Since the United States retaliated against the Japanese Pearl Harbour incident during the Second War, by dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki an atomic bomb called, “Little John”, some states started to develop their atomic and nuclear research. This has remained a costly and very dangerous states pursuit.
From 1965-1988, an appreciable degree of nuclear proliferation was in existence amongst developed states. Medium power states entered the nuclear race, citing as their reasons, the eagerness to use nuclear research for electricity. Super-powers did not quite like this development.
Super powers understood the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons, which might be possessed by those states that would not have the resources to maintain their nuclear resources.
Also, radical leadership could resort to these weapons, in circumstances, of reckless action. This is a genuine reason. There exist leaders, who combine Calvinist thought with evangelical fervor and are outstanding representatives of the literary Left and austere Right.
C.F Powell and his team studied the particles of cosmic radiation. There is formidable information in the realm of atomic nucleus, nuclear fission, nuclear forces, nuclear induction, nuclear magnetism, nuclear photo-effect, nuclear power, all belonging to studies in nuclear physics. We are not qualified to go into this intricate field of studies, because we are not initiates.
Our interest is to examine the geo-political effects of nuclear science and how states are now at loggerheads and at daggers-drawn, as a result of their nuclear arsenals.
Worries about possible danger to mankind is what could happen if in Pakistan, nuclear weapons get into the hands of the opposition. The Government of Iran has declared that its nuclear research is geared towards peaceful, electricity generation. The US and Israel do not seem to be convinced. They point to some worrisome developments.
With the loss of the restraining hands of Mubarak of Egypt and the consequences of the Arab Spring, which has opened the vistas of uncertainty in the Middle East, it is important to engage in active regimes of frank declarations, verifications and assurances to tighten the possibility of doubt that could result in severe consequences if nuclear diplomacy fails.
The UN should summon a World Conference on “Nuclear Threat to the International Community.” There should be a declaration that all states should not use resort to nuclear weapons or the threat of the use of nuclear weapons or the production of nuclear weapons as instruments of national policy. That all states should provide detailed information on the status of their nuclear arsenal as a way to assuage the fears of all members of the United Nations.
This information should be made available to the Chairman of the UN Security Council and should not be made public, for a period of time, except there is a threat to international security.
There is need to review all arms control agreements. Josef Goldblat, in 1982, published a critical survey on “Arms Control”. It has become a classic on the subject. He wrote that since “the United Nations declaration proclaiming the 1980’s as the Second Disarmament Decade, the UN stressed the need to mobilize world opinion on behalf of peace and disarmament”
In that document, the United Nations advocated the renunciation of war, as an instrument of national policy, thereby reaffirming the cardinal principles in the Brian/Kellogg treaty of 1928. The UN attempted to regulate armaments, armed forces, and defence expenditures
Also, it considered matters concerning chemical, incendiary and bacteriological warfare as well as arms trade and manufacture. The Organization took pains at verification and sanctions. It later set up the International Atomic Agency for the purpose.
The Baruch Plan and the subsequent Soviet rejection of the Plan set a stage for active discussions on nuclear disarmament. The long history of disarmament records man’s ingenuity to save our planet.
As of now, mankind is at risk and the UN should not hesitate to nip in the bud, a disaster waiting to happen. There is wide-spread discontent in many states and threats of the use of force and hard talk. This is time for preventive diplomacy and not pre-emptive action.
From 1963-1980, disarmament talks were a feature of international diplomacy. However, after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, a unipolar world emerged. A radical change in diplomatic style became prevalent.
Power politics, hard attitudes and a penchant for war-games became the new world order. Disrespect for international law and the norms of jus cogens were rife.
Both local and international wars raged. Peaceful relations amongst states were replaced by belligerency. States later sponsored rebellion against other states and anarchy has reigned in the Middle East and North Africa. Protests broke out in European and American states. Right now, the whole world is in turmoil.
A bi-polar world emerged with China, Russia, South Africa, Brazil and India forging strong economic links. There seems to have been an unannounced overthrow of the world financial system and replacement is yet to be put in place.
In forming an alliance for progress, the BRICS states have embarked on economic diplomacy. Peaceful co-existence and peaceful co-operation must be the dominant ethos in international diplomacy.. With the BRICS states,, war-mongering has lost its ancient appeal. They no longer engage in antiquated rivalries in pursuit of narrow interests.
The current European, financial, seismic wave engulfing Greece, Italy, Spain, France and the student revolt in Britain, paint a dismal picture of latent instability and chaos. There is infernal degradation of life-style, leading to suicides in Greece and elsewhere.
With little availability of funds to maintain their nuclear outfits, some of which are in advanced state of deterioration, and in defiance of the increase in adverse climatic and natural forces that may cause the type of JAPAN’S NUCLEAR CRISIS, STATES WITH NUCLEAR ARSENALS MAY WISH TO DISPOSE OF THEIR WEAPONS OF DEATH
Deceived by unforeseen forces and having been let into the secrets of the atomic and nuclei forces, the “developed nations” are at a loss as to what to do with the palette knife of nuclear energy.
Nigeria once toyed with idea of acquiring nuclear energy. We do not have the resources to venture into that field. We do not have all it takes to maintain nuclear capability.
During the Libyan intervention by advanced states, Nigeria supported their geo-politics. Then, we recognized the Palestinian UN bid. The diplomacy of hunting with the hounds and running with the hare, is hard to reconcile. The diplomacy run by grinning from ear to ear, with a bovine stare and hanging lips ,signifies naiveté.
African diplomacy is often under severe influence, threats and inducements, which leave its practitioner in confusion. African diplomats rarely contribute meaningfully to debates on nuclear disarmament and allied subjects.
Diplomacy of peaceful co-existence will restore the cordiality and the comitias gentium that once reigned among states, in their bilateral and multilateral diplomatic relations.