Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

The advocacy of global peace alongside the pursuit of military superiority through advanced weapons highlights a paradox that challenges the ethical and moral principles of international relations.

• This contradiction undermines trust between nations, escalates arms races, and contradicts the essence of peacebuilding.
• Resolving this requires a multi-dimensional approach rooted in ethics, diplomacy, and disarmament initiatives.

Body

Ethical Contradiction and Factors Contributing to the Contradiction:

• Ethical Contradiction
  • Advocacy of Peace vs. Actions of Dominance: Nations promoting peace while investing in weapons implicitly signal mistrust and deterrence.
    • Example: The USA's efforts in nuclear disarmament dialogues contrast with its substantial investment in hypersonic weapons.
  • Erosion of Moral Authority: Such nations lose credibility in leading global peace efforts.
    • Example: China's participation in peace talks juxtaposed with its military buildup in the South China Sea.
• Factors Contributing to the Contradiction
  • Perceived Security Dilemmas: Nations justify military superiority as necessary for self-defense.
    • Example: India’s development of the Agni-V missile system is seen as a response to China’s military advancements.
  • Technological Advancement and Power Projection: Advanced weapons serve geopolitical strategies beyond defense.
    • Example: Russia’s hypersonic missile programs aim to assert dominance despite advocating for peace in international forums.

Challenges in Resolving the Paradox

• Geopolitical Rivalries: Persistent distrust between major powers like the USA and China undermines disarmament efforts.
• Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms: Weak international laws fail to hold nations accountable for arms buildup. (Russia revoked its ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty )
• Economic Dependencies: Defense industries contribute significantly to national economies including US and France , making disarmament politically challenging.

Steps to Resolve the Paradox:

• Promoting Trust through Transparency
  • Arms Control Agreements: Strengthen and expand existing treaties like START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).
  • Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs): Increase Share information on defense budgets, troop movements, and weapon development.
    • Example: India's annual sharing of nuclear installation data with Pakistan.
• Investing in Multilateral Disarmament Frameworks
  • Strengthen international bodies like the UN Conference on Disarmament to ensure enforceable commitments.
  • Encourage adherence to existing frameworks such as the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
• Shifting Focus to Defensive Technologies
  • Research on defensive systems (e.g., missile shields) instead of offensive capabilities can reduce fears of aggression.
    • Example: Israel’s Iron Dome serves a primarily defensive purpose while supporting peace rhetoric.
• Public Accountability and Civil Society Participation: Greater involvement of civil society in advocating for peaceful resolutions and holding governments accountable for arms races.
  • Example: Nobel Peace Prize 2017-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) campaigns for nuclear disarmament.

Conclusion

Resolving the paradox of advocating global peace while maintaining military superiority requires a paradigm shift in international relations. Nations must align their actions with their peace rhetoric by promoting transparency, adhering to disarmament frameworks, and fostering ethical leadership. Only through sustained efforts can global peace be achieved without the shadow of militaristic dominance.