57^th Pugwash Annual Conference
Prospects for Disarmament, Dialogue and
Cooperation: Stability in the Mediterranean Region
Bari, Italy, 21-26 October 2007

 

REPORT on WORKING GROUP 1
A new arms race and a new Cold War?
Russia, NATO, Europe, arms control treaties and missile defense

pdf download in Arabic - 259.4 KB

 

Co-conveners:  Mohamed Kadry Said (Egypt), Kennette Benedict (USA), Alexander Nikitin (Russia)
Rapporteur:  Tom Sauer (Belgium)

The group covered a range of topics – from missile defense, strategies for disarmament, nuclear terrorism, the effect of globalization and networks on proliferation and arms control, nuclear weapons free zones, to arms sales in the Middle East.

Out of the discussion came proposals for three task forces:

1. on missile defense and weapons in outer space;
2. on prospects for nuclear disarmament;
3. on the feasibility of an Arctic nuclear weapon free zone.

Missile Defense

The two papers presented were highly critical of US plans to install missile defense in Europe, and in particular the installation of a radar station in the Czech Republic and ten missile interceptors in Poland. Different arguments were flagged:

1. The technology is not ready, despite the fact that the US already has spent more than 150 billion dollars on it. Many experts doubt whether a 100 % secure system, or even a quasi-100% secure system, will ever become available. Nevertheless, the US administration believes that ballistic missile defense is vital for its security. Also (potential) adversaries will start from the (worst-case) assumption that the system works.
2. The threat has not (yet) materialized. Iran and North Korea are not capable of launching intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads. It will take a long time before they will be capable of doing so, if ever. And if they do, what incentives do they have to launch ICBMs against the US, knowing very well that the US will retaliate ?
3. Missile defense undermines strategic stability. Russia and China do not like American missile defense. Russia is especially concerned about American missile defense systems installed near its borders. While ten interceptors do not undermine the current Russian deterrent capabilities, a more expansive defensive missile shield may do so. In reaction to these plans, Putin has already frozen Russia’s participation in the CFE Treaty in July 2007. Continuing negative reactions of Russia may jeopardize further nuclear weapons reductions in the future, and therefore may be a further blow to the current nonproliferation regime, which is already in crisis.

The Russian counterproposal to use Russian-controlled radars in Azerbedjan and Asmavir has not been taken seriously by the US.

A related paper made a link between BMD and NORAD. While Canada has said “no” in the past to US invitations to participate in the ballistic missile defense system, it may end up as it actively participates within NORAD.

During the debate about missile defense, many described Russia’s policy as an overreaction, both as a result of corporate interests inside Russia and as a result of political gesturing vis-à vis the rest of the world. Some also questioned whether American missile defense could undermine the Russian nuclear deterrent, but agreed that that could be the case for China. This may lead to a build-up of the Chinese offensive arsenal, and to a new Asian arms race.

Further, it was not completely ruled out that Russia may in the end cooperate with the US in the field of missile defense. A joint information exchange system about missile launches could be set up as a first step.

Others, in contrast, provided further arguments against missile defense:

1. There may be a new kind of proliferation in the offing, namely missile defense proliferation, for instance in India, as well as an arms race in space.
2. The interception of North Korean missiles would take place above the territory of Russia.
3. How will Russia distinguish American defensive interceptors from offensive missiles flying into the direction of Russia ? This may lead to Russian authorized nuclear weapons use after false alarm.
4. The Europeans will make themselves further dependent on the US, as they were before (and still today) with regard to the nuclear weapons umbrella.

What is hopeful (from an arms control perspective) is that the US Congress recently diminished a substantial part of the funding for the American missile defense system in Europe, and that a Democratic President in 2008 would only go along on the condition that the technology is ready, and effectively tested. In all likelihood, missile defense will remain an important arms control issue in the coming years, if not decades.

Pugwash may wish to reestablish a Working Group on Problems of Missile Defense and the Prevention of Weapons in Outer Space.

Strategies of disarmament: how to change nuclear weapons policy ?

A first paper explained how the Trident decision by the Blair administration was taken, and how Pugwash UK tried to influence that decision. Pugwash pressed for an open debate, provided information to the public, invited experts, organized press briefings, and lobbied for postponing the decision to replace Trident. While initial planning for replacement submarines was approved, the issue will come back to the parliament in 3 to 4 years for a decision about funding the new system. Further input by non-UK Pugwash members is welcomed in the future.

The second paper recounted the efforts of Canadian Pugwash to change NATO’s nuclear weapons policy. Senators Gen. Johnson, Gen. Dallaire, and Amb. Roche gave press conferences to publicize proposals to denuclearize NATO. In Ottawa, meetings were held with ambassadors from NATO countries.

A third paper described the arguments in favor of and against keeping American nuclear weapons in Turkey, and concluded that it was time to send them back to the US.

The debate that followed focused on the possible withdrawal of American nuclear weapons from Europe in general. There was a consensus that their presence is an anachronism, and that public opinion in Europe is very much in favor of the withdrawal. The withdrawal could also have a very positive effect on the current nonproliferation regime, at least as a symbolic gesture.

The reasons these weapons are still in Europe are due to:

1. Bureaucratic and political inertia; few politicians (except in Greece) are willing to use their political capital to change policy. There are also parochial interests involved, namely a small group within the military in the European countries, who believe that they can have more influence in NATO with the continued presence of these weapons in their respective countries.
2. Responsibility-sharing/burden-sharing within NATO.
3. Their presence in Europe is sometimes – e.g. in a recent platform of American experts related to the Democrats - linked to Russian tactical nukes, suggesting that the withdrawal can only happen on the condition that Russia changes its tactical nuclear weapons policy as well.
4. The slippery slope argument: if NATO gives in on this issue, perhaps it will be obliged to give in on other issues in the future.
5. Uncertainty about the future.

A more general question was whether public opinion had to be involved in order to convince the government. Most of the participants (although not all) agreed that public opinion was both an important actor and stakeholder. Also the media should play a much more active role in stimulating a serious debate about these issues.

There is a proposal to set up a Pugwash Working Group (or Task Force) on nuclear disarmament. The idea of elimination is not a taboo anymore, thanks in part to the Canberra Commission, the Blix Commission, and more recently the op-ed by Schultz, Perry, Nunn and Kissinger in The Wall Street Journal. At the same time, there is a window of opportunity with the coming change of the US administration at the end of 2008, a new NATO Strategic Concept in 2009, and the upcoming NPT Review Conference in 2010. The next two years may be critical.

It was repeatedly stressed that there was a need for a combination of vision AND concrete steps towards elimination, like the ratification of the CTBT and the withdrawal of the American nuclear weapons from Europe. A new idea was to dismantle several American and Russian nuclear weapons under the supervision of an international or IAEA inspection team.

Russia is back on the global stage

Growing Russian assertiveness in international politics could have positive consequences for arms control in the medium term. Under Putin and with the economy doing better than in the 1990’s (due to rising oil and gas prices), Russia’s self-confidence is increasing. Sometimes, it even behaves in a rather assertive or even aggressive way to show the rest of the world and its own public that the era of humiliation is over. Examples are the tests with ICBM’s, the vacuum bomb test in 2007, and bombers flying in the direction of the West. It is clear that the Russian military visibility and, by extension arms control, is used for geo-strategic (and domestic) reasons. The ballistic missile defense controversy should be seen in this light. The same applies to the freezing of the participation in the CFE Treaty in 2007 and the proposal to withdraw from the INF Treaty. In fact, it was suggested that Russia would like to use arms control as a way to exert political power in the international system, even going as far as playing a leading role in shaping a new international order.

Some questioned whether Russia was really back on the world stage. Others wondered what the long term vision behind this growing assertiveness was. Are we going back to a new Cold War ? Most agreed that the latter was unlikely, taking into account the power gap between the US and Russia. Even a compromise with the US on BMD was envisaged, on the condition that the Iranian threat would not materialize and the US withdraws its proposal to install MD in Eastern Europe.

Danger of nuclear terrorism

How difficult is it for terrorists to build an atomic bomb ? Not so difficult. The biggest hurdle consists of getting enough fissile material, about 100 kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU). Plutonium is the only alternative for HEU, but is much more difficult to handle, and has other disadvantages. Knowing that there is still a lot of HEU spread around the world – 1 million kg in Russia and 0.2 million kg in the US - without the necessary protection, it is time that the international community does everything it can to secure this material. The most urgent case are the nuclear research reactors, sometimes located at badly guarded universities. In addition, HEU is also used for naval purposes. HEU can be downgraded to lowly enriched uranium (LEU), which cannot be used for weapons purposes. Non-state actors are not able to enrich LEU to HEU.

The US is helping Russia in this process of conversion and securing HEU. The US paid 7-8 bn $ for about 300 ton excess HEU, which is now used as LEU in American civilian nuclear reactors. The fact that the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (between the US and Russia) – established in 1994 - is a success, is sometimes forgotten. In principle, similar deals could be made with Russia in the future, also by other countries or entities (like the EU). However, the political climate in Russia is currently not favorable for such “soft” deals.

Towards an Arctic Nuclear Weapon Free Zone

The basic idea (from the Canadian Pugwash group) is to make a NWFZ in the Arctic region. As new sea-lanes become available due to global warming and the melting of the ice, a first step would prohibit the passage of nuclear submarines in this area. In a later stage, the Russian bases in Murmansk should be closed as well. The latter may become an option if the number of strategic nuclear weapons continues to go down to a level of 1.000 or even 500 in the future. Under that scenario, one or two legs of the triad could be scrapped. For Russia, it would be more logical to keep mobile ICBMs instead of SLBMs on submarines. There are normally not more than two nuclear strategic submarines on patrol; the others are in port, and therefore vulnerable.

Nevertheless, it was admitted that the whole plan was quite ambitious because it would be the first time that nuclear weapon states were directly involved in the creation of a nuclear weapon free zone. While this ambitous plan was welcomed, many participants raised several questions: are submarines not more cost-effective than ICBMs (like the UK’s decision to keep only subs) ? Can this passage of submarines be effectively controlled ? Would the Pentagon accept such intrusive verification mechanisms ? What about the political atmosphere in Russia nowadays, which is not conducive to any substantial disarmament proposal ?

On the other hand, the plans to de-alert nuclear weapons may strengthen the idea. There would at least be one bureaucratic stakeholder in favour: the Strategic Ground Forces in Russia.

A Pugwash Working Group might explore the feasibility of establishing a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Arctic Zone.

Pathways to proliferation and counterproliferation

The paper mentioned two new proliferation processes: 1) networked proliferation (e.g. Pakistan); and 2) non-state actors (see nuclear terrorism). Networked proliferation, which is a phenomenon that is understudied, has the characteristic that it is not well detectable, that complete products are delivered instead of drawing maps, and that non-state actors are the driving force. The paper also discussed the impact of globalization on proliferation. Globalization can both help proliferation as it stimulates the movement of people, information and money, and be a tool in the fight against proliferation.

UN role in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis

A recently discovered aspect of the Cuban missile crisis is the pivotal role played by the UN Secretary-General U Thant. Thanks to Thant’s mediation efforts, President Kennedy had time to lower the tensions, and to imagine a solution without the use of force. In particular, Kennedy asked Thant to contact Khrushchev and ask him to keep his ships away from Cuba in order to have more time to work out a diplomatic solution. The Soviet leader agreed to the UN request. Second, Thant proposed the dismantlement of the missiles in exchange for an American guarantee that Cuba wouldn’t be invaded by the US. The latter was also accepted by both parties. Thirdly, Thant visited Castro at the end of the crisis and convinced Castro to tone down his rhetoric. This diplomatic approach was successful, and should be an example for the handling of current conflicts.

Conventional weapons sales to the Middle East

Although weapons of mass destruction are often the center of the international debate, we should not forget that wars are fought with conventional weapons. When it is discussed, the focus is most of the times on the demand side. The paper focused instead on the supply side. There are entities that have huge vested interests in selling arms. They can easily get away with the argument that “if we do not sell, other firms or states will sell exactly the same weapons”. After the Cold War, this economic logic applies even more than during the Cold War when friends and enemies were chosen on the basis of ideology to fight “proxy” wars.

The consequences of this arms trade, however, are substantial. Weapons are regarded as offensive, and stimulate others to acquire arms as well. The security situation in the end may be worse than was the case before acquiring these weapons. Another paradoxical result is that states are sometimes confronted with their own weapons in the hands of the enemy.

As the Middle East is an unstable region, there is a huge demand for weapons. These weapons further destabilize the region as a result of the wars that are fought (e.g. the recent Lebanon war in 2006, the Iraq war since 2003, etc).

In the debate that followed, the aspect of security guarantees was touched upon. If states feel secure, they would have no need to acquire (so many) weapons. Is there for instance no possibility to offer security guarantees to Iran or Israel ? On the supply side, there exists already the UN Arms Register and the Wassenaar Agreement, which are just two examples of promoting transparency, which in turn may soften the security dilemma. Recently, the idea of an Arms Trade Treaty came up in the UN General Assembly, proposing that arms sales should be regulated. It was also mentioned that parliaments should take responsibility for arms exports much more than is the case today.

---

1. The relation between nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament
Presentations and ensuing discussions in Working Group 2 left no doubt that the global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime is in need of significant and urgent repair. Yet it was recognized that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) remains the fundamental and indispensable cornerstone of this regime. It was observed that some current events and public statements, among them the publication in early 2007 of a seminal article in the Wall Street Journal calling for a complete elimination of nuclear weapons, present glimmers of hope that should be exploited to the fullest extent possible, also in the light of recent and imminent changes in political leadership in several of the countries directly concerned. Arguments were made in support of both directions of correlation between a lack of progress in global disarmament efforts and proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was observed by some that the stationing of American tactical nuclear warheads in Europe contradicts the spirit of the NPT, and therefore needs to be addressed by the governments of the countries concerned. The demand side of the proliferation problem could be addressed, in part, by decreasing the value of nuclear weapons through invigorated incremental disarmament efforts. Furthermore, increasing public awareness of the dangers involved with nuclear weapons could play a beneficial role in achieving a decrease of their numbers and eventually their elimination altogether.

2. Iran and the Middle East
The key to a solution of the controversy surrounding the Iranian nuclear energy programme is the building of mutual trust and confidence, rather than a fixation on the suspension of uranium enrichment activities, as the latter cannot be sustained in the long term under the rights provided by the NPT to which Iran is a member. To this end, however, it is in the interest of Iran itself and of the entire non-proliferation and disarmament regime, to use the opportunities that exist to significantly enhance transparency regarding both its past and present nuclear activities. Other options exist for all parties involved that could strengthen mutual confidence, such as Iran ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). First and foremost, however, it is time that the US and Iran undertake direct one-to-one discussions. Without it, it is hard to envisage a satisfactory outcome of the conflict. It was noted that sanctions have become part of the problem: they escalate the conflict without providing any solution. All members of this working group were convinced that the use of military force should in any case be avoided.

3. The Korean Peninsula
It is gratifying that recent developments in the context of the 6-party negotiations have generated a breakthrough in the previous deadlock between the government of the DPRK and the other 6-party group members. Optimism was therefore expressed regarding the feasibility today to provide the DPRK the security assurances it desires and to finally establish a Peace Treaty between the 4 main Parties involved. Given that prospects now exist for realizing a complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, it seems justified to currently carry great expectations, but that for the moment still need to be accompanied by considerate caution.

4. The peaceful use of nuclear energy and the nuclear fuel cycle
Given the fundamental role of energy supply in economic development, it is becoming increasingly evident that the world will continue to experience large increases in energy consumption. The concurrent substantial increases in the global demand for electricity, as well as the need to mitigate global climatic change and ensure energy resource security, may lead to a sizeable increase in the use of nuclear energy world-wide and correspondingly the construction of new nuclear power plants during the forthcoming decades. Of concern, however, is that - if realized - this trend regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy is likely to lower the barriers to black market activities. Also, due attention needs to be paid to possible deficiencies in adequate governance that new nuclear energy countries will need to be characterized by. In the light of these developments, it would be advantageous for all to ultimately transparently and fairly internationalize the front-end and back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, avoid the use of double standards, and fully render the IAEA’s Additional Protocol as the new norm for nuclear safeguards. To facilitate steps in this direction, the nuclear weapons states must do more to fulfill their NPT article VI obligations.

5. Nuclear Weapon Free Zones
It was generally agreed that the establishment of Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZ) remains an important asset for the cause of nuclear non-proliferation. The deficiencies observed in the six treaties that so far have been established in this regard could be addressed by using the amendment clauses available in the corresponding treaty texts. This would allow a better exploitation of several of their benefits, primordial among which is that they provide a strong disincentive to proliferate. In particular, the practical measures needed to implement a NWFZ in the Middle East deserve urgent attention by not only the countries directly involved but also by the entire international community.

6. The India-US nuclear deal
The intended US-India nuclear deal, while receiving credits in several circles for bringing India closer to the non-proliferation regime, was strongly criticized for not going far enough in this respect, inter alia for the liberty it possesses with respect to deciding which facilities will actually fall under the deal. It is recommended that the US-India deal receives further in-depth analysis, in terms of the benefits and disadvantages that it implies for efforts to halt nuclear proliferation and promote nuclear disarmament.

---

57^th Pugwash Annual Conference
Prospects for Disarmament, Dialogue and
Cooperation: Stability in the Mediterranean Region
Bari, Italy, 21-26 October 2007

 

REPORT on WORKING GROUP 3
The Middle East. The role of Europe and of Mediterranean cooperation

pdf download in Arabic - 275.5 KB

 

Co-conveners:
Alan McGowan (USA)
Beppe Nardulli (Italy)

Rapporteur:
ISYP Antoinette Hildering (Netherlands)
ISYP Marianna Evtodjewa (Russia) 

Within the Working Group, the discussion mainly focused on the Palestinian – Israeli conflict, the situation in Iraq and the position of Syria and also Iran in the region, both related to those issues and in the broader context of the Middle East. The role of the US and Europe came up where relevant in relation to those discussions.

Palestinian – Israel conflict

The situation and conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was presented by both sides. The coming Middle East Conference - to be held in Annapolis, Maryland, aimed for in November - was elaborated upon and both hope and scepticism were expressed concerning the prospects of its success. The situation on the ground in the Palestinian territories was presented, e.g., by showing the combined effect of policies such as the building of the wall and the location of settlements in the West Bank, to which some degree of disagreement remained relating to facts and terminology. The situation in Gaza and the position and involvement of Hamas were also discussed.

Six main points of apparent agreement, in relation to both the Middle East Conference and the peace process at large, were:

1. There needs to be a clear outcome from the beginning that shows the end of occupation; there is no need to start all over again, but continue from where the negotiations stopped.
2. The 2-States solution seems to have the support of both parties and their populations.
3. The Arab Initiative can serve as a base to the Conference and peace negotiations, accepting the pre 1967 borders and recognising Israel’s place  in the region.
4. The peace and the peace talks need to be comprehensive, including also Syria and Lebanon.
5. There needs to be an end to the violence, which will require reciprocity.
6. Time is of the essence.

General agreement on these points seems to exist, and might provide optimism for the peace process. Pessimism seemed to mainly relate to problems in further defining and applying these points. Issues relating to the six points just mentioned that arose, included the following:

1. The lack of trust in peace processes all the more requires clarity on the outcome and final status from the beginning of the Conference on. It needs to be clear that it will result in the end of the occupation. From there, e.g., negotiations and the implementation of the Roadmap is to take place – including issues such as the refugees, the Golan and security. Scepticism is largely present for a series of reasons, including the failure of earlier peace processes and the practice on the ground such as violence against civilians from both sides, continuance of settlements and other measures contradicting the expressed intentions. As a result, trust in the other party and in the leaders that already have a weak position is little. If the Conference would fail or only produce general principles, the position of the ones that still hope for a peaceful solution of the conflict will be further undermined. Moreover, the US as the facilitator is complicating the process, since they are part of the conflict instead of a third party viewed as neutral by both sides. A call for stronger commitment and involvement of the UN and Europe was expressed.
2. The 2-States solution was the one solution mentioned by all sides. The difficulties lay in defining the two States: although the general agreement on the pre 1967 borders can be at the basis for acknowledging two States, the actual borders still need to be defined. These borders remain disputed and will have a huge impact on the negotiations, their results and their acceptance. There is some acceptance by both sides of land-swaps, but major issues on the size and the quality of the land swapped need to be overcome. It was agreed in the discussion that the Palestinian split into two by the situation in Gaza requires a solution that has to be decided upon by the Palestinians themselves and that others need to support and stimulate such a solution.
3. There seemed to be agreement that there is no need for Hamas to recognise Israel since Israel does not need that recognition as a State; the acceptance of the Arab States of a place in the region seems much more important.
4. It was agreed that a comprehensive peace requires the involvement of all relevant parties, including Hamas and also Syria. The Conference can focus on the Palestinian – Israeli conflict, which seems more than enough to deal with at this specific Conference, but for the larger Middle East peace process other issues such as the Golan need to be taken in as well. The current exclusive structure of the Conference and the position of the US and Europe toward Hamas stand in the way of the comprehensive peace required and complicate successful implementation of whatever outcome of the Conference.
5. Violence against civilians was clearly condemned by both sides. The trouble there seems to be who is going to be the first to stop targeting the civilians, whether it be the rocketing of the Israeli civilians or the killing of Palestinians. Respect for the human rights of the other party and implementation of humanitarian law remains problematic in a situation where the violation by the other seems to serve as a reason not to live up to own duties as well. Disagreement remained on violence used against the occupation such as against Israeli soldiers.
6. Time is of the essence; both Palestinian and Israeli people are tired of the conflict, plus the idea of the 2-States solution is now accepted, which might not be the case if the present opportunity for peace is not taken up.

It can be concluded that during the discussions, agreement seemed to exist on the urgent need for a comprehensive peace that is based on the 2-States solution, with an outcome clear beforehand. To an extent, disagreement remained on both facts and perspectives, such as on the chances of success for the coming Annapolis Conference. For the Conference to have a good chance to succeed, it needs to include all parties and needs to have a clear outcome, not just principles. The urgency of reaching such an outcome was strongly emphasised by many participants in the discussion. All agreed that the focus needs to be on the future and that both parties have a large interest in and wish for peace, but it also became clear from the working group that bridging the remaining gap requires third party involvement. There was some feeling that Europe, not the United States, would be a more appropriate third party. Pugwash could play its role in this by continuing and strengthening its efforts to bring both sides together, facilitate dialogue and underline common grounds and shared interests.

Syrian-Israeli relationship

Participants of the working group agree that the Syrian-Israeli relationship is an important part, one of the main tracks of the Middle East peace process. But the problem of involvement of Syria to the talks on the Middle-East issues which are to be held in November, 2007 in Annapolis, Maryland (US) still exist. This and stopping of the Syrian-Israeli talks is one of the important issues (tendencies) of the political process in the region. The main problem is that neither Syria nor Israel wants to undertake any gestures, or concessions, to another side on the questions which might be put on the agenda (return of the Golan heights, cooperation between Syria and Iran, Syrian ties and financing of Hezbollah, Palestinian refugees in Syria, etc.).

Israel is reluctant to initiate peace talks with Syria because the present situation in the Golan heights is stable, there is no violence or clashes, the Israeli boarders at the side of Golan are comparatively safe (it is Syria that provides nowadays such stability and security). In this situation Israel from the one hand continues to built new settlements on the territories of Golan plateau (most of the 30 Israeli settlements situated there were built in the 1990-ies), and from the other hand prefers to keep status-quo in relationship with Syria offering instead of it only measures on regulation of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is why as some experts regard at present day it is almost impossible to explain to Israeli society the necessity of talks with Syria.

Syria also nowadays doesn’t want to implement any steps to promote dialogue with Israel. Syria feels itself isolated. Syrians have no allies in the region at present day and that is why they have to turn to more close cooperation with Iran. Besides Syrian authorities continue to consider Israelis as invaders who captured the heights, and they cannot agree on concessions with Israel on Lebanon issues because of importance of “Lebanon question” for Syrian policy. As some experts warned, if Syria will express less tough and more open positions in relationship with Israel and the US it may lead to weakening of positions of president Bashar Assad and to political instability in Syria.  

Nevertheless the peace process in the Middle East cannot be implemented without regulation of Syrian-Israeli relationship; otherwise Israel could not manage to prevent further attacks from Hezbollah, the situation in Lebanon would remain instable and possibly would run out in new clashes, fall of Lebanon government, etc. Besides there are some tendencies that may be favourable for promotion of peace process. For example, as some participants recognise, the structure of possible peace regulations between Israel and Syria may be more simple than between Israelis and Palestinians. Also Syria may be regarded as a reliable partner that fulfils punctually conditions of treaties that it signs.

During the sessions of the working group some recommendations were offered according to which the Israeli-Syrian bilateral talks and inclusion of them into the agenda of the Middle-East process could be possible. First, Syria and Israel should both be able to offer each other beneficial measures that could promote the peace process. These measures should include: a) elaborating of mechanisms of return of Golan heights to Syria or dividing of the lands; b) some guarantees from Syrian side that it will not support anti-Israeli activity of Hezbollah and other radical groups in Lebanon and will not maintain ties in this sphere with Iran.

At the same time as some experts recommended, Syria should be more flexible in international politics and especially in issues of relationship with Israel, Lebanon and Iran, and also Syrian leadership need to demonstrate to international community more clearly their willingness to start peace talks (by means of mass media, in speeches of Syrian officials, etc.). Israel, on the other hand, as some working group participants argued, ought to draw up peaceful dialogue with Syria. From this point of view, Israel should convince Washington of the necessity of starting of new round of talks with Syria, and the initiative of such talks should proceed from the US administration.  From another point of view, Israel and Syria may start consultations on peace process on bilateral basis without involving the US in talks. In particular, as some experts recommended, Syria should draw more attention to improving relationship with European countries and involve them more widely in the peace process. 

Situation in Iraq

Problems of political development in Iraq secured a special part in consideration of political processes in the Middle East. During the session of the working group the participants turned their attention to the questions of electoral processes and development of democracy in Iraq, political clashes and tensions and sectarian problems within the Iraqi society, growth of number of Iraqi refugees, problems of possible withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and low effectiveness and activity of Iraqi security forces, possibilities of Turkey operation in the Northern Iraq against Kurds, etc.

Many experts acknowledged that situation in Iraq has deteriorated in the last two years (2006-2007). These tendencies may be confirmed by high increase of refugees who fled from Iraq because of spread of violence (the number of refugees to Syria and Jordan already exceeded 2 million), sand the strengthening of sectarian tensions in Iraq.

In discussion on causes and different kinds of violence in contemporary Iraq most of experts agreed that it is necessary to divide violence of different Iraqi groups against occupation forces, violence between sectarian groups (Shiit and Sunni), criminal violence (including kidnapping), and political violence. In this connection some experts pointed out that often the importance of sectarian tensions in Iraq is overexaggerated, and besides the political and social causes of increasing violence are underestimated (for example, “Al-Qaida” can “hire” a potential suicide-bomber in Iraq for $100). From the other hand, as some participants argue, sectarian factors still exist and possibly the significance of them will even grow. Thus, many people Iraqi people perceive the violence as a sectarian matter (they blame for murders and killings of their relatives Shias or Sunnis). As many experts affirmed, the role of sectarian factor may also grow because of a wide involvement of different countries of the region in Iraqi political processes. Among the key players in Iraq the participants of working group mentioned Iran, Turkey, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. In a whole as it was emphasised the role of these countries and the balance of forces in the region in the last years significantly changed: Iran strengthened its positions due to close ties with Shias, Arab countries, on the contrary, lost the previous role and faced with new problems of widespread of instability and violence, refugees and others.

As for Turkey-Kurdish issues specifically, many experts expressed deep concerns that tendencies oriented on further federalization of Iraq and separation of Kurdish territories from it alongside with the growth of anti-Turkish terrorist activity of Kurds will remain in the region.

On the questions of possible terms of withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and strengthening of Iraqi security forces many experts within the working group had quite different visions. They agreed that demolition of Saddam Hussein army and security forces in which Sunnis played the main role had led to many negative consequences in the Iraqi security sphere, which is one of the reasons why it is very difficult nowadays to improve security situation in the country. In discussion about positions of  American forces in Iraq many experts agreed that they definitively have lost a credit of trust of Iraqi people and might be therefore right now withdrawn from Iraq and replaced by international forces. However some of the WG participants argued that withdrawal of troops will lead to more negative development of situation in Iraq (to civil war and raise of sectarian clashes, to turn of Iraq into a huge terrorist base and headquarters, etc.).

Among the recommendations on situation in Iraq that were offered by working group participants must be mentioned the following:

1. On the problem of Iraqi refugees it was suggested that a special document should be elaborated to determine general priorities of rendering assistance to Iraqi refugees in different countries (Syria, Jordan, etc.). This act should include means of improving life conditions of refugees, provide social assistance, assistance in getting jobs, etc. If it would not be done, as some experts affirmed, we may face in the future a possible repetition of the Palestinian scenario with the Iraqi refugees;
2. Many WG participants also emphasised the necessity of adoption of special UN resolution on assistance in unification of Iraq. This document should define some conditions of promotion of further peace process in Iraq, fix the principle of indivisibility of Iraq, and also include some necessary obligations of neighbouring countries on non-intervention in Iraqi affairs.  

---

57^th Pugwash Annual Conference
Prospects for Disarmament, Dialogue and
Cooperation: Stability in the Mediterranean Region
Bari, Italy, 21-26 October 2007

 

 

REPORT on WORKING GROUP 4
Religion-inspired political movements, the spread of radicalism and the consequences of the “War on Terror”

pdf download in Arabic - 228.1 KB

 

Chairs: Lynn Eden (USA), Claire Galez (Belgium)

Rapporteurs:
Abeer Yassin abeeryassin@yahoo.com 
ISYP Noam Rahamim, rahamim.noam@idc.ac.il

 

Religion has always played an important role throughout the world, both in the east and the west. It played a central role in great changes in human society through the centuries. Through the 20^th century might be seen as the most secular one, we are now witnessing a revival of religious movements and increase in their radicalization.  

In our working group we dealt with this interdisciplinary issue from different perspectives, and devoted our three sessions to discussions on geographical areas as the Middle East and Central Asia and to a global discussion on the consequences of the so called “the War on Terror”. We concentrated mainly on Islamic movements in these regions and in the context of the War on Terror, as they have been major players. The leading question of the discussion was why is there an increase of Islamist political movements and what is their nature? 

During the first session we focused on the idea of the Shia Crescent as a myth or reality. The Crescent is the continuous of Shiite communities from Lebanon, through Iraq, the Gulf countries, Iran and further on into Asia, and presented by surrounding Arab and western leaders as an ethno-religious based threat. The second session dealt with the Middle East, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and in Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. On the third session we discussed the issue of the “War on Terror” and its consequences.

A consensus in the group was that it would be a mistake to consider the Shiites as one monolithic entity. The Shiite world in itself is divided to different political levels and frameworks, a fact that is expressed in aggressive confrontations between Shiites, both on local and international spheres. It seems that the loyalty and political affiliation of local Shiite communities are not dictated by the religious element, which only play one part in a much more complex system of identity characteristics.

It is important to note that states and local groups, whatever their religion may be, are still largely motivated by political interests rather than religious ideology. The examples for this are many and varied: in the war between the Christian Armenia and the Shiite Azerbaijan, Iran chose to support the Armenians, rather the Shiites; today, Sunni groups in Iraq are fighting the Sunni al-Qaeda; Shiite groups in Southern Iraq use more violence against each other than against the foreign British forces; in Afghanistan, Shiite Jihadists are now taking part in the Sunni government, and the list goes on. It is to say, national and political interests usually override religious affiliations.

Our focus quickly shifted to a more fundamental issue of the relationship between Persian-Shiite-Iran and the Arab-Sunni-World that historically have experienced violent enmity and lasting tensions. The rise of Shiite groups to power, first in the Islamic revolution in Iran, Hizbulla in Lebanon and now the US-supported elected government in Iraq, has a potential of a wide range political influence on neighboring countries, especially in the Gulf area, which have significant populations of Shiites, some even as a majority of the general population. Traditionally, deprivation of civil, social and political rights is common with regards to these groups, who do not get proportionate, and sometimes even any, political representation. As in other cases, suppressed communities turn to look for assistance from external players, namely Iran. This is true not only for Shiite groups but for the Palestinians as well. While the official regimes are insensitive, unable or unwilling to insure stability and human rights for their population, social-religious movements come to fill this gap and gather a wide popular base of support. Therefore, it is a social and political phenomenon by its nature, rather than religious, and it is strengthen also by the weakening of the Arabic nationality and political regimes.

In the more general context of globalization, nationality is losing its presence with the mass populations. Old-new identities of ethnicity, tribalism and religion are rising, and with them old-new confrontation. The media is contributing significantly to these confrontations, with an extensive use of a language that stresses an “us vs. them” approach, expressed even more in context of the so called “War on Terror” – when you are “either with us or with the terrorists”. The parallel processes create intra and inter state tensions and evoke instability throughout the area, to the level of posing a threat to contemporary regimes. The major players to utilize this situation are Iran, which gather support with growing Shiite populations, and Islamists-wahabi groups, inspired by Afghan Jihad, supported by Saudi money. These groups were first to introduce religious justifications to existing ethno-national conflicts, such as in Pakistan, Kashmir and Chechnya. 

Therefore, it was the consensus in the working group that in this respect, religion itself is not an engine behind political movements, but rather is used as a mobilization tool by political leaders and groups. On the other hand, religious movements use the political sphere to gain more influence and expand their constituency by political tools. In fact, religion and politics play a game of two-way interaction and cannot be separated.  

Political vacuum invites militancy and extremism. In most cases, religion and religious justifications come to play as a reaction to bad rulers, when it becomes the only available channel of expression, venting frustration and welfare for many. This facilitates the rise of spontaneous religious leaders who find it easy to play on emotions of fear and hatred, in order to gain popularity, and by that fueling a process of radicalization and conflict.

Since it is indeed a campaign for the hearts and minds of people, we noted that the best way to counter this process is by establishing good governance, in a format that is relevant to the local traditions, sensitive to its peoples’ needs. It was noted that in Pakistan, the process of opening to democratic ideas helped to reduce tensions and weakened the ability to mobilize for violent acts. As long as liberal and moderate voices cannot be heard and new forms of conflict management between the state and the individuals cannot emerge, a polarized environment is sustained, between a suppressing, usually corrupted regime, and extremist, radical and usually violent movements.  

However, there was a consensus that a blanket response to these movements is a mistake that will harm our ability to differentiate between groups, as there are many shades of gray there. It is essential that we both understand and engage with these groups to create an environment in which new possibilities for change in the relationship can be developed. 

Furthermore, the development of the “War on Terror” shows clearly that the use of only military means is counter productive with winning the campaign for the hearts and minds. During the six years of this War, the Jihad arenas have only expanded to different countries and violent Jihadi terrorism is rising. On the account of the growing violence, opposition groups in Arab states are gaining power, building on the unrest in the Muslim street.

When taking about Terrorism, we acknowledged that it is the deliberated targeting of civilians. If we wish to overcome terrorism we have to pay the relevant attention to both elements of operational capabilities accompanied by motivation, with a greater emphasis on reduction of motivations. This can come in the form of establishing effective institution and education, increasing economic investments and opportunities, restoring a sense of dignity and more. In this way we would be able to isolate the radicals and win the hearts and minds of the people.

This does not mean a full and immediate withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. The “magic solution” of “Democracy” is also not suitable, and Western forces should not impose ethno-centralistic ideas. Rather there is an urgent need to increase efforts for reconstruction and reconciliation, based on conversation with the local people. Efforts should be designed to emphasis the advantages and interests of working together and support good governance. This responsibility is shared both by western forces and by local regimes.

Several short points for conclusion:

• Social injustices are a focal source for internal instability, and it has profound influences on regional and international relations. Therefore we should focus on common interest of internal stability and prosperity, based on human rights and equality.
• As principle, initiate conversation and dialogue with an attitude of including, not excluding.
• Regimes should improve relations with existing local communities, in terns of civil, social and political rights, and economic conditions.
• For external forces, with emphasis on the US, it is crucial to shift efforts back to the use of soft power and cultural diplomacy. Great power can bring about tremendous damage but can also create tremendous good.
• Utilize positive interpretations and peaceful elements in Islam. As religion was used to divide us, we can use it as a source of unity for all humans, stressing our communalities rather than minor differences. This is a long-term mission for mass education process especially in the Muslim world, and a responsibility of the states to override the Madrassas’ influence, but it can start now. 
• All players must be SELF-critical, continually re-choosing the more humanistic interpretations of their own religion and policy.

One comment was made, which we personally find deeply important. It is probably the most quoted sentence in this conference: “Remember your humanity and forget the rest”. We say that again because during our very interesting discussion, we found ourselves repeatedly drawn into a political debate, focusing on politics rather than on humanity, drifting away from the power of this idea. So in this context it is curtail that we continually remind ourselves of this two-fold truth: Remember your humanity and FORGET the rest.

---

57^th Pugwash Annual Conference
Prospects for Disarmament, Dialogue and
Cooperation: Stability in the Mediterranean Region
Bari, Italy, 21-26 October 2007

 

REPORT on WORKING GROUP 5
Non-military Threats to Security

 

Co-conveners: Professor M E Muller, South Africa and Dr. Aharon Zohar, Israel

Rapporteur: Happymon Jacob, India

 

The group had a great deal of discussion on the theoretical as well as the practical, policy and political aspects of the many non-military threats to security. The group recognizes that major threats to humanity today emanate not only from inter-state wars or arms races but from environmental degradation, climate change, diseases, inequality, poverty to name a few. This is the age of subaltern politics. The group particularly stressed the importance of re-theorizing security so that the program for action to combat non-traditional threats to security is not without adequate theoretical and conceptual foundation. Human discourses and concepts of non-military security should translate themselves into discursive practices, political projects, and national and international advocacy.

It was considered that human security, from a conceptual point of view, is an evolving, expanding and developing concept. Human security is a much debated and written about concept and it did evoke a great deal of discussion in the group. Despite criticism about its ‘expandability’, which can potentially render it ineffectual from a practical point of view, it was felt, after considering the pros and cons of its ‘all-inclusive’ and ‘expandable’ nature that it is better to let the concept evolve and expand in the course of time.  Human centered discourses should be seen as a normative aspect of the international community. Such discourses carry the power of emancipation and upliftment of the downtrodden.

It was pointed out that today a large share of human discourses is unfortunately limited to citizens, leaving stateless people even more vulnerable; it is necessary to include non-citizens in such crucially important discourses.

Sometimes there can be tension, from a practical point of view, between the standard of justice and standard of humanity while implementing the principles of human discourses. However, both standards are intrinsically interlinked to the human discourses of security, rights and development, and include associated responsibilities. It is not justice alone that should prompt us to act in favour of human security. Humanity offers us an equally forceful trigger as well as a clear basis for identifying moral, political and legal obligations. In this regard, it was pointed out that sometimes reaffirming our humanity may come first.

It was also felt that even as human discourses give a lot of importance to developing universal norms, it is necessary to give importance and recognition to local narratives. Promotion of Subaltern schools of human discourse assumes great significance in this regard. When dealing with universal human discourses, care should be taken to avoid both ethnocentrism and ethno-guilt. While local peace and justice systems and local narratives on non-traditional security are to be promoted, it is also important to understand that universal principles are not necessarily equivalent to Western principles.

One of the ways security can be demystified and used for the wellbeing of disadvantaged sections of humanity is to use the tool of securitization. The concept of human security, that keeps the human person at the centre of theory and praxis, has benefited a great deal from the concept of securitization which is an inter-subjective, constructivist, emancipatory and political project.

Despite its (securitisation’s) inherent strength in empowering the security of the human person, it needs to be kept in mind that undue and careless processes of securtisation can lead to depoliticisation, creation of militarized solutions to political problems by self-seeking security elites. Such misuse has been witnessed in the ongoing war on terror, the perception of Islam and in dealing with the environment.

Under such circumstances, it is necessary to de-securitise such issues and bring them back to the normal political realm where open and unconstrained debate on issues is possible and nuances can be understood as a result. The importance of the dynamic and the discursive process in the acts of securitization and desecuritisation needs to be stressed here.

An important thematic debate in the group was terminological in nature. Whether issues at stake and under discussion in a group like ours are to be termed as ‘threats’ or ‘challenges’ was carefully considered by the members of the group keeping in mind the fact that terms, words and speech can go a long way in understanding issues and problems and can consequently determine the modus operandi of addressing them. It was felt that the seriousness and context of the threat would need to be carefully considered while terming it one way or the other.

The deliberations of the working group had focused on the following non-military threats to security: climate change, migration human rights, circumvention of international law, poverty, diseases, HIV/AIDS and demographic issues. There were more issues i.e. water resources, energy, food production etc. that were not mentioned.

One of the key main threats to security are climate change and environmental degradation. The existing global security framework itself needs to be transformed in order to include threats to human security such as environmental degradation. It was pointed out that while climate change and its impact on security will impact on the entire world, it will harm the developing and poorer parts of the world more acutely.

Even as more and more focus should be given to environmental security, it is necessary to inculcate attitudinal and behavioral changes in safeguarding the environment.

Migration and related human rights issues were considered to be another important issue in the non-traditional security paradigm. The international convention for the protection of rights of all the working migrants and members of their families, passed in December 1990 by the UN General Assembly, admits that many working migrants and their families are unprotected by national norms. These issues should be addressed by the international community.

Illegal immigrants face more violations than the legal ones even though legal immigrant workers are not completely free from rights violations. More significantly, it was pointed out that there is a gender dimension to the rights violations of the immigrant communities as women suffer more from poverty, rights violations and even sexual abuse. Thus governments of the well-off countries have to be persuaded to keep this in mind such humanitarian concerns when framing policies relating to immigrant labour.

The group also considered that in order to ensure justice for humanity, it is necessary to have respect for international legal norms, laws and international courts. However it is saddening to see the manner in which some states circumvent the provisions and spirit of the International Criminal Court. Specific mention may be made of the UN Security Council Resolution that the ICC must refrain from initiating any investigation or trial against any state that is not party to the Rome Treaty on the basis of the facts or omissions connected to an operation established or allowed by the UN. To cite another such example, the United States has repeatedly signed bilateral treaties with individual countries to claim immunity for its forces brought to trial. Such actions by governments will undoubtedly violate human rights.

Poverty is another non-military threat to be discussed and tackled. There are many global structural reasons for its continuation and aggravation.  The adoption of the ‘Washington Consensus’ in Latin American countries is a case in point. The adoption of socio-economic policies suggested by the Washington Consensus pushed many of these countries into deep crisis. In real terms, this meant reduction of the role of the state from its traditional economic ones, consolidation of oligopolic economies, disinvestment in basic infrastructure, fund cuts in education and health and the privatization of these sectors, increasing external debt etc. This combined with the lack of representative democracy, social and political instability, large scale corruption among other such socio-political problems in these countries have added to the existing insecurity of the people. It was felt that the role of the state has to be re-established as coordinator of social organisation, provider of public goods and as regulator of fair, democratic labor and labor union relations. Allocating resources and determining priorities cannot be left to the market.

One important means of empowering the people especially the youth is by imparting socially relevant education. The use of education to resolve socially complex situations for students was appreciated by the group. The exposure of youth to research and developments in science will not only prompt them to continue with their quest for knowledge but will also instill scientific temper in them. In an era when we talk of the responsibility of scientists to be ethical in their endavours, it is necessary to promote such alternative ways of promoting scientific temper and ethical scientific practices.

Diseases pose a great deal of insecurity to humanity especially to the more unfortunate ones. While on the one hand certain diseases are just not curable, these incurable diseases have a more pronounced impact on the poor. Even when some of them are curable, millions die due to sheer lack of health infrastructure and medical help. HIV/AIDS is one such disease that has killed hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. Africa is the continent worst hit by the AIDS epidemic. Of the 40 million people living with HIV/AIDS worldwide, nearly 75 per cent live in sub-Saharan Africa, which is inhabited by just 10 per cent of the world’s population. More so, among the 22 million people who have died of the disease, 14 million have been in this region. Malaria is another such killer disease. More then two billion people, around 40 per cent of the world’s population live in areas of high risk of malaria. It may also be mentioned that around 90 per cent of the world’s disease burden falls on the developing world. Yet only three per cent of the research and development expenditure of the pharmaceutical industry is directed towards those ailments since their markets are not particularly lucrative to the companies. Here lies the social responsibility of science and scientists.

While it is necessary to give funding to the developing world to fight these diseases, funds alone won’t get us anywhere. There needs to be public education, increased awareness and local government responsibility to fight these human security threats effectively.

While considering effective ways of fighting HIV/AIDS new research findings would need to be considered. To cite an example, evidence now exists that HIV infection has a much greater impact on the mucosal immune system of the gut where 98 per cent of the CD4T cells are found than on its systemic counterpart, that is, the bloodstream, where only 2 per cent of the CD4T cells are found. This latest insight on HIV infection has implications for ongoing vaccine research and development, improving existing therapies and finding attractive therapeutic approaches for HIV infected persons. 

Another aspect of crucial importance in this regard is the issue of anti-biotic resistance which may be termed as a formidable threat to the human race. Because of extensive usage and misuse of antibiotics, we are today faced with a number of super bugs that can not be killed by existing antibiotics. Super bugs are those pathogens that have developed multiple mechanisms to express antibiotic resistance to counter antibiotic effects. It is necessary that the general population and the scientific community wake up to this threat. The strategies to deal with them are currently preventive in nature such as using environmentally safe multivalent vaccines, multiple antibiotic therapy, recombinant genetic technology and public education about the nature of antibiotics. It was also pointed out since the total sales of all kinds of antibiotics is only around $25 billion per year, most pharmaceutical companies are moving away from drug research and development owing to higher cost and time involved and low return of investment.

On a different note, there was also an important presentation in the group on the future of the global population which evoked a lot of substantive debate. While the deliberations of the group were more or less focused on direct and immediate threats to human beings, the argument that the global population, especially in the developed world, will stabilize as a result of which the elderly will outnumber the young and the global population will cease to grow led to an interesting discussion. Such restructuring of the age-pyramid will have implications for global security, social security, economic priorities and ethnic composition of countries. Such issues of long-term impact on humankind will need to be factored into understanding security, the group felt.

In conclusion, I would like to report that we discussed the important concept and practice of human security from a variety of perspectives including political theory, international law, medical research, science education, demography, and sustainable and equitable development. One of the key benefits of debating non-military security issues in groups like this with participants from a broad spectrum of disciplines and streams is that there is a real possibility of doing so beyond disciplinary boundaries: many of these non-military threats are international and interdisciplinary so we need the expertise of participants from a variety of fields. 

Concrete Suggestions for Future Pugwash Agenda

• Continue to include more discussion on non-military aspects of security in pugwash meetings.
• Include a greater variety of issues.
• Include a plenary panel discussion on non-military security at the next Annual Conference.