April 2024
By Mina Rozei

The Islamic State group likely carried out an attack in Syria using chemical weapons nine years ago, according to international experts responsible for investigating the use of these banned weapons.

In a report on Feb. 22, the Investigation and Identification Team (IIT) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said that there are “reasonable grounds” to find the Islamic State group culpable for the attack in Marea on Sept. 1, 2015, in which 11 individuals showed symptoms consistent with exposure to sulfur mustard.

“The Secretariat of the OPCW has once again delivered on the mandate it has received to identify perpetrators of chemical weapons use in Syria,” OPCW Director-General Fernando Arias said when the report was released. “This is a stark reminder to the international community that nonstate actors like [the Islamic State group] have developed the capacity and the will to use chemical weapons.”

The report concludes a comprehensive year-long OPCW investigation into the attack in Marea.

Investigators found that the Islamic State group deployed sulfur mustard using one or more artillery guns, asserting that “no other entity possessed the means, motives, and capabilities to deploy sulfur mustard as part of an attack in Marea” on that date.

According to the report, 11 individuals who “came into contact with the liquid substance experienced symptoms consistent with exposure to sulfur mustard.”

The IIT was able to reconstruct the organizational chain of command that led to the attack and identify four individuals as perpetrators and two additional Islamic State members as primary drivers of the group’s chemical weapons program.

Using a finding of “reasonable grounds” to assign the responsibility to the Islamic State group is a “standard of proof consistently adopted by international fact-finding bodies and commissions of inquiry,” the report said.

The IIT relied on interviews, information from the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission, states-parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and various forensic evidence and data to reach its conclusions.

The Syrian Network for Human Rights, a primary nongovernmental organization providing the IIT with on-the-ground information, has documented five chemical weapons attacks by the Islamic State group and 132 casualties since the group emerged in Syria in 2013.

This case marks the first time that the IIT has established that a nonstate actor perpetrated a chemical weapons attack in Syria. Mozambique’s UN ambassador, speaking at a UN Security Council meeting on behalf of Algeria, Guyana, and Sierra Leone, declared that the findings “suggest that, henceforward, the Syrian chemical weapons program will be seen in a different perspective.”

The findings document the latest in a series of confirmed chemical attacks in Syria and underscore growing frustration that CWC states-parties are becoming less compliant with the treaty. “The absence of accountability for the use of chemical weapons continues to be a threat to international peace and security,” said Adedeji Ebo, director and deputy to the UN high representative for disarmament affairs, at a Security Council meeting on March 4.

The findings provoked a mixed reaction at the meeting. Some states, such as the United States, criticized Syria for failing to comply with the OPCW and pointed to the latest IIT report as proof that the OPCW remains impartial. France, Japan, and Slovenia also praised the OPCW’s impartiality and called on Syria to comply with the IIT.

Syria insisted that it destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile and is cooperating with the OPCW. Russia and Iran defended Syria and said the OPCW is being exploited by Western countries.

The IIT report was released before the OPCW Executive Council met in The Hague on March 5-8 where its findings were discussed. Arias reported that Syria’s chemical stockpile declaration continues to have “gaps, inconsistencies, and discrepancies that remain unresolved [and] the Secretariat assess[es] that the declaration submitted by [Syria] still cannot be considered accurate and complete.”

April 2024

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) met Russian President Vladimir Putin last month to discuss the safety and security of the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine.

After the meeting in Sochi on March 6, IAEA Director-General Rafael Mariano Grossi described his conversation with Putin as “professional and frank” and said the situation regarding Zaporizhzhia remains “enormously fluid and precarious.”

Russia illegally attacked the nuclear power plant in the early days of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine and continues to occupy the facility.

According to a press release from the Kremlin, Putin told Grossi that Moscow is willing to “do everything to ensure security anywhere [that Russia is] involved with nuclear energy.”

In early February, Russia’s state-run nuclear energy company Rosatom barred employees of Energoatom, the Ukrainian nuclear power company, from working at Zaporizhzhia. (See ACT, March 2024.) Grossi visited the nuclear power plant after that announcement to assess safety and security conditions there.

In a March 7 letter to the IAEA, Russia said the number of employees at Zaporizhzhia is enough “to carry out its safe operation” and scheduled maintenance. Russia said it is recruiting additional personnel and making “efforts aimed at improving the quality of life” for employees at the nuclear complex.

In a March 12 interview with Reuters, Grossi said the plant’s current staff “can do the job” but the “situation is not sustainable in the long term.”

The day after Grossi met with Putin, the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution demanding the “urgent withdrawal” of all unauthorized personnel from the facility and calling for the nuclear power plant “to be immediately returned to the full control of the competent Ukrainian authorities.”

This resolution is the fourth that the board has passed condemning Russia’s illegal occupation of Zaporizhzhia.—KELSEY DAVENPORT

April 2024

Two years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Sweden officially joined NATO amid rising concerns that the war might spill into other European countries.

On March 7, Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson handed over accession documents to the United States during a ceremony in Washington, culminating a process in which the allies unanimously approved the addition of the new member.

"Sweden is a safer country today than we were yesterday…. We have taken out an insurance in the Western defense alliance," he said.

The move is seen as a major blow to Russia, which long has opposed NATO expansion.

As a member, Sweden has pledged to adhere to NATO’s doctrine of common defense, by which allies agree to defend
any other NATO ally that comes under military attack by another country.

Now that it has joined NATO, Sweden is considering reinforcing Gotland, a strategic island in the Baltic Sea that is close to Russia and key to the defense of the Baltic states.

In an interview with the Financial Times on March 14, Kristersson confirmed that ways to protect Gotland are on the list of issues being discussed with the allies. He acknowledged that Sweden only has a “small” military presence on the island.

Sweden is the 32nd country to join NATO, following Finland, which formally became a member in April 2023. Both countries applied for membership in May 2022, abandoning their long-held neutrality, the hallmark of their Cold War foreign policy. Polls showed that public opinion on nonalignment shifted drastically after Russia invaded Ukraine.—CHRIS ROSTAMPOUR

April 2024

The U.S. House of Representatives on March 6 approved a $7 billion spending package that included funding to support updated versions of the Compact of Free Association with the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia that will govern relations with these island nations for the next 20 years. President Joe Biden signed the bill into law on March 8.

The extension of the compact with the Marshall Islands, and earlier compacts with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau, guarantees the United States exclusive military rights over large areas in the Pacific region, including a missile test facility in the Marshall Islands and a high-frequency radar system being built in Palau. It also guarantees a continuation of federal services and rights for citizens of the island nations. The Compact of Free Association packages will provide economic assistance of $3.3 billion to the Federated States of Micronesia, $2.3 billion to the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and $889 million to Palau through 2043.

The agreement with the Marshall Islands also will update and expand U.S. financial and technical assistance to the island nation, including for the ongoing health and environmental damage caused by the 67 atmospheric nuclear test explosions conducted between 1946 and 1958. (See ACT, March 2023.)—DARYL G. KIMBALL

April 2024
By Michael T. Klare

Diplomatic activity concerning the regulation of autonomous weapons systems is accelerating. The United States convened a conference on the subject in March, Austria has scheduled one for April, and the UN General Assembly plans a debate on the topic at its fall meeting.

The quickening diplomacy reflects growing worldwide concern over the faulty or unsupervised use of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous weapons in combat, possibly resulting in unintended atrocities or conflict escalation, and differing opinions over how best to prevent such perils.

The intensifying concern over the deployment of autonomous weapons is perhaps best exemplified by the lopsided Dec. 22 vote on UN General Assembly Resolution 78/241, calling for a rigorous study of the topic. Some 152 states voted in favor of the resolution, with only Belarus, India, Mali, and Russia voting no. Another 12 states abstained.

Acknowledging unease over “the possible negative consequences and impact of autonomous weapon systems on global security and regional and international stability,” the resolution calls for a comprehensive review of the subject at the next UN General Assembly, scheduled to begin Sept. 10. To ensure that such an assessment is conducted in a thoroughly informed manner, the resolution directs the secretary-general to prepare a comprehensive report on the issue, incorporating the views of all key stakeholders.

Although there is widespread agreement about the potential risks posed by autonomous weapons systems, especially when they are deployed without adequate human oversight, there is considerable international debate over the best way to regulate them. Some nations, led by the United States, advocate the adoption of voluntary constraints. Another group, led by Austria, favors a legally binding prohibition on the deployment of fully autonomous weapons systems. To promote their contending perspectives, these key actors decided to organize separate international meetings.

The first of these dueling assemblies was convened by the U.S. State Department on March 19-20 at the University of Maryland. Without much fanfare, the plenary brought together some 150 participants from nearly all of the 52 countries that have signed the “Political Declaration on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy.” The declaration is a set of voluntary constraints on the use of autonomous weapons systems first released by the State Department in February 2023 and then rereleased, with slightly altered language, last November. (See ACT, April 2023.)

The declaration affirms that autonomous weapons systems can play positive as well as negative roles in warfare. It also asserts that states must adopt strict guidelines on their use in order to prevent negative outcomes. For example, the declaration posits that states “should take appropriate steps, such as legal reviews, to ensure that their military AI capabilities will be used consistent with their respective obligations under international law.” But this measure and others enunciated in the declaration are purely voluntary steps, entailing no legal obligation by signatory states to abide by them and carrying no penalties if they fail to do so.

Nevertheless, organizers of the U.S. event insisted that by convening representatives of signatory states and sharing experiences, they are helping to bolster international norms against the misuse of autonomous weapons systems. “We look forward to continuing to share lessons learned and best practices to build our collective capacities to implement these responsible measures,” Assistant Secretary of State Mallory Stewart told Arms Control Today. She said that participating states agreed to form working groups to discuss implementation of specific measures in the political declaration and that the entire group will meet again in annual plenaries such as the one held in Maryland.

By contrast, the assembly being organized by Austria, officially called the Vienna Conference on Autonomous Weapons Systems and the Challenge of Regulation, will consider legally binding measures along with voluntary ones.

To be held April 29-30, it will include representation from governmental and nongovernmental entities. Its aim, according to the official announcement, is “to increase international awareness of the topic of [autonomous weapons systems] and their legal, moral, ethical, and security policy challenges,” as well as to “build momentum…for the creation of an international legal and normative framework.”

Alexander Kmentt, director of disarmament, arms control, and nonproliferation at the Austrian Foreign Ministry, said the Vienna meeting is aimed particularly at stimulating international interest in UN General Assembly deliberations on autonomous weapons systems.

In addition to awareness-raising and momentum-building for the future regulation of autonomous weapons systems, the conference is linked to the report that UN Secretary-General António Guterres has been mandated to produce, Kmentt told Arms Control Today. The conference agenda is designed to achieve this outcome by soliciting “relevant substantive input by experts” and “by stimulating states to submit their views to the [secretary-general] as input for this report,” he added.

The groups assembled by the United States and Austria have many similar concerns about the battlefield deployment of autonomous weapons systems, but also have differences about the best approach to regulating these systems. These are sure to become more pronounced as states prepare for the General Assembly’s review.