1 A Realist Analysis of Non-proliferation

Since the end of Cold War, the international community has increasingly construed the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) as a severe menace to world peace. Shortly after the Gulf War, the UNSC Resolution 687 made it clear that United Nations Security Council is “conscious of the threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security in the area and of the need to work towards the establishment in the Middle East of a zone free of such weapons.” Furthermore, it was decided in the Resolution that Iraq shall not have any chemical or nuclear weapons and any ballistic missiles with a range beyond 150 km.

Opened for signature in 1968 and becoming effective in 1970, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an international norm that advocates voluntary non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, but it does not ban nuclear weapons. Although biological and chemical weapons have been completely prohibited by the international conventions, nuclear weapons have not been banned. The five permanent members of UNSC are nuclear-weapon States recognized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nevertheless, it is the first time that Resolution 687 declared that nuclear weapons posed a threat to the peace and stability in a certain region. Although the proliferation of nuclear weapons has already been limited by the international norms, it is still rare that the international community expressly prohibits a state from possessing nuclear weapons; Iraq is the first that was not allowed by the UN to possess nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, the world saw a fierce confrontation between the two blocs led by the Soviet Union and the US. However, as the largest nuclear states, they shared a consensus on non-proliferation. They respectively provided their allies with security assurance of extended nuclear deterrence, which, to some extent, inhibited some states from developing nuclear weapons. But after the Cold War, the international situation of non-proliferation became more complicated. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact came to an end, and Russia, the only successor of the Soviet Union, was greatly weakened and could not balance the US globally. Since the US is the only superpower in the world, the international community, to a large extent, failed to constrain it effectively, which increased the United States' determination to prevent the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons by force. Additionally, the United States' interference in some regional conflicts, especially those in the Middle East, led to an imbalanced international system. That is the reason why there appears a new proliferation trend of WMDs in some regions.

There is an array of factors that can be used to explain the proliferation or the prohibition of WMDs. The core factor centers on national interests, especially the national security interests, and the stability of the international system. Indeed, some states and regions developed or attempted to develop nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons out of state honor or domestic politics. However, more states developed these weapons for the sake of national security and survival. Hans Morgenthau construed human nature as the source of political principles. And the essence of human nature is fear and desire for security. When it comes to the national interests, they drive states to maintain “the integrity of the nation's territory, of its political institutions, and of its culture.” From a realist perspective of seeking national interests and power, WMDs are effective means of securing national interests of the states that have acquired them or those that have attained protection through nuclear deterrence.

That is why states like the US, China, and Israel have developed nuclear weapons. During WWII, under the pressure of Germany's development of nuclear weapons, the US, UK and Canada jointly began the “Manhattan Project”. However, the United States, after acquiring nuclear weapons, constantly practiced nuclear blackmails against China, forcing China to develop its own nuclear weapons under extremely difficult conditions. Even though the US used nuclear weapons against Japan twice and ended the Pacific War at the lowest cost, the nuclear attacks left indelible memories on later generations. Since then, all states that follow Realism, from the Soviet Union to China, from India to Pakistan, from Israel to North Korea, began to pursue independent nuclear capacities and build up their nuclear deterrent.

Pessimistically speaking, the proliferation of WMDs continued after the end of Cold War. In South Asia, India and Pakistan one after another disclosed their nuclear weapons programs, making the competition of nuclear weapon development more severe. After that, the US changed its attitudes towards Pakistan from giving its acquiescence to Pakistan's nuclear plans during the Cold War to imposing limits to Pakistan's nuclear weapon programs. Meanwhile, the US showed more tolerance to India's nuclear weapon programs in order to further balance a rising China. In the Middle East, Iraq once carried out nuclear and chemical weapons programs around the end of Cold War. Although the United States' preemptive military attacks on Iraq in 2003 did not have any ground, this does not mean that Saddam Hussein regime was totally innocent. Due to the deterrent effect of the Iraqi War, the Libyan government admitted to the US and the UK that it was developing nuclear weapons secretly and ended the program correspondingly.

Since the beginning of 1990s, North Korea sped up its nuclear weapon program and made the secret program public. North Korea not only regards the nuclear program as an effective instrument to safeguard national security, but even played the nuclear card in an attempt to get international acceptance and aid. North Korea has conducted six underground nuclear tests so far since 2006 and more tests on missile delivery means.“The six-party talks” which were intended to advance the nuclear dismantlement of North Korea have been interrupted many times since their opening in 2003, and the endeavor to resume the talks has suffered many serious setbacks. In addition, the nuclear problem of Iran that was disclosed at the beginning of the 21st century has remained unresolved for quite a long time. Iran developed its nuclear program secretly and, when it was exposed to the world, refused to accept the UN resolution which requires it to stop its uranium enrichment immediately. The six-country group known as the P5+1 has not yet acquired substantive breakthroughs. In view of the existence of Israel and Iran's nuclear programs, a senior government official of Saudi Arabia has said, “If our efforts, and the efforts of the world community, fail to convince Israel to shed its weapons of mass destruction and to prevent Iran from obtaining similar weapons, we must, as a duty to our country and people, look into all options we are given, including obtaining these weapons ourselves, ” which surely would arouse attention to the nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. It should be noted that the UN confirmed that chemical weapons were found in Syria in 2013, which again shows that human beings have to not only be confronted with nuclear proliferation, but also face the severe issue of chemical weapons.

From a realist perspective, if human nature can be improved, the pursuit of state power in the international community can be contained. If an improved new type of interstate relationship can supplement or even replace the traditional mode of international security, human beings' security fear can be alleviated. This can further lower some states' incentives to develop WMDs and make them renounce their nuclear weapons. Since the end of the Cold War, some states that ever went against the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty during the Cold War have gradually abandoned their nuclear programs. With the transition of the domestic political system and the improvement of relations with their surrounding states, South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina have respectively dismantled their nuclear weapons. After obtaining different kinds of security guarantees from nuclear-weapon states, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus that became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union, have abandoned the nuclear weapons they inherited from the Soviet Union. All around the world, some new non-nuclear weapon areas have emerged one after another like the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, Central Asia Nuclear-Weapon- Free Zone, and the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, all of which were built after the Cold War. Mongolia was the first Nuclear-Weapon-Free zone that consists of only one state.

The past 20 years have witnessed both progress and setbacks in non-proliferation. In the field of nuclear disarmament, the nuclear superpowers were tangled in both cooperation and competition. During Obama's visit in Prague in the first year of his first presidential term, he envisioned a world without nuclear weapons, which greatly increased people's expectation towards such a world. The US even agreed with Russia on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in 2010,creating an atmosphere in which the US and Russia “restarted” bilateral ties. In the first year of his second term, President Obama went to Berlin and made reference to the strategic arms reduction again.However, the cooperative atmosphere between the US and Russia had all gone. In the last several years, disagreements broke out between the US and Russia on issues like human rights, missile defense, the Edward Snowden event, and the Syrian civil war and chemical weapons. Furthermore, the US and EU strengthened the sanctions imposed on Russia due to the Crimea issue. Against this backdrop, it has become impossible for the US and Russia to continue the talks on nuclear weapon reduction, which posed a serious problem for nuclear non-proliferation.

After the Cold War, the situation of non-proliferation of WMDs in the international community has become intricate and complex as a result of regional competition and domestic political factors of the proliferators. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that realist factors still have a strong and lasting influence on proliferation. In the following sections, this essay will investigate three regions that have witnessed the most serious nuclear proliferation. Taking into consideration the settlement of the issue of chemical weapons in Syria, it will investigate these regions from a realist perspective regarding the balance between the regional and international forces, and try to make a projection about the development tendency of these regions.