Secret Memos and a Not So Secret Dilemma

A few days ago, Geoffery Forden at the blog ArmsControlWonk.com, claimed to have internal secret Iranian documents which provide evidence of a development consortium between Iran, Russia, and China. Here is a quote from the post:

“If my understanding is correct, they indicate that representatives from North Korea and China have been present at all phases of production and flight testing. Iran has also gotten important help from Russia, though Russians do not appear to have been as ubiquitous as the Chinese and the North Koreans. The evidence from the memos indicates that this help is on the governmental level rather than “rogue” individuals. This includes Russian help though Russia has been particularly vocal in its denials of such assistance.”

While there has been suspicions of this in the West, there is very little information that is openly available that would impute China and Russia’s deliberate institutional support of the Iranian missile program.
    

Reading the blog post about the memo could lead one to ask two questions. The first is how much assistance, if any, China or Russia has provided to Iran in support of their missile program. The second is if assistance was provided to Iran how should the U.S. handle international organizations, such as the UN Security Council and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, whose purpose is undermined by those same countries.
    

Even without taking into account the details of the post on ArmsControlWonk.org, there is some support, although not concrete, that when needed Iran is getting substantial help on their missile program. There have been substantive reports of Russian and Chinese support of Iran’s missile and air defense programs despite being a member of international agreements and making commitments condemning such activity.    A history of known Chinese missile exports and assistance to Iran can be found here. Currently, The U.S., Israel, and the EU are attempting to persuade Russia from selling potent S-300 air defense missiles. Notwithstanding this deal, Russia has a long history of providing missile technology to Iran in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime, which Russia claims it adheres to. It is probably fair to say that even without considering the memo on ArmsControlWonk.org, China and Russia have provided a fair amount of assistance to Iran’s missile program.
    

So if China and Russia are disregarding international agreements and organizations meant to prevent advanced air defense and missile technology capable of delivering nuclear warheads from falling into the hands of nations such as Iran, what steps can the United States take to ensure that international organizations, which are essential to moving towards a nuclear free world remain legitimate?

A casual review of the U.S. position could lead one to conclude that the U.S. should take a “minilateralism” or “coalition of the willing approach” and pursue options that would not require the assistance of nations such as Russia and China who both have potentially undermined any US or European effort to prevent missile and nuclear proliferation in Iran. These “minilateral actions could include sanctions by those countries willing to commit, which has never been very effective, or military action which the United States and/or NATO is not currently equipped to handle. The problem with this approach is that it ignores the impact of moral standing in diplomatic relations. Moral standing can often compel states to comply with obligations that they otherwise wouldn’t.

So what should the U.S. do? First the U.S. should provide a public warning condemning any nation would undermine the purpose of these organizations. Second, if the U.S. was to acquire clear and convincing evidence of Russian or Chinese assistance to a state like Iran the U.S. should make it clear that they will go public with this information if further steps are not agreed upon to deal with the Iran issue. If these states do not comply than the U.S. should go public with this information to the extent allowable to ensure the preservation of sources and methods.

This information should be released not for the purpose of bypassing states like Russia and China or to justify unilateral action, but to highlight Russia and China’s failure to uphold their international commitments with the hope they will rectify their past mistakes. Additionally, the heightened moral standing of the United States will allow the United States to justify increased calls for international action against Iran while delegitimizing those who would have grievances.

In fairness, there are valid arguments that such a disclosure would undermine Russian and Chinese cooperation on other arms control issues. However, there is a near consensus among those who believe that the U.S. should be working towards a nuclear free world that international cooperation will be required. In order to have effective international cooperation the United States and other nations must take steps to ensure that other major actors within the organization are fulfilling their obligations to ensure the organization is successful.

Exposing actions that clearly undermine the effectiveness of international organizations will more likely than not increase the state’s perceived cost of the state taking similar action in the future. Further, if a state knows that actions taken to remedy concerns which contravene international agreements will be exposed the state will be more likely to voice there real grievance with the international organization and will be compelled to work within the organization to remedy the concern. This will add legitimacy to the international organizations which will be essential to leading us to a world without nuclear weapons.