UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE

FACULTY OF SOCIAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES

NAMES NYAKUDYA TAFADZWA P

REG NUMBER R1711561
MODULE TITLE GLOBAL SOUTH
YEAR 2020
LEVEL 3.2
QUESTIONS
1) Define arms control and disarmament
2) What is the relationship between the two approaches?
3) Explain the rational for arms control and disarmament
4) What are the major development in the US-Soviet Union arms race?
5) What are the purpose, pillars and challenges associated with the NPT
treaty?
Answer Question 1
The terms "disarmament" and "arms control" have been widely used after the end of the World
war and still often used and still is, considerable confusion over their meanings. "Disarmament"
became the fashionable term during the nineteenth century, particularly during and after the
Hague Conference of 1899, to describe all efforts to limit, reduce, or control the implements of
war. While some individuals may employ disarmament in the literal sense to the total elimination
of armaments and most diplomats and commentators do not agree on the notion. The United
Nations and its subsidiary agencies use it as a generic term covering all measures, "from small
steps to reduce tensions or build confidence, through regulation of armaments or arms control, up
to general and complete disarmament. Martin (1981: 192) states that disarmament means the
reduction or elimination of weapons while Bull (1961) agues that disarmament is the reduction
or abolition of armaments. Henceforth disarmaments aims at ending the escalations of weapons
and prevent conflicts in the world and preserve peace.

Armies control in the other hands refers to the cooperation between or among potential enemies
to establish quantities of weapons likely to reduce both the chances and ferocity of war, and to
control the development, deployment and use of weapons among mutually acceptable lines
Martin (1982). Padelford and Lincoln (1967) also argue that arms control is when a country or
countries restrict the development, production, stockpiling, proliferation, distribution and use of
weapons especially weapons of mass destruction. In the early 1950s, academic specialists linking
the technology of nuclear weaponry to the strategies of the Cold War began substituting the term
"arms control." For them "disarmament" not only lacked semantic precision but carried utopian
expectations, whereas "arms control" involved any cooperation between potential enemies
designed to reduce the likelihood of conflict or, should it occur, its scope and violence, Gower
(2018). Most arms controllers sought to enhance the nuclear deterrence system, and only
occasionally sought force reductions, while literal "disarmers" dismissed arms control as a
chimera and supported proposals seeking general and complete disarmament.

Answer Question 2
The primary issues of international politics, according to the realists, are national security and
power. States seek to maximise their national interest and achieve power and security, while
working within an anarchic international system. And according to the theory of political realism
conflicts are inevitable in the international system (Lundestad, 2005). Thus the relationship
between arms control and disarmament is that both are mechanisms and approaches to global
peace and stability and aims in avoiding conflicts in the international system. The two
approaches seeks to limits and enhance reduction of armaments in the International system.
These pacts put specified limits on the mobilization, possession, or construction of military
forces and equipment, and may result in reductions. The restrictions may be qualitative,
regulating weapons design, as well as quantitative, limiting numbers of specific weapons.

Tyler (2006) asserts that states are guided by the logic of the national interest, usually defined in
terms of survival, security, power and relative capabilities. Although the national interest may
permits vary according to specific circumstances, the similarity of motives among nations is the
pursuit of national interests and power. Thus in the pursuit of self-interests, arms control and
disarmament had been used interchangeable by the idealist in the quest to maintain international
peace and security. The two are measures to limits the escalations of war and the destruction of
the world, hence used as a means of controlling the world system through negotiations and
signing of treaties. Herbst (2016) contends that, ‘international politics, like all politics, is a
struggle for power, all political policy seeks either to keep power, to increase power, or to
demonstrate power. As states alone have the necessary resources to exercise power, they are
consequently the most important actors. This also resembles the observation made by Alexander
Wendt that “five hundred British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the U.S. than five North
Korean nuclear weapons” (Wendt, 1995: 73). Henceforth arms control and disarmament have
been coined to work hand in glove in the quest to maintain peace and stability in the international
system.
Disarmament refers to the reduction or the abolition of the military and armaments of a nation
and its capabilities to wage war while arms control is the restrictions upon the development,
production, proliferation and usage of weapons especially weapons of mass destruction. The
anarchic structure of the international system whereby there is no central government governing
states has also contributed to states to rely on its state power and seek its own safety rather than
relying on other states because states are living in an hostile environment. According to
Spykman (1942) cited in Baldwin a state should rely on its own power as its last resort because
power is the ability to influence and persuade others through coercion. Thus disarmament and
arms control among other peace building mechanisms in the international system were coined as
a way of reducing the massive production of weapons of mass destruction and prevent the
escalations of war. Demilitarization, denuclearization, and neutralization, are also coined as arms
control and disarmament tools, though disarmament lacked semantic precision but carried
utopian expectations, whereas "arms control" involved any cooperation between potential
enemies designed to reduce the likelihood of conflict or, should it occur, its scope and violence
(Weber 2018). Most arms controllers sought to enhance the nuclear deterrence system, and only
occasionally sought force reductions. Henceforth this shows the relationship between arms
control and disarmament as peace building and peace preservation mechanisms in the
international system.

Answer Question 3
In the anarchic world system, conflicts are inevitable and states have the quest for dominance
and survival. In such a world the realist believe that states are always in a constant state of war
against each other while (Chigora, 2006) argues that states only cooperate when they have
commonality of interest. It is in this anarchic world that the idealist come up with peace
mechanisms through diplomacy hence coining the concepts of arms control and disarmament in
the world. Hence arms control and disarmament become a peace mechanism and a tool to
prevent the escalation of conflicts and wars in the world as in the World Wars and the Cold War.
Henceforth the key lucid of arms control and disarmament has been preventing the escalation of
wars and conflicts in the world. The Machiavelli’s doctrine which denies the relevance of
morality in politics and claims that all means, moral and immoral are justified to achieve certain
political ends it becomes a reality without the idealists view of peaceful means of avoiding
conflicts through arms control and disarmament.

Additionally according to Machiavellian maxims of realist statesmanship, political responsibility

implies the pursuit of self-interest and cannot always be in accordance with the principles of
Christian ethics (Jackson and Sorensen, 1999). Thus armies control and disarmament aims at
demilitarization and denuclearization involve removing or placing restrictions on military forces,
weapons, and fortifications within a prescribed area of land, water, or airspace. Neutralization is
a special status that guarantees political independence and territorial integrity, subject to a pledge
that the neutralized state will not engage in war except in defence (Holmes, 2016). These are also
efforts that seek to lessen the violence and damage of war. The principles underlying the rules of
war (or laws of war) are, the prohibition of weapons that cause unnecessary or disproportionate
suffering, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants and the realization that the
demands of humanity should prevail over the perceived necessities of combat. This technique
seeks to lower international tensions through lessening the possibility of an uncontrollable cause
célèbre provoking an unwanted war. In addition, it seeks to protect the environment from lasting
damage due to the testing or use of military weapon.

Classical realists, like Morgenthau, believe the drive for power and the will to dominate are held
to be fundamental aspects of human nature. (Morgenthau, 1978). What he is saying is that
politics is rooted in permanent and unchanging objective laws, with their roots in human nature,
which is self-centred, self-regarding and self-interested. Arms control and disarmament therefore
becomes critical mechanisms in the international system as they seeks to prevent wars. The other
rational is that they seeks at regulating or outlawing specific weapons. For both Thucydides and
Morgenthau, the essential continuity of power seeking behaviour of states is rooted in the
biological drives of human beings (Rosenberg, 2012). Thus the two mechanisms seeks to
regulate the military use or the possession of specific weapons. Their rationale is that the
unrestricted use, or any use, of a particular weapon exceeds recognized "just use of force.”
Power is used in politics as a means to acquire security (Brown, 2001). And thus controlling
arms manufacture and traffic becomes necessary in the international system. These approach
however involves restrictions, including embargoes, on the sale or transfer of weapons and
munitions. And also prohibit the manufacture of specific weapons. Henceforth this shows the
major rationale of arms control and disarmament in the international system.

Answer Question 4

According to Spykman (1942) cited in Baldwin a state should rely on its own power as its last
resort because power is the ability to influence and persuade others through coercion.
Morgenthau (1948) also views international politics as the struggle for power and the power he
refers to is the power for man to control the minds and actions of other man. After the end of the
cold war and the decline of the Soviet Union. There have been many development in regards to
the quest to maintain international peace and stability as well as controlling the world system and
creating of a new world order. The Soviet Union come Russia has signed a number of treaties
with the United States. According to Waltz (1979) power is a means in itself rather than an end.
This means that states are aimed at seeking security in the international system and thus after the
golden age of arms control after the end of Cold War, Russia and the United States are no longer
engaged in arms control negotiations. The landmark Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
Treaty was officially terminated on 2 August 2019, and the New Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaty (New START) expires in February 2021 (Dunn 2017). This situation validates
Morgenthau and Hobbes assertion that in the international system there is the struggle for power
and survival of the fittest in an anarchic world. Thus, survival and national interests have very
high urgency and trigger states to mobilise their resources to defend them.

Protection of balance of power in the international system is another vital interest between the
United States of America and the Soviet Union or Russia in the 21 st century. According to
Mearsheimer (2006) the conduct of business in the international system is a zero sum game, its
either you win or you loss. The continued political alienation between Russia and the West,
combined with new military-technological developments, undermine strategic stability. A new
arms race is looming with severe implications for global nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation,
and regional stability (Dunn 2017). Neither superpower seems to have a strategy for developing
arms control and disarmament. The conflicts in controlling the Middle East is looming for
instance in the Syrian Conflicts, the Russian supporting the Assad Regime while America
supports the opposition and move with the regime change agenda. This means that with no arms
control and disarmament mechanisms in place, there is a major risk of exploding another world
war.
To add some, a variety of events such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the ongoing
Ukrainian crisis, the Syria conflict, and accusations of Russian manipulation of US elections
have increased the deep alienation between these superpowers and accelerated the resumption of
the great-power rivalries. The arms control realm is thus increasingly becoming the hostage of
the general political climate despite its necessity independent of these rivalries. Two major
treaties of the end of the Cold War, the INF Treaty and New START, are in acute danger of not
being continued (Dunn 2017). The 2010 New START is the only remaining limitation treaty
with an intact verification system between the two nuclear superpowers (Pifer et al. 2018).
These major development between the United States and the Soviet Union has a danger to World
peace and stability. With recent accusation by the United State to Russia after the brutal death of
Gorge Floyd by the American police force, Russia among with China and Zimbabwe were
named among the advisories who are causing unrest and influence demonstrations in the USA.

At present, however, the political climate hardly permits cooperative solutions. In several
statements and hearings high ranking generals declared that a breach of the treaty commitments
by Russia undermined the foundations of the INF Treaty, but that the deployment of the new
missile did not provide any significant military advantage for Russia (Götz 2019). Ground-based
cruise missiles are militarily attractive, as the launchers are easy to hide and are hardly affected
by missile defence. Russia and the United States in particular have sea-and airborne cruise
missiles. Nuclear cruise missiles are increasingly regarded as destabilizing by arms control
experts (Doyle 2017a). After the INF Treaty’s nearly 31years of existence, the Trump
administration formally withdrew from it on 2 August 2019. President Putin followed one day
later, announcing that Russia would only deploy land-based INF missiles such as the Kalibr
cruise missile (which has a range of 1,500–2,000 km) as a reaction to any US deployment in
Europe (Götz 2019). Some voices are being heard that Russian SS-26 Iskander missiles will also
be deployed in Kaliningrad (Kristensen 2018b). These missiles, which have a range of 500 km,
are capable of carrying nuclear warheads but are compliant with the INF Treaty. Henceforth
these major development in the US- Soviet Union armies’ race has implications in peace and
stability in the international system.

Answer Question 5
In world politics, the anarchic syndrome makes conflict in the system inevitable. Realists such as
Morgenthau, Carr and many more understand the implications of the security dilemma but see
them as unavoidable. Anarchy forces states to compete against each other in a self-help, survival
and statism system, therefore, to survive states must try increase their power by internal
development, conquest and build alliances. In this regards after the end of the Cold War the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) warrants much support as a non-proliferation
convention. Most foreign ministries, including that of Iran and the United States, insist that
Article IV of the NPT recognizes all states’ “inalienable right” to develop “peaceful nuclear
energy (Bugos, 2019). While (Countryman, 2019) states that the major three pillars of the NPT is
non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses. International law acknowledges that states
have got national and international interests. To this end, states are given the space to use
international law to drive their national interest hence signing of treaties to maintain peace and
stability in the world.

The main aim of the NPT was to maintain peace and stability in the world, it was a means to
arms control and disarmament through diplomacy. However due to lack of a common rule-
making and enforcing authority means, the international arena is essentially a self-help system.
Each state is responsible for its own survival and is free to define its own interests and to pursue
power. Anarchy thus leads to a situation in which power has the overriding role in shaping
interstate relations. In the words of the Athenian envoys at Melos, without any common authority
that can enforce order, “the independent states survive only when they are powerful” Waltz
(2003). Thus by the end of 2019, there were five states outside the NPT that are nuclear-armed
which include India, Israel and Pakistan, and North Korea is suspected, having withdrawn in
2003 from the treaty. Therefore this shows some of the structural challenges within the
international system as states seek self-advantage and pursue self-interests.

Morgenthau (1985) pointed out that it is a characteristic aspect of all politics, domestic as well as
international, that appear as what they actually are manifestation of a struggle for power. When
power is not in one’s hand, such people become restless and can do anything to ensure that other
powers do not rise above them. Within the global political economy states are the only
significant actors with the ability to fight for power, determine international relations and
interstate relations as well as guide global politics. In this regards the NPT has helped to slow
proliferation but not disarmament and peaceful use, mainly because of lack of confidence about
peaceful use of IAEA and has found several states in non-compliance with the agreements Iraq,
Romania, North Korea, Libya, Iran and Syria among others included.
Additionally, political ambivalence about the benefits of non-proliferation, Article VI of the NPT
requires all parties, “... to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to
cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on
general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” Mistrust
cheating-clandestine re-armament, Pedelford and Lincoln (1967: 424) states that “no
disarmament plan will remain effective and dependable unless it continues to serve the national
interests of each of its parties...” this however sement with Morgenthau (1949) in Herbst (2016)
contends that, ‘international politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power, all political policy
seeks either to keep power, to increase power, or to demonstrate power. Therefore the challenges
associated with the NPT is supported by the realist orthodoxy of International Relations who
posits an international system that is characterized by anarchy and thus devoid of effective
institutions hence the struggle for power.
Bibliography

Bugos, S. 2019. “U.S. Seeks New Era of Arms Control.” Arms Control Today, November 2019:
31–32.
Brown. (2001).Understanding International Relations, 2nd edition .New York. Palgrave.
Carr, E. H. (2001). The Twenty years Crisis 1919- 1939. An introduction to the study of
international Relations. London: Palgrave.

Herz, T. (1951). Political Realism and Political Idealism. A study of Theories and realities.
Chicago: university of Chicago Press

Carlson, J. 2018. Verifying the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons and Providing Assurance
against Breakout. Asia Pacific Leadership Network, February. http://a-pln.org/briefings/brief
ings_view/Policy_Brief_No_57_-_Verifying_the_Elimination_of_Nuclear_Weapons_and_
Providing_Assurance_against_Breakout
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2006). Structural Realism. In Dunne, T. Kurki, M. and Smith, S. eds.
International Relations Theories, Discipline and Diversity. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Morgenthau, H. J (1948) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3rd
Edition. New York: Alfred A.Knopf
Spykman, N. (1942) American Strategy and World Politics: The United States and the Balance
of Power. New York: Harcourt
Walt,S.M.(2005) Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S .Primacy. New York:
Norton Journal