1 Savannah Naugle-Baker
Heidelberg University
MUNFW 67th Session
Disarmament and International Security Committee
The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development
Introduction
In today’s world, where the threat of terrorism is ever so present, the global community
has seen a sharp increase in the number of weapons sales and overseas military bases. In order
for sustainable development to become a reality, and to bridge the gap between the Global North
and South, it is imperative to study and understand the relationship between militarism and its
effect on countries, whether developed or developing. In fact, two targets of Goal Sixteen of the
Sustainable Development Goals are:
To significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery
and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime by 2030, and
to Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international
cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing
countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime.1
History of Disarmament
Never has there been a time in human history where weapons of some kind have not been
obtained and used. It is impossible for historians to know the precise history of weapons and
their uses. The history of disarmament, however, can be seen in a much clearer light. One of the
earliest modern examples of disarmament occured at the end of World War I. In an attempt to
prevent another major war, the triumphant nations put major restrictions on Germany’s military.
The armaments sufficient for a small military were retained (the German military was to be only
100,000 men strong), while the rest were to be destroyed under Allied Power’s watch. As history
shows, the sanctions placed on Germany backfired and resulted in the Second World War.
1
“Goal 16: Promote Just, Peaceful and Inclusive Societies.” The United Nations. Accessed August 12, 2016.
2 Following the conclusion of World War Two, the Allied Powers’ focus on disarmament shifted
to the limitation of nuclear weapons for fear of a future nuclear holocaust. While the focus on
nuclear weapons is still high, there still exist many other points of focus for the international
community regarding disarmament. There is also a need for limiting the prevalence of biological
and chemical weapons.2 Disarmament takes place on a smaller level as well, with many countries
limiting or taking away the right of their own citizens to carry small arms as a preventative
measure to violence. For instance, after the mass shooting in Australia on April 28, 1996, the
government bought back and confiscated over one million firearms and reformed gun legislation,
which made it harder to legally own and sell firearms.3
Effects of Militarism on Development
Whether discussing developed or developing countries, the effect of militarism on
sustainable development is both very real and very visible. Militarism has devastating
consequences for communities in conflict zones, countries engaged in war, and nations that are
working towards development. One result of global militarization is the harmful effects it has on
access to natural resources. Resources that could be used for food, agricultural land,
infrastructure, and other resources that are required for development are lost either as a result of
violent destruction, and/or for the accommodation of military needs.4
Not only are precious resources lost through militarism, but military spending also
drastically reduces the amount of money to be spent on improving areas of different communities
in need of development. In 2015, global defense spending rose to $1.6 trillion from $1.5 trillion
2
Towle, Philip. “Enforced Disarmament: From the Napoleonic Campaigns to the Gulf War.” Oxford Scholarship
Online, 1997. Accessed August 12, 2016.
3
Kaye, Byron & Wayne Cole. “Australia Data Shows Gun Controls a Huge Success 20 Years After Mass
Shooting.” Reuters. April 28, 2016. Accessed August 12, 2016.
4
“Disarmament for Development.” International Peace Bureau. Accessed August 12, 2016.
3 in 2014.56 According to the Global Humanitarian Assistance 2016 report, only $981 million was
spent on global humanitarian assistance.7 The above two reports show the world spends around
1,631 times more on defense than on humanitarian aid and development. It is no surprise the
countries spending the most on defense are the most developed and have the most money and
resources to do so. Those are, ironically, the nations that are expected to guide the Global South
towards sustainability and peace. When the main focus of spending for those nations is on
defense, however, less can therefore be put towards food, education, health, employment, and
protecting the environment.
Small arms and light weapons (SALW) also drastically affect the development of
communities around the world. Civilians and non-governmental groups make up a large part of
those in possession of SALW. In fact, “experts estimate that the total number of small weapons
held around the world is at least 875 million, of which about 650 million are in civilian hands”.8
Additionally, increased production of SALW only contributes to illegal sale and possession.
Most government SALW are kept in mass quantities in warehouses, making it relatively easy for
non-state actors to illegally obtain and resell the SALW on the black market. By contributing to
the cycle of violence, SALW negatively affect the development of human rights, social,
economic, and public development, and human security. The use of SALW has shifted from
national to individual security, where civilians obtain SALW in an attempt to defend themselves.
This only increases the demand for weapons, leads to conflict, and deters development.4
5
Young, Angelo. “Global Defense Budget Seen Climbing In 2014; First Total Increase Since 2009 As Russia
Surpasses Britain And Saudi Arabia Continues Its Security Spending Spree.” International Business Times.
February 6, 2014. Accessed August 15, 2016.
6
“U.S. Military Spending vs. The World.” National Priorities Project. Accessed August 15, 2016.
7
“Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2016.” Global Humanitarian Assistance. Accessed August 15, 2016.
8 "Weapons and Their Impacts on Communities Small Arms and Light Weapons." IPB. Accessed August 12, 2016.
4
“Disarmament for Development.” International Peace Bureau. Accessed August 12, 2016.
4 One of the most pertinent topics concerning disarmament is nuclear weaponry. The
effects nuclear weapons have on all nations are enumerable. The health effects arising from
nuclear weapons include, but are not limited to, radiation that may lead to cancer, birth defects,
inadequate brain development, and severe physical wounds. As demonstrated by the radiation
effects of Chernobyl and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, the hazardous wastes,
contamination, and destruction last decades and completely halt community developmental
progress. From the Cold War alone, there are around 50 nuclear warheads and 11 nuclear
reactors sitting on the bottom of the ocean floor due to the sinking of Soviet and American
ships.9 Additionally, there are many nuclear reactors and nuclear weapon manufacturing sites
condemned as a result of nuclear contamination penetrating the surrounding land. Sites such as
Chernobyl, Chelyabinsk, La Hague, Yucca Mountain, Hanford, Sellafield, Murmansk, Three
Mile Island, and Fukushima are no longer suitable for agricultural production, industrial
advancement, housing, and more because the lands are not fit for human habitation. They will
therefore will sit useless and idol. 4
Similar to weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons are just as prevalent and
just as damaging to sustainable development. Conventional weapons can include anything from
ammunition and artillery to combat aircrafts and naval ships. Found mostly in and near conflict
zones, they destroy infrastructure, houses, places of employment, and lives. Conventional
weapons result in the loss of lives and livelihoods. Many who live in and near conflict zones end
up fleeing their communities and never returning. The unregulated trade of conventional
weapons is just as harmful as the weapons themselves, because it puts weapons in the hands of
individuals and organizations not trained in the proper use of the weapons, and whose intentions
9
Maack, Benjamin. "A Nuclear Needle in a Haystack: The Cold War's Missing Atomic Bombs." Spiegel Online.
November 14, 2008. Accessed October 24, 2016
4
“Disarmament for Development.” International Peace Bureau. Accessed August 12, 2016. 5 for weapons are criminal. As history demonstrates, conventional weapons have been used as
means to carry out mass genocides, incite violence, and prevent sustainable development. When
it comes to the trade of conventional arms, countries that are selling the weapons need to be fully
aware of consumer’s intent so future human rights violations can be avoided. 4
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
On April 22, 1970 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) went
into effect, having been open for signatories starting in 1968. Since 1970, 187 countries have
signed the NPT, with initial signatories including the United States, the Soviet Union, and the
United Kingdom. As of now, the only Member States that have not signed are India, Pakistan,
Cuba, and Israel. The NPT holds great significance because it is the first multilateral treaty with
the goal of disarmament and reducing the risk of nuclear war. In fact, the NPT is so widely
supported that in 1995 it was extended indefinitely with a review of the treaty every five years.10
The purpose of the NPT is to limit the spread of nuclear weapon technology by Member
States recognized as having nuclear weapon capabilities. Within the treaty, it is agreed Member
States without nuclear weapon capabilities will not attempt the acquisition of nuclear weapon
technology from those holding it, and that those holding it will work toward disarmament.
Countries signed on to the treaty also agreed to oversight and inspection of nuclear facilities by
the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
4
“Disarmament for Development.” International Peace Bureau. Accessed August 12, 2016.
“Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968).” Atomic Archive. Accessed August 15, 2016. 10
6 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
In 1996 The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was first signed by the
United States as a way to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) prohibits all nuclear
weapon test explosions or other nuclear explosions anywhere. In order to verify
compliance with its provisions, the treaty establishes a global network of
monitoring facilities and allows for on-site inspections of suspicious events. The
overall accord contains a preamble, 17 treaty articles, two treaty annexes, and a
protocol with two annexes detailing verification procedures.11
Not only does the CTBT work to end the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it also has
implemented a global monitoring system aimed at detecting and deterring states from cheating
the system. There are currently 183 signatories on the CTBT, including the five original nuclear
weapons states: United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France. The CTBT has not yet entered
into force since its creation in 1996, because the treaty requires that all five original nuclear
weapons states, as well as India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan, actually ratify the treaty.
Every other year since 1999 a conference has been held to examine the ratification process and
CTBT enforcement. If ratified by all the required nations, the CTBT would be a major milestone
in disarmament and sustainable development.9
International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism
In April of 2005, the General Assembly unanimously approved the International
Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (ICSANT) on the basis of
improving global guidelines when it comes to terrorism. In September 2005, the treaty opened
11
9
“Summary of the CTBT.” Project for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Accessed August 15, 2016.
“Summary of the CTBT.” Project for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Accessed August 15, 2016.
7 for signatories and in July 2007 was put into full force. As of 2015, the ICSANT has a total of 99
signatories, 16 of which have not ratified.12 The ICSANT,
Provides for a definition of acts of nuclear terrorism and covers a broad range of
possible targets, including those against nuclear power plants and nuclear
reactors. Under its provisions, the alleged offenders must be either extradited or
prosecuted. It also encourages States to cooperate in preventing terrorist attacks
by sharing information and assisting each other in connection with criminal
investigations and extradition proceedings. The treaty requires that any seized
nuclear or radiological material is held in accordance with IAEA safeguards, and
handled in regard to the IAEA's health, safety and physical protection standards.13
The ICSANT was held in response to Russia’s growing concerns that the 1980 Convention on
the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material did not sufficiently address the growing threat of
terrorism and nuclear warfare. The ICSANT is a landmark convention, due to it being the first
global preemptive legal instrument concerning international terrorism, and being the first antiterrorism treaty adopted since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.10
The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
When it comes to the decisions of the General Assembly, the United Nations Office for
Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) is the enforcing body for resolutions dealing with disarmament.
The UNODA was established in 1998 under General Assembly resolution A/51/950, and
“promotes Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, strengthening of the disarmament
regarding weapons of mass destruction, and disarmament efforts in the area of conventional
weapons, especially landmines and small arms.”14 The UNODA works with the General
12
“International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. April 3,
2015. Accessed August 18, 2016.
13
“International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005).” Atomic Archive. Accessed
August 15, 2016.
10
“International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. April 3,
2015. Accessed August 18, 2016. 14
“About Us.” United Nations Office For Disarmament Affairs. Accessed August 18, 2016.
8 Assembly, First Committee, Disarmament Commission, and Conference on Disarmament, as
well as other bodies and non-governmental actors, on making disarmament a practical reality.
The UNODA is extremely instrumental in sustainable development, supporting and encouraging
civil reintegration of former combatants after the demobilization of conflicts.
Controversies Surrounding Disarmament
One of the largest arguments against disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament, is its
negative effect on the power of sovereign nations to deter aggressions brought on by other states.
This raises the question as to whether partial disarmament, rather than full or multilateral
disarmament, is more practical when it comes to implementation. Another point of controversy is
that the majority of the main signatories on treaties that focus on disarmament are the countries
with the most nuclear weapons, and the best nuclear technology. For instance, of the nine
countries that possess nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel,
and North Korea), the United States and Russia accounted for 93% of the total 16,300 nuclear
weapons. That percentage has lowered due to the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction
and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, which required the U.S. and Russia to reduce their
nuclear weapons.15 The above figure contradicts the push for total multilateral disarmament by
the two countries that harbor the vast majority of the world’s nuclear weapons. Others, such as
academic Kenneth Waltz, argue that the proliferation of nuclear weapons could actually be the
best and most peaceful solutions to conflict prone areas. For example, Waltz states that a
15
Macias, Amanda. “Nine Nations Have Nukes- Here’s How Many Each Country Has.” Business Insider. June 17,
2014. Accessed August 19, 2016.
9 nuclear-armed Iran would restore stability to the Middle East by allowing Iran to equally match
Israel’s monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region.16
The weapons industry is one of the most profitable industries on the planet. The United
States is the top weapons seller on the globe, with sales jumping from $10 billion in 2007 to $36
billion in 2014. Russia comes in second in 2014, with sales of $10.2 billion.17 A counterpoint to
the demobilization movement can be made here. The global economy would theoretically take a
hit and many jobs and businesses would be lost in the event of multilateral disarmament. On the
plus side, money not spent on weapons, whether they be conventional, biological, nuclear, or
small arms, can be redirected to support sustainable development.
Conclusion
Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said it best on August 4, 2008 when he said,
We could make significant progress towards the Millennium Development Goals
if some of these resources [spent on militaries and their armaments] were
redirected to economic and social development efforts. At a time of soaring food
and fuel prices and global economic uncertainty, the world cannot afford to ignore
the development potential of disarmament and non-proliferation.18
The reality is that 795 million people on the globe live without proper nutrition, and 98% of
those undernourished people live in developing nations. There are approximately 300,000
maternal deaths from childbirth, and around 3 million children a year die from malnutrition,
which means that approximately every 10 seconds a child dies from a hunger related disease.
36.9 million people have HIV/AIDS, and 6.3 million children died in 2013 from preventative
16
Waltz, Kenneth N. "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better: Introduction." The Adelphi Papers 21,
no. 171 (1981): 1. doi:10.1080/05679328108457394.
17
Nicks, Denver. “The U.S. Is Still No.1 At Selling Arms to the World. “ TIME Magazine. December 26, 2015.
Accessed August 20, 2016.
18
“Disarmament.” The United Nations. Accessed August 20, 2016.
10 diseases such as malaria, diarrhea, and pneumonia. Nearly 663 million people live without access
to clean water. Around 896 million people live on less than $1.90 a day, and 70 percent of the
world’s poorest people live in rural areas.19 The gap between the Global North and the Global
South is staggering, and in the 21st Century, with the technology and resources the North has at
its disposal, there is no reason for the statistics above to exist. The idea of multilateral
disarmament is one that would change the state of development across the globe for the better. If
the $300 million nations spend on nuclear weapons each day was put towards a meal on a hungry
family’s table, or building a school in an underprivileged region, or implementing clean water
technologies, there is little doubt sustainable development could be a reality.20 The United
Nations can make all the suggestions and strong recommendations possible, but it is up to
Member States to make the commitment to transparency and be fully invested in building the
relationship between disarmament and development.
19
20
“Know Your World: Facts About Hunger And Poverty.” The Hunger Project. Accessed August 20, 2016.
“Spending on Nuclear Weapons.” International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Accessed August 20,
2016.
11 Questions:
1. What does your country seem to support more, total multilateral disarmament or partial
disarmament?
2. What measures could the United Nations take in order to hold nuclear weapon capable
Member States accountable when it comes to their “vocal” support for disarmament?
3. How does your specific country feel about disarmament and what level of participation
will your country be willing to give to disarmament talks?
a. Does your country have the same views about disarmament as the bloc you
belong to?
4. What will be the most contentious issues brought up about disarmament in committee?
5. What resolutions, treaties, and non-governmental actors do you think will be the most
helpful to build off of in committee?
12 Bibliography
“About Us.” United Nations Office For Disarmament Affairs. Accessed August 18, 2016.
“Disarmament for Development.” International Peace Bureau. Accessed August 12, 2016.
“Disarmament.” The United Nations. Accessed August 20, 2016.
“Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2016.” Global Humanitarian Assistance. Accessed
August 15, 2016.
“Goal 16: Promote Just, Peaceful and Inclusive Societies.” The United Nations. Accessed
August 12, 2016.
“International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005).” Atomic
Archive. Accessed August 15, 2016.
“International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.” Nuclear Threat
Initiative. April 3, 2015. Accessed August 18, 2016.
“Know Your World: Facts About Hunger And Poverty.” The Hunger Project. Accessed August
20, 2016.
Maack, Benjamin. "A Nuclear Needle in a Haystack: The Cold War's Missing Atomic Bombs."
Spiegel Online. November 14, 2008. Accessed October 24, 2016.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-nuclear-needle-in-a-haystack-the-cold-war-smissing-atom-bombs-a-590513.html.
“Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968).” Atomic Archive. Accessed August 15, 2016.
“Spending on Nuclear Weapons.” International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
Accessed August 20, 2016.
13 “Summary of the CTBT.” Project for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Accessed
August 15, 2016.
“U.S. Military Spending vs. The World.” National Priorities Project. Accessed August 15, 2016.
Kaye, Byron & Wayne Cole. “Australia Data Shows Gun Controls a Huge Success 20 Years
After Mass Shooting.” Reuters. April 28, 2016. Accessed August 12, 2016.
Macias, Amanda. “Nine Nations Have Nukes- Here’s How Many Each Country Has.” Business
Insider. June 17, 2014. Accessed August 19, 2016.
Nicks, Denver. “The U.S. Is Still No.1 At Selling Arms to the World. “ TIME Magazine.
December 26, 2015. Accessed August 20, 2016.
Towle, Philip. “Enforced Disarmament: From the Napoleonic Campaigns to the Gulf War.”
Oxford Scholarship Online, 1997. Accessed August 12, 2016.
Waltz, Kenneth N. "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better: Introduction." The
Adelphi Papers 21, no. 171 (1981): 1. doi:10.1080/05679328108457394.
"Weapons and Their Impacts on Communities Small Arms and Light Weapons." IPB. Accessed
August 12, 2016. http://www.ipb.org/web/index.php?mostra=content&menu=Weapons
and their impacts on communities&submenu=Small Arms and Light Weapons.
Young, Angelo. “Global Defense Budget Seen Climbing In 2014; First Total Increase Since
2009 As Russia Surpasses Britain And Saudi Arabia Continues Its Security Spending
Spree.” International Business Times. February 6, 2014. Accessed August 15, 2016.
1 Clayton Houdeshell
Heidelberg University
MUNFW 67th Session
Disarmament and International Security Committee
The Elimination of Illicit Trade In Small Arms and Light Weapons
Saying the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons is a minor issue compared to
nuclear proliferation, climate change, the digital divide, and other topics, is most certainly a
grave mistake. Small arms and light weapons (SALW) are easily transferable from person to
person and are exported from developed countries to areas devastated by armed conflict, drug
related activity, and terrorist organizations. The importance of stopping the illicit trade, and
effectively stifling the aggressive, hostile, and homicidal tendencies of individuals, groups, and
organizations, is a priority for creating a safer world. These groups tap into either the “black
market” or indulge in deals that allow them to buy and utilize SALW. It is important to note that
since the illicit trade of SALW is obviously illegal, as well as secretive, detailed and meticulous
quantitative reports regarding the topic can be difficult to acquire. Though the data may be
difficult to locate, the overall impact of the trade is not difficult to see.
Background
Small arms and light weapons is a term used to describe two main classes of weapons.
Small arms are a class of hand-held, small caliber firearms, which can be any of the following:
handguns, rifles, shotguns, manual, semi-automatic, automatic, and man portable machine guns.
Light weapons include a wide variety of medium-caliber firearms and weapons of explosive
ordnance. Light weapons include man-portable and vehicle-mounted antipersonnel, antitank, and
antiaircraft rockets, missiles, grenade launchers, rocket-propelled grenades, and many more.1
SALW are a class of weapons that, because of their portable nature, are often used by civilians or
1
“Small Arms and Light Weapons: Controlling the Real Instruments of War,” Arms Control Association, August 1,
1998, https://www.armscontrol.org/print/391#1.
2 criminals, and can be just as easily obtained legally as they can illegally. These types of weapons
are also vulnerable to theft and misuse. “Small arms” are generally designed for individual use,
such as revolvers, carbines, bolt-action rifles, and assault rifles, while “light weapons” are
characterized by a design for use by two or three persons serving as a small unit. Some light
weapons, however, may be carried and used by a single individual.
When it comes to the scope of the SALW trade, the largest exporters of small arms by
value, according to the Small Arms Survey based in Switzerland, are the United States and the
European Union. In 2003, it was found that 1,134 companies located in 98 countries across the
world are involved in some aspect of the production of small arms and ammunition. By 2010, the
amount of countries exporting at least $100 million of small arms annually rose from 12 to 14
different nations.2 The exporters’ list is headed by the United States, followed by Italy, Germany,
and other developed nations. Small arms such as the M16, AKM, Type 56, and FN FAL are
among the most common firearms that were, or have been, exported commercially, sold illegally
via the black market, “gifted” to support ideological movements, or stockpiled by arms dealers or
smaller governments. The reasoning behind these methods is use of the weapons to support their
nation financially, or used to control the population by way of “national defense.” Smaller
nations, experiencing seemingly endless armed conflict amongst their own citizens (such as
between the government and rebels, or through terrorist organizations) experience serious and
more common illicit trading of SALW.3 It is estimated that the black market trade in small arms
ranges from $2-10 billion U.S. Dollars a year.4
2
“Small Arms Survey 2015: Weapons and the World,” Graduate Institute of International and Development
Studies, Geneva, June 2015, http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2015/eng/Small-ArmsSurvey-2015-Highlights-EN.pdf.
3
John Dillon, “The Arms Trade: A Critical Look,” Cornell University Publications, 2014,
http://knight.as.cornell.edu/publicationsprizes/discoveries/discoveriesspring2014/13.%20Dillon.pdf.
4
Anup Shah, “Small Arms—They Cause 90% of Civilian Casualties,” Global Issues, January 21, 2006,
http://www.globalissues.org/article/78/small-arms-they-cause-90-of-civilian-casualties.
3 Resulting Issues
Armed violence can trigger many adverse effects, such as forced displacement, eroding
of social capital, and destruction of infrastructure. Armed violence sparked by small arms and
light weapons impede social and capital investment in reconstruction and reconciliation. With
this being said, the availability of SALW and the violence triggered by the illegal obtainment of
the weapons undermines public institutions, facilitates corruption, and creates an atmosphere
conducive to crime. Because criminals are able to obtain illegal weapons, which their
government cannot trace or know about to begin with, the weapons immediately become a threat
to innocent civilians. Furthermore, if the criminals are organized the use of illegal weapons can
create a unified front against a government. Rebel groups that are backed and supplied with
SALW can more easily attempt a coup or create a situation where the legitimacy of the
government can be questioned either by the rebel group or by other nations. The trafficking of
persons, drugs, and arms are facilitated by the ability of criminals to purchase and utilize these
illegal weapons in a manner promoting the interests of only the criminal or whatever
organization with which they may be affiliated. Obviously, weapons and power go hand in hand,
but weapons and organized crime or terrorist activities do as well.
Armed violence, stimulated through the acquisition of SALW, is both a cause and
consequence of underdevelopment. Coupled with underdevelopment, armed violence is
associated with limited education opportunities, persistent unemployment, systemic economic
inequalities, and weak governmental institutions. It is important to note arms dealers are not just
selling weapons, but selling power. The Congressional Research Service estimates that from
2003-2010, over 72.5% of arms transfer agreements went to developing countries.5 Illicit arms
5
John Dillon, “The Arms Trade: A Critical Look,” Cornell University Publications, 2014,
http://knight.as.cornell.edu/publicationsprizes/discoveries/discoveriesspring2014/13.%20Dillon.pdf.
4 trades can be separated into two types. First, black market transfers, which are in clear violation
of national or international law, and secondly, “grey market” transactions, which exploit
loopholes and circumvent national or international laws or policies. For every 20 legal trades, it
is estimated there are anywhere from one to five illegal trades of SALW.6
Developed countries, such as Russia, exploit countries such as the Democratic Republic
of the Congo or Syria, labeled “conflict areas,” and in turn make billions of dollars selling illegal
arms. These governments, in turn, use the arms to eliminate dissenters and increase the amount
of “power” they hold. Although it seems rather intuitive global cooperation would work toward
the elimination of the illegal trade, or at least to combat it, it is unlikely to happen. Being that the
trade is extremely profitable, or can be used to push a hidden agenda, countries like the United
States, Russia, and France, are likely to oppose any stringent global restrictions.7
Also, when trying to eliminate the trade of SALW, a country can potentially create a
power vacuum where criminals, and even civilians, turn to the black market and even have a
large dependency on it. Also, with 50 different nations manufacturing light weapons and/or
ammunition and numerous trading channels present within society itself, combatting the trade is
no simple task. Treaties, measures, and task forces can be easily circumvented or avoided
completely.8
The United Nations has taken measures to try and combat the illicit trade in SALW, but
the resolutions must be approached with caution, as a strict regulation can prohibit law abiding
citizens globally from obtaining firearms legally for their own protection. Although it may seem
6
Ibid.
Ibid.
8
“Small Arms and Light Weapons: Controlling the Real Instruments of War,” Arms Control Association, August 1,
1998, https://www.armscontrol.org/print/391#1.
7
5 cliché, making rash decisions in regulating firearms only ensures criminals will continue to
purchase firearms illegally, while civilians who obey the law will be hurt in a more drastic way.
Combating the Trade
When it comes to combatting the illicit arms trade and spreading awareness of the
dangers, much has already been done, but there are more steps to be taken. For example, in 2001,
the United Nations member states adopted a Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and
Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons (UN PoA).9 The PoA focuses on
practical solutions, such as gathering and destroying illegal weapons, strengthening import and
export controls, raising awareness on the effects of illegal weapons, improving the security and
safety of weapons storage facilities, and helping affected countries track down illegal transfers of
small arms and the brokers involved.10 Since 2001, the PoA has seen more than 50 countries
reinforce their laws against the illegal trade in small arms and more than 60 countries have
collected and destroyed illegal small weapons. Experts estimate that there are more than 600
million small arms and light weapons in circulation worldwide.11
Furthermore, a truly historic piece of international legislation came into play in 2014 by
UN member states to regulate the international trade on conventional weapons. The Arms Trade
Treaty (ATT) is composed of enforceable global rules meant to prevent the flow of arms and
ammunition into states if it is unknown whether a particular transaction will lead to war crimes
or crimes against humanity.12 This treaty is meant to be a standard for accountability, but major
exporters and importers, like Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, and China have either not signed or not
9
“Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW),” Reaching Critical Will – Women’s International League for Peace
and Freedom, 2016, http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/5450-small-arms-andlight-weapons-salw.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Sourabhi Mukherji, “21st Century Proliferation and Tracking: Tackling Arms Proliferation in the Modern Conflict
Landscape,” Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, June 23, 2015,
http://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/21stCenturyProliferationandTracking_sourbhimukherji_230615.
6 ratified the treaty, or abstained from voting altogether. Other global guidelines and parameters
like the UN Register of Conventional Arms, International Ammunition Technical Guidelines,
and International Small Arms Control Standards (ISACS) have been set in place to curb the
illicit trade. INTERPOL, the world’s largest police organization with 190 member countries, has
as its primary role assisting law enforcement agencies around the world in combating all forms
of transnational crime and terrorism.13 It has also created operations like the Integrated Border
Management Task Force’s HAWK, STOP, Lionfish, and arms tracking databases, such as
iArms, geared towards containing and restricting the illicit weapons trade and the crimes it
enables.
Another important measure is iTrace, an online weapons mapping system, funded by the
EU through which anyone can track the transfer of illegally diverted conventional arms and
ammunitions across the world based on data collected and verified by investigative field teams of
Conflict Armament Research (CAR).14 This tracking system is important because it
automatically quantifies diversion risks and profiles the sources of diversion nationally,
regionally, and globally.15 While tracking systems are successful when it comes to simply
tracking weapons, stopping the actual flow of weapons is the responsibility of individual nations.
National efforts, such as the United States targeting and trying to stop illicit gun trafficking on
the U.S-Mexico border, have sparked international efforts to slow the flow of illegal weapons.
Similar efforts can be seen in Columbia, South Africa, and EU states.16
Conclusion
13
“General Information About INTERPOL,” INTERPOL, last modified 2016, https://www.interpol.int/FAQs.
“iTrace,” Conflict Armament Research, last modified 2016, http://www.conflictarm.com/itrace/.
15
Ibid.
16
“Small Arms and Light Weapons: Controlling the Real Instruments of War,” Arms Control Association, August 1,
1998, https://www.armscontrol.org/print/391#1. 14
7 With all of this being said, there are other methods which must be considered for
combatting the illicit trade of SALW. First, international norms must be established when
considering cooperation and combating the illegal trade. Although traditional sovereign states
reserve the right to arm themselves, a clear line must be drawn eliminating the acquisition of
arms for the purpose of engaging in genocide or the suppression of opposition political or
religious movements. Collaboration and cohesion are both necessary aspects for eliminating the
trade of SALW, but it is important nations focus on the arms crossing into their own borders,
crossing from their own borders into other nations, and holding themselves responsible for such
occurrences.
Secondly, there needs to be an increase in international transparency when it comes to the
detailed information governments have regarding the production, sale, and transfer of SALW and
ammunition. Transparency and progress can only be accomplished if oversight occurs at the
national, regional, and international levels. Increased state accountability is crucial when it
comes to curbing the SALW trade. If a nation lacks the ability to hold itself accountable for
being a part of the illegal SALW trade, it is necessary for other nations to hold them accountable
instead. A global effort to combat the trade is the only possible way to actually hinder, slow, and
eventually deactivate the global epidemic that is illicit SALW trade. Safe-storage, stockpiles,
tracking systems, “merchants of death”, and black and grey markets are all important measures
to discuss while approaching this topic. Task forces, international measures, and tracing systems
are only successful when countries work together ensuring their success.
There are numerous task forces, international mapping systems, and treaties in place to
combat the illicit trade of SALW. Internationally, these measures need to be utilized more
effectively in order for the trade to be hindered. It is important to keep in mind that the complete
8 elimination of the black market is not only idealistic, but also impossible. However, when an
increase of international transparency, state accountability, and a promotion of regional efforts
are all worked towards, it will eliminate illegal trade channels and make the black market harder
to access. It is not impossible to utilize measures and treaties in place to create an atmosphere
promoting transparency, collaboration, and cohesion. It is also important for countries backing
rebel groups, or governments of developing or warring nations, to come to the realization that
these situations only promote the use and flow of illegal small arms and light weapons.
Disarmament is not the key, nor is blaming a single country for the majority of the problem,
especially when looking at the historical implications of this issue worldwide. Responsibility and
accountability are both key starting points for creating a new method of approaching this issue
and without cooperation between regions, the ability to combat the illegal flow of weapons will
be extremely difficult.
9 Bibliography
Boutwell, Jeffrey and Klare, Michael, “Small Arms and Light Weapons: Controlling the Real
Instruments of War,” Arms Control Association, August 1, 1998,
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_08-09/mkas98
“Combating the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons: Strengthening Domestic
Regulations; Briefing #7,” Saferworld, Last modified January 2001,
http://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/view-resource/130-combating-the-illicit-trade-insmall-arms-and-light-weapons-strengthening-domestic-regulations
“Conflict Armament Research: iTrace,” Conflict Armament Research, last modified 2016,
http://www.conflictarm.com/itrace/.
Dillon, John, “The Arms Trade: A Critical Look,” Cornell University, Spring 2014,
http://knight.as.cornell.edu/publicationsprizes/discoveries/discoveriesspring2014/13.%20Dill
on.pdf.
“General Information About INTERPOL,” INTERPOL, last modified January 2016,
https://www.interpol.int/FAQs.
Mukherji, Sourabhi, “21st Century Proliferation and Tracking: Tackling Arms Proliferation in the
Modern Conflict Landscape,” Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, June 23, 2015,
http://www.idsa.in/issuebrief/21stCenturyProliferationandTracking_sourbhimukherji_230615
.
“Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light
Weapons in All Its Aspects,” United Nations, Last Modified January 2008, http://www.poaiss.org/poa/poahtml.aspx.
10 “Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW),” Reaching Critical Will – Women’s International
League for Peace and Freedom, Last modified January 2016,
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical-issues/5450-small-armsand-light-weapons-salw.
Shah, Anup, “Small Arms—They Cause 90% of Civilian Casualties,” Global Issues, Last updated
January 21, 2006, http://www.globalissues.org/article/78/small-arms-they-cause-90-ofcivilian-casualties.
“Small Arms Survey 2015: Weapons And The World,” Small Arms Survey, June 2015,
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2015/eng/Small-Arms-Survey2015-Highlights-EN.pdf.
Websites to consider that have numerous downloadable publications:
● UNODA: United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs,
https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/salw/ku7
● Illicit Trafficking, Small Arms Survey (Geneva, Switzerland):
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/weapons-and-markets/transfers/illicit-trafficking.html
● Armed Violence: Impact on Development, Small Arms Survey:
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/armed-violence/social-and-economic-costs/impact-ondevelopment.html
11 Questions to consider:
1) What are the negative results of the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons affecting
your country historically and today?
2) Being that stringent weapons control measures would push illegal weapons buyers to
depend further on the black market, what are methods of taking weapons away from
terrorists without preventing civilian legal access to weapons as well?
3) How does your country plan on promoting transparency and collaboration when it comes
to addressing the trade of SALW?
4) What are steps that need to be taken to prevent developed nations from arming
undeveloped nations, rebel groups, and terrorist organizations?
5) What steps do developing nations need to take in order to prevent their own country from
falling victim to an influx of illegal weapons entering their country.
6) Does there need to be a focus on current task forces and treaties already in place or does a
new institution, task force, or system need to be created in order to adequately combat the
illicit trade of SALW?
7) In what way(s) does the illicit trade of SALW impact development in your country?
1 Zachary Pesicek Heidelberg University MUNFW 67th Session Disarmament and International Security Committee The Impact of Terrorism on the Process of Nuclear Disarmament As the 20th century came to a close and the 21st century replaced it, terrorist groups
adopted new and even more vicious tactics to attack states and civilians. The rise of “masscasualty terrorism” increased at an alarming pace, “in which [terrorist groups] seek and have the
capability to inflict maximum possible carnage to achieve their ends.”1 Al Qaeda, the Aum
Shinrikyo cult, and Chechen terrorists have all at one point expressed a desire to use nuclear
devices in their campaigns of terror.2 More recently, individuals affiliated with the Islamic State3
terrorist organization were discovered with a film showing the daily movements of a senior
official at a nuclear facility in Belgium.4 As such, nuclear-armed states should continue
disarmament processes laid out in various international agreements and treaties with all due
haste. All possible protections must be undertaken to prevent this disassembled and weaponized
fissile material from falling into terrorist control. Aum Shinrikyo On March 20, 1995, five members of the Japanese doomsday cult, Aum Shinrikyo,
boarded separate subway trains during the morning rush hour in Tokyo. Each member placed a
small bag filled with Sarin nerve gas on the floor of the packed cars and simultaneously burst
1
Matthew Bunn et al., "Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Continuous Improvement or Dangerous Decline?," Belfer
Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, March 21, 2016,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/26400/preventing_nuclear_terrorism.html. (Accessed July 28, 2016).
2
Matthew Bunn et al., “The U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment of Nuclear Terrorism.” Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, June 6, 2011,
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/21087/usrussia_joint_threat_assessment_of_nuclear_terrorism.html
(Accessed July 28, 2016).
3
Also known as ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, and Daish.
4
Patrick Malone and Jeffrey Smith, "A Terrorist Group's Plot to Create a Radioactive 'Dirty Bomb'" The Center for
Public Integrity, February 29, 2016, https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/29/19376/terrorist-group-s-plot-createradioactive-dirty-bomb (Accessed August 02, 2016).
2 them with the sharpened tip of an umbrella upon departure5. Within minutes, train occupants felt
the effects of the nerve agent. Soon, entrances to the subway were converted to triage centers as
those affected by the nerve gas struggled to breathe while blood gushed from their nose and
mouth.6 In total, thirteen people died and over six-thousand were affected by the gas.7 This attack
marked the first utilization of a weapon of mass destruction8 by a terrorist group and was a
precursor to further cyanide and sarin gas attacks by the Aum Shinrikyo cult. Casualties would
have been much higher, but the cult had only managed to manufacture nerve agents that were
30% pure.9 Following the Tokyo attacks, international investigations into Aum Shinrikyo uncovered
that it was a well-organized international group with approximately $1 billion dollars in assets
provided by wealthy followers. The cult successfully recruited two nuclear scientists and made a
concerted but fruitless effort to purchase a nuclear weapon in the Russian Federation.
Furthermore, Aum Shinrikyo had purchased a secluded ranch in the Australian outback where
investigators discovered a fully-equipped laboratory along with commercial digging equipment
to mine a uranium deposit.10 Uranium is a naturally occurring element in the Earth’s crust
utilized in nuclear weapons or radioactive “dirty bombs”. Aum Shinrikyo marked a new era of
terrorism focused on maximum destruction and shock to further their oft radical, religious-based
5
Charlotte Alfred, "20 Years Ago, A Shadowy Cult Poisoned The Tokyo Subway," The Huffington Post, March 20,
2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/tokyo-subway-sarin-attack_n_6896754.html (Accessed July 31,
2016).
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
8
As defined by United Nations Resolution 32/84.
9
Stephen Engelberg, "Winds of Death." The Washington Post. February 19, 2006,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021601914.html (Accessed July 31,
2016).
10
William J. Broad, "Seismic Mystery in Australia: Quake, Meteor or Nuclear Blast?," The New York Times,
January 20, 1997, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/21/science/seismic-mystery-in-australia-quake-meteor-ornuclear-blast.html?pagewanted=all (Accessed August 03, 2016).
3 agendas. The hypothetical terrorist in possession of a nuclear device had become a real
possibility. Al-Qaeda Another terrorist group with mass-casualty aspirations was also on the rise during the
1990’s. Headquartered in Afghanistan, the Al-Qaeda terrorist group is one of the most highprofile groups in existence today. Al-Qaeda has carried out numerous deadly bombings and high
profile attacks against member states and civilians. The group was founded on the promise to
restore the “past greatness”11 of Muslim peoples who believed they were/are the subjects of
foreign invaders. Al-Qaeda fully demonstrated its capability to attack member states on
September 11, 2001. For more than a year prior to the attacks, Al Qaeda operatives were openly
living in the United States of America and had started aviation training. One of the operatives
even aroused some suspicion by insisting that he learn how to fly large jetliners. Unfortunately,
authorities did not connect this incident to Al-Qaeda; “In the words of one official, no analytic
work foresaw the lightning that could connect the thundercloud to the ground.”12 As such, AlQaeda was able to carry out its horrific attack with stunning success. On the morning of September 11, 2001 all nineteen Al-Qaeda hijackers passed through
the United States airport security on the eastern coast of the country armed with small knives and
pepper spray. They all boarded four fully-fueled jetliners bound for the west coast of the United
States and once airborne, successfully took control of all four jetliners via deadly force. Within 2
hours, the Al-Qaeda hijackers flew two of the aircraft into the World Trade Center, with both
skyscrapers later collapsing due to explosive impact. The third aircraft struck the Pentagon, the
United States of America’s Defense headquarters. The fourth aircraft was intentionally downed
11
Philip Zelikow, Bonnie D. Jenkins, and Ernest R May. “The 9/11 Commission Report. [Executive Summary]”
(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), 3.
12
Zelikow, “The 9/11 Commission Report,” 5-7.
4 by the hijackers when the passengers on board attempted to retake the plane and prevent another
attack planned on the Capitol building or White House.13 After the attacks concluded, nearly
3,000 civilians and first responders were dead and approximately 8,900 people were injured.14
All of those onboard the hijacked aircraft perished, and over 100 were killed at the Pentagon.
Nearly 100% of the people stuck above the aircraft impacts at the World Trade Center Towers
perished when they collapsed.15 The 9/11 attacks highlighted the policy deficiencies present in 2001. Information
regarding terrorist activity was not shared between states. Weak security policies allowed
hijackers to take weapons onboard aircraft, and aviation training taught pilots to comply with the
demands of hijackers rather than fight back. Security doors between pilots and passengers were
also inadequate on all aircraft, not just in the United States of America.16 No government,
security agency, or international agency would have predicted that Al-Qaeda was capable of such
an assault. Immediately following the attack, states across the globe began overhauling their
security policies to deal with the possibility of large-scale terrorist attacks. Reports that Al-Qaeda
was actively seeking to recruit nuclear expertise and purchase stolen nuclear material to
assemble a radioactive device was suddenly seen as a very real threat. A few months before the 9/11 attacks, the Russian Federation “confirmed two incidents
of terrorist teams carrying out reconnaissance at nuclear weapon storage facilities (whose
locations are a state secret in Russia)” as well as “two additional incidents of terrorists carrying
out reconnaissance on nuclear weapon transport trains.”17 The specific terrorist organization
13
Ibid., 7.
WM Robert Johnston, “Worst Terrorist Strikes.” July 10, 2016,
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255i.html (Accessed August 17, 2016).
15
Zelikow, “The 9/11 Commission Report,” 8.
16
Ibid., 12.
17
Bunn et al., “Preventing Nuclear Terrorism,” 23.
14
5 conducting the surveillance was never determined, but the idea of a nuclear-armed terrorist
organization was taken much more seriously. Additionally, separate investigations into North
Caucasus and Chechen terrorist organizations uncovered plans to seize a Russian nuclear
submarine armed with nuclear weapons and utilize radiological dirty bombs.18 Bearing all of
these reports in mind, international action was swift and widespread following the 9/11 attacks. U.N. Action On September 12, 2001 The United Nations Security Council convened and unanimously
adopted Resolution 1368 condemning the “horrifying” 9/11 attacks: [To call] on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators,
organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and [stressing] that those responsible for
aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts
will be held accountable.19
On the same day, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) convened and for
the first time in its history, enacted Article 5 of The Washington Treaty stating “that an armed
attack against one or more NATO countries is an attack against all NATO countries.”20 On
September 28, 2001 the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1373. S/RES/1373
states that all member states are forbidden to finance any terrorist activities and all accounts
found to be financing terrorism will be frozen immediately. States should prevent their citizens
from financing terrorist activities and must not provide safe haven to terrorists; those who have
supported such activities shall be punished according to the state’s laws. All states should
increase communication with each other regarding terrorist activities, including terrorists’ pursuit
of weapons of mass destruction. To ensure enforcement of S/RES/1373, the Security Council
18
Bunn et al., “U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment,” 11.
United Nations Security Council, "Resolution 1368 Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by
Terrorist Acts," September 12, 2001, https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/533/82/PDF/N0153382.pdf?OpenElement (Accessed September 20, 2016).
20
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “NATO - Official Text: The North Atlantic Treaty,” March 21, 2016,
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm (Accessed October 20, 2016).
19
6 formed a committee composed of all council members to monitor implementation and called
upon all member states to report actions undertaken within 90 days of the resolution’s adoption.
S/RES/1373 was unlike any resolution the Security Council had previously adopted regarding
terrorism; the resolution was comprehensive and legally binding.21 On April 28, 2004 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1540 in order to close
existing gaps in international non-proliferation treaties. This includes the Treaty on the
Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), regarded as the “global anchor for nuclear
nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament”22 seeing as “more [states] have ratified the NPT than
any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement…”23 S/RES/1540 bolsters the NPT by
prohibiting all United Nations member states from providing support to non-state actors
attempting to acquire a weapon of mass destruction. Resolution 1540 calls for the establishment
and enforcement of laws prohibiting the proliferation of such weapons, and increased security at
sites that house nuclear material within states’ borders.24 International Action In October 2006, thirteen nations founded The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear
Terrorism (GICNT). GICNT membership grew to include a total of 86 states and five
international organizations. All members of the initiative are required to adhere to its statement
of principles, which requires adequate policies to secure, detect, audit, investigate, and mitigate
21
United Nations Security Council, "Resolution 1373 Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by
Terrorist Acts," September 28, 2001, https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/557/43/PDF/N0155743.pdf?OpenElement (Accessed September 20, 2016).
22
Mohamed ElBaradei, "Nuclear Proliferation and the Potential Threat of Nuclear Terrorism." International Atomic
Energy Agency, November 17, 2014, https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/nuclear-proliferation-andpotential-threat-nuclear-terrorism (Accessed July 28, 2016).
23
Ibid.
24
United Nations Security Council, "Resolution 1540 Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction," April 28,
2004, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1540(2004) (Accessed September 20, 2016).
7 all nuclear material within its borders.25 After joining the GICNT, the French Republic revised
its national report to the United Nations 1540 committee to include the status of all national
nuclear security legislation, the Republic of Lithuania created the State Nuclear Power Safety
Inspectorate to carry out regulatory activities and oversee security at all state nuclear facilities,
and the Kingdoms of Spain and Morocco partnered to create the “Gate To Africa” maritime
transportation security exercise. These are just brief examples of the numerous strides that
members of the GICNT have taken.26 In 2007 United Nations Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon
reminded states that nuclear security is an ongoing effort that cannot be neglected. “Nuclear
terrorism is one of the most serious threats of our time. Even one such attack could inflict mass
casualties and create immense suffering and unwanted change in the world forever. This prospect
should compel all of us to act to prevent such a catastrophe.”27 In 2009, American President
Barack Obama initiated a series of global summits on nuclear security where four international
organizations and over 50 states gathered to discuss and improve nuclear security within their
borders.28 Further action took place in 2016 when an amendment proposed to the Convention on
the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and Nuclear Facilities entered into force. This
amendment reiterates that all 168 member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency
must have protection and contingency plans in place regarding their nuclear material. Member
25
"Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT)," 2015, http://www.gicnt.org/ (Accessed August 20,
2016).
26
The White House Briefing Room, “Nuclear Security Summit 2016 - Highlights from National Progress Reports,”
April 4, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/04/nuclear-security-summit-2016-highlightsnational-progress-reports (Accessed October 20, 2016).
27
Bunn et al., “Preventing Nuclear Terrorism,” 22.
28
The Nuclear Security Summit, “History," http://www.nss2016.org/about-nss/history/ (Accessed August 20, 2016).
8 states must also notify all other states if a theft of fissile material occurs and they must undertake
maximum effort to reacquire the material.29 Extensive action has been taken since the Aum Shinrikyo cult committed the first major
terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction and Al-Qaeda perpetrated one of the
worst terror attacks in history. Both groups, along with Chechen terrorists, have at one point
expressed their desire to obtain a nuclear device to use in their terror campaigns, and the
possibility of this occurring has been taken very seriously due to these pivotal attacks. The threat
of a nuclear-armed terror group is once again a fresh concern for all states due to the recent rise
of the Islamic State. In 2015, Belgian police recovered a surveillance video from the home of an
ISIS operative. The video recorded a senior researcher at a Belgian Nuclear Facility. Belgian
investigators believe that the operative was looking for leverage to blackmail the researcher into
providing ISIS with nuclear material.30 This discovery should galvanize the resolve of all states
to indefinitely protect their nuclear material with all force possible. Current Policy Inadequacies All states that have signed the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons should
accelerate their activities to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons; pursuant to the NPT’s main
objective: global nuclear disarmament. However, the NPT is only in effect for states that have
joined the treaty, which total 191 out of 195 officially-recognized states.31 Furthermore, states
can choose to leave the NPT and are under no binding obligation to maintain IAEA auditing
equipment and permit inspections of their nuclear facilities. Such was the case of The
29
International Atomic Energy Agency, “INFCIRC/274/Rev.1/Mod.1 Amendment to the Convention on the
Physical Protection of Nuclear Material,” May 9, 2016, https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/infcirc274r1m1.pdf
(Accessed August 20, 2016).
30
Patrick Malone and Jeffrey Smith, "A Terrorist Group's Plot to Create a Radioactive 'Dirty Bomb'," The Center
for Public Integrity, February 29, 2016, https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/29/19376/terrorist-group-s-plotcreate-radioactive-dirty-bomb (Accessed August 02, 2016).
31
"Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs,
http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt (Accessed August 20, 2016).
9 Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea (DPRK) when they withdrew from the NPT in
2009, dismantled IAEA surveillance equipment, and expelled IAEA inspectors from the country.
Additionally, there has been a pronounced slowdown in the nuclear disarmament process in both
the United States of America and the Russian Federation, which together account for 93% of the
approximate 15,000 nuclear weapons existing in the world today. In October 2016 the Russian
Federation suspended treaties with the United States of America regarding the disposal of
weapons-grade plutonium. Russia has stated that this is in retaliation over disputes concerning
the situations in the Syrian Arab Republic and Ukraine.32 Furthermore, disarmament processes in
the French Republic, The People’s Republic of China, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, The Republic of India, and The State of
Israel are also passive in achieving the goal of total disarmament of all states worldwide.33
Evidence suggests that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is currently developing and
increasing its stockpile of nuclear weapons.34 Numerous Security Council resolutions have been
unsuccessful in persuading the DPRK to rejoin the NPT and preventing the continuation of its
nuclear program. While Security Council resolutions are legally binding, states are not allowed
to use force to ensure the resolutions are followed. Summary Pursuant to international peace and security, and bolstered by numerous conventions,
treaties, and resolutions, the total nuclear disarmament of the world should be of utmost priority.
As such, all states that are in the process of nuclear disarmament must protect the disassembled
fissile material from terrorist groups that are looking to obtain or build a nuclear/radioactive
32
Fortune, “Russia Suspends Another Nuclear and Energy Agreement With the U.S.,” October 5, 2016,
http://fortune.com/2016/10/05/russia-suspends-nuclear-agreement/ (Accessed October 20, 2016).
33
Hans M. Kristensen, and Robert S. Norris, "World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile," Ploughshares Fund, March 02,
2016, http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report (Accessed July 28, 2016).
34
ElBaradei, “Nuclear Proliferation”.
10 device. Security must be maintained at nuclear storage sites, as well as during the process of
nuclear transportation, which are frequently carried out using large transport trucks and train
cars. Perhaps the highest risk in regards to the safety of disassembled, weaponized nuclear
material is complacency. State officials may be certain that their security adequately protects
against terrorist threats or that the likelihood of nuclear terrorism is remote and it will not happen
within their borders. This is a fabricated sense of security. As was the case before the 9/11
attacks, no one imagined it could happen until it did. “To date, however, the global nuclear security framework remains a patchwork, and does
not include any agreed standards that specify what levels of security are needed for
nuclear weapons and weapons-usable nuclear materials, or any verification of
commitments or even self-reporting in a consistent format.”35 Furthermore, “There is no obligation to follow the voluntary standards that do exist and no
institution [exists], not even the IAEA, with a mandate to evaluate nuclear security
performance.”36 Terrorist groups are more determined than ever to attack states and civilians
with whatever weapons they can acquire. Finding a comprehensive solution to provide a base
for further legislation on nuclear material security is the conundrum facing the international
world today. Questions to Consider: 1. What measures has your state taken to secure its nuclear material?
2. What treaties, conventions, resolutions etc. has your state agreed to, and can it benefit
from joining others it is currently not a part of?
3. How many nuclear holding sites are in your state and are they all effectively protected?
4. Is it possible to develop an international, standardized system of security to build upon
for all states’ nuclear sites?
5. How is your state fighting complacency in regards the security of fissile material?
6. How is your state protecting itself from terrorist attacks?
35
Bunn et al., “Preventing Nuclear Terrorism,” iv.
Kenneth C. Brill, and Kenneth N. Luongo, "Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger." The New York Times. March 15,
2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0 (Accessed July 28,
2016). 36
11 Bibliography Alfred, Charlotte. "20 Years Ago, A Shadowy Cult Poisoned The Tokyo Subway." The
Huffington Post. March 20, 2015. Accessed July 31, 2016.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/20/tokyo-subway-sarin-attack_n_6896754.html. Brill, Kenneth C., and Kenneth N. Luongo. "Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger." The New York
Times. March 15, 2012. Accessed July 28, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-cleardanger.html?_r=0. Broad, William J. "Seismic Mystery in Australia: Quake, Meteor or Nuclear Blast?" The New
York Times. January 20, 1997. Accessed August 03, 2016.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/21/science/seismic-mystery-in-australia-quake-meteoror-nuclear-blast.html?pagewanted=all. Bunn, Matthew, William H. Tobey, Martin B. Malin, and Nickolas Roth. "Preventing Nuclear
Terrorism: Continuous Improvement or Dangerous Decline?" Belfer Center for Science
and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School. March 21, 2016. Accessed July 28,
2016.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/26400/preventing_nuclear_terrorism.html. Bunn, Matthew, and Yuri Morozov, Rolf Mowatt-Larrsen, Simon Saradzhyan, William Tobey,
Viktor I. Yesin, and Pavel S. Zolotarev. “The U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment of
Nuclear Terrorism.” Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard
Kennedy School. June 6, 2011. Accessed July 28, 2016.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/21087/usrussia_joint_threat_assessment_o
f_nuclear_terrorism.html Dahl, Fredrik. "IAEA Sees Signs North Korea Reactor May Be Operating." Thomson Reuters.
September 04, 2014. Accessed July 28, 2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/usnorthkorea-nuclear-iaea-idUSKBN0GZ2EF20140904. ElBaradei, Mohamed. "Nuclear Proliferation and the Potential Threat of Nuclear Terrorism."
International Atomic Energy Agency. November 17, 2014. Accessed July 28, 2016.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/nuclear-proliferation-and-potential-threatnuclear-terrorism. Engelberg, Stephen. "Winds of Death." The Washington Post. February 19, 2006. Accessed July
31, 2016. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021601914.html. "Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT)." The Global Initiative to Combat
Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT). 2015. Accessed August 20, 2016. http://www.gicnt.org/. “History." The Nuclear Security Summit. Accessed August 20, 2016.
http://www.nss2016.org/about-nss/history/. 12 International Atomic Energy Agency. “INFCIRC/274/Rev.1/Mod.1 Amendment to the
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material.” May 9, 2016. Accessed
August 20, 2016. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/infcirc274r1m1.pdf Johnston, WM Robert. "Worst Terrorist Strikes--worldwide." July 10, 2016. Accessed August
17, 2016. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255i.html. Kristensen, Hans M., and Robert S. Norris. "World Nuclear Weapon Stockpile." Ploughshares
Fund. March 02, 2016. Accessed July 28, 2016. http://www.ploughshares.org/worldnuclear-stockpile-report. Malone, Patrick, and Jeffrey Smith. "A Terrorist Group's Plot to Create a Radioactive 'Dirty
Bomb'" The Center for Public Integrity. February 29, 2016. Accessed August 02, 2016.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/02/29/19376/terrorist-group-s-plot-createradioactive-dirty-bomb. "NATO - Official Text: The North Atlantic Treaty, 04-Apr.-1949." North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. March 21, 2016. Accessed October 20, 2016.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm. "Nuclear Security Summit 2016 - Highlights from National Progress Reports." The White House
Briefing Room. April 4, 2016. Accessed October 20, 2016.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/04/nuclear-security-summit-2016highlights-national-progress-reports. "Russia Suspends Another Nuclear and Energy Agreement With the U.S." Fortune. October 5,
2016. Accessed October 20, 2016. http://fortune.com/2016/10/05/russia-suspendsnuclear-agreement/. "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." United Nations Office for Disarmament
Affairs. Accessed August 20, 2016. http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt. United Nations Security Council. “Resolution 1368 Threats to International Peace and Security
Caused by Terrorist Acts.” September 12, 2001. Accessed August 20, 2016.
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/533/82/PDF/N0153382.pdf? OpenElement United Nations Security Council. “Resolution 1373 Threats to International Peace and Security
Caused by Terrorist Acts.” September 28, 2001. Accessed August 20, 2016.
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/557/43/PDF/N0155743.pdf? OpenElement United Nations Security Council. “Resolution 1540 Non-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction.” April 28, 2004. Accessed August 20, 2016.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1540(2004) Zelikow, Philip Executive Director; Jenkins, Bonnie D. Counsel; May, Ernest R. Senior Advisor.
“The 9/11 Commission Report.” [Executive Summary] National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2004.