Chabahar Port- A joint Iran- India Initiative to Outsmart Gwadar

By Tariq Niaz

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Iran in late May and signed a series of twelve memorandums of understanding (MOU) which centered upon the Iranian Port of Chabahar. In addition to bilateral MOUs, PM Modi also signed a trilateral transit agreement with Iran and Afghanistan which allows Indian goods to reach Afghanistan through Iran. The expanding Indian economic cooperation with Iran reflect on its changing foreign policy initiatives in the fast evolving geopolitics of the region and its response to much hyped China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and development of Gwadar Port in Baluchistan. 

Pakistan Seeks Iranian Help to Stop RAW's Ingress in Baluchistan

BY News Desk

ISLAMABAD: According to ISRP (media wing of Pakistan military), the involvement of India’s top spy agency in Balochistan was discussed in a meeting between Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif and Iranian President Hassan Rowhani.

Lt. Gen. Asim Bajwa tweeted following messages after the meeting.

ANALYSIS: Gen Raheel and Saudi Led Islamic Military Alliance

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Pakistan media is buzzed with the news that Gen. Raheel Shareef, COAS Pakistan Army, has been asked by the Saudi led 34 countries alliance to become its commander in-chief after his retirement which is due November later this year. Source of information according to Daily The News International is "US military and political sources."

Has World Just Avoided Yet Another Middle Eastern War?

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Security situation all over the world is nothing short of chaotic and patience on all matters related to national security now a days often fizzle out very quickly particularly when it involves states like Iran and the US. Both these nations have a historic luggage of bitter bilateral relations on many issues. Though the situation improved considerably after Iran reached an agreement with 5+1 nations on its nuclear program but like it has been said earlier, it is not easy to react to any aggressive posturing with patience with a history of bitterness.

Iran's Desire to Join CPEC, A Big Dent in Indian Foreign Policy

“Pakistan has invited Iran to become part of the CPEC and help strengthen border markets, upgrade railways, build warehouses and open/upgrade border crossing points,” sources of the Ministry of Commerce revealed to Pakistani media.

It is notice worthy that two countries are already in process to chart out a long term strategic plan to enhance bilateral trade. Pak-Iran Joint Working Group and Technical Committee on Trade is contemplating this plan. The prospects for progress on this plan has been further increased as Iran has entered a landmark deal with world powers on her nuclear program which in turn has paved the way of lifting the sanctions against Iran.

Last meeting of Pak-Iran Joint Working group was held in August where they agreed on the need of implementing the bilateral Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA), including promotion of transparency and establishment of a mechanism that issues prior notification.

Pakistan has stressed the need of establishing regular freight train service between Zahedan (Iran) and Quetta (Pakistan). Some progress has been made in this regard as well during the latest meeting but the frequency of operations of this freight train will have to be increased and Iranian inclusion in CPEC would contribute chiefly in achieving that. This will also make these freight operations more economical by introducing concessionary fares as has been proposed by Pakistan already.

“The Iranian delegation will convey all proposals and suggestions to the authorities concerned in their country and inform about the decisions later,” said the official in the Ministry of Commerce.

According to the official, Iran has also shown interest in linking itself with the CPEC to expand its border markets with regional countries.

Implications for Indian Foreign Policy in Iran:

Now this is a big dent to Indian efforts to isolate Pakistan in the region. Iran is approaching China for assistance and cooperation along with seeking some Chinese investment in Iranian infrastructure. Earlier, on 2 Sep. it was reported that Iran has agreed to becoming part of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). In fact, under the present geopolitical milieu, both Iran and China can work together. China can give investment and economic boost to Iran while Iran can provide access to Turkey and Europe by acting as land bridge. In this scheme, Pakistan will serve as pivot. It is high time for New Delhi to revise its strategy against Pakistan otherwise there are all the indications that it will be India who will remain isolated in Chinese driven Asian integration via infrastructure development!

Iran: Upping the ante in Iraq against ISIS

Reportedly, Iran has deployed its Fajr-5 artillery rockets, Fateh-110 missiles, and their launchers in Tikrit to fight against ISIS. This move is part of Iran’s escalation in Middle East chaos. Question remains, Is there any actual threat to Iran from ISIS or this decision is based only on geopolitical needs of Iran for which she needs the US help i.e. Nuclear talks, relaxation in oil export sanctions, etc. It seems that this Iranian decision is being derived by Tehran’s political reasons.

It is notice worthy fact that in Iraq and Syria, only Iranian militias and troops keep fighting against ISIS while the US keep supplying weapons to ISIS as Iraqi troops continue to surrender without fighting giving up their weapon stockpiles to ISIS? i.e. as it took place in Falujia and Ramadi.

Though the Americans are showing great concern over Iran’s intervention in Iraq no step has been taken so far to prevent Iran from escalating the situation in Iraq. It seems that certain forces are actually encouraging Tehran to escalate the crisis and be part of it.

In this regard NY Times story titled ‘’Iran Sent Arms to Iraq to Fight ISIS, U.S. Says’’, published on 16th March, contains Gen Martin E Dempsey ‘s statement of Marach 3rd which he gave while appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “This is the most overt conduct of Iranian support, in the form of artillery and other things.”, he alluded to the deployment of the rockets and missiles.

Tehran is very confident so far about its geo-strategy in the region it is evident that Iran would never able to sustain a prolonged high intensity conflict in Iraq, Syria and possibly in Yemen. This move by Tehran would only intensify and complicate the chaos in Middle East further. It could easily lead to an outright sectarian war.

So, is Iran falling into trap set for it in Iraq? How Iran will be able to terminate the war that she is going to intensify and amplify? What would be the sectarian implications of growing interference of Iran in Iraq?

By looking at the US strategy to “fight” ISIS it is evident that after arming various armed gangs in Middle East including ISIS, now Iran has been lured in this chaos.

Apart from these concerns, there is a strong possibility of spill over of this war inside Iran. It is known fact that CIA has used organizations like Jindullah against Iran from Pakistan in the past!

Heavier munitions for Israeli air force, But what is the target?

According to IHS Janes,  The US State Department has approved the sale to Israel of over 20,000 guided bomb kits and 8,650 associated warheads, including additional 5,000 lb 'bunker busters', the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) announced on 19 May

.

Reportedly, the Israeli air force would also get 250 AIM-120C Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs) and 3,000 AGM-114K/R Hellfire missiles. Total cost of the deal is USD1.9 billion.

The details of this deal is rather interesting. Though the deal also includes 4,100 GBU-39 Small Diameter Bombs (SDB), which is a 250 lb-class GPS-guided weapon with flip-out wings to increase its range. But it is the numbers of heavier air launched munitions which made this entire deal very intriguing. According to DSCA notification, Israeli Air Force would get 10,000 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) GPS guidance kits for 2,000 lb (907 kg) MK 84 general purpose bombs, 500 JDAM kits for 1,000 lb MK 83 bombs, and 4,000 JDAM kits for 500 lb MK 82 bombs.

The most interesting item in this Israeli wishlist is a request for 500 DSU-38A/B kits that can be used to upgrade JDAMs so they can be guided to their target using a laser designator as well as GPS, making them more flexible and accurate weapons that can be used against moving targets if needed.

The notification listed 1,500 Paveway laser guidance kits for MK 83s and another 500 for 2,000 lb BLU-109 penetrator warheads, which are used against bunkers.

In terms of warheads, the notification said Israel had requested 4,500 MK 83s and 3,500 MK 82s, but no additional MK-84s or BLU-109s.

And most notably, Israel has requested 50 BLU-113 warheads. The BLU-113 is a 5,000 lb penetrator used with the GBU-28 laser-guided bomb that is designed to destroy deeply buried and heavily fortified targets.

ANALYSIS:

Every weapon acquisition is done after carefully analyzing the potential target of new weapons. By looking at the elements of this deal, it would be prudent to assume that Israeli air force's plans to bomb Iranian nuclear infrastructure has been moved in advanced stage. The request for DSU-38 A/B kits and BLU-113 warheads is particularly important in this regard. In 1982, Israeli air force destroyed an under construction  Iraqi nuclear reactor, near Baghdad, using laser guided bombs and new deal also include large number of 2000 and 5000 pounds laser guided weapons.  

Such an acquisitions by Israel explains why despite a very stressed economy, Iran acquired, S-300 SAM system from Russia.

This deal also raise many questions about the future of the Obama's Middle East policy which excludes any military option against Iran's nuclear facility and is looking forward to resolve the issue related to Iran's nuclear program through negotiations. A deal in this regard is expected next month. Israeli opposition to this US strategy is not a secret and this current deal items also indicates that strategic thinking of Tel Aviv. 

Putting Iran's Framework Deal in Context

Shahzad Masood Roomi


Finally, after months of negotiations between Iran and P5+1 countries, an agreement has been reached on Tehran's nuclear program and its future. The deal has been praised by every state as it will pave the way for Iran to end its isolation in international community and on the other hand, Iran's nuclear program will come under IAEA inspection. Under the deal, Iran will also reduce its uranium enrichment capacity for a time period of 10-15 years in exchange for phased sanctions relief. After the deal both parties would work for drafting the final agreement which is to be finalized by 30 June.

Iran has agreed to redesign of its heavy water plant at Arak (IR-40) as well so that it cannot produce weapon grade plutonium. The number of centrifuges installed will be reduced by two third and its stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be reduced as well.

ANALYSIS:

Strategically speaking, the framework deal between Iran and P5+1 is a big win for Iran in its long term implications and a defeat for Israel (if you are not getting me, please recall the address of Israeli PM to US congress in which he was telling the US to back off). In order to understand the broader contours of final deal (which BTW is NOT signed yet, only parameters of the framework have been agreed upon on which the final deal would be signed) in its correct context it must remain clear that as long as Iran is able to preserve its uranium enrichment right as signatory of NPT, it will be a win for Tehran and this is exactly what Iran has successfully managed to achieve in interim deal (signed in 2014) and in this 'framework' deal.

Next, this deal makes it clear that Iran is not going to rollback its nuclear program but has agreed to put it in low gear for a time span of 10-15 years. Now if someone is anxious about the aspect of this deal which is going to impede bomb making capability of Tehran, please keep in mind, Iran never intended to make a  bomb in the first place. (Fatwa given by their spiritual leader in this regard) ... But even if they want to build a bomb, it is clear that maximum this deal can do in this regard is to stall the enrichment capability for a decade (means this is not a roll back but slow down in their nuclear program) which is No time in any nation's age. Iran has successfully secured their entire nuclear program and phased off the sanctions which for years have affected Iran adversely. Inflation is sky high there due to very limited exports. But now, Iran will be able to export their oil and gas.

This agreement is a good news for Pakistan as well as international sanctions on Iran will be lifted allowing Pakistan and Iran to pursue Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. All the world monitory institutions would agree to extend the credit facility.

Lastly, it must be clear that 2016 is election year in the US, and after Yemen which President Obama declared his success story in war on terror is in complete chaos, Democrats would need one major global issue which they can sell to US public as success story during those elections. Who much this work, only time will tell. But for now, the world has reached on an agreement without going to war over it is a big achievement in itself.

Pakistan's Policy Option on Yemen Conflict

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Since last two days, Pakistan has been engulfed in a hotted debate on weather it should accept the Saudi Arabian request of sending its troops to protect the Kingdom. So far, Pakistani government hasn't replied to this request and the matter is being examined as per foreign office spokesperson's remarks.

Pakistan must take a clear stance and adopt a out of box strategy in Yemen crisis. So far, the government is sending only ambiguous messages. The large part of media is reporting that the decision of sending troops to Saudi Arabia has been made already but the Defense Minister is negating these reports by issuing statement which are being perceived very differently in media circles.

“Pakistan will stand by Saudi Arabia by all means if the kingdom’s territorial sovereignty is in danger.”, Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said.

Pakistan simply cannot afford to become a party in this conflict as Pakistan has close ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia and any strategic miscalculation in this conflict can open a Pandora's Box with long term security implications for Pakistan especially on internal front.

But question is, can Pakistan remain isolated in this scenario and play neutral? Unfortunately, the answer is No because Pakistan is already part of this conflict on internal and media front. So Pakistan will have to play a role. Now question is; How?

The best course Pakistan can take is to engage Riyadh and Tehran aggressively to pacify the underlying larger historic conflict between the two. Yemen is just another manifestation of this old duel between Shia Iran and Salafi Saudi Arabia. Though there are other political and social factors are also involved but at its core this is emergence of hibernating sidewinder of sectarianism which is poisoning Muslim societies all over the world. The rise of Iraq's Sunni insurgency which was hijacked by Khawarij were also an outcome of this sectarian war.

Muslims all over the world are very emotional about the security of sacred places in Makkah and Madina. Pakistani nation is no exception in this regard. But the policies of Riyadh, just like Tehran, has compounded the situation in Middle East to such an extent that Muslims all over the world are being affected.

Pakistan's best policy option is to deploy its diplomatic prowess in this conflict including media and military diplomacy with only point agenda to make it clear that who is actually benefiting from this war and whose interests are being served. The real beneficiaries of this war are the Zionist forces of Israel who are looking to expand their political influence in the region.

Middle East, Geopolitics and the US-Israel Relations

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

It is obvious that President Obama wants to keep the Iranian nuclear program in check through international monitoring by IAEA and multilateral agreements with Tehran (with 5+1 group) whereas Israeli PM is seeking a direct approach from the US to address the 'problem' like US did take on Iraq during the Bush era over WMDs. But the aftermath of second and protracted Gulf-war has forced the US to avoid any new high intensity clash in the region. Israelis will always analyze the regional geopolitics from their security point of view whereas the White House is to bound to contemplate every possible global and regional contingency as a potential outcome of the US policy decisions. This difference in approach is once again visible over Iranian nuclear program. Both allies have wide difference of opinion and strategy.

But during the Netanyahu's regime, this difference of strategy and opinion is not limited to Iran, there are host of other issues where both the countries differ sharply on strategy. Now even Israeli support lobbying groups want cancellation of a planned speech in the US congress by Israeli PM. The speech will be made in the first week of March when Israeli Prime Minster would be visiting the US. The US based Israeli policy experts and lobbyists consider the planned speech of Israel premier as 'disrespect to the US president' and are demanding a cancellation.

“The only thing that Netanyahu should have done was to create a strong, intimate, holy alliance with the person who actually decides, the US president. But Netanyahu has both failed to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear and has also destroyed the alliance with America. Not a bad output for a term and a half”, wrote Ben Caspit, a commentator, in Ma’ariv, a newspaper while terming the US-Israel relationship “more important than Dimona”, pointing towards Israel’s unannounced nuclear capabilities.

Evidently, the complexities of Middle Eastern geopolitics are changing the strategic mindset both in Washington and Jerusalem. The US has suffered more in political and economic sense as result of two long wars after 9/11 whereas Israel as emerged stronger and more aggressive in the region after chaos in Iraq and Syria. After recent incident of burning a Jordanian pilot alive in Syria and Jordanian reaction over the incident, Israel finds the environment conducive to adopt a more aggressive approach in Syria against Iran and Hezbollah while the US understands that if Iran also becomes a war zone the battlefield for their forces will stretch from Hindukush in Afghanistan to Western border of Iraq with a possibility of it further expanding till Syrian coast of Latakia and this is something the US would always like to avoid due to obvious unbearable economic and political cost of such a war.

Irrespective to what we see in mainstream media about US-Israel strategic alliance, the latest developments in these bilateral relations show that diplomacy and geopolitics are extremely delicate statecraft and things are not the same as they meet the eye. But considering history of US-Israel relations, this would not be the first time when both have difference over Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Though this acute ebb in bilateral ties is nothing new. Various contentious issues in the region affected the ties but this time there are many factors of regional politics which are not being fully controlled by either of these countries and this is why the US is insisting upon more cautious approach while the Israelis remain stubborn like always. In 1970s, Israeli policies forced the US administration of that time to put the bilateral relations in reassess and halted the military support as well. 
Now when Syrian government has offered negotiations to Israel and a debate is going on within Israeli government, it would be interesting to see what Israeli prim minster has to say to the US Congress on his upcoming visit. And even more intriguing would be the reaction by Obama administration. 

Snapshot of Interim Deal Signed between Iran and the US

Is a new war in making in Middle East over Iranian nuclear program?

The deadline, given by the US, for conclusion of talks over Tehran's nuclear program has passed. Though it is expected that this deadline would be extended. Many around the world wonder why after signing an interim deal, which was suppose to provide the basis for this final deal, things have become so tense between the two camps. The extract from Daily Telegraph's report answers this question.

"When John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, secured an interim agreement in Geneva last November, his only aim was to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Now Mr Kerry is no longer interested in freezing Iran’s progress; he is after “rollback”. Put bluntly, he wants Iran to start dismantling key elements of its nuclear programme, particularly its capacity to enrich uranium."

This is a clear negation of interim deal and also answers our main question about the potential threat of another war in Middle East. It seems that 5+1 states have changed their stance from what they agreed in interim deal earlier this year and Iran has left with no choice but to take a strong stance. These developments not only have stalled the progress in talks but has brought the region on the blink of another conflict.

Editor's Note:

There was no mention of rolling back Iran’s nuclear program at the time when this interim deal was signed earlier this year. 5+1 nations agreed and accepted Iranian right to continue Uranium enrichment activities for civilian usage. The focus was on keeping Iranian Uranium enrichment below the level of weapon grade. But now, in November 2014, it looks like the US wants a complete rollback of Iranian program and this has become a new bone of contention between both parties. This snapshot of interim deal –highlighting the important points agreed by both sides at that time –reveal the present change of stance by 5+1 nations. This new demand of complete rollback of Iranian nuclear program can derail the entire negotiations.  

The snapshot PDF can be accessed from link given below:

Afghan Power Sharing Deal: Would it work?

Shahzad Masood Roomi

A power sharing deal between rival Afghan presidential candidates finally reached after months of tension. Timing of this deal is indeed intriguing as coalition prepares to withdraw. But an even more intriguing aspect of this entire political drama is the secrecy about how this deal was reached and under what conditions. It is worth remembering that earlier both sides had accused each other of fraud during the political standoff. But now suddenly, aides from both sides have confirmed the signing of the deal. 

The "Kings" and Kingmaker!

Irrespective of the fact, how and under what conditions this deal was reached. The real question every political analyst must ask is, Will it work? and if yes then how long this deal would last? Unfortunately, the content of the deal made available in public domain and the political history of Afghanistan both indicate that this deal would be nothing more than a temporary arrangement to bring some kind of political stability so that US can sell this to masses back home as their success in this protracted war before they leave the country by the end of this year.

The twitchy history of political harmony further endorses this assessment. In 1993, when Afghanistan was plunged in a bloody civil war, a similar power sharing deal was signed. It was called Islamabad Accord. In that accord, power was shared between more than 10 varying factions including Mohammad Yunus Khalis' breakaway faction of the Hezb-i-Islami, which has boycotted all past agreements. Afghanistan's minority Shi`ites, allies of Hekmatyar who have been demanding greater representation, were given the finance and health ministries. Major protagonists in that political episode were Tajik Ahmed Shah Masood and Pushtun Hekmatyar. 
 
Earlier that year, a peace deal was reached when after a year of shelling Hekmatyar's forces captured Defense Minister Masood's ministry building in Kabul. Hekmatyar is designated prime minister and a cease-fire is to be imposed. This peace deal, though, fulfilled the political ambitions of Hekmatyar to become Afghan Prime Minister but it never brought any peace in Afghanistan. The peace deal was brokered by foreign states (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran) and was not a native solution reached by varying Afghan factions themselves. Removal of Ahmed Shah Masood from defense ministry also didn’t help. The deal was ended just after two days when, as per archives of Library of Congress, Hekmatyar's allies of Hezb-e Wahdat again began rocketing areas in Kabul. Both the Wahhabi Pashtun Ittehad-i Islami of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf backed by Saudi Arabia and the Shia Hazara Hezb-e Wahdat supported by Iran remained involved in heavy fighting against each other. The envisioned peace could never be achieved as the peace accord miserably failed to address the far deeper fault lines of tribal society like ethnic, linguistic, tribal rifts.

But the failure of 1993 Afghan peace accord is not without precedent. A more recent example of similar political failure can be seen in Iraq, where the US invasion created an environment of frenzied sectarian strife fueled by both Saudi Arabia and Iran. And these history of failed peace making adopting non-inclusive approaches and ignoring the social realities are the reason behind the caveats for this recent power share deal signed between Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani. Evidently, the country is heading towards a similar political log jam witnessed in 1990s.

Apart from its inability to address these existing ethnic, sectarian and tribal fault lines this new deal have its intrinsic vulnerabilities as well. The provision of creating a new administrative position called Chief Executive Officer (CEO), which will be held by Abdullah Abdullah or one of his nominee, is going to create serious constitutional crisis in Afghanistan as it is certainly not clear at this point in time that how administrative powers would be balanced between these two power centers.  With this political delicacy, new Afghan government would also have to face the threats from Taliban insurgency. These concerns are being raised from within Afghan intelligentsia as well. "There will be two powers in the government, and it will be very difficult for them to work together," said Sediq Mansoor Ansari, an analyst and director of the Civil Societies Federation to AFP.

Furthermore, this power sharing deal would put a big question mark on Afghan democracy. People would have no idea about what happened to their votes. In short term, this may not seems to be an issue at all but it would cause dearly to Afghan state’s cohesion in coming months. 

Despite years of fighting Taliban remain defiant

It remains an unfortunate aspect of Afghan history that the country has been in perpetual state of war since last 40 years and there is no end in sight even now. A fragile country, with so many social fault lines, would remain vulnerable to political edginess if foreign players keep meddling into Afghan political affairs particularly Iran, India, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. US desperation for a political settlement is quite fathomable. As far as the American role in making both parties to reach this deal is concerned, by the initial American reaction it would be prudent to think that this deal has blessings from Washington. Americans wants to sign BSA (Bilateral Security Agreement) before draw down of the US/NATO forces completes by end of this year. This agreement, if signed, would enable the US military to stay in Afghanistan for minimum 10 years. Americans still believe that they can eliminate offcuts of Afghan resistance. Keeping the Afghan security profile of last 13 years, it would be prudent to assume that this idea wouldn’t work either. But it certainly would put the Americans into a position to protect the Afghan government. For now, the future of this power sharing deals hangs with just a reedy fiber of hope and optimism.  

Violations of International Law in Confronting the Production, Storage and Use of Nuclear Weapons

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Abstract: 

“In a complex geostrategic global environment issues like nuclear non-proliferation and enforcement of multiple international nuclear laws and treaties becomes even more critically important.  Nations faced with serious security challenges consider nuclear weapons an ultimate deterrence against their superior adversaries in conventional weapons. This security driven global political construct have compounded the issue of nuclear proliferation even more.

From a moral standpoint, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation and control regimes seems like a straight forward global obligation but today’s complex geopolitical realities are being dictated by the strategic goals of major power players in the world. Getting into the brass-tacks of historical perspective of nuclear proliferation in context of grand geo-strategy of major political forces in the world explains why the issue of nuclear proliferation is still endangering the global peace and why have we not been able to make the world a place without nuclear weapons despite adopting various control regimes. It is noteworthy fact that all members of P-5 club (US, UK, USSR, China and France) became nuclear states through proliferation in one form or other. This also explains why many of the nuclear control treaties have not been rectified by these major political players.   

So far, nuclear control regimes have failed to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and keeping the evolving strategic developments in Middle East, Asia Pacific and South Asia in mind, it seems that this trend would continue as long as these issues would be used not for their indenting purposes but to achieve some vested interests of international power brokers.

This paper examines how on one hand the campaign of nuclear non-proliferation was used by various nuclear states as a policy tool to further their own political and strategic agendas while on the other hand they proliferate or facilitate the proliferation of nuclear weapons to their allies (Israel, India) in order to secure their long term strategic goals. In this backdrop, the paper also examines the loopholes in existing nuclear control regimes and how these are being exploited. In the end, paper purposes various suggestions on regional, multilateral and international levels to make the world more secure place by making the existing control regimes more transparent and effective.”

Read Complete Paper at following link:

https://www.academia.edu/7658504/Violations_of_International_Law_in_Confronting_the_Production_Storage_and_Use_of_Nuclear_Weapons