Over the past few decades, nuclear proliferation has become a major threat to global peace and security. These threats can be seen in instances of the transfer of nu

Over the past few decades, nuclear proliferation has become a major threat to global peace and security. These threats can be seen in instances of the transfer of nuclear technology through illicit networks, weapons testing, confrontational military buildup, and non-compliance with the international safeguards and treaties. While the non-proliferation regime has strengthened over time, the looming threat of nuclear warfare has persisted. The constant military buildup in the Northeast Asian region and the seemingly never-ending Russia-Ukraine war are some conflicts which have recently emerged as points of contention that could potentially lead to nuclear annihilation. 

While the need for nuclear disarmament has been recognised and heavily stressed upon, the rationale behind armament has been largely overlooked. The popular perception around disarmament has restricted the discourse to mere criticism of the aggressive posturing while completely ignoring and even disregarding the rationale behind the armament, the raison d'etre of nuclear weapons. However, it is through a comprehensive understanding of this rationale that irreversible disarmament can become a reality. 

States hold certain conscious and unconscious estimations regarding their security needs. These estimations can be influenced by a country’s historical background, geographical location, its aspirations or the ambitions of nations around it. Such estimations are known as threat perceptions. Threat perceptions represent the rationale behind a state’s actions in the international realm. Diplomatic advances, skirmishes, conflicts and alliances are heavily influenced by these threat perceptions.

For instance, India's decision to develop its nuclear programme via the Pokhran II tests in 1994 was rooted in its security assessments. As stated by the then Foreign minister Jaswant Singh in his influential article titled 'Against Nuclear Apartheid', India's decision was influenced by the failure of the non proliferation regime in dealing with the issue of nuclear proliferation and the discriminatory nature of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Similarly, China's decision to acquire nuclear weapons in 1964 was heavily influenced by the security dillema stemming from the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union. North Korea's nuclear proliferation programme, too, has its raison d'etre in the devastation it suffered in the Korean War and the sanctions and existential threats that it has faced in the years since. In recent times, Iran's decision to go nuclear, if it materialises, will result from the threat of Israeli armament and the failure of the non proliferation regime in addressing Iran's concerns via an agreement on the stalled Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

As these threat perceptions greatly affect the actions of the states, they can be effectively used to discern the motives behind those actions. Once the motives behind armament can be ascertained, their addressal can pave the way for achieving disarmament. Such an assessment can then be used to formulate roadmaps to reach the various stages of disarmament. 

However, a major roadblock in assessing threat perceptions is the accuracy of the assessments reached. If the assessments do not coincide with the threat perceptions a state holds, the policy formulations can backfire leading to a stalemate. Hence, it is important to make sure that the policy assessments coincide with realistic assessments of the states. To ensure this, it is important to engage with the concerned nations. 

While engagement becomes a necessity, it is hard to achieve given the dearth of trust conflicting states hold for each other. Even when diplomatic relations are pursued in such a situation, they often lack trust and cooperation, resulting in breakdowns in the long run. Hence, a measure which can be implemented to escape the prospects of a stalemate is channeling diplomatic relations by exploring alternative channels of diplomacy. Alternate channels of diplomacy involves pursuing engagement while not addressing disarmament as a task which needs to be immediately achieved. These channels may include engagement in the realms of culture, environment, technology, economy and people-to-people contacts. Alternate channels of diplomacy can help in reducing the lack of trust between the states as they focus on meaningful engagement aimed at improving relations in the long run. Such improvement can contribute towards laying the bedrock for better and more concrete dialogue. After ensuring a new found trust, the states can pursue their issues of concern. The difference being, that even if the talks break down, it is plausible that the states will find their way back to the negotiations table given the trust and cooperation achieved through the confidence building measures. 

Understanding Threat Perceptions: Key to Nuclear Disarmament

3 Comments