Weapons of mass destruction

    There has been a heightened level of concern that has been created by the increased use of weapons of mass destruction and the less productive negotiations that have been put forward so as to strengthen the weapons of mass destruction nonproliferation management. The limited progress has also been attributed to the fact that materials and the technology used for the production of these weapons of mass destruction have at the same time been used for peaceful purposes. This article, therefore, considers some of the important points that make the process of negotiations of the use of weapons of mass destruction difficult. It goes ahead to discuss some of the essential incentives and disincentives that affect positions on the nonproliferation issue. It also focuses on the need and the way to pay attention to the needs and the interests of the proliferators that might enhance the chances of attaining a mutually beneficial agreement.

The main purpose of the article is to determine whether the negotiations have a place in the future to control weapons of mass destruction (Jensen 2006).

    The investigations on the weapons of mass destruction and the ways in which it can be controlled are important as it will enhance so many states to be able to control the use of these weapons and thus people’s lives would be saved. This would also help the nations to identify some of the negotiation skills that they need to adopt so as to be able to solve the issue of mass destruction with ease and a mutual benefit agreement to be reached by all parties involved for the sake of the public safety.

    The author, therefore, has carried out the research so as to prove the theory as detailed information is found in the article supporting the theory. The author has therefore reviewed some of the other authors work so as to support his theory and it is through analyzing their work that the author is able to make a good conclusion of his work (Jensen 2006).

According to the author, he has widely explained how the concern of the weapons of mass destruction has resulted to so many negotiations and so many treaties over the past years. This has therefore led to the determination of so many states to control the spread of these weapons. To support this he used examples from the history during the cold war and the fear that has risen since due to the use of these weapons. Therefore so many superpower states have thus integrated so as to take actions that would reduce the use of these weapons. Another example that the author has used in his evaluation is the negotiation that existed in the war against terrorism where he identifies that the negotiations produced little results. Time is taken to implement on the treaties after negotiations take so long before being put in practice and the acceptance of these treaties is as well so low and criticism is evident from the treaties that have been implemented. This therefore clearly outlines how negotiations produce only a little produce to controlling the weapons of mass destruction. The author, however, tries to look for solutions that would help in solving the issue at hand, for instance, he suggests that legitimate agreements ought to be made as it is useful in limiting the scope of the agreement with an intention of at least reaching an agreement or going for a better solution. Though the negotiations take a longer period before reaching an agreement, the author shows the importance of the negotiations after an agreement. In this case, he uses the missile technology control regime which was a treaty that was reached to an agreement in the 1987 (Jensen 2006). The subsequent negotiations that were used over the years before implementing this treaty offered strong supplier control, sanction as well as shipping controls. These negotiations led to the increment of the membership who also wanted to be part of the treaty. The author’s method is adequate to the task as it gives detailed information on the negotiations that has ever taken place in history regarding the weapons of mass destruction.

He has also given details on the fears that have been raised by the use of these weapons and the raised concerns and the need to control the use of these weapons. The author has also gone further to give on some of the obstacles that have hindered agreements on the weapons of mass destruction. This is thus important as it enables the reader to identify some of the areas that one needs to overcome so as to reach a mutual agreement. He thus explains each obstacle in detail thus allowing one to understand fully the content and consequences. He relates his information with that of the past giving examples and thus allowing one to analyze the situation of the weapons of mass destruction and what can be done to remedy the issue. One of the obstacles that the author identifies is the dual use of the materials and technologies used to produce the weapons of mass destruction. Thus the weapons can be used in dual purposes were on the positive side it can be used for peaceful measures thus the process of negotiation becomes complex. Lack of trust amongst the parties who are negotiating is another obstacle as they are affected by doubts on whether the other parties are acting in good faith (Jensen 2006). The author also states on the various techniques that can be implemented in the strengthening of the control of the weapons of mass destruction. He is not biased to showing only the positive side of the incentives that are to be implemented but he also shows the negative side of the incentives. He thus recommends on the aspect of the building of coalitions of the willing with an aim of strengthening the weapons of mass destruction nonproliferation regime that will address the proliferation threat rather than the use of existing multilateral negotiations as well as existing agreements. He also commands the nations to negotiate with the rogue states so as to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction to other states. The author, however, suggests that the negotiations should not only focus on the rogue states only but it should also go far vein to the sub-groups that possess weapons of mass destruction for their own purposes.

After a well-done research, considering all the findings and analyzing them, the author concludes his research by stating clearly that successful negotiation between nations and groups of people is hard and it takes time and thus patience is required (Jensen 2006). Hence, the concern should mainly lie on the control of the weapons from reaching the hands of the extremist people and groups and rather not on the geopolitics of the cold world war. Thus more attention ought to be given to the reduction of programs that are correlated to obtaining of these weapons of mass destruction (Jensen 2006).

    This article has thus been used widely by scholars as the author has been able to relay his information in an understandable manner. Throughout his article, he has used numerous examples which make his points to be clear and understood. The aspect of negotiation is quite a new topic when it comes to dealing with the weapons of mass destruction but the author has been able to relate the topic well. This is a good solution that enhances the reduction and control of the spread of the weapons of mass destruction. With such kind of research so many states can be able to adopt the idea and thus they can be able to solve the issues to do with weapons of mass destruction and the ultimate result will be a positive one. The purposes of the outline ad explanation of the obstacles are to sensitize people on the things that may hinder successful negotiations when it comes to the issue of the weapons of mass destruction. Thus the implementers of the treaties and the participants of the negotiations are able to avoid those obstacles and thus enabling them to be successful in their negotiations. The ultimate result is a reduced proliferation and spread of weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

 

 

Reference

    Jensen, L. (2006). Does Negotiation Have a Future in Controlling Weapons of Mass Destruction?. International Negotiation, 11(2), 353-369. doi:10.1163/157180606778968308