UN Control and Disarmament Efforts: Lessons from Iraq and Iran (Term Paper Sample)

UN ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT EFFORT:
LESSONS FROM IRAQ AND IRAN
Table of Contents
 TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc437281289" Definition of arms control and disarmament  PAGEREF _Toc437281289 \h
3
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc437281290" Classifications of weapons: Conventional vs. Non-conventional  PAGEREF _Toc437281290 \h
4
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc437281291" The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty  PAGEREF _Toc437281291 \h
6
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc437281292" Functions of United Nations in Arms Control and Disarmament  PAGEREF _Toc437281292 \h
8
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc437281293" Role of United Nations in Arms Control and Disarmament  PAGEREF _Toc437281293 \h
9
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc437281294" Lessons from Iraq and Iran  PAGEREF _Toc437281294 \h
10
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc437281295" Conclusion  PAGEREF _Toc437281295 \h
13


Definition of arms control and disarmament
Wars, antagonism and instability are inflamed in a large part by the availability of weapons. Arms control and disarmament therefore seek to provide instruments and mechanism for controlling the vehicles of violence. Though sequentially interrelated, “arms control” and disarmament” bear different connotations. Disarmament stems from the logic that an absence of weapons also marks an absence in war. The desideratum of disarmament efforts is the abolition and ultimate elimination of armaments either through “unilateral or lateral agreements; controlled or uncontrolled efforts; general or local; comprehensive or partial measures.”
Arms control broadly encompasses all schemes aimed at inducing military cooperation between adversaries in the interest of stability and peace. Arms control aims to regulate the destructive potential of military weapons and troops in terms of quantity, location, virulence, range and transparency  in a bid to abate the prevalence of violent or accidental war; reduce arms expenditure and seek to divert military funds into more beneficial development programs. 
From a historical point of view, the mechanism of arms control can be broadly classified into six categories. The first strategy utilized in arms control is the limitation and reduction of weapons which places definitive restriction on the accumulation, possession and manufacturing of military apparatus. A second approach involves the demilitarization, denuclearization, and neutralization with the aim of blocking the deployment of defense forces, armaments and garrison in particular geo-spatial territories on land, water or airspace. The third approach is banning the use of specific arms considered to have inconceivable destructive capacities. 
Arms control and manufacture provides boundaries and embargoes on assembling, trading and transferring certain weapons. The laws of war on the other hand provide underlying guidelines and principles of war which provide distinctions between combats and non-combats or prohibit the use of WMD’s even in war. Stabilization of the international environment is a more diplomatic approach utilized in arms control to reduce tensions between parties that may escalate into a war by way of communication, cooperation and meaningful negotiations.
Classifications of weapons: Conventional vs. Non-conventional
The theory and practice of arms control and disarmament is deeply entrenched in the Cold war. At the time, fear of a nuclear holocaust and proliferation of nuclear weapons directed the main agenda of arms control and rightly so given their destructive mass casualty and annihilation capabilities. The danger posed by two clusters of weapons: non-conventional WMD and conventional weapons has come to occupy center stage in international politics.
WMD’s is a term used to describe lethal nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical warfare agents which are characterized by their latent abilities for super colossal and indiscriminate annihilation of both people and planet. 
The threat of nuclear weapons detonation or war is more deep seated given their highly horrific and unparalleled cataclysmic capacity. A full-blown nuclear onslaught could decimate billions of people in a matter of hours and inflict catastrophic environmental contamination that would leave the earth virtually inhabitable.
Biological weapons which make use of virulent pathogens, viruses or other infectious agents are characterized by their extremely intractable and contagious nature. Popularly known as the poor man nuclear arsenal, biological weapons can be easily produced, concealed and transported with minimal finances and expertise. Chemical weapons on the other hand are distinguished by their chemical properties and effects on the blood, nerve, blisters or choking effect. Unlike nuclear weapons, chemical warfare agents are easier and cheaper to mass produce and some are even commercially available. The Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 and Chemical Weapon Convention of 1997 outlaw the production, possession and transfer of these weapons by states.
Apart from this WMD, conventional weapons that are relatively in wide use and available in all corners of the globe continue to play a critical role in conflict and insecurity. Small arms, landmines, bombs, missiles, rocket shells and other cluster munitions continue to take a heavy toll on human life and undermine development. The Geneva Convention, Convention on Cluster Munitions, Mine Ban Treaty and Arms Trade treaty provide parameters for the acceptable use of conventional weapons.
The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty
The NPT, enforced in 1970 is the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. The treaty epitomizes the commitment and safeguards of the international community to impede further proliferation of nuclear arms beyond the five pronounced nuclear wielding states: United State, The Soviet Union, Britain, France and China. At the time it was established, it was projected that the number of countries wielding nuclear weapons would have surged to 20 within a decade. Forty-four years afterwards, only nine states have nuclear programs and some gave up their nuclear pursuits largely due to the NPT’s prohibitions.
The central bargain at the heart of the treaty was the non-proliferation/disarmament trade-off between the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and the Non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS).  The NNWS agreed to give up the nuclear ambitions-promising to never produce or acquire nuclear weapons and place all their nuclear facilities under international safeguards on condition that the NWS will provide access to peaceful nuclear technologies and work towards liquidating their nuclear stockpiles. The treaty also recognizes non-nuclear state right to peaceful uses of technology.
The NPT has undoubtedly made great strides since its inception. The treaty has achieved almost universal membership with 191 members from just 43 members; established nuclear nonproliferation as a global norm; forestalled nuclear wars; and in a large part minimized proliferation of nuclear weapons. In light of the disavowal from outlier state (Pakistan, India, Israel, South Sudan); Korea’s abrogation; NWS’s flouting of set guideline; clandestine nuclear activities by rogue NNWS members and the surge in dangerous non-state actors many have argued that the NPT is on the verge failure.
The bargain between the NWS and the NNWS is wearing thin and for good reason. NWS states unceasingly expanding their nuclear arsenals and seek to upgrade, modernize and develop new generation nuclear arms without any repercussion. Meanwhile the NNWS are chided and threatened with economic sanctions and military intervention if they attempt to build nuclear weapons. The NPT has therefore come to be viewed as a discriminatory instrument of subjugating NNWS due the double standards applied between the nuclear have and have not’s. 
It is ludicrous for NWS states to criticize states for pursuing nuclear weapons yet the NWS funds the management and advancement of a new generation of nuclear weapons. The overall objective of the NPT is to convince the whole world that nukes have no military utility; it is therefore counteractive to produce nuclear weapons with improved military capabilities.
Another loophole has presented itself in Article IV which allows for the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The line between nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry is blurred since the technology used is the same. To switch from peaceful to destructive use simply involves the process of enriching uranium. This loophole has been exploited by rogue states like Iran which maintains that its uranium enrichment program is consistent with article IV of the treaty. Furthermore the treaty fails to specify penalties for seceding or violating the treaty giving states like a Korea an option to circumvent the rules then leave the treaty once discovered. These grave loopholes coupled with procedural and structural challenges of the treaties enforcement body, threaten the legitimacy and viability of this forty five year old peace instrument that has so far provided a reasonable framework to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and safeguarded the world from the infamies of a nuclear attacks.
Functions of United Nations in Arms Control and Disarmament
Lewis and Thakur, assert that the UN’s mandate for arms control and disarmament has rested on three pillars: norm, treaties and coercion. Karnes and Mingst contend that the UN has been very successful in developing norms and negotiating treaties.  The taboo on the use of nuclear arm is one of the most firmly held and a salient norm that has over the course of the years been entrenched in both people and states to safeguard against the use of WMD’s.
Thakur and Lewis continue to narrowly describe the UN’s functions on ...