Conclusion: ISODARCO As an Epistemic Community

CONcLUSION: ISODARCO aS aN EPISTeMIc COMMUNITY Paolo Foradori, Giampiero Giacomello, and Alessandro Pascolini This collection of contributions by some of the most influential experts in nuclear weapons has addressed numerous issues related to the threat of nuclear weapons and the risk of their proliferation. Despite the diversity in their backgrounds, origins, areas of expertise, political orientations and time of writing, the various authors share some common assumptions about nuclear weapons and policies that can be summarized in the follow- ing four main propositions. First, wide consensus exists among them that nuclear weapons are a very special category of weapons, radically different from conventional and also other non-conventional ones (i.e., chemical and biological weap- P. Foradori School of International Studies University of Trento Trento, Italy G. Giacomello Department of Political and Social Sciences University of Bologna Bologna, Italy A. Pascolini Department of Physics and Astronomy “Galileo Galilei” University of Padua Padua, Italy © The Author(s) 2018 329 P. Foradori et al. (eds.), Arms Control and Disarmament, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62259-0 330 CONcLusiON: ISODARCO as an EpisteMic COMMuNitY ons). Nuclear weapons are truly weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that can produce catastrophic consequences in indiscriminate and dispro- portionate ways. All authors, regardless of the time of their writing, are fully aware of these weapons’ exceptionality, their revolutionary impact on international relations and the inherent risks that their very presence has for the future of humanity. Despite differences in language, the current notion of the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences” of nuclear weapons—which has animated the debate on nuclear disarmament over the last few years and was featured in the failed 2015 Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—is clearly anticipated in many chapters of this volume written decades ago with remarkable vision. Given their extraordinary destructive power, nuclear weapons must be carefully con- trolled and, in an ideal world, eliminated, although many of the authors betray serious doubts about the viability of full-scale disarmament (see also below), or “nuclear zero,” as we call it today. Second, none of the authors downplays the fact that nuclear weapons strategies inherently imply a very dangerous “gamble.” If disarmament is, in the best possible scenario, a difficult and long-term objective,Dr. Strangelove’s “stop worrying and love the Bomb” attitude cannot be an option. Despite the best intentions and calculations, human beings make mistakes and things go wrong for a variety of unintentional and unplanned reasons. Deterrence is not foolproof and failure is always possible. There is no “fail safe” device. The (tragic) trouble is that if something goes wrong in the nuclear realm, consequences can be catastrophic, and there is no going back. Third, even if the world has profoundly changed during the 50-year period covered in this volume, the threat of nuclear weapons has not waned. While the spectre of a nuclear holocaust obviously surfaces as a major concern in the chapters of the first two parts of the book dedicated to the years of East-West nuclear confrontation, the third part of the post- Cold War era appears to be equally frightening. Contrary to expectations, the “nuclear peace-dividend” at the end of the bipolar system turned out to be very meagre and nuclear threats have persisted. Despite significant reductions in nuclear arsenals since the height of the superpower rivalry in the mid-eighties, it is not possible to lower our guard. As a reading of the preceding chapters clearly shows, the “second-nuclear age” is as dangerous as the first. If this is the case, the fourth and final teaching that can be inferred from reading this volume is that only complete and irreversible disarmament represents a definitive solution to the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. CONcLusiON: ISODARCO as an EpisteMic COMMuNit Y 331 However, there is no consensus among the contributors regarding the feasibility of nuclear disarmament, and for many this goal remains mere wishful thinking given current and near-future circumstances. However, all contributors consider it to be of the utmost importance to halt the further spread of nuclear weapons. Favouring Scott Sagan’s arguments to Kenneth Waltz in the famous debate between nuclear pessimists and opti- mists, the volume’s contributors clearly subscribe to the view that “more can only be worse.” While waiting and actively working for the conditions of nuclear disarmament to become ripe, international efforts towards non-proliferation must be strongly supported. As the reading of this book suggests, and the history of ISODARCO shows, this objective can be promoted by being an active member of an epistemic community and by engaging in disarmament and non-proliferation education. AN AcTUaL EPISTeMIc COMMUNITY Long before Francis Bacon’s “knowledge is power” aphorism, control over knowledge and information was a key ingredient of power. In fact, the emergence and diffusion of new ideas and data may lead to new patterns of behaviour that disrupt the status quo. However, if fear of altering the present order is overcome, these patterns may prove to be a game changer for international policy coordination in the most diverse circumstances, including arms control and nuclear proliferation, as the chapters in this volume demonstrate. Equally essential for appreciating the value of the contributions presented here is the notion of epistemic communities—networks of knowledge-based experts—that will be briefly discussed in this section. Strictly speaking, this collection of contributions by prominent researchers is not about these informal groups of professionals with authoritative and policy- relevant expertise. Nonetheless, the chapters represent the efforts of many scientists and scholars to expose their ideas and policy solutions to the appraisal of their peers. Their ultimate goal was to develop viable solutions to various nuclear problems that could be adopted by adversarial governments (first and foremost, the United States and Russia) and increase con- fidence, reduce tension and tame risks of nuclear escalation. In so doing, these scientists and scholars created a close and vibrant epistemic community. This outcome was unplanned; it was a by-product of many interac- tions and international meetings, including the ISODARCO courses. Incidentally, “the quality and frequency of meetings point toward the 332 CONcLusiON: ISODARCO as an EpisteMic COMMuNitY nature of interaction among members of an epistemic community,”1 which is also one of the indicators of success; and, in this respect, the record of ISODARCO is remarkable. Epistemic communities have become a recent and successful concept in International Relations theory over the last 20 years. The most quoted ref- erence is the 1992 special issue of International Organization (IO) entitled Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination. In that issue, Peter Haas defined epistemic communities according to four criteria that are shared amongst members2: (1) normative and principled values; (2) causal beliefs; (3) tools to validate or refute causal claims and (4) the tools (or practices) utilized to prescribe policy solutions. Restricted by international and national constraints, Haas continues,3 epistemic communities are called upon by decision makers, who are being confronted with public policy issues of increasing complexity, to help reduce the uncertainty and provide clarification. It is the prestige, training and reputation of the community that breed the type of expertise valued by political elites. In the same issue of IO, an article by Emanuel Adler4 recalls a national group of experts selected by the American government as the basis for negotiations with the Soviets, ultimately becoming the seed of the anti- ballistic missile (ABM) regime. Paraphrasing Adler, an American epistemic community played a key role in creating the international shared under- standing and practice of nuclear arms control. In the absence of nuclear war, leaders’ expectations of nuclear war and of its control were affected by causal theories, abstract propositions and models that, given their “sci- entific” and technical nature, were developed by an epistemic community. The theoretical and practical ideas from the arms control epistemic community turned into political expectations, which were also shared by Soviet leadership. This commonality of interests then became embodied in the 1972 ABM treaty. The very same process of generating workable policy ideas that subsequently percolated into the policy-making arena is exem- plified in many of the contributions included in the present volume. Why is the relationship between international networks of experts and policy-makers so fundamental? Because how decision makers define state interests and formulate policies to address complex and technical issues can be a function of the manner in which the issues are presented by those specialists to whom they turn for advice in the face of uncertainty. This is where epistemic communities thrive: identifying the cause-and-effect rela- tionships of complex problems; helping governments define their interests; framing the issues for collective debate; and proposing specific policies or identifying salient points for negotiation. CONcLusiON: ISODARCO as an EpisteMic

Load more