International Efforts to Stop Weapons of Mass Destruction

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Introduction

This paper addresses the methodology, and discusses the findings of the research. It also offers conclusions and recommendations for addressing the problem of WMD prevention. It applies the theoretical perspectives of Taylor and Follett and also looks at the impact of having an ethical framework in place. It concludes with recommendations for establishing an international effort to bring about the collaboration needed to prevent WMD proliferation.

Methodology

The method used to obtain material for this research was to search Google Scholar and other scholarly databases such as JAMA and Elsevier using these keywords: “weapons mass destruction prevention,” “cbrn wmd policy prevention,” “bioterrorism prevention,” and “weapons mass destruction prevention capabilities.” Keywords were garnered from snowballing keywords used by other researchers and described in their articles. These were searched in the online databases and a variety of literature was selected that fit the criteria for inclusion. Inclusion criteria used for this research consisted of any of the following: 1) peer-reviewed resource with relevant content, 2) government resource with relevant content, 3) resources of international organizations with relevant content.

Once works were selected, they were read and reviewed using the method of content analysis. Content analysis is a process of data analysis recommended by Neuendorf (2016) and is essentially defined as the study of recorded communications. It involves the process of breaking down the data into categories of content and thematic groupings, then reassembling the data, all using the open coding and eidetic reduction methods of distillation, which help the researcher to understand the deeper meanings within the texts (Katsirikou & Lin, 2017). Interpreting the data can involve the use of the imaginative variation process, by which one also manages to identify critical themes and combine them with the categorical findings from the eidetic reduction process to create more focused perspective (Gandy, 2015). To assist with the process of imaginative variation, course material sources were used to set the framework for analysis and to provide a position of insight from an academic perspective on prevention. As Yazan (2015) states, this method is about being objective, focusing on validity and reaching generalizeable terms—i.e., understanding that can be applied to the issue for the general population.

Yin (2017) explains a five step process for data analysis, the steps of which are:

1. Compiling the database

2. Disassembling the data

3. Reassembling the data

4. Interpreting the data

5. Concluding

Compiling the database will take place during the interview/transcription process. Interviews will be recorded and then transcribed. The data are first disassembled by way of content analysis, in which the information is broken down into manageable pieces. The data is then reassembled by the coding process in which themes are grouped together so as to show the patterns and commonalities among the data. This then provides a field for interpretation. The conclusion brings the interpretation into focus and uses it to answer the research question.

Understanding the method used to obtain and analyze data can ensure validity and reliability in terms of results (Dikko, 2016). It can also help to establish the study’s dependability, which refers to the research’s consistency (Anney, 2014). To account for data saturation, the inductive saturation model can be used to comprehensive identification of themes not noted in previous analysis (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015).

To interpret the findings, the theoretical approaches of Taylor and Follett are used. Their approaches differ and offer distinct benefits and drawbacks that have to be considered. However, when used jointly they create a balanced framework for how to address the issue of prevention at both the interdepartmental and international levels. These theoretical approaches are discussed in this paper as well in the next section, following a discussion of the findings.

Findings and Analysis

Preventing CBRN WMDs can be approached from a standpoint of proliferation and fallout. The former focuses on deterring the spread of WMDs and the latter focuses on controlling and containing the fallout that occurs if WMDs are used. The current situation with the spread of the COVID-19 serves as an example of the need to control and contain the fallout of CBRN WMDs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide guidance on a number of preventive and response procedures that could facilitate the overall preventive approach to this issue. For instance, safeguarding the food production chain has to be a top priority for producers, transporters, distributors, retailers, wholesalers and governments (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). It also offers guidance on issues such as riot control, which can became a major factor for consideration in the event that supply chains become disrupted and communities and large cities go into deprivation mode (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013).

But what are some of the most problematic areas for this issue? As Ganesan, Raza and Vijayaraghavan (2010) show, chemical weapons are a major threat because they are inexpensive and easy to produce—though this assessment is at odds with the assessment of Forest (2012) who argues just the opposite, namely that these weapons are complicated to build and transport. Forest (2012) refers, however, to all CBRN and not just to chemical weapons, which could be the reason for his categorical generalization. While it may be true that nuclear weapons are more complicated to build and transport, the same cannot be said for all WMDs, such as chemical weapons, which as Ganesan et al. (2010) point out are much easier to create and use. Thus, one has to be careful about applying broad analysis to an entire group of WMDs in this manner, as Forest (2012) does. It is a non-technical and essentially inappropriate way to discuss the threat of WMDs and the prevention practices needed. It also shows that the academics and scholars in this field are at odds even with themselves—a mirror image as it were of the contention between the various departments and agencies tasked with counter-proliferation, prevention, and response. The fact is that these types of weapons—including chemical weapons—can be devastating, which is why their usage or the threat of their usage in the Middle East in recent years has been such a cause for alarm. As terrorist cells pivot towards the use of chemical weapons, serious consideration must also be given to the prevention of their proliferation. Ignoring their usage and relegating them to the same “complicated” status that Forest (2012) does can create a gap in a nation’s preparedness.

Thus, prevention is a two-sided course: it must focus on the issue of proliferation and the issue of stemming and controlling fallout. To do so it needs to understand the difference among the CBRN WMDs and how each can be used, obtained, transported, or accessed. This requires a dual focus from agencies tasked with preventing the spread of WMDs and the containing the fallout if they are used. However, as the research shows, collaboration and coordination are not strong suits at either the domestic level or the international level (Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1999). Coordination at the interdepartmental level of agencies dealing with terrorism and the threat of WMDs has been characterized as particularly difficult owing to the extent to which personalities of leaders and directors get involved (Lang, 1932).

Prevention of the first and second kinds can only be achieved with the right kind of administrative response. However, even from an administrative perspective this is problematic as there is little agreement on what these perspectives should be. Traditionally, there is the scientific method of Frederick Taylor and then there is the management theory of Mary Follett, who distinguished between coercive and coactive power. Taylor’s foundational theory for administration is inherently coercive as it relies on data, standardization and systems to effect controlled outcomes. Follett’s is more democratic, relational and coactive. Each has its pros and cons, and each can provide a view on how to address the issues of prevention as observed in the research.

Overall, the research showed that counter-proliferation strategies are needed as much as preparatory response strategies are needed—but the main difficulty is coordination and collaboration among the various agencies, departments and countries tasked with the responsibility of addressing the threat of WMDs. Personality and policies both have to be considered. Leaders, relationships, the art of diplomacy, skilled communication, practical planning, and foresight are necessary. Administrative approaches will make a difference in determining how effective these outcomes will inevitably be.

For instance, the European Union (EU) is now facing the challenge of dissension across numerous member states resulting in a number of problematic relationships. From France to Italy to Spain to Hungary and on, a rising tide of nationalism has exalted several independence movements and garnered a great deal of support for populists who are fed up with EU policies that they see as prohibitive, punitive, and dangerous for their own nations. Leaders in Italy, France, Hungary, Spain, the Netherlands, and Greece have all been quite vocal about their issues with the EU, and now that the UK has officially taken steps to leave the EU, it leaves the Union more unstable than when it entered in. There is now a great deal of uncertainty about whether the EU can assuage the nationalist wave spreading across the Europe, and that means collaboration with the EU and its member states as well as the UK is now more challenging than it was in the past when the US and the EU were on a more solid footing. What it shows is the problem of personality that Lang (1932) describes: leaders with strong personalities can create movements that disrupt the status quo at the political level, which has ramifications on governmental organization and effectiveness. Stability is one of the most important ingredients needed for a coordinated policy of prevention with respect to WMD proliferation and response. With each nation now thinking of its own self-interests instead of the collective, there could be many more nations that follow the UK out the door in the coming years, which could lead to a serious break-up of communication and interaction.

One of the reasons for the rise of nationalism has been the immigration crisis stemming from the non-stop wars in the Middle East that have decimated the region and forced millions of migrants from their native lands. Currently Turkey is threatening to unleash a tsunami of immigrants onto an already hemorrhaging EU, whose member states (like Hungary) are refusing to take even one immigrant into their country. Germany has been very open about accepting immigrants, but it has come with a tremendous price for the party involved in making that decision. Germany’s leader Angela Merkl, so often seen as the face of the EU has lost considerable prestige and support in Germany as native Germans have expressed their discontentment with their leader’s willingness to give refuge to millions of Middle Eastern refugees. The Germans, like the Hungarians, the Italians and the British are all concerned about the safety risks, the economic risks, the health risks, the social risks, the cultural risks, and the political risks that come from allowing so many refugees through their borders. Considering that the threat of terrorism is still high in Europe and that many new terrorist attacks have occurred in EU countries since the immigration crisis began, it is not hard to see why citizens of these countries are rallying behind leaders like Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Marine Le Pen. But what is the impact of all this on international collaboration to prevent terrorist attacks? Insularity can lead to isolation and a breakdown of communication—and that can count as a victory for terrorism.

At the same time, the EU has an open borders policy that allows free movement of people throughout Europe. This is another challenge for the US in terms of curbing and containing terror cells. At the same time, it is understandable that nations would want to exercise sovereignty and the right to close their own borders, especially if there is a biological weapon used to destroy populations and economies, similar to what is happening currently with COVID-19. The infection rate and death toll from COVID-19 continues to rise, and that means tourism is falling sharply, and national economies are going to be hurt. How is this going to impact the stability and strength of the EU, which is already wounded economically as a result of an approaching recession in Germany?

The health and safety risks that the spread of a highly infectious disease or biological weapon pose can be a very good reason for countries to close their borders and monitor more control over who comes in and who goes out. But the EU is now reaping what it has sown in terms of promoting a kind of utopian collectivism in which the diverse states of Europe are meant to feel that they are all in it together—even though historically speaking the various cultures and kingdoms of Europe have rarely ever really gotten along for a significant period of time. Thus, it is important for the right policies to be put in place and that right leaders to make the right decisions. The various protesting nations of Europe are now showing that this is what the people want. There is too great a sense of self-interest, too great a need for self-preservation, and too much pride in their own national characters and cultures to allow an experiment like what transpired in Russia in 1917 to happen to all of EU. A biological weapons attack or the COVID-19 virus is just one more practical reminder of why it is not a good idea for sovereign states to submit themselves to a central authority that has an open borders policy. Having a government like the EU comes across as a serious impediment in the face of a pandemic like COVID-19. It represents the kind of bureaucratic response to an emergency that autonomous nations are happy they can do without.

Juggling all these issues and concerns would make the problem of international collaboration extremely complicated and difficult, which is why diplomacy and the application of an appropriate theoretical framework with an ethical system included is needed. The approaches of Taylor and Follett can supply appropriate theoretical perspectives. Their contribution will now be discussed and the importance of ethics follows.

The Approaches of Taylor and Follett

The theory of Frederick Taylor was that administrations could and should be run like a bureaucratic machine, using the scientific method to discern the most efficient processes for all activities. Mary Follett’s theory was integrative and was based on the idea that administrations exist to increase coordination and collaboration among workers (Phelps, Parayitam & Olson, 2007).

Pros

The pros of Taylor’s theory are:

1. It focuses on using facts and data analysis to create streamlined and efficient processes.

2. It emphasizes waste reduction and thus can improve performance.

3. It reduces the risk of human error by standardizing processes based on analytics.

All three of these points can help in the administration of a collaborative approach to the two-pronged preventive strategy towards WMD proliferation and response. Data analysis can indicate where the threats are and what methods are best for mitigating them. It would also indicate what the most viable paths to responding to an attack would be.

Waste reduction to improve performance would be an especially helpful framework for consolidating the work of multiple agencies and departments within the US’s intelligence and emergency response communities. There are a great number of these as the research shows (Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1999).

Addressing the issue of human error is also another aspect that this theoretical approach handles well, because it removes the decision making from individuals who could be prone to making decisions based on personality rather than evidence, data or analysis. Personalities are a major factor in terms of being a challenge to prevention, as the research shows (Lang, 1937). That Taylor’s theory addresses this particular challenge should be viewed as a definite positive

The pros of Follett’s theory are:

1. It promotes a positive workplace culture through communication.

2. It emphasizes the importance of leadership and self-actualization.

3. It can foster a more motivated, committed, and invested workplace where people want to work because they can apply their problem-solving skills.

Follett’s theory is helpful because it focuses on the human aspect of administrating to solve a problem. When people come together, dynamic solutions can be developed thanks to the creative power of ingenuity, motivating forces, and the drive to succeed. The theory emphasizes the important role that communication plays, which is something that could help interdepartmentally among the intelligence and emergency response agencies. It also focuses on the role that leadership and self-actualization play and how they can both impact an outcome, as was seen nationally during the response to Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. The theory also shows that when the human dimension is emphasized it can lead to positive outcomes in terms of problem-solving and getting everyone involved as a team.

Cons

The cons of Taylor’s theory:

1. It reduces human involvement and risks decreasing human investment in administration and increasing disconnectedness (Nesbit et al., 2014).

2. It places too much emphasis on data analysis and risks marginalizing the human capacity for intuition and judgment.

3. It takes decision-making out of the hands of decision-makers, which can hurt morale.

Taylor’s theory is not without its drawbacks, as these points make clear. The fact that it emphasizes a disconnection between human decision making and processing can reduce human motivation in the workplace and decrease the amount of collaboration, communication, and innovative problem solving that helps organizations address complex issues like preventing WMDs and responding to WMD attacks.

It also is a data-dependent theory and in the field of prevention, sometimes data is ambiguous and misleading because of counter-intelligence elements. This can make a data-heavy approach somewhat difficult to implement—especially when information is either hard to come by or constantly shifting.

The cons of Follett’s theory are:

1. It relies on strong leadership and requires workers to have good communication skills.

2. It is not as scientifically disposed as the Taylor approach and lacks a consistent analytical framework.

3. The method for success is highly dependent upon personalities.

These drawbacks indicate that

Impact

Three ways Taylor’s theory can directly impact the administration of agencies and the international effort to prevent WMDs are: 1) it creates a verifiable framework that administrators can use to focus on efficiency; 2) it standardizes processes, which is especially helpful at both levels of intervention; however, 3) it also de-emphasizes critical thinking, which can create a dull administration and lead to a disconnect between leaders and employees, agents and the real world. Three ways Follett’s theory can directly impact the administration of these agencies and organizations are: 1) it can be used to attract talent to the administration because people recognize their own skills and want to work in a place where they can use rather than in an environment that is based on the idea that people are flawed and not to be trusted; 2) it promotes an environment of communication and coordination, which is helpful at both levels; and 3) it empowers leaders and gives them the opportunity to engage in more meaningful decision-making (Guy, Newman & Mastracci, 2010).

Ethical Considerations

Ethics in government agencies, including law enforcement, intelligence and emergency response, are essential to prevent behaviors from going unchecked and bad reputations from being developed. Ethics in intelligence agencies, for instance, can provide guidelines, identify values that should be promoted, and dictate what sort of actions, behaviors and attitudes agents should demonstrate. The Law Enforcement Oath of Office, for example, focuses on protecting, upholding and defending the Constitution of the US. It also contains language regarding how officers should conduct themselves: soberly, honorably and honestly. This type of ethical framework is essential for communicating the values that need to be upheld in order for a program of prevention to be implemented both domestically and internationally.

Law enforcement agencies tend to codify the ethics they want their officers to follower. The reason for this is that they want their officers to engage in ethical decision making, which means making the right decision morally. Intelligence agencies should have the same approaches in place. Sometimes officers can have an unconscious or implicit bias and this can affect their decision making (Hehman, Flake & Calanchini, 2018). Having a code of ethics in place helps agents to remember to base their decisions on the ethical code’s guidance. That way they are not basing decisions on any potential implicit bias they may have. This can be especially helpful for interdepartmental coordination and collaboration as well as international cooperation efforts.

In order for the ethical code to be implemented effectively, agents need to engage in critical thinking. This means they have to ask themselves a series of questions when making decisions regarding the justness of the actions under consideration. They must ask if the action would be legal, whether it will result in a good end, whether it will be practical—i.e., have utility; whether there might be a better option that would result in a greater good; whether the action might contradict or undermine another principle; whether the action might violate any ethical principle even if it does bring about some good; and whether one would be able to justify with reason the action if necessary before the public. This all goes into helping to create a cohesive response to the urgency of the situation without undermining the efforts of others or creating a situation where the harm of a few is acceptable.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The administrative principles of Taylor and Follett could be applied among the agencies in the US tasked with WMD prevention so as to bolster interdepartmental coordination and collaboration. The reduction of waste and overlap should be a key focus and the development of a more streamlined approach to the management of these agencies is certainly called for given the evidence indicating excessive bureaucratic waste of resources.

Combining the two theoretical approaches of Taylor and Follett might seem at first counterintuitive but they can be complementary if combined in the right way. Having a data analysis department would help to provide another input into the human decision makers who drive the coordinated effort overall.