Global Courant
Then Volodymyr Zelensky from Ukraine meeting with President Joe Bidenon September 21, 2023, the subject of arms delivery was on the agenda. That same problem was almost certainly discussed between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un when the two met earlier in September.
The fact is that with the conflict in Ukraine Now that it has been going on for more than a year and a half, both parties have become increasingly desperate keep the flow go from weapons. And that has people alarmed Izumi Nakamitsuthe United Nations High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, who warned on September 12 of violations of international resolutions against the illegal transfer of weapons and the risk of proliferation, even after the war is over.
Like a expert in the field of international security and weapons proliferation, I share these concerns. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, efforts were made to create a global policy consensus on the proliferation of weapons.
But the war in Ukraine is contributing to one reordering of world politics That has eroded cooperation to stop the spread of weapons and dangerous technology, such as advanced missiles, drones, munitions and the components and know-how needed to build them.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and US President Joe Biden walk to the Oval Office on September 21, 2023. Drew Angerer/Getty Images
The war itself is not the cause of this trend. Increasing competition between China and Russia on the one hand and the United States and its allies on the other hand, this led to a deviation from the consensus on weapons non-proliferation.
The Post-September 11 Consensus
Efforts to encourage global disarmament and non-proliferation date back to the past First World War and can be seen in the various conventions to stop the spread of nuclear, chemical And biological weapons. But they varied in it domain And effectivenessand now it is recognized that the Soviet Union at that time clandestinely violated treaties, including the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
Global concern about the threat of terrorism after September 11 caused countries to look more urgently at non-proliferation. Of international supportthe UN Security Council has adopted Resolution 1540 in 2004, which established a legally binding mandate for all Member States to tackle the illicit proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
An international commission was also established to provide support to Member States in combating proliferation and developing strategic trade control systems.
Since then, with broad international support, the commission has assisted states with responses specific requests regarding improving their strategic trade control systems and organizing them outreach activities that help individual states address certain problem areas, such as improving their compliance with various non-proliferation regimes.
These events are often supported by numerous states, including China, the United States and Russia. The UN has also established multilateral sanctions regimes to address illicit proliferation and its role in conflict, ranging from sanctions against North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs to the now paused Nuclear deal with Iran.
This system has seen legitimate transnational cooperation – even among rivals – and success in curbing illegal proliferation
The post-September 11 non-proliferation consensus built on pre-existing multilateral export control regimes aimed at limiting the spread of dangerous weapons and technology. These regimes differed from the Cold War trade control regimes, such as the pro-Western ones Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls, or COCOMwhich aimed to limit the spread of weapons and technology to the Warsaw Pact countries, that is, countries linked to the Soviet Union and China.
The end of the Cold War brought the creation and expansion of more inclusive non-proliferation regimes – such as the Wassenaar arrangementthat promotes transparency and greater accountability in the transfer of conventional weapons and dual-use goods and technologies, and the Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR, which aims to limit the proliferation of missile systems and other delivery systems and technology. These followed in the footsteps of the Group of nuclear suppliers export control regime, which initially included the Soviet Union.
Ukraine and the new non-proliferation world order
But the consensus on weapons non-proliferation has been undermined serious threat by increasing tensions and rivalries between the United States and both China and Russia – and has come to a head over Ukraine.
The sanctions imposed by the West over the invasion of Ukraine have done just that angered Russia and China. To Moscow and Beijing: unilateral sanctions undermine international cooperation and reflect the desire of Western powers – especially the United States – to assert their will over others.
The United States and its allies argue that sanctions are necessary to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine. They aim to increase the costs for Russia to acquire military goods and technology and make their supply chains more vulnerable to disruption.
Arguments about their merits aside, the sanctions have forced Russia to do so creative in the way it deals with goods and technology. Russia is becoming increasingly dependent on imports from states that are themselves subject to international sanctions Iran And North Koreaand moving sanctioned items, including weaponsby the Caspian Sea.
Iran is accused of it delivering drones to Moscow and developing drones production facilities and technology, while in return receiving sanction-breaking goods from Russia.
Meanwhile, Russia increasing ties with – and violation of UN sanctions against – North Korea has undermined multilateral non-proliferation efforts against the US isolationist Asian state.
North Korea has managed to bring arms shipments to Russia in the greater Moscow region support for its missile and nuclear programsas evidenced by the North Korean leader’s recent visit to the Vostochny Cosmodrome in the far east of Russia.
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin visit a construction site of the Angara missile launch complex in Tsiolkovsky, Russia. Photo: Getty Images via The Conversation
Within this changing geopolitical environment, the UN’s mechanisms to prevent North Korea from building up its weapons stockpile are being eroded. Although Russia and China have voted for extension The UN panel of experts should also support the enforcement of sanctions against North Korea voted against tighten sanctions for the first time since 2006.
Although Western arms transfers are important for Ukrainian defense, they also have consequences for non-proliferation. The American decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine is special controversial. The transfer of cluster bombs could undermine efforts The US’s own momentum – towards banning its use, something more than 120 countries have joined.
The US is not the only Western states blurring the lines on arms exports. The United Kingdom And France have exported Storm Shadow land-attack cruise missiles to Ukraine – a move likely in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regimepresumption of denial‘with consequences for missiles with a range of 300 kilometers and a payload of 500 kilograms. This presumption of denial, although not legally binding, has guided the member states of the MTCR since its inception not without some tension from the past.
Britain has stated that Considering the circumstancesThe transfer does not violate the MTCR and has received U.S. support for exports. Any US decision to ship ATACMS missiles, which Ukraine has requested, and the The Biden administration has given it serious thoughtwould also seriously undermine any potential continued cooperation with Russia through the Missile Technology Control Regime, as well as with China – which, although not a member, has pledged to adhere to its terms.
Arms transfers are critical to Ukraine’s defense, but Western leaders must be prepared to address the proliferation consequences that could result.
Non-proliferation along ideological lines
The war in Ukraine has helped to fracture the global consensus on non-proliferation in a way that erodes cooperation, and has led to the rise of policies driven by competing global blocsas it was during the Cold War.
This is evident not only in the competition for weapons arising from the war in Ukraine, but also in the way individual countries exercise control over areas involved in weapons development.
Take for example the tit-for-tat, unilaterally applied export controls and sanctions between the US and China.
They focus on areas such as academia, semiconductors, direct foreign investment And battery supply chains. These previously neglected areas are all receiving increasing attention due to their role as sources of knowledge and supplies for emerging weapons and technology.
There is still some hope for cooperation
Despite these developments, cooperation on weapons non-proliferation is still possible. Even during the height of the Cold War, there was cooperation gun control And non-proliferationespecially in the nuclear field.
Likewise, today’s great powers can focus on continued cooperation in areas such as: unmanned aircraft, room, nuclear proliferation And deterrence.
The war in Ukraine may be a harbinger of a new and more dangerous world of non-proliferation, but that does not mean that multilateral cooperation to combat the spread of dangerous weapons is doomed.
Nolan Fahrenkopf is a Research Fellow at Project on International Security, Commerce and Economic Statecraft, University at Albany, State University of New York
This article is republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Similar:
Loading…
