1 / 24

POSC 2200 – International Security, War and Strife

POSC 2200 – International Security, War and Strife. Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science . Unit Six: International Security, War and Strife. “Managing Insecurity” Required Reading: Mingst, Chapter 8.

leola
Download Presentation

POSC 2200 – International Security, War and Strife

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. POSC 2200 – International Security, War and Strife Russell Alan Williams Department of Political Science

  2. Unit Six: International Security, Warand Strife “Managing Insecurity” • Required Reading: • Mingst, Chapter 8. • Mueller, The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar World, Mingst and Snyder, pp. 341-346. • Outine: • Arms Control • Collective Security • Balance of Power

  3. 1) Arms Control: • “Arms Control”: Restrictions on the research, manufacture and deployment of certain kinds of weapons systems • Reduce the spiral effect of arms races – limit growth • Prevent proliferation of dangerous weapons • Regulate the use of weapons • “Disarmament”: The Policy of eliminating states’ offensive weaponry • Reduce stockpiles of weapons - All, or some kinds • Assumes that reductions in the number of weapons increases security . . . Both key aspects of liberal approach to “managing insecurity”

  4. Motivations? 1) Reduce tensions that lead to war . . . • General liberal belief that “security dilemma” can be reversed through cooperation • Fear that weapons generate their own “logic of use” 2) Save $$$$ • Periods of arms control correspond with financial problems 3) Reduce environmental and health hazards • E.g. Nuclear weapons testing

  5. Obstacles? • Shadow of the future . . . • What threats will emerge in the future? • E.g. Post WWII US disarmament • Verification • How do we know arms control agreements are being followed? • Technological improvements? “Flyovers” • Doubts over the value of arms control • Arms control may not prevent war – the two are unrelated • Domestic political obstacles • National pride and “Military-Industrial complex”

  6. History: • Some ancient examples – Athens and Sparta • Generally, arms control a 20th Century phenomenon Why? • Changing technology – weapons became increasingly lethal from WWI onwards . . . . • Est. 40,000,000 casualties

  7. Washington Naval Conferences (1921-1922) • US, UK, Japan, France and Italy • Agreed to limit “tonnage” of battleships – response to “Naval Race” • Tied to number of oceans to defend • US and UK get large advantage but Japan cheats • Geneva Protocol (1925-1928): treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons • E.g. Chlorine Gas • Effective???? Chemical & Biological weapons are hard to use . . .

  8. Post WWII: Bilateral Strategic Nuclear Arms Control • Problem: Rapid growth in number of nuclear weapons • The “missile gap” • 25 Treaties since 1963

  9. Treaties (US and USSR): “Strategic Arms Limitations Talks – SALT I & II” (1972 & 1979) • Tried to stop growth – stabilize arms race • Freeze in number of offensive weapons “Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty – ABM” (1973) • Agreed to stop developing missile defense systems • Systems would destroy incoming missiles • Thought to be destabilizing (e.g. Deterrence) • US withdrew in 2002 . . . .

  10. End of Cold War – States intensify arms control efforts: “Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty – START I” (1991): • Nuclear warheads reduced to 6,000 each • 1,600 “delivery vehicles” “Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty – START II” (1993) • Nuclear warheads to be reduced to 3,000 each (2007) • “MIRV’s” banned • Treaty never ratified – Russian response to US missile defense initiatives

  11. “Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty – SORT” (2002): • Further 2/3 reduction in number of warheads • No limitations on MIRV’s

  12. Implications: • Success? • Number of warheads cut by at least 80% • Problems? • MAD doctrine remains in place • “Tactical” weapons unregulated • Many weapons “mothballed”

  13. Multilateral Arms Control: • Focused on “proliferation” of dangerous weapons – WMD’s • Consistent with the security concerns of powerful states (!) 1) “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - NPT” (1968, renewed 1995) • Bans sales, acquisition and production of nuclear weapons in all states that were not recognized as nuclear powers: • US, UK, Russia, France and China (note the coincidence?) • “Non-nuclear states” subject to IAEA inspections

  14. 2)“Partial Test Ban Treaty” (1963): • Banned atmospheric and underwater testing of nuclear weapons • Number of tests higher after the treaty (!) • Did not ban underground tests 3) “Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty”(1996-?): • Proposed complete ban on nuclear weapons tests – supported by UN General Assembly • Legally binding if all 44 countries with atomic energy ratify treaty • Status = ? Undermined by existing nuclear powers • France, Britain, Russia all ratified • China, Israel, India, Pakistan and the US have not – though some not testing

  15. Nuclear non-proliferation regime under strain? • New nuclear powers • Non-NPT members: • Indian and Pakistan • NPT Members (Lies, lies and more lies!!) • Israel? • Iran? • Libya and Iraq? • North Korea? • Proliferation is easy and it is the “fast track” to international power • However, most states have honored the treaty despite incentives to break it

  16. Chemical and Biological Weapons: • Building on Geneva Protocol – International law already prohibit use of chemical weapons “Biological Weapons Convention” (1972): States agreed not to develop more, and to get rid of all biological weapons • E.g. Anthrax “Chemical Weapons Convention” (1993): All chemical weapons were to be destroyed by 2005 • 184 signed treaty by 2002 • Problems? • Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria refused – some in response to Israel's nuclear weapons • Hard to verify . . . • Bush administration withdrew some US compliance

  17. New Areas – related to “human security”: • Antipersonnel landmines • Small arms

  18. “Campaign to Control Small Arms” • NGO Campaign • E.g. “Project Ploughshares” • Supporting UN “Human Security” initiatives to limit spread of “small arms” • One person per minute killed Goals? A UN “Arms Trade Treaty” • Limit illicit spread of weapons • Regulate legal trade – where weapons likely to be used to violate human rights http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/html/ATT.shtml

  19. 2) Collective Security: • Key part of liberal strategy for managing insecurity • “Collective Security”: Concept that aggression against a state should be defeated collectively – because aggression against one state is aggression against all . . . . • League of Nations and UN – less effective • Assumes it easy to identify the aggressor and that the aggressor is always outside of international norms • Military Alliances – more effective • Can only work if aggressors come to believe that states will act against them

  20. 3) The Balance of Power: • Realist approach to managing insecurity =Ensure peace through the acquisition of military capabilities and alliances that make war with you undesirable • Arms control and collective security are for lawyers - Probably do more harm then good • E.g. Powers involved in the “Naval Race” were right! • Helped Britain win WWI

  21. “Deterrence Theory”: Assumes that rational decision makers will avoid war where costs are going to be high • Seek peaceful resolutions • Key Claim: Effective military capabilities make the costs of war higher • Meaning . . . Arm your state and probably acquire WMD’s

  22. Risks of deterrence theory: • Role of non-state actors in modern security environment • Problem of proliferation • Problem of “non-state armies” • Modern “imbalance of power” • Logic of deterrence and offensive realism suggests US “primacy” should be used • E.g. China’s Nuclear weakness . . . .

  23. 4) Conclusions – Security War & Strife: 1) Is conventional “general war” becoming obsolete? • Yes, but . . . mechanisms of preventing war focus only on these kind of conflicts – still a lot of wars 2) What is the impact of the advent of WMD’s on the nature of war? • Theoretical question – no consensus 3) Why is modern war a mainly “southern” phenomenon • Because southern states lack power to deter attack (Waltz) • Because northern states have a normative consensus against war with each other (Mueller) • Because southern states are “weak” and “artificial” – resolve internal political problems through violence

  24. 5) For Next Time . . . Unit Seven: International Political Economy Required Reading: • Mingst, Chapter 9. • Scott, The Great Divide in the Global Village, Mingst and Snyder, pp. 421-430.

More Related