Categories
Health Long Form

Incentivizing Kidney Donations: A Tax Credit Scheme

Introduction

There is an organ crisis in America. Currently, hundreds of thousands of Americans are on waiting lists to receive organ transplantations for livers, hearts, and kidneys and fewer and fewer organs are being donated every year. The most egregious of these shortages is being seen in the kidney market where an estimated 50,000 Americans will die waiting for a kidney this year alone.

This failure of supply to keep up with demand has its roots in a failure to provide incentives for individuals to donate their organs. It is currently illegal to sell ones kidney and receive monetary compensation. The current proposals around this involve tweaking current laws to acquire ones organs after death, or repealing the ban altogether and allowing for direct compensation.

There are several practical and moral flaws with both of these initiatives, thus this paper proposes a tax-credit scheme to incentivize individuals to give up their kidneys as an alternative. This tax-credit would not violate the ban currently in place to compensate those for donation and would avoid the flaws in previous proposals to give America a fighting chance to overcome this organ crisis.

Background

In 1984, the National Organ Transplant Act was passed in the United States which deemed it illegal for anyone to sell or acquire an organ for “valuable consideration”. The passage of this law set the precedent for any and all organ transplantations to occur only if the organ was received through donation; purchase or sale of organs resulted in five year prison sentence and a hefty fine (FindLaw).

Unfortunately, only 30-40% of Americans have listed themselves as organ donors on a driver’s license or through state run donor registries (Satel), and the gap between those on the waiting-list to receive organs and the amount of organs donated annually continues to widen (Organdonor.gov).

In 2006, 70,000 Americans were waiting for life-saving kidney transplantations and around 10,000 kidneys were donated that year (Satel). As of September 8th 2014, over 120,000 Americans are waiting for kidneys and around 16,000 kidneys have been donated (National Kidney Foundation). To this day, someone on the list waiting for a kidney dies about every 90 minutes (Satel) with a staggering rate of 50,000 individuals expected to die this year still waiting for a kidney (Beard, Kaserman and Osterkamp).  

If there is no structural change in either the system of organ procurement or the technology of transplant medicine, the likelihood of resolving current shortages in kidney donation looks very bleak. A simple simulation model based on current data around US renal waiting lists predicts that by 2015 the amount of Americans waiting for a kidney will balloon to over twice the amount in 2006 to 160,000 and lives lost to kidney shortages will exceed 100,000 (Beard, Kaserman and Osterkamp).

This problem is compounded by the current health crisis in America where the conditions that give rise to renal failure such as diabetes, high blood pressure and obesity are increasing exponentially (Beard, Kaserman and Osterkamp). America will see a greater demand for kidneys in future and the current rate of donation is already not meeting the demand, thus the impending organ crisis in this country has made one thing clear – relying on altruism is not enough.

Literature Review

The solution is obvious – increase the overall kidney supply pool in some way. There have been several methods discussed to increase the supply, but they have split along two camps: those that work within the National Organ Transplant Act and those that seek its repeal. Those that wish to work within NOTA have pushed two main initiatives – expanding organ donor eligibility to patients who have died of cardiac arrest (currently outlawed) and adopting the European practice of “presumed consent” whereby citizens are considered organ donors upon their death unless they have explicitly signed an anti-donor or opt-out card (Satel). However, the total amount of organs that would be added to the pool from implementing either of those strategies alone or together would fall far short of the booming demand (Abadie and Gay).

Those that wish to repeal NOTA have championed legislation that would remove the ban on the sale or purchase of organs and would allow direct cash compensation in exchange for kidneys, hearts, livers etc. Economists globally have supported this method with over 70 percent favoring the legalization of organ sales (Beard, Kaserman and Osterkamp). From their perspective, the shortage of organs is a result of a failure to provide incentives – there is really no incentive for someone to give up a non-vital organ such as a kidney before their death if their only motivation is the desire to help someone else.  Economists argue that by opening a free-market for organs both the demand and supply side of the equation would be helped. 

On the supply side, given that demand is so high for the organs there would be a huge incentive to sell one’s own organs or those of a deceased family member and collect a very good price. Economists argue that legalization could single-handedly eliminate the shortage for organs given that the average cost for a kidney transplantation is $259,000 and even a fraction of that as compensation would skyrocket supply (Becker and Elias). On the demand side organ exchange businesses would arise and begin selling organs at lower prices. As competition to buy organs increases given the increasing demand, companies would continue to slash prices to capture the market demand leading to overall lower prices for those in need of organs as well (Andiew and Block).

The push-pack to this proposal has been strong from many fronts, in particular the Institute of Medicine cautioning that this will lead to a slippery slope of treating the body as if it were “for sale”. Studies have shown that financial incentives may actually lead to a decline in the supply of organs because it distorts the signal about preferences that organ donation gives which is meant to be purely altruistic in nature and perhaps “cheapens” the process (Byrne and Thompson).  

Proponents of the legalization of organ sales argue that that form of thinking is outdated given that America has already accepted a free market approach for human eggs, sperm and surrogate mothers (Satel). However, there is legitimate concern that the legalization of organ sales could spur unethical and even criminal exploitation of vulnerable donors (Danovitch and Delmonico). Opponents argue that legalization will set off a global race of “transplant tourism” where organized crime rings would travel across impoverished areas in the United States and around the world to capture and harvest organs from powerless individuals and sell their organs on the market for a profit (Danovitch and Delmonico). This possibility has shown to be uniquely likely for kidneys. In Hong Kong and Israel where the sale of kidneys had been legalized, there was a sharp increase in unnamed or unidentified kidney sales (Danovitch and Delmonico).

Given these risks, this paper argues for a third option as an alternative to legalization and methods that still maintain NOTA – providing a weak economic incentive to donate organs. Thomas Søbirk from the University of Roskilde in Denmark has argued that individuals are more likely to donate to a particular cause the more of their donations they are able to deduct from their taxes. Extrapolating from this conclusion, a tax-credit mechanism to compensate individuals for organ donations may be able to satisfy the demand for kidneys. If individuals can only receive deductions in their taxes in that country that should theoretically eliminate the risk of foreign organ sellers who would not be able to collect the benefits of harvesting illegal organs, but still able to increase the supply of the overall organ and kidney pool.

Analysis

A tax-credit scheme as a solution to the current shortage in kidney donations, in particular the one I am proposing, will take form in two separate ways. The first is offering an annual tax credit (~$500) for an individual agreeing to be an organ donor upon their death. The second is receiving a tax credit for donating a kidney as a living donor. There are two components to this as well – the first is that there is a fixed rate of a $5,000 deduction in taxes per kidney donated. Humans cannot survive with less than one of their two kidneys so this will be a one-time deduction. The second component is where any costs incurred as a result of donating the kidney (the procedure, recovery, travel etc) will be deducted from their taxable income.

To prevent against abuse and exploitation of this system, I propose a $15,000 cap on deductions as well as all expenditures being cleared by a medical doctor as an expense derived from the removal of the kidney.  This tax-credit should theoretically increase the pool of kidney donations in two ways. First, it works to address the negative impacts of donating an organ by compensating individuals and secondly it attaches a positive incentive to donate with the promise of future deductions in their taxable income. If all individuals in this economy are seeking to maximize their utility, this measure ensures that individuals are not worse off after donating their kidney and are in fact better off in the future.

According to the Grossman Model, health is an investment that can accumulate or depreciate over time. The choice to donate an organ is detrimental to one’s health even if only in the short-term since there are costs associated with recovery. The equation below projects an individual’s lifetime utility. The individuals discount date, δ, is a measure of much they value utility now more than in the future. In this scenario, an individual choosing to give up a non-vital organ like a kidney in exchange for the reward of tax reduction (indirectly compensation) indicates that they value utility in the future more than they value utility now and thus have a large δ.

I now want to address potential concerns with this proposal as opposed to the ones discussed in the literature. The first concern is that the tax-credit will ultimately have no effect on increasing the rate of kidney donation and may actually decrease the number of people willing to donate. The idea that the tax-credit proposal would be counter-productive in increasing donation draws from the Byrne and Thompson paper that financial incentives distort the signal of organ donation and cheapen the process – this is formally known as the Titmuss objection.

Richard Titmuss established the framework of blood donation using payment as an incentive versus a system of altruistic unpaid donors (Buyx). In his work, he alleges that paying for giving up your blood changes the social meaning of giving blood because it denies those individuals the ability to gift those who are in need and makes them less likely to donate. The proposal may succumb to this criticism as a tax deduction in exchange for kidney donation would make the donation no longer a pure gift, thus depriving donors the ability to make a moral choice and theoretically making them less likely to donate.

While Titmuss bases his conclusions empirically, they may not apply to organ donation as they do to blood donation.  As mentioned earlier, studies have shown that individuals are more likely to donate to a particular cause the more of their donations they are able to deduct from their taxes, and in particular studies suggest that even a modest cash payment would increase the number of organ donors (Kittur and Hogan).

However, a tax-credit does not have to be compulsory and could avoid the Titmuss objection all together. Individuals can choose to donate their organs without receiving the tax deduction and could in fact give monetary value of the tax-break to a charity of their choice, thus retaining the donation as purely an altruistic act. Ultimately what is more important is preventing people from dying on waiting-lists for organs and if a tax-credit can help reduce these needless deaths we have a moral obligation to pursue it even if may rob some of the ability to perform an altruistic act. The kidney shortage has compounded into a crisis precisely because of the failure of altruism to provide the necessary impetus to donate organs.

The second objection is that this tax-credit scheme could lead to exploitation of the poor. Tax benefits are intuitively less appealing to the wealthy since they are already retaining a sufficient amount of their income to live comfortably, thus this policy will disproportionately affect those in lower income brackets trying to take advantage of the promise of lower taxes. This, however, is not really an argument against the efficacy of the tax-credit if it ultimately increases the number of kidneys donated to the pool. More importantly, the action of giving up ones kidney is a voluntary choice and as long as the poor can benefit from this proposal while also helping others in need it should not be considered exploitative.

The more important question is if this proposal is able to address concerns of transplant tourism as a form of exploitation of the poor. As mentioned before, one of the principle concerns of legalizing organ sales is the fear that individuals may forcibly remove organs from the poor domestically and internationally to sell both in legal and black markets. This proposal works against such insidious acts in two ways. First, in order to claim any tax deductions the organs must come from the claimant’s body itself which can be verified with simple medical scans. Secondly, if there is an influx of organs donated following the implementation of this tax-credit this would eliminate the value of illicitly obtained organs abroad or domestically because supply is already catching up to demand and registered, “legally obtained” organs would already be available.

The idea of legally obtained organs begs the question of the final concern – is a tax-credit for donating organs legal under the National Organ Transplant Act? I believe it is under certain legal interpretations.

First, NOTA explicitly prohibits donors from transferring human organs for “valuable consideration”, but the tax-credit does not give deductions based on the expense of the organ itself but on the expenses incurred in donating the organ. In other words, the donor is not being compensated for the value of their organ, but rather being compensated for the travel, lodging, lost wages, recovery costs etc associated with donating the organ.

Second, NOTA’s jurisdiction extends only as far as inter-state commerce is concerned, if states implement this policy at the local and state level in ways that would have no bearing on inter-state commerce then it should remain perfectly legal. Preventing the tax-credit from interfering with interstate commerce could occur in a few ways – recipients can only receive organs from donors within their state, donors can only receive a deduction in their state taxes not federal taxes etc.  Despite these work-around methods, more should be done to help those dying every day on kidney transplant waiting lists and political action to repeal NOTA maybe what is truly needed to make a substantial dent in organ shortages.

Conclusion

As is, supply will not catch up with demand in the organ transplant market and hundreds of thousands will die every year waiting to receive a kidney. Unfortunately this trend will only grow as more and more individuals are succumbing to the epidemic in diabetes, obesity etc which is leading to increased kidney failures. In order to change the market there needs to be a change in incentives.

This paper proposes a weak economic incentive, a tax-credit, to encourage individuals to donate their kidneys for those in need. This tax-credit works two-fold: a smaller tax-credit (~$500) every year for agreeing to be an organ donor upon their death and second larger tax-credit which compensates individuals for the costs incurred to donate their kidney. While this is certainly not the silver bullet needed to close the large gap for organ transplants, it will go a long way. Though many have reservations about this proposal, both from a legal and moral perspective, it is the most viable option compared to the alternatives.

Initiatives that work purely within the National Organ Transplant Act would not be able to contribute enough organs and primarily require waiting on individuals to pass on before acquiring their organs – this is time we do not have. Initiatives that ask to repeal NOTA and allow direct compensation for organ donation, although popular, risk “transplant tourism” where individuals may kidnap the poor and helpless and harvest their organs and sell on the market. In addition, full legalization and compensation faces the Titmuss objection that alleges compensation commodifies the social meaning of purely altruistic donation and will turn people against donation.

A tax-credit proposal avoids most of these concerns. Empirical research has shown that charitable donations increase if they are tied to reduction in taxes, and more so any form of compensation is an impetus to donate organs – this should allow tax-credits to increase organ donations in the short-term. Tax-credits are able to avoid the Titmuss objection because it retains the donation of ones organ as purely a gift and only compensates the individual for the costs they incur in bestowing the gift, not awarding them anything in addition for doing a good deed.

Tax credits are also able to avoid fears of transplant tourism by ensuring that those who receive the deduction can only provide organs from their own bodies and additionally the increase in supply in the market will reduce the inclination to accept organs from unidentified donors. Finally, this proposal is able to skirt questions of legality under NOTA. First, it is not directly compensating donors for the value of their organ but the cost undertaken by the donor to give up their organ, and secondly it can be implemented by the states as to avoid issues of inter-state commerce – where NOTA is able to enforce its jurisdiction.

Ultimately, someone is dying every hour and half from needing an organ transplant. By next year, over 100,000 individuals will die in the wealthiest country in the world waiting for a kidney. We have a moral obligation to prevent these needless deaths from occurring and a tax-credit scheme to incentivize individuals to donate their kidneys is a promising first step.


Works Cited

  • Abadie, Alberto and Gay, Sebastien. “The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross-country study”,  Journal of Health Economics 25 (2006) 599–620
  • Andiew, Scott and Harold, Block. “Organ Transplant: Using the Free Market Solves the Problem”, Journal of Clinical Research in Bioethics, May 2011
  • Beard, Randolph, Kaserman, David & Osterkamp, Rigmar. “The Global Organ Shortage: Economic Causes, Human Consequences, Policy Responses. Stanford University Press, page 68-71 and 207-212 (appeared in a review in the Journal of Political Economy)
  • Becker, Gary S., and Julio Jorge Elías. 2007. “Introducing Incentives in the Market for Live and Cadaveric Organ Donations.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3): 3-24.
  • Buyx, Alena. “Blood Donation, Payment, and Non-Cash Incentives: Classical Questions Drawing Renewed Interest”, Transfus Med Hemother. Oct 2009; 36(5): 329–339
  • Byrne, Margaret and Thompson, Peter. “A positive analysis of financial incentives for cadaveric organ donation”, Journal of Health Economics. Jan2001, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p69-83. 15p.
  • Danovitch, Gabriel and Delmonico, Francis. “The prohibition of kidney sales and organ markets should remain”, Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation: August 2008 – Volume 13 – Issue 4 – p 386–394
  • FindLaw, “Can I Sell an Organ”, http://healthcare.findlaw.com/patient-rights/can-i-sell-an-organ.html
  • Kittur DS, Hogan MM, Thukral VK, et al “Incentives for organ donation?”, Lancet, 1991; 2:1441.1991;2:1441
  • Satel, Sally. “Death’s Waiting List”, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/15/opinion/15satel.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&
  • National Kidney Foundation. “ORGAN DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION STATISTICS”, http://www.kidney.org/news/newsroom/factsheets/Organ-Donation-and-Transplantation-Stats
  • Organdonor.gov. “The Need Is Real: Data”, http://www.organdonor.gov/about/data.html

Categories
Foreign Policy Short Form

ISIS and the Threat of Chemical Warfare

Since the extremist group called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) splashed onto the world stage in June of last year, it has continued to dominate headlines as the primary force of terrorism in the Middle East. Through its massive online and social media presence, the group has gained notoriety for its brutal acts of torture including beheading, sexual violence, slavery etc.  As ISIS continues to grow its conquered borders through the region, there is concern that the group will expand its tactics to include chemical weapons and may already have. ISIS has shown a brazen disregard for international opinion, including that of the Muslim community, thus its willingness to escalate its use of chemical warfare is entirely possible. The United Nations needs to take decisive action immediately to ensure that ISIS is not able to acquire lethal chemical weapons.

            Currently ISIS controls large swaths of northern Iraq and Syria and is part of ongoing battles in major urban centers like Tikrit and Baghdad. ISIS’s geographical concentration between Syria and Iraq is particularly concerning given that both countries have a history of chemical weapons development. The Syrian government was known to maintain a stockpile of various chemical agents including mustard, sarin and Vx[1]. The Assad regime’s arsenal of sarin was brought into the global spotlight in September 2013 after it was revealed that the government conducted a sarin attack in the suburbs of Damascus. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein also retained a significant chemical weapons arsenal of mustard, tabun, Vx and sarin which were put to use in campaigns against Iran in the late 1980’s as well as against the Kurdish minority in the north[2]. In both instances, the Organization for the Prohibition on Chemical Weapons (OPCW) sought to dismantle what is left of these chemical stockpiles. However, the process did not begin that long ago – Iraq acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 2009 and Syria in 2013, and the progression has been anything but smooth[3]. Iraq declared its bunkers at the al-Muthanna facility as containing filled and unfilled chemical munitions but due to hazardous conditions in the bunker the OPCW was never able to make an accurate account of the inventory, and sarin/mustard filled rockets may continue to reside in the facility[4]. In Syria there remains declared sites that the OPCW claims have been abandoned but it has not been able to directly verify this – of the 23 facilities declared as chemical weapons production sites only 21 have been directly inspected[5]. Western intelligence sources believe the discrepancy goes even farther – claiming that there are in fact 45 total facilities citing incomplete record-keeping on the part of OPCW inspectors[6]. The location of these remaining 2 known facilities, and possibly dozens more undeclared sites have not been disclosed for security reasons, but this should only fuel the concern of fully functional chemical weapons, or chemical weapons precursors falling into the wrong hands.

            Reports have emerged that ISIS militants have already begun using chlorine based weapons in Iraq. In two separate incidents, once on the Iraqi-Kurdish peshmerga and once in Kobani, ISIS successfully deployed crude chlorine rockets killing over 15 people[7]. It is difficult to claim access to Syrian/Iraqi chemical facilities based on the use of chlorine alone since there are millions of tons of it used in commercial applications and it is not a scheduled chemical under the CWC. It does however indicate that ISIS is interested in using chemical weapons and has likely set its targets on acquiring more lethal ones for future endeavors. Recent intelligence reports claims that ISIS may have also deployed a mustard agent in Kobani, suggesting that they may have infiltrated access to Saddam or Assad’s stockpile[8]. This fear is strengthened by local reports that ISIS overran the al-Muthanna facility north of Baghdad during their siege of the city. While any weapons in these facilities are certainly old and will have lost most of their toxicity, they could still be used in improvised ways as “dirty bombs”[9]. Due to the confidential location of Syria’s facilities, it is hard to know for sure if ISIS is controlling cities around the weapons sites but we should err on the side of caution. The Islamic State is slowing marching toward Damascus as it has taken over major cities like Raqqah and is currently fighting for Syria’s second largest city Aleppo. It is not hard to believe they have captured government officials in the cities they’ve conquered with intimate knowledge of the locations of the undisclosed chemical facilities and are within months of possessing even more lethal chemical weapons than they already have.

The United Nations needs to take immediate action to militarily secure any and all chemical facilities in Iraq and Syria to prevent the Islamic State from acquiring any possible chemical weapons or precursors. While the US airstrike campaign has met with some moderate success, ISIS’s recruitment and funding has only increased and any ground they lose will result in increased desperation to gain it back. ISIS has already displayed a willingness to use low-level chemical weapons, if it possesses nerve agents like sarin, one can only imagine the horrors they could unleash across the Middle East.       


[1] Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Annual Report 2012–2013, July 10, 2013.

[2] “An Overview of the Chemical Munitions found in Iraq” – http://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/new/documents/technical_documents/s-2006-701-munitions.pdf

[3] Johnathan Tucker – “Iraq Faces Major Challenges in Destroying Its Legacy Chemical Weapons

“, http://cns.miis.edu/stories/100304_iraq_cw_legacy.htm

[4] Ibid. 3

[5] Nikitin, Mary Beth, Kerr, Paul, Feickert, Andrew. “Syria’s Chemical Weapons: Issues for Congress”, September 30th, 2013, Congressional Research Service

[6] Ibid. 5

[7] Katrina, Montogomery. “Syrian Chemical Weapons, in ISIS Hands and Renewed Civilian Attacks”, http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/10/6291/syrian-chemical-weapons-isis-hands-renewed-civilian-attacks/

[8] Ibid. 7

[9] Ibid 8

Categories
Foreign Policy Long Form

Why the United Nations Acted in Libya But Not Syria

Puzzle

            The Arab Spring marked an era of political and social turmoil across the Middle East that left the region, and world, changed forever. Between 2010 and 2012 a revolutionary wave of riots, demonstrations and protests broke out across thirteen Middle Eastern and African countries resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, collapsed governments and in some cases all out civil war. Two of the most pivotal events of the Arab Spring were the 2011 uprisings against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.  

            Libya had been ripe for domestic turmoil since the inception of the Gaddafi regime. In 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his military entourage called the Free Officers, deposed of the sitting government led by King Idris[1]. In what was a “bloodless coup”, Gaddafi abolished the monarchy and established the Libyan Arab Republic. However, Gaddafi’s consolidation and expansion of power sowed the seeds for what would ultimately become the Libyan Revolution of 2011. The Free Officers proclaimed themselves as the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) and under the leadership of Gaddafi began purging the moderate and secular voices in the government.  Following his ascension to power, Gaddafi eliminated the Libyan constitution and began subtly instituting sharia law through the legal system. Alcohol was banned, night clubs and Christian churches were removed and the official language of all government documentation, road signs etc. became Arabic[2]. Dissent against government became illegal under government law and Gaddafi even asserted that if anyone was found guilty of forming a political party they would be executed[3]. Coupled with radical social and political reforms, the RCC banned trade unions, outlawed workers strikes, nationalized the oil industry and even went as far as to temporarily suspend newspaper circulation[4]. Gaddafi tactically placed his inner circle of friends and family members into all major sectors of the economy and government in order to retain a tight control over all the on-goings in Libya. A leaked US intelligence cable later observed of Libya’s economy that it was “a kleptocracy in which the government – either the Gaddafi family itself or its close political allies – has a direct stake in anything worth buying, selling or owning”[5].

By the mid-1980’s, Libya’s oil sector began plunging in revenues from $21 billion annually to $5.4 billion – a fourth of its size[6]. As a result, internal dissent that had been brewing in Libya for years against Gaddafi’s regime began to ramp up both in scope and intensity.  Gaddafi in response created the Ministry for Mass Mobilization and Revolutionary Leadership to restrict their communications and planning and leading to hundreds being taken as political prisoners. Between 2009 and 2011, the Freedom Press Index had actually rated Libya the most censored state in both the Middle East and North Africa[7].  A number of failed assassination attempts against Gaddafi became symptomatic of the popular opinion against Gaddafi as food prices began to skyrocket, unemployment surged and political repression was at an all-time high[8].

As the Arab Spring unfolded in Tunisia in January 2011, Gaddafi began to fear that revolutionary fever would begin to spill into his borders and tried implementing preventative measures – subsidizing food costs, releasing prisoners etc[9]. His attempts, however, were to no avail. Revolutionaries seized this opportunity to organize the decade’s long dissatisfaction against the Gaddafi regime and initiated mass protests across the country. Social media played a critical role in this organization as location, dates and times broadcasted across the internet resulted in massive protests not only in the capitol but in all surrounding cities. On February 17th, protestors organized a “Day of Rage” across the cities of Benghazi, Tripoli, Ajdabiya, Derna, Zintan and Bayda resulting in Libyan security forces firing live ammunition into the crowds killing dozens of protestors, including those unarmed[10]. The National Transitional Council (NTC) was formed following the Day of Rage to consolidate the various groups pushing for regime change in Libya, thus marking the beginning of an all-out civil war for control of Libya.

 As the protests raged on, the government’s violent response continued to escalate. Gaddafi forces reportedly used “snipers, artillery, helicopter gunships, warplanes, anti-aircraft weaponry, and warships against protestors and funeral processions”[11]. In response to police forces surrendering and in some cases joining rebel forces, Gaddafi began to hire mercenaries from other African countries who began to publicly rape, mutilate, and execute captured fighters[12]. Amnesty International reported that Gaddafi forces went as far as targeting paramedics helping the injured, targeting ambulances and reported evidence of torture from prisoners released from prison sites[13].

The international community responded promptly to what it saw as violations of human rights in Libya. On March 17th, 2011 (one month after the Day of Rage), the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973 to authorize international military intervention to resolve the violent civil war raging in Libya[14]. By invoking the United Nations “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine, the international community was able to justify impeding Libya’s sovereignty for the sake of civilian protection. Resolution 1973 called for an immediate cease-fire, a no-fly zone over Libya’s airspace, an arms embargo with forcible inspection of all ships and planes that entered its sea and airports as well as a travel ban and asset freeze on Gaddafi and his inner circle. Within days, 19 countries in total mobilized against Libya to topple the Gaddafi regime. American and British naval forces fired over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles along the border. The US led the air-bombing campaign with support from the French, British and Canadian air forces before passing control to NATO[15]. By the end of the summer, Gaddafi’s forces had retreated from most major cities and only had control over Tripoli. In August, Gaddafi’s forces surrendered at the Battle of Tripoli with rebel forces storming Gaddafi’s compound[16]. Muammar Gaddafi himself was not found and killed till October, but the Gaddafi regime had been toppled at the conclusion of this battle. When the dust had settled, it is estimated that approximately 30,000 Libyans were killed in the effort to remove Gaddafi[17].

A 3 hour flight away, events had transpired very similarly in Syria. In 1963, the government of President al-Quwatli was deposed in a bloodless military coup by Syrian Ba’athist officers, which included Captain Hafeez al-Assad, to form the Syrian Arab Republic[18]. The sitting government instated was led by the Arab Socialist Ba’ath party, but another coup in 1966, this time led by then Defense Minister Hafeez al-Assad, over threw the traditional leaders of the Ba’ath Party and placed him as President[19].  The inception of the new Syrian state was tumultuous as it was embroiled in conflict in the region with Israel and Lebanon. The new Assad regime played a central role in the Yom Kippur War against Israel and the ensuing occupation of Lebanon which lasted until 2005[20]. Following the death of Hafeez al-Assad in 2000, his son Bashar al-Assad assumed power. His ascension to power quickly put to rest promises for democratic reform in the country as Syria had essentially been ruled as a single-party state since Hafeez had come to power. The Assad family, like Gaddafi’s, retained a tight control over all the on-goings in Syria’s affairs by placing family members and friends in critical positions of power. This cronyism fueled discontent as Bashar’s younger brother Maher and brother in law Assef Shawkat who served as Ministers of Defense were known to target Sunni Muslims and Kurds by using their police powers to marginalize their cultural and language rights[21] Bashar had inspired hope for political reform, but security crackdowns began taking political activists who called for democratic elections prisoners. The state of human rights continued to deteriorate as public gatherings were banned, security forces were granted sweeping powers for detention and arrest and rampant censoring of the media[22]. These actions squashed any hope for governmental change and set in motion the discord that led to the 2011 uprising[23]. The situation in Syria worsened as time went on as socio-economic inequality increased sharply and by 2011 the country faced record high rates of unemployment, steep deterioration in the standard of living and sharp increase in food prices[24].

As revolutions took place in Tunisia, demonstrations in Syria broke out modestly. Assad too attempted to make concessions to the public to calm tensions to no avail – releasing political prisoners, cutting taxes, increasing job opportunities etc.[25]. As demonstrations against the government increased in size, the Syrian government began capturing and arresting tens of thousands of protestors, organizers and activists without warrant. Organizers even planned their own “Day of Rage” using social media that never bore fruition unfortunately due to these arrests. Security forces began cutting power, water supplies and phone lines to prevent activists from organizing. The Syrian Army began moving into cities like Daara, Homs and Baniyas – hot beds of revolutionary fever – and began blockading the cities. The overwhelming suppression of protests through violent means by the Assad government is what kept the escalation of demonstrations limited from March to the end of the summer while the revolutions raged on in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. Reports began emerging of thousands being held in prison sites subject to torture, rape and execution. Human Rights Watch reported that bodies discovered “were emaciated, bloodstained and bore signs of torture. Some had no eyes; others showed signs of strangulation or electrocution”[26]. The conflict took on a new form in July after seven Syrian Army officers defected to form the Free Syrian Army (FSA), whose sole purpose was to bring down the Assad regime – thus attempting to organize all the different opposition groups under one name. By September 2011, Syria was in full-fledged civil war as the FSA was engaged in active insurgency in multiple cities across Syria with the fiercest battles occurring in Homs and Idlib. By the end of 2011, following months of bloodshed between the government forces and the Free Syrian Army, approximately 10,000 Syrians had been killed with almost twice as many injured or imprisoned[27].

The international community’s reaction to the violence in Syria could be described as lacking at best. As violence continued to mount in the spring of 2011, the United Nations only issued statements condemning the violence and encouraging dialogue[28]. By the end of March, the UN established a commission to investigate human rights violations occurring[29]. In October (7 months after violent suppression of protests began), the United Nations Security Council attempted to pass a resolution condemning the Assad government and threatened sanctions if there was continued military action against protestors (no military plan to intervene), but it was vetoed by Russia and China[30]. The United States took unilateral action to impose sanctions on the Assad regime and banned imports, but it was not until it was revealed that that government had used chemical weapons against the opposition in 2013 that the United Nations took any concrete action which only entailed forcing Syria to surrender its chemical weapons[31].  To this day, there has been no approved international military intervention to halt the bloodshed between civilians and the government despite almost 200,000 Syrians being killed, evidence of torture, chemical weapons use and a litany of human rights violations[32]. Above all, 3 years since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, Bashar al-Assad remains in power.

            The disparity in action, both in scope and timeliness, taken to address the Libyan Civil War of 2011 and the Syrian Civil War of 2011 is understandably confounding to the casual observer. The history of both of Libya and Syria, the path to revolution and the government response bear strikingly similar chords, yet how the international community responded to both of these crises remains staggeringly different. Why did the United Nations feel a responsibility to militarily intervene to protect civilians in Libya in their struggle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, but has not invoked that same responsibility in the face of similar and potentially even more egregious atrocities occurring in Bashar al-Assad’s Syria?

Research Question

Why did the international community take decisive action to intervene in the 2011 Libyan Civil War but not in the 2011 Syrian Civil War?

Literature Review

            Scholars and analysts have also recognized this disparity in action by the United Nations with regards to Syria and Libya and have centered their research around the United Nations “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine.

            The concept of R2P emerged after the international community’s failure to prevent mass atrocities in Rwanda amongst other places in the 1990s. Its establishment was revolutionary to international politics in that it reconceptualized the relationship between sovereignty and human rights where for the first time sovereignty could not be considered an absolute right, but a responsibility it had to uphold. The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty Report in 2001 outlined the three principle goals of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine: the responsibility to prevent a population from suffering serious harm, the responsibility to react if such harm occurs, and the responsibility to rebuild after an intervention[33]. If the host state was perpetuating “serious harm” to its population or was “unwilling or unable” to cease the violence, the international community would assume the responsibility to protect. “Serious harm” had been defined as actual or imminent “large scale loss of life” or “large scale ethnic cleansing”[34].

Military intervention as part of R2P was considered a measure under extenuating circumstances. The report outlined four scenarios in which military action was justified: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing[35]. It was no surprise that the military intervention clause drew the most criticism from members of the United Nations. Countries like Russia and China viewed this clause with suspicion, fearing that it was merely another tool of Western powers to use as a mask for pursuing other strategic military, political or economic objectives in a given region. To assuage fears of abuse of military power, the R2P laws were amended.  The decision to militarily intervene was placed solely within the hands of the United Nations Security Council, non-coercive means like diplomacy and humanitarian assistance would be the primary modes of action and the threshold to intervene was raised to not just a state being unwilling or unable to halt the violence, but a more difficult standard of “manifestly failing” to protect[36]. Following these changes, the R2P doctrine was adopted unanimously by UN member states at the 2005 conference.

As is, R2P is not a law, nor is it part of any international treaty or gained the status of customary international law. The Responsibility to Protect is more of a concept whose political endorsement by states signals a commitment to respond to humanitarian crises. However, it should be emphasized that this commitment is grounded in an ad-hoc fashion – there is no obligation to take action against humanitarian crises in every instance but rather the willingness to consider action on a case-by-case basis. This ambiguity, unfortunately for Syria, allows the international community to turn a blind eye to atrocities occurring if it does not deem intervention necessary based on its subjective determination of the situation on the ground.

Upon outbreak of violence in Libya, the United Nations Security Council acted swiftly and decisively. Within days of reports of violent crackdown on protestors, the Council sent a warning to Gaddafi condemning the violence and calling on his government to “meet its responsibility to protect its population”. Ten days after the Day of Rage, the Council adopted Resolution 1970 which explicitly referred to the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, saying that the Gaddafi regime was not upholding its responsibility to protect its citizens by both inflicting serious harm on them and being unable to cease the violence, thus they would be subject to arms embargos, travel restrictions etc. As the violence continued to escalate, the Council passed Resolution 1973 which created the legal basis to allow for military intervention for civilian protection purposes. It is important to note that the Security Council was able to pass this resolution with 10 affirmative votes and abstentions from China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany. The notable abstentions included China and Russia who were suspected to certainly veto any proposal for military action. Observers claim this abstention from voting was far from an implicit endorsement of Resolution 1973, thus their ensuing rejection of measures to take action in Syria come as no surprise[37].

In the immediate aftermath of the resolution’s adoption, the divides between the members of the Security Council on how to approach the crisis in Libya became evident as Russia and China both openly expressed misgivings about the language and spirit of the resolution. China stated it had “serious difficulty with parts of the resolution” preferred to resolve “the current crisis … through peaceful means”[38].  Russia complained that it had received no answers to its questions about “how the no-fly zone would be enforced, what the rules of engagement would be and what limits on the use of force there would be” and warned against “unilateral military intervention under the pretext of protecting civilians”[39].

Despite this opposition, law professor Andrew Garwood-Growers argues that three factors forced the hand of the United Nations Security Council to take action. First, there was a clear and immediate threat to the civilian population in Libya. This had been crystallized by Gaddafi’s own statements including him saying that “officers have been deployed in all tribes and regions so that they can “purify all decisions from these cockroaches” and “any Libyan who takes arms against Libya will be executed”[40]. Second, there was a regional consensus for the need for external intervention. Gaddafi was massively unpopular in the Arab world and the Arab League, Gulf Cooperation Council and the Organization of the Islamic Conference all supported external military action and even explicitly called for the creation of a no-fly zone over Libya[41] – this made is especially easy for the Security Council to garner support to take action. Lastly, important defections from Gaddafi’s regime, including Libya’s Ambassador to the UN had called on the Security Council to take decisive action – thus placing further pressure on the international community. The combination of these events placed countries like Russia and China who opposed military action in a difficult position for fear of damaging their international reputation and thus these states “abstained because they believed that they could not legitimize inaction in the face of mass atrocities”[42]. The military intervention in Libya represented an unusual moment in history where strategic interests collided with humanitarian needs to allow the Security Council to take action as quickly as it did.   

In comparison to Libya, the Security Council certainly failed to quickly and decisively stem the violence in Bashar al-Assad’s Syria. Despite three attempts by the Security Council to pass even modest resolutions proposing non-forcible measures against the Assad regime, China and Russia vetoed these drafts every time. On October 4th, 2011 Russia and China vetoed a resolution condemning Assad’s government. The resolution would have threatened the Syrian government with targeted sanctions given continued military actions against protestors[43]. The second veto came on February 4th, 2012 which would have allowed UN military action in Syria to protect its citizens[44] and the final veto came in on July 19th, 2012 on a resolution that would’ve threatened to place economic sanctions on Syria for refusing to follow the terms of a peace plan the international community had endorsed in Geneva[45]. For international observers, the optimism surrounding the UNSC’s willingness to exercise its R2P powers to prevent civilian atrocities post-Libya seemed misplaced and naïve. These disagreements within the Security Council were grounded in how the two sides interpreted the situation on the ground. Instead of viewing the conflict in Syria as a repression of political protests for democratic reform, as it had in Libya, Russia and China viewed the violence as a “legitimate government response to attacks on state infrastructure by armed opposition groups”[46] and thus they saw the invocation of the R2P doctrine as unnecessary. However as the violence wore on and reports of torture and chemical weapons use surface, it is hard to believe that Russia and China continued to believe that Assad’s response to the opposition groups was in anyway legitimate or justified. Diplomats have tried to make sense of Russia and China’s seemingly night and day approaches to Libya and Syria given their tacit approval to take some sort of action in Libya versus rejecting resolutions simply condemning the Assad government. 

First, it is suspected that the failure to achieve political consensus from Russia and China may have been a form of blow-back against the way events had transpired in Libya with what Russia saw as abuses of military power when intervening in Libya. According to one Russian author, the “way the R2P and the UNSC mandate were abused during the Libyan operation has taught Russia and many other states a lesson, which they will not forget easily”[47]. Russia had always been opposed to regime change in Libya and saw the implementation of Resolution 1973 merely as an excuse for removing the Gaddafi regime – exactly what it feared Western powers would do when the R2P doctrine was first proposed. Secondly, the strategic and geopolitical factors surrounding intervention in Syria vis-a-vis its relationship with members of the Security Council were certainly more complicated than those in Libya – a reality this paper asserts is the central factor in preventing the UNSC from taking any action. But lastly, many observers found Russia and China’s rejection of taking any action in Syria as consistent with their position in Libya. Neither country ever explicitly approved military action in Libya since they had abstained from the vote, opting rather to pursue dialogue and negotiation as a way to resolve the conflict. These sentiments had not changed upon the outbreak of civil war in Syria – both countries maintained that they wanted a diplomatic solution to the violence and this time were willing to put their foot down on military action which they believe was abused in Libya.

For Russia and China apologists, they view inaction as ultimately competing visions with the West over intervention and the international order. The two countries have historically always been suspicious of the West’s strategy of “muscular humanitarianism”[48] as a civilian protection strategy and suggest that the action taken in Libya was the result of a perfect storm of events rather than a concrete movement of world powers to agree on a universal set of civilian protection measures. The lesson from Syria is that international military intervention to humanitarian crises, like in Libya, is likely to remain the exception in international politics, the political paralysis surrounding international consensus in Syria is more likely to be the norm.

 

 

Hypotheses and Unit of Analysis

Syria’s close economic and military relationship with Russia prevented the international community from taking military action against Assad’s regime like it could against Gaddafi’s.

            This paper argues that Bashar al-Assad’s relationship with Vladimir Putin acted as the principle barrier to any international action being taken to intervene in Syria. Rather than being based on principle for opposing humanitarian intervention or acting in retaliation for military action in Libya, this paper suspects that above all Russia had too much at stake in its economic and military relationship with Syria to risk upsetting and was able to stymie international discussion as a result. While China also vetoed UN action in Syria, Russia’s role was far more crucial in preventing action. China lacked the diplomatic clout to unilaterally oppose international action and recognized that without “the buffer and political protection provided by Russia, it would not be able to pursue a relatively ‘independent’ foreign policy or withstand pressure from US”[49].

            This paper presents an alternative hypothesis for why action was not taken Syria.

The United States and world powers preferred the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria over an unknown successor, possibly backed by a terrorist organization.  

The resistance to taking action in Syria may not have just been based in the inability to get the full support of the UN Security Council, but rather the fear of a vacuous Syria that would be overtaken by an even more brutal regime. An imperfect Assad regime may be preferable to a much more imperfect Hezbollah or Hamas controlled regime in Syria.

Variables and Operationalization of Concepts

The dependent variable (explanadum) is the degree of international intervention in both Libya and Syria

Intervention – Application of military, diplomatic or economic pressure from an external power(s) to initiate a change in behavior in the host nation

The independent variables (explanans) are the international alliances of Libya and Syria and the international community’s confidence in a replacement regime to overtake the host government

Alliances – the relationship between two or more states establishing a mutually understood security, trade or diplomatic arrangement with each other.

Confidence in replacement regime – do the organizations that seek the overthrow the host government have affiliations with terrorist organizations/anti-Western agendas?  Did these organizations use similar tactics (chemical weapons, torture, and execution) as the regime they were attempting to replace?

The basis for the first variable is explained in the previous section, but what would be considered a worse regime needs to be defined. A “worse regime” is likely one that had close connections with a terrorist organization and/or committed war/humanitarian crimes as part of its revolutionary agenda. Strong affiliation with a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, or Hezbollah likely entails a fundamentalist Islamist philosophy towards governance. Based on the Taliban rule in Pakistan and implementation of forms of sharia law in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Indonesia it has resulted in subjugation of women, child marriage, violence against individuals of different faiths, persecution of the LGBT community, restriction on education etc.  While it could be argued that many of these acts were already occurring in Assad’s regime at the margins, it certainly was not institutionalized in the law like it would be if a regime backed by one of these groups came to power. More so, this regime would openly oppose Western powers and would likely ramp up terrorist plots and missions against Western troops and attacks on our soil or our allies.

The addendum to what’s considered a “worse regime”, if they had committed war crimes as part of the fight for freedom, is meant to act as a litmus test for how this group would treat its own citizens if there were further domestic unrest after the inception of its rule. If this rebel group had also been using chemical weapons against the opposition and/or civilians or had carried out torture campaigns at prison sites etc, I believe it would not be any more fit to rule over the population it was attempting to liberate. If people began to call for regime change again, it is likely these same tactics would be used on demonstrators as they had been used previously. 

Casual Mechanism

            It’s difficult to establish definitive causality with the variables being explored here since they are qualitative in nature, but despite that we can still look into official statements from UN and Russian diplomats to determine how all of these various factors played out during the debates to consider intervention. We can establish causality as opposed to correlation effects for our variables by observing the timeline of bilateral relations between Syria and Russia in the months leading up to the outbreak of civil war and as the violence carried on in relation to when the United Nations began to try and initiate action against the Assad regime. If we can establish a pattern between defense or energy trades between Russia and Syria or platforms/policies they mutually support in multilateral regimes it is possible that the two are tied together – rather their alliance that intertwines their security interests and their economies strongly influenced Russia’s decision to veto any Security Council Resolution.

Findings

            First, I will try and disprove the alternative hypothesis that the fear of a worse regime overtaking al-Assad’s acted as deterrent to international action in Syria.  To determine if this is true, it’s important to ask if the Security Council expressed the same concerns before moving to topple the Gaddafi regime in Libya. After the Day of Rage in Libya, the National Transitional Council (NTC) had been formed and was poised to act as the de facto government – calling itself the “only legitimate body representing the people of Libya and the Libyan state”[50]. The leadership of the NTC was primarily made up of defectors from Gaddafi’s regime, even including some of the Free Officers who led the original coup in 1969 putting Gaddafi in power but also included educated elite like Libya’s premier lawyers and university professors[51].

Reports began emerging as the revolution raged on that members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a group officially listed as a terrorist organization by Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, retained positions of power in the NTC[52]. Even more so, Abd al-Hakim Belhadj, a prominent member of Al-Qaeda assumed a senior position in the NTC[53]. This reality, however, did little to change the international community’s stance on intervening in Libya. When asked whether there are men inside the NTC that are affiliated with terrorist groups, a senior US defense official admitted, “Yeah, probably”[54]. Though it seemed abundantly clear that the regime that was poised to take over Muammar Gaddafi had explicit connections with terrorist organizations, it did not deter the international community from moving to remove Gaddafi. Drawing from this, it seems unlikely that members of the UN Security Council like Russia and China could credibly argue that their reservations about removing Assad drew from their fear that a terrorist backed regime would assume power.

            The Free Syrian Army had an even more troubled history with terrorist organizations with reports that it was explicitly cooperating with Al-Qaeda affiliates and was being armed by them[55] In spite of this the United States passed domestic legislation to begin moderately arming and supporting the FSA to topple Assad[56]. Russia and China had a different set of fears regarding the Free Syrian Army overtaking Assad’s government. According to Rajan Menon, a political science professor at CUNY, Russia in particular was worried not about an even more repressive Islamist regime taking over but that that regime would not maintain the economic relationship that it currently had with the Assad government[57]. The importance of Syria and Russia’s economic relationship was highlighted when Russian diplomats began saying that it was not married to keeping in Assad in power, but in keeping Syria stable[58]. Thus it became clear that Russia saw Assad as disposable, but saw him as their best bet to maintain their strategic interests in the region. Their interpretation of a “worse regime” was vastly different than the one this paper takes, while the new regime may have been worse for the people of Syria, Russia was more concerned about whether the new regime would be worse for them.  This leads into the crux of this paper – understanding the relationship between Russia and Syria and how that manifested itself in preventing international action in their civil war.

            The bilateral relationship between Syria and Russia dates back to 1946 before the declaration of an independent Syrian state from French rule where the USSR and Syria signed a secret agreement where the USSR agreed to help Syria in its formation of a national army[59]. This relationship was cemented in 1950 upon signing a non-aggression pact with Syria and quickly aided them during the Suez Crisis[60]. Since the signing of the non-aggression pact, Syria has considered Russia the “main source” of its political and military support in the region[61].

Russia’s relationship with the al-Assad family dates back 4 decades to Hafeez al-Assad. It was Hafeez who negotiated Syria’s first large trade agreement with Russia with a $2 billion arms deal in 1999[62]. Since that agreement, Russia has become the largest arms dealer to Syria. Their military relationship preceded this agreement as the Soviet Union had built a naval base in the Syrian city of Tartus in 1971 and has continually expanded it to increase Russia’s size and presence in Mediterranean waters. More so the Assad family has sent thousands of Syrian officers and military generals to study in Russia, resulting in marriages and mixed families that have tied the two countries together[63]. However, the modern Russia-Syria relationship is far from limited to military transfers – Russian industries have a substantial presence in Syria’s infrastructure, agriculture, telecommunications and above all energy. In 2010, Russian energy giants established a stronghold in the Syrian market. Russian natural gas company Stroitransgaz has begun working on Syria’s largest natural gas processing plant and is also involved in technical support for the construction of the Arab Gas Pipeline across the Middle East. Another Russian energy firm Taftnet began a partnership with the state owned Syrian Petroleum Company to pump Syrian oil and plans to spend over $12 million on exploring new wells.  As of 2010, Russia has an estimated value of $19.4 billion worth of investments in Syria, excluding a multitude of arms contracts worth almost $5 billion[64].

Based on this relationship alone, Russia’s hesitancy to approve military action to topple Syria’s standing government is unsurprising. Leading up to the violence, the inter-connectedness of the two economies grew exponentially – from 2007 to 2010 the value of Russian arms deals with Syria more than doubled from $2.1 billion to $4.7 billion[65]. At the onset of civil war breaking out in Syria, there were calls for Russia to cease its arm sales to the Assad government and its support for the regime. After refusal to do so, claiming to honor these business contracts, a senior Russian official remarked that Russia had lost $4 billion in Libyan arms and other contracts following the collapse of Gaddafi’s regime and thus with the “prospect of losing an equal amount in potential Syrian trade, Moscow has no other choice but to take a hard line” [66]. Rajan Menon notes that the overseas arms contracts are very important people to the Russians themselves. He argues that, “there have been significant cuts in the size of the Russian military budget relative to the Soviet period, so if you want to keep people employed in the military-industrial complex, you need exports of armaments.[67] The timing of these losses would be critical as Sarah Michaels, the chief Russia analyst at Oxford Analytic, points out that with Russia’s presidential election looming and factory workers’ votes up for grabs, Putin sees these arms sales as crucial to maintaining his reign[68]. The potential economic losses of an Assad collapse go far beyond arm sales and Russia knows this. According to Daniel Treisman, a Russia specialist at UCLA, the Kremlin is acutely aware that $20 billion in Russian industry investments in Syria are at stake and has made promises to these companies that their contracts would be honored[69], in a post-Assad state can it be sure they will? We can contrast this economic relationship with the one Russia had with Libya. While Gaddafi and Putin shared a close relationship due to their mutual opposition to Western policies, Russian industries never broke ground in Libya. Russian gas giant Gazprom had tried on multiple occasions to establish itself in North Africa, but Libyan oil companies refused to grant them access. Gazprom referred to Libya as a “closed market” and these entry barriers have acted as deterrents to other Russian industries interested in Libya[70] While Russia was able to secure lucrative arms contracts with Libya as it had with Syria, it could not do more. If it is true that one of Russia’s primary reasons for preventing international action is maintaining its economic relationships, then it clearly did not see its value in Libya to a sufficient degree to use its veto power in the UN Security Council.  

Even more at stake for Russia to support the Assad regime is its strategic foothold in its access to the Mediterranean. As mentioned above, Russia’s Tartus naval base in Syria is its only connection to this vital body of water and Assad’s fall would mean losing it. Numerous Russian officials and Putin himself have declared the base, and Syria, as critical to Moscow’s security strategy, with one even calling the country Russia’s “last foothold in the Middle East”[71] – something they explicitly never said about Libya. A month before vetoing the second UN resolution to take action in Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry announced upcoming naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea, which Russian officials described as “the biggest in Russian history” [72] This move was coupled with plans to expand its existing facilities at Tartus to be able to dock nuclear submarines so it can accommodate the Russian Navy’s flagship — the “Admiral Kuznetsov” aircraft carrier after 2012. While Russia did not give any indications that the exercises were related to the Syrian conflict, US analysts and Russian observers noted that the timing of the exercises and base expansion plans is a strong indication that Russia does not intend to back out of its support for Assad’s regime because it fears that an opposition government replacing Assad would likely try to strip away Russia’s rights to use Tartus[73].

Conclusions and Implications

            International politics is messy. As with any conflict, every country has different agendas, fears and goals. The Arab Spring will remain as a series of events that continually challenged world powers to understand their own global interests and its intersection with support for democracy and free protest.  Ultimately, Russia and China choosing to ignore and even perpetuate human rights violations in Syria, or anywhere for that matter, is not breaking news. What is interesting however is its willingness to do something (or not stop others) in Libya but virtually do the opposite in Syria. Libya and Syria share a virtually identical history as nations borne out of military coups, regimes establishing order through repression and dispelling calls for democratic reform through violence and inhumane tactics. This paper explores the tension in how the international community responded to these two different crises and unveiled a host of economic and military interconnections with Russia and Syria, connections that it did not have as strongly with Libya, thus establishing a causal relationship to its vetoing of any international military action to replace Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

The majority of the international community sees a regime torturing its citizens, using chemical weapons on its people and refusing to allow for democratic reform in Syria, but Russia sees a very different picture. Putin’s global interests do not align with the international community here – it sees billions of dollars in investments and arms contracts and a strategic naval base at stake if it were to support the collapse of Assad’s regime. Veto power in the UN Security council is capable of shaping how the entire international community is able to act/not act in the face of any crisis/conflict. By understanding the motivations behind Russia’s refusal to take action in the humanitarian crises in Syria, we can now have a better understanding of how the international community will react the next time events like this occur. If this case study of Russia’s reaction to the Syrian Civil War of 2011 is any indication, it is likely that self-interest will dictate future action rather than humanitarian purposes.

Works Cited


[1] Viscus, Gregory. “Qaddafi Is No Mubarak as Regime Overthrow May Trigger a ‘Descent to Chaos'”. Bloomberg L.P, 23 February 2011, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-23/qaddafi-is-no-mubarak-overthrow-may-mean-descent-to-chaos-.html

[2] Bazzi, Mohamad (27 May 2011). “What Did Qaddafi’s Green Book Really Say?”. The New York Times, 28 October 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/books/review/what-did-qaddafis-green-book-really-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[3] Ibid. 2

[4] Ibid. 2   

[5] Ibid. 2

[6] Blundy & Lycett 1987, p. 31; Vandewalle 2008, p. 23; Kawczynski 2011, p. 104; Bruce St. John 2012, p. 192

[7] Ibid. 6

[8] Asser, Martin. “The Muammar Gaddafi story”, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12688033, 21 October 2011

[9] “Three Scenarios for End of Gaddafi: Psychologist”. Al Arabiya. 26 February 2011. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/26/139381.html

[10] Meo, Nick, “Libya protests: 140 ‘massacred’ as Gaddafi sends in snipers to crush dissent”. The Daily Telegraph (UK). Retrieved 6 June 2011. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8335934/Libya-protests-140-massacred-as-Gaddafi-sends-in-snipers-to-crush-dissent.html

[11] Ibid. 11

[12] Ibid. 11

[13] Ibid. 11

[14] “Security Council authorizes ‘all necessary measures’ to protect civilians in Libya”. United Nations News Centre. 17 March 2011. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37808#.VI2noDHF_3I

[15] Batty, David. “Military Action Begins Against Libya”. The Guardian. 19 March 2011. http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2011/mar/19/libya-live-blog-ceasefire-nofly

[16] Erdbrink, Thomas and Sly, Liz. “Battle for Tripoli not yet over as Gaddafi loyalists strike back” 22 August 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/world-leaders-call-on-gaddafi-to-surrender-libyan-rebels-secure-most-of-tripoli/2011/08/22/gIQAN4wyVJ_story.html

[17] Libyan Crackdown ‘Escalates’ – UN”. BBC News. February 25, 2011. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12576598

[18] “Syria Profile”. BBC. 13 September 2013. 13 September 2013.

[19] Ibid. 19

[20] Ibid. 19

[21] “Syria Kurd leader vows to keep up democracy struggle”. Reuters. 7 April 2011

[22]Almond, Kyle. “Syria explained: What you need to know”, 24 August 2012. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/08/24/world/meast/syria-101/

[23] Ibid. 23

[24] Ibid. 23

[25] Ibid. 23

[26] “World Report 2010 Human Rights Watch World Report 2010”, p. 555.

[27] Ibid. 27

[28] “UN chief slams Syria’s crackdown on protests”. Al Jazeera. 18 March 2011. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011318231622114396.html

[29] “UN calls for Syria probe as hundreds protest”. Al Jazeera. 22 March 2011. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011322155925612161.html

[30] “China and Russia veto UN resolution condemning Syria”. BBC. 5 October 2011

[31] “Security Council Requires Scheduled Destruction of Syria’s Chemical Weapons, Unanimously Adopting Resolution 2118”. Un.org. Retrieved 2013-09-29.

[32] Photos from Syria Allegedly Show Torture, Systematic Killing, Newsweek, http://www.newsweek.com/photos-syria-allegedly-show-torture-systematic-killing-278894

[33] Garwood-Growers, Andrew. “THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND THE ARAB SPRING:

LIBYA AS THE EXCEPTION, SYRIA AS THE NORM?”, UNSW Law Journal Volume 36(2)

[34] Ibid. 33

[35] Ibid. 33

[36] Ibid. 33

[37] Ibid. 33

[38] Cronogue, Graham. “Responsibility to Protect: Syria The Law, Politics, and Future of Humanitarian Intervention Post-Libya”, International Humanitarian Legat Studies 3 {2012) 124-159

[39] Ibid. 38

[40] Ibid. 38

[41] Morris, Justin. “Libya and Syria: R2P and the spectre of the swinging pendulum”, International Affairs 89: 5 (2013) 1265–1283

[42] Ibid. 41

[43] Brown, Hayes. “FLASHBACK: How Russia Has Blocked International Action On Syria”, 9 September 13 http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/09/09/2587861/brief-history-russia-blocking-international-action-syria/

[44] Ibid. 43

[45] Ibid. 43

[46] Ibid. 38

[47] Ibid 41

[48] Ibid. 34

[49] Chang, Jennifer. “China’s Evolving Stance on Syria”. 18 February 2013. http://www.mei.edu/content/chinas-evolving-stance-syria

[50] “Ferocious Battles in Libya as National Council Meets for First Time”. NewsCore 6 March 2011

[51] Power, Susan. “The role of the National Transitional Council in the Economic

Reconstruction of Libya – Some Legal Challenges”, 2012. http://sociolegalstudiesreview.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Section-8-Article-6.pdf

[52] Ibid. 51

[53] “Libya: The New Al-Qaeda Stronghold”, 18 January 2912. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/frank-crimi/libya-the-new-al-qaeda-stronghold/

[54] Lawrence, Chris. “Libya the  new terrorist haven”. 14 September 2011, http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/14/libya-the-new-terrorist-haven/

[55]McCarthy, Andrew. “The Free Syrian Army, Our ‘Moderate Islamist’ Ally, Continues to Ally with Al-Qaeda in Syria” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/389691/free-syrian-army-our-moderate-islamist-ally-continues-ally-al-qaeda-syria-andrew-c

[56] “U.S. Congress approves arming Syrian rebels, funding government”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-iraq-crisis-congress-vote-idUSKBN0HD2P820140919

[57] Menon, Raj. “A Syrian Standoff”, July 12th, 2012. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/27/opinion/la-oe-menon-syria-common-ground-20120727

[58]Lipson, Joshua. “’Russia concerned with stability, not keeping Assad’” http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Russia-concerned-with-stability-not-keeping-Assad-316220

[59] Kreutz, Andrej (2007). Russia in the Middle East: friend or foe?. Westport

[60] Ibid. 59

[61] Ibid. 59

[62] Ibid. 59

[63] Peel, Michael; Clover, Charles (9 July 2012). “Syria and Russia’s ‘special relationship'”. FT.com. Retrieved 11 July 2012.

[64] Herszenhorn, David. “For Syria, Reliant on Russia for Weapons and Food, Old Bonds Run Deep”, 18 February 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/world/middleeast/for-russia-and-syria-bonds-are-old-and-deep.html?pagewanted=all

[65] Ibid. 64

[66] Trenin, David. “Why Russia Supports Assad”, 9 February 2012  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/opinion/why-russia-supports-assad.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss

[67]O’Toole, James. “Billions at stake as Russia backs Syria”, 10 February 2012 http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/09/news/international/russia_syria/

[68] Ibid. 67

[69] Ibid. 67

[70] Katz, Mark. “The Russian-Libyan Rapprochment: What has Moscow Gained”, http://www.mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/russian-libyan-rapprochement-what-has-moscow-gained

[71] Ibid. 67

[72] “Russia’s Many Interests in Syria” 13 January 2013. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/russias-many-interests-in-syria

[73] Synovitz, Ron. “Why Is Access To Syria’s Port At Tartus So Important To Moscow?” 19 June 2012 http://www.rferl.org/content/explainer-why-is-access-/24619441.html

Categories
Health Technology

The Threat of Weaponized Botox

            Botulinum toxin is a neurotoxin produced by the bacteria Clostridium botulinum. The bacteria is an anaerobic (doesn’t require oxygen to grow), gram-positive (contains peptidoglycan in its cell wall), spore-forming rod found on plants, in soil, water and the intestinal tracts of animals. C. botulinum has eight antigencically distinguishable exotoxins (A, B, C1, C2, D, E, F, G) some of which have commercial and cosmetic application but others of which are considered to be the most dangerous poison on Earth. Botulinum toxin-A is popularly known as Botox and is used to reduce facial wrinkles and aging effects, but its closest neighbor Botulinum toxin-B can be harnessed to create pathogenic disease outbreaks across populations.

            All serotypes of botulinum are single polypeptide chains with a molecular mass of about 150 kDa and a high degree of amino acid sequence homology. The polypeptide chain contains and heavy (H) and light (L) chain which play a crucial role in its pathogenesis[1]. Botulinum’s toxicity is orchestrated through its interference in neural transmission by blocking the release of acetylcholine at four different sites in the body:  the neuromuscular junction, autonomic ganglia, postganglionic parasympathetic nerve endings and postganglionic sympathetic nerve endings[2]. Acetylcholine is the principle neurotransmitter in neuromuscular junctions which makes its inhibition result primarily in muscle paralysis .The heavy (H) chain binds irreversibly to the high affinity receptors on neurons allowing the toxin-receptor complex to enter the cell via endocytosis which then allows the light (L) chain to interact with various surface proteins to prevent fusion of acetylcholine vesicles with the cell membrane[3].. The initial symptoms begin with acute weakness of muscles causing difficulty in speaking, swallowing and blurred vision. This followed by flaccid paralysis beginning at the muscles in the head and throat and can eventually cause death from respiratory muscle paralysis[4].

            Because of the speed and potency with which Botulinum strikes the body, it is considered one of the most toxic poisons known to humans. It’s estimated that even a single gram of pure crystalline toxin evenly dispersed and inhaled could kill as many as one million people[5]. The estimated lethal dose for a 200 pound person is around 0.9 – 1.2 micrograms by inhalation and approximately 90 micrograms by oral ingestion with symptoms appearing as quickly as 2 hours to as late as 8 days. In its solid form it is a white crystalline solid and in its liquid form it is colorless and odorless. Because the toxin is a protein, it is sensitive to heat and denatured at temperatures above 80 C (176 F) after 10 minutes[6].

            Because of its extremely high toxicity (100 times more toxic than sodium cyanide), Botulinum toxin has been at the top of bioweapon candidate agents. C. botulinum is easy to grow in large quantities and able to be stored at incubation without much technical sophistication. Weaponizing botulinum would be a complex, multi-stage process where in the final stage the toxin would have to bind to a finely powdered material like bentonite or silica gel[7]. This binding allows the bacteria to form a stable aerosol vehicle for dissemination.

            Terrorists have already attempted to use botulinum as a bioweapon. On at least 3 occasions between 1990 and 1995, the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo used aerosols to disperse the bacterial agent in Tokyo and on US military installations, but these attempts failed due to deficient aerosol-generating equipment and no one was killed[8]. The group acquired their C. botulinum from soil that they had collected in northern Japan. While non-state actors like Aum Shinrikyo have been unsuccessful, state actors have long been developing botulinum toxin as a bioweapon. In the 1930s, Japan’s government developed Unit 731, a bioweapons research complex, to test the effect botuliun had on Chinese, Korea and American prisoners it captured in the 1930s. The United States produced botulinum toxin during World War II out of fear that Germany had done so already (which they had). In fact before the D-Day invasion, over a million doses of botulinum toxoid vaccine were administered to Allied troops[9]. Even though Iraq and the Soviet Union were signatories to the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, both produced it for use as a weapon. Former senior scientists of the Russian civilian bioweapons program admit that botulinum toxin was tested at the Soviet site Aralsk-7 on Vozrozhdeniye Island in the Aral Sea[10]. After the demise of the Soviet Union, thousands of scientists employed by its bioweapons program have been recruited by nations attempting to develop biological weapons, specifically botulinum toxin, including Iran, North Korea and Syria[11]. After the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq admitted to having produced 19,000 liters of concentrated botulinum toxin with about 10,000 liters loaded into military weapons. The 19,000 liters to this day are not entirely accounted for and constitute more than three times the amount needed to kill the entire human population by inhalation. Amongst the range of biological weapons that Saddam’s Iraq had developed it chose to weaponize more botulinum toxin than any other agent. [12]

            Analysts now downplay the potential for botulinum to be used as a bioweapon because of constraints in concentrating and stabilizing the toxin for aerosol dissemination[13]. The flaw in these analyses, however, is that they pertain only to military use in immobilizing an opponent rather than release of the agent in a civilian population. It’s estimated that a point-source release could incapacitate or kill 10% of persons downwind from the initial release which could wreak havoc in a populated civilian setting such as a subway transit or sports arena[14]. More dangerous than aerosol dispersion though would be the          use of the toxin through the contamination of food which could result in widespread epidemics. Terrorists generally consider these “soft” targets, since they are almost impossible to guard at all times. Contamination of the food supply could come through spraying the agent on fruits and vegetables or through processed foods like dairy products or through hamburger and canned meats.

            In order to recognize a biological attack from botulinum, there would have had to have been an outbreak with a significant number of incidents of flaccid paralysis all stemming from one geographic location. Once recognized, treating those affected and containing the spread can be very difficult. For some symptoms of botulinum infection do not appear for 8 days meaning they could inadvertently spread the toxin amongst family, co-workers etc before showing any signs[15]. Once an individual begins to show signs treatment would include breathing assistance and possible intubation, botulinum anti-toxins and a toxoid vaccine[16] which may or not be successful depending on the severity of the infection on the body.  

Given that much of Iraq’s arsenal of weaponized botulinum toxin has been unaccounted for and thousands of bioweapons trained scientists from the Soviet Union have spread out across the globe, it is not hard to imagine that terrorist networks and perhaps even state actors have acquired strains of weaponized botulinum. While the current struggle may still be with efficient aerosol dispersal deign, there are more vulnerable targets today than there have been in the past.  Terrorists could easily target today’s vast supply chain of globalized food export where areas of the marketplace are unregulated and where a number of middlemen control the shipping process. With these risks, the United States ought to have emergency response and hospitals equipped with all the proper medications to be able to swiftly and efficiently deal with an outbreak of botulinum toxin.


[1] Arnon et al, “Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon – Medical and Public Health Management”,  2001, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/botulism/botulismconsensus.pdf

[2] Nigam, PK and Nigam, Anjana, “BOTULINUM TOXIN”, Indian J Dermatol. 2010 Jan-Mar; 55(1): 8–14.

[3] Hanson, Doug Phd. “Botulinum Toxin: A Bioterrorism Weapon”,  April 1st, 2004, http://www.emsworld.com/article/10324792/botulinum-toxin-a-bioterrorism-weapon

[4] Arnon et al, “Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon – Medical and Public Health Management”,  2001, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/botulism/botulismconsensus.pdf

[5] Nigam, PK and Nigam, Anjana, “BOTULINUM TOXIN”, Indian J Dermatol. 2010 Jan-Mar; 55(1): 8–14.

[6] Nigam, PK and Nigam, Anjana, “BOTULINUM TOXIN”, Indian J Dermatol. 2010 Jan-Mar; 55(1): 8–14.

[7] Arnon et al, “Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon – Medical and Public Health Management”,  2001, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/botulism/botulismconsensus.pdf

[8] Arnon et al, “Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon – Medical and Public Health Management”,  2001, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/botulism/botulismconsensus.pdf

[9] Arnon et al, “Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon – Medical and Public Health Management”,  2001, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/botulism/botulismconsensus.pdf

[10] Nigam, PK and Nigam, Anjana, “BOTULINUM TOXIN”, Indian J Dermatol. 2010 Jan-Mar; 55(1): 8–14.

[11] Nigam, PK and Nigam, Anjana, “BOTULINUM TOXIN”, Indian J Dermatol. 2010 Jan-Mar; 55(1): 8–14.

[12]Arnon et al, “Botulinum Toxin as a Biological Weapon – Medical and Public Health Management”,  2001, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/botulism/botulismconsensus.pdf

[13] Nigam, PK and Nigam, Anjana, “BOTULINUM TOXIN”, Indian J Dermatol. 2010 Jan-Mar; 55(1): 8–14.

[14] Hanson, Doug Phd. “Botulinum Toxin: A Bioterrorism Weapon”,  April 1st, 2004, http://www.emsworld.com/article/10324792/botulinum-toxin-a-bioterrorism-weapon

[15] Hanson, Doug Phd. “Botulinum Toxin: A Bioterrorism Weapon”,  April 1st, 2004, http://www.emsworld.com/article/10324792/botulinum-toxin-a-bioterrorism-weapon

[16] Hanson, Doug Phd. “Botulinum Toxin: A Bioterrorism Weapon”,  April 1st, 2004, http://www.emsworld.com/article/10324792/botulinum-toxin-a-bioterrorism-weapon

Categories
Foreign Policy Short Form

The Failure of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a toothless tiger – a seemingly stringent regime against nuclear weapons but without any real enforcement capacity. The three stated goals of the NPT are as follows: preventing non-nuclear weapons states from acquiring nuclear weapons, disallowing nuclear weapons states from assisting non-nuclear weapons states in acquiring nuclear weapons and moving towards disarmament, and finally granting access to civilian nuclear technology to non-nuclear weapons states. Not only has the NPT failed to accomplish any of these goals but in its current form may be counterproductive in reaching them – its dissolution and replacement with a more modern and enforceable treaty is preferable.

            First, the NPT has been unable to prevent non-nuclear weapon states from acquiring the bomb. Nations that have developed nuclear capabilities since the NPT’s inception in 1968 have simply not signed the treaty or withdrawn from it. India first tested its weapon in 1974, Israel is suspected to have developed weapons in the late 60s and Pakistan formally tested their weapons in 1998 – none of the three were signatories to the NPT and to this day are not. North Korea simply withdrew from the treaty in 2003 and proceeded to develop nuclear weapons. Rather than deterring countries from pursuing nuclear capabilities, the NPT has alienated non-nuclear weapons states and subject them to arbitrary oversight from nuclear countries. This tension was in part the reason India not only refused to sign the NPT, but developed weapons as a result. During a visit to Tokyo in 2007, India’s External Affairs Minister Mukherjee said of the NPT that it “created a club of ‘nuclear haves’ and ‘nuclear have-nots’…and is a flawed treaty which did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment” (Times of India). India’s refusal to accede to the NPT did not impede its ability to access civilian nuclear technology however. In 2005, India signed a 123 Agreement with the United States to achieve full nuclear energy cooperation (Kerr). The US Congress allowed the President to waive provisions of the Atomic Energy Act which prevented the direct export of civilian nuclear technology to non-NPT states (Kerr). Thus the NPT has also failed in preventing non-member and non-nuclear weapon states from garnering access to civilian technology.

            Second, the NPT has not been able to push nuclear-weapon states to total disarmament or even come close. The five legally recognized nuclear states – United States, Russia, China, France and UK – are either currently deploying nuclear weapons systems or plan to do so (World Nuclear Forces). Instead of the rate of disarmament increasing over time, it has actually been decreasing. In the last five years, the US arsenal has only decreased by 309 warheads as compared to a decrease of 3,287 warheads in the five years before that (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists). Russia has similarly retired only about 1,000 warheads in the past five years compared to 2,500 in the preceding five years. The UK has not disarmed any weapons since 2010, France since 2008 and China since 2004 (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists). As of 2014, almost 5 decades after the NPT went into effect; the nine nuclear armed states possess around 16,400 warheads – enough to arm every country on Earth with roughly the size of Israel’s arsenal (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists). The fault with the NPT in failing to reach its goal is clear – there is no binding mechanism in the treaty that can enforce disarmament.

            Rather than letting the status quo of failed nuclear control continue, it is time to replace the NPT with an NPT 2.0. This new NPT should have all treaty members bolster the IAEA’s scope and budget to allow for more thorough nuclear monitoring and set timetables for disarmament progress with legitimate punishments for failure to adhere. There should be firm penalties for violations in treaty commitments as well as withdrawal. Finally any state that tests a nuclear weapon be denied any form of nuclear trade. If the NPT is given some bite, it can be an effective tool in making the world a safer place.


Works Cited

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. “Slowing nuclear weapon reductions and endless nuclear weapon modernizations: A challenge to the NPT”, Jul2014, Vol. 70 Issue 4, p94-107. 14p. 2 Charts, 1 Graph

Kerr, Paul. “U.S. Nuclear Cooperation with India: Issues for Congress” Congressional Research Service, June 26, 2012, https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33016.pdf

The Times of India. “India dismisses NPT as ‘flawed’ treaty”, March 23rd, 2007, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/India-dismisses-NPT-as-flawed-treaty/articleshow/1799434.cms

World nuclear forces, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2013 Annual Yearbook, http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2013/06