Excerpts from the struggle for the global south: A Narrative on Race, Injustice and Imbalance. By Masi Prince Ernest (MNSE)(MNIEEE) COMING SOON, SEPTEMBER 13, 2020. …The hope of nuclear disarmament has been dismissed by the so called realist and nuclear optimist on grounds of world peace and stability. Kenneth waltz, one of the leading proponents of the realist viewpoint explained that nuclear proliferation has balanced the world power bloc, such that, the possibilities of one nuclear power to unilaterally attack the other is very dismal. He further maintained that in the current debate, it will be impossible to subject nuclear states like the US, Israel or Russia to collapse their nuclear infrastructure, hence, the rhetoric of disarmament would remain an unachievable task for generations to come. The current push therefore to disarm smaller nations and yet retain about 90% of the world nuclear weapons in the hands of the US and Russia does not amount to disarmament, but justified by the doctrines of hegemonic domination, superiority, modernity and determinism which propelled their acquisition in the first place. The attainment of a nuclear power status was thought to preserve and advance “superiority” of Western civilization which expressly guarantees the rights of some nations to develop and keep nuclear bombs capable of destroying other nations while others must be prevented from getting it. The NPT is, therefore, a vehicle designed for this purpose, as some nations would retain their nuclear armament while others destroy their nuclear stockpile and join the NPT as non-nuclear power members with soft capability. This is the main reason while disarmament has been difficult to achieve and until the ideologies that gave birth to proliferation is dislodged through collective and unconditional responsibility, nuclear proliferation will continue to pose severe threat to humanity.
The growing threats of Islamic radicalization and terrorism now opens yet another window for a fresh debate on disarmament, but what is not clear is who will lead the effort. The western alliance has shown absolute lack of willingness to sincerely do so, except otherwise it limits other nations from reaching this goal. Based on this understanding, the possibility of a genuine disarmament appears to be uncertain, as nations like Britain is currently investing very huge sums of money in updating their nuclear submarine in Scotland. Obviously, in the event of any escalated armed conflict which threatens the superiority of a nuclear power, national pride may just hold the key to tactical deployment of the weapon to regain hegemony as was the case in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Proponents of disarmament appear very helpless as none of the nuclear powers seem likely to yield to any pressure to collapse their nuclear arsenal. On the contrary, investment in nuclear capability is on the rise while none nuclear powers have become more ambitious to attain strategic significance following on the Iranian example.
In this current debate, there is, therefore, a moral question of responsibility on the part of the United Nations. This question was not answered during the Cold War; it remained unanswered all through the nuclear arms race, and in Vietnam. More recently, it remained unanswered in Iraq, Libya and Syria, thereby, exposing the incapability of the UN just as its predecessor failed in dealing with the issues that culminated to the Second World War.
After the First World War, idealist ideology dominated intellectual discourse, especially on the need to replace the balance of power system with a system of collective security. Despite the outbreak of the Second World War which further exposed the deficiencies of idealism, it was not possible to dismiss its merits; hence, traditional idealist thinking of collective security was retained during the formation of the United Nations. Collective security and shared responsibility was supposed to eliminate unilateralism, but instead, a survival variant of realism was achieved, basically because the international system is governed by an anarchy system which defuses the authority of the United Nations, thereby, enthroning an international system that is dominated by struggle for power between self-interested states.
The struggle which is intended to make the powerful nations “most powerful”, while the weak, “most vulnerable” as rooted in competing military might, scientific and technological dominance is consistent with the principles of Western civilization. This struggle has further weakened the United Nations, its agencies and affiliate institutions.
Pre-order to start soon
