Introduction
The United Nations is facing a herculean task as it tries to free the world of rogue nuclear weapons. In the past, efforts have been made to make sure that countries deemed to be enemies of world peace, do not acquire those weapons. Efforts continue to be channeled towards that goal by trading blocs and governments. There are many hurdles on the way. This paper looks, in general, at what the various governments are doing together with the United Nations, to reduce the level of nuclear weaponry in the world.
Development of nuclear weapons by certain states started way back in late 1960’s. However, the United Nations, having realized the potent of such weapons in the hands of many countries, moved in to curtail further production of weapons. The nonproliferation treaty was ratified in 1968. Since then, many signatories have joined in with the exception of Pakistan, India and Israel who had signed the treaty as of 2007.
However, before the treaty came into force countries like the United States, Russia and Israel already had possession of the weapons (Falk, 19). The need to have nuclear weapons is not particularly weighty. The fact that a handful of countries has the said weapons, fuels the need by others to acquire them. This comes out as unfair. Many countries have touted energy as the reason why they are pursuing nuclear energy. North Korea withdrew from the nonproliferation treaty citing such sentiments.
Steps Taken To Reduce Nuclear Weapons
Treaties
Various governments in the world are forming treaties with the agreement of reduction of arsenals to a certain level. The two countries with the greatest number of arsenals in the world: the United States and Russia recently entered into an agreement to cordially reduce the number of arsenals held in their countries. The treaties have more than reduction of arsenals in their terms. They also have conditions like frequent checks on individual countries to ascertain that the terms are been followed (Falk, 13).
The treaty on non proliferation of nuclear weapons is however under sharp focus. This is because it is billed to be unfair. It allows the countries that have nuclear weapons to keep them but at the same time does not allow countries who would wish to develop them. This treaty, although it may have good intentions, has faced major criticism from countries like Iran and North Korea who view it as draconian and highly unfair. The proponents are of the opinion that global proliferation may put the world’s safety in jeopardy.
This is especially considering the fact that there has emerged many unlawful and organizations which may wish to acquire those weapons and do damage. Another school of thought is the question of why such states would like to acquire such weapons in the first place. The United States, Russia and Israel view that as a threat to their sovereignty considering the manner of behavior of those countries. North Korea is seen as threat to the United States security and Iran as a threat to the security of Israel (Shultz et al. 23).
Treaties are a good way to forestall the proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, many countries do not seem to agree on the manner in which to formulate those treaties due to vested self interests. However, even faced by such challenges, the United Nations Security Council is doing all at its disposal to have countries enter into treaties to reduce their weapons. The two countries with most arsenals, the United States and Russia have shown a perfect example by signing treaty of such kind lately.
Other detailed treaties that designate nuclear weapons free zones have been signed between countries. This in effect means that nuclear weapons cannot be produced, used or tested in such areas under any circumstances. But most of such arrangements are just a show of vested interests that countries do not want tampered with. For example: the existence of major industries or highly rich lands. Therefore, countries enter into agreement to protect such wealth but that does not solve the overall problem (Falk, 33).
Disarmament and Elimination
The United Nations in conjunction with other countries like the United States have partnered to ensure that governments that are deemed to be enemies of the world are disarmed of harmful weapons. This disbarment can go to the extreme of forceful destroying of those weapons if the countries in question do not comply.
Although the United States ambush of Saddam Hussein in 2002 was highly criticized, the real reason behind was the belief that he was harboring weapons of massive destruction. Therefore the United States government asked the United Nations to be allowed to destroy those weapons. It turned out to be an act of desperation from the government of the United States after no weapons were found (U.S Department of State, 10).
The United Nations has started a campaign to urge governments to reduce the weaponry they keep in their countries so as to keep the world safe. The manufacture of such weapons has also been limited to a certain quota. Under a number of treaties entered into between governments, it is also mandatory for governments to have utmost responsibility for any weapons (nuclear or small weapons) under their custody. This is to ensure they do not fall into wrong hands of people who would wish to destroy the world (Woolf, 45).
The most important aspect of this control measure is the political willingness that must be shown by the various countries. There may be differing opinions with regards to the issue most of which are propagated by draconian regimes like the Iranian and North Korean.
The greatest hindrance to this noble move by the United Nations to make the world a safer place is the fact that those countries who advocate for disbarment elimination already have nuclear weapons tucked away at their bases. This is seen by many countries (especially Muslim) as unfair. They do not particularly like the big brother American attitude (U.S Department of State, 16).
Sanctions
The United Nations has imposed sanctions to countries that refuse to reduce their nuclear weapons or those that continue their manufacture even after been warned not to produce them. Other major countries have followed suit (such as United States, Britain and Russia) to impose sanctions on those countries. The essence is to cripple the economies of those countries so as to make it hard for them to acquire the needed raw materials to manufacture the weapons. Examples of such countries include North Korea and Iran which continues to face sanctions from the United Nations Security Council and trading blocs such as the European Union (Shultz et al. 23).
The START treaty (strategic arms reduction treaty) is the trump card that the countries that sit in the roundtable of the United Nations Security Council are throwing the way of countries like Iran and North Korea. This is meant to justify the talks underway between the government of the United States and Korea and Iran to allow United States inspectors in those countries to verify the claim that there are no any nuclear weapons. The two claim they are just developing nuclear energy (Woolf, 49).
Every action possible is been summoned to make sure that countries do not develop the weapons. In late 1990’s Pakistan and India, who are signatories of the non proliferation treaty, tested their nuclear weapons. This attracted universal outrage and some countries imposed mild sanctions to those states for a show of braggadocio.
This was despite the two not agreeing to sign the non proliferation treaty. This means countries are afraid of each other and there is great mistrust among nations regarding the issue of nuclear weapons (Shultz et al. 23).
Protocols
United Nations has formulated protocols that prohibit usage of some weapons under any circumstances. Among the weapons it has blacklisted include chemical and biological weapons. This is putting into consideration their long term effects on human beings even generations to come.
This is what it seeks to extend to all other nuclear weapons and attach even harsher penalties for even threatening its usage. It is also proposing a protocol whereby countries that have nuclear weapons are not supposed to use them first. They are supposed to use them to curtail others from using them.
It would be prudent, however, if all countries had the weapons in the first place. That is not the case and it is not possible to convince countries to take up such policies. Ideally, it would be nice as it would create an in-built disbarment logic that prevents countries from using the weapons (Woolf, 45).
Other Propositions
The world is faced by desperation to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons to enemies. Other propositions like retaining the weapons to perpetuity are been forwarded. This is blatantly impossible and asking too much. Countries have also leveled threats against others concerning possible usage of nuclear weapons.
International laws have been specifically modified to make the use of threats of that kind illegal. This is because it can create panic in public. The usage of nuclear weapons in military is also prohibited and heads of states can only beckon its use in totally desperate situations (Shultz et al. 16).
Conclusion
The United Nations is doing all at its disposal to have a nuclear-free world. The prospect of that is bleak. This is because a handful of nations have the weapons already tucked away in their army bases. To other nations, this puts the former in a position of power. In an attempt to fill this power imbalance, many countries are now pursuing these weapons. This is in blatant disregard of the world treaties that have been signed between nations to put the weapons of massive destruction in check.
In as much as there has been progress in trying to curtail some nations from producing nuclear weapons, it remains to be seen how that will continue in the near future. Countries like Iran and North Korea, that have been earnestly seeking to have nuclear weapons, have not heeded any calls to stop.
In 2002, the British and United States governments got their intelligence wrong on Iraq. The same scenario may play out as countries from the European Union and the West seek to curtail others in the East from making the weapons (U.S Department of State, 13).
Works Cited
Falk, Jim. Global Fission: The Battle over Nuclear Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.
Shultz, George et al. A World Free Of Nuclear Weapons. 2007. Web.
U.S Department of State. A World Free Of Nuclear Weapons. 2010. Web.
Woolf, Amy. Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons. 2004. Web.