U.S. Policy on Libyan Chemical Weapons Proliferation Essay

Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.

The current U.S. President, Barack Obama, has continued this humanitarian and moral trend with the use of U.S. military force in Libya and Syria. However, both events are very much different in seeking the approval or consultation by Congress given their political context. In 2011, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, had come under the international spotlight as a major threat to the citizens of Libya. Given Libya’s location centered amongst several Arab states, there was much at stake for U.S. interest. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations also backed the U.S. and other NATO allies’ military

Given the progress of globalization, international security has become an entailment that all countries must work on in order to guarantee the perennity of world peace. However, this quietude is threatened by the growing menace of nuclear proliferation. Canada, as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1969, leads anti-proliferation campaigns to ensure global disarmament.

However, if WMDs and noncooperation with UN inspectors made Iraq such a huge threat, it has to be asked why Egypt and Israel, for example, were not attacked. For example, Israel has not ratified the Nonproliferation Treaty or the 1972 biological and toxic weapons convention and Egypt has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (Hubbel, 1998). Moreover, in general, it is not only Saddam Hussein who has murdered thousands and defied UN resolutions. The USA, however, is not seriously planning to attack those other states (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2003).

On April 22, in the Second Battle of Ypres, in World War 1 (WWI), the first chemical weapon was used. After over 101 years of this dilemma, the world has yet to find a solution for the pressing issue of chemical weapons as a threat to international security. Chemical weapons are highly toxic and are made to expose radiation and consequently kill living organisms. There are many types of these deadly gases, hence many different effects on people. These include brain damage, skin rashes/damage, and asphyxiation. After WWI, the Geneva Protocol was created in 1925; this banned the use of chemical weapons in any conflict. It was signed by most of the countries with the resources to create such weapons, but not all countries signed it. Later, in 1993, the Chemical Weapon Convention (CWC), also called the Convention on the

However, it is true that wars have to be cruel, or people will like it. On July 1, 1968, Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons opened for signature in Washington, Moscow, London, there were 59 countries signed up to join. The purpose of the Treaty was to prevent nuclear proliferation, promoting nuclear disarmament and promoting international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Treaty entered into force in March 1970. As of January 2003, a total of 186 States parties to the Treaty. There are 11 article provides in total, main content is, has nuclear national shall not to any directly or indirectly transfer nuclear weapons or nuclear explosion device, not help manufacturing nuclear weapons; seedless country guarantee not developed, and not accept and not seeks gets nuclear weapons; stop the nuclear arms race, promoted nuclear disarmament; put peace nuclear facilities placed International Atomic Energy institutions of international guarantees. As President Obama stated in Berlin in 2013, the United States is prepared to negotiate further nuclear reductions with Russia of up to one-third in the deployed strategic warhead levels established in the New Start

Mr. Hiram Morales provided an exceptional overview of existing WMD treaties and conventions. Specifically, he discussed several challenges associated with the negotiation and enforcement of these tenuous agreements. Mr. Morales posed several insightful questions including: (1) “What motivates a country to sign a treaty?”, and (2) “Why are effective treaties so hard to achieve or enforce?” To provide context to these important questions, Mr. Morales referred to the examples of proliferation in North Korea and Iraq, and the Iran Nuclear Agreement of 2015. Each one of these examples present their own distinct challenges; however, the Iran Nuclear Deal may demonstrate progress by the international community to learn from previously failed attempts to limit the spread of WMDs.

In the Vietnam War the United States employed millions of gallons of Agent Orange, a substance containing the highly toxic dioxin, to defoliate the jungle of Vietnam, but the large amounts spread and used has caused dioxin to still be found to this day in the soil, rivers, and animals especially fish of South Vietnam, seriously affecting the ecosystem. Chemical weapons are comparable to that of an atomic bomb as a similar property shared with each other when they are used, an irreversible force takes over resulting in the mass destruction of their target. Therefore, just as there are strong protocols on nuclear weapons so should there be on chemical

As for second-strike deterrence, Waltz states that there are two necessities: survival of a first attack and the ability to inflict sufficient damage. Without absolute certainty of destruction of the opposition’s arsenal, a country would be less likely to attack. Because of uncertainty about the size of another country’s arsenal size, nations would not take the risk of retaliation; “Even the largest states recoil from taking adventurous steps if the price of failure is the possible loss of a city or two”1.

Yet, the US Senate did not approve the SALT II. SALT II advanced to the U.S. Senate, but at U.S President Jimmy Carter’s call, the Senate did not enact it. The United States was very upset with the USSR attack of Afghanistan in 1979. When the USSR declined to depart from Afghanistan, one of the US replies was to not ratify or approve SALT II. Moreover, even though the U.S. Senate didn’t approve the deal, both nations accepted to obey the laws described in the agreement. The policy lasted throughout the 1980s even after Carter retired from office and President Reagan took the position. Hence, the USSR attack of Afghanistan was the central cause of why the US Senate didn’t endorse SALT II. Over two long years of consultations, the U.S. and the Soviet Union fully approved SALT I in 1972 without any major problems or setbacks. This signified the prime time that both parties of the Cold War came together to agree on the serious concern surrounding nuclear weapons. Although it was a compelling and significant fulfillment, the settlement did not really lessen the nuclear build up but instead restricted the development of new "Anti-Ballistic Missile

As of recent, there is an ongoing debate over the response of the Obama administration related to the events occurring in Syria and the potential violation by the Syrian government of customary international law and relevant treaties and conventions in the use of chemical weapons against its own people. The conflict itself has history which is required to be thoroughly examined before conclusions can be placed and actions are to be carried out. The Syrian Civil War has not only affected the lives of Syria’s citizens but has becoming a pressing issue in direct international relations between countries like Russia and the United States. Obama’s administration has their own response to the crisis at hand and believes that a military strike is a fully legal move to make given the situation present at hand. According to the evidence, it would seem possible that a violation has not occurred and that the threat by Obama’s administration to use force in the Syrian crisis stands on illegitimate grounds because the proceedings are done by Syrian government on their own grounds. However the atrocious actions committed by the Assad regime could in fact provide legality to military intervention by the United States. Finally, the focus will be to determine whether chemical weapons are in fact the sole factor for international intervention.

These legal status considerations have brought attention to the perceived legality of their conduct, such as EOs use of cluster bombs in Sierra Leone .Although preceding the introduction of the U.N.’s Convention on Cluster Munitions , this has created an uneasy coalition of ideals. More recently, in Iraq 2007, members of the now re-branded Blackwater , killed 17 Iraq civilians , in what is now known as,

1. This paper will argue that, in its current state, the sale of foreign arms does not support United States (US) foreign policy. The sale of US arms exacerbates conflict in the Middle East and contributes to human rights abuses.1 The Obama administration implemented a “Conventional Arms Transfer Policy” in 2014 to control arms sales and prevent human rights abuses while providing the weapons countries need to defend themselves in order to prevent the need for US boots on the ground.2 However, these measures are not enough and US weapons can and do still end up in the hands of terrorists.1

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will

Mongolia is a strong supporter and signatory of the Conference of Disarmament, which focuses on our common goal for non-proliferation of all nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and all other WMD’s, along with all conventional weapons, reduction of military budgets, reduction of armed forces, disarmament and development, and disarmament and international security. Furthermore, Mongolia strongly believes that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996) is a catalyst for all weapon disarmament and is a strong instrument for non-proliferation. It is a measure where progress can be seen in a relatively short time and should be brought into force at an immediate date. We call upon those states that have not ratified it to do so immediately for the sake of our international community. Mongolia also believes that the adoption of the Arms Trade Treaty will also be a powerful tool for the prevention of human rights abuses and violations of international humanitarian law. We are pleased to be the 113th signatory of the ATT, which will foster international and human security, giving way for positive development of our regions.