Technological Institute of the Philippines

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Literature Review
The Implication of Nuclear Non-Proliferations Treaty to Global Politics

Submitted by:
John Roger S. Aquino

Criteria Highest Score

Score
Organizatio 15
n
Content 20
Insight 15
Grammar 10
Total: 60
 2

International Relations

The Implication of Nuclear Non-Proliferations Treaty

to Global Politics
Roger Aquino
Technological Institute of the Philippines

The Implication of Nuclear Non-Proliferations Treaty to Global Politics tackles the

different actions taken by different countries to comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferations

Treaty (NPT) and the implication of these actions to the global politics. In here, we will also see

their various perspective regarding NPT, why they decided to comply, and not to comply. The

NPT’s objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to

promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving

nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. 7 out of 10 countries mentioned

agreed to comply in the treaty while the 3 refused or withdrew in the said treaty. By using

systems level of analysis, we can take into account the different position of these countries in the

international scene of politics and these position of states makes up the systemic structure of

analysis. It will also explain the outcomes of these actions from a system wide level that will

affect its neighboring states. Through the Realism approach in International Relations, we can

explain why these actions were done by different states, in order to preserve or maintain its

interests for each of their own sake.

States acquire nuclear weapons for security concerns against its neighboring states, not to

mention that it will also act as a measure of military strength. But upon the convening of the

NPT, countries who became a party to the treaty guaranteed the nuclear non-proliferations, for a
The Implication of Nuclear Non-Proliferations
Treaty to Global Politics

peaceful international scene. Countries like South Africa (Wyk, 2013), China (Dingli, 2009),

France (Tertrais, 2007), United Kingdom (Chalmers & Walker, 2002), Turkey (Al-marashi &

Guren), Cuba (Alvarado, 2003), and Japan (Amano, 2002), upon signing the treaty, hoped to

promote the cause of nuclear disarmament without undermining security relationships between

neighboring countries. Countries aforementioned like United Kingdom, France, and China’s

nuclear deterrence also encourage other countries to become a part of NPT. Meanwhile, Japan

(Amano, 2002) consistently advocated nuclear disarmament and non-proliferations for it

considers humanitarian values, and even though they are a staunch advocate of NPT due to

Japan’s public opinion, they can still maintain their security across the neighboring states. South

Africa (Wyk, 2013), who is also in line with the NPT, argues that by becoming a party to the

NPT, it will promote the benefits which non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control hold

for international peace and security. Cuba (Alvarado, 2003) and Turkey (Al-marashi & Guren),

who played their role in the Cold War which brought the world to the brink of nuclear

Armageddon, entered the treaty to show its support against proliferations of nuclear weapons for

ensuring world peace.

On the other hand, North Korea (Gebru, 2015), India (Weiss, 2010), and Pakistan

(Nayyar, 2008), refused to be a member of NPT. North Korea became a member of NPT but

withdrew its membership on 2003. Its acquisition of nuclear weapons was due to its security

concerns in the region, and it wanted to become a military self-reliant and to maintain security in

the region (Gebru, 2015). India also deny the membership in NPT and will not give up its

nuclear weapons until other nations do so as well (Weiss, 2010). The security concerns of

Pakistan (Nayyar, 2008) on the other hand have always been directed towards India. Pakistan has

been consumed with the feeling of a threat to its existence from its larger, stronger and often
 4

unaccommodating neighbor. According to Nayyar, nuclear weapons for Pakistan is an essential

leveler against the overwhelming Indian superiority in conventional weapons.

Dingli, Tertrais, and Chalmers & Walker have the same insight when it comes to nuclear

weapons being a deterrent to other states from acquiring nuclear weapons. The level of war will

increase with the help of nuclear weapons. Who knows when these states with nuclear weapon

will use it? With a blink of an eye and a hair-trigger temperance of people nowadays, nuclear

Armageddon is not so far. Japan, as Amano have stated, is clearly denouncing nuclear weapons

because of historical experience. Gebru, Weiss, and Nayyar viewed the actions of non-party

member NPT as an action to maintain its security against its neighboring state. As what a realist

would do, their top priority is national or international security. National or international security

is their high politics, and concerns on economy and environment is not that important to these

realist leaders. Pakistan’s government, for one, stated that they will acquire nuclear weapons no

matter what, even if it means feeding grasses to its own people. Their sense of insecurity towards

their neighboring state is so evident that they are getting desperate to acquire nuclear weapons in

order to level against their neighbors. These states are having security dilemma. Upon seeing the

military capabilities of their neighbor states, they tend to improve or acquire military power in

order for them not to feel threatened. They are having a self-help situation, for they find it

dangerous to put the security of their state to the hands of others.

But, who would have thought that nations with nuclear weapons are going to disarm it?

Who would have thought that they are willing to discard their nuclear weapons, even if it will

reduce their military capabilities and will mean more threat in international relations? Countries

who are a member of NPT wishes to have a nuclear free world, which will lessen the possibility
The Implication of Nuclear Non-Proliferations
Treaty to Global Politics

of next level war, but the 3 nations which are not a part of NPT still advocates the nuclear

weapons for their security.

Who would have thought that many are in favor of nuclear disarmament even if it

comprises their security with their neighboring states? By coming into an agreement of nuclear

disarmament, they protected their state by avoiding or reducing the possibilities of the nuclear

armaggedon. This is what a realist would do. In order to preserve its security, it will come to an

agreement with its neighbors to prioritize the safety of their nation, which is their top priority. It

is possible to maintain your security over your state without the help of weapons of mass

destruction with the help of a treaty. All we have to do is to wait for the 3 countries who are

inclined with nuclear weapons to realize that having a nuclear weapon will not secure your

nation, but it will rather increase the danger it will face to the next level war. They have to

realize that nuclear weapons are not the only measure of a strong country, but the ability to

secure the nation’s security and interest without endangering and compromising its people is the

true measure of strength.

 6

References
Amano, Y. (n.d.). A Japanese View on Nuclear Disarmament. Retrieved from
https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/91aman.pdf

Benjamin-Alvarado, J. (n.d.). Cuba and the Nonproliferation Regime: A Small State Response to Global
Instability. Retrieved from https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-
content/uploads/npr/103alva.pdf

Dingli, S. (n.d.). Towards a Nuclear Weapons Free World: A Chinese Perspective. Retrieved from
http://www.nuclearsecurityproject.org/uploads/publications/DINGLI_SHEN_TOWARD_A_NUCLE
AR_WEAPONS_FREE_WORLD__A__CHINESE_PERSPECTIVE.pdf

Gebru, A. L.-a. (n.d.). North Korea’s Nuclear Program and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons: The Controversy and its Implications. Retrieved from
http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1440169990_Gebru.pdf

Ibrahim Al-Marashi & Nilsu Goren. (n.d.). Turkish Perceptions and Nuclear Proliferation. Retrieved from
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=36075

Malcolm Charmers & William Walker. (n.d.). The United Kingdom, Nuclear Weapons, and the Scottish
Question. Retrieved from https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-
content/uploads/npr/91walk.pdf

Nayyar, A. H. (n.d.). A Pakistani Perspective on Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation. Retrieved

from http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/global/05652.pdf

Tertrais, B. (n.d.). The Future of France’s Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved from

https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/142tertrais.pdf

Weiss, L. (n.d.). India and the NPT. Retrieved from

https://fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Weiss_India_and_the_NPT.pdf

Wyk, J.-A. V. (n.d.). South Africa's Nuclear Future. Retrieved from https://www.saiia.org.za/occasional-
papers/337-south-africa-s-nuclear-future/file