OCR Text |
Show THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: THE NEW INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM AND THE MIDDLE EAST Kevin F. Jowers Israel, India, and Pakistan have begun testing nuclear devices largely out of security concerns. Israel is a small state surrounded by potentially hostile nations, while India and Pakistan have long-standing disputes with each other and fear the imperialistic intentions of China, another neighboring nuclear state. These states have, for the most part, advocated a no-first use policy with regard to their weapons. However, the presence of nuclear weapons and the continuing territorial dispute between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir, already the source of past wars between the countries, has fueled considerable international concern that a future conflict could escalate to a nuclear exchange. On a global scale, it is feared that as the number of states with nuclear weapons increases, so does the possibility of their use, particularly in the hands of states with questionable motives, such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, who are believed to be actively pursuing nuclear capability. THE COLD WAR AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM THE COLD WAR STALEMATE Since the United States ended World War II by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, the problem of nuclear weapons has been one of the most debated and troublesome topics in the study of international relations. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 demonstrated the immense destructive power contained in a single nuclear warhead and signaled the beginning of a nuclear arms race, primarily between the United States and the Soviet Union. A prevalent fear throughout most of the Cold War was that a direct confrontation between the two superpowers would result in the use of nuclear weapons. From the 1970s onward, both superpowers possessed such large stockpiles of weapons that each had a "mutual assured destruction" (MAD) capability, meaning that either side could absorb an enemy attack and still have enough weapons to retaliate with a destructive nuclear strike of its own (Russett and Starr 1996, 277). In reality, by the end of the Cold War both superpowers possessed the capability of destroying each other many times over. Despite the ideological differences between the United States and the Soviet Union, the superpowers shared a common interest in avoiding nuclear war. Due to the large stockpile of weapons that each country possessed, both the Soviet Union and the United States recognized that engaging the other in a direct confrontation risked the possibility of a nuclear exchange and considerable destruction on both sides. The resulting stalemate was often referred to as the "balance of terror" (Nye 1997, 120-123). The fear of being drawn into a direct confrontation helped temper the actions of the two superpowers during the Cold War and induced them to play a strong role in controlling the actions of subordinate states. While the balance of terror played a role in maintaining the nuclear peace during the Cold War, other factors also contributed. With two superpowers with widely different ideolo- gies, each served as an easily identifiable enemy for the other. In order to contain the other side's power, each superpower developed a sphere of influence over smaller states, with promises to provide protection and aid. Thus, the bipolar international system allowed many smaller states to align themselves under the protective umbrella, including the nuclear arsenal, of either the United States or the Soviet Union. The protection offered by the superpowers served as a surrogate for central authority in the international system and diminished the need of smaller states to pursue their own means of protection. The ability of powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union to influence the behavior of lesser states during the Cold War is no longer a reality in today's multipolar international system, due to increased parity among states and the lack of a clearly defined enemy against which to fashion a foreign policy. Another important factor in maintaining the nuclear peace was the large buffer zone created by the distance between the two superpowers. This buffer zone allowed sufficient time to assess and respond rationally to a perceived threat. Unfortunately, there is no comparable buffer zone for states in the Middle East, or for neighbors such as India and Pakistan. The response time for a perceived threat in such circumstances might be extremely limited and could lead to less than rational decisions, particularly when nuclear weapons are an option in the face of an imminently perceived threat to security. BEYOND THE COLD WAR: THE NEW INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM Particularly since the end of the Cold War, the proliferation, or spread, of nuclear weapons to an increasing number of states in the international system has been an issue of great debate. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union played an active role in discouraging lesser states from the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Seen from the realist viewpoint, the protection offered by the superpowers effectively diminished the anarchic nature of the international system by allowing the superpowers to assume some of the burden otherwise borne by each state in providing for its own defense. The protection offered by the nuclear arsenal of each superpower significantly reduced the need of weaker states to pursue such weapons of their own. However, with the end of the Cold War, a new international system emerged and with it has come increased concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Rather than being a world of peace as some had suggested, the post-Cold War world had numerous conflicts and wars. The erosion of Cold War alliances, particularly within the former Soviet bloc, and the lack of an easily defined enemy decreased the ability of the more powerful states to influence the actions of lesser states. As many of the previous security arrangements lost significance, reliance on the superpowers for protection also decreased. In addition, the superpowers themselves are less willing and less able to provide the same level of protec- 44 |