Security Council: Extreme Jihadist Movements

Background Guide

Terrorism lacks an internationally accepted definition, but experts generally agree that acts of

terrorism aim to instill fear into rivals of the terrorist group and/or a civilian population. Terrorist acts are

motivated by different factors, including politics and religion (Rid and Hecker, 5). Globalization has created

an unexpected change in acts of terror and terrorist groups alike as they can now cleverly use changes in

technology and the Internet to their advantage (Rid and Hecker, 9). Technological advances have allowed

terrorists access to sophisticated methods of propaganda and better techniques for fundraising, recruitment,

operational planning etc.. These advances have allowed a higher number of youth to become involved with

terrorist organizations from the comfort of their bedrooms (Rid and Hecker, 10). Religious terrorism takes

place when an act of terror is performed in the name of a religious ideology. Often, these acts are justified

by the perpetrator or perpetrators as being done for religious reasons or in defense of a religion. Islamic

terrorism is often manifested by an extreme interpretation of the Qur’an in what is normally referred to as

a jihad (Venkatraman, 231).

Individuals begin jihad for various reasons and they do not necessarily share the same views or

backgrounds. Some have become angry towards their government or former colonizing state, some are

looking for an escape from their family or society. Generally, those who chose to join a jihadist movement

have two things in common: they are outsiders within their society and a mainstream lifestyle does not

appeal to them (Rid and Hecker, 5). Prominent terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda, Boko Haram and

the Islamic State (IS) demonstrate that although each group may have different ambitions, they work in

similar manners, have similar origins and are comprised of similar kinds of individuals.

While the modern definition of the word ‘jihad’ refers to warfare with divine sanction, this

definition rarely appears in the Islamic holy text, the Qur’an. The term jihad was only used to describe

actions of the Prophet Muhammad long after his death. The interpretation of the meaning of the term has

changed drastically in both the Middle East and Northern Africa (Cook, 177). Violent jihadist groups use

fundamentalist Islamic teachings to justify their actions as they attempt to improve their geopolitical

situation (Venkatraman, 238). Islamic communities traditionally follow the Sharia, which is a system of

regulations found within the Qur’an, often referred to as Muslim religious law. Sharia law can vary

considerably from state to state and culture to culture. These laws condemn the abuse of power, oppression

and unjust practices of all kinds, whether done by Muslims or non-Muslims. They sanction the punishment

of those guilty of breaking Sharia law. The Qur’an identifies three kinds of jihad: the internal, the external

and the inter-communal. The holy text allows for the use of violence with certain limitations, but it

essentially permits individuals to interpret the magnitude of their own personal jihad (Venkatraman, 232).

Within the current global war on terror many Western governments portray terrorist organizations

and local insurgencies as effectively one in the same, though this is an oversimplification. Both thrive best

within failed states wherein there is no functional government and a chaotic condition. By offering an

orderly government and a perception of safety, insurgencies and terrorist organizations alike are able to

gain popular support and achieve their goals (Rid and Hecker, 4). Extreme jihadist organizations are built

of compatible individuals who have become radical through socialization. Once an individual joins such a

group, their socialization into radical beliefs increases enormously, largely because these groups are

removed from society and the outside world.

Jihadist terrorist organizations are almost exclusively extreme and violent. They normally have a

small group of followers and have a global element (Rid and Hecker, 7). Al Qaeda, for example, began as

an insurgent group but transformed into an extreme jihadist organization and may have lost support while

doing so (Rid and Hecker, 14). Extreme jihadist groups have undergone two significant changes over the

past couple of decades. On the one hand, they have struggled to gain widespread support but, on the other

hand, they have not required such support in order to thrive (Rid and Hecker, 14).

Following the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, many Muslims from across the world

went to Afghanistan to fight the invaders. Osama Bin Laden was among these foreign fighters. He organized

some of these expatriate Muslim fighters into a military unit that became known as Al Qaeda. The name al

Qaeda can be translated from Arabic to mean foundation or base (Ali Kattak et al., 347). When the Soviets

were forced to retreat from Afghanistan, their Islamic opponents earned the credit for defeating the

superpower. Jihadists in Afghanistan believed that their tactics could destroy other international powers.

More importantly, they came to believe that the Islamic world could be great again if it followed the edicts

of a strict form of Islam. When the Soviet-Afghan war came to an end, Osama bin Laden tried to unify the

international Muslim community.

In 1989 Osama bin Laden became the leader of al Qaeda. However, it was not until 1996 that bin

Laden moved from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan with a small number of followers by his side and the

intention of building al Qaeda into a more formidable organization. Between 1996 and 2001 the

organization used facilities and resources in Afghanistan to provide training to Islamic extremists from

across the region. This allowed local jihadists with similar goals to network under one banner (Ali Kattak

et al., 350). By 2001, al Qaeda set out to impose Sharia law in the Middle East, banish the USA from the

region, and overthrow Middle Eastern governments that supported American institutions and policies.

Essentially, al Qaeda set out to create a Pan-Islamic jihad against the United States and Western influences

in the Islamic world (Ali Kattak et al., 351). The overall goal of the organization was to defend its version

of Islamic culture against Western influences and ideas. This became an international jihad as Al Qaeda

took action abroad (Ali Kattak et al., 356). But al Qaeda’s actions were very much part of a larger struggle

going on between modernity and reactionary forces within the Arab and Islamic worlds.

Boko Haram, a Nigerian based terrorist organization, was founded in 2002. It began to use violence

around 2009 and has killed over ten thousand people in the years since (Agbiboa, 400). The population of

Nigeria can be divided in 350 ethnic groups, half of which are Muslim. Most of the remaining half are

primarily Christian, with indigenous religions making up another 10%. Geographically, southern Nigeria

is largely Christian, while the north is largely Muslim. The geographical division has contributed to the

strength and survival of Boko Haram (Elden, 418). The exact circumstances under which Boko Haram

emerged remain the subject of debate. Nonetheless, Boko Haram arose in northern Nigeria and this remains

where the greatest number of their attacks take place. The organization was founded by Mohammed Yusuf,

with the intention of establishing a Sharia law in Borno State of Northern Nigeria. The organization now

has more than 280,000 members and draws on supporters from Northern Nigeria and the neighboring

Arabic speaking nations of Chad and Niger (Agbiboa, 403). In 2015, Boko Haram also started becoming

even more aggressive and destructive in its attacks on cities in Nigeria and neighbouring states.

The Hausa word boko can be translated into ‘book’ and the Arabic word haram translates to

forbidden. Together, the two words are strategically used to present the message “Western-style education

is forbidden.” (Agbiboa, 404). While Boko Haram originally challenged Western schooling and institutions

in Northern Nigeria, it has since gone beyond this to confront democracy, all forms of Western education

and modern science. The group is a Sunni Islamist organization that wishes to establish Sharia law in

Northern Nigeria and, in some iterations, may also desire to create a separate Islamic state in the region.

Boko Haram has been nicknamed the ‘Nigerian Taliban’ and the region of Kannama, where they are

headquartered, is called “Afghanistan” among local Nigerians (Elden, 415).

Boko Haram was not considered radical until 2009, when its members refused to comply with a

law that required people operating motor vehicles (such as motorcycles) to wear helmets. This disagreement

led to a bloody confrontation with police which left nearly eight hundred people dead. Mohammad Yusuf,

Boko Haram’s leader, was summarily executed in public, outside a police station. The group hid for the

next year while they reorganized their leadership. Boko Haram became increasingly ideological and was

determined to seek revenge against the Nigerian state for killing their leader. Following this year, the

organization began attacks on government institutions such as prisons, police headquarters, schools as well

as UN headquarters. In the first few months of 2012, more people lost their lost lives in Boko Haram attacks

than in 2010 and 2011 combined (Agbiboa, 404). The organization attracted international attention in April

2014 when members kidnapped young schoolgirls in northeast Nigeria (Elden, 414). Boko Haram wants

to affiliate with al Qaeda because together the organizations would engage in a global jihad. In recent years

Boko Haram has used propaganda to demonstrate its connection with al Qaeda. Some experts also speculate

that al Qaeda may be funding and providing weapons and/or training to Boko Haram (Agbiboa, 409).

While Boko Haram may constitute a regional extreme jihadist movement, there are others that pose

a more international threat. The current emergence of the Islamic State (IS) is considered to be an indirect

consequence of the 2011 Arab Spring. The ISIS movement appeared in Iraq during the US occupation, but

became much more prominent and powerful following the American departure (Phillips, 495). The group

is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Its primary goal is to create a caliphate, or a state completely ruled by

Sharia law, as it would been during the life and time of the Prophet Mohammad. as previously discussed

While the group is currently found in Iraq and Syria, it has promised to expand into neighboring Jordan and

Lebanon in addition to freeing Palestine. IS is linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi from Jordan who devoted

himself to Osama bin Laden and established an al Qaeda base in Iraq. Upon his death in 2006, the al Qaeda

base in Iraq evolved into the Islamic State in Iraq. As of 2013, IS had emerged stronger than before and

took advantage of the civil war in Syria to seize an area of control in Syria, which it then used as a base

from which to seize and hold territory in Iraq. (BBC, 2014).

There are three reasons why IS was able gain support and attention as rapidly as it did. First, the

former Iraqi government, led by Shi’a Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, failed to incorporate into the

government the needs and wants of Sunni Muslims in Iraq. This failure exacerbated the divisions among

Iraqis and empowered the Sunni Muslim jihadist movement. Al-Maliki was deposed in 2014 and replaced

by Haider al-Abadi, who is trying to create a more inclusive national government. Nonetheless, sectarian

tensions continue to feed local violence. Second, the United States failed to get a commitment from

Baghdad to maintain its relationship with the Sunni population and create a sustainable post-war peace

(Phillips, 495). Finally, the civil war in Syria provided the jihad movement in Iraq with new goals and

opportunities beyond their border, making IS stronger and more forceful than before (Phillips, 496).

In 2014, IS broke its ties with al Qaeda and set about trying to fulfill its own vision of a transnational

caliphate. Despite breaking these relations, IS has a comparable outlook as Al Qaeda on the current

international system and Western influence. Unlike Al Qaeda, however, IS has been relatively successful

in establishing its own state. It now controls substantial parts of Iraq and Syria and is determined to

overthrow the government in Baghdad (Phillips, 496).

Perhaps more troubling than the recent violent acts of IS is its level of success in perpetrating them.

IS demonstrates that extreme jihadist organizations are capable of learning from their mistakes and

becoming resilient in the face of intervention. Due to this, extreme jihad organizations continue to have a

substantial impact on regional peace and form a potential threat to international security. IS has been able

to access oil revenues and taxes from its captured territories and enjoys support from wealthy donors in the

Arab world. Its financial advantages have allowed the organization to be completely independent and the

largest threat to security in the Middle East. These same sources, however, have also made IS more

vulnerable. For example, Western states have bombed IS oil wells, depriving the group of much of its oil

revenue.

IS believes that it is its responsibility to protect all Sunni Muslims but it does so by practicing

extreme aggression towards minorities in Iraq (Phillips, 497). IS now controls an area about the size of

Belgium, around 40,000 square kilometers, which includes several oil fields and major cities. The United

States estimates the organization to have over thirty thousand fighters. The majority of these fighters are

neither Iraqi nor Syrian, but rather a combination of fighters from over 81 nations (BBC, 2014).

IS demonstrates a challenge to the international system as the organization is largely self-sufficient

and immensely violent towards outsiders. The extent of the IS threat to the international system, however,

should not be exaggerated; IS remains a relatively minor world actor, even though it is often presented in

apocalyptic terms in the Western media. IS is more vicious than al Qaeda (BBC, 2014). Its followers see

themselves as the only true followers of Islam. This justifies their brutality towards Muslims and non-

Muslims alike. This demonstrates a distinct difference between al Qaeda and IS, as bin Laden worked

continuously to defend the actions of al Qaeda using theological justification. (Gerges, 2014). IS sees no

need to do this.

Al Qaeda and IS may appear to present a threat to international peace and security, though it is

important not to exaggerate the extent of this threat. The disturbances caused by smaller organizations such

as Boko Haram cannot be ignored. Such organizations have impacts on entire regions, though they may not

outwardly threaten the international system. Perhaps most important to consider is how extreme jihadist

organizations and movements come to be. Whether small or large, they are powerful groups filled with

individuals that once felt like outsiders within their society and have now been socialized into angry, violent

people committed to their new society and organization.

Agbiboa, Daniel Egieba. Boko Haram and the Global Jihad: ‘Do Not Think Jihad is Over. Rather Jihad

Has Just Begun”. Australian Journal of International Affairs 68:4 (2014) 400-417

Ali Kattak, Shahid et al. The Characteristic Trait of Terrorism and Interpretation of Jihad by Al-Qaeda

and the Taliban in the Pak-Afghan Society. South Asian Studies 27:2 (2012) 345-358

Cook, David. Islamism and Jihadism: the Transformation of Classical Notions of Jihad into an Ideology

of Terrorism. Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 10:2 (2009): 177-187

Elden Stewart. The geopolitics of Boko Haram and Nigeria’s ‘war on terror’. The Geographical Journal

180:4 (2014) 414-425

Gerges, Fawaz A. ‘Islamic State: Can its savagery be explained?’ BBC. 9 September 2014. Web. 3

January 2015 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29123528

Phillips, Andrew. The Islamic State’s challenge to international order. Australian Journal of International

Affairs 68:5 (2014) 495-498

Rid, Thomas and Hecker, Marc. The Terror Fringe. Policy Review 158 (2009-2010): 3-19

Venkatraman, Amritha. Religious Basis for Islamic Terrorism: The Quran and Its Interpretations. Studies

in Conflict and Terrorism 30 (2007) 229-248

‘What is Islamic State?’ BBC. 26 September 2014. Web. 3 January 2015.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29052144

Zelin, Aaron Y. ‘Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Islamic State’s driving force’ BBC 30 July 2014. Web. 3 January

2015 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28560449.

Nuclear weapons are universally accepted as the most devastating weapons in the world

(van der Meer, 37). Since their power was demonstrated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, there

has been a global aversion to these weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The fear of the

devastation caused by nuclear weapons was demonstrated by the politics of threat that typified the

Cold War (van der Meer, 37). Although a relatively small number of countries developed or were

trying to develop these weapons, the fear of nuclear conflict remained a constant theme during the

Cold War period.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) divides states into non-

nuclear and nuclear-states, with the only states that can legitimately possess nuclear weapons being

the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union, which later became

the Russian Federation. According to the Treaty “the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never

to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states, in exchange, agree to share the

benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate

elimination of their nuclear arsenals” (IAEA, 2013).

Trust is a critical factor in the creation and maintenance of this treaty. The nonnuclear

states signed away their rights to obtain nuclear weapons (Wheeler, 70). These signatories have

to trust that the nuclear weapon states will behave responsibly and live up to their obligations under

the NPT (Wheeler, 70).

The History of Nuclear Weapons Development

Nuclear weapons were first used by the United States during World War II. In August

1945, nuclear bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. Their initial impact was

devastating, resulting in the immediate deaths of more than 200,000 people. It took years to

determine the extent of the long-term damage caused by the nuclear blasts (van der Meer, 37). It

was not long after their initial use that the talk of banning these weapons began (Nobel, 2014).

Nonetheless, by the end of 1946, a nuclear arms race started between the US and the Soviet Union

(Nobel, 2014). In August 1949, the USSR tested its first nuclear bomb (Nobel, 2014). The

following year, US President Truman created a program that was directed at creating more

sophisticated bombs (Nobel, 2014).

Soon, the American developed the “h-bomb” or hydrogen bomb. This weapon was even

more powerful than its predecessor (Nobel, 2014). By 1954, the USSR and US had both tested

hydrogen bombs that could yield explosions equivalent of up to 50 megatons of TNT (Nobel,

2014). In 1952, the UK created its first nuclear weapon; it was followed by France in 1960 (Nobel,

2014). In October of 1964, China became the world’s fifth nuclear weapon power (Nobel, 2014).

The NPT was opened for signatures in 1968. On March 5, 1970, the NPT came into force. This

treaty divided states into three categories: nuclear states, non-nuclear states and non-NPT states

(Nobel, 2014).

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 is the closest the world has ever come to nuclear warfare

(Norris & Kristensen, 85). At the time of the crisis, the US had 3,500 nuclear weapons, whereas

the USSR had 300-500 weapons (Norris & Kristensen, 86). President John Kennedy of the US

and Premier Nikita Khruschev of the Soviet Union had no intention of starting a nuclear war, but

there was a real possibility of accidental war. (Norris & Kristensen, 86).

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

The NPT is made up of a preamble and eleven articles. These articles pertain to the use

and spread of nuclear weapons across the globe (NPT, 2). The NPT prohibits nuclear weapon

states from transferring nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons, to non-nuclear

weapons states and completely disallows the encouragement of these countries to develop such

weapons (NPT, 2). Each non-nuclear weapons state has the responsibility to refuse the transfer of

this weaponry as well as to not take part in the manufacturing or acquisition of nuclear weapons

(NPT, 2).

Each non-nuclear party to the NPT must agree to safeguards set out by the International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in order to fulfill their obligations to the Treaty. These safeguards

essentially entail the verification of any nuclear technology acquired by a country in order to

determine that it is not being used for weapons manufacturing purposes (NPT, 2). Each non-

nuclear party to the Treaty must not provide any fissionable material or equipment/material that

can be used towards the manufacture of a nuclear weapon. Fissionable material is subject to the

IAEA safeguards (NPT, 3). All non-nuclear parties to the Treaty must comply with the safeguards

set out in Article III of the NPT (NPT, 2-3).

No part of the Treaty affects the rights of member states to develop nuclear technology for

peaceful purposes. All parties to the Treaty have access to the transfer of technologies and

scientific information pertaining to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and are encouraged to

utilize nuclear power for such purposes. States in the position to participate in nuclear development

are encouraged to contribute research to international organizations in order to share the

technology with the world (NPT, 3).

Each party to the treaty must take the appropriate measures in order to ensure that any

benefits from any peaceful application of nuclear explosions will be made available to all non-

nuclear weapons parties on a non-discriminatory basis. The charge from this sort of explosive

device must be as small as possible (NPT, 3). Each party to the Treaty takes on the responsibility

to discuss the cessation of nuclear arms races as well as to promote strict nuclear disarmament

under international supervision (NPT, 4).

Any party to the Treaty may propose amendments. The proposed amendments will only

be applied if they are approved by a majority of the parties to the Treaty, including non-nuclear

weapons states (NPT,4). The Treaty is available for all states to sign and accede to it at any point

(NPT, 4). For all signatories, the Treaty is subject to ratification (NPT, 4). Any party has the right

to withdraw from the Treaty at any point (NPT, 4).

Signatories/Non Participatory States

The NPT currently has 188 UN member states as parties. The only state to have ever

withdrawn from the NPT is North Korea. There are three states that have not signed onto the NPT:

India, Israel, and Pakistan (Miller, M and Scheinman, L, 2015). India, Israel and Pakistan all

possess nuclear weapons, though Israel has not officially admitted to this. Many states –especially

Western states- within the international community are concerned with the possibility that Iran

may be attempting to develop nuclear weapons, even though it is a party to the Treaty. India is an

interesting case in nuclear non-proliferation. In 2005, the Bush Administration created an

agreement with the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh that allows the Indian government

the ability to create nuclear weapons without changing its nuclear status (Fitzpatrick, 76).

International Atomic Energy Agency

The IAEA is made up of several bodies. First and foremost is the Secretariat, which is in

charge of running the agency. The IAEA is made up of 2300 professional support staff from

around the world. They are positioned around the globe in regional offices as well as in the head

office, located in Vienna, Austria (IAEA, 2014). There are also several policy-making bodies of

the IAEA, most importantly the General Conference. The General Conference is comprised of

representatives of all of the member states of the Agency and meets annually (IAEA, 2014). The

IAEA Board of Governors meets five times a year to discuss matters pertaining to

recommendations for the General Conference (IAEA, 2014).

The United Nations (UN) and the IAEA have a close relationship that is guided by an

agreement signed in 1957. The relationship is built upon the principle that both parties are

committed to the promotion of peace and worldwide disarmament. Article I stipulates that the UN

considers the IAEA as an autonomous international organization that will provide impartial

decisions and must act in accordance with the Purpose and Principles of the United Nations

Charter. (IAEA Information Circular, October 1959). The Secretary General has the right to attend

to all IAEA meetings and can participate without vote on any matter (IAEA Information Circular,

October 1959). For over 50 years, there has not been any important disagreement or conflict

between the UN and the IAEA.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s Five-Point Proposal for Disarmament

The current Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, has spoken frequently

about nuclear disarmament during his tenure. In October of 2008, he gave an address at the East-

West Institute (located in New York, USA) where he presented a five-point proposal for globalized

nuclear disarmament (UN, 2008). Firstly, the Secretary General recommended that all parties to

the NPT fulfill their Treaty-mandated obligation to enter a discussion that leads to disarmament

(UN, 2008). He encouraged the nuclear powers to engage others in the Conference on

Disarmament (UN, 2008).

His second point was that the five permanent members of the Security Council should

commence discussions to negotiate the security issues pertaining to disarmament (UN, 2008). In

this second point, the Secretary General also addressed the need for non-NPT states to give up

their nuclear capabilities and make new commitments to disarmament. His third point referred to

legal matters, primarily the fact that bans on fissile materials and nuclear tests are not significant

enough (UN, 2008). Ban Ki-moon suggested that all parties to the NPT move beyond their existing

commitments to the IAEA and begin implementing stronger nuclear safeguards under the

“Additional Protocol” (UN, 2008). Fourthly, the Secretary General recommended that nuclear

states circulate information pertaining to the actions they are taking to achieve disarmament (UN,

2008). To supplement this, the nuclear states should also make available more information about

the size of their arsenals as well as the specific disarmament targets they have achieved (UN, 2008).

Lastly, the Secretary General argued that the parties to the NPT needed to consider

“complementary” measures that will enhance international security. These measures include

elimination of other weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), efforts against WMD terrorism, limits

on arms trades, and weapons bans (UN, 2008).

Nuclear weapons: The Iran Case

Iran represents an intriguing case study of the effects that the NPT has on global politics.

In 2005, the IAEA found that Iran was not in compliance with the agreements of the Agency's

Statute (Review Conference, 2010). The country failed to comply with Article XII C, which related

to the Agency safeguards agreements. Due to this violation, the UN Security Council passed five

resolutions, the most important one being Resolution 1737 (2006). This resolution is a legally

binding declaration that imposes economic sanctions on Iran. Some of the measures include

nuclear and ballistic missile programs-related embargoes, a ban on exports and imports of all kinds

of weapons, and assets freezes on some prominent government officials (un.org, 2015). The other

resolutions increased the severity of the economic sanctions. Combined, these resolutions had a

devastating effect on Iran's economy.

Iran does not deny its nuclear capability but argues that it only intends to use its nuclear

capability for peaceful purposes. Western powers distrust Iran, believing that Iran may be planning

to build nuclear weapons. After many years of tense relations between the West and Iran, the

Obama administration initiated a dialogue with the Iranian regime by reaching out to Iran’s

Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. However, many observers and critics are skeptical

about these talks including the Republican-led US Congress and Khamenei himself, albeit for

different reasons. Republicans want to increase the sanctions (Erdbrink, January 7, 2015) instead

of engaging in a dialogue with Iran. Similarly, Khamenei is not confident of negotiations with the

United States. He stated that "the Americans boldly say the sanctions will not be removed all at

once and immediately, even if Iran compromises. Given these facts, can such an enemy be

trusted?" (Erdbrink, January 7, 2015).

Although Khamenei is clearly skeptical of negotiations, recent global events might force

Iran to start a dialogue. Iran's economy is heavily dependent on oil sales. As global price of oil

rapidly declines, the Iranian economy is shrinking. Iran’s oil revenue is expected to decrease by

$30 billion this year (Erdbrink, January 7, 2015). The Obama administration must find a way to

overcome the objections of both Republicans and Khamenei if it wants to reach a nuclear

agreement with Iran. It is worth noting, however, that in the US much of the opposition to the

negotiations with Iran is bipartisan and appears to be driven by political considerations related to

Israel, which opposes talking to Iran.

North Korea and its nuclear policies

North Korea signed the NPT because it was a condition that the Soviet Union imposed on

them in exchange for nuclear research assistance and the provision of a nuclear power station

(Preez, J and Potter, W, April, 2003), North Korea accepted the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear

Weapons Treaty in 1985. Soon after, it started to delay the required safeguards agreements with

the IAEA. When it finally complied in 1992 (the process normally takes 18 months; it took 5 years

in the North Korean case), there were significant discrepancies within the data that North Korea

provided about its nuclear capacities (Preez, J and Potter, W, April, 2003). The IAEA Board

concluded that North Korea was in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations (World Nuclear

Association, 2014). IN 1994, the US and North Korea reached an agreement (the Agreed

Framework) under which North Korea agreed to halt and dismantle its nuclear capability under

IAEA supervision, and the U.S agreed to provide oil shipments and two light-water nuclear power

reactors to serve North Korea’s energy needs (Preez, J and Potter, W, April, 2003). Neither side

fully respected its commitments.

As North Korea continued to delay IAEA supervision, the agreement was never fully

completed and North Korea withdrew from the NPT on January 2003, the first country to do so.

In 2006, North Korea claimed that it detonated a nuclear weapon, a claim apparently confirmed

by seismic activity. In recent years, tension has increased between North Korea and its neighbors,

as well as the Western world. In 2013, the country tested another nuclear weapon after two failed

attempts. Although it is still a subject of debate due to lack of official information, observers

believe that the weapon utilized uranium or plutonium (World Nuclear Association, 2014) and it

created an explosion of between six to fifteen kilotons.

This nuclear test created great international concern because North Korea did it against the

advice of the country's only remaining ally, China. Some political experts saw the test as a political

message to the international community from Kim Jong-Un, the new supreme leader of North

Korea (York, 31 October, 2015). Kim was presumably trying to show the world community that

he intended to follow the same policies as his father, Kim Jong-il. The nuclear test also

demonstrated that North Korea was not concerned about international sanctions.

Conclusion

The 20th century saw a breakthrough in technology. This has created many advantages

and benefits, but it has also created unprecedented complications. The nuclear era began with the

creation of a powerful weapon that, in sufficient numbers, has the potential to destroy the world.

In many ways, this has been an age of fear, but in others, it has been an age of cooperation and

diplomacy. The NPT was a major achievement of international diplomacy. Nuclear disarmament

continues to be one of the most important concerns of the international community.

Iran and North Korea represents two different cases that demonstrate the importance of an

international nuclear development framework. Given the destructive potential that these weapons

have, countries must commit to the supervision of an outside organization that ensures the proper

use and safety of all nuclear materials. (However, it must be noted that the major nuclear powers

refuse to make such concessions.) Similarly, all the states with nuclear capacities should commit

to the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons to avoid a nuclear war. A nuclear war would

mean the deadliest global confrontation in history and could even lead to destruction of all

humankind.

Works Cited/Recommended Reading

Adamsky, Dmitry Dima. "The 1983 Nuclear Crisis - Lessons for Deterrence Theory and Practice."

Journal of Strategic Studies 36.1 (2013): 4-41. Print.

Erdbrink, Thomas. "Iran's Supreme Leader is skeptical of Nuclear talks with the U.S". The New

York Times. January 7th, 2015. Web.

Fitzpatrick, Mark. “US-India Nuclear Cooperation Accord: Implications for the Nonproliferation

Regime”. Asia-Pacific Review 15.1 (2008): 76-85. Print.

International Atomic Energy Agency. "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". Ed.

1. The United Nations., 1970. Print.

Ki-moon, Ban. "Address to the East-West Institute “The United Nations and Security in a Nuclear-

Weapon-Free World"." UN News Centre, 2008. Print.

Miller, M and Scheinman, L. "Getting the bomb: A brief history of the Three NTP Outliers". Arms

control. 2015. Web

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/MillerandScheinman

Nobel Media AB. "The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." 2014.Web.

http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html

Norris, Robert S and Kristensen, Hans M. "The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Nuclear Order of Battle,

October and November 1962." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 68.6 (2012): 8591. Print.

"Nuclear Proliferation Case Studies". World Nuclear Association. November, 2014. Web.

"Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006)". United Nations

Security Council. 2005. Web

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1737/

Sidel, Victor and Levy, S. "Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Opportunities for Control and

Abolition." American Journal of Public Health 97.9 (2007): 1589-94. Print.

"Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Weapons" U.S Delegation to 2010 Nuclear Non-proliferation

Treaty Review Conference. 2010. Web

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/141503.pdf

"International Atomic Energy Agency." The International Atomic Energy Agency. 2013. Web.

http://www.iaea.org.proxy.hil.unb.ca

“Information Circular: The text of the agency’s agreements with the United Nations”. The

International Atomic Energy Agency. 30 October 1959.Web

http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/1959/infcirc11.pdf

Van der Meer, Sico. "Not that Bad: Looking Back on 65 Years of Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Efforts." Security and Human Rights 1 (2011): 37-47. Print.

Walker, William. "International Affairs and 'the Nuclear Age', 1946-2013." International Affairs

90.1 (2014): 107-23. Print.

Wheeler, Nicholas J. and Ruzika, Jan. "The Puzzle of Trusting Relationships in the Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty." International Affairs 86.1 (2010): 69-85. Print.

York, Rob. "Will North Korea ever use its nuclear weapons". The Guardian. 31 October, 2014.

Web.

Preez, J and Potter, W. "North Korea's Withdrawal from the NPT: A reality check". Center for

Non-proliferation Studies (CNS). April 10, 2003. Web.