badthings2

Issue #44

Last Update March 2, 2006

International When Bad Things Happen to Bad People (II) by Gerry Krownstein In part one of this series, I laid out the case for an international rule of law to replace the vigilante justice our nation has embarked upon. In this present article, I will attempt to flesh out, for each of the four subject areas (chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; access to fresh water; mistreatment of subject populations; and disease control) the basic ground rules that should be in place, and the penalties for breaking these rules.

The major hindrance to establishing a true rule of law for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development and possession is the reluctance of the nations that have these weapons (mostly the major world powers) to give them up, or to allow any inspection process that would compromise the secrecy of these efforts (or, indeed, would compromise the trade secrets of an inspected pharmaceutical or chemical company). These are restrictions that we would not tolerate from an Iraq or Iran.

Nevertheless, the risk to all nations, including our own, from the unrestricted development of these weapons, is now so great that it is to our own benefit to spearhead the establishment of a comprehensive and universal treaty controlling these weapons and the research and development necessary to create and support them. Biological weapons, in particular, are easy to develop, cheap to produce, and effective. Unfortunately, they are also inherently uncontrollable once released.

The international treaty should contain the following provisions:

Biological weapons are totally outlawed. All existing stocks must be destroyed under international supervision.
Research on weaponization of biological agents may be carried out only in laboratories under international control and supervision. All research data must be made available to any member government on request. No information from this research may be made available to any individual or corporation except as authorized by the majority of the membership.
Research into human, animal or plant diseases may be freely carried on, but all such research, whether carried out by individuals, hospitals, universities or corporations, must be available (on request or without notice) to the international inspection body charged with the task of monitoring biological research for weapons potential. The detail data acquired during such an inspection shall be kept secret unless a determination is made by the inspecting body that the research contravenes the anti-weaponization provisions of the treaty.

Chemical weapons, because of their more limited scope (any given application is likely to cover only a limited area with sufficient intensity, and to have innocent uses) may be subject to less stringent restrictions on research and possession. Inspection requirements, however, must be similar to those for biological weapons to maintain international confidence in the treaty.

Nuclear weapons should be totally outlawed. Unfortunately, the current nuclear powers are unlikely to permit this to apply to themselves. As a result, current weapons should be limited to current national numbers, or 100, whichever is lower. All nuclear testing, whether below ground, above ground or in space, should be forbidden. Industrial processes with the potential of producing weapons-grade fissionables should be under strict international inspection, with a requirement that any fissionables not used in power generation be sold to an international nuclear agency for disposition.

Penalties for infringements should be severe. Refusal to admit inspectors should subject the refusing country to economic boycott, with military action authorized to force admittance if the refusal continues beyond a stated, short period. Possession of biological weapons should be considered a casus belli.

Access to fresh water is an important international issue, and one that will become more critical as global warming increases and pollution of groundwater becomes more severe. A worldwide treaty, binding on all nations, must guarantee the right of downstream nations to a fair share of river waters, and protect all nations adjoining major rivers from pollution. As desalinization of ocean water becomes more important, more stringent oceanic pollution regulations become necessary. An international administrative court should be established to rule on water issues, with jurisdiction over all boundary waters and oceans. Penalties for treaty transgression can range from fines to other economic penalties to, in severe cases, destruction of dams or factories that interfere with another nation’s equitable use of clean water.

Mistreatment of subject populations has long been considered an internal matter. The world has gotten too small for national sovereignties to interpose themselves in these issues. Ethnic or religious minorities and populations subject to occupation or military control must be protected from genocide and other crimes against humanity, as well as economic exploitation. Slavery, long outlawed by international treaty, still flourishes in a number of nations. If the major nations of the world put their muscle behind it, international courts such as the genocide tribunal at The Hague could adjudicate issues in these areas, backed with military and economic enforcement measures. Unfortunately the United States refuses to recognize this court out of fear that our military actions abroad will subject our military and political leaders to trial.

Disease control is an issue that, in many ways, is closely linked with control of biological weaponry. As the recent SARS outbreak showed, national concerns about the economic impact admitting the existence of an epidemic can result in deaths around the world and the loss of an opportunity to contain the spread of a disease. The most critical function is the dissemination of timely and accurate information, a process that was hindered, fatally, in China. The inspection provisions of the biological warfare treaty should apply with equal force to disease outbreaks.

In all of these areas, national sovereignty is no longer a primary consideration. International law must take precedence here. If the United Nations is the wrong venue to enact such law, an appropriate venue must be created.