Abstract
There is no doubt that the NPT regime is far from being equal for all states involved. As the predominant hegemonic power since WWII, the United States plays a major role in deciding the fates of non-great power proliferators. This article tries to find the logical explanation of the phenomenon whereby some nuclear proliferators are absolved regardless of their active accumulation of nuclear arsenals while others are labeled as “rogue states” and ordered to disarm. The article suggests that a particular proliferator’s political regime could affect the way in which its state is approached by the U.S., known for its loyalty to democratic values. To check this argument’s feasibility, the author analyzes and compares types of political regimes of proliferators—which refer to non-great powers that commenced their nuclear programs since 1964. The study also shows that alignment with the U.S. and presence or absence of hostility toward the West are also influential factors. Along with the proliferator’s political regime, these factors determine whether the country is necessarily absolved, required to disarm, or heavily punished. The author finds that the U.S. tends to free democratic proliferators from charges, especially those aligned with the U.S., officially or unofficially. In most cases, the autocratic governments are coerced to give up their proliferation ambitions, though an alignment with the U.S. may work as an extenuating circumstance to render the punishment less harmful. The article aims to demonstrate that the U.S.’s tendency to coerce undemocratic de facto nuclear powers, while avoiding coercion against democratic partners, is not a mere “double standard” or bias, but rather, a part of the U.S.’s strategic policy.
Highlights
Based on the evidences mentioned above, could the U.S decision-makers have a bias toward non-democratic countries? This paper attempts to ascertain the legitimacy of the “double standard” claim by analyzing the common trend in U.S nonproliferation policies and the reasons why such policies evolved
The outstanding examples of coercive approach implemented toward South Korea and Taiwan in 1970s-1980s and Iran in recent times should be viewed as a result of coherence between punishment and bargain, whereas in Iraq’s case, “sticks” prevailed over “carrots.” Kurt Campbell https://trace.tennessee.edu/ijns/vol4/iss1/1
Since Carter’s decision to withdraw the U.S troops and nuclear warheads from South Korea was not supported by majority opinion and had been openly criticized even by government officials6, Park Chung-Hee unilaterally made a typically autocratic decision—despite the fact that he could have succeeded in strengthening the alliance via open dialogue with the White House—to conduct the secret nuclear program instead of improving relations with the ally
Summary
The United States has played an active role as the world’s “nonproliferation policeman” in trying to persuade proliferators to give up their nuclear weaponry programs and become members of the NPT. This article does not ignore other important factors, such as a nation’s political and military alignment with the U.S, the presence of any common enemies that could unite democracy and autocracy aiming to achieve the common goal, and the autocracy’s presence or absence of prior hostile sentiments toward the U.S While some believe that these three aspects contradict one another, William Dixon suggests that they are not mutually exclusive and proved their direct linkage to the democratic status of disputing parties [12] As such, both democratic status and alignment with the U.S might have caused America’s tolerance toward the proliferating efforts of India, Pakistan, and Israel, whereas the severe castigation of Iraq, Iran, and Libya may be resultant of the autocratic political regime doubled on strong anti-American sentiments as major pillars of their national politics. This point will be elaborated on in the “Analysis” part
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
