Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
EnglishFrançais
Politics and the Life Sciences Politics and the Life Sciences

Article contents

Biological Warfare and the Third World

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

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

Abstract

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

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

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

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

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 4 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

11 Cited by
Hostname: page-component-77fc7d77f9-cdnjt Total loading time: 0.32 Render date: 2021-01-19T04:57:49.661Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Tue Jan 19 2021 04:56:16 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": true, "languageSwitch": true, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Biological Warfare and the Third World
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Biological Warfare and the Third World
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Biological Warfare and the Third World
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *