Introduction & Purpose

“Global norms for disarmament are vital to the sustainable development, quality of life, and ultimately the survival of this planet. The need for such norms arises directly from the legacy of the last century of wars and preparations for wars. The costs of such conflicts have been extraordinary and have included the loss of untold millions of innocent civilians. Weapons of mass destruction, along with excess stocks and illicit transfers of conventional arms, jeopardize international peace and security and other goals of the Charter.” (Department for Disarmament Affairs)

The following summary examines the major areas that form the “Disarmament Debate” and critically evaluates its main themes. The content for evaluation is taken from the 5 November 2001 introduction and lecture of Under-Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala, for this course.

 

Disarmament: Major Areas in the UN Framework

The United Nations Department for Disarmament Affairs is faced with balancing its own mission with the greater goal of achieving Peace and Security. In seeking to fulfill its mission, the department has focused on at least four major areas relevant to the regulation and elimination of both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

 

The first area deals with the threat to peace and security posed by weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, while the second is committed to the problem of weapons not considered WMD. The department is also committed to the promotion of regional disarmament regimes and the providing of up-to-date, objective information on disarmament-related matters.

 

 

Disarmament: Major Themes in the Debate

The are a number of major themes in the question of disarmament that are open to critical examination. The first, and one of the most important is the relationship between securing peace and security through military or “weaponized” means, and through achieving peace and security through the development of sophisticated economic and social programs. The issue here is resource allocation. The same resources cannot be allocated twice, if resources are earmarked for the development, purchase, or maintenance of weapons of mass destruction and/or conventional weapons, then they cannot be allocated towards development.

 

Another important theme, and the one to which the most attention will be given in this summary, is the disparity in resources allocated and progress made towards the elimination of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons.

 

The fact that the United Nations has created a Department for Disarmament Affairs [as opposed to non-proliferation, or arms control] is also an important distinction and part of the greater debate surrounding this issue. This theme encompasses the discussion between sectors of the international community that favor the complete elimination of weapons and those who favor arms control and/or non-proliferation. The main point of departure here is the fact that those who favor non-proliferation seek to eliminate the opportunity for other nations to openly develop weapons (WMD or otherwise), while maintaining their own. Having said this, the UN has supported a number of non-proliferation measures aimed at curbing/eliminating the production of weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

Priority Given to Weapons of Mass Destruction

One of the most important questions in the discussion of disarmament is whether to focus the resources of the international community on the elimination of weapons of mass destruction or on conventional weapons. This question is tied to the nature and use of these weapons. On one hand, the argument goes, weapons of mass destruction pose the threat of causing indiscriminate and unnecessary harm to harrowing numbers of innocent civilians. On the other hand, the argument continues, weapons of mass destruction are not frequently used, while conventional weapons are not in short supply or use. They are used to kill thousands of innocent civilians each year, and are readily available though both legitimate and illicit means.

 

The question as it is stated boils down to the potential for devastation vs. actual devastation. In setting the question up in this way, there is an unacceptable quantification of human life and its value. The sense is that although they are used infrequently, WMD pose the greater threat. The larger problem is the existence and availability of conventional weapons.

 

Why then has the United Nations only been able to make any real progress on weapons of mass destruction? As Under-Secretary General Dhanapala remarked during his lecture, “politics and national security play a large part in the disarmament debate”, economics and profit should be added.

 

According to an August 2000 report, “International arms sales surged to nearly $30.3 billion in 1999, the  highest level since 1996.” The United States and China solidified their positions as the world's biggest arms dealers (roughly two-thirds of all arms were sold to developing nations).

 

 

 

Future Prospects and Conclusion

It is clear from the discussion with the Under-Secretary General that the United Nations continues to grow and evolve in its response to the problem of arms. The UN has made some progress on arms collection and registration programs, which serve to demilitarize areas post-conflict and monitor the exchange and stockpiling of weapons. However, there is much to be done in terms of political will and the ability to prevent conflict and/or reduce its effects.

 

Although the UN has seen an increase on the part of many member states (especially those in the southern hemisphere) to create nuclear free zones through regional and inter-regional agreements, it has not been able to develop this kind of consensus where it matters most, in he north.

 

The question of disarmament is one that can be answered. The international community has demonstrated its ability to capitalize on the emergence of political will to reduce stockpiles of WMD and will now have to do the same with conventional weapons, especially as the world moves farther, both chronologcally and ideologically, from the Cold War.