By Jahnavi Srivastava
Peace in a Complex World
Mapping the History of the Arms Race and Human Rights
The pursuit of human rights has faced constant challenges, with the arms race acting as a backdrop to human development. From the mighty Greek Phalanx to the iconic Roman Legions, each era witnessed advancements in weaponry that shaped the course of conflicts. Philosophers like Socrates and Plato, in the Classical Era, laid the intellectual groundwork for justice and governance, sowing the seeds of later human rights concepts. As time unfurled into the Medieval and Renaissance Eras, the Crusades introduced siege engines and crossbows, challenging notions of just war theory. The Hundred Years' War brought forth longbows and cannons, altering the face of medieval warfare and contributing to the evolution of the treatment of prisoners of war.
The subsequent Early Modern Period, marked by the Thirty Years' War, showcased the role of muskets and pikes. In tandem, the American and French Revolutions ushered in guerrilla tactics and mass conscription, accompanied by declarations that laid the foundation for modern human rights. The 19th to 20th Centuries bore witness to transformative conflicts. The American Civil War introduced rifled muskets and ironclad warships, alongside the landmark ‘Emancipation Proclamation’. World War I brought trench warfare and chemical weapons, shaping the League of Nations and human rights considerations in the Treaty of Versailles. World War II, marred by the Holocaust, spurred the commitment to prevent future genocide, culminating in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
In the present, the Post-World War Era unfolded the Cold War, propelling an arms race dominated by the speedy acquisition of nuclear weapons. Technological advancements birthed precision-guided munitions, cyber warfare, and the rise of Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS). While human rights became a pressing global concern during the ideological conflict of the Cold War, today's landscape sees ongoing efforts to address abuses, with non-state actors playing a prominent role in promoting human rights.
Weapons and their Impact on Breaking the Cohesiveness of the International Community
War, seen as a public phenomenon, produces negative externalities, such as demographic dislocations, economic distortions, contamination from the use of weapons of mass destruction, and potentially the fundamental reordering of the international system. The spectrum of weapons of mass destruction has widened owing to technological and military advancements. Among these, the Autonomous Weapon Systems is one example, these weapon systems do not necessarily need a human in command which poses a series of ethical and strategic challenges. Furthermore, the looming threat of the catastrophic hydrogen bomb, proven to be more destructive than their nuclear counterparts adds to the complexities of navigating the landscape of global security. These alarming systems are just a glimpse into the store of weapons possessed by nations on the brink of conflict.
The impact of the arms race is a dual-edged sword.
On one side, it fosters international cohesiveness, in the economic realm, by strengthening relations between the nations involved in the arms trade. However, the flip side of this dynamic is categorized by a spillover effect, which carries a far more ominous weight. It introduces the looming prospect, or even the ominous promise, of a loss of cohesiveness within the international community, especially if the amassed arms are ever put into use, leading to consequences that transcend economic ties.
With every weapon sold, the world inches closer to the distant (but probable) reality of a Nuclear War.
In response to such a catastrophic event, the ICRC has fervently advocated for an absolute prohibition on nuclear weapons.
The past serves not as a burden, but a guide offering us the invaluable tool of experience to navigate the future and not repeat the same mistakes.
As the world is witnessing the greatest unilateral transgressions since World War II, particularly evident in conflicts involving Russia and Ukraine, as well as Israel and Palestine, there arises an imperative to express concern about the trajectory of our future. These geopolitical flashpoints demand our attention, reminding us of the urgency to address the pressing issues at hand.
These transgressions lead one to logically question, is holding onto peace is too naive or utopian?
Ethics and the Subsequent Dilemmas of Weaponization
It cannot be denied that there are compelling arguments in favor of allowing the arms trade to flourish. Arms traders are commercial companies, trying to generate revenue and profits from customers by selling innovative products. They are subject to competitive pressures like any other business sector and they must demonstrate that their products are bigger, better, and more cost-effective successfully, so their activities must be geared towards satisfying the demand for their goods and services to make an ultimate profit. If excessive restrictions are placed on their activities, then they will operate at a competitive disadvantage against foreign companies which are not subject to the same constraints.
However, the more compelling arguments lie on the opposite end of the spectrum, considering the interests of all rather than solely profit-making companies. Arms manufacturers and traders provide products with potentially devastating consequences, not only ethically but also tangibly in terms of lives lost. Evaluating the notion of whether holding onto peace is too naive involves delving into the ethical dimensions of weaponization and the ensuing dilemmas it introduces.
This evaluation unveils a myriad of challenges for it is difficult to ascertain if a government or group has acquired weapons for ‘legitimate purposes’ or not.
Further, the particular situation of continuing conflict makes it difficult to distinguish between situations of ‘internal conflict’ and conventional Military operations. More so, due to the dynamic technological field and the advent of AI in warfare, the dividing line between what can be considered to be ‘arms’ is often blurred. Companies are constantly finding ways around rules surrounding arms trading when it is in their interests to do so.
It is imperative to understand herein that only ethical considerations can prevent them from selling military style equipment but purely ethical pressures to execute this may prove insufficient.
Disarmament: A Panacea in today’s world order based on Realism?
Disarmament means the reduction or elimination of military forces and weapons. The concept of disarmament as a panacea in today's world order poses a complex question, particularly when viewed through the lens of realism in international relations. Realism is a school of thought that emphasizes the pursuit of national interest and the anarchic nature of the international system and offers a nuanced perspective on the feasibility and implications of disarmament. The perception of disarmament as an idealistic and seemingly unattainable goal parallels historical attitudes toward the notion of war. At various points in history, the idea of a world without armed conflicts, much like the idea of a world without war, may have appeared impractical or even impossible. However, the evolving nature of human societies and international relations challenges us to reconsider such assumptions. The urgency of addressing the longstanding issues of the arms race and the arms trade cannot be overstated; it demands an immediate response.
Rather than considering it the need of the hour, it is more aptly described as the need of the very next second.
Disarmament emerges as a powerful force for global well-being and alignment with humanitarian goals, offering a myriad of merits. Foremost among these is the enhancement of global security, as the diminished possession of weapons reduces the likelihood of armed conflicts breaking out. This, in turn, fosters alternative methods for resolving disputes, prioritizing diplomatic dialogues over military aggression. A consequential benefit lies in the reallocation of defense expenditures, redirecting resources toward more impactful and rewarding purposes such as healthcare and education. Additionally, the positive environmental impacts of disarmament are profound, as the absence of weapon use contributes to nullifying the environmental implications associated with armed conflicts.
Conclusion
It would be safe to say that, now (more than ever), there is a strong need for a rule-based world order.
The chimera of Capitalistic Ideals when seen through the lens of Ethical Dilemma, seems to be dull and lackluster.
In the post-WW2 era, the exploitative tendencies of humans have reached extensive and unprecedented heights, showing no indication of slowing down anytime soon. Correspondingly, there has been an increasing interaction of the global powers through diplomatic & non-diplomatic channels that has accelerated the consensus for a rule-based world order founded upon the ideals of Liberty, Equality & Fraternity (interestingly, the byproducts of the French Revolution). Therefore, to widen the scope of a peaceful movement that follows a human-centric approach, a multi-sectoral & multi-stakeholder approach is needed, to impact every human being to enrich their lives and inspire them to create a difference.
The said inspiration should come from inside of us, the humanitarian side of us, to benefit all of humanity.
I believe that usually, write-ups like such are too idealistic but this article very well throws light on the practicalities of disarmament. Good going, guys!
Love how diverse the themes are on this blog! Keep it up guys!