Benchmark III

In this benchmark the students begin examining responses to weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and South Asia. They will report on the current status of efforts to prevent the use of WMD including why these methods may or may not be working. They will also try to determine what tools might be most successful in preventing WMD use in these regions.

Israel –

Israel’s special weapons program is a topic shrouded under a veil of secrecy. While widely believed to possess at least an advanced nuclear arsenal, Israel’s neighboring countries allege that Israel is conducting both chemical and biological weapons research and development. Without verification of such, it is hard to regulate Israel's policies. In this instance, international treaties have failed.

The only thing controlling Israel from abusing these weapons is its close relationship with the United States. This relationship is far reaching; it is interesting to note that U.S. presidents have been opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. During the John F. Kennedy administration, the United States went as far as to send its own inspectors to Dimona (the location of Israel's nuclear reactor). These inspections weren't very successful because Israeli officials took measures to prevent the inspectors from viewing the underground plutonium separation facilities. These inspections at Dimona  were later discontinued by President Johnson, relaxing the United States position towards Israel's nuclear program. 4

Fortunately for Israel, President Nixon and his secretary of State Henry Kissinger were relatively sympathetic towards Israel's nuclear status. The administration made a secret agreement in 1970, which stated that the United States would quit pressuring Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if Israel kept extremely quiet about its nuclear ventures. This agreement still stands, and won't likely be absolved any time soon. 4

Because of Israel's special weapons "opacity" the types, the amounts, and even the existence of these weapons remain elusive. This is, in part, because Israel has not officially ratified any treaty that requires Israel to declare any of its special weapons stockpiles. Although Israel has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, they have refrained from ratifying the Convention. The rationale for this move was that at that time Iraq had declined to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, which in Israel's eye's implied that Iraq was attempting to continue its chemical weapons program. In light of the Iraqi situation and due to the majority of other regional powers including Egypt, Libya, and Syria refraining from signing/ratifying this treaty; Israel had a relatively good reason to decline ratifying it. 3

The mid-nineties saw a relative stall in Israeli peace negotiations, after the significant gains of the Madrid conference in 1991. During the Madrid conference, The Middle East Peace Process Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) Working Group was formed. This regime was mainly focused on "Confidence Building Measures" which focused on five areas: 2

Communications

Conflict prevention/regional security

Declaratory measures

Maritime agreements

Military information exchange

This regime consisted of fifteen regional parties: 2

Algeria

Bahrain

Egypt

Israel

Jordan

Kuwait

Mauritania

Morocco

Oman

Palestinians

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Tunis

United Arab Emirates

Yemen

Along with both the Russian Federation and the United States acting as co-gavel holders, followed by a host of Extra-Regional Parities which include:

Part of these meetings included trips to both Swiss and Finnish chemical facilities in a workshop on Chemical Weapons Convention implementation. Unfortunately, the ACRS hasn't had a plenary meeting since September 1995, but the group still occasionally meets in informal meetings.2

Because of the recent developments in Iraq, the threat to Israel's survival has been lessened to some degree. With the probable installation of a pro-American democratic government in Iraq, current politics dictate that the United States will destroy any/all Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. In the future this will hopefully ease tensions between these two countries.

Bibliography -

NTI: Country Overviews: Israel. Retrieved Apr. 15, 2003, from Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI): http://www.nti.org/e_research/e1_israel_1.html

Middle East Peace Process Arms Control and Regional Security (ACRS) Working Group. Retrieved Apr. 15, 2003, from U.S. Department of State: http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/2001/4271.htm

Cohen, A. Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control. http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/83/83cohen.pdf

Yovel, Y. Blast, from the past to the present. Retrieved Apr. 16, 2003, from Federation of American Scientists: http://fas.org/news/israel/000728-israel-1.htm

 

Iran -

Iran, while still under the Non- Proliferation Treaty of 1969, has followed its rules and regulations.(5) On September 24, 1996 Iran signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty; under this treaty the United Nations is allowed to establish an International Monitoring System, with the ability to hold random on-site inspections. Iran has had an opportunity to ratify this treaty, but has yet to pass it. (4) However, Iran does have an intense nuclear program, which they claim to be for peaceful proposes only. Recently Iran has attracted the attention of the United States which has found Iran guilty of purchasing nuclear Technology from Russia, and China. Up until recently, the UN believed that Iran still had a long ways to go before acquiring Nuclear Weapons, until they found their underground nuclear weapons program. (5)

Iran, under obligations of the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997 would have to admit to having chemical weapons, and agree to dismantle them in a set time period of ten years. They signed this treaty but have yet to admit to having chemical weapons. (2) It is thought that if Iran ever had control over nuclear weapons, they might target a regional enemy. Iran was found purchasing unknown weapons from Israel. However, this occurred in 1985. Iran and Syria are close allies, since the early 1980's. Just recently the UN has communicated with Iran, telling them that they would not give much warning prier to an investigation of Iran's weapons programs. In the past years Iran has not caused a lot of trouble, currently they are in good standing and will remain in good standing as long as they don't defy any prominent treaties. (5) It is now thought that Iran might have been involved in the war that started between Iraq, and the U.S, March 19, 2003.

Iran has allied itself with Syria for a long time, if the U.S, is forced to inter into Syria, Iran might get involved. If Iran des get involved other countries may become in this ongoing scenario.

Iraq -

June 17, 1925- The Geneva treaty was signed, in an attempt to effectively eliminate bacteriological biological, toxin, gaseous, and other poisonous agents. (3)

October 29, 1969- Iraq signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. (5)

April 3, 1991- Under  UN resolution 687 Iraq was required to destroy, remove, or render harmless under UN or IAEA supervision and not to use, develop, construct, or acquire all chemical and biological weapons, and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km, and all nuclear weapons-usable material, including related material, equipment, and facilities. The resolution also formed the special Commission and authorized the IAEA to carry out immediate on-site inspections and UNSCOM's designation of any additional location. (1)

August 15, 1991- Under resolution 707 Iraq was required to allow UN and IAEA inspector’s immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wish to inspect. It demands Iraq to provide full, final, and complete disclosure of all aspects of WMD programs; cease immediately any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy WMD-related material or equipment; allow UNSCOM and IAEA teams to used fixed-wing and helicopter flights thought Iraq; and respond fully, completely, and promptly to any Special Commission questions or requests.

October 11, 1991-Under resolution 715, Iraq was required to submit to UNSCOM and IAEA long-term monitoring of Iraqi WMD programs; approved detailed plans called for in UNSCR's 687 and 707 for long-term monitoring.(1)

March 27, 1996- Under resolution 1051, Iraq Established export/import monitoring system, requiring UN members to provide IAEA and UNSCOM with information on materials exported to Iraq that may be applicable to WMD production, and requiring Iraq to report of all dual-use items. (1)

June 12, 1996- Under resolutions' 1060,1115,1134,1137,1154,1194, and 1205, demands that Iraq cooperate with UNSCOM and allow inspector teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to facilities for inspection and access to Iraqi officials for interviews. UNSCOM 1137 condemns Baghdad's refusal to allow entry to Iraq to UNSCOM officials on the grounds of their nationality and its threats to the safety of UN reconnaissance aircraft.](1)

April 29, 1997- Chemical Weapons Convention was held, in order to put a ban on chemical weapons. (2)

March 2, 1998- Under resolution 1154, demands were made to Iraq to comply with UNSCOM and IAEA inspection and indorses the Secretary General's memorandum of understanding with Iraq, providing for " severest consequences" if Iraq fails to comply. (1)

September 9, 1998- Under resolution 1194, Condemns Iraq's decision to suspend cooperative with UNSCOM and the IAEA. (1)

November 5, 1998- Under resolution 1205, Condemns Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UNSCOM.(1)

December 17,1999-  Under resolution 1284, Established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and inspection Commissions, replacing UNSCOM; and demanded that Iraq allow UNMOVIC teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all aspects of Iraq's WMD programs. (1)

Iraq signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, understanding the rules and regulations that followed the signing of it. They understood that they would not be allowed to produce, control, or obtain nuclear weapons, and the means to produce them. It didn't take Iraq very long to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 1991, during the Gulf War and afterwards, the intention was to completely disarm, and dismantle all Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Inspectors were expelled from Iraq but not before many WMDs were destroyed.(5) This did not stop Iraq from trying to create more missiles, more nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.(3) In 1981 Iraq tried to build a gaseous diffusion plant. Then in 1995 Iraq was caught smuggling Russian long range missiles into Baghdad.(1) With the help of the United Nations Special Commission in 1996, many of Iraq's Biological Weapon agents were destroyed. However, some of their dual-use equipment remained untouched. Since the UN inspectors left Iraq in 1998, their weaponry status had remained unknown. Iraq has had many opportunities to stay peaceful under the treaties and resolution. They have violated these treaties over and over again. This is a country that has invited the UN inspectors into Iraq to evaluate the countries current standing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction, then kicked them out. Iraq has delayed inspectors from conducting their duties; the only reasonable explanation for this behavior leads people to believe that Iraq is hiding things. At the moment US troops are in Iraq, looking for Iraqi leaders. The US is currently in control of Iraq, and is actively searching for their weapons of mass destruction. When the war is over, and the Iraqi’s new government will not have weapons of mass destruction.

1) (2002). Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Retrieved, 2003,

Tucker, J. Nonproliferation Regimes at Risk. Retrieved Apr. 8, 2003, http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/opapers/op3/tucker.htm

2) (1972). Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological Biological and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Retrieved Apr. 11, 2003, http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?sn=CB2001121273

3) (2001). Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Signatories/Ratifiers. Retrieved Apr. 8, 2003, http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/ctbt/text/ctbtsigs.htm

4)"International Treaties" Monterey Institute of International Studies 8 Apr. 2003 <>

5) Global Organizations and Regimes INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. Retrieved Apr. 8, 2003, from International Organizations and Nonproliferation Program Center for Nonproliferation Studies:

Return to Top

Nations across the world have tried to accomplish nuclear-free-zones. The hope is to someday rid the world of nuclear weapons. Other countries choose not to join these treaties or regimes to keep a self assurance of security, power, or to keep balance with a neighboring country. Nuclear-weapon-free zone proposals have dated back to the 1960’s. These proposals have been strongly denied and have a lack of support from India, so these proposals have not been able to take effect in South Asia. Also, even though these countries have taken some interest in non-proliferation, they have only develpoed interest in nuclear-weapon-free zones in recent years. This task of creating nuclear-weapon-free zones is going to take a quit a bit of work in actually designating and implementing a zone.

Prevention Efforts

India and Pakistan have tried to come to agreements and solutions in the protection of their people from nuclear weapons. The fact of the matter is that Pakistan and India can not come to any kind of agreement and this has led to the United States stepping into the picture. The United States has scheduled many meetings for India and Pakistan to negotiate on what to do about their weapons. The United States has help to established non-proliferation benchmarks set out by the Security Council and the G-8. One of the benchmarks was to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty.

The United States also encouraged both countries to stop the production of weapon-usable fissile material and to join the negotiation on a fissile material treaty at the conference on disarmament. The conference also seeks to implement strict export controls on sensitive materials and technologies for WMD and resume bilateral dialogue on resolving long-standing tensions and disputes including the regional issues in Jammu and Kashmir.

There are basically three techniques for addressing weapons of mass destruction proliferation;

Management

Abolition

Nullification

Management methods are technically thing like treaties and regimes. Each regime and treaty must be managed by each country involved. Treaties have not been successful in South Asia because neither country will sign the NPT.

Abolition is the ending or slowing down any process involving weapons of mass destruction. While voluntary abolition of nuclear weapons is desirable in the region, progress towards this goal is extremely slow.

Nullification means any techniques that renders a weapon ineffective. An example would be a well-functioning missile defense shield against incoming missiles. Still, this technique does not protect you from a nuclear weapon delivered in another way.

India and Pakistan are original signatories of both the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention. Though the signed convention obligates both countries to have nothing to do with either biological or chemical weapons, the prevention of those weapons is not likely because both countries continue to do research in an atmosphere of mutual distrust. Weapons of mass destruction treaties and regimes succeed or fail depending on the willingness of all parties to cooperate and how the treaties and regimes are set in place. Countries must have an incentive for obeying a treaty that outweighs breaking it: such as trade incentives and tax breaks or free trade agreements. However in some cases a military threat is used as incentive this often just escalates an already serious crisis.

The object of a treaty or regime should be to encourage better and friendly relations between the countries participating. Some treaties or regimes are set up out of mutual necessity as was the case in the Cuban missile crisis when a WMD crisis threatened to destroy both countries involved. Several Cold War era treaties and regimes were set up for mutual good and to relieve tension on both sides. In these situations treaties have helped avert a weapons of mass destruction holocaust.

The object of the treaties and regimes may not be to totally eliminate WMD but to somewhat safe guard it and slow its production. Treaties involving the total destruction of WMD stockpiles leaves countries open to too much threat and often fail which is why they should be focused on depleting stockpiles already in existence and guarding those all the more closely. Funding should be made more available for this from the UN or NATO or simply from the global economy

The UN needs to take a more active global role in this new world of WMD and help fund countries to both protect  and eliminate their WMD stock piles and keep them from falling into the hands of terrorist groups and to prevent the occasion of a mass WMD exchange.

Return to Top