Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc.
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Relationship Between Disarmament and Development Director: Alex Lewis
Š 2009 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA) This document is solely for use in preparation for Philadelphia Model United Nations 2009. Use for other purposes is not permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more information, please write us at idiainfo@idia.net
Policy Dilemma ______________________________________________________________ 1 Chronology __________________________________________________________________ 2 Nuclear Arms Race during the Cold War _____________________________________________ 2 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 _____________________________________ 4 Mid-1980s to 1990s: Repercussions of the Cold War ____________________________________ 4 1996-1997: Romania and Hungary Establish Social Programs ____________________________ 5 13 June 2002: The US Withdraws from the ABM Treaty ________________________________ 6 Poland and the Czech Republic to host US Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense System ____________ 8
Actors and Interests ___________________________________________________________ 9 Russia __________________________________________________________________________ 9 Croatia and the Western Balkan States ______________________________________________ 11 The World Bank _________________________________________________________________ 13 The European Children’s Trust ____________________________________________________ 14 Saferworld______________________________________________________________________ 15
Possible Causes _____________________________________________________________ 15 Status and the Desire for Power ____________________________________________________ 15 The Illegal Sales of Arms __________________________________________________________ 16 Terrorism and Paranoia __________________________________________________________ 17
Projections and Implications___________________________________________________ 19 Conclusion _________________________________________________________________ 21 Works Cited ________________________________________________________________ 22
PhilMUN 2009
1
Policy Dilemma One of the most pressing issues facing the global community is the struggle to maintain a balance between disarmament and development. Countries constantly have to decide how to allocate their resources and whether to place more funds towards social and humanitarian programs or whether to direct efforts towards defenses. Disarmament and development are two distinct yet two deeply interrelated processes that states often have difficulty finding a balance between. the other.1
Fueling one often comes as the expense of
With money being directed towards military and defensive purposes,
countries often have no resources left to contribute to developmental programs. Disarmament is vital to promote a sense of security and peace both internally and externally. Although disarmament does not necessary lead to future development, it does pave the road for social and economic advancement. Then again, some experts argue that disarmament is dangerous, and can leave states weak and helpless, unable to defend against from both internal and external violence. In post-Cold War Europe many nations feared disarmament would leave them vulnerable and unstable. A lack of transparency and communication discourage states from relinquishing their arms. Thus, if states come together and reduce inter-state tensions and establish a sense of mutual security, resources can be released to development through disarmament.2 After the Cold War, military spending started to decline for several years. However, the 1990s proved differently as the world witnessed a sharp increase in spending. It is estimated that in the year 2003 over $900 billion was spent worldwide for defensive purposes.3 Not only does military spending divert resources form humanitarian and social programs, it does not contribute to a nation’s economy. On the other hand, opponents of disarmament argue that the conversion and dismantlement of weapons are 1
United Nations Session, “The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development in the Current International Context,” 23 June 2004 2 Sarah Meek, “Confidence-Building Measures: A Tool for Disarmament and Development,” 9 March 2004. 3 United Nations Session, “The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development in the Current International Context,” 23 June 2004
PhilMUN 2009 too costly for many states to afford.
2 But in the long run, the funds spent on the
demobilization troops and conversion of military equipment to non-violent machines will go a long way in helping a nation achieve peace, security, and further development, both socially and economically. Russia for example, has always prided itself as being a nation of power and strength, noting its vast military forces and defense systems. However, underneath the facade of supremacy and courage is a country suffering from overwhelming poverty and health crisis. In Russia alone, over 40 million children live in poverty. But in all of Eastern Europe, over 40% of the population suffers from extreme poverty.4 By cutting down on defensive spending, more funds can be released to help eradicate poverty, to strengthen education programs, and to boost the economy. The number one reason states hesitate to even consider disarmament is because they feel insecure without having protective measures at their disposal. Also, a lack of transparency with neighbors does nothing but heighten tensions and feelings of threat. As a solution to these problems, many states have been advocating confidence-building measures, such as encouraging nations to increase transparency and communication by registering their arms on a global database, or by signing arms control agreements.5 Confidence-buildings measures are vast, and are a key tool for disarmament and development.
Through such techniques, regional tension and conflicts can subside,
allowing the social development of all nations through disarmament.
Chronology Nuclear Arms Race during the Cold War Russia and the US have always been the forerunners in nuclear technology. It was during WWII when the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan that the world truly became aware of the potential destruction nuclear weapons can inflict. The US was the first to
4
CNN, “Poverty ‘Great Depression’ Sweeps Eastern Europe,” October 12, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/10/12/easteurope.poverty/index.html 5 Sarah Meek, “Confidence-Building Measures: A Tool for Disarmament and Development,” 9 March 2004.
PhilMUN 2009
3
actually use nuclear weapons, but many countries were quick to follow suit and develop arsenals of their own. The nuclear arms race is a major factor that contributed to the heightened tensions between the US and Russia during the Cold War. It was clear that the US was concentrating its efforts on building up its defenses when it introduced the HBomb in 1952.6
This technologically advanced weapon was more lightweight and
practical to deploy. The Soviet Union invested a lot of money and resources to develop a missile that could travel long distances and inflict just as much harm. And in October of 1957 the nation launched the artificial satellite named Sputnik.
The capabilities of
Sputnik led to the race to create Inter-continental ballistic missiles. The US built the Atlas, which was capable of traveling 5,000 miles at a speed of 16,000 miles per hour.7 The beginning of the Cold War was marked by rapid military development and significant defensive spending. It was estimated that by the 1960s there were enough missiles to destroy the whole world. And in the mid 1970s, the Soviet Union was catching up to US defenses as it replaced outdated intermediate-rage SS-4 and SS-5 missiles with more advanced intermediate-range SS-20.8
Such missiles had greater
accuracy and precision and were also easier to hide or conceal. However, amidst all this rivalry and bitter tension was the concept of mutual assured destruction. This interesting paradox was the one safety measure that prevented superpowers from destroying each other. The condition was that both countries would have the capability to strike back if struck against. Thus, in the end, both countries would be left obliterated. Despite the little comfort that MAD offered, it was clear that unless a treaty or a form of comprise was reached the arms race could escalate out of control.9
6
Chris Truman, “The Nuclear Arms Race,” The History Learning Site, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nuclear_arms_race.htm, accessed 30 July 2008 7 ibid 8 Atomic Archive, “Cold War: A Brief History,” National Science Digital Library, http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page18.shtml, accessed 29 July 2008 9 Wikipeida, “Nuclear Arms Race,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race, accessed 28 July 2008
PhilMUN 2009
4
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 As the Cold War was coming to a close, the Soviet Union and US signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 1987. This treaty was unique for three major reasons. First of all, instead of just limiting weapon proliferation and possession, the treaty called for the abolishment of only missiles that could travel ranges of 300 to 3,500 miles.10 Secondly, the treaty was not completely equal, it required that Moscow give up more missiles that Washington.
Finally, the treaty was to be enforced by
conducting standard inspections. Soviet officials would conduct on-cite inspections in the US and US officials in the Soviet Union. This treaty was a major stepping stone for Regan and Gorbachev and it led the way toward further disarmament. Over 2,500 missiles were destroyed as a result of the treaty’s mandate. Although times were getting better in terms of relations between the East and West, below the surface, the people of the Eastern Europe were in social misery.
Mid-1980s to 1990s: Repercussions of the Cold War The cost of the Cold War was severe for the people of Russia and other nations across the eastern bloc. In the 1980s, the Soviet Union had devoted about 16% of its GNP to defense spending, and the percentage rose steadily for about a decade.11 However, between 1988 and 1993, Russia halted production of major weapons and focused on downsizing its military arsenal, hoping to redirect resources towards other developmental purposes.
Russia’s actions now however do not compensate for the
misery many civilians suffered during Cold war times. In the 1970s there was a very low morale among Soviet Union workers, as they were not receiving the benefits they deserved. As a result, alcoholism rose and common people were often found at drinking
10
Walter Clemens, “Russian History Encyclopedia: Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty,” http://www.answers.com/topic/intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-treaty, accessed 28 July 2008 11 John Pike, “Russian Military Budget,” Global Security, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mobudget.htm, accessed July 30 2008
PhilMUN 2009
5
places instead of at work. Deficit spending was also at an all time high, and the Russian government drove deeper into debt.12 On top of Russia’s economic crisis was severe poverty. During the 1990s Russia made several cuts in spending targeted towards social programs, education initiatives, and poverty. 160 million or 40% of the population of Eastern Europe lives in poverty, 50 million of those people being children.13
The European Children’s Trust, a non-
governmental organization that works in 10 eastern European countries, stated that “Since the break-up of the communist system, conditions have become much worse -- in some cases catastrophically so.” Over 40 million of children living in sever poverty are from the former Soviet Union. The life expectancy of Russians is also on the downfall as only 40 percent of adults are expected to reach 60. Clearly, more efforts need to be made towards social programs that can alleviate health related and poverty issues. The U.S Development Program cites that “Poverty figures ranged from less than one percent in Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, to four percent in Hungary, 20 percent in Poland, 50 percent in Russia to more than 60 percent in Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Moldova.” 14
1996-1997: Romania and Hungary Establish Social Programs Like many other Eastern European nations, Romania struggled transitioning from a centralized to market economy. Giving up the ideals of communism and embracing democracy entailed difficult times for many nations. Romania introduced many social reforms and made efforts towards developing its agricultural sector and overall infrastructure. Backing up the government’s bold initiates towards improved economic stability was the World Bank. In 1997, the World Back issued three major loans totaling
12
Frank E. Smitha, “The Soviet Union Disintegrates,” Macrohistory and World Report, http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch33.htm, accessed July 30 2008 13 CNN, “Poverty ‘Great Depression’ Sweeps Eastern Europe,” October 12, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/10/12/easteurope.poverty/index.html 14 ibid
PhilMUN 2009 $550 million USD.15
6
The Bank’s assistance would allow Romania to make more
investments towards eradicating poverty and improving health standards. With the Social Protection Adjustment Loan, Romania would be better equipped to offer children educational scholarships establish canteen programs and financially aid families. Reforming agricultural systems and strengthening roadways were among Romania’s developmental goals. The Second Roads Project loans would bring local roads up to international standards, thus increasing safety as well as the potential for efficient trade.16 Ultimately, all of these reforms would ease the transition towards a market economy, help the poor rise above poverty and promote disarmament. About 5 percent of the Hungarian population relies on child care benefits as a main source of income.17 Unlike in the past, new governments under a market economy cannot afford to support the entire country through social assistance programs. Thus, Hungary is concentrating efforts on developing methods to benefit a wider demographic of families. For example, granting family allowance benefits to younger and larger families would stretch the potential of the national budget farther then before. With a widening income gap and falling national income, Hungary restructured the social cash transfers to reduce poverty.18 The efforts made by Romania and Hungary are indicative of the progress made in Eastern Europe despite a past troubled with insecurity and violence.
13 June 2002: The US Withdraws from the ABM Treaty On 13 June 2002, the US officially withdrew its participation in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. This landmark treaty was previously thought to have been the strategic
15
Jan Pakulski, “World Bank Helps Romania Fight Poverty and Expand Economic Reforms,” The World Bank, http://go.worldbank.org/197TS1YJP2, accessed July 30 2008 16 ibid 17 The World Bank, “Hungary: Poverty and Social Transfers,” http://go.worldbank.org/CD7AP2OXM0, accessed July 30 2008 18 Gillette Hall, “Protecting the Poor During Economic TransitionL Focus on Hungary,” http://www.worldbank.org/html/prdph/lsms/research/povline/pl_n05.pdf, January 1997
PhilMUN 2009
7
foundation for controlling nuclear arms.19 Signed originally in 1972, the Treaty restricted and limited how far countries could pursue ABMs. Russian officials repeatedly stood by the original treaty, disapproving of any attempts made by the US to modify it. The Treaty was a concrete document that kept superpowers’ offensive and defensive capabilities limited and stable. In the late 1990s, the US was focused on establishing an anti-ballistic missile defense system in Alaska.20 However, such a treaty would have exceeded the limitations of the ABM treaty, thus the US decided to withdraw from the treaty. Russia officially stated that the US’s actions could cause further destruction across the globe, leading to a potential arms race and imbalance of power. The US’s withdrawal was a major step back in terms of nuclear disarmament. regulations
under
the
treaty
would
be
a
threat
to
global
Lifting the security.
The Russian response to the US’s actions were somewhat muted as officials did not think that the US would pursue any plans to actually build anti-ballistic missile defense systems. However, is July of 2002 the President issued the following statement: I am committed to deploying a missile defense system as soon as possible to protect the American people and our deployed forces against the growing missile threats we face. Because these threats also endanger our allies and friends around the world, it is essential that we work together to defend against them, an important task which the ABM Treaty prohibited. The United States will deepen our dialogue and cooperation with other nations on missile defenses.21
The US presented the issue as a step towards protecting international security by installing defense systems against rogue nations. But limiting the stipulations of the treaty was only widened the potential for another arms race.
19
Amy Woolf, “National Missile Defense: Russia’s Reaction,” 14 June 2002, https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/1208/RL30967_20020614.pdf?sequence=2 20 MDA, “Proposed Missile Defense Assets in Europe,” 15 June 2007, http://www.mda.mil/mdaLink/pdf/euroassets.pdf 21 Arms Control Association, “U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty; Global Response Muted,” http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_07-08/abmjul_aug02, July/August 2002
PhilMUN 2009
8
Poland and the Czech Republic to host US Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense System In February 2002, the US engaged in formal negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic over the idea of hosting a missile defense system. The US’s motivation for this plan stemmed from recent threats from Iran and North Korea. Although Poland and the Czech Republic did not agree with the reasoning behind the defense system, the countries gained other benefits by complying with the plans. In February of 2008, the two countries finished negotiations with the US and finalized plans. Because of Russia’s intensifying threats, both countries pushed Washington to offer more security guarantees. To compensate for the risks Poland would incur by hosting the missile defense system, the US agreed to aid and support military modernization in both air and land facilities.22 The Czech Republic was also guaranteed environmental protection.23 Officials also believe that the construction efforts of the defense shield will foster economic growth and help local companies profit. The US’s anti-ballistic missile system works in favor of development for Eastern Europe but fails to further disarmament efforts. Ironically, by establishing the defense systems, Poland and the Czech Republic would be able to grow economically and increase national security.
However, the defense systems put the
countries at risk of being targeted by Russia.
July 2008: Belarus Launches Environmental Protection Program The infamous 1986 Chernobyl disaster had devastating effects on many eastern European nations. Belarus in particular critically suffered. Because of northern traveling winds that were present during the time of the accident, farmland in the southeastern region of the nation was severely affected. Everything from air, water, and land pollution resulted.24 Because of high levels of toxic chemicals found in the soil, a lot of farmland 22
Karen DeYoung, “U.S., Poland Closer to Deal on Missile Defense,” The Washington Post, 2 February 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020101910.html 23 People’s Daily Online, “Czech Republic, U.S. settle key issues in radar treaty,” 15 May 2008, http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6411726.html 24 Encyclopedia of Nations, “Belarus Environment,” http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/BelarusENVIRONMENT.html, accessed July 30 2008
PhilMUN 2009
9
became unusable. Overall, the Chernobyl incident lowered the morale of the people of Belarus, negatively affecting their economy and quality of life. To strengthen the liveliness of Belarus, the European Commission and United Nations Development Program signed an agreement to launch a program called “Support to environment and sustainable development in Belarus” on 16 July 2008.25 The project, which will unfold over a 27-month period, aims to raise public awareness about environmental protection, conserve biodiversity, and to combat both desertification and land degradation. Other ideas include setting up Green Schools to educate younger generations. Such initiatives would be monitored and regulated by the Environmental Conventions Centre, a body that would be created and ratified by the Belarus government.
The push to implement more social and humanity related programs
coincide with Belarus’ policy of disarmament and non-proliferation.
Belarus has
consistently shown its compliance with international security and international law. The country was a founding member of the 2002 Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. The nation strongly advocated the UN’s Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons early 2001, a further testament to the country’s stance against nuclear proliferation.26
Actors and Interests Russia Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has been struggling to maintain its arms and balance its budget. When the Soviet Union was in power, the nation spent over 250 billion dollars on defense every year, approximately 12% of its GNP.27 However, in the past few years, as a result of economic troubles and insecure markets, Russia has been 25
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus, ‘Participation of Belarus in international fora on international security, disarmament and arms control,” http://www.mfa.gov.by/en/foreignpolicy/challenges/ee322cbf0a436dc6.html, accessed July 30 2008 26 ibid 27 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, “Russian Defence Spending: Trends and Consequences,” September 2007, http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/arms/isrop/research/staples&otto_2000/section10-en.asp
PhilMUN 2009
10
forced to reevaluate its expenditures. In recent years, not only has the Russian GNP drastically fallen by over 80%, but the nation now invests below 6 million dollars annually towards defense.28 However, in efforts to close the gap between Russia and US capabilities, Russia still makes room in its budget for weapon development. Of top most priority is the manufacturing of ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). ICBMs are believed to be the core of Russia’s strategic arsenal.
Sea and water-based weapon
modernizations are also underway, such as reinforcing strategic submarines and early warning radar systems.29 Because the nation has been trying to revive its economy for the past few years, more efforts have been concentrated on modernizing equipment and strengthening infrastructure.
For so long Russia has relied of its nuclear weapon
capabilities as a source of pride, strength, and power.
A world free of all nuclear
weapons would be ideal, however, Russian officials are still in the midst of even agreeing to non-proliferation treaties. In the years following the cold war, Russia was bombarded with various issues regarding the location and control of nuclear arms. The international committee stressed the need for Russia to disarm many facilities fearing that some missiles that are not properly maintained may accidentally be deployed. Finally in November of 1991, to help control and secure Russia’s nuclear arms and materials, the US enacted the NunnLugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. The Department of Defense allocated 400 million dollars to the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to store, dismantle, and destruct chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons.30
The money also helped
stopped illegal trading of weapons and unauthorized proliferation. One successful sale of nuclear material to another nation, especially to one of the unstable former Soviet Union states, would be a great threat to global security. In 2002, the Bush Administration hesitated to continue supporting Russia in its disarmament efforts because Russia was not 28
ibid Pavel Povdig, “Russia and Nuclear Disarmament,” The Bulletin, 16 October 2007, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/russia-and-nuclear-disarmament 30 Amy Woolf, “Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security and Control Issues,” CRS Issua Brief for Congress, 15 August 2003, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/ib98038.pdf 29
PhilMUN 2009
11
fully cooperative and withheld information. However, Congress issued a waiver and continued to fund Russia to emphasize the US’s concern regarding the threat of nuclear weapons. Even to this day, Russian generals stand by the policy that if they or another ally are ever threatened or struck, the country will not hesitate to use its nuclear arsenal in return. The economic crisis Russia faced as it transitioned from a primarily social to market economy clearly had consequences on the amount of money the country could allocate towards defensive purposes, but often overlooked was the detriment the transition imposed on civilians. Not only were wages at an all time low, but poverty levels and inequality soared. However, in 2003, 40 million people from the former Soviet Union rose out of poverty. The poverty proportion fell from 1 person in every 5 being under the poverty level to 1 in every 8.31 The decrease in the gap between the rich and poor was accredited more to raising wages and economic growth. The Russian Government has not followed through with any solution to this social issue. Although some solution such as legalizing polygamy and family-friendly tax breaks have been suggested, progress has not been made.32 The World Health Organization and the UN have stressed to the Government that even simple measures can lead to the road towards alleviating poverty.
Croatia and the Western Balkan States A widespread problem in Croatia and the Balkan states is the illegal trading of small arms and weapons. The countries have a past plagued with organized trafficking, criminal activity, and overall insecurity. As a result, there is a high incidence of guns and weaponry in private hands. With no proper control over the trade of light weapons, the potential for violence is high. Reports estimated that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, almost
31
Celia Dugger, “Poverty and Inequality Decline in Former Soviet Union, Study Finds,” The New York Times, 13 October 2005, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E7DD173FF930A25753C1A9639C8B63 32 Steve Eke, “Russia’s Population Falling Fast,” BBC News, 23 June 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4125072.stm
PhilMUN 2009
12
1 in every 5 households posses a gun, of which most are owned illegally.33 Many communities fear that with gun ownership so common and unrestricted, a simple outburst could lead to rampant violence. As a result, the UNDP has collaborated with many Eastern European countries to help restrict gun ownership, encourage gun registration, and to destruct weapons. The program that developed was the South Eastern and Eastern Europe Clearinghouse for the Control of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SEESAC). The program aims to collect weapons and ammunition through cooperation with civilians. Spreading safety awareness and cross-border control are also top priorities. Statistics estimate that there are over 400,000 weapons in circulation in Kosovo and over 900,000 weapons illegally registered in Serbia. Although the numbers may be daunting, the weapon campaign in Croatia demonstrated how through cooperation the problem can be tackled. Residents and officials teamed up and encouraged the public to willingly turn in unauthorized weapons to avoid being reprimanded. The response was phenomenal. Over a 7 month period, 552,000 rounds of ammunition, 5,000 firearms and 450 kilograms of explosives were collected.34 Croatia and many Balkan countries have concentrated efforts towards reducing the spread of illegal arms while also targeting many social problems. For example, the eradiation of illegal weapons would also mean reduced domestic abuse and violence. The UNDP and SEESAC are creating stricter laws, such as limiting the sale of light arms to those without a history of violent behavior. Boosting civilian confidence in police and security institutions has also helped curve the need to own light arms. Clearly, Croatia and other Balkan countries are taking disarmament policies seriously and are committed to the destruction of all unnecessary and surplus arms.
Strengthening developmental programs have also been a positive result of
decreased arm sales.
33
United Nations Development Programme, “Arms Control in the Western Balkans,� 14 May 2008, http://europeandcis.undp.org/environment/iep/show/B93B9EE1-F203-1EE9-B9BBDE4602211C40 34 ibid
PhilMUN 2009
13
The World Bank The World Bank has dedicated extensive efforts and numerous services towards the development and growth of many Eastern European countries. Concentrating on health issues, poverty, education and environmental protection, the Bank has helped provide targeted countries with financial assistance. HIV and AIDS are rampant across the face of Eastern Europe. Russia, the former Soviet Union, accounts for over 2/3 of HIV cases across all of Eastern Europe and Central Asia.35 Although the number of reported cases has decreased over the past few years, the current number of people diagnosed with HIV is still startlingly high. Over 940,000 people were reported to have HIV during the year of 2007.36
Many equate Russia and Ukraine’s incidence of
HIV/AIDS to prostitution, drug injections, and trafficking. Furthermore, with weakened immune systems, many HIV positive people fall victim to Tuberculosis as well. To combat such diseases and halt the spread of HIV, the Bank has financially backed many national and local health education programs. The Bank also hopes to strengthen health systems by working in collaboration with UN agencies, governments, and private sectors. Tackling and alleviating poverty has always been the main priority of the World Bank, especially in Eastern Europe. The Bank’s main goals are to “(1) fostering job creation and raising productivity; (2) improving public service delivery; and (3) addressing spatial inequalities.”37 In the transition towards market economies many jobs were lost and not again created in new sectors. As a result, families were left without sources of income and gradually feel deeper into poverty. Thus, the Bank’s programs, which aim to foster new jobs and decrease inequality, will have tremendous effects. Education has sometimes been seen a way to break from the cycle of poverty, but with poor educational facilities and standards many students are left unequipped. School and Universities in the past were very efficient in preparing students with the proper skill sets 35
The World Bank, “HIV/AIDS in Eastern Europe and Central Asia,” December 2007, http://go.worldbank.org/4MZA5TKSY0 36 AVERT, “HIV/AIDS in Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia,” 4 August 2008, http://www.avert.org/ecstatee.htm 37 The World Bank, “Poverty: Regional Challenges,” 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/Y5X7OKJLC0
PhilMUN 2009
14
for their labor market. However, in the new market economies, a student’s field of study does not exactly match his or her future employment.38 Thus, the education systems needs to offer broader and diversified teachings. Countries such as Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Latvia are facing problems with flood management, wastewater treatment and air emissions. These are just a few of the many environmental problems that Eastern European countries need to bring up to par with the EU.39 The Bank has pledged to help improve institutions and properly allocated funds. In Russia, major problems include a depleting ozone layer and industrial pollution. Although much still needs to be done to increase energy efficiency; the Bank has helped the country update weather forecasting systems and other equipment.
The European Children’s Trust The European Children’s Trust is a non-governmental organization that focuses on alleviating child suffering caused by poverty, unemployment, and other troubling economic conditions. The ECT has been improving the lives of many children in Central and Eastern Europe, primarily in Albania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Kosova, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Romania, Russia and Ukraine.40 The ECT refers to the millions of children in poverty as the “silent crisis” that much of the world does not know about or has ignored. The NGO aims to develop short and long-term programs that will grant families a sort of sustainability and help them prevail above poverty lines throughout their lives. The ECT reports show that since the fall of communism, the number of people below the poverty line has risen by 14 million people.41 Many families have had no option but to put their children in state orphanages because they were unable to support them. The breakup of families is a driving force that has negatively affected the 38
The World Bank, “Education Overview,” 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/3AHAXKBC70 The World Bank, “Environment: Regional Differences and Challenges,” 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/UY6JFUEFF0 40 EuropaWorld, “The European Children’s Trust,” 3 November 2000, http://www.europaworld.org/issue7/theeuropchildtrust31100.htm 41 Fiona Werge, “Child Poverty Soars in Eastern Europe,” 11 October 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/966616.stm 39
PhilMUN 2009
15
morale of civilians. Not only do poverty stricken countries need better social programs and aid, the ECT believes that the West should get involved by offering services to keep families united.
Saferworld Saferworld is a non-governmental organization based in the United Kingdom that encourages arms control measures in Central Asia and Eastern Europe. In March of 2008 the NGO organized a seminar in Moscow that brought together important governmental officials and experts from across Eastern Europe and Asia.42 Representatives from the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs were also involved. Talks between the country members included topics such as increasing transparency and brainstorming efficient ways to prevent arms from ending up in unauthorized hands.
Saferworld stresses
nonviolence and believes that disarmament is essential to achieve peace. Saferworld works to control the spread of small arms and light weapons to civilians so that communities do not have to live in constant fear and insecurity. The NGO also promotes community-based policying, which is a program that works with governments to ensure that police officers and protectors are more responsive and effective.43 Through this process, crime rates and violence can radically decrease.
Saferworld specifically
encourages civil society in Eastern Europe so that civilians and governmental bodies can cooperate to make their communities a safer place to live.
Possible Causes Status and the Desire for Power By nature, states are always trying to prove their superiority. And more often than not, strength and power is measured by military standing. The Cold War exemplified the
42
VITA Europe, “Russia: NGO Launches Anti Arms Campaign,” 30 March 2008, http://beta.vita.it/news/view/77101/ 43 Saferworld, “Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Russia,” http://www.saferworld.org.uk/pages/eastern_europe_and_russia_page.html
PhilMUN 2009
16
concept of an arms race, when bitter tensions and frustration fueled the global proliferation of arms. However, soon after the war ended, military spending on an international level steadily declined for about a decade. Regardless, states will always try to gain more power and glory through whatever means possible. Russia in particular has prided itself on being a great European power every since the seventeenth century.44 The root of Russia’s desire for such a vast military presence stems from its unfortunate geography. Consisting mostly of flat land and vast plains, early Russian rulers sought to correct this vulnerability by building up military forces. Stalin embodied Russia’ attitude towards defense an disarmament, as he did everything in his power to match the United States in terms of political status and military potential. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, the country still remained determined to return to its superpower status that prevailed in the 1970s.45 This insatiable crave for power has driven many countries like Russia to focus on creating unnecessary arms rather than concentrating efforts on developmental issues. Without a balance of power, both militarily and economically, security and peace will be hard to achieve in post-Cold War Europe. Experts believe that by increasing the military capabilities of bodies such as the United Nations, and other small states, power will be more evenly spread out. A lack of transparency and cooperation has also led to power and arms imbalances. If states do not mutually combat a fear or enemy, they will inevitably build up individual forces as a defense mechanism; a step further away from disarmament with development.
The Illegal Sales of Arms In 1997, many scandals evolved regarding potentials NATO members engaging in illegal arms trade. During that time, countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were pressured into building up their military to meet NATO standards and to
44
Malcolm Mackintosh, “The Russian Attitude to Defence and Disarmament,” (Blackwell Publishing, 1985), accessed via JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2618659 45 ibid
PhilMUN 2009 therefore heighten their chances of securing NATO membership.
17 Experts cite how
“NATO expansion has turned central and Eastern Europe (CEE) into a lucrative arms market worth at least US$35 billion. While the limited financial resources of these countries may prevent them from buying weapons "off the shelf," it has not deterred suppliers.46 Instead, with the assistance of western governments, arms suppliers have creatively devised a number of alternative financial arrangements.” Disarmament and non-proliferation are key to maintain security and stability. More resources and efforts are going towards the proliferation of weaponry than to the ceasing of trading and sales of arms. Similarly, Slovakia has had a history plagued with illicit arms dealing. In 2004, the country was preparing to become a part of NATO, and was therefore in the process of meeting certain standards and limitations. Thus Slovakia was left with a huge surplus of weapons and light arms.47 However, much of this stockpile fell into the wrong hands, and the country turned into a central hub and exporter of arms. The Human Rights Watch, which closely investigated Slovakia’s misdemeanors, suggested that increased transparency with surrounding countries and stricter regulations would cease the illegal spread of arms.48 Arms deals undoubtedly generate money and corrupt wealth, which is in turn used to develop more weaponry. This vicious cycle only focuses country’s efforts on proliferation and armaments rather than development and social issues.
Terrorism and Paranoia In 2002, Poland and the Czech Republic agreed to host components of the US’s anti-ballistic missile defense system. The US repeatedly stressed that the system was not a sign of aggression, but purely a defensive tool against terrorism, particularly against North Korea and Iran. The US also agreed that in turn for hosting the system, the US
46
Kirsten Ruecker, “Military Buildup in Central and Eastern Europe: NATO Membership for Sale,” July 1997, http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP22.htm 47 Humans Rights Watch, “NATO/EU: Reform Slovakia’s Arms Trade,” February 10 2004 http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/10/slovak7279.htm 48 ibid
PhilMUN 2009
18
would help modernize Poland’s military; because it would be in greater risk of attack from Russia.49 Clearly, just the mere insecurity and paranoia caused by threats of terrorism are enough to convince countries to build up arms as protection. A major factor that had lead to recent spikes in military spending can be attributed to the war or terrorism.
Expert Quincy West notes how security is the most vital condition for
disarmament to take place. Without feeling secure and protected, a nation would not be willing to reduce and eliminate its arms. A regional imbalance of power and lack of transparency often adds to states’ insecurity, ruling disarmament out as an option.50 Incidents occurring throughout the world have discouraged countries from eliminating their arms. The Sudanese Civil War that occurred in Africa exemplifies the vulnerability many countries fear will result from disarmament.51 Because of rampant violence and brutality, many civilians and communities were armed with guns and light weapons for protection from gangs and rebels.
However, the wide spread and
accessibility of weapons also increased the terrorists’ potential for destruction. Organized crime and death rates were at an all time high.
On the path towards
reconstruction, the ruling body of Southern Sudan implemented a mandatory disarmament program. The community of Dinka-Bor was one of the first to be stripped of all weaponry, leaving the town vulnerable and insecure.52 Just a few months later, a neighboring tribe ransacked the community leaving numerous dead and injured because many were unable to defend themselves. This simple scenario illustrates why so many countries are hesitant to even consider disarmament. Disarmament and development is a goal that many countries have been working towards for many years.
49
The conditions for successful disarmament require
Karen DeYoung, “U.S., Poland Closer to Deal on Missile Defense,” The Washington Post, 2 February 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020101910.html 50 Quincy Wright, “Conditions for Successful Disarmament,” (Sage Publications 1962) accessed via JSTOR www.jstor.org/stable/173037 51 Sudan Tribune, “South Sudan Beings Mass Disarmament,” 21 June 2008, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article27595 52 Sudan Tribune, “Disarmament With Development,” 16 January 2007, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article19774
PhilMUN 2009
19
communication and trust between many nations, a framework that still needs to develop. Thus, many countries rely on arms and weaponry to ensure their security and protection. Russia proves that the desire to thrive as a superpower often blind sights countries from focusing on social and humanitarian problems. Although, a regional imbalance of power and lack of transparency are what cause many states to build up their military, terrorism and paranoia are just as important causes.53 If a nation’s security was ensured, it would have no need to maintain or build arms, and could then redirect funds towards strengthening education, health, and infrastructure. But the illegal sale of arms is clearly another obstacle preventing Eastern European countries from taking a step away from armament and towards peace and stability. With proper rules and regulations in forces, nations can clean out their dirty laundry and embrace the idea of disarmament with development.
Projections and Implications Disarmament and development are two closely related principles that reinforce one another. Disarmament is the key to development, and likewise, development can help sustain disarmament. With global unity, peace, and security, development through disarmament can be very successful. However, the reality is that many countries face violence and security threats everyday, and have no choice but to build up forces and defenses. International communication and trust is essential to make development thru disarmament a possibility. By using the funds that would be allocated towards the proliferation of weapons for social and economic programs, the living conditions and well being of a whole nation can be raised.54 Development thru disarmament is a fresh and efficient solution to reduce the gap between the rich and poor, to alleviate poverty, to make healthcare more readily
53
Quincy Wright, “Conditions for Successful Disarmament,” (Sage Publications 1962) accessed via JSTOR www.jstor.org/stable/173037 54 Statement Library, “The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development,” September 1987 http://www.bicun.bahai.org/87-0824.htm
PhilMUN 2009
20
available, and to decrease the incidence of violence. The growth of global military spending is a testament to the amount of resources that are not being used for the better.55 Only when disarmament becomes the top priority of government officials and the UN will countries have the capital and resources to implement radical social changes. Otherwise, if countries continue to engage in arms races and build up forces, funding will never reach those in desperate need. Russia is particular demonstrates how its massive arms and weaponry have come at a sharp price. Millions of children in the former Soviet Union are being neglected with no signs major relief in the near future. Such problems can be tackled with the help of funds released through disarmament. Countries will continue to live in fear and insecurity unless drastic efforts towards disarmament and development are made.
55
UN General Assembly, “Growth of Global Military Spending, Relationship between Disarmament,, Development� 10 July 2005, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/gadis3298.doc.htm
PhilMUN 2009
21
Conclusion Disarmament and development are two distinct yet deeply interrelated processes that states often have difficulty finding a balance between. Allocating more resources towards military expenditure is often at the cost of social and educational programs. The Cold War exemplifies how weapon-dependent many nations are, and how some thrive on power and strength. During this time, Russia spent most of its resources towards fueling its military and defense units, leaving civilians to fend for themselves against poverty and hunger. The aftermath is clear, many nations all across Eastern Europe have extremely high poverty rates, yet coincidentally still have money to support armament practices, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, which are to host an anti-ballistic missile defense system. However, some nations, such as Romania and Hungary are trying to instill social programs to raise health and educational standards, evidence that countries can move past troubled times. Disarmament is still vital in the path towards stability and peace. In Croatia and the Balkans, a program was developed that aimed to collect weapons and ammunition through cooperation with civilians. The major obstacle however is that many nations feared disarmament would leave them vulnerable and unstable. Thus, if states come together and reduce inter-state tensions and establish a sense of mutual security, resources can be released to development through disarmament.
PhilMUN 2009
22
Works Cited Amy Woolf, “National Missile Defense: Russia’s Reaction,” 14 June 2002, https://www.policyarchive.org/bitstream/handle/10207/1208/RL30967_20020614. pdf?sequence=2 Arms Control Association, “U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty; Global Response Muted,” http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_07-08/abmjul_aug02, July/August 2002 Atomic Archive, “Cold War: A Brief History,” National Science Digital Library, http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page18.shtml, accessed 29 July 2008 AVERT, “HIV/AIDS in Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia,” 4 August 2008, http://www.avert.org/ecstatee.htm Celia Dugger, “Poverty and Inequality Decline in Former Soviet Union, Study Finds,” The New York Times, 13 October 2005, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9804E7DD173FF930A25753C1A 9639C8B63 Chris Truman, “The Nuclear Arms Race,” The History Learning Site, http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nuclear_arms_race.htm, accessed 30 July 2008 CNN, “Poverty ‘Great Depression’ Sweeps Eastern Europe,” October 12, 2000, http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/10/12/easteurope.poverty/index.ht ml Encyclopedia of Nations, “Belarus Environment,” http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Belarus-ENVIRONMENT.html, accessed July 30 2008 EuropaWorld, “The European Children’s Trust,” 3 November 2000, http://www.europaworld.org/issue7/theeuropchildtrust31100.htm Fiona Werge, “Child Poverty Soars in Eastern Europe,” 11 October 2000, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/966616.stm
PhilMUN 2009
23
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, “Russian Defence Spending: Trends and Consequences,” September 2007, http://www.dfaitmaeci.gc.ca/arms/isrop/research/staples&otto_2000/section10-en.asp Frank E. Smitha, “The Soviet Union Disintegrates,” Macrohistory and World Report, http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch33.htm, accessed July 30 2008 Gillette Hall, “Protecting the Poor During Economic TransitionL Focus on Hungary,” http://www.worldbank.org/html/prdph/lsms/research/povline/pl_n05.pdf, January 1997 Humans Rights Watch, “NATO/EU: Reform Slovakia’s Arms Trade,” February 10 2004 http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/10/slovak7279.htm Jan Pakulski, “World Bank Helps Romania Fight Poverty and Expand Economic Reforms,” The World Bank, http://go.worldbank.org/197TS1YJP2, accessed July 30 2008 John Pike, “Russian Military Budget,” Global Security, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm, accessed July 30 2008 Karen DeYoung, “U.S., Poland Closer to Deal on Missile Defense,” The Washington Post, 2 February 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020101910.html Kirsten Ruecker, “Military Buildup in Central and Eastern Europe: NATO Membership for Sale,” July 1997, http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP22.htm Malcolm Mackintosh, “The Russian Attitude to Defence and Disarmament,” (Blackwell Publishing, 1985), accessed via JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2618659 MDA, “Proposed Missile Defense Assets in Europe,” 15 June 2007, http://www.mda.mil/mdaLink/pdf/euroassets.pdf Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus, ‘Participation of Belarus in international fora on international security, disarmament and arms control,” http://www.mfa.gov.by/en/foreign-policy/challenges/ee322cbf0a436dc6.html, accessed July 30 2008
PhilMUN 2009
24
Pavel Povdig, “Russia and Nuclear Disarmament,” The Bulletin, 16 October 2007, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/russia-andnuclear-disarmament People’s Daily Online, “Czech Republic, U.S. settle key issues in radar treaty,” 15 May 2008, http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6411726.html Quincy Wright, “Conditions for Successful Disarmament,” (Sage Publications 1962) accessed via JSTOR www.jstor.org/stable/173037 Saferworld, “Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Russia,” http://www.saferworld.org.uk/pages/eastern_europe_and_russia_page.html Sarah Meek, “Confidence-Building Measures: A Tool for Disarmament and Development,” 9 March 2004. Statement Library, “The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development,” September 1987 http://www.bic-un.bahai.org/87-0824.htm Steve Eke, “Russia’s Population Falling Fast,” BBC News, 23 June 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4125072.stm Sudan Tribune, “Disarmament With Development,” 16 January 2007, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article19774 Sudan Tribune, “South Sudan Beings Mass Disarmament,” 21 June 2008, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article27595 The World Bank, “Education Overview,” 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/3AHAXKBC70 The World Bank, “Environment: Regional Differences and Challenges,” 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/UY6JFUEFF0 The World Bank, “HIV/AIDS in Eastern Europe and Central Asia,” December 2007, http://go.worldbank.org/4MZA5TKSY0 The World Bank, “Hungary: Poverty and Social Transfers,” http://go.worldbank.org/CD7AP2OXM0, accessed July 30 2008 The World Bank, “Poverty: Regional Challenges,” 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/Y5X7OKJLC0
PhilMUN 2009
25
UN General Assembly, “Growth of Global Military Spending, Relationship between Disarmament,, Development” 10 July 2005, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/gadis3298.doc.htm United Nations Development Programme, “Arms Control in the Western Balkans,” 14 May 2008, http://europeandcis.undp.org/environment/iep/show/B93B9EE1-F2031EE9-B9BBDE4602211C40 United Nations Session, “The Relationship Between Disarmament and Developmet in the Current International Context,” 23 June 2004 VITA Europe, “Russia: NGO Launches Anti Arms Campaign,” 30 March 2008, http://beta.vita.it/news/view/77101/ Walter Clemens, “Russian History Encyclopedia: Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty,” http://www.answers.com/topic/intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-treaty, accessed 28 July 2008 Wikipedia, “Nuclear Arms Race,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race, accessed 28 July 2008