Arms proliferation will persist

On the 6th August 2010 the world commemorated the 65th anniversary of the nuclear holocaust enacted by dropping two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing 280,000 people and damaging inestimable property.

The horrifying consequences of that event made the world civilization realize that man, with his advancement in comprehending the forces of his environment has brought about weapons that could spell doom to his own existence.

In other words it became increasingly evident that due to man’s own greed and vanity, the scientific knowledge he has acquired over the years, is becoming a catalyst for man’s own destruction.

The nuclear weapon proved to be the ultimate in war and thus its use in any future confrontation will leave no winners and would bring about the demise of human civilization.

The event however became a turning point in human civilization and it drove home the need for the man to re appraise his own ambitions and then to charter more constructive course of action for his future.

Thus the UN was formed with new paradigms of human civilization that eschewed human domination/ exploitation and upheld human rights and cohabitation.

Accordingly the non deployment of nuclear arms and their non proliferation was considered a sine qua non for world peace and for world’s future existence. But despite this momentous stand, after 65 years today we still have colossal nuclear arsenals stashed away in different parts of the world.

The US has more than 12,000 nuclear war heads; Russia has about the same; Britain and France has several hundreds and Israel possesses one of the most sophisticated nuclear arsenals in the world. Why do these countries continue to maintain these arsenals at an enormous cost when it is clear that their eventual use will destroy the entire human civilization a few times over?

The argument however is that the very retention of these nuclear weapons ensures world peace in that it deters the adversaries from manufacture and deployment of nuclear weapons to obtain an advantage. If that argument is to be stretched to its ultimo it should mean that every country needs to hold on to a stock of nuclear weapons to ensure its protection and independence.

That is a tremendous risk and is not a tenable way of ensuring world peace. The question then is how could world ensure world peace without indulging in ‘upmanship’ over arms?

Then, how do countries maintain peace within the national boundaries allotted to them? In countries they do not have a situation where people fortify themselves to ensure their protection and peace. Instead the people move and expect the country’s law and order situation to take care of security.

This way the use of arms is the responsibility of the Government which is expected to act justly and equitably. Then, of the forms of government, we have the democratic system which is tried and tested for its responsiveness and justice.

Thus, if that is the case then cannot the world follow the same model, i.e. form a Global Government to ensure world peace and stability? The answer is that, it is not possible because the powers that control the world today have their own agendas and will prevent the UN from becoming a ‘World Government’.

Democracy would be the last option in a world government because the world powers will not permit this world to be governed by the impoverished majority. Powerful nations in the world would not want to sacrifice their standard of living for a more equitable world order. This reality has made the world drift in to anarchy with the world body becoming a mere spectator of happenings around the world.

This situation however creates a vacuum in managing world affairs which is then readily filled by world super powers by strength of their economic and arms might. Thus we then have a situation where we have a de-facto World government whose hierarchy is determined by the ad hoc strength of world powers and their interests.

This then is the catch; the criteria that determines power in world affairs depends on each country’s military and economic clout. Is there any wonder then that there is race to overpower one another in economy with the ultimate aim of achieving an advantage in arms?

The arms race doesn’t yet end there though as these world powers, having achieved their position by virtue of their armed strength, continue to apply double standards in world affairs; one criteria for the allies and yet another for the foes.

This brings about double standards and sheer hypocrisy in to regulating world affairs and with the result the world community gets in to spin believing that the unacceptability of what you do matters little as long as you have either the armed power or right friendship to make it acceptable. This palpable reality acts as a catalyst for nations to join the race for arms.

Therefore the arms race will not cease unless the world establish a mechanism to uphold justice in world affairs and righteousness in its conduct. The president of Sri Lanka, addressing the UN in its 63rd session made a very pertinent contribution in this regard quoting the Dhammapada thus,

Joyfully lies the man who is victorious

and sorrow would be the stock of the vanquished.

But, in peace lies the mind of man

who has neither won nor lost.

Thus unless and until the nations adapt justice and righteousness in place of economic and arms might it is unlikely that the arms race will stop. Non proliferation in arms therefore, is not possible as long as the world’s powerful continues to threaten the world’s powerless.

[email protected]