Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesA multipolar world now exists, but it took 20 years after the end of the Cold War for the concept of multipolarity to develop. In 1989, then US President George H.W. Bush spoke about a promising "new global order" and US political economist Francis Fukuyama predicted the "End of History," both referring to the triumph of the capitalist market-economy system and US hegemony. Indeed, the era of two superpowers--a landscape composed of the Soviet Union and the United States, with a Third World of non-aligned countries--came to a close, and the fall of the Berlin Wall resulted in only one superpower, the United States.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Following the end of the Cold War, the United States lost considerable respect for the United Nations, damaging the efficiency and credibility of the international institution. While US President George H.W. Bush believed that it was still important to receive support from the UN Security Council in order to liberate Kuwait, his son US President George W. Bush deliberately circumvented international approval, employed US Secretary of State Colin Powell to convince the UN of inevitable military action, and only later apologized for the misinformation. Furthermore, the position of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was undermined by mishandled Iraqi "Oil for Food" accusations and other high profile scandals. In this way, US hegemony did not bring the world--or even the United States itself--peace and prosperity.
Despite these facts, it is simply not fair to blame the United States for all global problems. The United States is often implicated in talks about terrorism and the related divide between the Muslim and non-Muslim world, about the challenge of climate change, about the Middle East and Afghanistan, about the failure of the 2005 Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review conference, and about many other transnational failures. But in the midst of the current economic crisis, US President Obama's acknowledgement of a new multipolar order represents progress. When discussing the interconnected economies of the world, Obama has voiced his wish to find multilateral solutions to global problems, therefore giving credence and substance to the idea of a multipolar world. This is an admirable goal, but a multipolar world cannot be created with mere attitude or political paradigm: it requires practice. World leaders therefore must understand that, if multipolarity is to flourish, multilateral solutions must always be considered when addressing concrete transnational issues and challenges.
Multipolarity and the Nuclear Challenge
When referencing multipolarity, one usually speaks about the Bretton Woods system, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank--international institutions that serve a global economy that is becoming ever more integrated. However, the multipolar approach to challenges extends far beyond the economic issues, with far-reaching applications to security and war concerns. One such transnational issue is the nuclear challenge: halting the spread of nuclear weapons while encouraging the use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
In April 2009, Obama embarked on his promise to work on "reducing and ultimately banning nuclear weapons" in conformity with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He began by meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in London, and he made non-proliferation his main theme in a speech given later that month in Prague. The Nuclear Security Project initiated by Schulz, Perry, Kissinger, and Nunn is now joining forces with real politics. "Have beens" in other countries have gone on record as well. While it is time for multilateral action on nuclear non-proliferation, recent efforts have been problematic. First, there havenot yet been much effective preparation for the upcoming NPT Conference in 2010, exacerbated by strained US-Russian relations. Furthermore, a truly multilateral solutions would require revisiting NATO's role in Europe, particularly in the context of tactical (non-strategic) nuclear weapons.
An Updated Nuclear Strategy
I have written earlier on supranational solutions to the nuclear challenge, but there are many ways to update our strategy of addressing nuclear concerns. First, the time has come for the European Union, and especially for EU Council Secretary-General Javier Solana, to suggest that NATO end nuclear weapons presence in European countries that are deemed "not-nuclear weapons states." While knowledge of nuclear weapons in Europe has spread, the systems are still technically secret, and this secrecy deters democratic debate. Therefore, the present situation needs to end; however, the governments of European NATO allies consider it impolite to address this concern with the United States, to whom they have been indebted in the past. Similarly, the United States considers it inappropriate to bring up the nuclear issue in conversation with Europe, which has led to further inaction. Solana, as the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, could introduce the topic with impunity, and he should take action. For while the removal of nuclear weapons is of little substantive significance, it would be great political symbolism, understood to signify that the EU supports the Obama-Medvedev partnership and its goals.
This symbolic step would facilitate progress to a global nuclear order based on the NPT in three key areas. First, Obama would be free to make a new start by ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and promoting a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in weapons (the "Cut-Off Treaty"). Second, there would be further progress within the regional nuclear free zones. Already, Asia has successfully passed the Central Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, in a milestone treaty that entered into force in March 2009. Now it is time to support South Africa in its endeavour to promote Africa's initiative for a Nuclear Arms Free Africa. To this end, the permanent Security Council (P5) countries, and in particular the United States and Russia, should agree to Africa's terms that other countries will never intervene in Africa using nuclear arms. Pending US and Russian approval, Egypt may also become a partner in this movement. With Africa paving the way, the Middle East would hopefully develop an initiative for a nuclear arms free zone. Although this is a long-term objective, there must be a step-by-step process designed to encourage the Middle East along this path.
The first step could be taken at the NPT Review Conference and the next steps after 2010. The third point, then, is a successful NPT Review Conference, which can be achieved with the renewed Obama-Medvedev agenda and progress in nuclear arms free zones. Someone must take responsibility for reviewing and updating the 13 points from 1995 in a way that will garner consensus. The review must begin long before the actual review conference. However, in order to have a truly successful 2010 NPT Review Conference, one has to address President Obama's remarks in Prague: Together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation." A credible and impressive move would be for the P5 to display themselves as humble in this endeavour: if they invite Brazil, South Africa, Japan, India, and the European Union to join the negotiations (a council often), then the cooperation will ensure a reinforced global nuclear order.
A Council of Ten
The upcoming NPT Review Conference must be inclusive in its negotiations. It would be both symbolic and practical to salute Brazil, South Africa, and Japan as countries which had and have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons but nevertheless constrained themselves not to do so. Of course, the history of these three is rather different. Brazil partnered with Argentina and still maintains that relationship; the two together were the potential "haves" in South America and are now key players in a nuclear-free continent. Therefore, while participating in the conference, Brazil would reflect on the efforts of its region. South Africa inherited its nuclear capacity from the apartheid regime, but the new South African government deliberately chose to join the NPT and took the lead in realizing a nuclear arms free Africa.
Japan, in line with Germany, refrained from nuclear arms and continued its tradition to count on the United States as its ally instead. From the classifications of "have-nots," Japan has probably most matured its "Atoms for Peace" program. The Japanese have a keen interest in a global nuclear order that encompasses the climate change dimension. India never violated the NPT--it just stayed out. But now time might have come for India also to accept the NPT principles as "a have," reducing and ultimately banning nuclear arms as per Indian Prime Minister Radjiv Gandhi's 1998 promise in front of the UN General Assembly.
Finally, the European Union could be a key partner in bringing to the table a supranational concept and practice by which states decide not to be owners of fissile materials for "Atoms for Peace." Instead, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or an alternative would serve as a more neutral owner.
Indeed, the council of ten countries and regions could function to move beyond the stalemate and be crucial in realizing a global nuclear order through the combined efforts of the P5 and the non nuclear weapons states. A more prominent role has to be given to regional approaches, as countries are understandably concerned about their regional security interests. It is obvious that after Latin America, Central Asia, and Africa, other regions of the world--the Middle East, South East Asia, and North Asia (i.e. Japan and the two Koreas, as Mongolia is already nuclear arms free)--will take considerable time to build regional nuclear free zones, but a plan would bolster the confidence of all countries taking part in this global solution to the problem.
FEED