The Most Decisive Role of Hegemony in Nuclear Reversal;
The norms and beliefs of the actors of hegemonic states
By
Major in International Relations
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
SOGANG UNIVERSITY
December 2013
The Most Decisive Role of Hegemony in Nuclear Reversal;
The norms and beliefs of the actors of hegemonic states
By
Advisor:
A thesis submitted to the faculty of
Sogang Universityin fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of International Studies in
International Relations
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
SOGANG UNIVERSITY, SEOUL, KOREA
December2013
Table of Contents
Acronyms
Abstract
Chapter1. INTRODUCTION
- Background and Purpose of Research………………………………….1
- Research Question and Hypothesis……………………………………..3
- Theoretical Framework…………………………………..……………..6
- Research Design and Methodology…………………………………….13
- The most focused variables to be examined……………………………14
Chapter2. Characteristics of Nuclear Proliferation under US Hegemony
- The limitations of the international nuclear regime under hegemony…18
- Inconsistency of nuclear policy led by hegemony……………………..21
- US nuclear nonproliferation policy: Rollback………………………….24
Chapter 3. Analysis of the Rollback Cases
- Ukraine’s Nuclear Renunciation
1-1.The Political Context of Ukraine’s Nuclear Program………………28
1-2.The U.S. Influence on the Decision…………………………………30
1-2.1Nunn Rugar’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Program……...31
1-3.Significance of the Dialogue and Interaction with the Hegemonic Countries…………………………………………………………….34
1-3.1.Norms and beliefs about Denuclearization ……………………34
- Libya’s Nuclear Rollback
2-1.Changing political and security environment and Gaddafi’s perception of nuclear weapons……………………………………………… 36
2-2.The peculiar environment in decision making process……………39
2-3.The process of nuclear rollback under the Hegemonic control…. …40
- South Africa’s Nuclear Rollback……………………………………….
3-1.Political and security circumstances; the Initial Motivations of developing the Nuclear Weapons…………………………………42
3-2.Imposing sanctions controlled by the hegemonic power………… 45
3-3.The Role of Hegemony in Shaping the State Preferences………..46
Chapter4. Compare and contrast with each case
4-1. Imposing sanctions and gaining the compensation from the international society……………………………………………48
4-2. Domestic political situation……………………………………50
4-3. Individual’s role……………………………………………….52
Chapter5. The Most Decisive Indicators of leading to Nuclear Rollback by Hegemony
5-1. Changes of Security Environment led by Hegemony…………54
5-2. Hegemonic Power……………………………………………..55
5-3. Political leaders’ beliefs and norms and their vibrant roles……57
Chapter6. Conclusion……………………………………..59
Bibliography
Acronyms
CTR Cooperative Threat Reduction
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
NNWS Non Nuclear Weapon States
NWS Nuclear Weapon States
OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
UN United Nations
WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction
WWII World War Two
Abstracts
This dissertation has the aim of developing a logical framework that seizes the hegemonic and strategic nature peculiarity of the international politics, and analyzes how the hegemonic power affects the international security environment, which results from the decision making process by individual political leaders based on their own perceptions, ultimately leading to the nuclear reversal. Furthermore, this project largely puts weigh on the role of hegemony in the process of nuclear rollback, and concurrently keeps sight of the role of each actor in negotiating and arriving at a conclusion within the boundary of the hegemonic power.
That is this project also takes note of understanding a leader’s perception of hegemony and strategic interactions between actors within the hegemonic control. Still, the most significant core is that all this interactions and fulfillment of the process do not work out outside the hegemonic power, which means both of them build indispensable relations in the international affairs. Once the motivations driving nuclear rollback is understood, we may materialize the ultimate policy solutions that entice the current de facto nuclear weapon states to reverse nuclear arms, especially the rogue states stigmatized by the community of nations. Sure enough, analyzing the previous case studies of nuclear rollback, such as Ukraine, South Africa and Libya, should antecede drawing a conclusion of the most decisive role of nuclear reversal.
1
Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
- Background and Purpose of Research
There have been lots of arguments over whether or not spread of nuclear weapons will guarantee more stability to the interstate relations. Waltz insists that the gradual spread of nuclear weapons is better than either no spread or rapid spread.[1] Also, Roger Cohen, the columnist of International Herald Tribune, said that a world without nuclear weapons sounds tempting, but of course that was the world that brought us World War I and World War II.[2]
He also criticized for Obama’s speech toward the denuclearized world for the next generation in Prague and regarded his speech as just a utopian idealism supporting the justification of nuclear proliferation because Roger thinks that the most dangerous aspect of the 21st-century world is the potential ability of smaller and smaller groups like non states actors to do greater and greater harm such as 9.11 terror[3]. Certainly, in some respects, the horizontal proliferation of the nuclear weapon might make the possibility of outbreak of war much lower like the case of India and Pakistan, both of which maintain stability and balance of power after the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
However, from my perspective, uncontrolled nuclear proliferation will not make the interstate relations stable and peaceful as the proponents of nuclear nonproliferation expect because uncontrolled nuclear proliferation will incite a deliberate or accidental outbreak of the war in the states, which do not have enough capability of managing nuclearweapons, and will make the interrelated world economy collapsed in case of nuclear bombing or accident, causing lots of unprecedented disruptions to the international community.
Since the NPT(Nonproliferation Treaty) regime became valid in 1969, the international society has tried to make the denuclearized world keeping preventing other countries from going nuclear except for legitimately NWSs (Nuclear Weapons States) like the Unite States, the former USSR, the UK, France and China under the NPT regime.
Not a few eminent persons from various fields including Henry Kissinger and Barak Obama agree to achieve nuclear disarmament of the world. At the wake of the nuclear age the major concern shared by leaders, scientists, and scholars alike was the possibility of spreading nuclear weapons through the world.[4]Nuclear disarmament is an avoidable assignment of 21centurybecause we witness the miserable consequences of the most recent tsunami of Japan needless to say the case of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl.
Still, despite the big pressure and sanctions imposed from the international society, the countries like North Korea has stick to the very stubborn position to go nuclear. But we have successful examples of the countries of nuclear rollback like Libya, Ukraine and the Republic of South Africa. What certain factors contributed to those countries’ rejecting nuclear weapons and deciding to be absorbed in the international community?
- Research Question & Hypothesis
There will be many reasons for the nations to feel attracted to developing nuclearweapons. Some countries might develop nuclear weapons to pursue the national security and protect them from the potential threat. For other cases like North Korea, nuclear arms are not all-ends itself but weapons of the last resort, so they want to use the nuclear weapon as tools for negotiating with the hegemonic countries like the US when the national existence is in jeopardy.
Even if there are still some countries which stick to the position of never giving up nuclear weapons, the successful examples of the nuclear rollback exist such as Libya, Ukraine and the Republic of South Africa. It is possible that there can be various reasons for these countries to abandon nuclear weapons, but obviously it is sure that there is a leading variable which plays a large role in nuclear rollback. Even though the reasons why these countries abandoned nuclear arms are all different, analyzing the causes of the success in persuading them to reject nuclear weapons is important because establishing the certain factors contributing to nuclear rollback will give an answer to persuading the existing country, like North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons and preventing the future possibility of increasing the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons.
The aim of this study is to answer the question: What induced minor countries like Libya, Ukraine and the Republic of South Africa to give up nuclear weapons? The rationale of this study is that the first level of analysis, and so the individual leaders’ perception of nuclear weapons of hegemonic countries influenced nuclear rollback most significantly; changing shared international norms and beliefs about nukes and keeping interaction between leaders are important.
Hypothesis
As the world is getting more globalized, the international norms and the beliefs tend to become a tacit consent which must be observed by the international society. The high degree of the economic interdependency makes the countries possessing nuclear weapons vulnerable to the economic sanctions and the diplomatic isolation from the international society can be a threat to them. In the era of NPT, which was adopted in 1968 and became valid in 1970, there are reasons to expect the remarkable pressure on a future nuclear proliferator from the international society.
Imposing the economic sanctions, boycotts, the international criticism and the diplomatic isolation are allowed legitimately and the states to acquire nuclear weapon also run the risk of military intervention and preemptive attacks by neighbors or by the international community. Until now, this kind of sanctions of the international society seems somewhat effective, but it does not seem to be perfect to prevent minor nuclear powers like North Korea from developing nukes.
The hypothesis of my study is that the role, especially the role of hegemonic states, of the interaction and effort to intersubjectively understand the social life is the most decisive role in persuading the countries to abandon nuclear weapons. In the process of interaction, especially each individual involved in negotiation played the most significant role in nuclear rollback.
To sum up, the rationale of this study is that a certain individual’s vibrant roles of hegemonic countries, and their norms and beliefs influenced a lot whether or not nuclear rollback process will be successful in the end. I assume that the role of the individuals bearing certain beliefs, identities and interests and interactions between them is critical to being successful in negotiations of nuclear rollback, which means strong willingness of nuclear rollback and perception of danger of nukes are most significant. This study will be useful to increase our understanding of nuclear rollback and contribute to coming up with the ultimate solutions, and so the result of this study will be a useful tool to anticipate how future scenario of what is called rogue states’nuclear rollback will be in the future.
- Theoretical Framework
Neo-Realism
It is essential to reveal the basic assumptions of Neo-Realism, or Structural-Realism as a theory of International Relations to understand the broad implications of the acquisition of nuclear weapons in the international system. [5] Under the competition for national security in the international community, most of the states have no alternatives but to be involved in arms race and compete for national security since all of the states’ most apprehensive concern is their survival.
Neo-realists argue that all the factors driving the motivations for going nuclear during the Cold War still exist in the post-Cold War. Given the anarchic nature of international relations, the diffusion of power and technology and the weakening or ending of the Cold War security alliances would produce a multipolar international system in which states such as German and Japan would have strong incentives to go nuclear.[6]Some scholars imply similar arguments applying to different countries; Stephen Van Evera has insisted that Germany intends to acquire nuclear weapons to deter Russia[7]; Peter Lavoy anticipated that future wars between India and Pakistan will be prevented because of the possession of nuclear weapon.[8]
This kind of argument focuses on the effect of nuclear deterrence, and the acquisition of the nuclear weapons will guarantee the mutual security under the context of the bi-polar system. If so, horizontal nuclear proliferation under multipolar international system will guarantee each state’s national security and solve security dilemma, declining the competition of arms races? According to Kenneth Waltz theory, it is unlikely that the war between the NWS occur on account of the fact that mutual destruction is virtually assured once more than one country has the acquisition of a second strike nuclearcapability.[9]
During the Cold War, the US and the U.S.S.R maintained the balance of power with the nuclear weapons, and recognizing each other as hegemony was helpful to deter the any incidental war between the two states. I partially agree with the Waltz’ ideas, and from my perspective it is inevitable for hegemonic countries to persist in acquiring the nuclear arsenals even if it is important they keep trying to decrease the amount of the nuclear weapons mutually.
On the other hand, there are people who are concerned about nuclear proliferation. According to Scott D. Sagan’s argument, it is unavoidable that professional military organizations reveal organizational behaviors that lead to deterrence failures and deliberate or accidental war.[10]He insists that if more and more states go nuclear, it would be possible that small conflicts between states, which could be solved in negotiation through international communities’ mediating,easily lead to nuclear wars or bombing, and some cases of an accidental nuclear bombing will occur again by mistake or because of careless maintenance of nuclear power such as Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accident.
I think there comes to arouse a certain norm after the World War II, which is nuclear bombing caused many innocent victims, and thus solving some conflicts with the nuclear weapons should be carefully speculated. Additionally, after the Cold War, a few cases of nuclear rollback imply that the changes in political leaders’ perception of the fatality of nuclear weapons as well as the efforts of nuclear reversal led by hegemonic states can make it possible to persuade the countries possessing nuclear weapons to reverse their nuclear arsenal. If so, what made this nuclear rollback possible? And who played a critical role in accomplishing the eventual nuclear rollback? From my standpoint, a few rollback cases cannot be fully explained just with the Neo-Realism.
Constructivism
Constructivism speculates that identities and interests of nations can be endogenously determined, which means that they can change their views about national threat and security through the process of interaction. Constructivistic approach partially accepts some degree of realists’ focus on power and the structural relevance of the international state system, but put more emphasis on the assumption that a holistic analysis must take into account the influence of ideology and social relations through state interactions. [11] Constructivism focuses on the impact of the beliefs and norms shared by the actors. It argues that the social contexts and shared values and norms are constructed by actors, and as a result of this these contexts actor’s identity and behavior in addition to actions and interactions.[12]
Moreover, during the decision making process, when each state is involved in the negotiation and cooperation, political leaders’ identity and shared norms and beliefs are significant in interactions and determining interests. After the nuclear bombing after the WWII, political leaders implicitly agree with the dangers of nuclear weapons. Accordingly, as UN members approved resolutions and conventions prohibiting the development, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons, they established a universal norm.[13]
At this point, I want to add some additional critical variable to the fact that shared norms and beliefs plays a huge role in constructing the interactions and identity. That is the very role of certain hegemonic roles, and thus I argue that the political leaders of hegemonic states hugely influence the acquisitionor the abandonment of the nuclear weapons. According to Zoe I. Levornik, there are five groups, or what he calls, entrepreneurs that supported the non proliferation norm. The first group is comprised of the original four nuclear powers: the USA and the USSR, which are two hegemonic super powers after WWII, and two major powers – Britain and France. [14] In this dissertation, the role of those countries, especially, the US and the former Soviet Union, as hegemonic countries, will be focused, and I will look closely into their critical roles in persuading the small and weak nations to rollback nuclear weapons.
In the next second group, most of the states are in Western Europe such as Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Switzerland as well as Australia, Japan and Canada; actually they work for promoting and spreading agenda criticizing nuclear proliferation.[15] And there are UN, the IAEA (1957), and the OSCE (1975), the international organizations; all of them are non state actors. [16]