|← Values of the American Society||Effect of Color Differences →|
Is Disarmament A Feasible Strategy For The UN To Bring World Peace?
The issue of disarmament as an instrument of bringing world peace is complicated because of power politics displayed by the great powers in the world. Success of the effort is limited in the number and level of successes it yields. Most of the effective arms control initiatives in recent history are those made between two countries, as opposed to multilateral agreements. The main reason for the success of the agreement between the Soviet Union and the US was the series of arms control agreements entered into by the two countries. These agreements were aimed at maintaining military balance between the two countries. The non-proliferation treaty was also instrumental in preventing the spreading of nuclear technology to countries that do not have the technology. While these measures may be successful in reducing the spread of nuclear weaponry among many countries, their main effect is on the attitudes of member states towards harboring nuclear arsenal (Provided Source).
Exchange of values and ideas is a necessary aspect of the disarmament efforts undertaken by the UN. The success of disarmament efforts is dependent on the number of countries in the agreement and the pushing of such an agenda by the internal government of the country. A weakness of the disarmament efforts in different countries prompted by the UN is that the agreements are only effective in controlling obsolete arms technology. In some cases, the members to disarmament agreements only agree to control the arms that they are not willing to develop. This means that the development of arms is not controlled by the disarmament efforts thus have a minimal effect on the state of world peace.
The ceilings set by different countries on the weapons to be developed using modern technology is mostly higher than the number of weapons currently deployed. This means that the countries do not have to reduce their inventory of weapons. The other weakness of disarmament efforts by the UN is that they tend to focus on some types of weapons leaving the countries to develop other weapon systems. Many countries are also more interested in improving their weapons than controlling them. This also makes powerful countries less willing to control their weaponry; thus, the tendency to test their weapons underground in the development stages.
The Most Effective Arms Control Approach For The UN
The most appropriate arms control approaches that the UN can utilize is changing the structure of the main organs of the UN. This will enable it overcome the challenges associated with the disarmament approaches used. Other international organizations also have to change in line with the strategies of the UN. This will aid in the enforcement of agreements that can be effective in managing arsenals for different countries. States involved in the disarmament programs have to act together in the enforcement of the agreements. This will be essential in ensuring that all members to the agreements follow UN’s decisions, and any violations are dealt with collectively.
Solidarity in action taken by the member states may be hampered by the fact that non-compliance in behavior of some states does not affect all members equally. Some of the members may also oppose the enforcement of sanctions made by international organizations. Therefore, the most appropriate alternatives to the disarmament efforts by the UN would require the responses to violations to be made part of the obligations contracted by the parties. The treaty and supporting protocols to it have to include responses that are proportionate to the treaties and the offenses. The responses have to be formulated in such a way that they pressure the violator to change behavior in line with the protocol. The last thing that the UN has to avoid is the use of armed force in ensuring compliance with disarmament laws. This is because the use of force would be counterproductive in promoting world peace.