Contemplating A World Free of Nuclear Weapons

If there is one idea that continues to remain present throughout this class it is the idea that countries will never feel secure enough to let their guards down militarily. In my first blog post, I mentioned Meirsheimer and spoke of how he reiterated the role of fear in international conflicts. He talked about how since no country can ever be sure if another country is planning to attack, they must be militarily prepared to attack and fight for their country at all costs, at all times. Now when asked to consider whether or not there can/should be a world without nuclear powers, I can’t help but think back to this idea of fear and security that Meirsheimer put forth.

In Thomas Schelling’s article, “A World Without Nuclear Powers”, he mentions how officials all over the world have been recently coming together to speak about the potential for a world free of nuclear weapons. At one conference, it was even reported that “participants were in general agreement that complete and eventual disarmament … is the objective”. Now in theory, this sounds great. If our final goal is a peaceful world, it seems only fitting that we put an end to the presence of nuclear weapons once and for all. However, then Schelling presented a question that made me think. In regards to research representing the desire to remove nuclear weapons globally, Schelling writes: “None explicitly addresses the question, why should we expect a world without nuclear weapons to be safer than one with (some) nuclear weapons?

            While the sound of “nuclear weapons” often sends a chilling fear down our spines, we mustn’t forget that even with multiple countries in possession of nuclear weapons, it’s been nearly 70 years since a nuclear weapon has been used in warfare. With this in mind, many may then wonder, “well, what’s the point in even having them?” And that all comes back to Meirsheimer’s view that countries will never feel secure, unless they are in the best spot militarily. And in this case, what that means is having access to the strongest, most detrimental weapons--- nuclear weapons.

            The reason the US has been able to stay one of the leading powers of the world for so long is because we have access to these nuclear weapons, which make us a large threat to any country contemplating engagement in war with us. In 1945, the US used nuclear warfare against Japan, killing hundreds and thousands of Japanese citizens. And the idea that at any moment, the US could do that again to any country that poses a threat to us, causes many countries to reevaluate starting conflict with us. So considering this idea, I can only wonder what would happen if the US didn’t have nuclear weapons to ensure destruction of any who dare mess with us. And I can only assume the result would be chaos. This would mean weaker countries without nuclear weapons could now engage in conflict with bigger countries, without the fear of being completely destroyed.

           While it may sound bad, personally, I think the threat of nuclear weapons is necessary in keeping world order. In order to feel secure, powerful countries need something in order to deter other countries from starting conflict. Although there’s no guarantee these countries will continue to not use their weapons, I think conflict is seriously less likely to occur with the fear of engaging in war with a country in possession of a nuclear weapon. Otherwise, what’s stopping every country from going to war with each other if they see it fit?

Schelling, Thomas C. “A World without Nuclear Weapons?” Daedelus 138, no. 4

(2009): p. 124–129. (ELMS)

International Organizations: The United Nations Power

            The United Nations is an international organization founded in 1945 after the Second World War to prevent another World War from erupting. It’s core objective is to maintain international peace and security by creating alliances among states. The international organization has to an extent been successful and no Third World War has occurred since its existence. But a question we can all ask ourselves is, how much global power and influence does the UN actually have.

            Arguably within the organizations not all members have the same power over decisions. Within in the UN Security Council only 5 out of the 15 members have permanent veto power. In the UN a trend and the truth is the world powers have more of a say then the small states. The U.S., Russia, China, France, and England are the typical leaders within the international organization. There economic, military and influential status allows them to take the for front in decisions. This may not seem fair in certain circumstances but their power to influence brings greater gains in the end.

            The only real power the UN can have is to call for economic sanctions on those states that do not practice the beliefs of the UN and disturb the peace. But even with this situation it is all about influence. And those individual states with power have the most influence. The UN is a platform for the powerful global powers to influence and control the smaller states. If a state can appeal both the members and the news media with an issue then maybe the global population can see a change caused by the UN.

            For example earlier this year actress Emma Watson spoke in front of the UN General Assembly to address the issue of violence against women and gender equality. Her message was heard globally. People all around the world showed support for the issue with the hash tag HeforShe. It sparked the conversation that this is not only women’s problem but also men’s.  Even though Emma Watson is not an individual state she is a prime example that those who have power and influence will gain attention and potentially cause change. The nations with the status will influence the world to follow their steps in decision-making.

            So I personally can not measure the power of the UN. But instead have concluded that those with power can use the UN to influence other states. The U.S. is just one of the states who is a member of the UN, but it holds more power within the international organization then many of the smaller countries. This was not just an easy given power. But because of the history and richness in economy it has gained the power to influence over the members. The United Nations gives nations an institution to backup their security, peace and level of power.

Free Trade For Everyone

          The world economy is a complex system which is difficult to predict and thus hard to control. Governments have many forms of trying to control trade such as tariffs, quotas (and zero-quotas or bans), subsidies and fixing exchange rates. They can also create extreme technical or health standards for imports or even transportation. These measures are in place to limit the reliance on other countries as well as a fear of losing the agricultural industry in developed countries which would put them at a military disadvantage. Thought no countries have truly free trade, it would be to everyones benefit to do so. If every nation had completely free trade they would maximize comparative and absolute advantages as well as efficiency by specializing completely. There would be a risk as each country would be entirely dependent on other for products as well as being very susceptible to the market fluctuations of their own product. However protectionism has an even higher cost as the consumer is always at a lesser advantage. In a free market economy, the consumer would have increased buying power after the destruction of other industries and the creation of the specialized industry. Ultimately the entire world economy would benefit as would the world populations since products would be as cheap as possible. However the fear of dependency as well as the social cost of cutting jobs to create specialization prevent this from happening despite the positives.

     The perfect example of how protectionism can ruin an economy comes from Argentina. They have rampant tariffs, placed hundreds of products on waiting lists where they must wait for up to 60 days before entering the country, manipulated the exchange rates and imposing trade licenses to over 600 industries who wish to bring products in. Argentina has clamped down on its borders to attempt to jump start its domestic production. The result has been devastating as the economy has plummeted and even worse the rest of the world has turned their backs on them, including a recent ruling by the WTO that these sanctions breach global trade rules. While Argentina will dispute these charges, it is without a doubt that they have ultimately failed and their protectionism has done much more harm than good. While other factors have contributed, the facts remain that Argentina has imploded its own economy and now has no one to turn to for help. They have defaulted on their debt and investors have lost faith in the once powerful and rich nation. We should learn from their mistakes and move away from the potential harms of protectionism and open the borders to free trade for the benefit of all.

Sources:
Lecture slides

http://www.internationalfinancemagazine.com/article/WTO-rules-against-Argentinas-protectionism.html

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/the-risks-and-rewards-of-argentinas-growing-protectionism/

Why Iran Cannot Obtain Nuclear Weapons

In his article Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability, Kenneth Waltz claims that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would bring stability to the Middle East. He argues that, once Iran acquires these weapons, they will act rationally and cautiously and be motivated by self-preservation. However, I simply cannot see this being the answer for stability in the Middle East. The United States (and the world) cannot allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Much of Mr. Waltz’s argument hinges on the idea that Iran would act rationally once they acquire nuclear weapons. While it is true that countries like China, India, and Pakistan have shown restraint with their nuclear weapons to this point, can we truly rely on Iran acting in the same sense? While mutually assured destruction (MAD) certainly has a lot of weight to it, can it be applied to irrational countries? Iran has stated on many occasions that they would like to see Israel “wiped from the map”. While many people believe that Iranian-Israeli relations are mostly talk and little action at this point in time, would that stay the same if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon? Israel is one of the United States’ best allies. It is for that reason that this country cannot take chances with Iran.

A nuclear Iran also becomes a much bigger domestic threat to the United States than they are right now. As of yet, Iranian missiles cannot reach this country. But allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons would allow them to make direct attacks on this country and/or our resources. In addition, according to a federally mandated commission to study electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attacks, a nuclear weapon detonated hundreds of miles in the air above America could still wreak catastrophic damage (Anti-Defamation League).

Finally, the Middle East is an absolutely necessary source of energy for both the United States and the entire world. If Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon, it would likely result in an arms race across the Middle East. This would almost assuredly destabilize the region and lead to worldwide energy issues.

A nuclear Iran is not a stabilizing technique for the Middle East. It is a frightening prospect that would lead not only to widespread panic, but to the destabilization of the region. Relying on the idea that Iran would act rationally with a nuclear weapon is a risk that is simply not worth taking. For the sake of the United States and the world, Iran cannot be permitted to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. It’s simply too dangerous.

Sources: http://www.adl.org/israel-international/iran/c/the-iranian-nuclear-threat-why-it-matters.html
http://researchport.umd.edu/V/GPH2JRIDXU1JJ7UA19CJBAY89VN91RXJMV1BDYYNIKG8P5SLR4-47028?             func=quick-3-full-save&doc_number=000902927&format=999&encoding=UTF_TO_WEB_MAIL

Democratic Peace Theory in Relation to Conflict Today

Since the late 1700’s, many have looked at the Democratic Peace Theory as an outline of steps necessary to follow for a peaceful world. But while many agree with this theory, many also see flaws in it. Initially DPT made a lot of sense to me as it assumed that republican governments were essential to a world without war. The theory argued that since republican rulers are acting in the interests of the public, they are more likely to make decisions which avoid conflict whereas autocratic rulers are really only worrying about themselves since the public has no voice or say in the matter. However, when I began to think about the current conflict between the US and the Middle East, I began to question this theory.

            The point of DPT is that if we, as a successful, democratic state go in and help weaker states stabilize their government and instill a democratic foundation, it will benefit us in the long run, due to the fact that “secure nations are more likely to support free trade and maintain democratic structures”, eventually leading to a world free of conflict. However, isn’t that exactly how we got into the conflict we find ourselves in now? In 2003 we invaded Iraq with the goal of training their army and leaving them with a democratically elected government. We succeeded in this task, only to leave Iraq in 2011 and have the entire foundation come crumbling down due to a group of radicals gaining support from those who felt unfairly treated/ represented in the democracy. Now, as they are revolting, America finds itself back in the midst of conflict, with increased involvement in Syria through air strikes. Now, from my perspective, it seems that with aims of peace in war torn countries, we ended up only contributing to more conflict years later.

            Now, I do believe that if we want any sort of shot at a peaceful world, weaker countries need to be stabilized. Most of the conflict that seems to be going on today revolves around weak central governments and the people not having a voice. However, at what cost can we fix this? In her article “Democratic Peace Theory: An Appropriate Guide to Foreign Policy”, Jennifer Jackson mentions the philosophical gap between the long-term goal of world peace and the short-term goal of national interest. I feel this is the most important idea to look at when establishing the appropriateness of DPT. It’s no secret that stabilizing a weak country takes time.  But the problem is, while we are devoting our time and resources to helping weaker countries build a foundation, we are involving ourselves in conflicts we really have nothing to do with. To me, the idea of getting ourselves involved in all these wars for the purpose of one day not being in wars seems kind of ironic. Nobody in America wants to be in war right now if we don’t need to be, however I do recognize that if we want to even potentially have hope for a peaceful world one day, actions like this are necessary. I think the real issue just comes in us, as a nation, deciding how far we are willing to go in order to ensure this possibility. As one of the strongest, most stable countries in the nation, I see how we have a sort of obligation to help weaker states. However I think there has to come a time where we put our foot down, and say enough is enough. The Democratic Peace Theory lies a nice foundation for a globally stable future. However, the more we involve ourselves in other countries’ conflicts, the further away the possibility of peace seems. So until a time comes when all countries are stable, I think we need to find a better way to involve ourselves in other countries’ issues than what we’ve been doing, because judging by how well it worked out when we invaded Iraq, it seems some serious change is necessary.

Jackson, Jennifer, “Democratic Peace Theory: An Appropriate Guide to Foreign Policy?