The Conundrum Between the United Nations and Nuclear Deterrence

MAYANK YADAV

The season of war and aggression is spreading across the globe, whether in the form of the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Palestine conflict or Cold War 2.0 in the 21st century. However, what is preventing these flashpoints from escalating into World War III? Is it the successfulness of United Nations or nuclear deterrence? Or The liberal world versus the realist world? Or The cobweb model versus the billiard ball model? Amid this debate, one thing prevails: chaos, anarchy, and unrest around the globe, which can flare up at any moment.

After World War II, the world recognised the need for a global governing body to prevent future wars to safeguard human civilisation. These aspirations were practically realized through the formation of the United Nations(1945). Ironically, the prominent advocates of a world government (UNO) also proceeded to test nuclear weapons, as they lacked faith in the credibility of the United Nations. In this article, we will discuss the key reasons for the failure of the United Nations, whether it requires reform, or it should be substituted by Nuclear armament. Additionally, we will examine the relationship between UNO and Nuclear Deterrence.

Failure of the UNO and the State of Nature

The evidence of the United Nations failure can be traced back to its inability to protect and uphold the values enshrined in its charter. The charter begins with a commitment to save future generations from war, reaffirm human rights, promote justice, and ensure social progress. However, the UNO has failed to prevent wars such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the Israel-Hamas war, and regional conflicts like Armenia and Azerbaijan. Political blockades in bodies like the Human Rights Council and the Security Council further hinder action, as alliances and vetoes protect nations accused of human rights violations. This has led to inadequate responses to major crises, such as the Rwandan Genocide, ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, the abuse of Hindus in Bangladesh, and the suffering of Gazans in the Israel-Hamas war.

The failure of the UNO can be attributed to the structure of international politics and the behavior of nation-states, which has weakened the organization. To understand this failure, Thomas Hobbes’ concept of the “state of nature” in his work Leviathan provides an insightful analogy. Hobbes describes the state of nature as a condition in the absence of sovereign authority, where individual actors act according to their own interests, leading to anarchy. Similarly, in international politics, the absence of a sovereign world government leads to states acting according to their own interests, which often clash with others, resulting in a might is right (matsya nyaya) approach. This view is also acknowledged and promoted by the prominent structural realist, John Mearsheimer, in his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

The credibility and relevance of the United Nations are undermined by the lack of reforms since its formation in 1945. The current multilateral world order, where the global South has gained influence in international politics, still does not enjoy any substantive representation in the UNSC. The horizontal division of power within the UNSC, where the P5 nations hold special status due to their veto power and lack of accountability, is another major issue. Additionally, the UN’s financial dependence on member states is a significant bottleneck preventing effective functioning.

Affection and Aversion to Nuclear Weapons:

The absence of a world government generates anxiety and fear among state actors. This condition promotes self-help and power maximization, leading to the growing popularity of nuclear weapons. Intellectuals such as Kenneth Waltz, in The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed, argue that nuclear weapons create a balance of power by making the costs of war extraordinarily high, thus deterring large-scale conflicts like World War III. According to Waltz, the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) forces nuclear-armed states to act cautiously and avoid direct confrontations. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is a prime example of this. Furthermore, in the current Russia-Ukraine war, NATO’s reluctance to directly engage with Russia is due to the deterrent effect of Moscow’s nuclear arsenal.

The growing stockpiling of nuclear weapons is evident from reports such as SIPRI’s emphasis on the increase in nuclear warheads. For instance, China’s increase in nuclear warheads from 410 in January 2023 to 500 in January 2024 marks a significant expansion. North Korea’s continuous ballistic missile tests and Iran’s nuclear development program further underscore the appeal of nuclear armament as a means to protect a state’s security and sovereignty, promises made by the United Nations in its charter. While nuclear weapons provide a form of security, they also carry great risks, such as an arms race and the constant fear of a preemptive strike..

Nuclear deterrence is not a voluntary choice but a compulsion driven by the anarchic structure of international politics. There is an inverse relationship between the empowerment of the United Nations and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An empowered United Nations could reduce nuclear proliferation, while increasing nuclear armament could undermine the relevance of the United Nations. Relying on nuclear deterrence is an irrational way to establish peace and stability. Any miscalculation or misinterpretation could lead to disastrous consequences for the entire planet. Therefore, an empowered United Nations is the ideal solution for creating a peaceful world order.

Road Ahead

The way forward lies through the lens of Hobbes’ notion of political obligation in his social contract theory. Every state has an equal political obligation and responsibility to empower the United Nations. Since the provisions of Article 108 of the UN Charter are extremely rigid, preventing healthy reforms, mutual rational understanding among nation-states is needed for change. The UNSC should be expanded to include more members across the continents, and the veto power of the P5 nations should be overridden by the UN General Assembly. One of the most notable reforms should be the introduction of financial independence for the UN, such as the Tobin tax and taxes on international trade.

Therefore, the democratization and empowerment of the United Nations offer the best peaceful world order over an anarchic, nuclear-armed world. Although, “An empowered United Nations cannot guarantee a utopia on Earth, it can certainly prevent Earth from descending into chaos”.