ZKEA
World Outbreak Update
USA, Russia, ProliferationWhy did the United States reject the new Biological Weapons Treaty (BWC)? After all, for years the U.S. has rightly maintained that all such international treaties are fatally flawed - unless they include rigorous verification and enforcement protocols. Partly as a result of this stance, the international community agreed upon a much more strict set of inspection requirements in these amendments to the BWC. However, in the summer of 2001, the Bush Administration rejected these amendments, stunning the world.This move effectively killed the Biological Weapons Treaty. It is now, in the words of one diplomat "a dead letter". Among other things, this effectively blocked - and possibly terminated - 70 years of biological arms control efforts. With these out of the way, it is now open-season for biological weapons. No constraints and no limitations. Rogue states and terrorist groups around the globe took note and probably got to work. This seems to be a very perilous path. Why did the United States embark upon it? The Bush administration gave three reasons. 1) Inspections wouldn't detect secret weapons programs - only declared ones. 2) Inspections would interfere with legitimate drug programs, and possibly lead to commercial espionage. 3) The protocols would prevent biodefense work. None of these objections hold much water. True, inspections could never detect everything - but they'd be a step in the right direction and would increase transparency. As to protecting commercial trade-secrets, the United States made no effort even to test this proposition, whereas other western countries had worked with industry and mutually agreed upon satisfactory safeguards. As to biodefense work, no American ally can make sense of this objection. They all have biodefense programs, most of which are unclassified, and the treaty does not forbid such work. Could there be a hidden reason for the U.S. position? This article argues that the true reason for the U.S. stance is simple and stark: the Bush Administration believes that the proliferation of biological weapons is inevitable, treaty or no. Therefore, it's essential that the United States have complete freedom to develop its own weapons and defensive measures. Given American superiority in technology, the United States could thus be sure to take a commanding lead in these weapons, therefore ensuring our continued security. In other words, America would henceforth trust its security to the superiority of its science rather than to the vagaries of international agreements. This might be a reasonable strategy for conventional weapons. The enemy builds tanks, but we build better tanks. The enemy builds planes, but we build better planes. It's arguably worked so far. But are biological weapons in the same category? Will this let the genie out of the proverbial bottle (or flask)? Somewhat ironically, the United States meanwhile continues with its efforts to contain foreign programs and technologies via other means. Specifically the United States is desperately trying to defuse the Biopreparat bomb. At issue is Russia and the Cooperated Threat Reduction program. This is a joint effort by the United State to reduce the threat of the ex-Soviet Unions arsenal of biological and toxin weapons. In exchange for American aid and scientific cooperation, Russia is obligated to open up its labs, ensuring transparency and that it is adhering to the 1972 BWC Treaty. Crucially, the aid the United States provides under this program includes various types of employment opportunities for Russian biological scientists. This is a very good idea: few things are more dangerous than unemployed Russians with this skill set. There are too many nations and groups that would like nothing more than to employ them for their own clandestine programs. Already, a number of them are working outside of Russia. So, the program makes very good sense for the security of the United States, and the world at large. Unfortunately, snags have been hit. Russia is not being as cooperative as it should be, and the United States under the Bush administration is playing political games. If treaties are renounced and unilateral and bilateral containment fails, what does the future hold?
Link: Bullein Of Atomic Scientists: Back To BioWeapons
|
| Recommended Books |
|
The Complete Guide To Biological Weapons
by U.S. Department of Defense |
|
The Coming Plague
by Laurie Garret |
|
The Demon In The Freezer
by Richard Preston |
|
The Collapse Of Public Health
by Laurie Garret |
|
The Menace of Emerging Infections
by Madeline Drexler |
|
The Hot Zone
by Richard Preston |
|
BioHazard
by Ken Alibek |
|
Plague Wars
by Tom Mangold |
|
The Biology of Doom
by Ed Regis |
|
Living Terrors: Survive The Bioterrorist Catastrophe
by Michael Osterholm |
|
Scourge: The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox
by Jonathan Tucker |
|
Virus X: Tracking The New Killer Plagues
by Frank Ryan |
|
Virus Hunter
by C.J. Peters |
|
Ebola: Through The Eyes of The People
by William Close |
|
The Cobra Event
by Richard Preston |
|
Germs: America's Secret War
by Judith Miller |
|
Man & Microbes: Plagues Throughout History
by Arno Karlen |