[7]
p.31
[8]
p.35
[9] " there
was no WMD in
The war was justified by US administration and its allies as to release Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. The war against terrorism was started when terrorists targeted World Trade Centre in New York on September 11. Then following weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, a military campaign was started by US against Iraq to save the world from the so-called Iraqi WMDS. Before waging a war, the efforts for "the multilateral disarmament of Iraq" [8] were utilized. In Iraq UNSCOM (United National Special Committee) was established and accordingly inspectors were sent to Iraq to monitor the Iraqi industrial facilities, suspected for WMDs development. Was Saddam Hussein really developing WMD? The answer is "no". Because UNO inspectors reported that there was no WMD found in Iraq. Further, George W. Bush has confessed that it was the failure of intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD [9].
The breakdown of WMO order
In contemporary era, the world has also experienced some
critical incidents that destabilize the international order. These incidents include
(i) in May 1998 India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests [10].
In this saga, the nuclear bomb emerges as a weapon of peace because India
threatens and blackmails Pakistan when it develops its nuclear programme.
Pakistan has to start nuclear programme to counter the threat. Accordingly,
India could not wage a war against Pakistan despite the extreme crisis between
the two countries. (ii) Terrorist attacks in New York [11]
in September 11, opened a new era of great powers behavior and the efforts were
utilized to curb the menace of terrorism. The matter of great concerns was the
terrorist organizations access to the WMDs. Hence, the weapons attracted the
attention of world community, because the stability and peace of the world might
be jeopardized if these organizations procure the nuclear weapon in the form of
dirty bomb. This development is in accordance with the outlook, presented by
Scot D Sagan in the chapter two of the book, "the spread of nuclear weapons"
and he explains a more distrustful assessment of the consequences of nuclear
proliferation, which is based on the organizational theory [12].
The weapon of mass destruction like nuclear bomb creates
fears of punishment into adversary's mind, which leads towards balance of power.
B.O.P. is a level that ensures stability and peace. That is why the states,
perceiving threats from outside, attempt to develop or acquire "the weapon of
peace". As a well-known scholar, namely Kenneth, said, "Nuclear weapons make the
war less likely as the history is seen. When states perceive threats from
outside and find the international players biased, they involve in the
activities, aimed at acquiring the weapons: The Dominant States do not allow
the states to have the capability. This type of development shows that WMD
influences the "international order".
Suggestions
The following features can
be taken into account to improve international order in the presence of WMDs.
-
The major powers should not be biased. They should play their
true role to make the world stabilized. For example, USA provides nuclear
facilities, reactor, and knowledge to Israel to develop nuclear weapons but does
not allow the countries, hostile to Israel in Middle East, to do so. This behavior
pushes the countries like Iran and Iraq towards the feeling of deprivation and
the feelings of insecure. Therefore, they start their own programme.
-
United Nations Organization should be more powerful and
independent to maintain rule of law over the world. It should not be voice of a
sole super power. It should protect the weaker states from aggression. For this
purpose, it should have its own economy. It should build up its own powerful
military which may enforce the rule of law.
-
The states perceiving external threats should either develop
their own weapon or make an alliance with a powerful state having nuclear
weapons. For example, Pakistan developed its own nuclear bomb to check the
Indian nuclear blackmailing. Turkey made alliance with the western block during
cold war by joining the NATO, to deter the Soviet aggression. Kenneth's
position about nuclear weapons looks more relevant.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
