International Security Course–Fall 2020

In their article “Nuclear Ethics? Why Pakistan Has not Used Nuclear Weapons…Yet”, the author Sanniah Abdullah lays out the argument that the reason Pakistan has not yet used nuclear weapons is not because of the presence of a nuclear taboo in the country or deterrence but because the Pakistani military has not yet faced a situation where they were able to use nuclear weapons and doing so would be useful.

I only kind of agree with the author’s argument. It is worth pointing out that the 1999 Kargill War was limited in its scope and did not nearly qualify as the type of conflict that would justify the use of nuclear weapons. Since 1999, there has not been any real military crises between India and Pakistan aside from skirmishes between irregular forces in the disputed Kashmir region. However, the lack of a nuclear taboo and the power of the military over the country leads me to believe that if such a situation would arise, there is a high chance of the Pakistani’s using their nuclear arsenal.

Due to Iran’s continued efforts on nuclear weapons capacities, Saudi Arabia has been pushing for more nuclear weapons capabilities in the international arena. However, the new aspirations tend to focus on energy sources, and nuclear energy efforts are underway. Saudi Arabia has been trying to walk the line between both deterring Iran’s nuclear capabilities with its own, as well as making sure the international community and its trading partners are in line.

With the recent German arms ban to Saudi Arabia as well as Saudi Arabia’s boycott of Turkish products, it seems that there may be more isolation from Saudi Arabia and potential developments into developing its weapons technology, potentially via nuclear means.  With the oil price drop in 2020 causing a $27.5 billion revenue drop for Saudi Arabia, it seems that there may be more geopolitical and economic reasons for Saudi Arabia to develop more warfare capability as well.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Price-Crash-Costs-Saudi-Arabia-275-Billion-In-Revenue-In-2020.html

https://www.dailysabah.com/business/economy/saudi-arabia-suspends-buying-animal-products-from-turkey

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/15/saudi-minister-slams-german-arms-ban-kingdom-doesnt-need-them

Secrets put people in harm’s way.

Have you ever come across The Blacklist series? Netflix´s hit is the purest treasure trove for quotes, and this one fits exactly to the topic of nuclear proliferation. If you watch season 2, you realize that it is not always just the states who can play the villain, but also people or a multinational group (“The Cabal” in the film) who can influence governments. Which makes one nervous, but later to that. So, what role relatively small states can play against world powers like the USA, China, or Russia? As Correra puts it briefly and aptly in the epilogue of his book about A.Q Khan [1] the most worrying question is

how much of the previously secret, tightly held knowledge on nuclear technology may now be circulating on the market?

The US has stated that it supports the nuclear ambitions of any state in the Middle East as long as it does not seek to develop a full fuel cycle, and the Obama administration set the treaty with the Emirates as an example to follow for other countries. But what was that with nuclear cooperation with Vietnam? (By the way a reliable ally, and as American know a formidable enemy.) The clear example of double standard means that nuclear proliferation in Asia is not as dangerous as in the Middle East? And the UAE as an example? And why should Japan and South Korea comply with IAEA regulations in the light of North Korea’s or Myanmar´s nuclear program?

Is it really about nuclear proliferation or more about the relations between the great powers and their vassal states?  “The Cabal” quoted at the beginning was a “shadowy multinational group that holds positions of influence in government”[2]  A.Q. Khan was for decades the most dangerous black-market dealer in nuclear technology. And Hydra is a multi-headed monster in Greek mythology.

 

[1] Corera, Gordon. Shopping for Bombs : Nuclear Proliferation, Global Insecurity, and the Rise and Fall of the A.Q. Khan Network. Oxford University Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blacklist_(season_2)

 

India has finally decided to bet for American led security in Asia, India’s decision was influenced due to lack of Russia’s ability to contain China, therefore, It has signed important agreements such as BECA where India has obtained valuable geospatial data, improving situational awareness for military operations and increasing the accuracy of its missile systems. COMCASA enabled Indian and US military platforms to network with each other. LEMOA allowed Indian and US militaries access to each other’s refueling facilities and military material. GSOMIA started the sharing of sensitive military intelligence data, through these four agreements will allow to implement better logistics, geospatial data sharing in place.

In October, Modi’s government has shed India’s traditional Nehruvian diffidence and embraced the US wholeheartedly. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper joined Indian Defense Minister Rajnath Singh and Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar for the third annual US-India 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in New Delhi, also relations with Washington and New Delhi have been increasingly in the last decade, now the dialogue has moved toward operationalizing the Quad, allowing major changes in political and military alliances in the region. Regarding the latest events marks a watershed in US-India relation even as Trump leaves and Biden takes over the trajectory of its relation is likely to remain the same.

The nomination of the Biden administration may mean more than it seems when it comes to US foreign relations and policies. Under the Trump administration, Saudi Arabia was President Donald Trump’s first overseas visit, which sheds the light into the strong ties president Trump built with the crown prince including the US protection and full support. Saudi Arabia received an enormous  support during the last years, such as weapons’ sales, denial of the Khashoggi murder and the involvement in the Yemen war. During the last five years 2014-2019, a quarter of US weapons’ sales went to Saudi Arabia, and up from 7.4 percent in 2010-2014. Following that, Saudi Arabia began its military involvement in the war in Yemen in March 2015. A war that carries a major humanitarian cost within it.

Luckily, the new Biden administration has made the US position in regards to Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen very clear. The new administration is giving a needed hope around the world {…..and make sure America does not check its values at the door to sell arms or buy oil,” Biden said in October. The Biden administration may play a major role in the Yemen war, it may impact the ending of the war through enforcing a diplomatic pressure on Saudi Arabia.

The war in Yemen involves multiple external actors, which makes its ending complicated. However, the US with the lead of president Joe Biden and the support of the democratic party can reduce the gravity and make an end to the humanitarian war.

I found this article by former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder very interesting. He suggests that a consequence of the Trump Administration’s “America First” foreign policy may be further breakdown of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Trump and Pompeo’s disdain for alliances have brought America’s commitment to protecting its allies, including if Article 5 is triggered, into question. While the Biden Administration will certainly work to rebuild alliances and reassure allies of the U.S. commitments, our allies and adversaries can hardly be blamed for noticing that 70+ million Americans voted for Donald Trump’s re-election, despite everything, and draw the conclusion a future, less incompetent administration could come to power and revive Trump’s disastrous foreign policy.

Daalder argues that the greatest threat to the NPT is not from adversaries, but from allies who conclude they can’t trust in U.S. protection and pursue nuclear capabilities so they can protect themselves. While I appreciate his concerns about our allies fearing they can’t trust the U.S. to protect them, I would like to believe his concerns are slightly overblown. He opens with a suggestion that Europe worried the U.S. might not defend Poland and the Baltic States from a nuclear threat from Russia. I see no reason Russia would suddenly decide to start nuking its neighbors. If that became a genuine concern, or if any NATO member was threatened or attacked, the U.S. is not the only nuclear state in NATO. The UK and France both have nuclear arsenals that are more than capable of responding to any Russian aggression and protecting Europe.

He mentions South Korea and Turkey as two allies who might be motivated to acquire nuclear weapons. I’m sure Erdogan would love a handy excuse to break the NPT and pursue nuclear capabilities for his own ambitions, but I doubt it would be driven by any real concern about the U.S., especially as Erdogan is friendly with Russia and France and the UK are capable of protecting a NATO ally. The UK and France do not have ICBMs, however, potentially limiting their response range if a threat occurs far from Europe. Their submarines may have stepped up patrols around the world in response to uncertainty from the U.S., but it’s impossible to know.

I also find it hard to imagine South Korea seeking nuclear weapons against North Korea. The threat from North Korea appears to be directed further from home for the most part, as evidenced by their pride in showing off their new ICBMs. It would be likely to only increase the risk to South Korea if they inflamed tensions by acquiring nuclear weapons. I could see this situation pushing South Korea to forge closer ties with China in a hope China will protect the region from North Korea’s nuclear weapons and help constrain the threat.

I think the greatest threat to nonproliferation comes from the states we are already aware of, Saudi Arabia and Iran. While Iran seems interested in the U.S. re-entering the JPCOA, I fear Saudi Arabia and Iran’s power struggles and proxy wars in the region make it even more likely both will become nuclear states. I can’t see any situation where one accepts the other having nuclear weapons if they do not. The focus has been on Iran for some time, but Saudi Arabia is likely not waiting around to find out if the JPCOA will halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In recent weeks, both nations have thrown accusations at each other and called on the IAEA to investigate the other. Perhaps the U.S. and other signatories could use this to their advantage. Already, Riyadh knows their time of impunity from Washington is at an end. If the U.S. commits to ensuring Saudi Arabia is held to the same rules and investigations as Iran and neither will be allowed to posses nuclear arms, perhaps it could help prevent both from becoming nuclear states. Obviously, nothing is that simple, but I worry that especially during the Trump Administration, Saudi Arabia has been allowed to fly under the radar and needs to be checked before they destroy any chance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

I found this op-ed interesting in that, it shows what could be the expectations of the South Asian community in the U.S. and the U.S. policy towards South Asia. We are told that some Indian-Americans are unhappy of the way the media is describing Kamala Harris as the first South Asian to run for the office of VP. They want her her to be known as the first person of Indian heritage to hold the office. However, the Pakistani community in the US, fears that she would push the Biden administration towards a more pro-India policy. That is why some Pakistanis were prepared to vote for Trump on this ground alone (I find this very funny but it’s understandable because people always vote by affinity).

So the author relates that, democratic administrations are widely seen in India and among Indian-Americans as being less friendly to India (especially on nuclear proliferation, and human rights etc.), than Republican ones. As an example, George W. Bush was beloved in India for moving the US closer to New Delhi., and Trump became a good friend of Modi. But in the past, the U.S. has always used India and Pakistan as pawns for its best interests, that is, the US alliance with Pakistan during the Cold War was to contain the Soviets, while today the US is moving close to India to bolster its position against China.

Now, given that Harris comes from south India whereas the tension between India and Pakistan is from the north, the author is suggesting that this may allow much more leverage and possibility of playing a strong positive role in forging a new paradigm. Harris could make use of both Indians and Pakistanis that are successful in government, business and in the media to forge an united front that will transcend over their rivalries. This “could be a great focal point to create a South Asian Renaissance which can contribute significantly to the US their new home.”

https://dailytimes.com.pk/688894/what-kamala-harris-means-for-the-south-asian-diaspora-in-america-and-americas-south-asia-policy/

The era of impunity for Saudi Arabia may be coming to an end as the Biden administration prepares to take office. The new administration will no doubt take a harder line on Saudi’s human rights record and its calamitous war in Yemen. The Biden administration also says it wishes to rejoin the JCPOA, which may be a legal and logistical challenge, but nonetheless signals an intention to calm tensions with Iran.  The new administration will have to skillfully thread the needle by doing so while maintaining a strong relationship with Israel and its Gulf allies.

A shift in U.S. policy may lead Saudi to further cozy up to China, particularly to expand its civilian nuclear program. Saudi recently employed a Chinese company to build a facility for extracting yellowcake from uranium ore, and U.S. officials are increasingly concerned about Saudi plans for a nuclear weapons program.

The Kingdom’s fear of Iran in combination with its massive resources, hawkish leadership, and fear of U.S. abandonment could certainly fuel its nuclear ambitions and escalate an arms race in the Middle East.

As most of the U.S. and several other nations breathe a sigh of relief with President-elect Biden entering office, things are looking up. Already the 46th President is working on regulating COVID cases and named the members of his coronavirus task force. Among his selected advisors is whistleblower Rick Bright who was sidelined by the Trump administration after refusing to support the Trump-endorsed hydroxychloroquine. Meanwhile, the 45th President continues to claim fraud and play golf. No matter – there are only 70 days until this administration ends.

Thankfully, President-elect Biden is already working on executive actions to undo many of 45’s controversial policies. He plans on strengthening multilateralism by having the U.S. rejoin the Paris climate accord and the WHO – information which has been happily received. But will Biden be able to “heal” the current administration’s self-inflicted wounds? As Biden received several warm congratulations from many world-leaders (save a few) Iran, though acknowledging Biden’s win, remained skeptical. The nation’s Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted his disgust about the U.S.’s “ugly face of liberal democracy” and expressed that there is no difference in the outcome of the election. Meanwhile, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani insisted that the new administration could, instead, “compensate for past mistakes” and return the U.S. to the Nuclear Deal. With Iran’s Presidential elections coming up in June, will movement occur regarding the nuclear deal? Biden, already with a plate piled high with problems, should pay special attention to nuclear weapons in his first 100 days. He certainly will have the opportunities to do so with the New Start Treaty expiring in early February – but he is already likely to extend the Treaty for another 5 years having already worked on it during the Obama administration. He should take advantage of this healing process and do something neither the Obama nor Trump administration did – join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Though unlikely, it would be incredibly healing and it might encourage the other eight nuclear-strapped nations to consider accepting it. Though projected to win the election and overcome Trump’s baseless claims of fraud – Kim Jong Un’s and Putin’s silence regarding the outcomes speak volumes. If we are to make any drastic change in terms of reducing the risk of nuclear war, now is the time.

As the news surfaced around the world on the outcomes of the 2020 Presidential Election, which saw Joe Biden defeat Donald Trump, this outcome sent shockwaves around the world. These shockwaves were embraced with positivity as it appears that the era of Trumpism in America and its effect on the globe. As many world leaders congratulated the victory for Joe Biden, there are some world leaders that have yet congratulate Mr. Biden on the victory.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, North Korea’s Kim Jon Un, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, China’s Xi Jingping, and Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa are among a few names of world leaders that are holding back their recognition as Joe Biden being the President-Elect of the United States. It seems that the primary sentiment among these leaders are the fact that President Trump is going to contest and challenge the results off basis on voter fraud and ballot harvesting in the swing states like Arizona, Pennslyvania, Georgia, Michigan, and other states, despite POTUS having no evidence as of right this moment. There are some like Bolsonaro and Jansa that have associated themselves with Trump, that have seen him as an ally and not an adversary.

This is clearly what I am seeing as a legal challenge to the legitimacy of Biden’s victory as well as a hesitation and a sign of hostility toward working with a Biden Administration. Make no mistake, should Biden clear the legal challenge gauntlet posed by the President, there are three huge issues that he will have to face in terms of the world order: Russia, China, and North Korea. But no mistake, these leaders seem to not look forward to a change of power and seem to like the President, its only a matter of time to see whether its clear and present whether Biden will officially be the new President, and how that will effect the United States and relations with the world and its major global actors.