Proliferation (Week 8 Pre-class blog)

Developing nations' nuclear ambitions have been demonized in the West for decades. As illustrated by Hugh Gusterson in his provocative call-out of Western elitism, nuclear weapons are a danger in the hands of all, regardless if they are occidental, oriental, boreal, or austral. Why then have the P5 so ardently opposed nuclear proliferation? To say this is Western is a misnomer as China is equally in this fight and Russia is continually buying into this Western typology. I argue that this is closer aligned with maintenance of the current order in which Russia and China have a stake.

Ultimately, All of the P5 are enjoying their time at the top of the weaponized world. The greatest threat to this order would be for weaker nations to acquire these weapons and begin to threaten the international order established by the 5 nuclear powers. Considering that these powers also make up the UN security Council, and are leading members of such prominent IOs such as the IMF makes this argument even more valid. If the current P5 discontinued strict non-proliferation then their dominance on other non-nuclear related institutions would be endangered as well.

Gusterson makes tears down four common arguments that the P5 use to justify non-proliferation, especially to 3rd world nations. He makes a notable case that orientalism is at the heart of their arguments and demonstrably false in both theory and application (p 133). "They" are not as responsible as "us". "They" are ruled by passions, unlike "us" who are ruled by reason and logic. These hypocritical arguments reveal the true intent of strict non-proliferation which is to maintain the current international system.

Consider a world in which other key players were given international legitimacy to pursue nuclear weapons for defensive measures. These select nations would certainly involve Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, South Africa, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran among others. These nations would certainly have a harder time continually being overrun at the UN by the Security council's exogenous interests. This brings the reasoning back to a resistance to true multi-polarity.

I do not argue that complete proliferation is the wise course of action. Certainly proliferation should follow international agreements, but these agreements should seek to place these rising nuclear powers on par with the P5, not as subgroups as is currently the case with India and Pakistan. Also, care should be taken to guard nuclear weapons, but as shown by Gusterson, 3rd world nations are certainly capable of these preconditions. Certainyl a world without nuclear weapons is best, but perhaps the best way to encourage such a world is to reorganize the international system which perpetuates the power of the P5.

Works Cited
Gusterson, Hugh. "Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination." Cultural Anthropology 14, no. 1 (1999): 111-43. http://www.jstor.org/stable/656531. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more