Introduction
The Great powers of the world have many differences spanning from ideological differences, policies, population, and geographical location among others. Throughout history, wars among nations, states, regions and internal conflicts have always been there. The effects of war are always devastating regardless of who wins or loses; there is destruction of property, loss of lives, fall of nations and empires, and environmental destruction.
In an attempt to deter, avert or avoid wars altogether, nations of the world have seen it noble to exercise arms control. Attempts of arms control have been in existence through out history even in the ancient Greece and the Roman rule.
Arms control is the common phrase used to refer to the restrictions and limitations laid down to put in check the ambitious development, massive production and stocking, increment, holding , experimenting and usage of weapons. This is emphasized when the weapons are of great danger or of mass devastation and destruction (Goldblat 12).
Arms control has no fixed conventionality since arms production in the world and usage does not follow a consistent pattern. Emphasis on great control has been directed towards the major world powers, as they are the ones with great potential of mass destruction, igniting a major conflict or war. It has since become a common goal for all peace loving nations and the aim is to reduce hostilities in the world rather than spark them.
In arms control, diplomacy is the main tool used. It is thus most preferable that relationship between nations must therefore be cultivated first and maintained although aggressive nations, like was after World Wars, could be compelled to arms control acts. The initiated diplomacy in most cases seeks nations to mutually consent then derive and impose limitations on the participants.
This is mostly practiced through initiated and mutually agreed upon international agreements and treaties although limitations might be enforced to nations perceived as posing international threat to peace. Arms control in a community or within a nation involves the implementing of programs to regulate and control weapon acquisition amongst the citizens.
History of Arms Control
It was during the ancient Greece that the first documented arms control policies can be traced. During the peak of the Roman Catholic influence, the church tried to use its massive influence to limit the wars and magnitude of destruction incurred. The church formulated treaties and persuaded the governments of the time to abide by them.
For example, the church provided immunity to the non combatant civilians. The church also prohibited Christians from fighting one another. However, Industrial Revolution saw massive arm race and weapon production. Population also increased creating a stress on the limited resources.
Industrial Revolution saw the expansion of the then powerful nations. Many European nations set out to colonize and subjugate the world. This saw many wars and conquests that still raise issues up to now. Great Britain, France, Portugal, Germany and Spain competed for supremacy by acquiring territories in Africa, Americas, Oceania and Asia. Due to superior weapons, many people in these areas who resisted were wiped out. The Portuguese are known to have used chemicals like mustard gas in Africa. These European countries have been accused of genocide by their former subjects.
Competition and arms race was one of the reasons that triggered the two World Wars. These atrocities and cruelties prompted the International Community and other stakeholders to advocate for arms control. One major initiative was the convention signed at The Hague in 1899 a court of arbitration was formed to try those who did not abide by the agreed rules.
Germany under Hitler
The League of Nations was the first international body to be formed in the attempt to control, limit and reduce arms. The effects of the First World War necessitated this arms control (Williams 14). There were some initial gains made as the five major naval powerhouses saw their naval ships reduced. There was also the conference organized in 1925 which saw the use of chemical weapons in warfare.
However, with Hitler as the new German leader and the Nazi Party supporting him, Germany did not abide by the treaties signed. Hitler developed the strategy of national cohesion to unify the scattered Germans and regain Germany’s lost glory. This strategy of national interest saw all Germans support Hitler. Although Germany was supposed to disarm, Hitler started the armament programs at the expense of arms control.
Germany started to recover and spread its influence under Hitler. He engaged in the building of more Naval ships, which he also tested. Britain also made improvements to her naval ships resulting in another fierce competition with Germany. The League failed in its attempts to contain Hitler. The League had no permanent army or financial source; it depended on members’ contribution of which at this time members were preoccupied with internal individual development and restructuring after the war.
With the armament program, Hitler gained much power and started threatening and attacking his weaker neighbors. He argued that these states were made of German majorities while others had minorities and thus belonged to Germany. His strategy of unification and national pride led to conflicts with many states. However, the major powers like USA, Britain and France were more concerned with Russia’s communism.
They thus saw Germany’s armament as healthy and turned a blind eye on it, as they planned to use Hitler to check Russia’s expanding influence in the world. However, this strategy of containing communism at the expense of arms control on Germany failed miserably as Hitler did not do their binding. Eventually, Hitler attacked Poland and World War Two began.
United Nations
After World War Two, United Nations was set up as the League had become defunct (Pollock 97). This new body was to foster and promote world peace. It was also to regulate members’ armament programs. The body was also to ensure the aggressive nations like Germany and Japan were put under full disarmament programs. The General assembly was given mandate to oversee the affairs on behalf of the members.
The UN has been successive than the League of Nations. However, like the League it lacks a permanent army and also depends on member contributions for its functions. The countries that are financially powerful end up sabotaging the affairs of the UN.
Some do not abide by its provisions and refuse to join certain controlling organs. For example the US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and also not a member of the International Criminal Court. This limits and undermines the mandate of the UN.
The US has adopted this strategy of refusing to sign to the binding international UN bodies. President Bush invaded Iraq without the approval of the UN prompting the presence of American soldiers in Iraq, which in turn has created chaos and loss of civilian lives.
President Bush could be accused of committing crimes against humanity and war crimes but since the US is not a signatory of the Rome Statute, he cannot be charged at The Hague, where the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice are located.
The UN has however overseen the signing major peace treaties and arms control acts in the world. The Atomic Agency was set up to regulate the production, use of atomic and nuclear energy. This was necessitated by the use of Atomic bombs by the US in the Second World War on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that had devastating effects in these two areas, some of which are still felt up to date.
In 1968, a treaty on nuclear weapons was signed. This treaty was to prevent further spread of the then climaxing nuclear technology outside those that already possessed it. The five who had nuclear technology were USSR, USA, UK, France and China.
Treaties among Nations
To foster and spear head global peace, the leading nations in world influence have engaged in numerous collaborations and treaties so as to control the arms ambitions that might come to threaten global peace. Russia and the US are such countries. Russia and the US have had a strained relation since the end of the Second World War.
This has been due to ideological differences, the US inclining towards capitalism while Russia in its early years as USSR inclined towards socialism. Being the only super powers, both countries endeavored to spread their ideologies in other parts of the world. This keen interest in global affairs sometimes saw them crossing each other’s path and conflicts erupted.
The two nations were already advanced in technology and were in possession of nuclear weapons. They saw it necessary to sign treaties that regulated their use of arms to avert possible future conflicts. Various treaties have been signed between the two nations.
Some of the treaties include the 1969 agreement that was for the control of nuclear arms. This regulated, restricted and limited the missiles used for strategic defense to two hundred and later a hundred interceptors for each. Later another agreement limiting the construction of missile silos was signed.
The International Humanitarian Law has been constructed to govern the rules of engagement. These laws, which have been regarded as the laws of war, apply every time when war breaks out. Various weapons have been banned like chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction, poisoning of rivers and bombing of natural features. Civilians and non-combatants should also not be harmed. Punitive measures are taken on those who violate these laws.
To avoid violating the International Humanitarian Laws, major powers have resulted in restructuring their war strategies. The US had to employ infantry in Afghanistan, which had a challenging terrain to avoid violating the war laws. The US could have just bombed the whole area as it has the technology to do so, but this would have gone against the International Humanitarian Laws, which does not permit total destruction. This also has seen the US building bases in the neighboring countries to those at war with, in turn fostering international diplomacy and good relations.
China and the Arms Control
China’s population of over one billion people makes it the most populous country in the world. Any attack with nuclear weapons on China would cause devastating effects. Its high population, the contemplation of what nuclear weapons would cause to its population and the arms control policies have made China since 1963, to vehemently and consistently advocate for the ban of production and thorough destruction of the existing nuclear weapons.
China is totally against the policy of nuclear deterrence. The country has further gone ahead to take advantage of past arms control conventions and call its own conventions to discuss the total ban on any action or initiative employing the use of nuclear weapons. These conventions have similar traits with those organized on the chemical and biological weapons basis.
China has on many occasions firmly asserted that the US and Russia (major nuclear powers in the world) must initiate and engage more in the process of nuclear disarmament. China has gone further to issue conditions and ultimatums.
She insists that if she is to take part in the major conventions on arms control the US and Russia must make significant progress toward nuclear disarmament. Although China has signed in the various conventions, she cites this as the initial foundation towards the ultimate goal of eradication of all nuclear wars.
On arms control and the process of disarmament, she has recently issued some statements. She stresses the need for objectivity when dealing with arms control and points out that this endeavor of arms control and disarmament must be seen to strengthen the security of countries rather than making it weak and vulnerable. The process must also not undermine the security of countries.
China then stresses the need for making the various treaties by different countries more conventional. She would prefer them to be made universal then there be an efficient mechanism to ensure they are institutionalized and adhered to by all the states without exception.
The other major point China stresses is that small countries whose military prowess is advanced and has economic power should not be permitted or left to dominate others in the name of absolute self defense reliance. Developing countries should also not be permitted to develop sophisticated weapons even though they stress the arms are purely for self-defense and so they have a legitimate right.
Those developed countries in possession of advanced and sophisticated nuclear weapons must be actively involved in the disarmament arms control process. Finally, the international laws that discriminate and give others exclusive rights in the export sector should immediately be abolished and revised.
China has also used the arms control to strategically propose, especially to the major powers with nuclear weapons, ways in which to foster and encourage nuclear disarmament. She proposes that states in possession of nuclear weapons should do away with the nuclear deterrence policies. It would also be preferable for nuclear possessing nations, in their effort to arms control efforts to significantly reduce their nuclear stockpiles.
Instead of moving the removed nuclear warheads to storage it would be better to destroy them. Nuclear nations must never, no matter the circumstances, employ or threaten to the use nuclear weapons on the nations who have no nuclear weapons or strike the neutral areas or zones that are free from nuclear weapons usage.
China in the process of safeguarding its safety, has also proposed that a zone in which nuclear weapons cannot be deployed be established and respected. Further, those states with nuclear weapons and have deployed them beyond their territory should take them back home.
She has also emphatically emphasized that space weapons systems should not at any given time be deployed or defense systems composed of missiles deployed in a way that they undermine security and stability of the wider society. China has refused to join in multilateral nuclear summits unless those nuclear nations reduced their nuclear stockpile buy half.
The country has however, deployed its diplomats in a bid to persuade the two major nuclear nations to reduce their nuclear activities like research and production. China has also been using diplomats to try and see to it these countries agree to not being the first in using nuclear weapons in case of a war situation.
Arms control and the strategies during the Cold War, Gulf War and the War in Iraq
Cold War
Cold war of which was mainly between the US and the Soviet Union has been termed as the most sensitive and most important issue in the late 20th century. Political and diplomatic issues were the most important at the time. Both countries possessed nuclear weapons and so they were concerned that if there was to be war, their weapons could destroy the world (Taylor 70).
Instead of an all out war, they resulted in an indirect tussle to discredit one another (Gaddis 66). They sharply differed in their political ideologies and philosophy and the restructuring of the world immediately after the war. The Soviet Union controlled most of Eastern Europe whereas the US had allies mostly from Western side of Europe. No real war involving firearms was ever witnessed between the two.
In the cold war, there was restrain from using weapons, instead the two powers instigated conflicts in other parts of the world. This created tension and havoc in other parts of the world as the world was divided into two ideological canters. The first couple of years saw more political competition than military.
They went each at the UN summits, articulating their own formulas on how, the then post war world should have looked like, and the best methods for ensuring development. Later militarization became a hot issue. This is mainly after communism took over China, the Truman Doctrine and the Korean War. The spread of communism across Asia saw the US becoming more wary.
When the communist North Korea invaded the capitalist Republic of Korea in the south, Truman feared that this would lead to the south being taken over, by communism. He authorized the then general in charge of Japan to offer the south support. The US forces entered the war to deter the north from conquering the south, which brought more tension and verbal threats.
The Cuban missile crisis was also one of the most sensitive matters during the cold war. This almost saw armed conflict between the two super powers. Cuba which is ninety miles from the coast of the US had already adopted communism and severed its ties with its neighbor the US. In so doing it had become a key ally with the Soviet Union.
Russia had signed a treaty with the US prohibiting each other from aggressively offending the other by deploying or relocating one’s missiles. Russia however did not abide by this agreement. She began erecting some of her missiles in Cuba with increased military activities. All this was done without the notification of the US.
Through her spies and diplomats the US came to know of Russia’s activities which enraged her very much. The then US President JF Kennedy, convened his committee of advisors to deliberate about this matter, which the US viewed as a threat to its peace.
Kennedy had formed a committee of advisors whom he had hand picked himself, from different professions as long as one was intelligent, hard working and loyal to his nation.
This committee was referred to as the Excomm. The president and his committee held various meetings and then sent diplomats to convey their consensus. The US pressurized Russia to withdraw its missiles and cease all military activities in Cuba. After various diplomatic missions Russia complied and in the process averted what seemed like an inevitable war.
After engaging in various arms control treaties of which some were observed and others violated, the US saw the need of change in policy. The 1960s was when the US policy in containing communism had a major shift from heavily reliance on nuclear weapon to that of more active participation in warfare to prevent communism spread globally.
This came to be effected in 1965. The US by then had come to realize how South East Asia region was crucial to realizing its national security. President Johnson thus did not hesitate to commit troops abroad in an attempt to insure and safeguard Vietnam’s territory and deter the spread of communism.
This change of foreign policy saw the US paying dearly as the war in Vietnam was very bloody and costly to finance. The succeeding Nixon administration took over the activities in Asia including the war. This new government endeavored to establish diplomatic ties with China and although successful, the impacts and course of war in Vietnam did not change. Nixon’s regime also made efforts to negotiate and discuss with the Soviet Union. However, the two continued to compete on the world stage especially in agriculture and therefore almost impossible to cooperate.
In the 1970s, the US and Russia improved their international relations (Walker 45). This was capped by the signing of the second arms limitation agreement during President Carter’s regime. However, the improving relations once again deteriorated when the Soviet Union without the collaboration of the US, invaded Afghanistan.
This angered the US which then insisted on focusing more on the human rights issues in its foreign policy and Carter became hard lined towards the soviet. The Soviets actions also angered the US public who reacted by electing Ronald Reagan who was even more hostile towards Russia. He went further and increased the budget for the military actions.
With Gorbachev at the helm in Russia the relations with the US improved despite Reagan’s negative perception of Russia. However, the system in the Soviet Union had become out dated, the population was disgruntled by the leadership of the communist state plus the ailing economy resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union marking the end of the Cold War. Arms control between Russia and the US was then neglected as the US became the only superpower in the world
The Gulf War
After the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq fell into deep financial crisis. Iraq pressured its main debtors Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to pardon her, but they refused. Iraq had long considered Kuwait to be her province and blamed the colonial British for creating the Kuwait nation out of her territories. Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990 after failed diplomatic negotiations.
This attack angered the International community and immediately sanctions on the aggressor were imposed. The Kuwait forces were overwhelmed since the aggressor had staged a sudden ambush without warning (Houlahan 58).
The International community viewed Kuwait as a sovereign state thus should not be invaded by external forces. Arms control also prohibited states from using weapons to oppress others this made the US together with other nations to attack Iraq to enforce arms control. The US was also concerned by the Iraq’s hostility on the Israel nation, even accusing Iraq of funding Palestine extremists and suicide bombers.
Although diplomatic relations through negotiations had improved and seen Iraq removed from Terrorist supporting nations, the attack on Kuwait negatively affected the gains made. The allied forces led by the US were very successful due to their superior weapons, driving the aggressor out of Kuwait and even went on to occupy Iraq’s territory. However, most of the International Humanitarian laws were broken.
The Iraq forces used Scud missiles whose heads were nuclear made. The retreating Iraq soldiers were killed, of which some were unarmed. Both sides tortured captured soldiers and kept them in prohibited conditions for war captives. Iraq government in its attempts to keep the US navy from coming ashore released millions of gallons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf; they also set Kuwait’s oil fields on fire.
The methods witnessed in this war were against the theory of arms control which seeks to reduce the cost of war at the same time limiting the damage incurred. This was a clear evidence of how arms control policies are not observed. Major Western powers took part on the war. These atrocities and extreme unconventional methods further strained the international relations between Iraq and the allied forces especially the US.
The strained relations sow the seeds for the second invasion of Iraq by western power led by the US. However, the US viewed the decision and strategy to invade Iraq as justified, diplomacy had failed and if Iraq was to occupy Kuwait then even Saudi Arabia would be in danger. Saddam Hussein was viewed as a Hitler of the era. Hitler kept on making demands and the fact that he was not contained early led to the Second World War.
The War in Iraq
Under arms control, chemical and biological weapons are prohibited. They should not be made, stored or used in any way. Nuclear weapons manufacture is also prohibited. The Western countries believed that Iraq was manufacturing these prohibited weapons consequently threatening their security and that of the other nations in the process breaking the arms control rules.
With the conviction that Iraq was having weapons of mass annihilation and destruction, military invasion was applied on Iraq (Downing 87). This is commonly referred to as the Second Gulf War. It was the invasion of Iraq under Saddam Hussein by the militaries of various nation led by the US under George Bush in 2003.
Prior to the war, the US and UK insisted that Iraq must comply with the UN delegation mandated to investigate the possibility of the presence of mass destruction weapons. Iraq cooperated but later became reluctant when it realized that US intelligence disguised as inspectors were also among the delegates.
In 2003, before the war, Colin Powel the then US Secretary of State presented before the UN what the US believed to be evidence of availability of unconventional, prohibited weapons in Iraq. France was also convinced that Iraq was making biological outlawed weapons. Despite all these convictions, the arms inspectors reported progress in their mission of which they categorically stated that there were no chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction.
The US and Britain were already convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction. President Bush snubbed diplomatic channels of solving the crisis, took advantage of the arms control policies prohibiting weapons of mass destruction, and attacked Iraq. Most of the nations in the world were opposed to the war.
Diplomacy was being advocated for, as it was the best method of avoiding war expenses, loss of life and destruction of property as stipulated by the arms control theory. Even close allies of the US and NATO members like Canada were opposed to the invasion, former US president, Bill Clinton was also vocal in opposing the war.
The attack on Iraq was quick and very effective; Baghdad succumbed and fell into the control of the allied forces. Saddam Hussein was removed from power but no weapons of mass destruction were found. This further brought condemnation of the US and UK. The mission became a failed mission. The war has had very negative effects on many sectors.
The war was very costly and affected the economies of involved parties. The Iraq nation was destroyed as many people were left homeless, with refugees fleeing to the neighboring nations. There was also loss of lives, destruction of structures and the rise of terrorist groups in Iraq. Iraq has constantly been listed among the failed states and most insecure in the world.
President Bush received one of the lowest ratings for a president leaving office. This also illustrates how the world has drifted from being pro-war to diplomacy. Arms are discouraged and in their place, diplomatic envoys have been favored as one of the arms control policies. The Iraq war illustrates how Bush laid strategies on using the arms control as a scapegoat for attacking Iraq.
Iran Nuclear Ambitions
Nuclear activities in Iran were started in 1950 with the help of the US (Leonard 7142). This was for peace purposes, and the program aimed at using the atomic technology in favor of development and peace. The initiation of this program saw western countries like Germany and France increase their interest in Iran. Investors moved in large numbers to invest in the country. The US-Iran relations were at their peak. However, things changed abruptly after the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
The new radical government stopped all nuclear activities, and was not in favor of the presence of foreign investors in the country. This saw the withdrawal of many westerners from Iran and the international relations between Iran and the West countries stalled. The nuclear activities of Iran were later revived by the new government with only minimum support from the Western countries’ governments like the earlier project.
Arms control prohibit nations especially those who had no initial nuclear weapons, from developing nuclear weapons. Further, the control states that any nation that would wish to use nuclear energy for development and supply of energy must notify; allow thorough scrutiny and inspection, without hiding the activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The controversy with the recent Iran nuclear ambitions emanates from the country’s failure to notify the International Atomic Energy Agency of its continued nuclear programs development especially the one involving the enrichment and reprocessing endeavors.
Enrichment at higher levels produce weapons while at lower level yields uranium for fuel purposes. Iran claims its enrichment is for achieving its goal of producing reliable energy since hydro power cannot be counted on, for its industrialization ambitions. The country has gone further to state that the enrichment of its uranium is lower than 5% which is consistent with the required set standards for fuel production.
Iran explains that the reason for keeping its projects as a secret is because there is a time it made its programs public but the US’s involvement and scrutiny made some of the countries assisting it pull out and even cancel the contracts it had signed. However, the board of governors of various countries representing the atomic agency reported to the Security Council of Iran non-compliance with its rules and monitoring.
Instead of a confronting Iraq in a military way, the international community has imposed sanctions as a strategy to pressurize the government to stop its nuclear ambitions. Iran has not heeded and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insists sanctions are oppressive and illegal; he has gone further to state that his country is the one responsible for monitoring its own peaceful nuclear activities.
Although no nuclear weapon manufacturing has been detected, the country’s refusal to comply with set international requirements has made the international community restless. The country has been offered a long term comprehensive platform for cooperation with the other powerful countries if it was to suspend its feared enrichment programs. The country has refused citing its desire to secure a reliable source of energy.
The arms control aims at reducing confrontations in the world. Instead of invading Iran and dismantling its nuclear plants, the international community has sought other strategies to peacefully compel Iran to forfeit the nuclear projects. Nuclear weapons manufacturing has been banned by the arms control, and although Iran has made none, the world is not assured that Iran would not turn its peaceful nuclear projects to that of weapon manufacturing.
The country’s hiding and deceiving of its nuclear projects’ whereabouts has further raised fear. Britain and France have sent diplomats to try and settle the case but Iran has not been cooperative. Ahmadinejad’s opposition of the creation of the Israel state raises more questions as to what Iran’s plans are. The president has publicly stated that the small Middle East country should be wiped off from the world map through military occupation, a statement that has angered the international community.
The president’s extremism has deteriorated negotiations and though the world has not given up, diplomacy has been accepted as the best method for maintaining stability and peace. However, former US president, George Bush, stated that the idea of military action cannot be completely ruled out since the Arab country’s actions are a threat to world peace.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has reiterated that the Obama administration will also not allow Iran to carry on with its nuclear ambitions. The issue as of 2011 remains unresolved although diplomatic endeavors are still being made.
Arms Control Failure
The contemporary world has experienced major dynamics in arms race, which have negatively affected the arms control. The nuclear power possessing nations do not want to relinquish their cherished military superiority so none is willing to give up its nuclear weapons. Arms control initiatives and negotiations have been overwhelmed by the emerging and soaring technology in the armament industry.
The technological advancement has seen more and more sophisticated weapons production and use. Terrorist activities like suicide bombers have made nations to be more sensitive about security concerns and turned to arm production in the efforts to combat the terrorism menace.
The high level of insecurity in the world has seen nations neglecting and some withdrawing from various treaty organizations, to concentrate on armament. The failure of diplomacy in the Middle East region between Israel and its Arab neighbors has resulted in disregard of the arms control laws there.
These nations have resulted into use of restricted warfare methods. Rockets have been hailed at civilians without regard to the International Humanitarian laws, soldiers have been reported to shoot live bullets at civilians without care.
Terrorist groups have been targeting the unarmed civilians, some even using the restricted chemical and biological weapons. This has seen use of social services like mails to incur harm. Various governments have also been observed to use unrestricted methods without regard to arms control laws. During the Iraq- Iran of the 1980s, laws especially the arms control laws were not observed.
The Iraq soldiers used restricted chemical weapons like mustard gas on Iran soldiers and civilians killing thousands. Despite use of chemical weapons being restricted, the Iraq government did not care. The war ended when a peace agreement was reached after the intervention of the UN.
Later the UN Security Council statements showed that there was indeed use of banned chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction in the war. However, no measures were taken and the transgressions went unpunished. It is generally believed that the US barred the UN from punishing Iraq. This has encouraged others to disregard the arms control as no severe punishment was served to the Iraq regime (Rajee 123).
Conclusion
In the modern world, the cultivation and maintenance of international relations has become a very important task for all nations of the world. The world has shifted from military conquests and colonization to globalization and diplomacy. The effects of wars like the World Wars have also made the major world powers to avoid military confrontations as much as possible (Gallagher 34).
Arms control has been advocated for. Wars cannot be fully eliminated but the type of the weapons used can. To avoid more destruction, harm, and genocides arms control has been agreed upon by the major powers. The major powers have then opted to strengthen the department of diplomacy.
The emergence of ambassadors as the main diplomatic emissary has been drastically improved and emphasized, especially after the arms control. Ambassadors are sent to every country for representation and live in the respective countries for long periods to ensure appropriate acquaintance.
They are the one responsible for dealing with the problems that arise at the international level. Formerly, ministers were the main representatives at the international levels but ambassadors have become the highest ranked international officials.
Arms control has greatly and radically affected the strategies of great powers (Croft 24). Instead of developing nuclear weapons as the main agenda for the great powers, international relations cultivation has become the most important thing for the powers. International cooperation has become the tool to peace and stability.
Investment in IT has overtaken any other activity mainly to enhance global communication and the efforts towards globalization. Those countries that do not comply with arms control policies like Iran are condemned internationally, shunned and sanctions imposed on them. However, powerful nations like the US always find a loop hole in the arms control laws and end up violating them.
Works Cited
Croft, Stuart. Strategies of Arms Control: A History and Typology. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996.
Downing, David. The War in Iraq. Oxford: Heinemann Library, 2005.
Gaddis, John. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin Books, 2006.
Gallagher, Nancy. Arms Control: New Approaches To Theory And Policy. New York: Frank Cass Publishers, 1998.
Goldblat, Jozef. Arms Control: The New Guide to Negotiations and Agreements. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2002.
Houlahan, Thomas. Gulf War: The Complete History. New Hampshire: Schrenker Military Publishing, 1999.
Leonard, Barry. Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities: National Intelligence Estimate. Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing, 2009
Lyons, Michael. World War Two. New York: Prentice Hall, 2004.
Pollock, Frederick. The League of Nations. New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange Ltd, 2003.
Rajee, Farhang. The Iran-Iraq War: The Politics of Aggression. Gainesville: The University Press of Florida, 1993.
Taylor, David. The Cold War. Campbell: Paw Prints, 2008.
Walker, Martin. The Cold War: A History. H. Holt, 1995.
Williams, Barbara. World War Two. Minneapolis: Lerner Publication Company, 2005.