Dartmouth Model United Nations April 5 - 7, 2019

DISEC

2

Dartmouth Model United Nations Conference

14th Annual Conference – April 5 – 7, 2019 Dartmouth College – Rockefeller Center – Hanover, NH 03755

E-mail: dartmun@dartmouth.edu - http://sites.dartmouth.edu/modelun

December 5, 2018 Dear Delegates: On behalf of the entire Dartmouth Model United Nations staff, I would like to welcome and thank you for registering for the fourteenth annual Dartmouth Model United Nations conference this April 2019. We have been working relentlessly since the end of last year’s conference to provide a better and more worthwhile Model U.N. experience for this spring’s delegates. DartMUN is a unique conference. We pair world-class delegations and dais staff members in smaller, more-interactive environments to facilitate an enriching experience for delegates of all skill levels. We believe DartMUN’s active, small committees ensure delegates feel comfortable immersing themselves in a competitive but supportive environment that encourages trial by error and participation. Furthermore, DartMUN’s well-trained staff is excited to work with your delegates this winter in committee to equip the next generation of college students with the skills to tackle complex global problems. This being said, Model United Nations is only meaningful when delegates are thoroughly prepared. To aid in your research preparation, your committee staff has spent hours researching, writing, and editing this Background Guide. The Background Guide serves as an introduction to your respective committee and an overview of the topics that you will be debating over the course of the conference. The Background Guide is intended to be a starting point for your research and is not, in itself, an adequate exposure to the complexities of your committee’s topics. To be prepared, each delegate should do further research and focus on processing information through the lens of their respective country or position. If you are having trouble digesting all the information, the Background Guide contains relevant discussion questions that break down the topics. Also, as questions or ideas arise, do not be shy in contacting your committee staff via e-mail. Committee staff are knowledgeable and can help you better understand a particular topic or how your country fits into a larger international debate. More often than not, discussing the problem with another person can open up more paradigms and viewpoints that may guide you throughout the brainstorming process. As in years past, all delegates are expected to write a brief position paper before the conference to synthesize all of their preparatory research and analysis. Please see the position paper guidelines on the conference website for specific information about content, format, etc. Committee staff will collect position papers at the beginning of the first committee session on Friday evening. Bring a hard copy because delegates who do not submit position papers will not be eligible for awards. I look forward to meeting you this coming spring. Sincerely, Lauren Bishop Secretary-General DartMUN XIV

Lauren Bishop Secretary-General

Shelley Wang

Director-General

Mila Escadajillo Chief of Staff

Brandon Zhou Charge d’Affaires

Clayton Jacques

Undersecretary-General of General Assembly

Daniel Bring

Undersecretary-General of Special Committees

Nishanth Chalasani

Undersecretary-General of Current Crises

Samuel Zarkower

Undersecretary-General of Future and Historical Crises

Bill Kosmidis

Undersecretary-General of Ad-Hoc

Alec Rossi

Director of Finance and Public Relations

Bethany David

Director of Technology

Shawdi Mehrvarzan Deputy Chief of Staff

DartMUN is a student-run, non-profit, all volunteer organization sponsored by

the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy.

3

Dartmouth Model United Nations Conference

14th Annual Conference – April 5 – 7, 2019 Dartmouth College – Rockefeller Center – Hanover, NH 03755

E-mail: dartmun@dartmouth.edu - http://sites.dartmouth.edu/modelun Honorable Delegates, Welcome to the Disarmament and Security Committee (DISEC), the First Committee of the General Assembly at DartMUN XIV. We are thrilled to welcome you as delegates to our committee session. Our names are Garrick Allison and Ashwini Naranyan, and we will work as your co-chairs during the conference weekend. We are both first-year students at Dartmouth and first-time staffers at DartMUN, and we cannot wait to open debate and see the presentation of your countries’ positions and negotiation on the issues ensue. We will also be sure to have a fun weekend at the same time! DISEC will discuss two important topics at DartMUN XIV: demilitarization of the Arctic and the regulation of chemical weapons. We hope that delegates will read this background guide thoroughly and conduct their own independent research to write a cogent position paper and develop the position of their assigned countries. We look forward to seeing the work you do to take the material in this background guide to the next level of sophistication and diplomacy. While you prepare for the conference and during the conference weekend itself, we hope you keep in mind the goal of international cooperation in the mission of the United Nations. We can all acknowledge our differences of background and opinion while striving for a safer, more prosperous world together. All our best, Garrick Allison and Ashwini Naranyan Co-chairs, DISEC, DartMUN XIV

Lauren Bishop Secretary-General

Shelley Wang

Director-General

Mila Escadajillo Chief of Staff

Brandon Zhou Charge d’Affaires

Clayton Jacques

Undersecretary-General of General Assembly

Daniel Bring

Undersecretary-General of Special Committees

Nishanth Chalasani

Undersecretary-General of Current Crises

Samuel Zarkower

Undersecretary-General of Future and Historical Crises

Bill Kosmidis

Undersecretary-General of Ad-Hoc

Alec Rossi

Director of Finance and Public Relations

Bethany David

Director of Technology

Shawdi Mehrvarzan Deputy Chief of Staff

DartMUN is a student-run, non-profit, all volunteer organization sponsored by

the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

4

Topic A: Demilitarization of the Arctic

Introduction The Arctic is the region surrounding the

North Pole of the Earth. A unique region,

the Arctic contains the Arctic Ocean, a body

of salt water covered at least in part by sea

ice for some period of the year, and the

surrounding northernmost land of the North

American and Eurasian continents. No

nation has an internationally recognized

claim on the North Pole or the Arctic Ocean.

Geographers and climate scientists may use

different definitions for the boundaries of

the Arctic: the region above the Arctic

Circle at 66° 34’ N latitude, above the arctic

tree line, or above the latitude where the

average daily summer temperature does not

exceed 10 degrees Celsius; these are all

acceptable definitions.1

1 “What is the Arctic?” NSIDC,

nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/arctic.html.

2“ 90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Assessed in the Arctic”. USGS, 22 July 2008, www.usgs.gov/media/audio/90-billion-barrels-oil-and-1670-trillion-cubic-feet-natural-gas-assessed-arctic.

The Arctic contains valuable material

resources as well as new, shorter shipping

routes. In 2008, the United States Geological

Survey estimated that the region north of the

Arctic Circle contains 90 billion barrels of

undiscovered but possibly recoverable oil

and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of possibly

recoverable natural gas.2 The Arctic,

including Greenland, also contains deposits

of valuable minerals such as phosphate,

bauxite, diamonds, iron ore, and gold.3

Meanwhile, the Northern Sea Route would

reduce shipping distances between ports in

Asia and Europe by thousands of nautical

miles.4 Although the route should only serve

as a seasonal complement to more temperate

shipping lanes, its existence remains an

important alternative for maritime

commerce. Collectively, these resources

make the Arctic one of the most significant

underdeveloped economic regions in the

world.

3 Bourne, Joel K., Jr. “In the Arctic’s Cold Rush, There Are No Easy Profits”, National Geographic, March 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/03/new-arctic-thawing-rapidly-circle-work-oil.

4 Ibid.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

5

Considering the value of these shipping

lanes and deposits of minerals and

hydrocarbons, many nations around the

world, including superpowers, are vying to

gain control of it for economic and strategic

gain. The depletion of natural resources in

other, more accessible deposits has

increased the importance of the Arctic as a

potential source for energy and mineral

resources over the next few decades. For

most of the 20th century and earlier, only a

few countries, such as Canada, Iceland,

Russia, and the United States of America,

had the geographic proximity and military

presence to make territorial claims in the

area. However, in recent decades, melting

sea ice and advances in technology have

made the Arctic more accessible and

relevant to resource extraction, maritime

trade, and geopolitical strategy by a wider

range of nations, including China and

Scandinavian countries. Some nations have

positioned or threatened to position military

assets inside the Arctic. DISEC, as the First

Committee of the General Assembly at the

United Nations, is responsible for setting the

agenda and exploring potential solutions in

5Mackinder, Halford John. Democratic

Ideals and Reality, London, Constable and Company Ltd, 1919.

issues with ramifications for global security

and prosperity, which includes the

demilitarization of the Arctic.

Historical Analysis of

Demilitarization in the Arctic The advent of industrialization and

urbanization in the 19th and 20th centuries

created an insatiable global demand for raw

materials and new markets. Control of the

Arctic, either partial or complete, would

provide new trade routes and resource

sources to aid the economic growth of those

controlling nations. This reality renders the

Arctic especially important to developing

and developed countries competing to

maximize their stake in the world economy.

In 1919, the English geographer Halford

Mackinder wrote a book connecting control

of the Arctic region and the emergence of a

new maritime power. 5 His prescient analysis

incentivized countries to fund explorations

into the Arctic regions for the gain of

strategic control. This rush to the Arctic

prompted many explorers to risk their lives

establishing territorial claims for their

nations, from the expedition to the North

DISEC DartMUN XIV

6

Pole in 1909 by the American Robert Peary,

and his controversial success, to Roald

Amundsen’s indisputable arrival at the Pole

in 1926, by means of the Norwegian airship

Norge.

The current military tension in the Arctic

dates to the end of World War II, when the

USSR and United States emerged as the two

victor powers. The Arctic had special

geographic significance to both

superpowers, because it represented the

shortest direct path between the Eurasian

landmass and the American continent. While

this pathway was previously used for anti-

Axis communication during the war, it could

now become a region of strategic

importance in the Cold War. For example, in

the 1960s, the United States military

launched Project Iceworm, an initiative to

establish as many as 600 nuclear missiles

across 4000 kilometers of tunnels in

northern Greenland.6 From this location, the

United States could launch missiles directly

into Russian territory. The military did not

ultimately pursue the project, because of the

6 Henley, Jon. “Greenland’s receding icecap to

expose top-secret US nuclear project”, The Guardian, 27 Sept. 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/27/receding-icecap-top-secret-us-nuclear-

inherent instability of tunnels through ice,

but still established a strategic and scientific

base in Greenland for up to 200 soldiers at

Camp Century. The full extent of Camp

Century’s activities was kept secret even

from the Danish government, then in control

of Greenland. Later, in the 1980s, the Arctic

became a zone of militarization through the

placement of intercontinental ballistic

missiles (ICBMs), submarine launched

ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and other

strategic weapons that could be launched

successfully against North America, Europe,

and the USSR.

The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 did

not reduce the strategic importance of the

Arctic, and the Russian Federation has

continued a policy of exploration and

territorial claims in the region. In 2012,

Nikolay Pavlyuk, the head of the Moscow-

based think tank Institute of Expert

Assessments, suggested renaming the Arctic

Ocean to the Russian Ocean, in recognition

of Russia’s presence in the region.7 Russia is

also bolstering its military presence in the

project-greenland-camp-century-project-iceworm.

7 “Polarizing proposal: Bye-bye ‘Arctic’ Ocean, welcome ‘Russian’”. RT, 26 July 2012, https://www.rt.com/news/arctic-russian-ocean-resources-076/

DISEC DartMUN XIV

7

Arctic, creating new Arctic brigades,

establishing an Arctic Joint Strategic

Command, and restoring cold war-era

airports. The Arctic region remains one of

Russia’s main strategic priorities, as is clear

from the Arctic Strategy announced by

Vladimir Putin in 2008 and 2013.8

Examples of Conflict 1. Lomonosov Ridge dispute

The Lomonosov Ridge is a 1120-mile-long

underwater mountain range running down

the center of the Arctic. The dispute over

this formation started on December 20,

2001, when the Russian Federation laid

claim to it, under the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea

(UNCLOS) by proposing that it was an

extension of the Eurasian continent.9

However, Denmark has also claimed the

Lomonosov Ridge by the argument that it is

8 Hosa, Joanna. “Has Russia Already Won

the Scramble for the Arctic?” The Maritime Executive, 28 October 2018, www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/has-russia-already-won-the-scramble-for-the-arctic.

9 “Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 30 June 2009, www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_rus.htm.

10 “Arctic deal bans North Pole fishing”. BBC News, 16 July 2015,

an extension of the Greenland shelf; Canada

also asserts ownership over the Ridge as a

part of its continental shelf.10 The Arktika

2007 expedition in 2007 undertook a

dangerous diving mission to the North Pole

seabed where it planted the Russian flag on

the Lomonosov Ridge.11 The dispute over

the Lomonosov Ridge remains unresolved

as of 2015, when an arbitration panel of the

United Nations was evaluating the

competing claims to the formation.12

2. Bering-Strait Dispute

After the United States had purchased

Alaska from the Russian Empire, the

maritime restriction at the time was only 3

nautical miles from the coastline. 13 With the

introduction of the Exclusive Economic

Zone in the United Nations Convention on

the Law of the Sea from the 1980s onward,

the border issue became a problem because

neither party could produce the maps from

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33549606.

11“Russia plants flag under N Pole”. BBC News, 2 August 2007, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm.

12“Arctic deal bans North Pole fishing”. BBC News.

13 Kent, H. S. K. "The Historical Origins of the Three-Mile Limit", The American Journal of International Law, 48 (4), 1954, 537-53.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

8

the initial purchase from more than a

century ago. It was agreed that the boundary

was intended to be a straight line, but it was

unclear as to whether the map projection

was Mercator or conical.14 In an agreement

signed in June of 1990, the United States

and Russia agreed to split their territorial

claims and create several special areas

outside their official maritime zone, where

one nation or the other would not claim

jurisdiction.15 The United States Congress

quickly ratified this resolution, but the

Soviet Union failed to approve it before its

collapse in 1991. The Russian Federation

has not ratified it to this day, citing concerns

about boundary delineations and fishing

rights.

3. Beaufort Sea Dispute

The Beaufort Sea is a small body of water

north of Alaska and the Yukon territory.

Canada and the United States, two strong

allies, have disputed ownership of this sea

for centuries, most recently when the United

14 Konyshev, Valery, and Alexander Sergunin.

“Russia’s Policies on the Territorial Disputes in the Arctic.” Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, 2 (1), 2014, 2333-5874, jirfp.com/journals/jirfp/Vol_2_No_1_March_2014/4.pdf.

15 Ibid. 16 Griffiths, Sian. “US-Canada Arctic border

dispute key to maritime riches.” BBC News,

States attempted to place a moratorium on

fishing and oil and gas drilling in the sea.16

Although the status of the Beaufort Sea

remains under review, the United States and

Canada have agreed to negotiate peaceably

over the issue, perhaps providing a positive

model for other, more tense territorial

disputes.

Current Situation Military and Commercial Presence

In recent years, Russia has revealed four

new Arctic combat teams, 14 new

operational airfields, 16 deep-water ports,

and 40 icebreakers with an additional 11 in

development as a part of a new Arctic

command. 17 Icebreakers help to break sea

ice in the circumpolar north, hence making it

much more accessible, but have a burdening

cost on the state. China, an observer state on

the Arctic Council since 2013, has also

commenced the construction of the Polar

Silk Road - an initiative to build shipping

2 Aug. 2010, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-10834006.

17Gramer, Robbie. “Here’s What Russia’s Military Build-up in the Arctic Looks Like.” Foreign Policy, 25 Jan. 2017, foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/25/heres-what-russias-military-build-up-in-the-arctic-looks-like-trump-oil-military-high-north-infographic-map.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

9

lanes opened up by global warming.18

Finland, the United States and Canada have

also begun significant investments in the

infrastructure of their respective Arctic

zones.19 Norway's state energy company

Equinor (formerly Statoil) is considering

exploration and oil extraction in the Barents

Sea.20 The Trump administration announced

plans in January of 2018 to make much of

the United States outer continental shelf

accessible to offshore drilling, including

areas off the north shore of Alaska.21 All of

these commercial and strategic

developments will have a significant impact

on territorial disputes over the Arctic.

UNCLOS

The United Nations Convention on the Law

of The Sea defines the rights and

responsibilities of nations with respect to

their use of the world's oceans, establishing

guidelines for businesses, the environment,

and the management of marine natural

18“China unveils vision for ‘Polar Silk Road’

across Arctic”. CNBC, 26 Jan. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/china-unveils-vision-for-polar-silk-road-across-arctic.html.

19 Dillow, Clay. “Russia and China vie to beat the US in the trillion-dollar race to control the Arctic”. CNBC, 6 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/russia-and-china-battle-us-in-race-to-control-arctic.html.

resources, including mining, fishing, and oil

extraction.22 All members of the Arctic

Council except the United States have

ratified this convention. The United States

has expressed interest in signing the Law of

the Sea. The Senate Foreign Relations

Committee voted in favor of the convention

in 2004 and 2007, and the United States

government generally abides its provisions,

but no vote by the full Senate has taken

place.23

Arctic Council

The Arctic Council is a high-level

intergovernmental forum that addresses

issues faced by the Arctic governments and

the indigenous people of the Arctic. The

eight countries with recognized sovereignty

over lands within the Arctic Circle have

membership on the council: Canada,

Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia,

Sweden, and the United States.24 Because

20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 “Law of the Sea Convention”. U.S.

Department of State, www.state.gov/e/oes/lawofthesea.

23 Ibid. 24 “Member States”. Arctic Council, 10 Sept.

2015, https://arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/member-states

DISEC DartMUN XIV

10

the Arctic Council is strictly forbidden from

discussing militarization in the Arctic, it is

limited to discussing territorial disputes,

environmental protection, and the general

cooperation, coordination, and interactions

between the Arctic States.

Conclusions

Despite the lack of development and few

internationally recognized claims on

territory, the Arctic has become a region of

great strategic importance for commerce and

geopolitical disputes. DISEC will have to

resolve some of these territorial disputes, if

possible, negotiate commitments for

demilitarization from countries with a stake

in the Arctic, establish a framework for fair

use of the Arctic region for scientific and

commercial purposes, and conduct these

debates in an atmosphere of respect for other

issues of international importance, such as

anthropogenic climate change and the rights

of indigenous peoples. With care and

attention to the needs and desires of

individual countries, as well as the mission

of the United Nations, this session of the

committee could make a real difference in

the debate over the Arctic.

Questions to Consider 1. What claims, if any, does your country

make on territory in the Arctic? If your

country does not make any claims,

should you support the claims of any

other countries?

2. What international agreements are

relevant to the demilitarization of the

Arctic?

3. Considering the history of clandestine or

unilateral claims on the Arctic, how can

DISEC ensure compliance of United

Nations member states with the

demilitarization of the Arctic?

Sources Cited “Arctic deal bans North Pole fishing”. BBC

News, 16 July 2015,

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-

33549606.

“90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion

Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Assessed in

the Arctic”. USGS, 22 July 2008,

www.usgs.gov/media/audio/90-billion-

barrels-oil-and-1670-trillion-cubic-feet-

natural-gas-assessed-arctic.

Bourne, Joel K., Jr. “In the Arctic’s Cold

Rush, There Are No Easy Profits”,

National Geographic, March 2016,

DISEC DartMUN XIV

11

www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/

2016/03/new-arctic-thawing-rapidly-

circle-work-oil.

“China unveils vision for ‘Polar Silk Road’

across Arctic”. CNBC, 26 Jan. 2018,

www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/china-

unveils-vision-for-polar-silk-road-

across-arctic.html.

“Commission on the Limits of the

Continental Shelf”. Division for Ocean

Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 30 June

2009,

www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submiss

ions_files/submission_rus.htm.

Dillow, Clay. “Russia and China vie to beat

the US in the trillion-dollar race to

control the Arctic”. CNBC, 6 Feb. 2018,

www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/russia-and-

china-battle-us-in-race-to-control-

arctic.html.

Gramer, Robbie. “Here’s What Russia’s

Military Build-up in the Arctic Looks

Like.” Foreign Policy, 25 Jan. 2017,

foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/25/heres-

what-russias-military-build-up-in-the-

arctic-looks-like-trump-oil-military-

high-north-infographic-map.

Griffiths, Sian. “US-Canada Arctic border

dispute key to maritime riches.” BBC

News, 2 Aug. 2010,

www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-

10834006.

Henley, Jon. “Greenland’s receding icecap

to expose top-secret US nuclear project”,

The Guardian, 27 Sept. 2016,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/201

6/sep/27/receding-icecap-top-secret-us-

nuclear-project-greenland-camp-century-

project-iceworm.

Hosa, Joanna. “Has Russia Already Won the

Scramble for the Arctic?” The Maritime

Executive, 28 October 2018,

www.maritime-

executive.com/editorials/has-russia-

already-won-the-scramble-for-the-arctic.

Kent, H. S. K. "The Historical Origins of the

Three-Mile Limit", The American

Journal of International Law, 48 (4),

1954, 537-53.

Konyshev, Valery, and Alexander Sergunin.

“Russia’s Policies on the Territorial

Disputes in the Arctic.” Journal of

International Relations and Foreign

Policy, 2 (1), 2014, 2333-5874,

jirfp.com/journals/jirfp/Vol_2_No_1_M

arch_2014/4.pdf.

“Law of the Sea Convention”. U.S.

Department of State,

www.state.gov/e/oes/lawofthesea.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

12

Mackinder, Halford John. Democratic Ideals

and Reality, London, Constable and

Company Ltd, 1919.

“Member States”. Arctic Council, 10 Sept.

2015, https://arctic-

council.org/index.php/en/about-

us/member-states.

“Polarizing proposal: Bye-bye ‘Arctic’

Ocean, welcome ‘Russian’”. RT, 26 July

2012, https://www.rt.com/news/arctic-

russian-ocean-resources-076/

“Russia plants flag under N Pole”. BBC

News, 2 August 2007,

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm

.

“What is the Arctic?” NSIDC,

nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-

meteorology/arctic.html.

25 Anderson, Justin, and Amanda Moodle.

“Weapons of Mass Destruction -

Topic B: Regulation of

Chemical Weapons

Outline of the Problem Since the dawn of modern warfare, the triad

of “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” or

“WMDs” have posed a particularly poignant

threat to international safety and security.

First defined by the United Nations in 1948,

WMDs are characterized as “atomic

explosive weapons, radioactive material

weapons, lethal chemical and biological

weapons, and any weapons developed in the

future which have characteristics

comparable in destructive effect to those of

the atomic bomb or other weapons

mentioned above”25. All WMDs pose a dire

International Relations.” Oxford Bibliographies - International Relations,

DISEC DartMUN XIV

13

threat to international security, as they have

the unique capacity to annihilate great

swaths of land and populations of innocent

people without having to involve any other

military personnel. Chemical weapons pose

a particularly unique and dangerous threat,

and as such are the only weapon

classification in the WMD triad to be

completely outlawed (biological and

radiological weapons have yet to be outright

outlawed.) The world’s current international

protocol on chemical weapons is governed

by the Chemical Weapons Convention

(CWC) established in response to Iraq’s

usage of chemical weapons against its own

Kurdish population. The CWC calls for

signatory states to destroy all chemical

weapons and chemical weapons production

facilities as well as prevents nations from

producing, developing, stockpiling, and

transferring chemical weapons. The CWC

also calls for a verification/inspection

protocol to ensure compliance.26 Chemical

weapons are a pressing and dangerous issue

19 Sept. 2018, www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0221.xml.

26 “Chemical Weapons Primer.” Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, 2018, www.wisconsinproject.org/chemical-weapons.

that must be dealt with soon or countless

lives around the world could be in jeopardy.

DISEC must address the regulation of

chemical weapons to prevent their

unchecked proliferation and the destruction

they could cause.

Chemical Classifications27 Chemical weapons come in four primary

classifications: Choking, Blood, Blister, and

Nerve agents; and each present their own

dangers and difficulties in regulation.28

○ Choking Agents are among the

oldest chemical weapons and have

been in use since World War I.

Choking agents attack the central

respiratory system and cause death

by painful asphyxiation. Most

modern armies carry specialized

equipment to counter choking

agents.

○ Blood Agents starve the body of

oxygen in a different way than

choking agents; instead of attacking

27 “Types of Chemical Weapons .” Federation of American Scientists, 2013, fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/cwagents.html.

28 “Chemical Weapons Primer.” Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, 2018, www.wisconsinproject.org/chemical-weapons.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

14

the respiratory system, blood agents

destroy red blood cells and render

them incapable of successfully

carrying hemoglobin. Blood agents

can be more difficult to counter, they

are primarily absorbed into the body

by breathing and when inhaled,

cause death quickly.

○ Blister Agents are among some of

the most famous chemical weapons

and include mustard gas and lewisite.

When these chemicals come into

contact with exposed skin,

aggressive burns and blisters form

destroying the victims flesh. Blister

agents are usually spread via aerosol

or liquid droplets and are absorbed

through the skin. Rarely are blister

agents fatal yet, unlike choking and

blood agents, blister agents can

persist in the environment for days

and weeks after the attack is

executed.

○ Nerve Agents are the most

dangerous and deadly family of

chemical weapons and include sarin,

tabun, and VX among others. Nerve

agents react with enzymes in the

victim's body and ultimately

29 Ibid.

paralyze their central nervous system

leading to bodily function shut-down

and death. Since nerve agents are

rather complex, they are

comparatively more difficult and

expensive to produce, yet they

require far less volume to be lethal.

In discussing chemical weapons, it is also

important to discuss Chemical Precursors,

which are chemicals which by themselves

are not weapons but are necessary for the

production of chemical weapons.29 Many

developed nations now regulate and even

restrict the exportation of these key

precursors. A difficult facet of regulating

chemical precursors though is that they are

widely used in the manufacturing of many

important modern products from pesticides

to plastics to pharmaceuticals. For this

reason, we cannot outright outlaw these

precursors despite the fact that we know that

they can be used for negative purposes, they

are also vital to the economic success of

developed nations.

History of Chemical Weapons World Wars I & II

DISEC DartMUN XIV

15

World War I featured the first major, multi-

party use of chemical weapons in history.

Gases such as phosgene, mustard gas, and

especially chlorine posed an ever-changing

and dire threat to European public health.

These gases not only proved deadly on the

battlefield, but they also harmed a great deal

of civilians. Rather uniquely, chemical

weapons were utilized in the latter half of

the Great War to break the stalemates that

plagued the trench-style warfare of Western

Europe. Unfortunately, as each side

developed their own chemical weapons, they

largely nullified the threat of the opposing

sides chemical weapons. Mustard gas

became particularly difficult to deal with as

it was heavy enough to settle in the

contaminated area, oftentimes puddling in

the trenches. World War I saw some of the

first large-scale fighting and usage of

chemical weapons and revealed trends that

would only continue to expand as history

progressed.30 World War II conversely saw

much less usage of chemical weapons on the

battlefield than had previously been seen in

30 Fitzgerald, G. J. “Chemical Warfare and

Medical Response During World War I.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 98, no. 4, 2008, pp. 611–625., doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.11930.

World War I. During the interwar period,

most of the countries which had engaged in

World War I continued to develop their own

chemical weapons. By the time that World

War II arrived, these weapons were far too

dangerous to use and, as such, the doctrine

of Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD”

prevented large-scale usage of chemical

weapons in World War II.31

The Cold War

Following the end of World War II, the

former Allied powers began to feverishly

develop their own chemical weapons

programs. Although there were never any

direct conflicts between major superpowers

involving chemical weapons in the Cold

War, there was a great deal of stockpiling as

well as chemical weapons usage in proxy

wars. Notably, the United States used

“Agent Orange,” a defoliant which later was

discovered to have disastrous effects on

those exposed to it, over the Vietnamese

jungle during the Vietnam War. These

chemicals were designed to kill crops and

livestock as well as destroy the thick

31 John Ellis van Courtland Moon. “Chemical Weapons and Deterrence: The World War II Experience.” International Security, vol. 8, no. 4, 1984, pp. 3–35, www.jstor.org/stable/2538560.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

16

Vietnamese jungle in which the Americans

were not well-equipped to fight. Also,

during this time, some of the most

dangerous modern chemical weapons were

developed, among them “Venomous Agent

X,” what has come to be known as VX gas.

Clearly, unregulated chemical weapons

development posed a great threat to the

entire world. Due to the en masse

stockpiling of chemical weapons, one of the

most pressing modern issues associated with

chemical weapons following the CWC

(which will be discussed at further length in

this background guide) is the safe disposal

and destruction of dangerous chemical

agents.32

Iran-Iraq War

The Iran-Iraq War posed one of the most

recent and horrendously mismanaged usages

of chemical weapons in recent history. Iraq

utilized mustard gas and nerve agents

against Iranian forces resulting in deaths

32 Joseph Trevithick, “U.S. Navy Film

Reveals Crazy Cold War Chemical Weapons Plans,” The National Interest, March 12, 2017, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navy-film-reveals-crazy-cold-war-chemical-weapons-plans-19763.

33 Regencia, Ted. “Chemical Attacks on Iran: When the US Looked the Other Way.” Iran News | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 19 Apr. 2018,

numbering in the tens of thousands between

1980 and 1988.33 This case study reveals the

degree to which an international community

with limited interest in regulating chemical

weapons can lead to the creation of weapons

of mass destruction and the annihilation of

thousands of lives. The United States and

The United Kingdom among others were

aware of Iraq’s plans for chemical weapons

usage against military forces and civilians,

and even went so far as to provide them with

the precursors necessary to create said nerve

agents.34 Unfortunately, the Iranian

government was never able to collect

enough evidence against Hussein’s regime

in Iraq and their crimes went unpunished.35

This case study highlights the importance

that international cooperation and mutually

shared goals regarding the cessation of

chemical weapons usage and development

play in ensuring international security.

Syria

www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/chemical-attacks-iran-180415122524733.html.

34 McNaugher, Thomas L. “Ballistic Missiles and Chemical Weapons: The Legacy of the Iran-Iraq War.” International Security, vol. 15, no. 2, 1990, pp. 5–34, www.jstor.org/stable/2538864.

35 Ibid.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

17

The situation in Syria provides us with one

of the most contemporary and ongoing

conflicts which unfortunately involves

chemical weapons. In July 2012, Syria

publicly acknowledged that it possessed

chemical weapons confirming the suspicions

of many western intelligence agencies. The

ongoing crisis in Syria regarding chemical

weapons has been one of the most

commonly recurring themes at the United

Nations Security Council; due to Syria’s

alignment with Russia though, the vast

majority of resolutions fail. The most well-

known use of chemical weapons by the

Assad regime on their own civilians

occurred on August 21, 2013 in the suburbs

of the Ghouta region. The Syrian regime had

been attempting to expel the rebel forces

from the regions surrounding Damascus

when reports that thousands had been killed

by sarin gas flooded the international scene.

In the end, more than 1,000 Syrian citizens

were massacred, many of which were non-

combatant civilians.36 Two days later, UN

36 Kimball, Daryll. “Timeline of Syrian

Chemical Weapons Activity, 2012-2018.” Arms Control Association, vol. 238, no. 3173, 2018, p. 7., doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(18)30634-1.

37 Walker, Paul F. “Syrian Chemical Weapons Destruction: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead.” Arms Control Today,

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed

the need for a thorough UN investigation

into chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

What makes this case study unique is that it

is both ongoing and provides one of the first

instances of chemical weapons being used

by a regime against their own civilians,

many of whom are non-combatant and not

against an offensive foreign power as a sort

of deterrent.37 As the issue stands now, Syria

acceded to the Chemical Weapons

Convention in 2013 in order to avoid US

military retaliation but clearly, their

chemical weapons program has been

revived. The Organization for the

Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

shares the concerns of much of the western

community that Syria never truly disposed

of its massive chemical weapons stores. In

short, Syria has not adhered to the tenets of

the CWC.38

Tokyo Subway Sarin Attack

The Tokyo Subway Sarin Attack poses the

unique situation that chemical weapons were

vol. 44, no. 10, 2014, pp. 8–17, www.jstor.org/stable/24336693.

38 McMahon, Robert. “Can Syria's Chemical Weapons Be Stopped?” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 26 Apr. 2018, www.cfr.org/interview/can-syrias-chemical-weapons-be-stopped.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

18

used not by a government against another

government, a group of insurgents, or a

high-profile target. Instead, chemical

weapons, in this case Sarin gas, was used by

a terrorist group in an effort to sow the seeds

of discord and chaos. This attack occurred in

the subways of Tokyo in 1995 and were

perpetrated by the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist

organization/cult. Twelve people were killed

and more than 5000 suffered adverse effects

from exposure to Sarin gas. This case study

shows us how important it is to regulate

chemical weapons and precursors not just

for states but also for individuals and

insurgent groups.39

Chemical Weapons Utilized in

Assassinations

In recent times, chemical weapons have

been increasingly used on a small, precision-

based scale to carry out assassinations of

high-profile targets. Kim Jong Nam, former

heir apparent to the North Korean throne,

was murdered in Kuala Lumpur airport by

two hired killers. Fascination abounded

following this assassination due largely to

39 “The Sarin Gas Attack in Japan and the

Related Forensic Investigation.” OPCW, Synthesis, 1 June 2001, www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2001/06/sarin-gas-attack-japan-and-related-forensic-investigation.

the sensational circumstances: Kim Jong

Nam had had a falling out with Kim Jong

Un which ultimately led to the latter’s rise to

power and Kim Jong Nam was killed

dramatically by having VX nerve agent

smeared across his face. The usage of VX

further points the North Korean regime as

responsible because Kim Jong Un is

believed to have amassed a stockpile of up

to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons including

VX gas.40 Another interesting case study of

chemical weapons being used in

assassination arrives in the form of the

Skripal Case in the United Kingdom. Sergei

Skripal was a former Russian double agent

who, along with his daughter, were poisoned

by two Russian men who entered the United

Kingdom on suspicious documents. They

attempted to poison Skripal using the nerve

agent Novichok, which is almost exclusively

manufactured and used by the Russian

military. Although neither of the Skripal’s

died at the hands of the Russian government,

one British citizen died after discovering the

discarded transportation vessel for the nerve

40 Kim, Suki. “The Meaning of Kim Jong Nam's Murder.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 24 Feb. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/north-korea-kim-jong-il-kim-jong-nam-malaysia/517635/.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

19

agent.41 These two case studies, amid the

backdrop of wider chemical weapons use,

show that multiple major world powers are

still illegally employing the usage of

chemical weapons in stark defiance of the

CWC.

Previous Diplomatic Actions The Geneva Protocol

The Geneva Protocol, drawn up and signed

in 1925 and put into force in 1928, was the

international community's response to the

horrors of the First World War. After seeing

the indiscriminate and devastating effects of

weaponized industrial chemicals like

chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas, the

League of Nations outright prohibited the

use of chemical weapons in warfare.

Unfortunately, the Geneva Protocol had a

number of blatant shortcomings. For one, it

failed to prohibit the development,

production, and stockpiling of chemical

weapons. The Geneva Protocol also suffered

41 Saunders, Doug. “The New Assassins:

Why Countries Are Getting Away With Murder Across Borders.” The Globe and Mail, 19 Oct. 2018, www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-new-assassins-why-countries-are-getting-away-with-murder-across/.

42 “1925 Geneva Protocol – UNODA.” United Nations, UNODA, 1925,

from the fact that many states who ratified

the treaty reserved the right to use the

prohibited chemical weapons against states

that had not signed onto the Geneva

Protocol. Nevertheless, the Geneva Protocol

provided an important first step towards the

elimination of chemical weapons in

warfare.42

Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

went into effect in 1997 as the world’s

largest multilateral effort to restrict and

ultimately eliminate the usage of chemical

weapons. The CWC was designed to

prohibit the development, production,

acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer,

or use of chemical weapons by states that

have signed onto the treaty. The CWC is

regulated by the Organization for the

Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

which ensures compliance among member

states.43 In 2016, the OPCW declared that

90% of declared chemical weapons stores

www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/1925-geneva-protocol/.

43 Kimball, Daryll. “The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) at a Glance .” Arms Control Association, 22 June 2018, www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcglance.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

20

had been destroyed, reflecting the incredible

success that the CWC has had in limiting

chemical weapons use.44 The CWC is not

without flaws though. After more than 20

years of use, the treaty is visibly struggling

with how to address state and non-state

actors currently producing and deploying

chemical weapons. Some of the CWC’s

most glaring issues reside in its narrow

definition of what a chemical weapon is.

The CWC only regulates chemicals that can

harm or kill people. With the CWC

functioning as it is, states can legally

stockpile chemicals that can serve both

military and nonviolent commercial uses.

The CWC also allows for states to stockpile

Riot Control Agents which can be used in

controlling hostile crowds and riots.

Additionally, developments in chemistry in

the 22 years since the formation of the CWC

have further blurred the lines between

chemical and biological weapons and

chemicals necessary for industry. For

instance, chlorine gas has a range of

44 “Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons

Convention – GLICA.” The Great Lakes Invitational Conference Association, 16 Mar. 2016, www.glica.org/hello-world-4/.

45 “United Nations: Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,

peaceable industrial applications, and yet, as

seen in World War I, chlorine is lethal in its

gaseous form. Many member states of the

United Nations feel that the CWC needs an

update, one that would likely broaden the

definition of what qualifies as a chemical

weapon, restrict non-state actors access to

chemical weapons and precursors, and

further regulate the commerce of chemical

precursors.45

The Australia Group

The Australia Group is a confederation of

developed nations and the European Union

who seek to allow free exportation and

transshipping while minimizing the risk of

assisting in chemical and biological weapon

proliferation. The primary concern of this

group of developed nations is maintaining

their ability to compete economically by

freely importing and exporting. On the other

hand, these nations also realize the vital role

that they play in preventing chemical

weapons precursors from falling into the

wrong hands. As such, they have agreed to

Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.” International Legal Materials, vol. 32, no. 3, 1993, pp. 800–873. www.jstor.org/stable/20693809.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

21

monitor and control their own exports of

precursor chemicals. Although this

confederation has been decently effective in

preventing chemical weapons precursors

from falling into the wrong hands, it is

important to note that the Australia Group

includes mostly industrialized Western

nations, such as the United States and

members of the European Union. However,

its membership also includes nations from

other regions of the world, such as

Argentina and India.46 China, which exports

the most chemicals of any nation on earth, is

not a member. These nations will work

together to ensure both beneficial economic

policy and responsible chemical weapons

policy.47

Non-CWC Countries

While the vast majority of the world’s

nations are signatories of the CWC, 193

states-parties in total, several prominent

countries do not fully participate, such as by

46 “Australia Group Participants.” The

Australia Group - Participants, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2007, australiagroup.net/en/parrticipants.html.

47 “The Origins of the Australia Group.” The Australia Group - Origins, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2007, australiagroup.net/en/origins.html.

signing but not ratifying the treaty (e.g.

Israel) or by withholding from the

agreement altogether. These nations are

Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan.

Egypt has not signed due to ongoing

tensions with Israel over suspicions of an

Israeli nuclear weapons program.48 North

Korea has refused to sign and ratify the

treaty, likely due to their suspected

stockpiles of chemical weapons. South

Sudan has also not signed or ratified the

treaty solely due to the very recent birth of

their nation. These exceptions serve to

highlight the voluntary nature of compliance

with the CWC; as the treaty stands today, it

lacks incentives to encourage participation.

Many nations believe that should the

Chemical Weapons Convention be re-

negotiated; greater incentives should be

included to encourage 100% worldwide

inclusion.49

48 “Chemical Weapons Program.” Federation of American Scientists, 2 Oct. 1999, fas.org/nuke/guide/egypt/cw. 49 Kimball, Daryll. “Chemical Weapons

Convention Signatories and States-Parties.” Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties | Arms Control Association, June 2018, www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

22

Solutions to Consider Inspections

Under the current guidelines of the CWC,

teams can perform three types of

inspections. The first are called “Routine

Inspections” and they occur the most

frequently. 50 Between 1997 and 2014, the

OPCW reported that over 5,500 inspections

have taken place over 80 nations. Over

2,000 of the more than 5,000 declared

industrial sites were inspected. Routine

inspections are considered cooperative

events, meaning that they require the

consent of the nation or facility owner to

allow the inspection to take place. They do

not take an investigative approach. Another

variety of inspections are known as

“Challenge Inspections.” These are short-

notice inspections which take place when

questions regarding a nation’s compliance

with the CWC are raised. Nations are able to

request a challenge inspection in another

nation if they are suspicious that they may

be storing or developing chemical weapons.

The obvious problem here is that regional

tensions and rivalries often play into the

50 Wittlaan, Johan de. “Three Types of

Inspections.” Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 10 Oct. 2014,

requests for challenge inspections. Finally,

the CWC also allows for “Investigations of

Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons” when

the United Nations has probable cause to

believe that a nation has deployed chemical

weapons in some capacity. Much like

challenge inspections, inspections into

alleged use require a state to petition the

United Nations to investigate the potential

use of chemical weapons in another state. As

the issue stands now, inspections comprise a

large and important part of the enforcement

guidelines for the CWC. Yet, the inspection

system is not perfect, as it allows for

national rivalries to obstruct international

security and safety.51

New Tech, Industrial Chemicals, &

Precursors

While the Chemical Weapons Convention

provided an important and monumental step

in the right direction regarding chemical

weapons, its current means of regulating

many facets of the problem are outdated and

imperfect. In the 20 years since the CWC

went into effect, chemical and biological

weapons become more and more difficult to

www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/events/program-in-a-box/documents/2016-global-security/cw-inspections.pdf.

51 Ibid.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

23

discern from one another. Additionally, how

a state, group, or individual can disseminate

a chemical weapon has become much easier

than in the past. The CWC needs to not

characterize the danger that each precursor

and chemical poses based on past use, but

rather consider regulating these chemicals

based on potential danger in the future. As

such, the CWC’s must update its schedules

for typing chemical precursors. This will in

turn require a redesign of the entire

inspection system. DISEC should also strive

to impart knowledge of ISTs or Inherently

Safer Technologies on its member states.

These ISTs eliminate the need for chemicals

like chlorine in modern industry and replace

it with far safer alternatives. Although the

CWC is an aging document, it has done the

international community a great service and

will continue to provide useful legislation so

long as it is maintained by its member

states.52

Regulate Technical Expertise

As many other United Nations Committees

have endeavored to do in the past, it is

recommended that this committee also seek

52 Trapp, Ralf. “Advances in Science and

Technology and the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Arms Control Today, vol. 38, no. 2, 2008, pp. 18–22, www.jstor.org/stable/23628352.

to broaden the sharing of information and

technical knowledge of chemical weapons

among its member states. There should be a

system in which the CWC maintains a

database for individuals, equipment, and

technology to ensure greater transparency in

the handling of chemical weapons related

issues. Although there will be some major

pushback from some nations regarding a

public registry and the free flow of

information, it would truly benefit the

international community as a whole.53

Solutions Outside the United Nations

Of course, the United Nations cannot solve

every problem perfectly. Perhaps it is in the

best interest of international security to

consider a plan outside of the bounds of this

committee. Many problems arise from the

simple fact that P5 Nations (The United

States, The United Kingdom, Russia, China,

and France) are nearly immune from

enforcement of chemical weapons

legislation. This is because the CWC gives

the power of enforcement to the UN

Security Council, where each of these five

countries has veto power. Historically, Iraq

53 Filosa, Henry. DISEC, MUNUC 30, Topic A: Chemical Weapons. pp. 1–28. Date Accessed: 10 October 2018.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

24

escaped punishment for using chemical

weapons in the 1980s (through US backing)

and Syria has avoided punishment more

recently(through Russian backing.) Perhaps

this committee should consider constructing

a multilateral plan for CWC enforcement

beyond the control of the UN Security

Council.54

Regional Bloc Positions Europe & North America

As these nations comprise the majority of

the developed western world, they provide

the driving force behind the CWC and also

form the primary backbone of the Australia

Group. In Europe, although World War I

was more than 100 years ago, the horrific

memories of chemical weapons usage

continue to haunt and inform their policies

towards chemical weapons. The major

difficulty among these countries regards

their industrialization. In many industries,

chemical precursors like chlorine are

essential for manufacturing products. As

such, these developed nations must be wary

54 Miller, Nicholas L. “Model United

Nations Background Guide Inquiry.” Received by Garrick K Allison, Model United Nations Background Guide Inquiry, 22 Oct. 2018.

of the regulation and control over these

dangerous chemical precursors to avoid

them falling into the hands of malicious

individuals or groups yet maintain access to

certain chemicals necessary for industrial

processes at the same time. In general, these

nations are staunchly committed to the

elimination of chemical weapons.55

Asia

Asia has been a source of many of the

world’s modern troubles regarding chemical

weapons. For instance, Russia has long

struggled with the complete destruction of

their Cold War age chemical weapons.

Additionally, China as a non-Australia

Group member lacks the necessary oversight

for their massive chemical exportation

industry. China, along with many other

industrialized nations, will likely resist the

further regulation of their chemicals

industries. Finally, North Korea has long

possessed one of the world’s largest

stockpiles of chemical weapons and has

shown that they are more than willing to

utilize them in executing their national and

55 “The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Chemical Weapons.” Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-of-chemical-weapons.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

25

international goals, as in the assassination of

Kim Jong Nam.56

South America

South American nations have an impressive

record of opposition against chemical

weapons. Aside from their non-existent

usage of chemical weapons, they have also

created the Group of Latin American and

Caribbean Countries, or GRULAC, who all

mutually share the goal of completely

eliminating chemical weapons on the

continent and raising awareness for how to

deal with a potential situation involving

chemical weapons. Additionally, these

nations emphasize the importance of sharing

information and technology to prevent

further violence involving chemical

weapons.57

The Middle East & North Africa

The Middle East and North Africa pose an

especially difficult problem regarding

chemical weapons. Countries in this region

have endured the most significant exposure

56 Bogdanich, Walt. “Chinese Chemicals

Flow Unchecked Onto World Drug Market.” The New York Times, October 31, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/world/asia/31chemical.html.

57 Oliveira, Nelza. “Latin American and Caribbean Service Members Join Forces in Anti-Chemical Weapons Exercise.”

to these weapons in recent years,

particularly during the Iran-Iraq War. The

majority of states in the Middle East and

Northern Africa have complied with the

tenets of the CWC. However, both Egypt

and Israel are non-signatories. Additionally,

as previously discussed, Syria has

demonstrated recent non-compliance with

the CWC and poses a great threat to its own

citizens and to regional security. As these

nations are rather hesitant to embrace the

UN’s policies towards chemical weapons

and are suspicious of the other states in the

region, they will likely be less than

enthusiastic regarding further and more in-

depth inspections.58

Sub-Saharan Africa

Sub-Saharan Africa has little modern

experience with chemical weapons and

stockpiles. Many of the countries share the

mutual goal of limiting and ultimately

preventing chemical weapons usage on the

Dialogo Americas - Digital Military Magazine, 3 Oct. 2017, dialogo-americas.com/en/articles/latin-american-and-caribbean-service-members-join-forces-anti-chemical-weapons-exercise.

58 Esfandiary, Dina. “In the Middle East, Get Rid of Chemical Weapons First.” Arms Control Today, vol. 44, no. 1, 2014, pp. 25–30, www.jstor.org/stable/23629569.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

26

continent.59 Historically, there have been

instances of chemical weapons usage. The

Apartheid governments of South Africa and

Zimbabwe attempted to develop chemical

weapons; South Africa’s “Project Coast,”

sought to build weapons of mass destruction

in order to strengthen their international

position and prestige. Upon the dissolution

of the Apartheid government, the program

was scrapped, and all remnants destroyed.60

Questions 1. What kinds of chemical weapons

constitute the greatest threat to

global security, in your nation’s

opinion?

2. How can DISEC or the CWC hold

countries responsible for both

military and paramilitary uses of

chemical weapons?

3. How can the CWC avoid inspections

turning from a law enforcement tool

59 Kasprzyk, Nicolas. “Tackling Weapons of

Mass Destruction in Africa.” World Economic Forum, 14 Jan. 2015, www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/tackling-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-africa/.

60 Purkitt, Helen E., and Stephen Burgess. “South Africa's Chemical and Biological

into a means for baseless harassment

between countries in conflict?

Works Cited Anderson, Justin, and Amanda Moodle.

“Weapons of Mass Destruction -

International Relations.” Oxford

Bibliographies - International Relations,

Oxford Bibliographies, 19 Sept. 2018,

www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/do

cument/obo-9780199743292/obo-

9780199743292-0221.xml.

“Australia Group Participants.” The

Australia Group - Participants,

Australian Department of Foreign

Affairs and Trade, 2007,

australiagroup.net/en/parrticipants.html.

Bogdanich, Walt. “Chinese Chemicals Flow

Unchecked Onto World Drug Market.”

The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2007,

www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/world/asi

a/31chemical.html.

Warfare Programme: A Historical and International Perspective.” Journal of Southern African Studies, vol. 28, no. 2, 2002, pp. 229–253, www.jstor.org/stable/823383.

DISEC DartMUN XIV

27

“Chemical Weapons Primer.” Wisconsin

Project on Nuclear Arms Control, 2018,

www.wisconsinproject.org/chemical-

weapons.

Courtland Moon, John Ellis van. “Chemical

Weapons and Deterrence: The World

War II Experience.” International

Security, vol. 8, no. 4, 1984, pp. 3–35,

www.jstor.org/stable/2538560.

Esfandiary, Dina. “In the Middle East, Get

Rid of Chemical Weapons First.” Arms

Control Today, vol. 44, no. 1, 2014, pp.

25–30, www.jstor.org/stable/23629569.

Filosa, Henry. DISEC , MUNUC 30, Topic

A: Chemical Weapons. pp. 1–28. Date

Accessed: 10 October 2018.

Fitzgerald, G. J. “Chemical Warfare and

Medical Response During World War I.”

American Journal of Public Health, vol.

98, no. 4, 2008, pp. 611–625,

doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.11930.

Kasprzyk, Nicolas. “Tackling Weapons of

Mass Destruction in Africa.” World

Economic Forum, 14 Jan. 2015,

www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/tackl

ing-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-

africa.

Kim, Suki. “The Meaning of Kim Jong

Nam's Murder.” The Atlantic, Atlantic

Media Company, 24 Feb. 2017,

www.theatlantic.com/international/archi

ve/2017/02/north-korea-kim-jong-il-

kim-jong-nam-malaysia/517635/.

Kimball, Daryll. “The Chemical Weapons

Convention (CWC) at a Glance .” Arms

Control Association, 22 June 2018,

www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcgla

nce.

Kimball, Daryll. “Chemical Weapons

Convention Signatories and States-

Parties.” Chemical Weapons Convention

Signatories and States-Parties | Arms

Control Association, June 2018,

www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig.

Kimball, Daryll. “Timeline of Syrian

Chemical Weapons Activity, 2012-

2018.” Arms Control Association, vol.

238, no. 3173, 2018, p. 7,

doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(18)30634-1.

McMahon, Robert. “Can Syria's Chemical

Weapons Be Stopped?” Council on

Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign

Relations, 26 Apr. 2018,

www.cfr.org/interview/can-syrias-

chemical-weapons-be-stopped.

McNaugher, Thomas L. “Ballistic Missiles

and Chemical Weapons: The Legacy of

the Iran-Iraq War.” International

DISEC DartMUN XIV

28

Security, vol. 15, no. 2, 1990, pp. 5–34,

www.jstor.org/stable/2538864.

Miller, Nicholas L. “Model United Nations

Background Guide Inquiry.” Received

by Garrick K Allison, Model United

Nations Background Guide Inquiry, 22

Oct. 2018.

Oliveira, Nelza. “Latin American and

Caribbean Service Members Join Forces

in Anti-Chemical Weapons Exercise.”

Dialogo Americas - Digital Military

Magazine, 3 Oct. 2017, dialogo-

americas.com/en/articles/latin-american-

and-caribbean-service-members-join-

forces-anti-chemical-weapons-exercise.

Purkitt, Helen E., and Stephen Burgess.

“South Africa's Chemical and Biological

Warfare Programme: A Historical and

International Perspective.” Journal of

Southern African Studies, vol. 28, no. 2,

2002, pp. 229–253,

www.jstor.org/stable/823383.

“Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons

Convention – GLICA.” The Great Lakes

Invitational Conference Association, 16

Mar. 2016, www.glica.org/hello-world-

4/.

Regencia, Ted. “Chemical Attacks on Iran:

When the US Looked the Other Way.”

Iran News | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 19

Apr. 2018,

www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/chem

ical-attacks-iran-

180415122524733.html.

Saunders, Doug. “The New Assassins: Why

Countries Are Getting Away with

Murder Across Borders.” The Globe and

Mail, 19 Oct. 2018,

www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/artic

le-the-new-assassins-why-countries-are-

getting-away-with-murder-across/.

“The Origins of the Australia Group.” The

Australia Group - Origins, Australian

Department of Foreign Affairs and

Trade, 2007,

australiagroup.net/en/origins.html.

“The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Chemical

Weapons.” Carnegie Council for Ethics

in International Affairs,

www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/a

rticles_papers_reports/the-rise-and-fall-

and-rise-of-chemical-weapons.

“The Sarin Gas Attack in Japan and the

Related Forensic Investigation.” OPCW,

Synthesis, 1 June 2001,

www.opcw.org/media-

centre/news/2001/06/sarin-gas-attack-

japan-and-related-forensic-investigation.

Trapp, Ralf. “Advances in Science and

Technology and the Chemical Weapons

DISEC DartMUN XIV

29

Convention.” Arms Control Today, vol.

38, no. 2, 2008, pp. 18–22,

www.jstor.org/stable/23628352.

Trevithick, Joseph. “U.S. Navy Film

Reveals Crazy Cold War Chemical

Weapons Plans,” The National Interest,

March 12, 2017,

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-

buzz/us-navy-film-reveals-crazy-cold-

war-chemical-weapons-plans-19763.

“Types of Chemical Weapons .” Federation

of American Scientists, 2013,

fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/cwa

gents.html.

“United Nations: Convention on the

Prohibition of the Development,

Production, Stockpiling, and Use of

Chemical Weapons and on Their

Destruction.” International Legal

Materials, vol. 32, no. 3, 1993, pp. 800–

873, www.jstor.org/stable/20693809.

Walker, Paul F. “Syrian Chemical Weapons

Destruction: Taking Stock And Looking

Ahead.” Arms Control Today, vol. 44,

no. 10, 2014, pp. 8–17,

www.jstor.org/stable/24336693.

Wittlaan, Johan de. “Three Types of

Inspections.” Organization for the

Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 10

Oct. 2014,

www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/events/

program-in-a-box/documents/2016-

global-security/cw-inspections.pdf.

“1925 Geneva Protocol – UNODA.” United

Nations, UNODA, 1925,

www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/192

5-geneva-protocol/.