Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T10:34:56.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Warfare and the Third World

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Raymond A. Zilinskas
Raymond A. Zilinskas*
Affiliation:
Center for Public Issues in Biotechnology, Maryland Biotechnology Institute, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Catonsville, MD 21228
Get access

Abstract

This article analyses the accomplishments and shortcomings of the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and recent attempts to strengthen it. It examines why developing countries show little interest in these efforts. Neither do they seem intent on acquiring this weapons system. Might this situation change? To find out, the article examines past thrid world conflicts, focusing especially on those where chemical weapons have seen use. The lessons from the past are applied to assess the possibility of a country acquiring, then employing biological weapons in future conflicts as an adjunct to, or instead of, chemical arms. Finally, suggestions are made as to possible steps that the international community can take to lessen the threat of biological warfare generally and to involve third world countries in the on-going attempts to strengthen the Convention.

Type
Articles and Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 9 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Biotechnology and International Conflict , August 1990 , pp. 59 - 76
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carus, S. (1989). The Genie Unleashed: Iraq's Chemical and Biological Weapons Production. Washington D.C.: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.Google Scholar
Chemical and Engineering News. (1987a). “Biological Weapons Debate on Anthrax Incident Flares.” 65 (April 6): 4–5.Google Scholar
Chemical and Engineering News. (1987b). “Iraq Again Uses Chemical Arms against Iran.” 65 (May 25): 16.Google Scholar
Cody, E. (1989). “Talks Show Growing Arab Consensus That Chemical Arms Balance Nuclear.” Washington Post (January 13): A24.Google Scholar
Cohen, E.A. (1986). “Distant Battles: Modern War in the Third World.” International Security 10: 143–171.Google Scholar
Cohen, S.N. (1975). “The Manipulation of Genes.” Scientific American 233: 24–33.Google Scholar
Dickson, D. (1986). “Soviets Discuss Sverdlovsk.” Science 234: 144.Google Scholar
Falk, R. (1986). “Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972.” In Geissler, E. (ed.), Biological and Toxin Weapons Today. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–120.Google Scholar
Feith, D.J. (1986). Testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Evaluation of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on 8 August.Google Scholar
Gardov, V. (1980). “A Real Disarmament Measure.” International Affairs (Moscow) No. 5: 108–115.Google Scholar
Geissler, E., ed. (1986a). Biological and Toxin Weapons Today. New York Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geissler, E. (1986b). “A New Generation of Biological Weapons.” In Geissler, E. (ed.), Biological and Toxin Weapons Today. New York Oxford University Press, pp. 21–35.Google Scholar
Geissler, E., ed. (1990a). Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention by Confidence-Building Measures (SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Studies Number 10). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geissler, E. (1990b). “New Assessments of the Potential Value of BW and TW Agents.” In Geissler, E. (ed.) Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention by Confidence-Building Measures (SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Studies Number 10). LondonOxford University Press, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar
Gromyko, A. (1982). Letter dated 16 June 1982 from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Secretary-General. UN document A/S-12/AC. 1/12 (June 17).Google Scholar
Harris, R. & Paxman, J. (1982). A Higher Form of Killing. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Hedén, C.G. (1970). “A Professional Verdict Over BW.” New Scientist 47: 518–520.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. (1989). “Chemical Warfare in the Gulf—Lessons for NATO?” British Army Review No. 9125-31.Google Scholar
League of Nations (1925). Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. In Treaties and Other International Acts. Series 8061. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department on State, 1975.Google Scholar
Moon, J. (1988). “In the Shadow of Ypres: The Chemical Warfare Dilemma.” Harrod Lecture Series, Vol. 10. Publication by Fitchburg State College, Mass.Google Scholar
Moore, W. (1987). Gas Attack! Chemical Warfare 1915-18 and Afterwards. New York: Hippocrene Books.Google Scholar
Nixon, R.M. (1971). “Statement on Chemical and Biological Defense Policies and Programs, November 25, 1969.” Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States Richard M. Nixon, 1969. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 968.Google Scholar
Perry-Robinson, J. (1986). Chemical and Biological Warfare Developments 1985 (SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Studies Number 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plasmid Working Group (1975). Proposed Guidelines and Potential Biohazard Associated With Experiments Involving Genetically Altered Microorganisms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Institute Archives and Special Collections, p. 19.Google Scholar
Raviv, D. & Melman, Y. (1990). “Iraq's Arsenal of Horrors.” Washington Post (April 8): B1.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, B.H. (1987). “Updating the Biological Weapons Ban.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 43: 40–43.Google Scholar
Sims, N.A. (1988). The Diplomacy of Biological Disarmament Vicissitudes of a Treaty in Force, 1975-85. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (1971a). The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare. Volume V: The Rise of CB Weapons. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (1971b). The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare. Volume V: The Prevention of CBW. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Stone, W.H. (1987). “Defining Biotechnology” (letter). Bio/technology 5: 1339.Google Scholar
Sutherland, R.G. (1988). “The International Machinery Required to Monitor a Chemical Weapons Convention.” Pugwash Newsletter 25(3): 128–135.Google Scholar
Tucker, J.B. (1984/85). “Gene Wars.” Foreign Policy No. 57: 58–79.Google Scholar
United Nations (1968). Conference of the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament. “United Kingdom Working Paper on Microbiological Warfare.“ UN document ENDC/231 (August 6).Google Scholar
United Nations (1969). General Assembly. Report of the Secretary-General on Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons and the Effects of Their Possible Use. UN document A/7575.Google Scholar
United Nations (1972). Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. In Treaties and Other International Acts. Series 8062. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department on State, 1975.Google Scholar
United Nations (1980a). Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons an on Their Destruction. “Report of the Preparatory Committee for the Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention of the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction.” UN document BWC/CONF.I/5 (February 8).Google Scholar
United Nations (1980b). Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons an on Their Destruction. “Background papers relating to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction.” UN document BWC/CONF.I/4, (February 20).Google Scholar
United Nations (1982a). General Assembly. “Letter dated 20 May 1982 from the Permanent Representative of the USSR to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General” and Annex. UN document A/37/233 (May 21).Google Scholar
United Nations (1982b), General Assembly. “Report of the Group of Experts to Investigate Reports on the Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons.” UN document A/37/259 (December 1).Google Scholar
United Nations (1984a). Security Council. “Report of the Specialists Appointed by the Secretary-General to Investigate Allegations by the Islamic Republic of Iran Concerning the Use of Chemical Weapons.” UN document S/16433 (March 26).Google Scholar
United Nations (1984b). Conference on Disarmament. “Final Report of the Two Hundred and Eightieth Plenary Meeting”, statement by V.L. Issraelyan (Head of the USSR delegation). UN document CD/PV.280 (August 9) p. 8.Google Scholar
United Nations (1986a). Second Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. “Technological Development of Relevance to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention” by the United States of America. UN document BWC/CONF.II/4/Add.2 (September 8).Google Scholar
United Nations (1986b). Second Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. “Summary Record of the 3rd Meeting”, statement by D. Lovitz. UN document BWC/CONF.II/SR.3 (September 16) p. 4.Google Scholar
United Nations (1986c). Second Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. Final Report. UN document BWC/CONF.II/13/II (September 30).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of State (1970). “U.S. Renounces Use of Toxins as a Method of Warfare.” U.S. Department of State Bulletin 62: 266–267.Google Scholar
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (1977). Research with Recombinant DNA. Washington D.C.National Academy of Sciences Press. (See report of workshop No. 6, pp. 195–198.)Google Scholar
U. S. Department of State (1982a). Chemical Warfare in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. Special Report no. 98 (March 22).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of State (1982b). Chemical Warfare in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan: An Update. Special Report no. 104 (November).Google Scholar
U.S. Executive Office (1984a). The President's Report to the Congress on Soviet Noncompliance with Arms Control Agreements (January 23).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of State (1984b). Chemical Weapons Use in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. Current Policy No. 553.Google Scholar
U.S. Executive Office (1985a). The President's Unclassified Report to the Congress on Soviet Noncompliance with Arms Control Agreements (February 1).Google Scholar
U.S. Executive Office (1985b). The President's Unclassified Report to the Congress on Soviet Noncompliance with Arms Control Agreements (December 23).Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office (1986). Chemical Warfare Progress and Problems in Defensive Capability. A report to the Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. Publication GAO/PEMD-86-11 (July).Google Scholar
U.S. Senate (1988). Chemical Weapons Use in Kurdistan Iraq's Final Offensive. A staff report of the Committee on Foreign Relations (October).Google Scholar
Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics (1987). “Information Presented by the USSR in Compliance with the Agreements Reached at the Second Conference for Examination of the Convention on the Prohibition of Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacterio-logical (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Elimination, and in Accordance with Resolutions and Recommendations of the Special Meeting of Scientific and Technological Experts from the Participating Countries. (Data concerning the Ukrainian and Byelorussian Republics are also included in this information).” (October 13).Google Scholar
Williams, P. & Wallace, D. (1989). Unit 731: The Japanese Army's Secret of Secrets. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1970). Health Aspects of Chemical and Biological Weapons. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1985), “The Military and the New Biology.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 41: 10–16.Google Scholar
Wright, S. and Sinsheimer, R.L. (1983). “Recombinant DNA Technology and Biological Warfare.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 39: 20–26.Google Scholar
Zilinskas, R.A. (1983). “Anthrax in Sverdlovsk: Epidemic or BW?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 39: 24–27.Google Scholar
Zilinskas, R.A. (1986a). “Recombinant DNA Research and Biological Warfare.” In Zilinskas, R. A. and Zimmerman, B. K. (eds), The Gene Splicing Wars: Reflections on the Recombinant DNA Controversy. New York: Macmillan, pp. 167–203.Google Scholar
Zilinskas, R.A. (1986b). “Verification of the Biological Weapons Convention.” In Geissler, E. (ed.), Biological and Toxin Weapons Today. New York Oxford University Press, pp. 82–107.Google Scholar
Zilinskas, R.A. (1990), “Terrorism and Biological Weapons: Inevitable Alliance?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. In press.Google Scholar
Zilinskas, R.A. & Hedén, C.G. (1990), “The Biological Warfare Convention: A Vehicle for International Cooperation.” (In preparation for a special SIPRI study.Google Scholar