Disarmament

 What is disarmament? Disarmament is the act of reducing, limiting, or abolishing weapons. Disarmament generally refers to a country's military or specific type of weaponry. Disarmament is often taken to mean total elimination of  weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear arms. General and Complete Disarmament refers to the removal of all weaponry, including conventional arms. Disarmament can be contrasted with arms control, which essentially refers to the act of controlling arms rather than eliminating them. A distinction can also be made between disarmament as a process (the process of eliminating weapons), and disarmament as an end state (the absence of weapons).

Disarmament and Arms Control (7 Arguments) The case in favour of Disarmament and Arms Control stands supported on the following grounds:

(i) Armaments lead to War, Disarmament can lead to Peace:  All the people of the world want peace and they believe that since armaments lead to war, disarmament can lead to peace. Armaments lead to armament race and armament race leads to war. Hence armaments constitute the cause of war and by eliminating the cause through disarmament, war can be eliminated. Disarmament, as such, constituents a direct approach to peace and arms control constitutes advance measures and remedies against war. As Coheen observes, “Armaments aggravate tension and fear among nations. By releasing tension and fear, disarmament should facilitate and strengthen the process of peaceful settlement.”

(ii) Armaments lead to Militarism which leads to War: It is held that armaments make war not only physically possible but also politically probable. Armaments encourage militarism and militarism leads to tensions and fear. Rather than creating a sense of security, armaments in the ultimate form, always create a feeling of insecurity, give rise to mutual jealousy and rivalry, and

thereby make the situation so tense that countries often get involved in wars and armed conflicts.

(iii) Disarmament can reduce many tensions in International Relations: Destruction of instruments of war can secure peace. By ending the instrumentalities of war, disarmament can end war, “It is believed that by doing away with one of the typical manifestations of the struggle for power (armament race) on the international scene, one can do away with the typical efforts of that struggle international anarchy and war.”—Morgenthau

(iv) Economic Arguments in favour of Disarmament and Arms Control:  A very strong and potent argument in favour of Disarmament and Arms Control is that through disarmament the humankind can save a very large amo unt of funds, which is currently being wasted on the fruitless and dangerous production of armaments. These funds can be used for human welfare and developmental purposes. Disarmament can release huge economic resources which can be used for securing the developmental needs of all the people of world. “A reduction in nation’s armaments releases sizable funds, which could be transferred to programmes designed to improve the general welfare of that nation’s citizens. In the timeless dilemma of choosing between guns and butter, the advocates of arms reduction opt for the latter.” —Wolfe and Couloumbis

(v) Need of Peace Race in place of Arms Race: “Peace race” and not “armament race” is what humankind really needs. “It is really an irony that when millions of people in several countries of the globe are perishing due to hunger and disease, many countries are spending a huge proportion of their incomes and resources on the production of armaments.”

(vi) Moral argument in favour of Disarmament and Arms Control:  Another strong and philosophically most effective argument in favour of disarmament is the moral argument. It holds that war is morally wrong, and so is the preparation of war. War is evil and immoral because it involves killings. Since armaments are the means of war, these are also evil. In-fact armaments production is the beginning of the immoral process of war. It is always rational and moral to nip the evil in the bud. Elimination of war demands the elimination of arms and armament race.

(vii) Disarmament is a Universal Objective:  A practical argument, and indeed a very strong argument, in favour of disarmament is that the present craze for armaments is aggravating further the MAD situation and is making humankind more and more dependent upon machines, or more specifically on war machines. It has increased the risk of an all destructive accidental war. It is a recognized fact that when machines start ruling men, they escape control and run rampant. The growing dangers of modern electronic warfare pose the biggest danger to humankind from an accidental war leading to total destruction. The need, therefore, is to take timely action in favour of Disarmament and Arms Control and save humankind from the present dangerously posed MAD situation in international relations. All these arguments together build a strong case in favour of Disarmament and Arms Control. History of Efforts towards Disarmament and Arms Control.

Disarmament and Arms Control in International Relations (6 Hindrances) Several factors have been hindering the process of securing Disarmament and Arms Control in international relations.

1. Faith in Armaments: The first hindrance is the view that supports armaments as an essential means for the exercise of power of the state. States continue to depend upon armaments and are not likely to give them up or accept serious restrictions on these until alternative means of serving their interests and purposes have been established.

2. The Problem of Ratios of Strength:  Another big hindrance in the way of disarmament is the fact that agreement on disarmament presupposes agreement on ratios of strength among weapons and armed establishment of various nations. There exists no scientific basis for fixing the ratios among the weapons. Armaments and armed establishments which the different states possess ,makes it very difficult to make a decision regarding the allocation of different quantities and types of armaments to different nations within the agreed ratio.

3. The Problem of Implementation of Agreements on Ratios: Even if there may be an agreement on the ratios of power that ought to prevail among states seeking disarmament, there would still be great obstacles to disarmament. Different states are bound to have more or less power in international relations. This is bound to be there because military factor itself is always dependent upon several other factors. Nations with allocated ratios of armaments and military power are bound to be motivated differently in favour or against war. Hence, even the fixation of ratio of strength of armaments cannot fully solve the problem of disarmament.

4. The continued Distrust among Nations: The existence of strong distrust among several nations makes it difficult for the international community to go in for disarmament and arms control. The disarmament plans which from time to time are offered by various nations are mostly based upon fear and distrust and that is why these always contain several

reservations and “Joker Clauses” which some nations can never be expected to accept “If there were perfect trust among nations, arms would be unnecessary, and disarmament would not be a problem” —Schleicher

5. Sense of Insecurity among Nations:  Another big hindrance in the way of disarmament is the sense of insecurity among nations. Armament is considered to be a source and a symbol of security, and disarmament is regarded as a condition which can lead to insecurity. Further, tanks, aero planes, rockets, bombs, all make it easier for statesmen to display power of the state and their achievements.

6. Political Rivalry and Disputes: The existence of strong political rivalry and disputes among nations has been a potent hindrance in the way of disarmament. Political rivalry among the states has been a source of armament race in international relations and in this way it has acted as a road-block in the way of disarmament and arms control. Besides these six key hindrances, the highly dynamic nature of military technology and the importance of armament industry in the existing international economic system constitute the other two big hindrances. Further, along with these, the continued love for narrowly conceived national sovereignties has been acting as a general hindrance in the way of disarmament and arms control. In actual practice, the biggest hindrance in the way of disarmament and arms control in the contemporary era of international relations happens to be the difference in approach of several nations towards this objective. Powerful nations like the USA want arms control and disarmament in respect of strategic and medium range nuclear armament and leave aside the question of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction that they possess. Many

other nations, however, give first priority to nuclear disarmament followed by arms control and general disarmament.  Analyzing the chances of a disarmament agreement, Schleicher has observed, “The possibility and probability of an international agreement on disarmament and arms control, its nature and effectiveness, depends largely upon several key factors. Of these, two are favourable factors: (1) The fear of nuclear war, the desire for peace and the belief that arms contribute to tension and war, and (2) The instabilities and dangers growing out of the unregulated arms race. On the other hand, there are four serious obstacles:  ADVERTISEMENTS:

(1) Nationalism and sovereignty; (2) The problem of the ratio; (3) Distrust among nations; and (4) The unwillingness of the nuclear powers to liquidate their nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Two additional factors have been also present, (1) The priority of disarmament or the settlement of political problems; and (2) Economic considerations of Arms Market. Both these factors work for and against agreement. Of these factors, the hindering factors appear to be more formidable than the favourable factors. That is why

progress towards Disarmament and Arms Control has tended to be very slow and quite small.