| October
2002
Contact: Stephen M. Apatow
Director of Research
& Development
Humanitarian Resource
Institute Legal Resource Center
Biodefense Reference
Library
Eastern USA: (203) 668-0282
Western USA: (775) 884-4680
Internet:
http://www.humanitarian.net/law/biodefense
Email: s.m.apatow@humanitarian.net
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION,
NONPROLIFERATION AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
Before the World Trade Center
and Pentagon attacks on September 11, 2001, many international security
specialists claimed terrorists were simply not interested in creating mass
fatalities. Before the October 2001 anthrax attacks in Florida, Washington,
and New York, many specialists also insisted that public fears that terrorists
would use weapons of mass destruction were unwarranted. [1] Today,
no one doubts that terrorists might be interested in mass destruction terrorism.
Efforts to address the global
threat that now exists lies in the tools of nonproliferation, namely the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT),
Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and Comprehensive Threat Reduction
(CTR).
Recently, in a direct breech
of the NPT, both Pakistan and India conducted nuclear tests (1998) and
now possess nuclear weapons that have required direct attention regarding
their safety and security in terms of unauthorized or accidental use or
accessibility to theft or seizure by terrorist groups. The complexity of
containment of nuclear weapons, materials and expertise sought by proliferators
requires direct action of the international community to prevent terrorist
factions or unstable states from possessing nuclear weapons. The
window of vulnerability for large quantities of fissile materials (Russia's
inventory through 2007) encompasses the need for counter terrorism efforts
to block the formation and activities of large scale international terrorist
organizations. Current U.S. Nonproliferation programs in the former
Soviet Union [2] include:
-
Material Protection, Control
and Accounting (MPC&A) Program (DOE): Improving Security of 603 tons
of nuclear weapons material at 53 sites and for 1000's of navel n-weapons.
-
Mayak Fissile Material Storage
facility (DOD): The construction of a secure facility for 50 tons of weapons
plutonium.
-
Aktau-BN-350 Breeder Reactor
Project: The security of 3 tons of high quality Pu in spent fuel.
-
HEU Purchase Agreement - "Megatons
to Megawatts" program (U.S. Enrichment Corporation - USEC): Purchase of
500 tons of weapons grade uranium over 20 years, blended down to non-weapons
usable nuclear power plant fuel.
-
Plutonium (Pu) Disposition (DOE):
The elimination of 34 tons of Russian Weapons Pu by irradiating materials
as mixed oxide fuel in Russian nuclear power plants.
-
Pu Production Reactor Shut Down
Agreement (DOE): End annual production of 1.8 tons (total) or weapons plutonium
at three remaining Russian production reactors, while providing alternatives.
Today, the Biological weapons
threat demands the development of a robust national and international infrastructure.
The creation of an advanced pathogen, either accidentally or deliberately,
could pose a major threat to the well being and even the survival of the
human species. [3]
In January, 2001, Australian
scientists developing a contraceptive vaccine for controlling field mice
populations sought to enhance the vaccines effectiveness by inserting the
gene for the immune regulatory protein interleukin-4 (IL-4) into mousepox,
which was being used as a carrier virus. IL-4 is a substance that
is normally produced in mice, but insertion of the IL-4 gene into the mousepox
genome unexpectedly transformed the normally benign virus into a virulent
strain that shut down the immune system and killed all the animals in the
experiment. In addition to rendering mousepox lethal in mice genetically
resistant to the virus, the inserted gene made the mousepox vaccine ineffective
- the recombinant virus killed even those mice that had previously been
vaccinated. [4] Since human beings possess the interleukin-4 gene,
it is possible that inserting this gene into a poxvirus that infects humans,
such as smallpox or monkeypox, could create a lethal strain that would
be resistant to the existing smallpox vaccine. [5]
Current threats involving
the deliberate reintroduction of smallpox as an epidemic disease would
be an international crime of unprecedented proportions, but it is now regarded
as a possibility. [6] Without intervention, each person infected
with smallpox could infect between 10 and 20 others in a society that had
not been immunized. Epidemiologists refer to this number as the "transmission
rate" of an epidemic.
A transmission rate of 20
means the first 50 victims could infect 1,000 others, and these "second
generation" cases could infect 20,000 more, who would infect 400,000, and
so on. The sixth generation of such a mathematical progression would be
160 million and if such a hypothetical epidemic were to occur with smallpox,
that number of cases would be reached in approximately 10 weeks after the
first case appeared.
The impact of a bioterrorist
incident presents the challenge of mass casualties, the closure of roads,
airports and waterways causing interstate and international commerce to
potentially grind to a halt as containment and control becomes the priority.
As economic scenarios in the global war against terrorism are assessed,
the significance of a bioterrorist incident with an agent such as smallpox
would present a catastrophic geopolitical challenge.
NONPROLIFERATION: PREVENTING
NBC SECURITY THREATS
According to the paper "Assessing
Risks and Crafting Responses" by Michael Barletta of the Monterey Institute
of International Studies, the objective of the international community
is to prevent NBC related security threats from ever materializing. [7]
This includes:
1. The prevention of unauthorized
access to NBC weapons and other capabilities that can be employed for mass-destruction
strikes.
2. To craft of mutually
reinforcing domestic and international measures in to leverage scarce financial,
human, and political resources; avoid creating loopholes or vulnerabilities
that terrorists or states seeking NBC capacities can exploit; and to create
multiple layers of prevention, deterrence, and defense against mass destruction
threats.
3. To craft dual purpose
responses that include disease surveillance and public health capabilities
that offer societal benefits even in the absence of a deliberate bioweapons
attack. The scientific community also needs to deal with the problem
of hazardous research, ideally through self governance.
4. The forceful interdiction
to identify, disrupt, and if possible destroy terrorist organizations to
prevent transnational groups from again turning prosaic tools of modern
life into terrorist weapons.
5. Justice, in the context
of real and perceived violations of human rights, economic justice,
political freedom, national sovereignty, and other normative values that
have no automatic, direct consequences for international security. In this
regard, economic development assistance may serve nonproliferation insofar
as aid creates societal benefits that reduce the motivation of subnational
and transnational actors to engage in terrorism or acquire mass-destruction
weapons.
In conjunction with these
objectives, today, the question must be asked:
If a rogue country is in
possession of weapons of mass destruction, and the intelligence community
has sufficient information that an imminent threat exists for a terrorist
attack, does the United Nations and Security Council possess the capacity
to prevent the incursion via preemptive action?
In the context of international
law, Jayantha Dhanapala, Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs,
United Nations, articulates:
"Perhaps the weakest area
of the rule of law now concerns the issue of enforcement. It is a truism
that international law lacks the police functions that are found in domestic
legal systems -- it is instead a system that still relies largely upon
self-help when it comes to enforcement. The ability of the UN Security
Council to perform its enforcement responsibilities under the Charter is
limited by its need to operate in consensus and by its practical inability
to order enforcement actions -- especially involving the use of military
force -- against one of its permanent members." [8]
PEACE: THE PEOPLE REPRESENT
THE ULTIMATE UNITS OF SOCIETY
The seriousness of the challenges
facing the international community are daunting, but at the present time,
a window of opportunity exists for the "peoples of the United Nations"
as the ultimate units of international society to focus on the potential
of the "Butterfly Effect." Secretary General Kofi Annan [9] commented
on the phenomenon during his acceptance of his Nobel Peace Prize, on 10
December, last year:
"According to scientists,
the world of nature is so small and independent that a butterfly flapping
its wings in the Amazon rainforest can generate a violent storm on the
other side of the earth. He noted that, for better or worse, the
world of human activity also has its own "Butterfly Effect" - human actions
can either save the world or destroy it."
In the context of peace,
we continue to request the support of the International Interfaith Peace
Declaration.
On the web: http://www.humanitarian.net/peace/declaration.html
Signatories: http://www.humanitarian.net/peace/pdsignatories.html
The Humanitarian Resource
Institute International Peace Center is a collaborative initiative to share
information and enhance academic discussion of issues related to Crisis
Management/Intervention and the prevention and settlement of conflicts
between and within states, with emphasis on policy research and development.
References:
[1] Sagan, Terrorism, Pakistan,
and Nuclear Weapons, Stanford University - After
9/11: Preventing Mass-Destruction Terrorism and Weapons Proliferation,
Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Occasional Paper No.8, May 2002, p.
46.
[2] Spector, The New landscape
of Nuclear Terrorism, Monterey Institute of International Studies - After
9/11: Preventing Mass-Destruction Terrorism and Weapons Proliferation,
Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Occasional Paper No.8, May 2002, p.
11-12.
[3] Andrew Pollack, "Wiuth
Biotechnology, a Potential to Harm," New York Times, November 27, 2001;
Claire M. Fraser and Malcolm R. Dando, "Genomics and Future Biological
Weapons: The Need for Preventative Action by the Biomedical Community,"
Nature Genetics 29 (2001), pp. 253-65.
[4] R.J.Jackson et al. (2001),
"Expression of Mouse Interleukin-4 by a Recombinant Ectromelia Virus Supresses
Cytolytic Lymphocyte Responses and Overcomes Genetic Resistance to Mousepox,"
Journal of Virology, 75 (2001), pp. 1025-10.
[5] Tucker, Regulating Scientific
Research of Potential Relevance to Biological Warfare, Monterey Institute
of International Studies - After
9/11: Preventing Mass-Destruction Terrorism and Weapons Proliferation,
Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Occasional Paper No.8, May 2002, p.
24.
[6] Centers for Disease
Control, Smallpox
Reference Materials. JAMA, Smallpox
as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health Management, Vol.
281 No. 22, June 9, 1999.
[7] Barletta, Assessing
Risks and Crafting Responses, Monterey Institute of International Studies
- After 9/11: Preventing
Mass-Destruction Terrorism and Weapons Proliferation, Center for Nonproliferation
Studies, Occasional Paper No.8, May 2002, p. 65-66.
[8] Dhanapala, International
Law, Security, and Weapons of Mass Destruction, Under-Secretary-General
for Disarmament Affairs, United Nations, 2002 Spring Meeting of the Section
of International Law and Practice American Bar Association.
[9] Annan, We
Can Love What We Are, Without Hating What - And Who - We Are Not, UN
Press Release SG/SM/8071, October 2001.
. |