What do you mean by disarmament? Explain about types, need and hindrances in the way of disarmament.
Among the many ways, the most important way to prevent the War is disarmament. Palmer and Perkins state, “If armaments are conductive to war school, it doesn’t follow that disarmament is the road to peace.” In regard to approaches to peace, both armament and disarmament suggest ways to prevent the war.
Meaning of Disarmament
Disarmament literally means the reduction or climination of armament. The term ‘Disarmament’ is used in very general sense as such it connotes the idea of limitation, or control, or reduction or elimination of armaments. According to Mongenthau, “Disarmament is the reduction or elimination of certain or all armament for the purpose of ending the armament race.” Disarmaments has become such a wide world that any matter relating to the regulation of arınaments comes within its meaning.
Kinds of Disarmament
(1) General and Local Disarmament
In General, in disarmament all or most of the great powers participate. Examples are, the Washington Treaty of 1922 for the limitation of Naval Armaments, signed by all major naval powers, and the World Disarmament Conference of 1932. However, we refer of Local Disarmament when only a limited number of nations are involved. The Rush-Bagot Agreement of 1817 between the United States and Britain as an example of this type.
(2) Quantitative and Quantitative Disarmament
It aims at the reduction or abolition of only certain special types of armaments which the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations discussed.
(3) Total Disarmament
It aims at a complete elimination of armament. There would be no weapons any kind whatsoever.
(4) Disarmament and Arms Control
It is concerned with the reduction or elimination of armament, but this applies only to the control of existing weapons. Arms control is concerned with regulating the armaments race in the future. As such, disarmament is concerned, with the control of existing weapons and arms control with that of future weapons and arms control that of future weapons. It seeks to control armaments and arms control tries to check the armaments race.
Need for Disarmament
(1) The Prevention of War and the Establishment of Peace
According to Mongenthau, “One believes that, by doing away with one of the typical manifestations of the struggle for power on the international scene, one can do away with the typical effects of that struggle: international anarchy and war.” Many consider disarmament to be the most effective means of preventing war and guaranteeing peace. People commonly believe that unless disarmament occurs, war and destruction cannot be checked. The existence of armaments is the only direct cause of war according to the disarmament approach. They argue that armaments result in war and, therefore, one can check it only by disarmament.
The theory of disarmament proceeds on the assumption that by limiting armaments the nations would be deprived of the very means of fighting. When a nation increase its military strength, other nations develop feelings of fear and insecurity. This leads to belligerence on the part of other nations and they also seek to increase their military strength. Thus develops a war hysteria. Sometimes in anticipation of an attack a nation itself attacks and resorts to preventive war, but in fact such nation is acting in self-defence. Armaments make the national outlook aggressive and militaristic. While the armaments encourage conflict and war, it would be incorrect to argue that it is the sole cause of war. Complete disarmament would, however, lead to peace by climinating the very means to fight.
(2) Nuclear Threat
The threat of nuclear weapons and even a very remote possibility of a nuclear war have made the requirement of disarmament, a the more important. A nuclear war will lead to total destruction. Disarmament is suggested as the only way to same humanity from destruction.
(3 ) Economic
A very important argument in favour of disarmament is economic. The resources which are allocated for military purpose by the nations are a broad indication of what is denied to other avenues of public and private expenditure. If nations had not expanded their means for military purpose, they could obviously have put the resources so consumed to many other purposes. The military expenditures affect both the immediate consumption as well as future economic growth. The nations which are deprived of the mutual economic aid, could otherwise receive from one another.
(4) Social
The economic case for disarmament closely links with the social case. Military expenditures also have profound social consequences. Poverty, hunger, diseases, illiteracy, inadequate housing, and the need to raise the standard of living affect not only developing countries but also, to some extent, rich countries.
Military expenditure absorbs resources that governments could otherwise use to provide social services. The military expenditure for the world as a whole is about two and half times the estimated total of the publicity financed health expenditure. A rough calculation suggests that all medical research in the world consumes only about 4,000 million dollars as compared to some 25,000 million dollars spent on military research and development. Nuclear tests and explosions are having their polluting effects on the physical environment and thus bring environmental devastation.
(5) Political
Armaments cause international suspicious and fears and they poison relations in the political sphere. Political differences become sharpened by the fear and suspicion which causes the amassing of armaments generation. The amassing of armaments also increases the possibility that someone might resort to force as a means of dealing with international problems. It should be borne in mind that war is not an answer to any of man’s imminent problems. The spirit of militarism opposes the spirit of democracy and peaceful progress in the world.
(6) Psychological
A war condition has a strange psychological influence over the minds of the people. Everybody feels that he lives in a world in which violence has become commonplace and which contains sufficient lethal power to wipe out all of mankind. This awareness has helped to create a psychological background of uncertainly, fear and anxiety. Some western social psychologists have expressed the view that the arms race and horrors of war have developed a belief in the younger generation that world is a irrational place in which the improvement of society is a hopeless cause.
Hindrances in the Way of Disarmament
(1) The problem of disarmament is closely related to the problem of security. International tension and the mutual fear among the nations, develop in them a feeling of insecurity. So long as the nations do not assure themselves of their security, any efforts for disarmament would meet with failure. No guarantee can exist for nations in view of the nature of the present international society. In this condition, every nation must depend on its own power to ensure its security.
(2) Another hindrance in the way of disarmament is the fear and mutual distrust. As a result, every nations views with suspicion the disarmament proposals put forth by others. Every nation feels suspicious about the intentions of others nations that while it may effect a reduction in its armaments of others may not do so. This mistrust functions in two ways, hampers initial agreement, and might lead to a breakdown should a disarmament scheme operate. (2) Another hindrance in the way of disarmament is the fear and mutual distrust. As a result, every nations views with suspicion the disarmament proposals put forth by others. Every nation feels suspicious about the intentions of others nations that while it may effect a reduction in its armaments of others may not do so. This mistrust functions in two ways, hampers initial agreement, and might lead to a breakdown should a disarmament scheme operate.
(3) No nation expresses itself against disarmament as such, but it views any disarmament plan from the point to view of its national interest. During disarmament negotiations, some participants place conditions that are not acceptable to others. As a result, the disarmament conference fail. In fact, the nations lack the real desire for disarmament and that is why they put such conditions which may not be acceptable to others.
(4) The developments after the Second World War divided the world into
two blocks, and that gave birth to so called ‘cold and war.’ Every nation is concerned about its security because of unstable balance of power. Armaments are the result of certain psychological factors.
(5) In the realm of armaments the super powers have achieved the maximum limit. In other words, they have
gained such a potential capacity in armaments that it would not be worth-while to go further.
(6) One important hindrance in the way of disarmament is
with regard to the ratio among the armaments of different nations after a reduction in the armaments has been effected.
Every nation wants to be superior in armaments to others.
This questions is always the first on the agenda of disarmament conferences
and commission as to what
should be the ratio among the armaments
of different nations, and within the ratio different types and quantities of armaments are to be allocated to different nations.
Conclusion
Armaments are the result of many causes.
It is no problem in itself. Armaments are only a means of war.
War also is not an independent thing on itself, but only a part of political intercourse.
We have, therefore, to find
out the solution of the problem of armament not in disarmament itself but also in the political behaviour of nations.
If we can stop the possibilities of war,
there will be no need of armaments and, as such, the requirement of disarmament would not arise.
The world based on power politics is as it is
and we have only to face disarmament as system prevails, then armament has a utility.
So long as the force remain a decision
factor in international politics, the arms race among the nations is bound to continue.
We are unlikely to have armament places not a non-competitive basis unless we first demote force from its decisive role.
All the hindrances in the way of
disarmament directly lead to the realities of international politics and the present international system.
