Search results

The threat posed by nuclear weapons to world peace need not be exaggerated. Advancement in science and technology has enabled us to go for a complete annihilation of not only the Homo sapiens but all the species on earth. Should we permit our idiocy entangled with the nuclear weapons to destroy us or should we, the thinking animals, permit our wisdom to outlive the demonic nuclear weapons, is a question that is being asked by sensible people all over the world today. Just public denouncement of weapons of mass destruction is un-utilitarian. Mankind has been hearing such hollow, absurd words ever since the first atomic test. We have been feeding ourselves on a diet of hypocrisy. If it is not that what else is CTBT? Should the world permit demons to chant mantra? Isn’t it time to recognize that the world is governed not by saints but by Satans? (This is because rise and fall of civilizations has taught us that might is still right.) Isn’t it time to understand that only a metamorphosis of the Satans into saints can save the world? If we know that well, we should start thinking how the nuclear Satans could be transformed into nuclear saints and it is only logical that the nuke Satans should take initiative in transforming themselves, which alone would salvage the world. The present study is premised on these assumptions.

Is the nuclear sky falling? It appears so. With the quantitative and qualificative improvements in nuclear stockpile, a proliferation-pessimism finds expression in metaphors about nuclear dominoes, chains etc. With a number of threshold states, the catch-phrase is ‘credible deterrence’. However, much of the zero-sum cold war thinking on strategic defence has now become anachronistic. A phased adaptive approach, leading to universal disarmament is necessary, especially in India’s strategic interest. A nuclear weapon-free world could ensure a safer regional security environment for India. It’s all the more imperative in view of China’s interest to emerge as the strategic leader in Asia, even well beyond Asia.

New START initiatives are positive developments in this regard. However, it is necessary to bring into this fold other nuclear powers. (China has rejected the US and Russian levels of nuclear ‘transparency’ as part of its defence calculus; it has already crossed the multiple warhead Rubicon. It may also install a National Missile Defence System by 2020.)

Though a Nuclear Weapon-Free World (NWFW) cannot emerge instantaneously, an NWFW can evolve, if the following measures are evolved:

• (i)

  Change the mind-set devaluing nuclear weapons by strategically displacing ‘disbelief’ with ‘faith’ in the efficacy of nuclear abolition.

• (ii)

  Change the perception of  the utility and prestige associated with nuclear weapons.

• (iii)

  Redraft nuclear doctrines to restrict their role and break the ‘feed-back paradigm of the need for nuclear deterrence’.

• (iv)

  Take measures to build confidence in multilateral initiation on NWFW.

• (v)

  Ensure universal acceptance of ‘no first use’ (NFU) through a legally binding, universally accepted agreement.

• (vi)

  Have agreement prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

• (vii)

  Devise agreements for controlling the continuous qualitative upgradation.

• (viii)

  Establishment of a Safeguard Regime with thorough organizational and institutional mechanism.

• (ix)

  Use advanced surveillance and monitoring technology to ensure compliance.

• (x)

  Implement effective enforcement strategy to penalize delinquent.

Change the mind-set devaluing nuclear weapons by strategically displacing ‘disbelief’ with ‘faith’ in the efficacy of nuclear abolition.

Change the perception of  the utility and prestige associated with nuclear weapons.

Redraft nuclear doctrines to restrict their role and break the ‘feed-back paradigm of the need for nuclear deterrence’.

Take measures to build confidence in multilateral initiation on NWFW.

Ensure universal acceptance of ‘no first use’ (NFU) through a legally binding, universally accepted agreement.

Have agreement prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Devise agreements for controlling the continuous qualitative upgradation.

Establishment of a Safeguard Regime with thorough organizational and institutional mechanism.

Use advanced surveillance and monitoring technology to ensure compliance.

Implement effective enforcement strategy to penalize delinquent.

It is in India’s interest to pursue universal disarmament with universal focus on economic and social cohesion for war prevention as the key to long-term security.

As the first Asian country to build a nuclear reactor, and as one among the handful of countries with full nuclear fuel cycle capabilities, India should strive to bring about universal disarmament of nuclear weapons so that world can meet spiralling demand for power through nuclear reactors, which pose no threat to the world peace.

Over the years, political scientists have dominated academic analysis of issues concerning national and international security. Operating mainly within a paradigm of power, political scientists of the so-called “realist” school have tended to view force and the threat of force as the most effective means for achieving security. If power is the ultimate arbiter in the international arena and military force its most compelling manifestation, it follows that the weapons that can do the most frightful damage will become the most potent symbols of international standing. Looking at the world through these eyes, it is easy to understand the grotesque romance so many security analysts and policy makers have had with nuclear weapons since the birth of the atomic age in the deserts of New Mexico two-thirds of a century ago. And so we continue to live, two decades after the Cold War passed into history, with a profusion of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction spread among a growing number of nations.

The paradigms of economists have much more to do with choice and incentive than with force and coercion. Considering the growing support for the idea of nuclear disarmament, there may be a great opportunity, in this moment of history, to help bring about the kind of paradigmatic shift that can encourage the removal of the nuclear sword of Damocles with which we have all lived for so long. Perhaps, the tools of economics can help point the way to a world that is not only more productive but also more secure.

Presented at the “Disarm! For a Climate of Peace” meeting held on September 30–October 3, 2016 in Berlin and organized by the International Peace Bureau.

Walter Lippmann in his 1922 classic “Public Opinion” noted that “the news media are a primary source of those pictures in our heads about the larger world of public affairs, a world that for most citizens is “out of reach, out of sight, out of mind.” Indeed, among the different roles that the mass media performs is one of an information provider and interpreter of world events and policy decisions. The power of the mass media to mould public opinion on issues of national and international significance is well documented. Our knowledge and priorities about public affairs are based on what the media decides to feed us with. In this context, the present chapter seeks to analyze the crucial role essayed by the mass media in ensuring human security by promoting favorable public opinion toward the cause of nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. S. Rashid Naim enunciates in “Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia” that a nuclear attack between India and Pakistan even limiting itself to military targets would cause approximately 577,000 deaths in Pakistan and 604,000 deaths in India apart from substantial number of injuries and destruction of property. The knowledge about this impending havoc should reach the grassroots level and this can be accomplished only by the mass media. With global efforts being channelized toward nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, the media and its trend-setting abilities can be harnessed to enlighten the average public about the disasters of a nuclear war. As the role of the mass media becomes more prominent in managing conflicts all over the world, the time is ripe to utilize its immense powers to dilute the level of possible nuclear clashes. A more proactive role of the media is envisioned through the establishment of a “global communication center” dedicated to the publication and broadcast of information advocating the cause of total nuclear disarmament. This center will be the locus of information dissemination and advocacy directed toward nations that possess nuclear weapons and those that are likely to get their hands on them in the near future. While the mass media is certainly not the only actor in the process of nuclear disarmament, it can be a decisive force for nations to choose between “atom for peace” or “atom for war.”

The purpose of this paper is to explain Japan’s role in the peace process on the Korean Peninsula that began in early 2018.

This paper emphasizes the historical context of international politics in Northeast Asia, rather than power politics or geopolitics. The paper reaffirms the significance of the ongoing peace process on the Korean Peninsula by considering a synthesis of three joint declarations published in 1998, 2000 and 2002 between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and Japan, the ROK and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and between the DPRK and Japan.

The normalization of diplomatic relations between DPRK and Japan, along with reaffirmation of the joint declaration between the ROK and Japan, and the Panmunjeom Declaration, would be a base for denuclearizing Northeast Asia.

In Northeast Asia, historical reconciliation among the two Koreas and Japan and peace-building between the two parties on the Peninsula are closely linked. Moreover, the three bilateral relationships among these three parties are also the basis for creating a new multilateral security order in Northeast Asia.

Where international nonviolence organizations have increasingly become key players in both the development and evaluation of effective nonviolent movements, little scholarly attention has been given to their role in transnational mobilization. In this chapter, I present new data on a growing population of nonviolent protest INGOs, a transnational nonviolence network, working to globally spread tactical knowledge and resources. To examine determinants of how this population has grown as a whole, I employ negative binomial regression analysis to weigh the effect of nonviolent protest, social movements, and world society theories on nonviolent INGO expansion. I then examine how this network and its ties to different world regions have changed over the latter half of the twentieth century. I find it has been most significantly shaped by the expansion of global political and civil society networks, global human rights work, and a global discourse about nonviolence. The purpose here is to expand knowledge of the global institutional foundations of transnational protest resources, opportunities, and discourse among nonviolent movements.

The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the role of Russia in the current world environment, focusing attention on its role in global security. Russia can play a leading role in contributing to global security or it can play a major role in undermining global security. The next section will present an interpretation of the nature of global security, followed by a discussion of recent changes in the global situation. Next, the current position of Russia in the global system and how that position has changed will be considered. Finally, the global security agenda and the contribution that Russia can make to this agenda will be examined. It will be shown that Russia can play a major role in the achievement of global security.