Paper:
Hanham, M. (2015, July 9). Kim Jong Un Tours Pesticide Facility Capable of Producing Biological Weapons: A 38 North Special Report
Discussion leader: Tianyi Li
“You can’t trade your freedom for security, because if you do you’re going to lose both. “
—— Brandon Mayfield
Summary:
This article is a report by 38 North, which is a program of the U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS dedicated to providing the best possible analysis of events in and around North Korea. it investigate capability of North Korea to build biological weapons (BW) in large scale for military use.
It is a common practice to cover BW development programs with civilian pesticide facilities, despite of any assertion. Previous example include Iraq’s Al Hakam Factory who produced both Bacillus anthraces and Bacillus thuringiensis, and Soviet Union’s Progress Scientific and Production Association, who produce bio-fertilizers in peacetime but BW for war. North Korea’s efforts of BW program is revealed since 2015, when a defector fled the country carrying human testing data. From North Korea’s media report where Kim Jong Un toured a facility ostensibly for producing pesticides, it is estimated that the same facilities are able to produce military sized batches of BW, especially anthrax. The author explained how Anthrax, one type of BW, is related to and can be covered by commonly used pesticides. Then he listed evidence from images that shows the modern equipment North Korea has.
The author then continued to explain how North Korea develops this dual-use capability. Not only do the devices maintains the ability to produce BW, but the action North Korea took to illicitly import relevant materials is making them highly suspicious. North Korea is under International treaties, regimes and national laws that prevents BW, however, much of the equipment seen in the Pyongyang Bio-technical Institute violates export control laws. In addition to import from China, some open-source research reveals that the Swiss branch of an international nongovernmental organization provided training. known as intangible technology transfer (ITT), and basic equipment to the North that may have inadvertently contributed to North Korea’s ability to produce BW.
The motivation of North Korea to develop BW dates back to the Korean War, when it is accused that Americans were conducting BW test on Koreans. This accusation is reinforced when news broke that the American military had mistakenlyshipped live-anthrax to labs in nine US states as well as to the Osan Air Base in South Korea. The tour of Kim Jong Un is believed to be a veiled threat to the US and South Korea.
Reflections:
This article listed facts and analyzed the hidden possibility enabled by those facts, of North Korea’s capability of developing BW. It supports its argument by quoting previous similar examples and motivations for North Korea to have the intention. As is explained in the report, biological weapons facilities are notoriously difficult to identify and monitor due to their dual-use nature, and they can operate in each capacity. With the history and plausible intention of North Korea’s interest in BW, the facilities they have is viewed at least a future threat. The report did not elaborate on the human rights perspective, instead, it stated facts and possible connections that link the fact to the hypotheses. This makes it objective, concrete and convincing.
Biological weapons in their current form are inherently indiscriminate weapons. It is almost inconceivable that they could be directed at a specific military objective.Biological weapons are perhaps the only weapons that cannot in any way or form be directed only at military objectives. A disease will not distinguish between civilians and combatants. A Japanese biological weapons attack on the Chinese city of Changde in 1941 resulted in the death of around 10,000 people. About 1700 Japan’s own troops were also among the casualties.
With the lack of discussion on the human rights perspective, I searched for literatures with that kind of discussion. I would recommend Weapons of mass destruction and human rights, by Peter WEISS and John BURROUGHS: https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/ebooks/files/UNIDIR_pdf-art2139.pdf. They pointed out that “With few exceptions those who think, write and speak about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) live in a different world from those who think, write and speak about human rights.” The experts in those two fields think about different problems. More importantly, the characteristics of WMD, and of nuclear weapons in particular, provide both the magnitude and the condensed launch time that expand the concept of self-defence from a reaction to actual or imminent aggression to a preventive strike against aggression that may occur at any time in the future, be it weeks, months or years from now
Questions:
* Do you think the right to peace, along with the right to life, should be considered as Human Rights? How do you think WMD or BW in particular influence such human rights?
* Do you think it is still important to insist on respect for the human person and elementary considerations of humanity—on fundamental human rights—even during the chaos and intentional violence of war?
* How do you think Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) can be abolished or at least reduce the risk of their being used? How to prevent their proliferation, what damage they cause to humans and other living things?
