UN must oversee complete eradication of nuclear weapons. That’s the only path towards global peace
Nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity –this is undeniably true. Several steps have been taken to curb its proliferation at the UN, but in vain. The power of nuclear weapons came to the global horizon soon after the end of WWII after Japan suffered an irrevocable loss of civilians’ lives and its prestige. Nuclear weapons were later possessed by nine states in a row. An idea of deterrence came into being between rivals after the acquisition of nuclear weapons. However, with the unbridled pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its consistent augmentation, the world is prone to a threat to peace, security and stability.
It is undoubted that the urge of nuclear weapons is felt under acute vulnerable situations. Despite the reaction of the UN, by initiating a host of treaties to restrain on its race, nothing substantial has yet been achieved. However, unfortunately, the UN itself seems paralyzed following nuclear weapons and especially after the renouncement of the climate change pact by the mighty states. Lack of consensus amongst the member states is the pertinent cause behind the failure of the UN.
This amply shows that the international community realizes that the global community is immensely insecure. The growing sense of insecurity compels them to obtain nuclear weapons willy-nilly. As a result, the race of nuclear weapons goes unfettered.
It is more like a person in society who possesses ammunition for the sake of his self-defence against burglary, mugging, robbery, life threats, etc. Usually, the ratio of possession of ammunition increases under feeble law and order situation. This projects that global governance is largely dysfunctional. Hence, the premise of Thucydite still prevails across the globe.
The global community is widely engaged with beefing up defensive mechanism to cope with any untoward danger. Here arises a question: why are the bigwigs obsessed with increased insecurity? Have they done anything wrong to the world in the past? Most probably yes! Thus, fear gets multiplied over a continual fear of reprisal. On the other hand, every state believes that her sovereignty is valuable more than others. Similarly, a palpable sense of narcissism prevails everywhere.
Recently a move has been initiated by the UN to make a global treaty aimed at banning nuclear weapons, in spite of opposition from the United States, Britain, France and other nuclear powers that boycotted negotiations. The adherent of the treaty described the treaty as a historic achievement but the nuclear-armed states have dismissed the ban as unrealistic, arguing it will have no impact on reducing the global stockpile of about 15,000 nuclear weapons.
Even though the nuclear free-states have taken part in the long three weeks with the hope of laying a pressing demand on the nuclear-states to bring them to negotiations, for formation of a treaty that should provide a complete ban on developing, stockpiling or threatening to use nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, Costa Rica said, “This will be a historic moment.” She further said, “The world has been waiting for this legal norm for 70 years,” calling it a “response for humanity.”
Most notably, none of the nine countries that possess nuclear weapons —the United States, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel — took part in the negotiations. Even Japan — the only country to have suffered atomic attacks, in 1945 — boycotted the talks, a resounding support to the global players.
Moreover, US Ambassador Nikki Haley came out strongly against the ban when negotiations opened on March 27, saying “there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons, but we have to be realistic. Is there anyone that believes that North Korea would agree to a ban on nuclear weapons?” she questioned.
The nuclear powers argue their arsenals serve as a deterrent against a nuclear attack and say they remain committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). While on the other hand, impatience is growing among many nuclear-free states over the slow pace of disarmament.
Under such a situation there is dire need on the part of the UN to seek every possible step for imposing a ban on the nuclear weapons, provided it wants to establish the shadow of international law. A fine must be settled on the strength of nuclear weapons with a view to garnering funds for the states being a victim to climate change. An alternative pathway must be defined against nuclear weapons, which is probably a formation of military alliance. In doing so, the threat of nuclear weapons can be tackled.
It is argued that the UN is a symbol of peace in the world. However, with absence of punitive authority at its disposal, how can it regulate peace? It would not be reasonable to say that the UN may need to attain nuclear weapons to administer the nuclear states. For this, there is only way, which is to eradicate the menace of nuclear weapons.
One must not lose sight of the fact that North Korea is a rogue state. It is playing with nuclear weapons from time to time. No matter if any nuclear test goes off the wrong way, then peace on Korean Peninsula would be distorted. Already the peninsula is on the brink of war since there was a truce rather than a treaty to regulate the arch-rivals, North Korea and South Korea.
The UN must realize that there are only nine states having nuclear power. These states are accompanied with apprehensions due to the lingering outstanding issues and belligerency of foes. The UN is only required to make all-out efforts for bringing an end to their conflicts and covert agendas. In doing so, the world would witness peace, stability and security if not completely but at least partly without having the shadow of nuclear weapons.