I review the year 2016
This is the forty -eighth version of the annual Serebi book.It offers, like the books that preceded it, a review of events, conflict trends, peace, and international security in the previous year.The 2016 edition noted that it was not difficult to distinguish in 2015 as one of the darkest years in international stability and human security since the end of the Cold War..However, positive developments also occurred in that year, and the good performance of the international system to maintain security and international law continued in many respects;It is not the least to reach two international agreements on limiting the speed of climate change and adaptation to responding to its impact, and the global development plan until the year 2030.Although effective implementation requires great efforts, it was possible to reach the two agreements because the countries of the world were able to reject their differences to achieve a general understanding of two major challenges in our era.While there were no similar international agreements in 2016, the general perspective of the year is still balanced between negative developments and the continuation of the work of the international system [1].However, the Sunnah ended with clear motives for the direction of the transition and recovery of that system in the long run.
In 2016, none of the basic problems that feed the negative aspect of the public budget of human security and international stability was solved.Conflicts in the Middle East continued to produce human tragedies and the wide -rang.The violent conflict continued in many parts of the other world, especially in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe with a lower amount.Many of these conflicts included a military intervention by external countries to one or more parties of the conflict (see second chapter).Non -state terrorism has remained a major impact on many countries and regions, especially the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and Europe.The developments in Northeast Asia contributed to international political instability and can have other serious repercussions.The Democratic Popular Republic of Korea (North Korea) conducted two nuclear tests and several missile tests;It completed the effectiveness of its emergence as the ninth country, nuclear weapons in the world (see Chapter eleventh).All of these developments are anxious;Not only about immediate results, but also about the possibility of more dangerous consequences in the long run as well.
On the positive side, the Paris Climate Agreement, which was reached in December 2015, won enough ratification to become effective in November 2016 [2].The implementation of Iran's nuclear agreement - the comprehensive joint action plan - signed in the middle of 2015, began at the appropriate time in early 2016 (see Chapter Twelfth).A progress was achieved in the work to monitor the exploration of the United Nations Plan 2030 for social and economic development, a long -term and widely widespread project that is not expected to have an impact in the near -term (see Chapter VI).The continued implementation of these decisions taken in previous years indicates that the comments on the period between the official agreement and its implementation may be exaggerated at times..Among the major contributions to the positive section of the public budget is the peace agreement in Colombia (see Chapter Two, II Section).This complicated agreement was rejected by a narrow margin in a preliminary referendum held in October 2016, but it was then revised and the Colombian parliament was believed in the following month [3].
Despite these encouraging signs, this annual book shows that almost all major global peace and security indicators moved in a negative direction: more military spending, increased arms trafficking, more violent conflicts, and the continued progress of military technology forward.
embarrassing questions
For this background, some embarrassing questions emerged in 2016.Eda raised that the number of armed conflicts has reached a level that has not been witnessed since the mid -nineties, a question about whether the great gains achieved in peaceful relations since the end of the Cold War have been reflected (see the second chapter)..Despite the continued function of the international political system, anxiety over the durability of the main parts of the International Security Temple has escalated, especially that the return of strategic competition between the great powers has negative consequences for managing the risk of increasing conflict, as some people fear [4]..The logic of this concern is that competition for influence is accompanied by division on important issues in international institutions such as the United Nations.However, the problem has been counted from some views as a way to the perceived retreat of the West, based on the assumption that Western hegemony is the task in managing conflicts.On the other hand, others welcomed the retreat of the West, and they referred to the works carried out by the West and impact a negative impact on peace.Regardless of the position taken regarding the desire for this phenomenon, the conclusion that Western influence began to find acceptance between commentators and politicians with softening opinions other than that [5].
Political developments in Europe and the United States seemed to reveal a significant decline in adherence to international institutions (see III).This led to anxiety about the destabilizing effects of stability that arises on renewed emphasis in many countries on narrow national interests..And since they are questions about political and strategic geography, they are raised at a high level of publicity, open to the dispute, and mysterious in defining it.However, they are real issues.
Anthroposini era
Away from political and strategic geographical issues, a case with a higher level is looming and related to the shape taken by the current era.In August 2016, the International Geological Conference held in Cape Town, South Africa, made a decision to launch the name anthroposin on the current geological era [6].The name means that human activities are the decisive influencing forces in geology and ecology.It follows the Holosin, which has been named 12,000 years ago.The idea was that the name of anthroposin is the appropriate name for this era was presented for the first time in a brief article in a professional academic newsletter in the year 2007 [7].The proposal underwent a study conducted by a working group from the International Geological Sciences Federation established in 2009, and his report was submitted to the conference in 2016 [8].Geologists still discuss the exact history and the incident that launched the beginning.One of the aspects of thinking preferred the beginning of the industrial revolution, towards the year 1800, while others chose the beginning of the nuclear era in the year 1945, or the beginning of the heavy carbon emissions from the power planting plants, or the beginning of the environmental pollution on a large scale with waste such as the plastic [9].
Although the concept of anthroposin contains a degree of scientific uncertainty and that it is a way of thinking in the world, not a firm fact, it deserves a place in the contemporary discussion of international stability and human security..The climate change and other types of environmental change related to human activities are facts that affect the conditions of life, just as it always applies to the natural environment.It seems that the contemporary political period is somewhat known as the increasing competition between the great powers.Therefore, it is useful to contemplate the need for an unprecedented degree of international cooperation to address the challenges of humanity that the idea of anthroposin is beautiful, while there are risks that cooperation becomes more difficult than it appeared in most of the period elapsed since the end of the Cold War ended.
II armament and disarmament trends
The basic information in this annual book on the volume of military activity is still frustrated.The high levels of military spending and weapons production continued, and the international arms transfers have reached their highest levels since 1990.It is estimated that the global military expenditures amounted to 1686 billion dollars in 2016, an increase of 0.4 percent with real values compared to the last year (the ninth chapter).
The volume of major arms transfers at the international level increased in the period 2012 - 16 by 8.4 percent of what it has been in the past five years, which is the highest volume of any five -year period since 1990 (see the tenth chapter).With this rise in the demand for the import of major weapons, it is worth noting that sales of weapons and military services companies in the world fell 0.6 percent in the year 2015, which is the latest year available (see Chapter Tenth, Section V).This means that companies outside the hundred majority increase their outputs.And that emerging producers, such as South Korea, achieve great increases in their sales.
As for the weapons of mass destruction, all countries of the world, which are winning nuclear weapons, have effective nuclear update programs, as North Korea does, of course, which is the latest of these countries (see Chapter Eleven).India and Pakistan expand their stocks of nuclear weapons and their capabilities to deliver them from the shells.Chemical weapons were used again in the armed conflict in Syria (see Chapter Thirteen).
Weakening disarmament and reducing weapons
Seeking to reduce the number of weapons and methods of using them is a major approach to preserving international peace and security in the modern era.There are two ways to achieve this end, namely reducing weapons and disarmament.Disarmament includes reducing weapons or armed forces or even removing them, while reducing weapons involves restricting or producing weapons development, storing, spreading, transporting, tested, or publishing in ways that do not necessarily reduce numbers..
A period has passed after the end of the Cold War in which a mixture of weapons reduced and weapons weapons were reduced by global military spending, and nuclear weapons stocks began to decrease.During that period, the post -apartheid South Africa abandoned the nuclear aspirations of the previous apartheid state, while Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, new countries that emerged after the disintegration of the Soviet Union - and all of them were able to hold the Soviet nuclear weapons and become nuclear countries -I also abandoned any nuclear ambitions.The number of nuclear weapons decreased in total from 65.000 at its peak to about 14.945 in the year 2016.
As long as there is a very complicated balance within the broad field of arms, reducing weapons, and disarming between programs to increase military power and measures to reduce or reduce armed forces..Today's trends in this field show that armament programs are escalating.Recent years have witnessed profits with profound implications for human security and international stability, although it is a complex technology.
The bilateral and multilateral existing agreements and operations to reduce weapons are challenged.Among the most important developments, in 2015, is taking the last step in Russia's long -term withdrawal from the traditional armed forces treaty in Europe for the year 1990, a process that started in the year 2007 (see Chapter Fourteen, III Section).In the year 2016, Russia suspended the implementation of the bilateral agreement with the United States to get rid of plutonium extracted from the dismantled nuclear warheads..To justify this measure, the Russian government said that the United States was unable to prove its compliance with the agreement (see Chapter Twelfth, Section I).Although the American -Russian treaty for the year 2010 regarding the measures aimed at increasing and reducing strategic offensive weapons (New Start) is still being implemented to the satisfaction of both parties, the US -Russian -Russian -Russian nuclear forces treaty is under pressure.In 2016, each party was accused of violating it.The application of the mechanism created by that treaty was called to resolve differences for the first time since 2003 (see Chapter Twelfth, Section I).
The trend to weaken weapons is challenges to strengthening, implementing, and achieving the existing international legal framework.This is embodied in the failure of the conference on reviewing the biological and he toxic weapons agreement held in November 2016 to agree to make tangible progress (see the thirteenth chapter).The failure, even in agreeing on the essence of the dispute, at the conference of reviewing the Non -Proliferation Treaty of 1968, held in 2015, can indicate that there are structural problems in negotiating the issues of weapons of mass destruction [10].A different clarification of the total problematic direction derives from the non -enforcement of the comprehensive ban on nuclear tests.Meanwhile, large inventories of chemical weapons should still be destroyed after nearly two decades, as the chemical weapons agreement runs out (see Thirteen Chapter, IV Section).In 2016, several confirmed reports were reported on the use of chemical weapons in the two conflicts in Iraq and Syria (see the thirteenth chapter, the two sections I and II).
Increased control efforts, and the increasing challenges
In 2016, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution to start negotiations in 2017 on the removal of nuclear weapons (see Chapter Twelfth, III Section).It has increased steadily supporting what is known in general as the "ban on the ban", but not among the main nuclear countries and their allies.North Korea has supported the ban on the United Nations vote, while China, India and Pakistan have declined to vote, and the other five countries voted against it..The negotiations must overcome the growing polarization between some nuclear weapons countries and many countries that are not obtained, as the prohibition treaty will not have a practical impact on the first Donaloul..But it can be said that the agreement, and even the mere entry of negotiations on such a treaty, before that, can increase political and diplomatic pressure on nuclear weapons to seek nuclear weapons..
Another comprehensive joint action plan is another example of international diplomacy to address differences regarding the spread of weapons of mass destruction through cooperation and negotiation [11].It is still on the right track, and the implementation began at the time specified in 2016.Efforts also continued to strengthen the security of nuclear materials for civil uses, through the fourth and last summit conference on Nuclear Security in Washington DC in April 2016, with a major focus on combating the problem of nuclear terrorism (see Chapter Twelfth, II Section).However, it should be noted that reaching an effective agreement on the security of all materials and facilities related to nuclear weapons is still far..The international regulations for dealing with nuclear materials suitable for weapons are applied only to the materials used in civil facilities, but more than 80 percent of plutonium and uranium for the manufacture of weapons in the world are military users..The nuclear weapons countries oppose the proposals for applying mechanisms for civil uses that are currently based on nuclear materials for military use.The statement issued by Washington's summit in 2016 reaffirmed the responsibility of the countries in "the province throughout the time to effective security for all other nuclear and radiological materials, including nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons.".[12] In a relevant development, the United Nations General Assembly called on the team of high -level experts to prepare ideas for a treaty to stop the production of fissile materials such as high -enriched uranium for nuclear weapons making purposes (see Chapter Twelfth, III Section).This proposal, known as the Treaty of the Caller of Flashry Production, has been discussed, extensively for more than two decades since it was first in the speech of President Bill Clinton before the United Nations General Assembly in 1993.Although it is important to keep the proposal on the agenda, reaching a positive result on this treaty is still far -reaching.
Recent years have witnessed other important endeavors to regulate weapons.The Arms Trafficking Treaty, a historical event, has become a window in December 2014, but it is still early to judge the effectiveness of its implementation..Commercial controls included a wide range of activities such as transient transport, transportation of shipments from one ship to another, brokerage, financing and knowledge transfer.The controls also expanded to include new sectors such as transportation and banking, online trade platforms, and academic circles.Often these controls raise the difference due to the restrictions they impose on trade, travel, and scientific research [13].
Since 2013, the potential organization of self -employment weapons systems began in the framework of the 1981 Nations Agreement regarding the Convention on the Prohibition or Restriction of Consolidary Weapons..Self -operational weapons systems are a serious challenge to reduce weapons [14].The march of providing military technology continues from automated operation, through learning machines, to artificial intelligence and robots.It is expected to provide realistic options for offensive weapons that can be deployed in changing and complex environments without inputs or human supervision or a few of them.And a framework to discuss reducing weapons related to the operating seat weapons systems, but progress is slow.A few governments have identified their approval, and the majority decided to address the issue, and negotiations are still characterized by a purely informal nature and for large media and informational purposes.It was not clear if the negotiations will start or when, or what will be their purpose.The options range from the complete ban to the organization of publishing and use.The question to be asked is whether the speed of reducing weapons will match the speed of their development.
There is a more severe challenge in the face of the principle of reducing weapons from electronic warfare and electronic security.Discussions on organizing the electronic field are more advanced than discussions of self -operating seat weapons systems [15].However, the pace of prominent electronic attacks, whether at the behest of a country, or with a terrorist origin, suggests that defense and oversight measures are still late..There is a study on Russian security that indicates that "Russian defense experts confirmed that the electronic war is no longer a war in the future", but rather "it happens" [16].The report notes that the "electronic war" from the Russian perspective "has a priority for the deadly war and the states are constantly carried out by.And that the boundaries between war and peace are gradually disappearing ».It must be emphasized that the Russian experts mentioned in the report are concerned with the electronic threat of Russia.However, such estimates did not gain weight and importance except by progressing in 2016, given the concerns about the computer hacking for the elections during the US presidential elections [17].Otherwise, both the characteristics of the electronic war that it was reported that experts are stressing - its priority on the traditional, deadly war, and its status as a current and continuous property of political relations, and blurring the borders between the war and peace - represents a deep challenge to subject the capabilities of electronic war to a form of agreed international censorshipon her.Economic electronic security may be in the interest of all countries - and since some of the main sources of electronic insecurity and economic turmoil may be active bodies from non -states, there may be a great room for international cooperation in order to achieve a degree of electronic protection for companies.But the possibilities of such cooperation in the political and strategic field seem mainly weak.