. Many seem to have forgotten that
disarmament measures have greatly contributed to maintaining peace and
stability in Europe after World War II. This reminds us that it is worth
revisiting the common ground on which we stood in the past.
Without a meaningful dialogue on disarmament
that draws upon past successful agreements it will be very challenging to
defuse tensions and reverse competitive security dynamics in Europe and other
parts of the world.
Paraphrasing the conclusions of a Pugwash
workshop on Prospects for
the 2015 NPT Review Conference, the beauty of having such
disarmament dialogue is that it does not need a settled international
environment for it to take place. On the contrary, it best serves in times of
rising tensions as a countercyclical stimulus that contributes to building
confidence and creating conditions for breakthroughs in other areas.
The main challenge lies in re-energizing an
international constituency capable of carrying through a realistic risk-based
global agenda with a comprehensive understanding of the range of possibilities
for disarmament at its heart. Such a holistic approach developed by SCRAP may provide one way to go about a
revitalization of disarmament processes. But even more important than strenuous
efforts and innovative ideas, political vision will be required for this
process to kick off.