Democracies Violating Commitments: US and the Usage of Nuclear Weapons against Non-Nuclear States
Saira Khan
March 26, 2008
This publication is available for download.
To download a copy of this publication, please visit: http://liu.arts.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Democracies-Violating-Commitments.pdf
Governments accountable to people for their choices are generally more responsible compared to the dictatorial ones. Thus, democratic states are unlikely to violate their formal commitments. However, a democratic United States has repeatedly violated commitments, making treaties and bilateral commitments less meaningful and the weaker states more insecure in the world. While the US has agreed not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states as part of its Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) commitment, it is the first country in the world to announce its intention to develop and use bunker-busting and earth-penetrating nuclear weapons against states suspected of assisting terrorists and developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) clandestinely and the terrorists. What explains this irresponsible decision of the US? This paper argues that democratic states are likely to break such commitments because they can manipulate or ignore public opinion when they face national security threats. In extraordinary security situations, democracies act like non-democracies because they are often allowed by the Constitution to act without the approval of the people’s representatives in the government. Also, people in the democratic states may be inclined to uproot terrorism with the most effective weapon, like nuclear weapons, at the shortest possible time. A combination of these factors enables the US to break its commitments for the sake of its national security concerns. Unless the US proves that democracies are responsible states in terms of commitments, it is unlikely for democracy to be attractive to many nondemocratic states and smaller states that are anti-US may have more reasons to consider acquiring nuclear weapons.
The paper is structured in the following manner: The first section discusses the major attributes of democracies and what makes them responsible actors in world politics. Here, focus is on democracy-peace argument, which has its roots in accountability and rational policy arguments. The second section demonstrates that democracies may not always be responsible actors. The section elucidates that democracies may act responsibly when issues are non-security-related and may be less responsible actors or may not live up to their democratic commitments when security issues are at stake. This also means that democracies may act like dictators in the realm of foreign policies in general and international security policies in particular. It portrays that under extreme security threats, democracies are equally irresponsible as nondemocracies. They turn into irresponsible actors if they have to for protecting their states’ national security concerns. Thus, a linkage between democratic violation of treaty commitments and national security issues is developed. The third section looks at United States as a great democracy which, unfortunately, often acts irresponsibly and breaks treaty commitments if and where necessary. In particular, this section focuses on the United States’ decision to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states, a policy that violates American commitment not to attack non-nuclear states as part of the NPT. The fourth section summarizes the paper, draws policy implications, and provides some policy recommendations.
