disarmament and international security committee by all un member states was passed by disec in...
TRANSCRIPT
Disarmament and International Security Committee
Topic A: The Regulation of Chemical Weapons
Topic B: Maintaining Security in the Face of Climate Change
2
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Dear Delegates,
I am excited to welcome you all to MUNUC XXX! My name is Henry Filosa and I will be your chair for the
Disarmament and International Security Committee, where I hope we will accomplish great things. This is my
second year at the University of Chicago and my second year working with MUNUC. Last year, I helped run
the Special Political Committee as an assistant chair. Additionally, I am also an assistant chair for ChoMUN,
the collegiate University of Chicago Model UN conference. Outside of Model UN, I spend the bulk of my
time rowing for the university crew team and competing on the Moot Court Team. You can also find me in
the Reynolds Club bell tower where I ring the bells in our change ringing guild.
Our committee will approach two topics that have been inadequately addressed by the global community.
Topic A will focus on measures to limit the threat of chemical weapons. This committee should be cognizant
of the past successes of international agreements on the matter and look to shore up shortcomings that have
allowed chemical weapons usage to continue. Topic B will address climate change, but not in the manner that
any previous agreement has. Instead of trying to slow global warming, this committee will attempt to find
stabilizing solutions to help the countries of the United Nations weather their changing environs.
These problems are big issues that affect the lives of thousands of people. I look forward to seeing what you
will come up with in February and how you will grow as orators and diplomats. If you have any comments,
concerns or questions please do not hesitate to send me an email!
Sincerely,
Henry Filosa
Chair, Disarmament and International Security Committee
3
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Committee History
Created while the fires of World War II were still dying down, the United Nations was designed with the
explicit goal of preventing a similar globe spanning conflict. Their solution was a deliberative body where
disagreements could be settled openly with words instead of violence. As a result, the core of the UN is
its General Assembly, a space where all the nations of the world may speak as equals and attempt to find
consensus on global issues as every member is given only one vote.1 The General Assembly may commission
studies and make recommendations to the Security council or member states by a simple majority vote.
The Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC), also referred to as the first committee, is
tasked with making war less likely and less damaging by reducing the destructive capabilities of the world’s
militaries and attempting to find proactive solutions to conflicts before they boil over into violence. DISEC
is a constituent organ of the General Assembly and its members come from that body. In recognition of its
significant role in the maintenance of global security it is the only body of the General Assembly for which
verbatim and summary records may be made of its proceedings.2 The first General Assembly resolution to be
co-sponsored by all UN member states was passed by DISEC in 1959, a resolution calling for complete global
disarmament.3 While this lofty dream has not yet been achieved, it is in this spirit that DISEC resolutions
have diffused global tensions and have helped push for the creation of significant treaties controlling global
armaments.
1 “Charter of the United Nations.” United Nations, June 26, 1945. http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html.2 “Rules of Procedure: Rule 58.” United Nations, n.d. http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/ropga/recds.shtml.3 “First Committee.” United Nations. Accessed September 8, 2017. http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/. , “Resolutions Adopted on the Reports
of the First Committee.” General Assembly-Fourteenth Session, November 20, 1959. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/1378(XIV).
4
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
TOPIC A: THE REGULATION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Statement of the Problem
Among the triad of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), chemical weapons are the only one banned
worldwide, yet have been the most used. In the general horror of war it can be easy to lose sight of what
differentiates chemical weapons from bullets or artillery shells. Similar to nuclear weapons, chemicals can
allow small groups of people to wipe out population centers or large numbers of opposing forces with far
fewer resources than traditional weapons would require. The current international protocol on chemical
weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), was created in response to Saddam Hussein’s use
of chemicals to systematically kill 100,000 Kurds in 1988, primarily with aerial bombardment.4 Chemical
agents can also linger and poison the land in a manner similar to radioactive fallout. For example, mustard
gas contamination from the Iran-Iraq war continues to poison and kill more than 70,000 Iranians even 30
years after the conflict ended.5 Due to their highly destructive potential and the danger they pose to civilians,
chemical weapons are deserving of extra international scrutiny and regulation.
Classifying Chemicals
Chemical weapons are defined as compounds used “in military operations to kill, seriously injure or
incapacitate people because of its physiological effects” and are generally divided into three different
categories based on effects: nerve, blister, and choking agents.6 Whether the chemical is a gas naturally or
requires aerosolization is an important distinction. Many choking and blister agents are natural gases and can
simply be released at victims, whereas most nerve agents are liquids and must be turned into gases through
aerosolization in order to be used. This means aerosolized chemical weapons often require more advanced
expertise to be utilized. In addition to natural and aerosolized chemical weapons, there are chemicals that
are not weapons in and of themselves, but are needed to manufacture chemical weapons. These are called
precursors, and they are often subject to regulations and scrutiny.
4 Reed, Laura. “Weapons of Mass Destruction | Www.hampshire.edu.” Hampshire College. Accessed May 5, 2017. https://www.hampshire.edu/pawss/weapons-of-mass-destruction.
5 Wright, Robin. “Iran Still Haunted and Influenced By Chemical Weapons Attacks.” Time. Accessed May 5, 2017. http://world.time.com/2014/01/20/iran-still-haunted-and-influenced-by-chemical-weapons-attacks/.
6 “Types of Chemical Weapons.” Federation of American Scientists. Accessed May 2, 2017. https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/cwagents.html.
5
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Of the three categories of chemical weapons, nerve agents are the most infamous. Victims lose physical
control of the body and die within minutes of exposure from respiratory failure.7 Their odorless and
colorless nature makes them undetectable to unequipped personnel, and miniscule doses of the poison
are fatal.8 Sarin is the most commonly encountered nerve agent and is responsible for some of the most
horrific attacks in the current Syrian civil war. The toxin blocks enzymes that destroy neurotransmitters,
causing all nerves it reaches to fire uncontrollably, which results in crying, vomiting, defecation, paralysis
and death 1-10 minutes after exposure.9 Fortunately, victims can make a full recovery if treated immediately
with an antidote. Atropine is the most commonly used due to its affordability and is stockpiled in hospitals
worldwide.10 Sadly, demand can overwhelm supply and in recent years hospitals in Syria have often run out
of the life-saving drug after attacks.11
Nerve gases require a high level of technical expertise and knowledge to manufacture and successfully
deploy. For example, the Japanese terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo was able to produce Sarin in the 90’s,
but only at great expense. Their production facility cost $30 million, required university educated experts,
was three stories tall and could only produce two gallons of the agent at a time, limiting the scale of their
eventual rampage.12 Additionally, Sarin is not gaseous and must be vaporized or dispersed in droplets to
reach victims, requiring further technical expertise and investment. Approximately 90% of vaporized agents
sprayed outdoors do not reach their intended targets.13 However, groups that seek to develop nerve agents
may still do so despite their high cost, advanced technical requirements, and difficult delivery mechanisms
because of their terrifying effects. Due to the ease by which nerve gas victims can be treated with medicine,
well equipped military forces are typically able to easily respond to and resist nerve gas attacks. However,
this means that unprotected civilians may instead find themselves the targets of nerve gas attacks.
Blister agents, also known as vesicants, are named for their ability to burn skin, producing raw wounds that
can quickly become infected.14 They are generally non-lethal, but will inflict severe damage on victim’s eyes,
often resulting in permanent blindness.15 They are also known for their slow diffusion and often remain in
7 ibid8 ibid9 Hamblin, James. “What Does Sarin Do to People?” The Atlantic, May 6, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/
what-does-sarin-do-to-people/275577/.10 Dietrich-Egensteiner. “How the Nerve Gas Antidote Works.” Popular Mechanics, August 28, 2013. http://www.popularmechanics.com/
science/health/how-it-works-atropine-the-nerve-gas-antidote-15859092.11 ibid12 Woodward, Paul. “How Easy Is It to Make Sarin?” War in Context, December 11, 2013. http://warincontext.org/2013/12/11/
how-easy-is-it-to-make-sarin/.13 ibid14 “Types of Chemical Weapons.” Federation of American Scientists. Accessed May 2, 2017. https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/
cwagents.html.15 ibid
6
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
steady concentrations for prolonged periods after use, making decontamination difficult or impossible.16
Mustard gas is historically the most feared of the group as no medical treatments exist for victims.17 For
countries pursuing chemical weapons to antagonize nations with superior military forces, vesicants are of
keen interest for their ability to slow conventional forces by requiring them to don burdensome respirators
and full body suits.18
Choking agents attack the lungs, resulting in pulmonary edema and death or serious long term lung
scarring.19 Phosgene and chlorine gas fall into this category, and kill over the course of one to two days, after
which recovery can begin.20 Their high density causes them to fill low lying areas, which accounts for their
high usage in the trenches of World War I. Phosgene was responsible for 80% of chemical weapons fatalities
in this conflict, and they can pose a unique danger to civilians hiding in basements as the gas will naturally
flow into and fill such spaces.21 Similar to vesicants, groups mostly value choking agents for their ability to
slow opposition forces who must carry and wear gas masks.
A fourth, pseudo-category of chemical weapons may be defined based on a gap in existing chemical weapons
protocols. So called Riot Control Agents (RCA) are defined by the temporary nature of their effects. They
are not used in warfare, but instead for domestic law enforcement. Examples of RCAs include tear gas
and pepper spray. The line between full chemical weapons and RCAs is easily blurred. In 2002 the Russian
government used an unknown chemical agent to end a hostage situation by incapacitating the terrorists.
125 hostages died from the effects and unconscious terrorists were shot by Spetsnaz.22 There has been no
significant international response to the incident, but it opens the door for nations to stockpile, produce and
use chemical agents against their enemies by claiming they are riot control agents.
Problem as it Stands
Many states that invest in chemical weapons view them as a way to overcome differences in conventional
military capability and act as a deterrent while not overtly threatening the international community.
16 ibid17 ibid18 Caves, John. “Future Foreign Perceptions of Chemical Weapons Utility.” Center for the Study of WMDs, October 2010. http://wmdcenter.
ndu.edu/Portals/97/Documents/Publications/Articles/Future%20Foreign%20Perceptions%20of%20Chemical%20Weapons%20Utility.pdf.
19 “Types of Chemical Weapons.” Federation of American Scientists. Accessed May 2, 2017. https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/cwagents.html.
20 ibid21 ibid22 Kastan, Benjamin. “The Chemical Weapons Convention and Riot Control Agents: Advantages of a ‘Methods’ Approach to Arms Control.”
Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 22 (2012): 267–90.
7
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Chemicals can be manufactured and stored far more discreetly and inexpensively than nuclear weapons and
typically invite less scrutiny. They are also easier to control than biological weapons while “having greater
deterrent value than conventional weapons”.23 This is reflected in the absence of any requests for challenge
inspections under the CWC in over two decades since its implementation.24 Challenge inspections are
invoked by one nation against another to verify chemical facilities adhere to treaty regulations.
Efforts to control chemical weapons must take into account that the countries that have them typically want
to keep them as a deterrent to other nations or groups. Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors
into Iraq despite not possessing chemical weapons after 1991 because he wanted Iran to believe he
possessed them in order to deter an invasion.25 This attempted deception is partially responsible for the
proliferation of weapons in the region. In addition, it contributed to a regional distrust resulting in Israel and
Egypt continuing to refuse CWC ratification and Syria only acceding in 2013. As Saddam Hussein’s example
suggests, chemical arms races can quickly develop as no country wants to be left without a deterrent to a
future chemical attack. De-escalation and an atmosphere of transparency are the only antidotes.
Another facet of chemical weapons regulation is that many of the chemicals commonly used for chemical
weapons are vital components of industry. For example, over 55 million metric tons of chlorine gas are
produced a year worldwide for a variety of purposes ranging from construction to disinfection.26 Due to its
many uses it would be impossible to ban chlorine gas outright, and due to its wide use there is little regulation
of its production. Both state and non-state organizations such as terrorist groups have taken advantage of
this lack of regulation to procure chlorine for attacks. In 2007, a chlorine attack on an American base in Iraq
injured 65 servicemen. Additionally, during the Syrian Civil War the Syrian government dropped chlorine gas
canisters on its own citizens even after it signed the CWC.27 Today, chemical weapons research is relentless
and new deadly agents or replacements for tightly controlled precursors may be discovered that are not
subject to restrictions by the CWC. New chemicals are not proactively tested for weapon capacity and
in more than two decades of existence, the list of restricted chemical agents has not been added to once,
creating a risk of dangerous groups acquiring new, unregulated chemicals.28
23 Caves, John. “Future Foreign Perceptions of Chemical Weapons Utility.” Center for the Study of WMDs, October 2010. 24 ibid25 Nasaw, Daniel. “FBI Reports Describe Saddam Hussein’s Reasons for Refusing UN Inspectors.” The Guardian, July 2, 2009, sec. World
news. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/02/saddam-hussein-fbi-iraq-iran.26 Brodsky, Benjamin. “Industrial Chemicals as Weapons: Chlorine.” Accessed May 5, 2017. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/
industrial-chemicals-weapons-chlorine/.27 ibid; Gladstone, Rick. “Syria Used Chlorine Bombs Systematically in Aleppo, Report Says.” The New York Times, February 13, 2017. https://
www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/middleeast/syrian-chlorine-bombs-aleppo-human-rights-watch.html.28 Caves, John. “Future Foreign Perceptions of Chemical Weapons Utility.” Center for the Study of WMDs, October 2010. http://wmdcenter.
ndu.edu/Portals/97/Documents/Publications/Articles/Future%20Foreign%20Perceptions%20of%20Chemical%20Weapons%20Utility.pdf.
8
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is the international community’s watchdog
and policy implementer for chemical weapons (OPCW). Headquartered in the Hague, the OPCW is an
independent organization established in 1997 to enforce the Chemical Weapons Convention, primarily
by assisting with weapons disposal and monitoring the chemical industry.29 The OPCW has agents on the
ground in the Syrian conflict and won the 2013 Nobel peace prize for their work disposing of Syrian chemical
stockpiles.30 Proposals should consider the OPCW’s implementation capacity with its budget of $95 million
dollars and 125 trained inspectors.31
Chemical weapons are an international problem. Their use can have horrific consequences and loose
regulation creates the risk of escalating production and stockpiling. The CWC was a great first step, but issues
remain in its implementation. DISEC must develop solutions for gaps in its coverage: unlisted precursors,
new chemicals, unregulated industrial chemicals, and a lack of inspections. There are also avenues for
cooperative solutions ranging from controlling chemistry expertise to information and antidote sharing.
Proposals must recognize the vital role that chemicals play in the global economy while still acting decisively
to eliminate their threat. Thousands of lives depend on the success of DISEC’s response to this issue.
29 “Mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.” Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Accessed May 5, 2017. https://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/mission/.
30 Lally, Kathy. “Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Wins 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.” Washington Post, October 11, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/chemical-weapons-watchdog-wins-nobel-peace-prize/2013/10/11/e656a87c-3254-11e3-ad00-ec4c6b31cbed_story.html.
31 ibid
9
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
History of the Problem
World War I & II
Poisons have been used on the tips of arrows and swords for centuries, but the first successful use of
chemical weapons occurred during World War I. In the early stages of the war both sides were dug into a
system of trenches that stretched over 400 miles between France and Germany, and the Central and Allied
powers were looking for anything that could break the stalemate. On April 22, 1915 Germany struck first on
an attack on trenches near the Belgian town of Ypres, an event which is considered the first modern usage
of chemical warfare.32 Though over a century ago, the factors leading to this decision and the results are still
illuminating current issues.
The first chemical weapon deployed on the battlefield was chlorine gas, which was chosen for its low cost
of production and common use in the German dye industry. These are the same factors that have caused
government and non-government forces to turn to chlorine as a weapon in recent decades. The Entente quickly
began to fight back with chemical weapons of their own, and both sides quickly developed countermeasures
that nullified any advantage the weapons could have given.33 Ultimately, chemical weapons did not help to
break the stalemate and only served to increase the suffering of soldiers and civilians.
Entering World War II, both sides had stockpiled large amounts of chemical weapons and had developed
advanced technical expertise in their development and production. Nazi Germany invented the first nerve
agent, Tabun, in 1936 and by 1945 had 7,000 tons of Sarin stockpiled, enough to kill Paris 30 times over.34
Despite these preparations, neither side used chemical weapons during the war. This can be explained by
mutually assured destruction (MAD), wherein neither side strikes first out of fear of devastating retaliation.
Today the term is used in conjunction with atomic weaponry, but in the early 40’s poisonous gases were the
most powerful weapons available and were treated as such in the calculations of world leaders.35 The lack of
a possible chemical response from Iran would later spur the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in the Iran-Iraq
war and demonstrates the instability created by regional powers possessing them.
32 Everts, Sarah. “When Chemicals Became Weapons of War.” 100 Years of Chemical Weapons, February 9, 2015. 33 ibid34 Trueman, C. “Chemical Warfare and World War Two.” History Learning Site, March 6, 2015. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/
world-war-two/chemical-warfare-and-world-war-two/.35 Lowe, Derek. “Chemical Warfare, Part Five: The Real World.” Science Translational Medicine, September 15, 2002. http://blogs.
sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2002/09/15/chemical_warfare_part_five_the_real_world.
10
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Cold War
Chemical weapons saw no direct use by the major superpowers after World War II. However,
contemporaneous with atomic weapons stockpiling, both east and west began to produce massive stashes
of chemical agents. When stockpiles were declared in 2000 to begin implementation of the CWC, there
were almost 70,000 tons of various agents across the major powers, enough to eradicate all life on Earth.36
Along with producing weapons developed in World War I and II, advanced nations continued research begun
by Nazi scientists into nerve agents. In 1952 scientists in the UK developed the most potent nerve agent to
date and codenamed it purple possum. Later it was renamed VX and stockpiled by the U.S.37 VX (short for
“Venomous Agent X”) is 10 times more toxic than Sarin and lingers in its environment.38 This demonstrates
the danger that unrestricted and unregulated chemical research can bring about to weapon lethality.
As a result of chemical weapon stockpiling during the Cold War, the most pressing issue in recent years has
been the proper disposal of these lethal substances. In particular, Russia has faced particular challenges in
the confusing aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. As the largest chemical weapons possessor with
a declared stockpile of 40,000 tons, of which 32,000 tons are nerve agents, Russia has continuously fallen
behind its schedule to demolish its weapon stockpiles.39 These weapons pose a risk to nearby communities
and environments as they continue to age and possibly leak their poisons into the air and soil. An even greater
danger is posed by the unknown number of agents disposed of in remote forests by the secretive Soviet
military. Until they are discovered, these improperly disposed chemicals pose a danger to the hundreds of
thousands who live near sites believed to be dumping grounds, which now register increasingly abnormal
toxicity levels.40 Therefore, states today face the challenge of both eliminating their chemical weapon
stockpiles and ensuring that these stockpiles are disposed of in a proper and safe manner.
Iran-Iraq War
The Iran-Iraq War is the only large scale use of chemical weapons in a conventional war since WWI. It
shows the dangers of an international community indifferent to the damage of chemical weapons. Iraq used
mustard gases and the nerve agents Tabun and Sarin against Iranian forces, resulting in the deaths of tens
36 “Report of OPCW on the Implemtation of the CWC in the Year 2000” (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, May 2001), https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/C-VI/en/C-VI_5-EN.pdf.; “History of CW Use,” Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, accessed June 7, 2017, https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/history-of-cw-use/.
37 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.
38 “Facts About VX,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accessed June 8, 2017, https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/vx/basics/facts.asp.39 David Hoffman, “Russia’s Forgotten Chemical Weapons,” Washington Post Foreign Service, August 16, 1998, sec. A.40 ibid
11
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
of thousands.41 The precursors and equipment for these weapons were bought from western powers who
knew that they would be used to create WMDs. The British government secretly paid for a chemical factory
in 1985, which they believed would be used for chemical weapon production.42 Supplies for the production
of chemical delivery munitions were obtained from Italy.43 In addition, the U.S supplied satellite imaging of
Iranian forces that they knew would be used to direct nerve gas attacks.44 The CIA reasoned that there was
little harm in assisting the usage of such weapons because there was little international response to Soviet
Union usage of chemical weapons in Afghanistan.45
Iran sought redress for Iraq’s usage of chemical weapons, but they were unable to gather enough evidence
to expose them before the U.N.46 The U.S intelligence community was aware of this and possessed the
needed evidence, but withheld it in order to support their interests in Iraq.47 The Iran-Iraq war represents
a failure of the international order to treat chemical weapons with the seriousness they deserve, leading to
their widespread use and lack of condemnation from the international community. This was corrected by the
regulations of the CWC, the advances of which are threatened today by the Syrian civil war.
Syria
The usage of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War is an ongoing issue. For decades before the conflict,
it was an open secret that Syria produced and researched chemical weapons.48 This transgression was
tolerated primarily as a diplomatic concession to balance Israel’s unofficial nuclear weapons possession.49
Because the international community did not pressure Syria in the past to remove its stockpiles, its civilians
are now suffering as a result of their use.
41 Matthew Aid and Shane Harris, “CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran,” Foreign Policy, August 26, 2013, https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/.
42 David Leigh and John Hooper, “Britain’s Dirty Secret,” The Guardian, March 6, 2003, sec. Politics, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/06/uk.iraq.
43 Matthew Aid and Shane Harris, “CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran,” Foreign Policy, August 26, 2013, https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/.
44 ibid45 ibid46 Ibid47 Ibid48 Glenn Kessler, “When the United States Looked the Other Way on Chemical Weapons,” Washington Post, September 4, 2013,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/04/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/.
49 ibid
12
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Sporadic alleged instances of small scale chemical usage were reported as early as December 2012,
prompting a U.N fact-finding mission to the country.50 In August 21, 2013 the observers witnessed a large
attack in Damascus which sickened over 1,000 victims.51 As a result western countries, namely the U.S,
U.K, and France, began to threaten military action against the government of Syria unless Syria turned
over its chemical weapon stockpiles, a diplomatic solution that Russia promoted.52 The Syrian government
acquiesced and acceded to the CWC on September 12, 2013.53 Its stockpiles and facilities were declared and
rapidly neutralized by American, Chinese, Danish, and Russian cooperation, a process that was completed
by January 2016.54 The destruction of thousands of tons of chemical agents that threatened a vulnerable
civilian population was a great success for the international movement to eliminate these weapons, and
showed what international cooperation could accomplish.
Unfortunately, the Syrian government did not fully cooperate with the OPCW, and chemical weapon usage
against civilians and opposition forces have continued to this day as the civil war grinds on. With many of
their advanced facilities closed and chemicals removed, the government has turned to simple Chlorine
gas, dropping canisters of it on civilians in Aleppo on at least eight separate occasions.55 There have also
been reports of Sarin gas usage, which suggests the government has hidden facilities for its production or
undisclosed stockpiles.56 The continued usage of chemical weapons is the result of a lack of consequences
for violation of the CWC and Russia’s defense of their ally.57 Putting a stop to chemical attacks on Syrian
civilians will require solutions that bring the Syrian government to task and limit the chemical weapons they
can produce.
50 Scott Shane, “Weren’t Syria’s Chemical Weapons Destroyed? It’s Complicated,” The New York Times, April 7, 2017, sec. Middle East, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/world/middleeast/werent-syrias-chemical-weapons-destroyed-its-complicated.html.
51 Yuta Kawashima and Alicia Sanders-Zakre, “Timeline of Syrian Chemical Weapons Activity,” Arms Control Association, April 7, 2017, https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity.
52 ibid53 ibid54 ibid55 Rick Gladstone, “Syria Used Chlorine Bombs Systematically in Aleppo, Report Says,” The New York Times, February 13, 2017, sec. Middle
East, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/middleeast/syrian-chlorine-bombs-aleppo-human-rights-watch.html.56 Scott Shane, “Weren’t Syria’s Chemical Weapons Destroyed? It’s Complicated,” The New York Times, April 7, 2017, sec. Middle East,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/world/middleeast/werent-syrias-chemical-weapons-destroyed-its-complicated.html.57 ibid
13
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Past Actions
Geneva Protocol
Since the very advent of chemical weapons, various international agreements have worked to limit their
use. The first truly global effort came in 1925 with the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of
Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, which banned the use of
chemical and biological weapons in warfare.58 While chemical weapons were not utilized during World War
II, they were still extensively researched and stockpiled in mass quantities throughout the war. A weakness
of the Geneva Protocol therefore was that it did not prevent countries from continuing research in chemical
weapons. Ultimately, both alliances in WWII had enough chemical weapons available that they could have
been used, but both sides likely feared retaliation from the other side enough to refrain from using them. As
both sides amassed large quantities of toxins it is likely that they would have been used had an opportunity
presented itself, rather it was fear of retaliation, not the Geneva Protocol, which stayed their use.
Chemical Weapons Convention
Due to the Geneva Protocol’s lack of real power, massive cold war stockpiling and continued chemical
weapons usage demonstrated a need for a stronger response to the chemical issue. Negotiations on the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) started in 1968 and slowly progressed to a full ban. The CWC was
ratified in 1993 and came into force in 1997.59 The final text of the convention sets a strict schedule for the
complete elimination of chemical weapons. According to the CWC, stockpiles must be eliminated by 2007,
ten years after it became binding, a deadline which has been repeatedly missed due to a lack of penalties,
technical limitations and the sheer scale of neutralization which must take place. Five countries, U.S, Russia,
South Korea, India and Albania, missed this original goal and required extensions.60 Currently, Russia and the
United States are still working towards elimination. U.S officials say that the United States’ stockpiles will be
destroyed by 2023 at a cost of $40 billion dollars, demonstrating how even when the technical capabilities
are present, safe disposal of toxic chemicals is exceedingly difficult.61 Countries with fewer resources than
the U.S have had an even harder time. Russia’s struggles with unidentified chemical weapons, as discussed in
58 “Genesis and Historical Development.” Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Accessed July 6, 2017. https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/genesis-and-historical-development.
59 ibid60 Lewis, Paul. “U.S Struggles Show Hazards of Chemical Weapons Destruction.” The Guardian, September 11, 2013, sec. World news.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/us-syria-chemical-weapons-destruction.61 ibid
14
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
the History of the Problem, show another cause of delays. Though the U.S supplies $500 million annually to
help other countries dispose of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, a larger sum is needed.62
Another issue facing the CWC is a lack of on-the-ground enforcement, particularly enforcement through
inspections of chemical facilities. Under the CWC, any member can request a challenge inspection of another
treaty nation.63 The country on the receiving end of an inspection is given a 12 hour warning, and it cannot
refuse the OPCW inspection unless a three-fourths majority of the 41 countries on the executive board of the
OPCW object.64 A primary factor in the inefficacy of the OPCW’s inspection policy is this voting procedure,
which makes inspections a political issue. Indeed, no challenge inspection has ever been called despite
concerns of illicit chemical activity in member countries.65 Additionally, there are no penalties for not fully
implementing the treaty’s stipulations. The United States Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation
Act of 1998 gives the President power to block OPCW inspectors from entering the nation “on grounds of
national security” and required that samples taken by OPCW be analyzed in American laboratories.66 Both
of these additions disregard the requirements of the CWC treaty.
The development of advanced riot control agents has undermined the stability and power of the CWC. Such
agents, which are powerful enough to completely incapacitate targets, blur the lines between RCAs and
chemical weapons. So far the members of the CWC have been reluctant to begin tackling this issue. A 2008
proposal by Switzerland to begin discussing reforms was vetoed by Iran, and since then there has been little
movement towards changes.67 Specific guidelines and restrictions on RCAs are needed to ensure that the
use of increasingly toxic agents does not become normalized and defeat the advances of the CWC.
The Australia Group
In order to encourage developing nations to join the convention, the CWC is light on regulations of industrial
chemicals and trade in chemicals. Developing nations are highly dependent on large quantities of dangerous
chemicals in order to develop their infrastructure and industries, and as a result would not join the CWC
if it set quotas on trade or production of such chemicals. Instead, the convention primarily relies on the
62 ibid63 MacKenzie. “Chemical Hypocrisy.” New Scientist, May 9, 1998. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15821330-400-chemical-
hypocrisy/.64 ibid65 Caves, Jr., John. “Future Foreign Perceptions of Chemical Weapons Utility.” Center for the Study of WMD, October 2010. http://www.
dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a536754.pdf.66 Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998. http://www.cwc.gov/cwc_authority_legislation_t3.html.67 Meier, Oliver. “No Time for Complacency: Tackling Challenges to the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Arms Control Association, June 8,
2010. https://www.armscontrol.org/events/2010OPCWConfRemarks.
15
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Australia Group, an informal group of 41 industrialized nations and the European Union who agree to control
exports of their chemicals.68 The Australia Group’s primary function is information sharing and establishing
a common list of export prohibited chemicals and blacklisted countries. However, the group’s decisions are
nonbinding, consensual and do not apply to the majority of the world’s countries. Additionally, new members
may only join by the consent of all existing members, a requirement that has been criticized by non-members
as exclusionary. The elitist and nonbinding nature of the Australia group weaken the effective power it can
actually wield, especially when it does not include China, the world’s top chemical exporter with 12% of
exports in 2016.69
The Australia Group
Non-CWC Nations
The CWC’s greatest success has been the reduction of massive cold war stockpiles held by the U.S and
Russia, as well as other nations such as India, Albania and South Korea. However, CWC participation has
been voluntary. The CWC has few incentives and no disincentives for non-members to encourage holdout
nations to sign and ratify the convention. Under article XI of the CWC, members pledge to eliminate any
restrictions in the chemical trade between members and have the right to participate in the fullest possible
trade of chemicals and scientific knowledge.70 However, there is no specific institutional implementation
of this policy, which remains more theoretical than practical.71 As a result, there are four states who are
68 Kimball, Daryl. “The Australia Group at a Glance.” Arms Control Association, October 2012. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/australiagroup.
69 Workman, Daniel. “Chemical Exports by Country.” World’s Top Exports, July 5, 2017. http://www.worldstopexports.com/chemical-exports-by-country/.
70 “Articles of the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Accessed July 15, 2017. https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/.71 Dorn, A. Walter, and Douglas Scott. “Compliance Provisions in the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Programme for Strategic and
International Security Studies, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 1995. http://walterdorn.net/17-compliance- provisions-in-the-chemical-weapons-convention#e66.
16
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
not party to the treaty at the moment, Israel, Egypt, South Sudan and North Korea. South Sudan’s non-
participation may be excused as resulting from its status as the world’s newest country and it is not suspected
of possessing chemical weapons. While Israel signed the CWC in 1993, it has never ratified it, citing Egypt’s
lack of participation.72 Egypt refuses to sign for the same reason and both countries are suspected to possess
chemical weapons.73 Despite being designed to overcome the distrustful mindset that promotes chemical
proliferation, the CWC has failed to overcome this impasse. Greater pressure is needed to ensure global
compliance, but as nations like Syria and the US fail in their obligations under the treaty, there may be
pushback against such a move as hypocritical.
72 “Arms Control and Proliferation Profile: Israel | Arms Control Association,” May 2017. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/israelprofile#nuclear.
73 “Egypt Overview.” Nuclear Threat Initiative, September 2015. http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/egypt/. “Arms Control and Proliferation Profile: Israel | Arms Control Association,” May 2017. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/israelprofile#nuclear.
17
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Possible Solutions
Despite the issues that continue to exist concerning chemical weapons, the CWC should be respected as a
monumental first step in their elimination and be used as a starting point for delegates’ solutions. Delegates’
proposals should look to shore up the CWC where it has fallen short. These proposals can be in the areas
identified earlier (slow disposal of weapons, over-politicization of its control mechanisms, a lack of inspections
and import controls) or others. What follows are suggestions to help start this process and should only be
used as such. It is expected that delegates will flesh out their solutions and also find new ones as well.
Inspections
The inspection process could be improved by removing it from an adversarial system to one where challenge
inspections are requested anonymously. Another possible solution could be to give the power to request
inspections to a neutral body. It should be kept in mind that a rotating body of CWC treaty members, the
executive council of the OPCW, exists and could assist in this new role. Attention should also be paid to states
like the U.S that have not fully consented to the terms of the CWC. Technologically advanced countries will
object to expanded inspections citing concerns over their use for spying or collection of trade secrets.
Precursors, Industrial Chemicals & New Technologies
A formal, binding document is needed to specify the obligations each country has to control its exports
of precursors and chemicals. The current Australian group is not comprehensive nor stringent enough
to prevent dangerous chemicals from falling into the wrong hands. For example, every state in the CWC
could be required to document all chemical exports. In addition, members could be barred from exporting
chemicals to nations in violation of the CWC or non-members. This could serve the dual purpose of also
encouraging the few holdouts of the CWC to join. The top chemical exporters, particularly China, Germany
and the U.S (who combined comprise almost a third of the global chemical trade) would object to extensive
export controls as hurting economic growth.74
The CWC limits production of restricted chemicals based on a system where chemicals are divided into
categories called schedules 1, 2, and 3. These categories range from chemical weapons with little to no
application in civilian use, grouped into schedule 1, to dangerous substances used in large quantities in
74 Workman, Daniel. “Chemical Exports by Country.” World’s Top Exports, July 5, 2017. http://www.worldstopexports.com/chemical- exports-by-country/.
18
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
civilian industries, grouped into schedule 3. This system has been useful, but it has not been updated to
include new chemicals in the past two decades despite years of advancement in chemistry and the synthesis
of thousands of new chemicals.75 An appointed body of chemists could analyze all new chemicals in order to
determine if they belong on a schedule so they may be banned proactively rather than after use in an attack.
Riot control agents (RCA) regulations also urgently need updates . There is currently little oversight of RCA’s,
leading to RCAs being used in ways that increasingly resemble chemical weapons. Most nations would block
a global prohibition on RCAs as they have become an entrenched part of police tactics. However, there
is opportunity to create stricter controls on their potency and acceptable usage situations. Authoritarian
countries which rely on RCAs for crowd control will push back against such measures, especially Russia
which has been on the forefront of RCA development and deployment.
Finally, this body could work to reduce the threat of misused industrial chemicals by encouraging initiatives
to develop and implement Inherently Safer Technologies (IST), technology which eliminates the usage
of dangerous chemicals. Progress has been made with chlorine gas in this area. For example, 207 water
treatment plants in the U.S have switched to ISTs like UV light and more stable sodium hypochlorite.76
Funding for IST research and information sharing could speed this transition worldwide. However, IST’s are
expensive and cannot completely eliminate all dangerous industrial chemicals. Additionally, requirements
for IST use may harm developing countries, where water treatment facilities and other infrastructure may
become more expensive or impossible to build.
Technological Expertise
Advanced chemical weapons beyond simple elements and compounds like chlorine require highly educated
personnel and special equipment. Currently, the CWC makes no effort to regulate chemical equipment
or individuals who possess the training needed to create weapons. A public registry of scientists and
equipment would help prevent non-state actors from manufacturing weapons on their own. Export controls
on chemistry equipment would also further this goal. Opponents of such measures may argue that this
threatens fundamental U.N principles of the free flow of scientific knowledge and could threaten individual
liberty or even endanger individuals on such an expert registry. On the other side, supporters can point to
75 Caves, Jr., John. “Future Foreign Perceptions of Chemical Weapons Utility.” Center for the Study of WMD, October 2010. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a536754.pdf.
76 Brodsky, Benjamin. “Industrial Chemicals as Weapons: Chlorine.” Nuclear Threat Initiative, July 31, 2007. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/industrial-chemicals-weapons-chlorine/.
19
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
controls of nuclear equipment such as centrifuges as a successful precedent for controlling the spread of
dangerous expertise when the risks outweigh the cost to scientific liberty.
Individuals could also be sanctioned by the international community for participating in chemical weapons
programs, rather than only prosecuted by their native countries as article VII of the CWC currently requires.77
For example, in April 2017 the U.S sanctioned 271 Syrian chemists who developed weapons for the nation,
prohibiting U.S citizens from interacting with them and seizing their assets in the U.S.78A global application
of these methods could discourage expert participation in programs that violate international law.
Europe and North America
This region forms the backbone of the Australia Group and has been the major force behind the CWC. For
European nations, especially France, the U.K, and Germany, this commitment arises from their shared history
77 “Articles of the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Accessed July 15, 2017. https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/.78 “Treasury Sanctions 271 Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center Staff in Response to Sarin Attack on Khan Sheikhoun.” U.S
Department of the Treasury, April 24, 2017. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/sm0056.aspx.
20
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
of chemical attacks in World War I. Together, the two continents are strongly committed to the complete
elimination of chemical weapons.
However, countries within this region may disagree on new reforms to the CWC due to chemical exports
forming a large portion of their highly developed economies. The region possesses a high level of chemical
expertise, represents a large share of the chemical industry and is interested in preserving the current status
quo on chemical exports. Half of the global chemical trade originates from nations in this bloc.79 In addition,
they have a history of selling chemistry equipment and constructing production facilities unscrupulously,
such as when the U.K and Ireland helped Iran’s regime for monetary gain in the 1980s.80 Members will have
to balance their commitment to a chemical-weapons-free world against economic concerns.
South America
South American countries have little experience with chemical weapons and have remained fully compliant
with the CWC. Their particular strength and focus lies in defensive measures against chemical weapons and
together they have implemented collaborative programs to prepare their forces against chemical agents.
The Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries, (GRULAC) has been at the vanguard of this effort,
holding training camps to disseminate chemical weapons preparedness among its constituent members.81
Asia
China, the world’s largest chemical exporter, is not a member of the Australia Group. It also lacks significant
oversight or regulation of its domestic chemical industry, as demonstrated by its large export of untested
counterfeit drugs.82 China and many other industrializing nations will resist regulation of their chemical
industry, which they view as dangerous to their economic development and patronizing.
Russia’s premier issue is the development and deployment of RCAs. Russia will resist regulation of RCAs on
both domestic limits and export controls, as Moscow increasingly relies on them to suppress public dissent
and separatist groups in regions such as Chechnya. Other authoritarian nations, particularly Iran and other
79 Workman, Daniel. “Chemical Exports by Country.” World’s Top Exports, July 5, 2017. http://www.worldstopexports.com/chemical-exports-by-country/.
80 Leigh, David, and John Hooper. “Britain’s Dirty Secret.” The Guardian, March 6, 2003, sec. Politics. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/06/uk.iraq.
81 “Uruguayan Army Reinforces Latin American Security Against Chemical Weapons.” Dialogo Americas. Accessed July 15, 2017. https://dialogo-americas.com/en/articles/uruguayan-army-reinforces-latin-american-security-against-chemical-weapons.
82 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.
21
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
nations in the Middle East, will most likely lean towards Russia on this issue. Russia also struggles with the
demolition of its remaining stockpiles and large quantities of chemicals abandoned in rural areas. This is an
issue it shares with China, which is still working to remove 350,000 chemical munitions left behind by the
Japanese occupation of World War II.83
Finally, North Korea is extremely isolated on many international issues, of which chemical weapons are just
one part. The hermit kingdom is believed to possess the world’s third largest stockpile of chemical weapons
and publicly demonstrated their abilities in February 2017 by assassinating Kim Jong Un’s half-brother in
Malaysia using VX nerve agent.84 Though there are three other non-signatories to the CWC, they all disavow
chemical weapons programs and are unlikely to stand with North Korea.
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
MENA has had the most recent experience with chemical weapons, as they were widely used in the Iran-Iraq
war and most nations in the region have stockpiled large quantities of chemical agents at some point. Once
home to a large amount of chemical weapons possessors, most nations in the region have rapidly acceded to
the CWC. Most notably, Libya shocked the world when it abruptly renounced its chemical weapons program
and signed the CWC in 2004, completing demolition of its stockpiles in 2016.85 However, the region is
home to two of the remaining non-signatories, Israel and Egypt, as well as Syria, which has disregarded its
obligations under the CWC.
MENA nations generally oppose greater inspections as the many diplomatic fault lines in the region make
them distrustful of inspections misuse for spying purposes, a chief concern of Israel.86 Another key issue
is Israel’s alleged nuclear program, which was commonly used as an argument against signing the CWC in
the region. Today, Egypt, which has a history of chemical weapon usage, considers it unfair that they be
pressured to open themselves to inspections while Israel remains secretive about its nuclear program.87
Other nations in the region may use such arguments to resist expanded inspections powers.
83 “Chemical and Biological Weapons Status at a Glance | Arms Control Association.” Arms Control Association, June 2017. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif.
84 “Chemical Weapon VX Nerve Agent Killed North Korean Leader’s Half Brother: Malaysian Police.” Reuters, February 25, 2017. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-malaysia-kim-idUSKBN16303Z.
85 “Chemical and Biological Weapons Status at a Glance | Arms Control Association.” Arms Control Association, June 2017. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif.
86 Steinberg, Gerald. “Israeli Policy on the Chemical Weapons Convention | Iran Watch.” Iran Watch, November 1, 2000. http://www. iranwatch.org/library/international-organization/organisation-prohibition-chemical-weapons-opcw/israeli-policy-chemical- weapons-convention.
87 Cole-Hamilton, David, and Ehud Keinan. “Why Ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention Is in Israel’s Best Interest.” The Conversation, September 8, 2016. http://theconversation.com/why-ratifying-the-chemical-weapons-convention-is-in-israels-best-interest-63889.
22
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Sub-Saharan Africa
Similar to South America, countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have little experience with chemical warfare and
share a consensus that chemical weapons have no place in the region.88 Nations in the region are interested in
measures that would help their developing chemical industries such as free trade in chemicals and expertise.
88 Broodryk, Amelia, and Noël Stott. “Enhancing the Role of the OPCW in Building Africa’s Capacity to Prevent the Misuse of Toxic Chemicals.” Institute for Security Studies, May 2011.
23
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Glossary
Australia Group: Founded and managed by Australia, this informal organization of 41 nations and the
European Union jointly create and implement uniform regulations for the export of chemicals that may
be used in chemical weapons programs.89 There are no mechanisms to enforce implementation and many
chemical exporters are not included in the group, most notably China.
Blister (Vesicant) Agent: Chemicals which burn skin and damage eyes, often resulting in blindness and
potentially lethal infections.90 A particular issue with them is their ability to pollute areas where they are
used and kill victims of exposure over the course of years. Mustard gas is a common blister agent and was
widely used in the Iran-Iraq war.91
Challenge Inspection: A challenge inspection may be requested by one member of the CWC against another.
Unless three-fourths of the executive board of the OPWC object, the inspection will start after a 12 hour
warning and cannot be denied.92 A challenge inspection has never been requested under the CWC.
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC): The current international agreement on chemical weapons control
has been in effect since 1997 with 192 parties to it.93 Only Egypt, South Sudan, and North Korea are non-
signatories, while Israel signed, but did not ratify the CWC. Its goal is a complete elimination of chemical
weapons worldwide enforced through a system of challenge inspections. To date, with the exception of
Syria, it has been mostly effective in this goal, particularly in regards to the U.S and Russia.
Chlorine: Used widely in industry, chlorine can also be misappropriated as an inhalation agent. The Syrian
government has increasingly used chlorine gas against its people.94 Due to its need for industry, strong
controls are needed to prevent its misuse as it cannot be outright banned.
89 Kimball, Daryl. “The Australia Group at a Glance.” Arms Control Association, October 2012. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/australiagroup.
90 “Types of Chemical Weapons.” Federation of American Scientists, n.d. https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/cwagents.html.91 Wright, Robin. “Iran Still Haunted and Influenced By Chemical Weapons Attacks.” Time, January 20, 2014. http://world.time.
com/2014/01/20/iran-still-haunted-and-influenced-by-chemical-weapons-attacks/.92 “Articles of the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Accessed July 15, 2017. https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/.93 “Genesis and Historical Development.” Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Accessed July 6, 2017. https://www.opcw.org/
chemical-weapons-convention/genesis-and-historical-development.94 Gladstone, Rick. “Syria Used Chlorine Bombs Systematically in Aleppo, Report Says.” The New York Times, February 13, 2017, sec. Middle
East. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/middleeast/syrian-chlorine-bombs-aleppo-human-rights-watch.html.
24
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC): A United Nations regional body consisting of
all the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. Members collaborate in the body to develop consensus
on issues and cooperate on regional initiatives.
Inhalation Agent: Chemicals which attack lung tissue, resulting in scarring and long term injury or death.
Chlorine and Phosgene gas are two inhalation agents.
Inherently Safer Technologies (IST): Technologies which aim to eliminate the usage of potentially weaponized
chemicals or chemical weapons precursors in industry. UV wastewater treatment is one IST.95
Nerve Agent: Chemicals which block enzymes responsible for controlling neurotransmitters, resulting in
loss of bodily control and ultimately death by respiratory failure within minutes of exposure. A full recovery
is possible if victims are promptly treated with an antidote, most commonly Atropine. Sarin and VX are two
examples of nerve agents.
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): A political doctrine where two antagonistic forces will not attack
one another due to the threat of a massive retaliatory strike from the defender.
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW): The OPCW is located in the Hague and is
responsible for overseeing the implementation of the CWC. An executive council composed of 41 countries
resolves compliance conflicts between members, recommends sanctions and other actions to the Security
Council and general assembly, and approves challenge inspections.96 Countries are voted onto the council
based on a set number of seat for different geographic regions.
Riot Control Agent (RCA): Chemicals used primarily for domestic law enforcement. They are not defined
based on their effects, but often attempt to incapacitate through irritation of mucous membranes in the
eyes and lungs. RCAs may be chemical weapons when used outside of law enforcement, but there is no
international consensus or agreements on their regulation.
95 Brodsky, Benjamin. “Industrial Chemicals as Weapons: Chlorine.” Nuclear Threat Initiative, July 31, 2007. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/industrial-chemicals-weapons-chlorine/.
96 Dorn, A. Walter, and Douglas Scott. “Compliance Provisions in the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Programme for Strategic and International Security Studies, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 1995. http://walterdorn.net/17-compliance- provisions-in-the-chemical-weapons-convention.
25
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Sarin: A common nerve agent which blocks enzymes responsible for destroying neurotransmitters. This
causes all nerves it reaches to fire uncontrollably, which results in crying, vomiting, defecation, paralysis
and death 1-10 minutes after exposure.97 However, a full recovery is possible if promptly treated with an
antidote, which can be stockpiled inexpensively.98
97 Hamblin, James. “What Does Sarin Do to People?” The Atlantic, May 6, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/what-does-sarin-do-to-people/275577.
98 Dietrich-Egensteiner, Will. “How the Nerve Gas Antidote Works.” Popular Mechanics, August 28, 2013. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/how-it-works-atropine-the-nerve-gas-antidote-15859092
26
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Works Cited
Aid, Matthew, and Shane Harris. “CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran.” Foreign Policy, August
26, 2013. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-
gassed-iran/.
“Arms Control and Proliferation Profile: Israel.” Arms Control Association, May 2017. https://www.armscontrol.org/
factsheets/israelprofile.
“Articles of the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Accessed July 15, 2017. https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-
convention/articles/.
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.
Brodsky, Benjamin. “Industrial Chemicals as Weapons: Chlorine.” Nuclear Threat Initiative, July 31, 2007. http://www.
nti.org/analysis/articles/industrial-chemicals-weapons-chlorine/.
Broodryk, Amelia, and Noël Stott. “Enhancing the Role of the OPCW in Building Africa’s Capacity to Prevent the
Misuse of Toxic Chemicals.” Institute for Security Studies, May 2011.
Caves, Jr., John. “Future Foreign Perceptions of Chemical Weapons Utility.” Center for the Study of WMD, October
2010. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a536754.pdf.
“Chemical and Biological Weapons Status at a Glance.” Arms Control Association, June 2017. https://www.armscontrol.
org/factsheets/cbwprolif.
“Chemical Weapon VX Nerve Agent Killed North Korean Leader’s Half Brother: Malaysian Police.” Reuters, February
25, 2017. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-malaysia-kim-idUSKBN16303Z.
Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (1998). http://www.cwc.gov/cwc_authority_legislation_
t3.html.
Cole-Hamilton, David, and Ehud Keinan. “Why Ratifying the Chemical Weapons Convention Is in Israel’s Best Interest.”
The Conversation, September 8, 2016. http://theconversation.com/why-ratifying-the-chemical-weapons-
convention-is-in-israels-best-interest-63889.
Dietrich-Egensteiner, Will. “How the Nerve Gas Antidote Works.” Popular Mechanics, August 28, 2013. http://www.
popularmechanics.com/science/health/how-it-works-atropine-the-nerve-gas-antidote-15859092.
Dorn, A. Walter, and Douglas Scott. “Compliance Provisions in the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Programme for
Strategic and International Security Studies, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 1995. http://
walterdorn.net/17-compliance-provisions-in-the-chemical-weapons-convention.
“Egypt Overview.” Nuclear Threat Initiative, September 2015. http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/egypt/.
Everts, Sarah. “When Chemicals Became Weapons of War.” Chemical & Engineering News, February 9, 2015. http://
chemicalweapons.cenmag.org/when-chemicals-became-weapons-of-war/.
“Facts About VX.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed June 8, 2017. https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/
vx/basics/facts.asp.
27
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Farley, Robert, and Robertson. “Hitler and Chemical Weapons.” FactCheck.org, April 12, 2017. http://www.factcheck.
org/2017/04/hitler-chemical-weapons/.
“Genesis and Historical Development.” Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Accessed July 6, 2017.
https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/genesis-and-historical-development.
Gladstone, Rick. “Syria Used Chlorine Bombs Systematically in Aleppo, Report Says.” The New York Times, February 13,
2017, sec. Middle East. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/middleeast/syrian-chlorine-bombs-
aleppo-human-rights-watch.html.
Hamblin, James. “What Does Sarin Do to People?” The Atlantic, May 6, 2013. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/
archive/2013/05/what-does-sarin-do-to-people/275577.
“History of CW Use.” Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Accessed June 7, 2017. https://www.opcw.
org/about-chemical-weapons/history-of-cw-use/.
Hoffman, David. “Russia’s Forgotten Chemical Weapons.” Washington Post Foreign Service, August 16, 1998, sec. A.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/leonidovkaa.htm.
Kastan, Benjamin. “The Chemical Weapons Convention and Riot Control Agents: Advantages of a ‘Methods’ Approach
to Arms Control.” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 22 (2012): 267–90.
Kawashima, Yuta, and Alicia Sanders-Zakre. “Timeline of Syrian Chemical Weapons Activity.” Arms Control Association,
April 7, 2017. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity.
Kessler, Glenn. “When the United States Looked the Other Way on Chemical Weapons.” Washington Post, September
4, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/04/history-lesson-when-the-
united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/.
Kimball, Daryl. “The Australia Group at a Glance.” Arms Control Association, October 2012. https://www.armscontrol.
org/factsheets/australiagroup.
Lally, Kathy. “Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Wins 2013 Nobel Peace Prize.” Washington Post,
October 11, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/chemical-weapons-watchdog-wins-nobel-
peace-prize/2013/10/11/e656a87c-3254-11e3-ad00-ec4c6b31cbed_story.html.
Leigh, David, and John Hooper. “Britain’s Dirty Secret.” The Guardian, March 6, 2003, sec. Politics. https://www.
theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/06/uk.iraq.
Lewis, Paul. “US Struggles Show Hazards of Chemical Weapons Destruction.” The Guardian, September 11, 2013, sec.
World news. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/us-syria-chemical-weapons-destruction.
Lowe, Derek. “Chemical Warfare, Part Five: The Real World.” In the Pipeline, September 15, 2002. http://blogs.
sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2002/09/15/chemical_warfare_part_five_the_real_world.
MacKenzie. “Chemical Hypocrisy.” New Scientist, May 9, 1998. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15821330-
400-chemical-hypocrisy/.
Meier, Oliver. “No Time for Complacency: Tackling Challenges to the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Arms Control
Association, June 8, 2010. https://www.armscontrol.org/events/2010OPCWConfRemarks.
“Mission of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.” Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, n.d. https://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/mission/.
28
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Nasaw, Daniel. “FBI Reports Describe Saddam Hussein’s Reasons for Refusing UN Inspectors.” The Guardian, July 2,
2009, sec. World News. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/02/saddam-hussein-fbi-iraq-iran.
Reed, Laura. “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Hampshire College, n.d. https://www.hampshire.edu/pawss/weapons-
of-mass-destruction.
“Report of OPCW on the Implementation of the CWC in the Year 2000.” Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons, May 2001. https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/C-VI/en/C-VI_5-EN.pdf.
Shane, Scott. “Weren’t Syria’s Chemical Weapons Destroyed? It’s Complicated.” The New York Times, April 7, 2017, sec.
Middle East. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/world/middleeast/werent-syrias-chemical-weapons-
destroyed-its-complicated.html.
Steinberg, Gerald. “Israeli Policy on the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Iran Watch, November 1, 2000. http://www.
iranwatch.org/library/international-organization/organisation-prohibition-chemical-weapons-opcw/israeli-
policy-chemical-weapons-convention.
“Sudan Government Accused of Using Chemical Weapons in Darfur.” BBC News, September 29, 2016, sec. Africa.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37497025.
“Treasury Sanctions 271 Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center Staff in Response to Sarin Attack on Khan
Sheikhoun.” U.S Department of the Treasury, April 24, 2017. https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-
releases/Pages/sm0056.aspx.
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.
Trueman, C. “Trueman, C. ‘Chemical Warfare and World War Two.’ History Learning Site, March 6, 2015. Http://
www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-War-Two/chemical-Warfare-and-World-War-Two/.” History Learning Site, March 6, 2015. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/chemical-warfare-and-world-war-
two/.
“Types of Chemical Weapons.” Federation of American Scientists, n.d. https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/
cwagents.html.
“Uruguayan Army Reinforces Latin American Security Against Chemical Weapons.” Dialogo Americas. Accessed July
15, 2017. https://dialogo-americas.com/en/articles/uruguayan-army-reinforces-latin-american-security-
against-chemical-weapons.
Woodward, Paul. “How Easy Is It to Make Sarin?” War in Context, December 11, 2013. http://warincontext.
org/2013/12/11/how-easy-is-it-to-make-sarin.
Workman, Daniel. “Chemical Exports by Country.” World’s Top Exports, July 5, 2017. http://www.worldstopexports.
com/chemical-exports-by-country/.
Wright, Robin. “Iran Still Haunted and Influenced By Chemical Weapons Attacks.” Time, January 20, 2014. http://
world.time.com/2014/01/20/iran-still-haunted-and-influenced-by-chemical-weapons-attacks/.
29
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
TOPIC B: MAINTAINING SECURITY IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Statement of the Problem
After decades of warnings the world is slowly waking up to the reality of climate change and beginning to
charter a response. It is presently unclear how successful the new Paris climate accords will be, but even if the
current target of two degrees centigrade is met, it will only slow down what has now become an unstoppable
process. The world’s climate is changing, rapidly and for the worse, and while efforts to slow this transition
are worthwhile we must prepare for a grim future. Ahead lies a planet where previously verdant regions
are rendered virtually uninhabitable, major coastal cities are sunk, and millions of climate change refugees
travel in search of a safe home. New York will have the same extreme climate as Bahrain, and global grain
production may be close to halved.99 The destruction of climate change will be parceled out over the course
of decades and as a result it is unlike any other threat the United Nations has faced. Yet it is still an issue that
international cooperation can tackle. Such unity is not only desired, but required. This committee will seek to
establish areas where nations can support one another as they each grapple with the damages of a changing
climate. The driving mission behind its resolutions shall be to uphold the stability of states and prevent the
weakening of governments which may lead inexorably towards war and civil strife.
Climate Change Status and Effects
Climate change is a result of global warming, the increase in worldwide average temperature measured
relative to pre-industrial revolution temperature levels. These temperature increases are due to the
accumulation of heat trapping greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere. These gases
act as a blanket for the earth, absorbing infrared radiation emitted from the ground and preventing the heat
from escaping into space.100 Though humans have been adding greenhouse gases to the air since prehistoric
times, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 took off in the 1950s as the global population exploded.
99 Wallace-Wells, David. “When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.” New York Magazine, July 9, 2017. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html.
100 Ackerman, Steven, and Jonathan Martin. “How Does Carbon Dioxide Affect Global Warming?.” The Weather Guys, UW-Madison. Accessed July 21, 2017. http://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/how-does-carbon-dioxide-affect-global-warming/.
30
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Emissions after World War II were responsible for 85% of the 2,000 gigatons of CO2 released since 1750.101
Global CO2 levels have now passed an atmospheric concentration of 400 molecules per million molecules,
a measure that has not been seen in at least 800,000 years.102 While temperatures have been creeping up
since the 1850s, they began to drastically increase in the 1950s as a result of the contemporaneous rapid
increase in the rate of CO2 emissions. 15 of the 16 warmest years recorded in human history occurred after
the 2000 with 2016 taking the title of warmest year ever from 2015.103
The primary result of this temperature increase has been greater precipitation and a higher frequency of
extreme weather events, particularly hurricanes and flooding.104 A particular devastating or freak weather
event cannot be directly linked to climate change as the culprit. Rather, climate change increases the odds
that such events will occur, causing them to occur with greater frequency. Another effect of global warming
is the rapid loss of polar ice. In the last 30 years, the world has lost an area of arctic ice 10 times the size
of the United Kingdom, which has contributed to increasing sea levels that threaten to submerge coastal
regions and islands.105 The shift in weather will threaten global food production even as the world population
continues to increase. Every degree increase in average global temperatures is expected to decrease grain
output by 10%, leading to a hungrier, more restless population.106
For these reasons climate change is widely considered to be the greatest threat to global and regional
stability. Countries that struggle with weak governments, economies and development levels will be
unable to resist the many challenges that climate change will throw at them such as an increasingly erratic
food supply or more frequent hurricanes. This could lead to a rapid proliferation of failed states similar to
Somalia, particularly in Northern Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.107 For this reason, climate change
is considered a major threat to United States national security, as the greater incidence of global conflict
101 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf , Wallace-Wells, David. “When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.” New York Magazine, July 9, 2017. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html.
102 Ackerman, Steven, and Jonathan Martin. “How Does Carbon Dioxide Affect Global Warming?” The Weather Guys, UW-Madison. Accessed July 21, 2017. http://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/how-does-carbon-dioxide-affect-global-warming/.
103 Stylianou, Nassos, Paul Rincon, and John Walton. “Climate Change Explained in Six Graphics.” BBC News. Accessed July 21, 2017. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb.
104 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf.
105 Stylianou, Nassos, Paul Rincon, and John Walton. “Climate Change Explained in Six Graphics.” BBC News. Accessed July 21, 2017. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb.
106 Wallace-Wells, David. “When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.” New York Magazine, July 9, 2017. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html.
107 King, Marcus, and Ralph Espach. “Global Climate Change and State Stability.” Center for Naval Analyses, August 2009. https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0020868.A2.pdf.
31
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
could strain U.S military resources that must also help the U.S recover from climate disasters.108 The United
States often uses its military personnel to respond to particularly devastating natural disasters and as their
frequency increases this may become effectively an additional theatre of operations which they must be
almost continually active in. While it is a difficult science to predict exactly how much more conflict will
result from global warming, analysis of all recorded human conflict suggests that every one degree increase
in global temperature results in 4% more interpersonal violence and 14% more conflict between nations,
largely due to less dependable food supplies and lower economic output.109
Climate change may also drive conflict due to newly exposed resources. The arctic is a particular hotbed as
melting sea ice has allowed the fabled Northwest Passage to become a reality year-round and exposed newly
exploitable oil deposits. The route can cut weeks off a journey from Asia to Europe, making it a potentially
lucrative source of shipping fees for whomever controls it.110 As a result, countries which previously did not
care about their northern backyards are now aggressively competing for sovereignty in the region. In 2007,
Russia planted a flag on a disputed coastal self in an attempt to press its claim against Canada, and while the
dispute has remained diplomatic so far, there is no guarantee it will not turn violent as the world’s resources
diminish due to climate change.111
Finally, climate change has resulted in an increased frequency of disease outbreaks. For example, Zika is
not believed to be a novel disease, but became well known globally when temperature increases allowed
its host mosquito to travel into previously safe northern climates. This is a particular issue for the countries
of North America and Europe, whose dense populations are now suddenly at risk of contracting diseases
never before seen in their environments. Another biological hazard is the return of ancient diseases or the
introduction of completely new contagions. Viruses of the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic, the most deadly
pandemic in human history resulting in 100 million deaths, have been isolated in melting permafrost and it is
believed that eradicated smallpox and bubonic plague also lie in wait in the frozen soil.112 While no one has
contracted these diseases, a release of anthrax from a reindeer which died at least 75 years ago and thawed
out in 2016 killed a boy and sickened 20 others.113
108 “National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate.” Department of Defense, July 23, 2015.109 Hsiang, Solomon M., Marshall Burke, and Edward Miguel. “Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict.” Science 341, no. 6151
(September 13, 2013): 1235367. doi:10.1126/science.1235367.110 Jean-Paul. “Polar Shipping Routes.” New York: Department of Global Studies & Geography, Hofsra University, 1998. https://people.
hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/conc1en/polarroutes.html.111 Chivers, C. J. “Russians Plant Flag on the Arctic Seabed.” The New York Times, August 3, 2007, sec. Europe. https://www.nytimes.
com/2007/08/03/world/europe/03arctic.html.112 Wallace-Wells, David. “When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.” New York Magazine, July 9,
2017. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html.113 ibid
32
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Problem as it Stands
The fallout of climate change has remained largely unaddressed. The onslaught of new diseases, rising seas,
extreme weather, food shortages and climate refugees will strain both developing and developed nations.
Particular issues, such as refugees or world health, have been addressed by the U.N, but not in a way that
recognizes the unique rapid onset of these threats combined with their interrelated nature. A comprehensive
agreement to shoulder the costs of climate instability and lay the foundation for stabilizing institutions is
needed in order to maintain world order.
Repercussions of human attempts to reverse global warming may prove an even larger threat than global
warming itself. For example, some have suggested that experimental technology be used to manipulate the
climate and reduce rates of warming. Such technology is referred to as geoengineering. Cloud seeding is a
geoengineering technology which has been in use for over 75 years. Cloud seeding aims to induce rainfall
by spraying particulates from airplanes or mountaintop generators into clouds where they freeze and cause
raindrops to condense. This technology was used in 2015 to extend rainfall in Texas by an estimated 34%
and to prevent rain during the 2008 Beijing Olympics.114 A year later China attempted to end a drought with
this technology, but their efforts instead resulted in Beijing unexpectedly being covered in snow, illustrating
the risky nature of such technology.115
Cloud seeding is just a local technology, utilized by nations domestically. A larger, looming, threat is the
application of geoengineering on a global scale. One proposal to combat climate change and increase global
stability is to inject large quantities of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Such a plan would increase the
incidence of acid rain, but could reflect 1% of sunlight back into space, cooling the earth considerably.116
However, unintended consequences, such as large regional droughts or runaway cooling may create
new problems for the world. Iron seeding is another proposed geoengineering technology which aims to
induce massive plankton blooms in the oceans by dumping iron. These blooms would suck CO2 out of the
atmosphere, but could also result in continent sized dead zones from blocked light and heat and runaway
oxygen consumption.117 Such risks has led even the famed environmentalist Al Gore to call such ideas
“delusional in the extreme”.118 The U.N has reacted by instituting a ban in 2010 on any geoengineering under
114 Landrum, Nancy. “Geoengineering: A Dangerous Tool or Climate Control of the Future?” Pacific Standard, February 27, 2017. https://psmag.com/news/geoengineering-a-dangerous-tool-or-climate-control-of-the-future.
115 ibid116 Aulakh, Raveena. “Is David Keith’s Climate Solution Genius or Madness? | Toronto Star.” Thestar.com, September 27, 2015. https://www.
thestar.com/news/insight/2015/09/27/is-david-keiths-climate-solution-genius-or-madness.html.117 Powell, Hugh. “What Are the Possible Side Effects?” Oceanus Magazine, January 2008. http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/
what-are-the-possible-side-effects.118 ibid
33
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
the Convention on Biological Research until future research can be conducted.119 However, the ban was
already violated in 2012, when an American businessman dumped 100 tons of iron sulphate into the Pacific,
resulting in a 10,000 square kilometer plankton bloom.120 It can be expected that as the climate worsens, such
methods will gain increasing state support. An international agreement is needed to regulate technologies
that affect the entire world in order to avoid permanent damage and the possible resulting retributions.
119 Eilperin, Juliet. “Geoengineering Sparks International Ban, First-Ever Congressional Report.” Washington Post, October 30, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102906361.html.
120 Lukacs, Martin. “World’s Biggest Geoengineering Experiment ‘Violates’ UN Rules.” The Guardian, October 15, 2012, sec. Environment. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering.
34
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
History of the Problem
Rising Temperatures and Social Stability
Historically, rising temperatures appear to have decreased the stability of affected societies, which in turn
has increased the rate of societal collapse and led to failed states and both intrastate and interstate wars. This
is largely due to the effect higher temperatures have on crop yields. Higher global temperatures decrease
agricultural productivity and raise food prices. Citizens that rely on subsistence agriculture or are severely
impoverished are directly threatened by decreased yields. A starving population is an accelerant for civil
unrest.
The conflict history of Sub-Saharan Africa demonstrates this connection between temperature and warfare
in a large number of recorded conflicts associated with accompanying temperature fluctuations. Since
35
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
1960, two-thirds of countries in the region have experienced some form of civil conflict.121 These nations
are also particularly vulnerable to climate change, as 50% of GDP and 90% of employment in this region is
agriculturally based.122 As a result, a one degree increase in average temperatures in the region has been linked
to a 4.5% increase in civil war for the year and a 0.9% increase the next.123 This means that roughly 49% more
conflict occurs with higher regional warming, as compared to the historical regional baseline rate of 11%.124
If current models of future temperature increases hold, and wars remains as deadly as past conflicts, then it
is predicted that 393,000 additional battle deaths will be caused by 2030 than would have occurred absent
warming.125 These numbers do not account for the secondary civilian deaths that result from these wars,
the deaths and developmental defects caused by famine, or lost economic productivity. Sub-Saharan Africa
is presently experiencing both rapid economic growth as well as a gradual strengthening of its democratic
institutions. However, these gains may be overwhelmed by global warming if the international community
does not assist with the process of fortifying their infrastructure and systems against climate change.
Egypt helps illustrate the connection between climate change and state volatility. Egypt is not as dependent
on agriculture as many nations in Sub-Saharan Africa, but has still experienced climate-related instability.
In 2011, bread prices in Egypt rose 30% over the course of a year, and citizens typically spent around 40%
of their income on food alone.126 This economic distress laid the groundwork for the unrest that would
ultimately lead to the overthrow of the old regime. The rapid increase in the price of bread was due to regional
and global droughts that hurt global grain production. As a relatively impoverished nation that imports 60%
of its wheat, Egypt bore the majority of this loss while richer neighbors like Saudi Arabia bought up supplies
on the global market to stabilize their prices.127 Egypt is a canary in the coal mine. It demonstrates that as
climate change events continue to damage global supply chains and agricultural production, wealthier and
wealthier nations will be squeezed out of the global market and face increasing political unrest.
Syrian Civil War
The Syrian Civil War has been in the global spotlight since it erupted in 2011 during the Arab Spring. The
conflict represents the worst case scenario for state stability as the Syrian government has grappled with the
121 Burke, Marshall B., Edward Miguel, Shanker Satyanath, John A. Dykema, and David B. Lobell. “Warming Increases the Risk of Civil War in Africa.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 49 (August 12, 2009): 20670–74. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907998106.
122 ibid123 ibid124 ibid125 ibid126 Biello, David. “Are High Food Prices Fueling Revolution in Egypt?” Scientific American Blog Network, February 1, 2011. https://blogs.
scientificamerican.com/observations/are-high-food-prices-fueling-revolution-in-egypt/.127 ibid
36
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
demands of climate change. From 2007 to 2010, Syria experienced the worst recorded multiyear drought
in its history, the severity of which was exacerbated by the moderate to severe droughts that the region
had already suffered near-continuously since 1998.128 Higher temperatures resulting from global warming
dried out the soil in Syria and changed weather patterns over time. Syria has thus received less rainfall from
the Mediterranean during its rainy season than it used to, triggering the collapse of their food-production
capabilities. The record-breaking multiyear drought reduced agricultural production to almost nothing,
resulting in 80% of families in the rural northern region of Syria abandoning their homes.129 These 1.5 million
Syrians fled to urban areas in search for food and were quickly crammed into overcrowded and underserved
areas in urban peripheries.130 The Syrian government was not able to properly care for the influx of displaced
persons, leading to political unrest which contributed to Syria’s explosion into full civil war. The final event
that helped trigger violence in Syria was when the global grain shortage hit Egypt in 2011 and increased
bread prices in Syria to intolerable levels.
Syria is a particular tragedy because the government had opportunities to manage the environmental
factors which would eventually lead to the devastation of the drought. For example, a 2005 law required a
license to dig wells in order to reduce overuse of groundwater, but this law was unenforced.131 The continued
exploitation of groundwater depleted the water table to the point where it could not make up for the lack
of rain during the drought. Additionally, wealthier neighbors and international actors could have recognized
the extreme social strain the new urban population was exerting on Syria and provided aid before the
situation collapsed into full war. A lack of preparedness for the new conditions climate change would exert
contributed to a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions. Global warming will
continue to contribute to the destabilization and collapse of more states through agricultural damage unless
measures are taken to shore up vulnerable nations before they fall.
Disappearing Nations
Climate change has also destabilized states by destroying one of their defining characteristics, their sovereign
territory. As global temperatures increase, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have continued to melt,
128 Kelley, Colin P., Shahrzad Mohtadi, Mark A. Cane, Richard Seager, and Yochanan Kushnir. “Climate Change in the Fertile Crescent and Implications of the Recent Syrian Drought.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 11 (March 17, 2015): 3241–46. doi:10.1073/pnas.1421533112.
129 ibid130 ibid131 ibid
37
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
increasing sea levels by around 3 mm a year.132 While that may not appear to be an impressive amount, the
accumulated increases could add up to a meter of sea level rise by the end of the century as the melting
increases in speed.133 Rising sea levels will inundate coastal regions. For example, this particular threat is
already felt by Vietnam which could lose up to 5.3% of its total land area if sea levels rise by a meter.134 18
million Vietnamese people live in the country’s low lying Mekong delta and 7 million will be displaced by a
meter rise in sea level.135 The country has taken proactive steps to try to mitigate the threat posed by rising
sea levels and since 1998 has moved a million of its threatened citizens to higher grounds.136 In addition, the
government has implemented a training program to teach its at-risk citizens how to prepare for and survive
a flood. However, the loss of so much densely populated land and resulting internal displacements could still
cause social and political instability, especially in other vulnerable nations that have not taken similar steps
to prepare.
While larger nations have the option to shift their populations away from coastal regions, global warming
is an existential threat to the many island nations of the Pacific. In 2016, five small, uninhabited islands in
the Solomon Islands chain were swallowed by the sea and a further six inhabited islands were partially
submerged, forcing residents to seek new homes.137 While this impact was relatively limited with only a few
acres of land lost and dozens displaced, it is likely that many more pacific islands, particularly the Maldives,
Tuvalu, and Kiribati, will be completely uninhabitable by the end of the century. This has raised concerns over
the continued existence of their governments. Under international law, a sovereign state is defined by the
physical land it holds or claims to hold. A nation’s land simply ceasing to exist is without precedent and could
plunge its citizens into a state of de facto statelessness wherever they wind up as climate change refugees.138
Climate Change Refugees
The loss of habitable land, either outright through the physical loss of coastal regions and island nations, or
through intolerable changes in precipitation and temperature, will lead to large populations of refugees. It
132 IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf
133 ibid134 Tho, Can. “Sea-Level Rise Could ‘displace Millions.’” IRIN News, May 20, 2011. http://www.irinnews.org/report/92763/
vietnam-sea-level-rise-could-displace-millions.135 ibid136 ibid137 “Five Pacific Islands Lost to Rising Seas as Climate Change Hits.” The Guardian, May 10, 2016, sec. Environment. http://www.theguardian.
com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change.138 Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. “Climate Change and Statelessness: An Overview.” UNHCR, May 15, 2009. http://www.
unhcr.org/protection/environment/4a1e50082/climate-change-statelessness-overview.html.
38
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
is expected that by 2050 there will be between 50 million and 200 million climate change refugees, adding
to an already record high level of displaced persons.139 These climate change refugees will be different than
past displaced peoples in that many will not have a home to return to. Current agreements assisting refugees
are mainly predicated on the notion that their majority will eventually leave their host country when the
conflicts, famines, or other ills they are fleeing subside. Measures to aid climate change refugees will have to
consider this unique factor.
However, aiding these refugees is not as simple as giving them a new plot of land. Efforts to relocate displaced
persons by the United States, one of the world’s most developed and wealthiest nations, have been met with
resistance by people who fear losing their cultural connection to their lands. The U.S is currently spending
$48 million in an attempt to move just 60 individuals, members of two Native American tribes, off their
rapidly disappearing Louisiana Island.140 If done improperly, this relocation could breed resentment of the
government among the displaced. While a few dozen people will not threaten the stability of the government
of the United States, it is expected that millions will be displaced within the U.S as southern states slip into
139 Davenport, Coral, and Campbell Robertson. “Resettling the First American ‘Climate Refugees.’” The New York Times, May 3, 2016.140 ibid
39
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
the sea. As even the U.S is struggling to deal with a few climate change refugees, one can see how their
impact on the stability of countries with less resources could be severe.
Old Diseases, New Places
A final stressor to state stability will be the health of its citizens. Extreme temperatures caused by global
warming can lead to death directly, for example through heat stroke or dehydration, or by more indirect
routes. One-fifth of El Salvadorans in the nation’s sugarcane region have kidney failure due to dehydration
and require expensive dialysis, which can only extend their life expectancy from weeks to approximately five
years.141 It is unclear how the nation will be able to support this huge population of sick citizens.
Public health is also impacted by the spread of tropical diseases far outside their traditional ranges to
populations unaccustomed to their effects. The mosquito Aedis aegypti, which is the vector for Zika, dengue
fever, West Nile Virus, and chikungunya, is now endemic to Washington D.C.142 In the past, winters were cold
enough to prevent these mosquitoes from establishing a permanent foothold. However, warmer winters and
increased floods have increased malaria prevalence worldwide. A global temperature increase of 2-3 Celsius
is expected to make 3-5% more people at risk of Malarial infection, an increase of hundreds of millions of
people.143 Most of these new victims already live in extremely impoverished conditions, and it is unlikely
they will be able to tolerate a further blow to their standard of living.
Climate change is expected to result in sicker, angrier, underfed and displaced citizens. These conditions
have proven time and time again to sap the legitimacy and stability of governments by making political
radicalization the only avenue to address extreme conditions. Unless steps are taken to shore up these
weaknesses, many more nations may collapse in the manner of Syria.
Geoengineering
One of the first applications of geoengineering techniques was war. During operation Popeye, the U.S
government seeded rainfall over Laos and Vietnam to disrupt enemy forces from 1967 to 1972.144 Though the
141 Wallace-Wells, David. “When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.” New York Magazine, July 9, 2017. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html.
142 Mercer, Greg. “The Link Between Zika and Climate Change.” The Atlantic, February 24, 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/02/zika-and-climate-change/470643/.
143 “Climate Change and Human Health.” WHO, 2003 http://www.who.int/globalchange/environment/en/chapter6.pdf.144 Hersh, Seymour M. “Rainmaking Is Used As Weapon by U.S.” The New York Times, July 3, 1972, sec. Archives. https://www.nytimes.
com/1972/07/03/archives/rainmaking-is-used-as-weapon-by-us-cloudseeding-in-indochina-is.html.
40
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
effectiveness of the program was questioned, it was unclear if monsoons attributed to the sorties would have
occurred regardless. The State Department was concerned about the legality of modifying the environment
in such a drastic way and advocated for a halt to the missions. These doubts have dogged the field since then,
culminating in a 2010 ban on the usage of the technology.145 In the interim, governments have attempted
to manipulate their climates on the local level, but have shied away from large scale implementation. While
the scientific community is divided over what methods, if any, are effective, they generally agree that the
changes wrought by such efforts will be long lasting and drastic, giving us only one shot to correct the planet
back to its preindustrial state.
145 Eilperin, Juliet. “Geoengineering Sparks International Ban, First-Ever Congressional Report.” Washington Post, October 30, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102906361.html.
41
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Past Actions
Paris Agreement and the Warsaw Mechanism
The Paris Agreement is the most significant step forward towards confronting climate change reached by
the international community thus far. Although its primary goal is to slow global warming through voluntary
carbon emissions reductions, it also begins to address effects of climate change that no amount of emissions
reductions can now avoid. To this end, as part of the Paris Agreement developed nations agreed to raise
$100 billion per year for developing nations from 2020 to 2025, some of which is intended to be used for
adaptive and mitigative measures.146
Another important aspect of the Paris Agreement is its recognition of climate loss and damage as a distinct
climate issue. In doing so, the Paris Agreement ensured the perpetuation of the Warsaw International
Mechanism for Loss and Damage, an institution that was originally established in 2013.147 The Warsaw
Mechanism functions as a coordinating institution for nations to collaboratively predict and prepare
for damage and lost economic output caused by climate change by sharing data, expertise, guidance and
voluntary financial support.148 Participation in the Warsaw mechanism, like much of the Paris Agreement,
is voluntary and the article establishing it explicitly does not create a basis for liability or compensation.149
The Warsaw mechanism will be helpful to countries as they prepare for climatic loss, but less developed
countries simply do not have sufficient resources for adequate preparations. The Paris Agreement does not
establish the financial channels sufficient for such efforts.
Relocating Islands
Past efforts to relocate large populations of individuals in response to environmental damage have been
hindered by sovereignty issues that either scuttled the effort or resulted in lasting negative repercussions.
From 1962 to 1963, plans were developed and later dropped to move the entire population of the country
146 Waskow, David, and Jennifer Morgan. “The Paris Agreement: Turning Point for a Climate Solution.” World Resources Institute, December 12, 2015. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/12/paris-agreement-turning-point-climate-solution.
147 Mogelgaard, Kathleen, and Heather McGray. “When Adaptation Is Not Enough: Paris Agreement Recognizes ‘Loss and Damage’ | World Resources Institute.” World Resources Institute, December 24, 2015. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/12/when-adaptation-not-enough-paris-agreement-recognizes-%E2%80%9Closs-and-damage%E2%80%9D.
148 “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Accessed August 17, 2017. http://unfccc.int/adaptation/workstreams/loss_and_damage/items/8134.php.
149 Mogelgaard, Kathleen, and Heather McGray. “When Adaptation Is Not Enough: Paris Agreement Recognizes ‘Loss and Damage’ | World Resources Institute.” World Resources Institute, December 24, 2015. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/12/when-adaptation-not-enough-paris-agreement-recognizes-%E2%80%9Closs-and-damage%E2%80%9D.
42
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
of Nauru to a new island because the country had been rendered almost completely uninhabitable due to
extreme phosphate mining.150 The Australian island of Curtis was found as a replacement and the 6,000
Nauruans would have been relocated at an approximate cost of $345 million.151 However, they would have
had to become Australian citizens, albeit with local autonomy, a condition that they found intolerable as they
did not want to leave behind their culture and nationhood.152
In 1945 the people of Banaba Island, now a part of Kiribati, were relocated by the British to Rabi Island, a
part of Fiji.153 At the time, these people were moved by the British in order to allow the
British to mine the phosphate on their island in a more destructive and exhaustive manner. It is unclear how
much choice the Banabian peoples had in their migration, but today many of the Banaban people feel that
they lost their power of self-determination when the British moved them from their homeland.154 While the
Kiribati constitution does give them some special rights, they feel they do not have enough say in the affairs
of their homeland or the affairs of Fiji, which they do not feel culturally attached to.155 As a result, there is
widespread dissatisfaction among the Banaban people with their removal from their homeland.
The Vaitupu people offer a hopeful example of relocation. In 1947 they used wartime savings to purchase the
Fijian island of Kioa in order to have land for future population growth.156 Migration to Kioa was and continues
to be voluntary, and strong ties are maintained between the new “homeland” and the “motherland”.157 Due
to the aspect of self-determination that underpinned every stage of the move, Kioans are generally happy
with their migration. These examples demonstrate that relocation of peoples must give an aspect of control
to the moved peoples if they are to be satisfied with their situation. Sovereignty also poses an issue, both
to the nations who do not want to cede land to groups whose homelands are disappearing and to climate
refugees who do not want to give up their native citizenship.
150 McAdam, Jane. “How the Entire Nation of Nauru Almost Moved to Queensland.” The Conversation, August 14, 2016. http://theconversation.com/how-the-entire-nation-of-nauru-almost-moved-to-queensland-63833.
151 ibid152 ibid153 ibid154 ibid155 ibid156 ibid157 ibid
43
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
WHO Response to Zika
Zika was first identified in Africa in the 1960s, but it was only after it made the leap to Brazil in 2015 that
is caught the attention of the international community. In February 2016 the World Health Organization
declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) after emerging evidence showed
a link between infant neurological defects and Zika infections of pregnant women.158 The PHEIC allowed
affected nations to coordinate responses to limit the spread of the Zika virus.159 Zika cases have practically
disappeared by 2017, but many attribute this instead to natural resistance built by populations and not the
efforts of the WHO.160 Criticism remains that Brazilian scientists warnings of Zika found in pregnant women’s
amniotic fluids were not taken seriously until it was too late and that Zika was ignored as a harmless virus
for several decades.161 A faster recognition of the threat posed by Zika and an international mission in the
fashion of the UN Emergency Ebola response international response could have helped alleviate the crisis.
Geoengineering Bans
To date, the only international action addressing geoengineering has been through the UN Convention
on Biodiversity. This convention defines geoengineering as technology that removes carbon from the
atmosphere or reduces solar warming.162 While member nations agreed to forgo any geoengineering until
there is sufficient scientific evidence to justify the usage of such technology, the ban technically only applies
to usage which may affect biodiversity.163 The UN extended the ban indefinitely in 2016, but there still
remains no central agency to coordinate research and for nations to report geoengineering usage.164
158 Cohen, Jon. “Zika Has All but Disappeared in the Americas. Why?” Science | AAAS, August 16, 2017. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/zika-has-all-disappeared-americas-why.
159 “IHR Procedures Concerning Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC).” WHO. Accessed August 17, 2017. http://www.who.int/ihr/procedures/pheic/en/.
160 Cohen, Jon. “Zika Has All but Disappeared in the Americas. Why?” Science | AAAS, August 16, 2017. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/zika-has-all-disappeared-americas-why.
161 Jr, Donald G. McNeil. “How the Response to Zika Failed Millions.” The New York Times, January 16, 2017, sec. Health. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/health/zika-virus-response.html.
162 Pearce, Fred. “What the UN Ban on Geoengineering Really Means.” New Scientist, November 1, 2010. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19660-what-the-un-ban-on-geoengineering-really-means/.
163 ibid164 King, Ed. “UN to Extend Freeze on Climate Change Geoengineering.” Climate Home, August 12, 2016. http://www.climatechangenews.
com/2016/12/07/un-to-extend-freeze-on-climate-change-geoengineering/.
44
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Possible Solutions
As this committee develops solutions it must remain focused on measures that will stabilize nations against
climate change. The following suggestions are just a fraction of the possible solutions and do not address
all of the issues raised throughout this background guide, let alone other vulnerabilities that delegates are
welcome to identify and raise as issues. Use them as a starting point and example of the scale of solutions
this committee can consider.
Financial Compensation
One example of how delegates can mitigate the destabilizing effect of climate change would be through
financial compensation. For example, payments to fix damage caused by global warming may be tied to
the information gathered under the Warsaw mechanism. In this case, countries responsible for the bulk
of carbon pollution could pay into a fund for permanent damages endured by weaker countries. Payments
could be based on historic contributions to climate gases, but such a system would likely not be popular
with large polluters such as the U.S, China and Europe. Additionally, as the effects of climate change are
not necessarily correlated with a nation’s contribution to global warming, dividing the world into “good” and
“bad” climatic actors for such purposes may not be sensible. Instead a continuation of the current model,
funds flowing from developed to developing nations, may be more sensible.
While compensation for climatic loss seems fair, it may have unintended consequences. Nations that can
anticipate compensation may be less proactive in adapting to climate change. If someone else will pick up
the tab, why bother planning for higher sea levels or arid soil? One possible solution is to tie a financial
compensation mechanism to pledges of mitigation measures and proactive actions.
Relocation
It is expected that most nations will eventually have to follow the lead of Vietnam and the United States
and geographically shift the populations within their borders as a result of climate change. Countries could
benefit from sharing techniques for how to accomplish such movements with as little disruption as possible.
Cataloging the long-term effects of such movement in relation to different approaches could also be useful.
Far more controversial is what is to be done about populations that must move across borders or entire
nations that may require relocation. In the first case, special protections for climate change refugees may
45
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
be helpful, but finding a definition all can agree on will be difficult, especially as the developed world may
accuse them of simply being economic immigrants. Even thornier is what is to be done with nations whose
sovereignty is at stake. An agreement allowing the citizens of such nations to immigrate may be a good
compromise, allowing their destination nations to retain their sovereignty and territory and the stateless
persons to retain self-determination.
Regional Resource Banks
Economic and societal failures are not inevitable outcomes of climate change. This is evidenced by the
experience of nations such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States during the global wheat shortage that
helped induce the Arab Spring and Syrian Civil War. Saudi Arabia was able to draw upon its wheat stockpiles
and its cash reserves to maintain enough grain to keep its citizens content. The issue in this case and many
future crises is not one of absolute shortage, but of maldistribution. The conditions which lead to regional
strife may be avoided by proper preparations for known future conditions.
The U.N could help in such efforts by establishing resource banks tailored to the regional needs of their
distribution. This could allow nations to better coordinate preparations for future shortages in agricultural
products and materials, which may be lacking in the wake of an environmental disaster. For example, nations
may lack concrete needed to rebuild after a hurricane, a need which could be filled by a regional resource
bank.
Disease Monitoring and Research
Efforts can be made to prioritize research into what are currently considered local tropical diseases. This
could allow for treatments and vaccines to be developed before they rapidly expand into new territory. Such
an approach to Zika could have prevented thousands of developmental complications. However, deciding
what diseases to prioritize can be controversial, especially when diseases like polio and malaria continue to
sicken impoverished regions.
Centralized Geoengineering Agency
An organization to coordinate the world’s approach to geoengineering would help develop the scientific
evidence called for by the existing UN geoengineering moratorium. Such a body could be located with existing
UN structures such as the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP). It would be tasked with developing the
46
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
necessary technology and giving recommendations to the general assembly on techniques that should be
employed. Countries could also be required to report their usage of geoengineering to the agency so even
if they will not be deterred from the technology the world will at least have a warning which they do not
currently have. Such a body will be controversial with nations that oppose modifying the environment as it
may give the appearance of tacit acceptance of the necessity of geoengineering.
Geoengineering Treaty
A comprehensive treaty is needed to guide how negative effects of geoengineering will be addressed.
For example, it is likely that injecting aerosols into the northern hemisphere to cool the earth will result in
extended droughts in the Sahel, a region of Africa stretching from Mauritania to Eritrea.165 The last drought
in the region killed 250,000 and created 10 million refugees, a heavy price to pay for cooler temperatures.166
An independent body, perhaps located within the existing Warsaw Mechanism of the Paris Accords, could
be tasked with determining the effects and possible damage caused by an instance of geoengineering and
require compensation for such damages would help diffuse potentially explosive tensions. Countries could
also be required to proactively prepare potentially affected nations before they begin geoengineering.
165 Radford, Tim. “Geoengineering Could Cause Drought in Sahel.” Climate Home, February 2, 2013. http://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/04/02/geoengineering-could-cause-drought-in-sahel/.
166 ibid
47
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Bloc Positions
North America and Europe
As the wealthiest nations on the planet, and those responsible for the majority of historical pollution,
the nations of North America and Europe will be looked to provide resources to less developed nations.
However, after Europe has struggled to create a unified response to the large number of refugees entering
their borders, they may be reluctant to take in more displaced persons. These countries already provide the
bulk of global development aid and climatic aid under the Paris Agreement and will largely resist providing
more.
Technologically, the countries of this bloc are best equipped to begin geoengineering. However, European
nations will oppose the deployment of such technology due to a large environmental movement. Additionally,
other nations may resent these countries taking unilateral action after largely creating the climate issue
themselves.
South America
If current simulations of the effect of large scale cloud seeding are correct, the countries of South America
have much to lose from their usage, with Brazil possibly facing large scale drought. Most countries in the
region may be opposed to their usage because of potential negative impacts and the lack of current large
effects of climate change. The health of their citizens may be their top priority, as rising temperatures make
heat stroke, dehydration, and tropical diseases such as Malaria and Zika more common. Efforts to increase
health funding and collaboration would help this goal.
Asia
The nations of southern Asia will want to prepare for more intense cyclones and higher sea levels that
will require large population movements. As one of the most densely populated regions in the world, such
disasters may be particularly disruptive, especially in Bangladesh and Vietnam. Maintaining a stable food
supply to support the area’s large population will also be crucial.
48
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Pacific Islands
The most pressing issue for these small island nations will be rising tides and increased storms that may
render their nations uninhabitable in the coming decades. They will be interested in seeking accommodations
that will allow their sovereignty to persist even as their homelands may not. To pursue this goal, a system of
land acquisition in other nations or unique citizenship schemes may be their goal. However, this will be a hard
sell for receiving nations, and Pacific Islanders must recognize their small global geopolitical power outside
of the UN, which gives them an equal say in proceedings.
Sub-Saharan Africa
The countries of Sub-Saharan Africa look to continue their rapid economic development despite the
stresses of climate change. They will look for measures to stabilize nations after agricultural failures due
to their history of conflict following environmental stresses. Additionally, as a reservoir for many poorly
studied tropical diseases, they would benefit from increased funding and attention paid to the research of
such maladies before they infect wealthier nations.
The Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
MENA countries are primarily focused on stabilizing their nations as they confront the general drying out
of the region accompanied by more frequent droughts. They may support geoengineering as a possible way
to avert this long-term negative trend. They will also support measures like resource banks that can shore
up their stability during harsh periods. Finally, as the Syrian crisis, attributable in part to climate change, has
generated a large amount of global refugees, they will push for a definition of climate refugees that includes
this group and possible future displaced persons.
49
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Glossary
Aerosol Dispersal: A geoengineering technology which mimics the climate cooling effects of volcanoes
by pumping reflective aerosols into the atmosphere. These aerosols would reflect sunlight and cool the
planet. However, research indicates that the technology may cause droughts in certain regions of the world.
Introducing aerosols into the northern hemisphere could cause droughts in the Sahel, while adding them to
both north and south would spare the Sahel, but endanger Brazil.
Climate Change/Global Warming: The human initiated increase in global mean temperature which began
during the industrial revolution. Climate change is driven by the global increase in temperature as is used to
recognize that weather is becoming more extreme on both sides of the temperature scale.
Geoengineering: Technology which aims to slow or reverse global warming by either removing carbon from
the atmosphere or reflecting greater sunlight off the earth.
Greenhouse Gases: Molecules which trap heat into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas
mainly responsible for global warming due to the massive quantities humans have introduced.
Iron Seeding: A geoengineering technique where phytoplankton blooms are encouraged by dumping iron,
a vital nutrient, into the water. The blooms would consume atmospheric carbon, die, and trap the carbon
beneath the oceans. Exactly how much carbon would be trapped has been questioned and concerns over
the effect on marine biodiversity giant blooms would cause are unanswered.
Paris Agreement: The most recent international climate control agreement, it also contains voluntary
provisions for developed nations to provide $100 billion per year for developing nations from 2020 to 2025
to be used for adaptive and mitigative measures.
Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage: Made permanent by the Paris Agreement, the
Warsaw Mechanism gives a forum for nations to collaborate on predicting and preparing for climate driven
loss by sharing data, expertise, guidance and voluntary financial support.
50
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Works Cited
Ackerman, Steven, and Jonathan Martin. “How Does Carbon Dioxide Affect Global Warming?” The Weather Guys,
UW-Madison. Accessed July 21, 2017. http://wxguys.ssec.wisc.edu/how-does-carbon-dioxide-affect-global-
warming/.
Aulakh, Raveena. “Is David Keith’s Climate Solution Genius or Madness? | Toronto Star.” Thestar.com, September
27, 2015. https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/09/27/is-david-keiths-climate-solution-genius-or-
madness.html.
Biello, David. “Are High Food Prices Fueling Revolution in Egypt?” Scientific American Blog Network, February 1,
2011. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/are-high-food-prices-fueling-revolution-in-egypt/.
Burke, Marshall B., Edward Miguel, Shanker Satyanath, John A. Dykema, and David B. Lobell. “Warming Increases the
Risk of Civil War in Africa.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 49 (August 12, 2009):
20670–74. doi:10.1073/pnas.0907998106.
Chivers, C. J. “Russians Plant Flag on the Arctic Seabed.” The New York Times, August 3, 2007, sec. Europe. https://
www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/world/europe/03arctic.html.
“Climate Change and Human Health.” WHO, 2003. http://www.who.int/globalchange/environment/en/chapter6.pdf.
Cohen, Jon. “Zika Has All but Disappeared in the Americas. Why?” Science | AAAS, August 16, 2017. http://www.
sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/zika-has-all-disappeared-americas-why.
Davenport, Coral, and Campbell Robertson. “Resettling the First American ‘Climate Refugees.’” The New York Times,
May 3, 2016.
Eilperin, Juliet. “Geoengineering Sparks International Ban, First-Ever Congressional Report.” Washington Post, October
30, 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102906361.html.
“Five Pacific Islands Lost to Rising Seas as Climate Change Hits.” The Guardian, May 10, 2016, sec. Environment. http://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change.
Hersh, Seymour M. “Rainmaking Is Used As Weapon by U.S.” The New York Times, July 3, 1972, sec. Archives. https://
www.nytimes.com/1972/07/03/archives/rainmaking-is-used-as-weapon-by-us-cloudseeding-in-indochina-
is.html.
Hsiang, Solomon M., Marshall Burke, and Edward Miguel. “Quantifying the Influence of Climate on Human Conflict.”
Science 341, no. 6151 (September 13, 2013): 1235367. doi:10.1126/science.1235367.
“IHR Procedures Concerning Public Health Emergencies of International Concern (PHEIC).” WHO. Accessed August
17, 2017. http://www.who.int/ihr/procedures/pheic/en/.
Jr, Donald G. McNeil. “How the Response to Zika Failed Millions.” The New York Times, January 16, 2017, sec. Health.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/health/zika-virus-response.html.
Kelley, Colin P., Shahrzad Mohtadi, Mark A. Cane, Richard Seager, and Yochanan Kushnir. “Climate Change in the
Fertile Crescent and Implications of the Recent Syrian Drought.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 112, no. 11 (March 17, 2015): 3241–46. doi:10.1073/pnas.1421533112.
51
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
King, Ed. “UN to Extend Freeze on Climate Change Geoengineering.” Climate Home, August 12, 2016. http://www.
climatechangenews.com/2016/12/07/un-to-extend-freeze-on-climate-change-geoengineering/.
King, Marcus, and Ralph Espach. “Global Climate Change and State Stability.” Center for Naval Analyses, August 2009.
https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0020868.A2.pdf.
Landrum, Nancy. “Geoengineering: A Dangerous Tool or Climate Control of the Future?” Pacific Standard, February
27, 2017. https://psmag.com/news/geoengineering-a-dangerous-tool-or-climate-control-of-the-future.
Lukacs, Martin. “World’s Biggest Geoengineering Experiment ‘Violates’ UN Rules.” The Guardian, October 15, 2012,
sec. Environment. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-
geoengineering.
McAdam, Jane. “Caught between Homelands.” Inside Story, March 15, 2013. http://insidestory.org.au/caught-
between-homelands/.
“How the Entire Nation of Nauru Almost Moved to Queensland.” The Conversation, August 14, 2016. http://
theconversation.com/how-the-entire-nation-of-nauru-almost-moved-to-queensland-63833.
Mercer, Greg. “The Link Between Zika and Climate Change.” The Atlantic, February 24, 2016. https://www.theatlantic.
com/health/archive/2016/02/zika-and-climate-change/470643/.
Mogelgaard, Kathleen, and Heather McGray. “When Adaptation Is Not Enough: Paris Agreement Recognizes ‘Loss
and Damage’ | World Resources Institute.” World Resources Institute, December 24, 2015. http://www.
wri.org/blog/2015/12/when-adaptation-not-enough-paris-agreement-recognizes-%E2%80%9Closs-and-
damage%E2%80%9D.
“National Security Implications of Climate-Related Risks and a Changing Climate.” Department of Defense, July 23,
2015.
Pearce, Fred. “What the UN Ban on Geoengineering Really Means.” New Scientist, November 1, 2010. https://www.
newscientist.com/article/dn19660-what-the-un-ban-on-geoengineering-really-means/.
Powell, Hugh. “What Are the Possible Side Effects?” Oceanus Magazine, January 2008. http://www.whoi.edu/
oceanus/feature/what-are-the-possible-side-effects.
Radford, Tim. “Geoengineering Could Cause Drought in Sahel.” Climate Home, February 2, 2013. http://www.
climatechangenews.com/2013/04/02/geoengineering-could-cause-drought-in-sahel/.
Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. “Climate Change and Statelessness: An Overview.” UNHCR, May 15,
2009. http://www.unhcr.org/protection/environment/4a1e50082/climate-change-statelessness-overview.
html.
Stylianou, Nassos, Paul Rincon, and John Walton. “Climate Change Explained in Six Graphics.” BBC News. Accessed
July 21, 2017. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb.
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri
and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/
SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf
Tho, Can. “Sea-Level Rise Could ‘displace Millions.’” IRIN News, May 20, 2011. http://www.irinnews.org/report/92763/
vietnam-sea-level-rise-could-displace-millions.
52
Disarmament and International Security Committee MUNUC 30
Wallace-Wells, David. “When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.” New
York Magazine, July 9, 2017. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-
for-humans.html
“Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Accessed August 17, 2017. http://unfccc.int/adaptation/workstreams/loss_and_damage/items/8134.php.
Waskow, David, and Jennifer Morgan. “The Paris Agreement: Turning Point for a Climate Solution.” World Resources
Institute, December 12, 2015. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/12/paris-agreement-turning-point-climate-
solution.