The global nuclear justice quest has been culminated by adopting a new regime that intends to dilute the Westphalian Exceptionalism and tries to establish the Universal Constitutionalism based on UN Charter’s goal of violence free world enunciated in its preamble. But its plausibility and pragmatism would be tested in the years ahead.
The United Nations has voted to approve the text of a proposed draft for an international treaty on the Banning and Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons on July 07, 2017. The Draft Treaty is called Nuclear Ban Treaty (NBT) that shall formally be opened for signature in September 2017, and shall be binding as an international legal instrument provided it receives 50th country’s instrument of ratification that is duly deposited with the UN Secretary-General within 90 days of its opening as per the provisions of the impugned treaty. Unbelievably, the ensuing ratification of the treaty has consumed 73 years since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan to arrive at an international understanding for the nuclear arms free world. Under the auspices of the UN, the international community has made the use or threat of nuclear weapons prohibited unconditionally under Article 1 (e) of the framework of the multilateral treaty. Remarkably, state parties to the treaty have to bear the core and absolute obligation enunciated under Article 1 (a) of the Draft Treaty that is “prohibition of any possession, deployment, testing, transfer, storage and production” of the nuclear weapons and any connection whatsoever therewith or thereto or otherwise. The NBT is an unprecedented step beyond the rubrics of prohibition that must be interpreted by dismantling the geopolitical Doctrine of Nuclearism (DoN), and its proliferation and retention must not be content as an absolute necessity by the few international geopolitical entities.
The positive resurgence of NBT has recalibrated an international impetuosity to untangle the murky clouds of geostrategic justifications of nuclear status quo which have rubbished the DoN and anti-nuclear perceptions of the many national governments. However, past assertions regarding the nuclear disarmament lack convictions of the nuclear states of US, UK, China, France, and Russia along with India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan led by the United States. The nuclear states have been making massive investments in developing, modernizing, and stockpiling their nuclear arsenals. The Pakistan and North-Korea keep on irresponsibly and aggressively asserting their nuclear capabilities for indulging in war-mongering, creating hostilities and hiding misdeeds in their respective regions. Therefore, it must be admitted that a disastrous drawback has been looming large that might derail the newly established NBT architecture. But international community consisting of more than 122 countries has lent credibility and weight to this process and has alluded to an obligation to eliminate all nuclear weapons for all practical reasons. But, unfortunately, all the nuclear states have refused to register their reservations and opposition to the NBT process and to participate in the Conference for Negotiation. Moreover, most of the allies of the nuclear states who are the part of NATO stayed away from the NBT Process. Had these nine nuclear powers abondoned their nuclear racism and participated in the negotiations, the NBT process would have got a greater amount of legitimacy, credibility, and stability in accomplishing global nuclear justice.
International Fragmented Responses
Ironically, many countries in the past such as China, India, and Sweden who vehemently advocated and spearheaded against the DoN and nuclear proliferation were not only opposed the nuclear prohibition but also conspicuous by their absence at the NBT negotiations. Therefore, such an opposition that reminds us of Shakespeare’s Tragedy “Macbeth” wherein Lady Macbeth flagrantly motivates Macbeth by saying “Look like an innocent flower but be the serpent under it” (It means to look like an innocent flower, but be like the snake that hides underneath the flower) and this is what these five permanent members of the UN Security with Germany and Japan have done to the UN sponsored venture to delegitimize the existing Nuclearism in the world. Further, the trinity of veto-wielded powers the US, UK, and France got furious with the whole NBT exercise and issued a joint statement lambasting the new treaty and asserted that they would not sign, ratify or ever become party to it and there will be no change in the legal obligations on these countries with respect to the nuclear weapons contrary to the existing nuclear world order. The present five permanent nukes-armed countries contended that global security balance is based on the current nuclear power structure bolstered by the Non-proliferation Treaty, 1998 (NPT) and any divagation therefrom might cause hara-kiri of sorts. Thus, NPT regime has claimed to have successfully maintained the nuclear deterrence and peace for over 70 years in Europe and North Asia.
It is, indeed, a hollow claim of the maintenance of peace and security for the last, so the low-intensity warfare has dominated many years as this period almost in all the regions of the world including US and Russian Federation who have the biggest nuclear arsenals of the time. However, the Cod-War nuclear rivalry of the US and ex-USSR (now Russia) swelled to other regions and countries of the world that pandered to substantial travails and tribulations for the Global South populations. Therefore, the claim of peace or no-war situation cannot be justified by nuclear deterrence narrative as the present order has been accumulated at the expense of the Afro-Asian societies. Hence, the NBT regime is also juxtaposed with a Westphalian model of state-centrism under which a Global Legality Framework (GLF) has been followed in inking the NBT under the auspices of UN architecture. The NBT adherence by the state parties and national governments has been meticulously formulated so that their obligations and commitments could be executed after duly depositing the instrument of ratifications. But in the case of suspected or alleged non-compliance of the NBT, it does not offer any guidance whatsoever despite the fact Article 4 of the NBT details as to how the nuclear states must divest themselves of all connections with nuclear arsenals limit claims; therefore, it needs further elaboration and clarification.
Past Denuclearization Drives
The history of the fragmented response of the international community (read nuke-states) embedded in the use of atomic weapons in the WW-II that had incepted the methodology of the warfare in the future. At San Francisco in the US on June 26, 1945, United Nations Charter was signed that contained adequate provisions for peace, tranquility, and stability throughout the world. But on July 16, 1945, the US detonated the world’s first nuclear explosive at the Trinity test site adjacent to Alamogordo-New Mexico in circumvention of the UN spirit and ethos. Therefore, UN Disarmament Commission was established on January 11, 1952, having dissolved the UN Energy Commission. But, the UK also tested its first atomic bomb called Hurricane at Monte Bello Islands in Australia on October 03, 1952. However, US President Eisenhower proposed a new vision termed as “Atoms for Peace” (AoP) while addressing the UN General Assembly on December 08, 1953. The AoP Programme was directed to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes with safeguards against the military use of nuclear materials and allowed all the nations willing to subscribe to AoP with these conditions. He also mooted an idea to create an international atomic energy organization that ultimately initiated an era of nuclear power and its dissemination. However, the USSR proposed the idea of setting-up of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZs) in the UN General Assembly in 1956 and Poland introduced the Rapacki Plan as the first NWFZ. Thereafter, on October 16, 1956, the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was opened for signature. The IAEA has been established to enable the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to ensure that IAEA’s assistance should not be used for military objectives.
Many NGOs such as Pugwash Movement also supported the idea of denuclearized world. Thus, the US., UK, and USSR declared an unofficial moratorium on the nuclear tests from November 1058 to September 1961. In the following years, many efforts have been made to have a nuclear weapons free world by the US and the former USSR in the 1960s. Under the UNGA Resolution 1653 (XVI) and UN Charter, threat or use of nuclear weapons was declared unconditionally illegal in 1961 and violation thereof was regarded as a crime against humanity. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis that was juxtaposed with nuclear weapons and it terrified the international community to the hilt. The ICJ (International Court of Justice) with the majority rendered an advisory opinion on the reference made by the UN General Assembly regarding the “Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons” Case on July 08, 1996 had limited the scope of the legality of use to the rare situations of the survival of a state. Even before that, the leaders of the two super powers of the Cold war era, Ronald Reagan (US) and Mikhail Gorbachev (USSR), now Russian Federation, met at Reykjavik-Iceland in 1986 to negotiate a historical nuclear disarmament treaty. In the later stages, particularly in 2009 at Prague, President Barack Obama has also shared the sentiments of the President Jimmy Carter who had expressed his determination in 1977 to wipe out completely the menace of nuclear weapons. Fortunately, new NBT regime seems to be in proximity to his vision of the nuclear weapons-free world.
Therefore, these opportunities and initiatives enhanced the chances for a denuclearized world but, unfortunately, no substantial progress could be achieved for a peaceful future and humanity generally got disenchanted and disillusioned with the cynicism of the nuclear weapons states. Though, they do pose some anti-nuclear weapons advocacy sporadically just to placate the sentiments of the non-nuclear countries. But, ultimately, denuclearization drive got tottered under the exclusive global security narratives that have been politically crafted, diplomatically calibrated, and monetarily pursued by the nukes holder states.
The NBT Strengths & Weaknesses
The NBT has been created as an ambitious plan for achieving universality ultimately in the years ahead, but it seems a remote possibility as it contemplates minimum substantive obligations for implementation irrespective of the fact whether the non-nuclear states agree to the deployment of nuclear weaponry or have any connection therewith. However, there is a strong case made out for prohibitions in the NBT are universally binding under customary international law (CIL) deviant to the opposition, reservation, exception or rejection by the states or countries resorting to the persistent objector rule. But, unfortunately, NBT still protects and promotes the idea of Statism considered to be the bedrock of the present world order which emanates from Article 18 giving state parties the right to withdraw from the NBT mandate by formally attaching a statement regarding the “extraordinary circumstances” that have endangered the paramount interests of its country and, therefore, made a case for withdrawal. Further, the NBT regime is silent about the geopolitics of denuclearization, demilitarization, and conventional disarmament. Even it also ignores the fact of nuclear capabilities of threshold nuclear states under the current technological advancement that gives a nuclear weapon option to them.
Any reneging from the NBT shall take three months from the date of notice and statement deposition but, regrettably, the NBT lacks procedure on defining and contesting the grounds of “extraordinary circumstances” if made with mala fide intentions beyond the pale of law and morality. Even non-nuclear states would not accord any credence to the global human well-being while exercising their sovereign rights. Let’s hope that comity of nations would not use the rights available under Article 18 of the NBT shortly. Nevertheless, such kind of provision does make global human security subservient to the national security interest narrative that further undermines the CIL, International Law and the Principles of Natural Law regarding weapons of mass destruction (WMD), etc. Consequently, state parties to the NBT can rescind their NBT obligations in the ways which are not there in international human rights instrument such as 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1973 UN Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, and 1984 UN Convention on Torture (CAT) etc. However, the preponderance of the nuclear states in world power structure does not conform to the international law, the international rule of law, peace, democracy and human rights for all.
Where from here?
Despite all the weaknesses and challenges, the anti-nuclear protagonists and advocates of nuclear disarmament have accomplished as of now something considered unthinkable in the form of the NBT. But the skeptics are hell bent to quash the NBT as wannabe narrative that would prove a giant fiasco. Thus, the dichotomy between nukes-states and non-nukes states has become invincibly visible devoid of any common minimum understanding for the shared future of the humanity. Primarily, the DoN has been impulsive that has fashioned the geostrategic calibrations of the nukes-states leading to the considerable self-restraint in crisis situations. The policy of nuclear unilateralism has delegitimized the implementation of NPT regime since its being discriminatory in nuclear nonproliferation standards, e.g. Israel’s nuclear ambitions are being ignored, whereas nuclear non-proliferations standards were enforced in Iraq in 2003 beyond the NPT stipulations and violation of the UN Charter. At the same time, Iran and North Korea are under the constant threats of military actions sans any defense unless and until such actions are authorized unanimously by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution along with four other states in the UNSC under the Article 27 (3), the UN Charter, but such a possibility remains a distant dream.
Therefore, permanent members of the UNSC along with the countries opposed to NBT might resort to coercive unilateralism to delegitimize and discredit the NBT regime despite its being in conformity with GLF. They had already displayed such tactics and tantrums in the past in the case of war against Iraq that was branded as counter-proliferation narrative. Moreover, the nuclear-states do not respect their obligations and do not have the political will to negotiate the complete nuclear disarmament project. The NPT regime has been in force since 1970, but nuclear weapons states have always violated their material obligations that have also established the fact that the nuclear powers have opted for nuclear deterrence as a permanent security narrative and the nonproliferation as its mechanism to monitor any other nuclear ambition in the world.
The NBT regime is an iconoclastic development that conveys to the present ideologues of the DoN that the public perception of the 122 countries has rejected the contemporary nuclear dogma of the world based on NPT model. Thus, NPT model cannot eliminate the Nuclearism, and it obfuscates the idea of denuclearization. Therefore, the NBT regime offers a two-fold strategy for nuclear disarmament; firstly, unequivocally prohibiting the use or threat of nuclear weapons and secondly, the relevance of the nuclear energy technology option must be addressed in the process of nuclear disarmament. It is my well-considered view that all opposition from all quarters including the US, UK, and France, the new NBT regime must be regarded an unprecedented opportunity to wipe out all the nuclear weapons in the world. The NBT process has been a peregrination from the Westphalian Exceptionalism to Universal Constitutionalism construed under the idea of common good for collective humankind that gives hope for the denuclearized world ahead.
Once again, the NBT regime has presented an occasion to the global community to substantiate its perennial will to eliminate nuclear weapons in commensurate with the UN Charter mandate. The NBT is a historical accomplishment of the collective wisdom of the 122 countries and their civil society institutions and individuals. The US, UK, and France and their assertions under the joint statement are fallible, flawed and they must not treat it a political project, but it is, indeed, a massive project for the humanity by the humanity for its existential survival on this beautiful planet. However, the biggest challenge before the international community is to take full measures for making the NBT regime functional with sufficient ratifications and achieve its objectives of the global nuclear justice to the hilt.
A sea and thousands of concerns
The name of the “Caspian Sea” has been recently heard more than any other time! In the meantime, there are rumors, ambiguities and, of course, concerns that need to be described in the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea which was signed on August 12 in the port city of Aktau, Kazakhstan.
Accordingly, there are some important points that calls for attention and scrutiny. In general, over the past 21 years, several meetings have been held on the Caspian Sea and how the coastal countries should be benefited from its resources. In these meetings, legal, security, economic, and even cultural cooperation were discussed among the littoral countries.
After more than two decades of fraught diplomatic efforts, the five littoral Caspian nations – Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan – agreed upon a legal framework for sharing the world’s largest inland body of water. However, as long as all disputes, especially legal conflicts between the participating countries aren’t resolved, it is impossible to talk about the establishment and continuity of sustainable relations among these countries. It should be noted that over the past two decades, one of the main tasks of our country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been to direct this case and determine its legal convention.
1) Prolongation of the finalizing process of a case is not undesirable if it’s the result of scrutiny in the legal and technical parts. This is the case with determining the legal dimensions of the Caspian Sea Convention. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, we witnessed a kind of transformation in the Caspian legal regime. The Soviet Union was divided into 15 countries.
Consequently, Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan each became a separate and independent variable in this equation. Undoubtedly, the transformation of a two-variable legal equation into a “legal-security” multivariable equation is not considered a simple transformation. Therefore, we should understand the complexities of the Caspian case.
The countries of Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Russia and Kazakhstan each have specific demands regarding their share of the Caspian Sea resources. Making a balance between these demands and subsequently realizing them is very difficult and complicated. What is important in this context is to strengthen the “principle of cooperation” among the Caspian coastal nations, and to define joint maritime projects among all neighboring countries to protect the Caspian Sea.
Another point to be taken into consideration here is about the draft of the Caspian Sea Legal Convention and the role of the Foreign Ministry in this process. As mentioned above, the Caspian Sea Case has been open for more than two decades and has not yet come to a complete conclusion. Negotiations held among the Caspian Sea littoral states should distract our attention from the realities.
It should be noted that the establishment of the Caspian Sea Legal Convention is the basis for solving the existing disagreements over the Caspian Sea and defining concrete and conclusive cooperation among the littoral countries. A remarkable part of such security and economic cooperation will be the result of this convention.
In other words, the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea can’t and shouldn’t be taken as in the same level with “defining the security and economic cooperation” between the coastal countries. Undoubtedly, the definition of economic, security and even cultural cooperation between the coastal countries depends on the settlement of legal disputes between these countries and setting of a common legal convention.
2) Speaking of controversial issues such as Iran’s 50 percent share of the Caspian Sea, which couldn’t be fulfilled even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the creation of false subjectivities in the country, by those who claim to be the representatives of our people, has no result except for the weakening of national security.
his is while the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, had emphasized that “we should recognize there are more important issues that need to be addressed.”
This is a legal process, and one of the main tasks of our country’s diplomacy and foreign policy system is to manage and direct this complex process. Obviously, under the current circumstances, expressing biased and targeted words will only lead to the loss of focus of our country’s diplomatic apparatus on this critical case.
Finally, it should be noted that good commitments were made during the meeting among the countries involved in this case. Today, the ministers of foreign affairs of the Caspian littoral states, unanimously emphasize on the necessity of the absence of foreign forces in this region, which is a positive trend. Moreover, from the statements made by the foreign ministers of the Caspian littoral states, we understand that their cooperation on resolving existing disputes has become faster than before.
However, until all legal conflicts between the Caspian littoral countries are not totally resolved and the Convention of the Caspian Sea Law Convention is not perfectly codified, we can’t think of this legal and strategic case as closed and settled. Therefore, in this critical situation, all efforts should be made so that Iran can benefit most.
It is emphasized here that even one singled legal disagreement should not remain among the players involved in the case. Meanwhile, the mechanism for resolving disputes should be carefully decided. Therefore, while welcoming the settlement of the existing disagreements over the Caspian Sea, there shouldn’t be any haste in completing this process.
First published in our partner Tehran Times
Iran has to be very careful in future negotiations on Caspian Sea
Professor of political science says although the text of the Caspian Sea Treaty signed on August 12, 2018 in Kazakhstan does not define the share of each of the littoral states, Iran has to be very careful in future negotiations.
Five Caspian Sea littoral states signed Caspian Sea Treaty on August 12, 2018 in Kazakhstan. The agreement has created many debates about the share of Iran in Iran.
To know more about the issue we reached out to Nader Entessar Professor Emeritus of Political Science in University of South Alabama.
There are many debates on the legal regime of the Caspian Sea. Some argue that according to the treaties of 1921 and 1940 between Iran and the USSR, the share of Iran equals to 50% of this sea. Is Iran’s share stipulated in those treaties?
No. Neither the 1921 nor the 1940 treaties specify that Iran and the USSR each share 50 per cent ownership of the Caspian Sea. Both of these treaties talk in general terms about the resources of the Caspian Sea being the used by Iran and the USSR without stipulating the exact ownership of the seabed, boundary delimitation, and other related issues. We have to remember that these two treaties were signed well before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was drafted and came into force. Therefore, the 1921 and 1940 treaties could not have foreseen the complex issues of maritime boundaries that were discussed in UNCLOS.
Based on the international law, what is the legal status of the Caspian Sea after the collapse of the USSR and the sharing of the Caspian Sea by the five littoral states? Some bring about the idea of 20% sharing? Is there any base for this idea in the international law?
The answer to this question depends on if the Caspian is defined as a “sea” or a “lake.” If one classifies the Caspian as a lake, then according to international law its resources should be divided equally among the five riparian states. However, if the Caspian is designated as a sea, then the five littoral states should draw lines extending from their shores to the midway point with littoral neighbors. This explains why for many years Iran had insisted on defining the Caspian as a lake. However, it appears that the five littoral states agreed in Aktau that the Caspian is a sea. That is why some observers have argued that in the final delimitation agreement, Iran will end up getting not only about 13 per cent of the Caspian but also the saltiest and deepest part of it.
Is the share of each of the littoral states from the Caspian Sea defined in the convention signed on August 12 in Kazakhstan?
No, the text of the Caspian Sea Treaty signed on August 12, 2018 in Kazakhstan does not define the share of each of the littoral states. In so far as Iran is concerned, this issue will have to be determined in a future agreement with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Iran has to be very careful in future negotiations with its two neighbors because the resulting boundary agreement will determine Iran’s final Caspian share.
What is the main achievement of the Aktau Convention, signed on August 12 in Kazakhstan, in regards to the legal regime and status of the Caspian Sea?
Although some reports have referred to the Caspian Sea Convention as a “landmark agreement,” I don’t view this agreement as such. Its main achievement was that after more than 20 years of contentious diplomatic efforts, the five littoral states of the Caspian Sea finally agreed on a legal framework for sharing the resources of this significant body of water. There are some clear and specific agreements in the Convention. For example, all five littoral states agreed to 15 miles of sovereign waters, plus a further 10 nautical miles of fishing area. But the wording of the Convention remains vague in many parts of the document, thus delaying divisive decisions that have to be made in future negotiations.
First published in our partner MNA
Fifty Years of NPT: Weaknesses over the course
NPT is a landmark treaty that lies at the heart of non-proliferation regime (NPR). In July 2018, Fiftieth anniversary of the NPT has been celebrated. Theoretically, NPT is committed to the goal of arms control and aims to accomplish the nuclear disarmament. For this purpose, the NPT member states are devoted to pursue three key objectives of the treaty: prevent horizontal proliferation, state’s right to use nuclear energy for peaceful objectives, and nuclear disarmament. However practically due to shifting US’ alliances, major power politics, and growing arms race, the fifty years of NPT has only delivered “Distress, Conflict and discrimination”.
Loopholes and weaknesses exist in NPT which are being misused by Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Non-Nuclear Weapons States (NNWS) of the treaty. Despite the NPT’s presence for 50 years and an expansion in its membership, atomic weapons have not been wiped out from the world. All the NWS aim to maintain their nuclear weapon state status due to their security or strategic concerns. Despite the dialogues of arms control, all major and smaller nuclear weapon states are committed to maintaining credible deterrence and strategic balance. Such aspirations of NWS demonstrate that major powers party to the arms control and disarmament treaty are merely the silent spectators to the existing weakened structure of the so called universal treaty of 191 member states due to their own vested interests.
The fifty years of NPT have reaffirmed that the universal mechanism to fight with nuclear proliferation and achieving the objective of disarmament is not adequate for two reasons: first, the international mechanism of non-proliferation has failed to deal with the few potential proliferators; secondly, strategic and security concerns of NWS and NNWS has undermined the Articles I, II, IV, VI and X of the treaty. In spite of the fact that until the 1980s worldwide measures to counteract atomic multiplication were generally more effective, yet in the subsequent years the NPT was not much successful to counter the aspirants of nuclear capability such as North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria. Due to inadequate mechanism and weaknesses of the treaty, now nine states possess nuclear weapon capability and approximately 30 states have the technical ability to acquire it that is viewed as serious threat to the NPT.
Despite the potentials of non-proliferation, since 1968 with participation of 191 states and various agreements and talks, an efficient and effective regime stresses on pin pointing the weaknesses and restructuring, re-evaluation and reformation of the treaty structure. The key setback to the NPT is that the articles of the treaty are not fairly adopted by the member states due to which the regime has failed to address the significant objectives of horizontal proliferation, arms control and disarmament. For instance under Article I of the treaty, transfer of nuclear material and technology by NWS to NNWS is prohibited. But treaty has failed to address the transfer of fissile material and nuclear technology from one NWS to another NWS. Such dynamic have increased the insecurities of NNWS and resultantly forces them to take extreme measures to ensure their security .e.g. North Korea. Simultaneously, despite being the member of the treaty, the US has been providing nuclear related technology to India since 1990s under the umbrella of various bilateral treaties or agreements. India-US nuclear agreement and granting of NSG waiver to India is viewed as an intentional measure to help India increase its military buildup to carry forward strategic ambitions of the US in the Asian region.
Furthermore, the US agreement with India for joint production and development of military related technology such as mini UAVs , distinctive kits for C130 and designing/ development of jet engine technology has played central role in speedy development of India’s nuclear program. Such development is not only the violation of NPT by the US but also compels the NNWS to acquire nuclear capability to address their security concerns. Right of all states to use nuclear energy for peaceful objectives played key role as bargaining chip and is viewed as major loophole in the treaty due to technical similarities in peaceful use of nuclear technology and technology for military purposes. North Korea Withdrew from the NPT in 2003.Article X of the treaty provides the right to member states to withdraw from the treaty if their sovereignty is on stake. However not accepting the states’ right to withdraw from the treaty is denial of their right of self defence and violation of treaty. Therefore, discriminatory attitude, special treatment and country specific treatment pose serious question mark on the implementation and standards of NPR.It demonstrates that the regime is just an instrument of major powers to fulfill their strategic and foreign policy objectives.
The current doctrines of NWS comprise of elements warfare, which shows hegemonic mindsets of major powers and explains their reluctance to give up on their “nuclear assets”. These factors have posed negative impact on the process of non-proliferation and disarmament. Therefore it can be inferred that the above mentioned scenarios have played central role in keeping Pakistan away from joining the NPR. If NPT states want to attract non-NPT states for the membership of regime then the current member states will have to pursue non-discriminatory approach towards non-proliferation themselves.
Turkey’s financial crisis raises questions about China’s debt-driven development model
Financial injections by Qatar and possibly China may resolve Turkey’s immediate economic crisis, aggravated by a politics-driven trade war with...
Deep-Seated Corruption in Nigeria
One of the biggest problems in the African continent is corruption, but in Nigeria, corruption has gotten to a frightening...
Kofi Annan: A Humane Diplomat
I was deeply shocked whenever I heard that Kofi Annan is no more. A noble peace laureate, a visionary leader,...
3 trends that can stimulate small business growth
Small businesses are far more influential than most people may realize. That influence is felt well beyond Main Street. Small...
Terrorists potentially target millions in makeshift biological weapons ‘laboratories’
Rapid advances in gene editing and so-called “DIY biological laboratories”which could be used by extremists, threaten to derail efforts to prevent...
UN mourns death of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, ‘a guiding force for good’
The United Nations is mourning the death of former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who passed away peacefully after a short illness,...
Pakistan at a crossroads as Imran Khan is sworn in
Criticism of Pakistan’s anti-money laundering and terrorism finance regime by the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) is likely...
Economy15 hours ago
Turkey’s financial crisis raises questions about China’s debt-driven development model
Middle East3 days ago
The bitter truth for mullahs’ regime in Iran
East Asia3 days ago
Chinese Game: U.S. Losing Asia and Africa
Middle East3 days ago
Trump to Netanyahu: Palestinians Must Be Completely Conquered
Terrorism2 days ago
Terrorists potentially target millions in makeshift biological weapons ‘laboratories’
Russia2 days ago
All sanctions against Russia are based on lies
Diplomacy1 day ago
Kofi Annan: A Humane Diplomat
South Asia2 days ago
Pakistan at a crossroads as Imran Khan is sworn in