Counter-proliferation And Non-proliferation: International Physicians For The Prevention Of The Proliferation Of Nuclear Weapons In The Debate

In order to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the international community has been making a lot of efforts for the past over fifty years. The establishment of the nuclear non-proliferation regime is the typical achievement in this regard. With the new development of the proliferation of nuclear and other mass destruction weapons after the cold war, however, the non-proliferation regime is facing new and many challenges.In the circumstances, the United States began to enhance its counter-proliferation strategy, which became a new and non-neglectable approach in international nuclear proliferation. "Non-proliferation" and "counter-porliferation", the two keywords of the thesis, respectively refers to the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and the new proliferation prevention strategy of the United States. The thesis tries to discuss the prospect of international prevention of proliferation by comparing these two approaches, because both of the international non-proliferation regime and the counter-proliferation strategy of the United States are the reality of current world and their interactions probably will exert deep effects on the process of international proliferation prevention.The comparation of the non-proliferation and the counter-proliferation approaches is composed of three aspects. The first is the rationality of the two approaches. The difference between them actually reflects the clash between the institutionism and the hegemonism. Non-proliferation and counter-proliferation present different modes of the solution to the proliferation problem guided by different world outlooks. On the other side, the two approaches do share the same goal against proliferation of nuclear weapons, which provides the possibility for them to complement each other on some conditions. The second aspect is to discuss the legitimacy of the two approaches. With the basic principles of international laws as the criteria, the non-proliferation regime has a very solid legal base for it is a nuclear security institution under the multinateral rule of law, while on the other side the legitimacy of US counter-proliferation strategy is still in dispute, because the coercive measures in implementing the counter-proliferation strategy go against some basic principles of international laws. The US strategy in nature is defined as a unilateral coercion with multilateral participation. The third aspect to compare is the effectiveness of the two approaches, which provides another parameter to judge the two approaches' role in the process of proliferation prevention.Both theoretical and evidents analyses demonstrate that there are conflicts and clashes between the two approaches of non-proliferation and counter-proliferation, but it will be harmful to discuss the two approaches by simply praising the international non-proliferation regime and criticizing the US strategy of counter-proliferation. The correct evalution of the future of the international proliferation prevention process requires objectively analyzing the interactive and complementary possibility of the two approaches as well as the possibility of their conflicts with each other.The analysis indicates that in the predictable future, maintaining and at the same time strengthening, reforming and improving existing non-proliferation regime is still the mainstream direction of international efforts, although the regime does face serious challenges and attacks from different sides. US strategy of counter-proliferation is another approach to deal with proliferation. Theoretically speaking, the future of international proliferation prevention to a large degree depends on the interations between the existing international non-proliferation regime and the hegemonic US strategy. The expectations of the contributions of the US counter-proliferation strategy to the international regime, however, shall be put on a very realistic base, because it is very obvious that the US strategy considerates solely the interests of the US. There are structural conflicts between the US hegemonic policy and the international regime. The US counter-proliferation strategy may not only weaken the international non-proliferation regime by its double-standard practices, but also totally substitute the current regime by creating a different institution.Therefore, only actively pushing forward the improvement and enhancement of existing international non-proliferation regime, will the hegemonic behaviors of the US in the field of proliferation preventation be limited. On the other side, the US must take actions to sustain and even develop current international non-proliferation regime when implementing its counter-proliferation strategy. Otherwise, the legitimacy of its strategy will be challenged even worse so as to heavily discount the effectiveness of the strategy. The future regime of international prevention of nuclear proliferation must find a good solution of balancing the enhancement and improvement of existing multilateral non-proliferation regime and the further development of US counter-proliferation strategy.The new situation of proliferation brings new requirements to China's policy of proliferation prevention. Non-proliferation and counter-proliferation have become important considerations in China-US relationship. As the permanent member of the UN Security Council and the important and active participant of international non-proliferation regime, China must propose its forward-looking and constructive views on how to reform and strengthen existing multilateral non-proliferation regime and on how to evaluate US strategy and practices of counter-proliferation. The realization of such a scientifically-decided policy serving China's interest best requires correctly understanding the interactions between the multilateral regime and the US counter-proliferation strategy.