Dartmouth Model United Nations April 5 - 7, 2019
DISEC
2
Dartmouth Model United Nations Conference
14th Annual Conference – April 5 – 7, 2019 Dartmouth College – Rockefeller Center – Hanover, NH 03755
E-mail: [email protected] - http://sites.dartmouth.edu/modelun
December 5, 2018 Dear Delegates: On behalf of the entire Dartmouth Model United Nations staff, I would like to welcome and thank you for registering for the fourteenth annual Dartmouth Model United Nations conference this April 2019. We have been working relentlessly since the end of last year’s conference to provide a better and more worthwhile Model U.N. experience for this spring’s delegates. DartMUN is a unique conference. We pair world-class delegations and dais staff members in smaller, more-interactive environments to facilitate an enriching experience for delegates of all skill levels. We believe DartMUN’s active, small committees ensure delegates feel comfortable immersing themselves in a competitive but supportive environment that encourages trial by error and participation. Furthermore, DartMUN’s well-trained staff is excited to work with your delegates this winter in committee to equip the next generation of college students with the skills to tackle complex global problems. This being said, Model United Nations is only meaningful when delegates are thoroughly prepared. To aid in your research preparation, your committee staff has spent hours researching, writing, and editing this Background Guide. The Background Guide serves as an introduction to your respective committee and an overview of the topics that you will be debating over the course of the conference. The Background Guide is intended to be a starting point for your research and is not, in itself, an adequate exposure to the complexities of your committee’s topics. To be prepared, each delegate should do further research and focus on processing information through the lens of their respective country or position. If you are having trouble digesting all the information, the Background Guide contains relevant discussion questions that break down the topics. Also, as questions or ideas arise, do not be shy in contacting your committee staff via e-mail. Committee staff are knowledgeable and can help you better understand a particular topic or how your country fits into a larger international debate. More often than not, discussing the problem with another person can open up more paradigms and viewpoints that may guide you throughout the brainstorming process. As in years past, all delegates are expected to write a brief position paper before the conference to synthesize all of their preparatory research and analysis. Please see the position paper guidelines on the conference website for specific information about content, format, etc. Committee staff will collect position papers at the beginning of the first committee session on Friday evening. Bring a hard copy because delegates who do not submit position papers will not be eligible for awards. I look forward to meeting you this coming spring. Sincerely, Lauren Bishop Secretary-General DartMUN XIV
Lauren Bishop Secretary-General
Shelley Wang
Director-General
Mila Escadajillo Chief of Staff
Brandon Zhou Charge d’Affaires
Clayton Jacques
Undersecretary-General of General Assembly
Daniel Bring
Undersecretary-General of Special Committees
Nishanth Chalasani
Undersecretary-General of Current Crises
Samuel Zarkower
Undersecretary-General of Future and Historical Crises
Bill Kosmidis
Undersecretary-General of Ad-Hoc
Alec Rossi
Director of Finance and Public Relations
Bethany David
Director of Technology
Shawdi Mehrvarzan Deputy Chief of Staff
DartMUN is a student-run, non-profit, all volunteer organization sponsored by
the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy.
3
Dartmouth Model United Nations Conference
14th Annual Conference – April 5 – 7, 2019 Dartmouth College – Rockefeller Center – Hanover, NH 03755
E-mail: [email protected] - http://sites.dartmouth.edu/modelun Honorable Delegates, Welcome to the Disarmament and Security Committee (DISEC), the First Committee of the General Assembly at DartMUN XIV. We are thrilled to welcome you as delegates to our committee session. Our names are Garrick Allison and Ashwini Naranyan, and we will work as your co-chairs during the conference weekend. We are both first-year students at Dartmouth and first-time staffers at DartMUN, and we cannot wait to open debate and see the presentation of your countries’ positions and negotiation on the issues ensue. We will also be sure to have a fun weekend at the same time! DISEC will discuss two important topics at DartMUN XIV: demilitarization of the Arctic and the regulation of chemical weapons. We hope that delegates will read this background guide thoroughly and conduct their own independent research to write a cogent position paper and develop the position of their assigned countries. We look forward to seeing the work you do to take the material in this background guide to the next level of sophistication and diplomacy. While you prepare for the conference and during the conference weekend itself, we hope you keep in mind the goal of international cooperation in the mission of the United Nations. We can all acknowledge our differences of background and opinion while striving for a safer, more prosperous world together. All our best, Garrick Allison and Ashwini Naranyan Co-chairs, DISEC, DartMUN XIV
Lauren Bishop Secretary-General
Shelley Wang
Director-General
Mila Escadajillo Chief of Staff
Brandon Zhou Charge d’Affaires
Clayton Jacques
Undersecretary-General of General Assembly
Daniel Bring
Undersecretary-General of Special Committees
Nishanth Chalasani
Undersecretary-General of Current Crises
Samuel Zarkower
Undersecretary-General of Future and Historical Crises
Bill Kosmidis
Undersecretary-General of Ad-Hoc
Alec Rossi
Director of Finance and Public Relations
Bethany David
Director of Technology
Shawdi Mehrvarzan Deputy Chief of Staff
DartMUN is a student-run, non-profit, all volunteer organization sponsored by
the Rockefeller Center for Public Policy.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
4
Topic A: Demilitarization of the Arctic
Introduction The Arctic is the region surrounding the
North Pole of the Earth. A unique region,
the Arctic contains the Arctic Ocean, a body
of salt water covered at least in part by sea
ice for some period of the year, and the
surrounding northernmost land of the North
American and Eurasian continents. No
nation has an internationally recognized
claim on the North Pole or the Arctic Ocean.
Geographers and climate scientists may use
different definitions for the boundaries of
the Arctic: the region above the Arctic
Circle at 66° 34’ N latitude, above the arctic
tree line, or above the latitude where the
average daily summer temperature does not
exceed 10 degrees Celsius; these are all
acceptable definitions.1
1 “What is the Arctic?” NSIDC,
nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/arctic.html.
2“ 90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Assessed in the Arctic”. USGS, 22 July 2008, www.usgs.gov/media/audio/90-billion-barrels-oil-and-1670-trillion-cubic-feet-natural-gas-assessed-arctic.
The Arctic contains valuable material
resources as well as new, shorter shipping
routes. In 2008, the United States Geological
Survey estimated that the region north of the
Arctic Circle contains 90 billion barrels of
undiscovered but possibly recoverable oil
and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of possibly
recoverable natural gas.2 The Arctic,
including Greenland, also contains deposits
of valuable minerals such as phosphate,
bauxite, diamonds, iron ore, and gold.3
Meanwhile, the Northern Sea Route would
reduce shipping distances between ports in
Asia and Europe by thousands of nautical
miles.4 Although the route should only serve
as a seasonal complement to more temperate
shipping lanes, its existence remains an
important alternative for maritime
commerce. Collectively, these resources
make the Arctic one of the most significant
underdeveloped economic regions in the
world.
3 Bourne, Joel K., Jr. “In the Arctic’s Cold Rush, There Are No Easy Profits”, National Geographic, March 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/03/new-arctic-thawing-rapidly-circle-work-oil.
4 Ibid.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
5
Considering the value of these shipping
lanes and deposits of minerals and
hydrocarbons, many nations around the
world, including superpowers, are vying to
gain control of it for economic and strategic
gain. The depletion of natural resources in
other, more accessible deposits has
increased the importance of the Arctic as a
potential source for energy and mineral
resources over the next few decades. For
most of the 20th century and earlier, only a
few countries, such as Canada, Iceland,
Russia, and the United States of America,
had the geographic proximity and military
presence to make territorial claims in the
area. However, in recent decades, melting
sea ice and advances in technology have
made the Arctic more accessible and
relevant to resource extraction, maritime
trade, and geopolitical strategy by a wider
range of nations, including China and
Scandinavian countries. Some nations have
positioned or threatened to position military
assets inside the Arctic. DISEC, as the First
Committee of the General Assembly at the
United Nations, is responsible for setting the
agenda and exploring potential solutions in
5Mackinder, Halford John. Democratic
Ideals and Reality, London, Constable and Company Ltd, 1919.
issues with ramifications for global security
and prosperity, which includes the
demilitarization of the Arctic.
Historical Analysis of
Demilitarization in the Arctic The advent of industrialization and
urbanization in the 19th and 20th centuries
created an insatiable global demand for raw
materials and new markets. Control of the
Arctic, either partial or complete, would
provide new trade routes and resource
sources to aid the economic growth of those
controlling nations. This reality renders the
Arctic especially important to developing
and developed countries competing to
maximize their stake in the world economy.
In 1919, the English geographer Halford
Mackinder wrote a book connecting control
of the Arctic region and the emergence of a
new maritime power. 5 His prescient analysis
incentivized countries to fund explorations
into the Arctic regions for the gain of
strategic control. This rush to the Arctic
prompted many explorers to risk their lives
establishing territorial claims for their
nations, from the expedition to the North
DISEC DartMUN XIV
6
Pole in 1909 by the American Robert Peary,
and his controversial success, to Roald
Amundsen’s indisputable arrival at the Pole
in 1926, by means of the Norwegian airship
Norge.
The current military tension in the Arctic
dates to the end of World War II, when the
USSR and United States emerged as the two
victor powers. The Arctic had special
geographic significance to both
superpowers, because it represented the
shortest direct path between the Eurasian
landmass and the American continent. While
this pathway was previously used for anti-
Axis communication during the war, it could
now become a region of strategic
importance in the Cold War. For example, in
the 1960s, the United States military
launched Project Iceworm, an initiative to
establish as many as 600 nuclear missiles
across 4000 kilometers of tunnels in
northern Greenland.6 From this location, the
United States could launch missiles directly
into Russian territory. The military did not
ultimately pursue the project, because of the
6 Henley, Jon. “Greenland’s receding icecap to
expose top-secret US nuclear project”, The Guardian, 27 Sept. 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/27/receding-icecap-top-secret-us-nuclear-
inherent instability of tunnels through ice,
but still established a strategic and scientific
base in Greenland for up to 200 soldiers at
Camp Century. The full extent of Camp
Century’s activities was kept secret even
from the Danish government, then in control
of Greenland. Later, in the 1980s, the Arctic
became a zone of militarization through the
placement of intercontinental ballistic
missiles (ICBMs), submarine launched
ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and other
strategic weapons that could be launched
successfully against North America, Europe,
and the USSR.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 did
not reduce the strategic importance of the
Arctic, and the Russian Federation has
continued a policy of exploration and
territorial claims in the region. In 2012,
Nikolay Pavlyuk, the head of the Moscow-
based think tank Institute of Expert
Assessments, suggested renaming the Arctic
Ocean to the Russian Ocean, in recognition
of Russia’s presence in the region.7 Russia is
also bolstering its military presence in the
project-greenland-camp-century-project-iceworm.
7 “Polarizing proposal: Bye-bye ‘Arctic’ Ocean, welcome ‘Russian’”. RT, 26 July 2012, https://www.rt.com/news/arctic-russian-ocean-resources-076/
DISEC DartMUN XIV
7
Arctic, creating new Arctic brigades,
establishing an Arctic Joint Strategic
Command, and restoring cold war-era
airports. The Arctic region remains one of
Russia’s main strategic priorities, as is clear
from the Arctic Strategy announced by
Vladimir Putin in 2008 and 2013.8
Examples of Conflict 1. Lomonosov Ridge dispute
The Lomonosov Ridge is a 1120-mile-long
underwater mountain range running down
the center of the Arctic. The dispute over
this formation started on December 20,
2001, when the Russian Federation laid
claim to it, under the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) by proposing that it was an
extension of the Eurasian continent.9
However, Denmark has also claimed the
Lomonosov Ridge by the argument that it is
8 Hosa, Joanna. “Has Russia Already Won
the Scramble for the Arctic?” The Maritime Executive, 28 October 2018, www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/has-russia-already-won-the-scramble-for-the-arctic.
9 “Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf”. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 30 June 2009, www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_rus.htm.
10 “Arctic deal bans North Pole fishing”. BBC News, 16 July 2015,
an extension of the Greenland shelf; Canada
also asserts ownership over the Ridge as a
part of its continental shelf.10 The Arktika
2007 expedition in 2007 undertook a
dangerous diving mission to the North Pole
seabed where it planted the Russian flag on
the Lomonosov Ridge.11 The dispute over
the Lomonosov Ridge remains unresolved
as of 2015, when an arbitration panel of the
United Nations was evaluating the
competing claims to the formation.12
2. Bering-Strait Dispute
After the United States had purchased
Alaska from the Russian Empire, the
maritime restriction at the time was only 3
nautical miles from the coastline. 13 With the
introduction of the Exclusive Economic
Zone in the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea from the 1980s onward,
the border issue became a problem because
neither party could produce the maps from
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33549606.
11“Russia plants flag under N Pole”. BBC News, 2 August 2007, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm.
12“Arctic deal bans North Pole fishing”. BBC News.
13 Kent, H. S. K. "The Historical Origins of the Three-Mile Limit", The American Journal of International Law, 48 (4), 1954, 537-53.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
8
the initial purchase from more than a
century ago. It was agreed that the boundary
was intended to be a straight line, but it was
unclear as to whether the map projection
was Mercator or conical.14 In an agreement
signed in June of 1990, the United States
and Russia agreed to split their territorial
claims and create several special areas
outside their official maritime zone, where
one nation or the other would not claim
jurisdiction.15 The United States Congress
quickly ratified this resolution, but the
Soviet Union failed to approve it before its
collapse in 1991. The Russian Federation
has not ratified it to this day, citing concerns
about boundary delineations and fishing
rights.
3. Beaufort Sea Dispute
The Beaufort Sea is a small body of water
north of Alaska and the Yukon territory.
Canada and the United States, two strong
allies, have disputed ownership of this sea
for centuries, most recently when the United
14 Konyshev, Valery, and Alexander Sergunin.
“Russia’s Policies on the Territorial Disputes in the Arctic.” Journal of International Relations and Foreign Policy, 2 (1), 2014, 2333-5874, jirfp.com/journals/jirfp/Vol_2_No_1_March_2014/4.pdf.
15 Ibid. 16 Griffiths, Sian. “US-Canada Arctic border
dispute key to maritime riches.” BBC News,
States attempted to place a moratorium on
fishing and oil and gas drilling in the sea.16
Although the status of the Beaufort Sea
remains under review, the United States and
Canada have agreed to negotiate peaceably
over the issue, perhaps providing a positive
model for other, more tense territorial
disputes.
Current Situation Military and Commercial Presence
In recent years, Russia has revealed four
new Arctic combat teams, 14 new
operational airfields, 16 deep-water ports,
and 40 icebreakers with an additional 11 in
development as a part of a new Arctic
command. 17 Icebreakers help to break sea
ice in the circumpolar north, hence making it
much more accessible, but have a burdening
cost on the state. China, an observer state on
the Arctic Council since 2013, has also
commenced the construction of the Polar
Silk Road - an initiative to build shipping
2 Aug. 2010, www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-10834006.
17Gramer, Robbie. “Here’s What Russia’s Military Build-up in the Arctic Looks Like.” Foreign Policy, 25 Jan. 2017, foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/25/heres-what-russias-military-build-up-in-the-arctic-looks-like-trump-oil-military-high-north-infographic-map.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
9
lanes opened up by global warming.18
Finland, the United States and Canada have
also begun significant investments in the
infrastructure of their respective Arctic
zones.19 Norway's state energy company
Equinor (formerly Statoil) is considering
exploration and oil extraction in the Barents
Sea.20 The Trump administration announced
plans in January of 2018 to make much of
the United States outer continental shelf
accessible to offshore drilling, including
areas off the north shore of Alaska.21 All of
these commercial and strategic
developments will have a significant impact
on territorial disputes over the Arctic.
UNCLOS
The United Nations Convention on the Law
of The Sea defines the rights and
responsibilities of nations with respect to
their use of the world's oceans, establishing
guidelines for businesses, the environment,
and the management of marine natural
18“China unveils vision for ‘Polar Silk Road’
across Arctic”. CNBC, 26 Jan. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/china-unveils-vision-for-polar-silk-road-across-arctic.html.
19 Dillow, Clay. “Russia and China vie to beat the US in the trillion-dollar race to control the Arctic”. CNBC, 6 Feb. 2018, www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/russia-and-china-battle-us-in-race-to-control-arctic.html.
resources, including mining, fishing, and oil
extraction.22 All members of the Arctic
Council except the United States have
ratified this convention. The United States
has expressed interest in signing the Law of
the Sea. The Senate Foreign Relations
Committee voted in favor of the convention
in 2004 and 2007, and the United States
government generally abides its provisions,
but no vote by the full Senate has taken
place.23
Arctic Council
The Arctic Council is a high-level
intergovernmental forum that addresses
issues faced by the Arctic governments and
the indigenous people of the Arctic. The
eight countries with recognized sovereignty
over lands within the Arctic Circle have
membership on the council: Canada,
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia,
Sweden, and the United States.24 Because
20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 “Law of the Sea Convention”. U.S.
Department of State, www.state.gov/e/oes/lawofthesea.
23 Ibid. 24 “Member States”. Arctic Council, 10 Sept.
2015, https://arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us/member-states
DISEC DartMUN XIV
10
the Arctic Council is strictly forbidden from
discussing militarization in the Arctic, it is
limited to discussing territorial disputes,
environmental protection, and the general
cooperation, coordination, and interactions
between the Arctic States.
Conclusions
Despite the lack of development and few
internationally recognized claims on
territory, the Arctic has become a region of
great strategic importance for commerce and
geopolitical disputes. DISEC will have to
resolve some of these territorial disputes, if
possible, negotiate commitments for
demilitarization from countries with a stake
in the Arctic, establish a framework for fair
use of the Arctic region for scientific and
commercial purposes, and conduct these
debates in an atmosphere of respect for other
issues of international importance, such as
anthropogenic climate change and the rights
of indigenous peoples. With care and
attention to the needs and desires of
individual countries, as well as the mission
of the United Nations, this session of the
committee could make a real difference in
the debate over the Arctic.
Questions to Consider 1. What claims, if any, does your country
make on territory in the Arctic? If your
country does not make any claims,
should you support the claims of any
other countries?
2. What international agreements are
relevant to the demilitarization of the
Arctic?
3. Considering the history of clandestine or
unilateral claims on the Arctic, how can
DISEC ensure compliance of United
Nations member states with the
demilitarization of the Arctic?
Sources Cited “Arctic deal bans North Pole fishing”. BBC
News, 16 July 2015,
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-
33549606.
“90 Billion Barrels of Oil and 1,670 Trillion
Cubic Feet of Natural Gas Assessed in
the Arctic”. USGS, 22 July 2008,
www.usgs.gov/media/audio/90-billion-
barrels-oil-and-1670-trillion-cubic-feet-
natural-gas-assessed-arctic.
Bourne, Joel K., Jr. “In the Arctic’s Cold
Rush, There Are No Easy Profits”,
National Geographic, March 2016,
DISEC DartMUN XIV
11
www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/
2016/03/new-arctic-thawing-rapidly-
circle-work-oil.
“China unveils vision for ‘Polar Silk Road’
across Arctic”. CNBC, 26 Jan. 2018,
www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/china-
unveils-vision-for-polar-silk-road-
across-arctic.html.
“Commission on the Limits of the
Continental Shelf”. Division for Ocean
Affairs and the Law of the Sea, 30 June
2009,
www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submiss
ions_files/submission_rus.htm.
Dillow, Clay. “Russia and China vie to beat
the US in the trillion-dollar race to
control the Arctic”. CNBC, 6 Feb. 2018,
www.cnbc.com/2018/02/06/russia-and-
china-battle-us-in-race-to-control-
arctic.html.
Gramer, Robbie. “Here’s What Russia’s
Military Build-up in the Arctic Looks
Like.” Foreign Policy, 25 Jan. 2017,
foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/25/heres-
what-russias-military-build-up-in-the-
arctic-looks-like-trump-oil-military-
high-north-infographic-map.
Griffiths, Sian. “US-Canada Arctic border
dispute key to maritime riches.” BBC
News, 2 Aug. 2010,
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-
10834006.
Henley, Jon. “Greenland’s receding icecap
to expose top-secret US nuclear project”,
The Guardian, 27 Sept. 2016,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/201
6/sep/27/receding-icecap-top-secret-us-
nuclear-project-greenland-camp-century-
project-iceworm.
Hosa, Joanna. “Has Russia Already Won the
Scramble for the Arctic?” The Maritime
Executive, 28 October 2018,
www.maritime-
executive.com/editorials/has-russia-
already-won-the-scramble-for-the-arctic.
Kent, H. S. K. "The Historical Origins of the
Three-Mile Limit", The American
Journal of International Law, 48 (4),
1954, 537-53.
Konyshev, Valery, and Alexander Sergunin.
“Russia’s Policies on the Territorial
Disputes in the Arctic.” Journal of
International Relations and Foreign
Policy, 2 (1), 2014, 2333-5874,
jirfp.com/journals/jirfp/Vol_2_No_1_M
arch_2014/4.pdf.
“Law of the Sea Convention”. U.S.
Department of State,
www.state.gov/e/oes/lawofthesea.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
12
Mackinder, Halford John. Democratic Ideals
and Reality, London, Constable and
Company Ltd, 1919.
“Member States”. Arctic Council, 10 Sept.
2015, https://arctic-
council.org/index.php/en/about-
us/member-states.
“Polarizing proposal: Bye-bye ‘Arctic’
Ocean, welcome ‘Russian’”. RT, 26 July
2012, https://www.rt.com/news/arctic-
russian-ocean-resources-076/
“Russia plants flag under N Pole”. BBC
News, 2 August 2007,
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6927395.stm
.
“What is the Arctic?” NSIDC,
nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-
meteorology/arctic.html.
25 Anderson, Justin, and Amanda Moodle.
“Weapons of Mass Destruction -
Topic B: Regulation of
Chemical Weapons
Outline of the Problem Since the dawn of modern warfare, the triad
of “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” or
“WMDs” have posed a particularly poignant
threat to international safety and security.
First defined by the United Nations in 1948,
WMDs are characterized as “atomic
explosive weapons, radioactive material
weapons, lethal chemical and biological
weapons, and any weapons developed in the
future which have characteristics
comparable in destructive effect to those of
the atomic bomb or other weapons
mentioned above”25. All WMDs pose a dire
International Relations.” Oxford Bibliographies - International Relations,
DISEC DartMUN XIV
13
threat to international security, as they have
the unique capacity to annihilate great
swaths of land and populations of innocent
people without having to involve any other
military personnel. Chemical weapons pose
a particularly unique and dangerous threat,
and as such are the only weapon
classification in the WMD triad to be
completely outlawed (biological and
radiological weapons have yet to be outright
outlawed.) The world’s current international
protocol on chemical weapons is governed
by the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC) established in response to Iraq’s
usage of chemical weapons against its own
Kurdish population. The CWC calls for
signatory states to destroy all chemical
weapons and chemical weapons production
facilities as well as prevents nations from
producing, developing, stockpiling, and
transferring chemical weapons. The CWC
also calls for a verification/inspection
protocol to ensure compliance.26 Chemical
weapons are a pressing and dangerous issue
19 Sept. 2018, www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0221.xml.
26 “Chemical Weapons Primer.” Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, 2018, www.wisconsinproject.org/chemical-weapons.
that must be dealt with soon or countless
lives around the world could be in jeopardy.
DISEC must address the regulation of
chemical weapons to prevent their
unchecked proliferation and the destruction
they could cause.
Chemical Classifications27 Chemical weapons come in four primary
classifications: Choking, Blood, Blister, and
Nerve agents; and each present their own
dangers and difficulties in regulation.28
○ Choking Agents are among the
oldest chemical weapons and have
been in use since World War I.
Choking agents attack the central
respiratory system and cause death
by painful asphyxiation. Most
modern armies carry specialized
equipment to counter choking
agents.
○ Blood Agents starve the body of
oxygen in a different way than
choking agents; instead of attacking
27 “Types of Chemical Weapons .” Federation of American Scientists, 2013, fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/cwagents.html.
28 “Chemical Weapons Primer.” Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, 2018, www.wisconsinproject.org/chemical-weapons.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
14
the respiratory system, blood agents
destroy red blood cells and render
them incapable of successfully
carrying hemoglobin. Blood agents
can be more difficult to counter, they
are primarily absorbed into the body
by breathing and when inhaled,
cause death quickly.
○ Blister Agents are among some of
the most famous chemical weapons
and include mustard gas and lewisite.
When these chemicals come into
contact with exposed skin,
aggressive burns and blisters form
destroying the victims flesh. Blister
agents are usually spread via aerosol
or liquid droplets and are absorbed
through the skin. Rarely are blister
agents fatal yet, unlike choking and
blood agents, blister agents can
persist in the environment for days
and weeks after the attack is
executed.
○ Nerve Agents are the most
dangerous and deadly family of
chemical weapons and include sarin,
tabun, and VX among others. Nerve
agents react with enzymes in the
victim's body and ultimately
29 Ibid.
paralyze their central nervous system
leading to bodily function shut-down
and death. Since nerve agents are
rather complex, they are
comparatively more difficult and
expensive to produce, yet they
require far less volume to be lethal.
In discussing chemical weapons, it is also
important to discuss Chemical Precursors,
which are chemicals which by themselves
are not weapons but are necessary for the
production of chemical weapons.29 Many
developed nations now regulate and even
restrict the exportation of these key
precursors. A difficult facet of regulating
chemical precursors though is that they are
widely used in the manufacturing of many
important modern products from pesticides
to plastics to pharmaceuticals. For this
reason, we cannot outright outlaw these
precursors despite the fact that we know that
they can be used for negative purposes, they
are also vital to the economic success of
developed nations.
History of Chemical Weapons World Wars I & II
DISEC DartMUN XIV
15
World War I featured the first major, multi-
party use of chemical weapons in history.
Gases such as phosgene, mustard gas, and
especially chlorine posed an ever-changing
and dire threat to European public health.
These gases not only proved deadly on the
battlefield, but they also harmed a great deal
of civilians. Rather uniquely, chemical
weapons were utilized in the latter half of
the Great War to break the stalemates that
plagued the trench-style warfare of Western
Europe. Unfortunately, as each side
developed their own chemical weapons, they
largely nullified the threat of the opposing
sides chemical weapons. Mustard gas
became particularly difficult to deal with as
it was heavy enough to settle in the
contaminated area, oftentimes puddling in
the trenches. World War I saw some of the
first large-scale fighting and usage of
chemical weapons and revealed trends that
would only continue to expand as history
progressed.30 World War II conversely saw
much less usage of chemical weapons on the
battlefield than had previously been seen in
30 Fitzgerald, G. J. “Chemical Warfare and
Medical Response During World War I.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 98, no. 4, 2008, pp. 611–625., doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.11930.
World War I. During the interwar period,
most of the countries which had engaged in
World War I continued to develop their own
chemical weapons. By the time that World
War II arrived, these weapons were far too
dangerous to use and, as such, the doctrine
of Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD”
prevented large-scale usage of chemical
weapons in World War II.31
The Cold War
Following the end of World War II, the
former Allied powers began to feverishly
develop their own chemical weapons
programs. Although there were never any
direct conflicts between major superpowers
involving chemical weapons in the Cold
War, there was a great deal of stockpiling as
well as chemical weapons usage in proxy
wars. Notably, the United States used
“Agent Orange,” a defoliant which later was
discovered to have disastrous effects on
those exposed to it, over the Vietnamese
jungle during the Vietnam War. These
chemicals were designed to kill crops and
livestock as well as destroy the thick
31 John Ellis van Courtland Moon. “Chemical Weapons and Deterrence: The World War II Experience.” International Security, vol. 8, no. 4, 1984, pp. 3–35, www.jstor.org/stable/2538560.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
16
Vietnamese jungle in which the Americans
were not well-equipped to fight. Also,
during this time, some of the most
dangerous modern chemical weapons were
developed, among them “Venomous Agent
X,” what has come to be known as VX gas.
Clearly, unregulated chemical weapons
development posed a great threat to the
entire world. Due to the en masse
stockpiling of chemical weapons, one of the
most pressing modern issues associated with
chemical weapons following the CWC
(which will be discussed at further length in
this background guide) is the safe disposal
and destruction of dangerous chemical
agents.32
Iran-Iraq War
The Iran-Iraq War posed one of the most
recent and horrendously mismanaged usages
of chemical weapons in recent history. Iraq
utilized mustard gas and nerve agents
against Iranian forces resulting in deaths
32 Joseph Trevithick, “U.S. Navy Film
Reveals Crazy Cold War Chemical Weapons Plans,” The National Interest, March 12, 2017, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navy-film-reveals-crazy-cold-war-chemical-weapons-plans-19763.
33 Regencia, Ted. “Chemical Attacks on Iran: When the US Looked the Other Way.” Iran News | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 19 Apr. 2018,
numbering in the tens of thousands between
1980 and 1988.33 This case study reveals the
degree to which an international community
with limited interest in regulating chemical
weapons can lead to the creation of weapons
of mass destruction and the annihilation of
thousands of lives. The United States and
The United Kingdom among others were
aware of Iraq’s plans for chemical weapons
usage against military forces and civilians,
and even went so far as to provide them with
the precursors necessary to create said nerve
agents.34 Unfortunately, the Iranian
government was never able to collect
enough evidence against Hussein’s regime
in Iraq and their crimes went unpunished.35
This case study highlights the importance
that international cooperation and mutually
shared goals regarding the cessation of
chemical weapons usage and development
play in ensuring international security.
Syria
www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/chemical-attacks-iran-180415122524733.html.
34 McNaugher, Thomas L. “Ballistic Missiles and Chemical Weapons: The Legacy of the Iran-Iraq War.” International Security, vol. 15, no. 2, 1990, pp. 5–34, www.jstor.org/stable/2538864.
35 Ibid.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
17
The situation in Syria provides us with one
of the most contemporary and ongoing
conflicts which unfortunately involves
chemical weapons. In July 2012, Syria
publicly acknowledged that it possessed
chemical weapons confirming the suspicions
of many western intelligence agencies. The
ongoing crisis in Syria regarding chemical
weapons has been one of the most
commonly recurring themes at the United
Nations Security Council; due to Syria’s
alignment with Russia though, the vast
majority of resolutions fail. The most well-
known use of chemical weapons by the
Assad regime on their own civilians
occurred on August 21, 2013 in the suburbs
of the Ghouta region. The Syrian regime had
been attempting to expel the rebel forces
from the regions surrounding Damascus
when reports that thousands had been killed
by sarin gas flooded the international scene.
In the end, more than 1,000 Syrian citizens
were massacred, many of which were non-
combatant civilians.36 Two days later, UN
36 Kimball, Daryll. “Timeline of Syrian
Chemical Weapons Activity, 2012-2018.” Arms Control Association, vol. 238, no. 3173, 2018, p. 7., doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(18)30634-1.
37 Walker, Paul F. “Syrian Chemical Weapons Destruction: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead.” Arms Control Today,
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed
the need for a thorough UN investigation
into chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
What makes this case study unique is that it
is both ongoing and provides one of the first
instances of chemical weapons being used
by a regime against their own civilians,
many of whom are non-combatant and not
against an offensive foreign power as a sort
of deterrent.37 As the issue stands now, Syria
acceded to the Chemical Weapons
Convention in 2013 in order to avoid US
military retaliation but clearly, their
chemical weapons program has been
revived. The Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
shares the concerns of much of the western
community that Syria never truly disposed
of its massive chemical weapons stores. In
short, Syria has not adhered to the tenets of
the CWC.38
Tokyo Subway Sarin Attack
The Tokyo Subway Sarin Attack poses the
unique situation that chemical weapons were
vol. 44, no. 10, 2014, pp. 8–17, www.jstor.org/stable/24336693.
38 McMahon, Robert. “Can Syria's Chemical Weapons Be Stopped?” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 26 Apr. 2018, www.cfr.org/interview/can-syrias-chemical-weapons-be-stopped.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
18
used not by a government against another
government, a group of insurgents, or a
high-profile target. Instead, chemical
weapons, in this case Sarin gas, was used by
a terrorist group in an effort to sow the seeds
of discord and chaos. This attack occurred in
the subways of Tokyo in 1995 and were
perpetrated by the Aum Shinrikyo terrorist
organization/cult. Twelve people were killed
and more than 5000 suffered adverse effects
from exposure to Sarin gas. This case study
shows us how important it is to regulate
chemical weapons and precursors not just
for states but also for individuals and
insurgent groups.39
Chemical Weapons Utilized in
Assassinations
In recent times, chemical weapons have
been increasingly used on a small, precision-
based scale to carry out assassinations of
high-profile targets. Kim Jong Nam, former
heir apparent to the North Korean throne,
was murdered in Kuala Lumpur airport by
two hired killers. Fascination abounded
following this assassination due largely to
39 “The Sarin Gas Attack in Japan and the
Related Forensic Investigation.” OPCW, Synthesis, 1 June 2001, www.opcw.org/media-centre/news/2001/06/sarin-gas-attack-japan-and-related-forensic-investigation.
the sensational circumstances: Kim Jong
Nam had had a falling out with Kim Jong
Un which ultimately led to the latter’s rise to
power and Kim Jong Nam was killed
dramatically by having VX nerve agent
smeared across his face. The usage of VX
further points the North Korean regime as
responsible because Kim Jong Un is
believed to have amassed a stockpile of up
to 5,000 tons of chemical weapons including
VX gas.40 Another interesting case study of
chemical weapons being used in
assassination arrives in the form of the
Skripal Case in the United Kingdom. Sergei
Skripal was a former Russian double agent
who, along with his daughter, were poisoned
by two Russian men who entered the United
Kingdom on suspicious documents. They
attempted to poison Skripal using the nerve
agent Novichok, which is almost exclusively
manufactured and used by the Russian
military. Although neither of the Skripal’s
died at the hands of the Russian government,
one British citizen died after discovering the
discarded transportation vessel for the nerve
40 Kim, Suki. “The Meaning of Kim Jong Nam's Murder.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 24 Feb. 2017, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/02/north-korea-kim-jong-il-kim-jong-nam-malaysia/517635/.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
19
agent.41 These two case studies, amid the
backdrop of wider chemical weapons use,
show that multiple major world powers are
still illegally employing the usage of
chemical weapons in stark defiance of the
CWC.
Previous Diplomatic Actions The Geneva Protocol
The Geneva Protocol, drawn up and signed
in 1925 and put into force in 1928, was the
international community's response to the
horrors of the First World War. After seeing
the indiscriminate and devastating effects of
weaponized industrial chemicals like
chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas, the
League of Nations outright prohibited the
use of chemical weapons in warfare.
Unfortunately, the Geneva Protocol had a
number of blatant shortcomings. For one, it
failed to prohibit the development,
production, and stockpiling of chemical
weapons. The Geneva Protocol also suffered
41 Saunders, Doug. “The New Assassins:
Why Countries Are Getting Away With Murder Across Borders.” The Globe and Mail, 19 Oct. 2018, www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-new-assassins-why-countries-are-getting-away-with-murder-across/.
42 “1925 Geneva Protocol – UNODA.” United Nations, UNODA, 1925,
from the fact that many states who ratified
the treaty reserved the right to use the
prohibited chemical weapons against states
that had not signed onto the Geneva
Protocol. Nevertheless, the Geneva Protocol
provided an important first step towards the
elimination of chemical weapons in
warfare.42
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
went into effect in 1997 as the world’s
largest multilateral effort to restrict and
ultimately eliminate the usage of chemical
weapons. The CWC was designed to
prohibit the development, production,
acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer,
or use of chemical weapons by states that
have signed onto the treaty. The CWC is
regulated by the Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)
which ensures compliance among member
states.43 In 2016, the OPCW declared that
90% of declared chemical weapons stores
www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/1925-geneva-protocol/.
43 Kimball, Daryll. “The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) at a Glance .” Arms Control Association, 22 June 2018, www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcglance.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
20
had been destroyed, reflecting the incredible
success that the CWC has had in limiting
chemical weapons use.44 The CWC is not
without flaws though. After more than 20
years of use, the treaty is visibly struggling
with how to address state and non-state
actors currently producing and deploying
chemical weapons. Some of the CWC’s
most glaring issues reside in its narrow
definition of what a chemical weapon is.
The CWC only regulates chemicals that can
harm or kill people. With the CWC
functioning as it is, states can legally
stockpile chemicals that can serve both
military and nonviolent commercial uses.
The CWC also allows for states to stockpile
Riot Control Agents which can be used in
controlling hostile crowds and riots.
Additionally, developments in chemistry in
the 22 years since the formation of the CWC
have further blurred the lines between
chemical and biological weapons and
chemicals necessary for industry. For
instance, chlorine gas has a range of
44 “Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons
Convention – GLICA.” The Great Lakes Invitational Conference Association, 16 Mar. 2016, www.glica.org/hello-world-4/.
45 “United Nations: Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
peaceable industrial applications, and yet, as
seen in World War I, chlorine is lethal in its
gaseous form. Many member states of the
United Nations feel that the CWC needs an
update, one that would likely broaden the
definition of what qualifies as a chemical
weapon, restrict non-state actors access to
chemical weapons and precursors, and
further regulate the commerce of chemical
precursors.45
The Australia Group
The Australia Group is a confederation of
developed nations and the European Union
who seek to allow free exportation and
transshipping while minimizing the risk of
assisting in chemical and biological weapon
proliferation. The primary concern of this
group of developed nations is maintaining
their ability to compete economically by
freely importing and exporting. On the other
hand, these nations also realize the vital role
that they play in preventing chemical
weapons precursors from falling into the
wrong hands. As such, they have agreed to
Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction.” International Legal Materials, vol. 32, no. 3, 1993, pp. 800–873. www.jstor.org/stable/20693809.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
21
monitor and control their own exports of
precursor chemicals. Although this
confederation has been decently effective in
preventing chemical weapons precursors
from falling into the wrong hands, it is
important to note that the Australia Group
includes mostly industrialized Western
nations, such as the United States and
members of the European Union. However,
its membership also includes nations from
other regions of the world, such as
Argentina and India.46 China, which exports
the most chemicals of any nation on earth, is
not a member. These nations will work
together to ensure both beneficial economic
policy and responsible chemical weapons
policy.47
Non-CWC Countries
While the vast majority of the world’s
nations are signatories of the CWC, 193
states-parties in total, several prominent
countries do not fully participate, such as by
46 “Australia Group Participants.” The
Australia Group - Participants, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2007, australiagroup.net/en/parrticipants.html.
47 “The Origins of the Australia Group.” The Australia Group - Origins, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2007, australiagroup.net/en/origins.html.
signing but not ratifying the treaty (e.g.
Israel) or by withholding from the
agreement altogether. These nations are
Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan.
Egypt has not signed due to ongoing
tensions with Israel over suspicions of an
Israeli nuclear weapons program.48 North
Korea has refused to sign and ratify the
treaty, likely due to their suspected
stockpiles of chemical weapons. South
Sudan has also not signed or ratified the
treaty solely due to the very recent birth of
their nation. These exceptions serve to
highlight the voluntary nature of compliance
with the CWC; as the treaty stands today, it
lacks incentives to encourage participation.
Many nations believe that should the
Chemical Weapons Convention be re-
negotiated; greater incentives should be
included to encourage 100% worldwide
inclusion.49
48 “Chemical Weapons Program.” Federation of American Scientists, 2 Oct. 1999, fas.org/nuke/guide/egypt/cw. 49 Kimball, Daryll. “Chemical Weapons
Convention Signatories and States-Parties.” Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties | Arms Control Association, June 2018, www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
22
Solutions to Consider Inspections
Under the current guidelines of the CWC,
teams can perform three types of
inspections. The first are called “Routine
Inspections” and they occur the most
frequently. 50 Between 1997 and 2014, the
OPCW reported that over 5,500 inspections
have taken place over 80 nations. Over
2,000 of the more than 5,000 declared
industrial sites were inspected. Routine
inspections are considered cooperative
events, meaning that they require the
consent of the nation or facility owner to
allow the inspection to take place. They do
not take an investigative approach. Another
variety of inspections are known as
“Challenge Inspections.” These are short-
notice inspections which take place when
questions regarding a nation’s compliance
with the CWC are raised. Nations are able to
request a challenge inspection in another
nation if they are suspicious that they may
be storing or developing chemical weapons.
The obvious problem here is that regional
tensions and rivalries often play into the
50 Wittlaan, Johan de. “Three Types of
Inspections.” Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 10 Oct. 2014,
requests for challenge inspections. Finally,
the CWC also allows for “Investigations of
Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons” when
the United Nations has probable cause to
believe that a nation has deployed chemical
weapons in some capacity. Much like
challenge inspections, inspections into
alleged use require a state to petition the
United Nations to investigate the potential
use of chemical weapons in another state. As
the issue stands now, inspections comprise a
large and important part of the enforcement
guidelines for the CWC. Yet, the inspection
system is not perfect, as it allows for
national rivalries to obstruct international
security and safety.51
New Tech, Industrial Chemicals, &
Precursors
While the Chemical Weapons Convention
provided an important and monumental step
in the right direction regarding chemical
weapons, its current means of regulating
many facets of the problem are outdated and
imperfect. In the 20 years since the CWC
went into effect, chemical and biological
weapons become more and more difficult to
www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/events/program-in-a-box/documents/2016-global-security/cw-inspections.pdf.
51 Ibid.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
23
discern from one another. Additionally, how
a state, group, or individual can disseminate
a chemical weapon has become much easier
than in the past. The CWC needs to not
characterize the danger that each precursor
and chemical poses based on past use, but
rather consider regulating these chemicals
based on potential danger in the future. As
such, the CWC’s must update its schedules
for typing chemical precursors. This will in
turn require a redesign of the entire
inspection system. DISEC should also strive
to impart knowledge of ISTs or Inherently
Safer Technologies on its member states.
These ISTs eliminate the need for chemicals
like chlorine in modern industry and replace
it with far safer alternatives. Although the
CWC is an aging document, it has done the
international community a great service and
will continue to provide useful legislation so
long as it is maintained by its member
states.52
Regulate Technical Expertise
As many other United Nations Committees
have endeavored to do in the past, it is
recommended that this committee also seek
52 Trapp, Ralf. “Advances in Science and
Technology and the Chemical Weapons Convention.” Arms Control Today, vol. 38, no. 2, 2008, pp. 18–22, www.jstor.org/stable/23628352.
to broaden the sharing of information and
technical knowledge of chemical weapons
among its member states. There should be a
system in which the CWC maintains a
database for individuals, equipment, and
technology to ensure greater transparency in
the handling of chemical weapons related
issues. Although there will be some major
pushback from some nations regarding a
public registry and the free flow of
information, it would truly benefit the
international community as a whole.53
Solutions Outside the United Nations
Of course, the United Nations cannot solve
every problem perfectly. Perhaps it is in the
best interest of international security to
consider a plan outside of the bounds of this
committee. Many problems arise from the
simple fact that P5 Nations (The United
States, The United Kingdom, Russia, China,
and France) are nearly immune from
enforcement of chemical weapons
legislation. This is because the CWC gives
the power of enforcement to the UN
Security Council, where each of these five
countries has veto power. Historically, Iraq
53 Filosa, Henry. DISEC, MUNUC 30, Topic A: Chemical Weapons. pp. 1–28. Date Accessed: 10 October 2018.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
24
escaped punishment for using chemical
weapons in the 1980s (through US backing)
and Syria has avoided punishment more
recently(through Russian backing.) Perhaps
this committee should consider constructing
a multilateral plan for CWC enforcement
beyond the control of the UN Security
Council.54
Regional Bloc Positions Europe & North America
As these nations comprise the majority of
the developed western world, they provide
the driving force behind the CWC and also
form the primary backbone of the Australia
Group. In Europe, although World War I
was more than 100 years ago, the horrific
memories of chemical weapons usage
continue to haunt and inform their policies
towards chemical weapons. The major
difficulty among these countries regards
their industrialization. In many industries,
chemical precursors like chlorine are
essential for manufacturing products. As
such, these developed nations must be wary
54 Miller, Nicholas L. “Model United
Nations Background Guide Inquiry.” Received by Garrick K Allison, Model United Nations Background Guide Inquiry, 22 Oct. 2018.
of the regulation and control over these
dangerous chemical precursors to avoid
them falling into the hands of malicious
individuals or groups yet maintain access to
certain chemicals necessary for industrial
processes at the same time. In general, these
nations are staunchly committed to the
elimination of chemical weapons.55
Asia
Asia has been a source of many of the
world’s modern troubles regarding chemical
weapons. For instance, Russia has long
struggled with the complete destruction of
their Cold War age chemical weapons.
Additionally, China as a non-Australia
Group member lacks the necessary oversight
for their massive chemical exportation
industry. China, along with many other
industrialized nations, will likely resist the
further regulation of their chemicals
industries. Finally, North Korea has long
possessed one of the world’s largest
stockpiles of chemical weapons and has
shown that they are more than willing to
utilize them in executing their national and
55 “The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Chemical Weapons.” Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-of-chemical-weapons.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
25
international goals, as in the assassination of
Kim Jong Nam.56
South America
South American nations have an impressive
record of opposition against chemical
weapons. Aside from their non-existent
usage of chemical weapons, they have also
created the Group of Latin American and
Caribbean Countries, or GRULAC, who all
mutually share the goal of completely
eliminating chemical weapons on the
continent and raising awareness for how to
deal with a potential situation involving
chemical weapons. Additionally, these
nations emphasize the importance of sharing
information and technology to prevent
further violence involving chemical
weapons.57
The Middle East & North Africa
The Middle East and North Africa pose an
especially difficult problem regarding
chemical weapons. Countries in this region
have endured the most significant exposure
56 Bogdanich, Walt. “Chinese Chemicals
Flow Unchecked Onto World Drug Market.” The New York Times, October 31, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/world/asia/31chemical.html.
57 Oliveira, Nelza. “Latin American and Caribbean Service Members Join Forces in Anti-Chemical Weapons Exercise.”
to these weapons in recent years,
particularly during the Iran-Iraq War. The
majority of states in the Middle East and
Northern Africa have complied with the
tenets of the CWC. However, both Egypt
and Israel are non-signatories. Additionally,
as previously discussed, Syria has
demonstrated recent non-compliance with
the CWC and poses a great threat to its own
citizens and to regional security. As these
nations are rather hesitant to embrace the
UN’s policies towards chemical weapons
and are suspicious of the other states in the
region, they will likely be less than
enthusiastic regarding further and more in-
depth inspections.58
Sub-Saharan Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa has little modern
experience with chemical weapons and
stockpiles. Many of the countries share the
mutual goal of limiting and ultimately
preventing chemical weapons usage on the
Dialogo Americas - Digital Military Magazine, 3 Oct. 2017, dialogo-americas.com/en/articles/latin-american-and-caribbean-service-members-join-forces-anti-chemical-weapons-exercise.
58 Esfandiary, Dina. “In the Middle East, Get Rid of Chemical Weapons First.” Arms Control Today, vol. 44, no. 1, 2014, pp. 25–30, www.jstor.org/stable/23629569.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
26
continent.59 Historically, there have been
instances of chemical weapons usage. The
Apartheid governments of South Africa and
Zimbabwe attempted to develop chemical
weapons; South Africa’s “Project Coast,”
sought to build weapons of mass destruction
in order to strengthen their international
position and prestige. Upon the dissolution
of the Apartheid government, the program
was scrapped, and all remnants destroyed.60
Questions 1. What kinds of chemical weapons
constitute the greatest threat to
global security, in your nation’s
opinion?
2. How can DISEC or the CWC hold
countries responsible for both
military and paramilitary uses of
chemical weapons?
3. How can the CWC avoid inspections
turning from a law enforcement tool
59 Kasprzyk, Nicolas. “Tackling Weapons of
Mass Destruction in Africa.” World Economic Forum, 14 Jan. 2015, www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/tackling-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-africa/.
60 Purkitt, Helen E., and Stephen Burgess. “South Africa's Chemical and Biological
into a means for baseless harassment
between countries in conflict?
Works Cited Anderson, Justin, and Amanda Moodle.
“Weapons of Mass Destruction -
International Relations.” Oxford
Bibliographies - International Relations,
Oxford Bibliographies, 19 Sept. 2018,
www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/do
cument/obo-9780199743292/obo-
9780199743292-0221.xml.
“Australia Group Participants.” The
Australia Group - Participants,
Australian Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, 2007,
australiagroup.net/en/parrticipants.html.
Bogdanich, Walt. “Chinese Chemicals Flow
Unchecked Onto World Drug Market.”
The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2007,
www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/world/asi
a/31chemical.html.
Warfare Programme: A Historical and International Perspective.” Journal of Southern African Studies, vol. 28, no. 2, 2002, pp. 229–253, www.jstor.org/stable/823383.
DISEC DartMUN XIV
27
“Chemical Weapons Primer.” Wisconsin
Project on Nuclear Arms Control, 2018,
www.wisconsinproject.org/chemical-
weapons.
Courtland Moon, John Ellis van. “Chemical
Weapons and Deterrence: The World
War II Experience.” International
Security, vol. 8, no. 4, 1984, pp. 3–35,
www.jstor.org/stable/2538560.
Esfandiary, Dina. “In the Middle East, Get
Rid of Chemical Weapons First.” Arms
Control Today, vol. 44, no. 1, 2014, pp.
25–30, www.jstor.org/stable/23629569.
Filosa, Henry. DISEC , MUNUC 30, Topic
A: Chemical Weapons. pp. 1–28. Date
Accessed: 10 October 2018.
Fitzgerald, G. J. “Chemical Warfare and
Medical Response During World War I.”
American Journal of Public Health, vol.
98, no. 4, 2008, pp. 611–625,
doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.11930.
Kasprzyk, Nicolas. “Tackling Weapons of
Mass Destruction in Africa.” World
Economic Forum, 14 Jan. 2015,
www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/tackl
ing-weapons-of-mass-destruction-in-
africa.
Kim, Suki. “The Meaning of Kim Jong
Nam's Murder.” The Atlantic, Atlantic
Media Company, 24 Feb. 2017,
www.theatlantic.com/international/archi
ve/2017/02/north-korea-kim-jong-il-
kim-jong-nam-malaysia/517635/.
Kimball, Daryll. “The Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) at a Glance .” Arms
Control Association, 22 June 2018,
www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcgla
nce.
Kimball, Daryll. “Chemical Weapons
Convention Signatories and States-
Parties.” Chemical Weapons Convention
Signatories and States-Parties | Arms
Control Association, June 2018,
www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcsig.
Kimball, Daryll. “Timeline of Syrian
Chemical Weapons Activity, 2012-
2018.” Arms Control Association, vol.
238, no. 3173, 2018, p. 7,
doi:10.1016/s0262-4079(18)30634-1.
McMahon, Robert. “Can Syria's Chemical
Weapons Be Stopped?” Council on
Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign
Relations, 26 Apr. 2018,
www.cfr.org/interview/can-syrias-
chemical-weapons-be-stopped.
McNaugher, Thomas L. “Ballistic Missiles
and Chemical Weapons: The Legacy of
the Iran-Iraq War.” International
DISEC DartMUN XIV
28
Security, vol. 15, no. 2, 1990, pp. 5–34,
www.jstor.org/stable/2538864.
Miller, Nicholas L. “Model United Nations
Background Guide Inquiry.” Received
by Garrick K Allison, Model United
Nations Background Guide Inquiry, 22
Oct. 2018.
Oliveira, Nelza. “Latin American and
Caribbean Service Members Join Forces
in Anti-Chemical Weapons Exercise.”
Dialogo Americas - Digital Military
Magazine, 3 Oct. 2017, dialogo-
americas.com/en/articles/latin-american-
and-caribbean-service-members-join-
forces-anti-chemical-weapons-exercise.
Purkitt, Helen E., and Stephen Burgess.
“South Africa's Chemical and Biological
Warfare Programme: A Historical and
International Perspective.” Journal of
Southern African Studies, vol. 28, no. 2,
2002, pp. 229–253,
www.jstor.org/stable/823383.
“Re-Evaluating the Chemical Weapons
Convention – GLICA.” The Great Lakes
Invitational Conference Association, 16
Mar. 2016, www.glica.org/hello-world-
4/.
Regencia, Ted. “Chemical Attacks on Iran:
When the US Looked the Other Way.”
Iran News | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 19
Apr. 2018,
www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/04/chem
ical-attacks-iran-
180415122524733.html.
Saunders, Doug. “The New Assassins: Why
Countries Are Getting Away with
Murder Across Borders.” The Globe and
Mail, 19 Oct. 2018,
www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/artic
le-the-new-assassins-why-countries-are-
getting-away-with-murder-across/.
“The Origins of the Australia Group.” The
Australia Group - Origins, Australian
Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, 2007,
australiagroup.net/en/origins.html.
“The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of Chemical
Weapons.” Carnegie Council for Ethics
in International Affairs,
www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/a
rticles_papers_reports/the-rise-and-fall-
and-rise-of-chemical-weapons.
“The Sarin Gas Attack in Japan and the
Related Forensic Investigation.” OPCW,
Synthesis, 1 June 2001,
www.opcw.org/media-
centre/news/2001/06/sarin-gas-attack-
japan-and-related-forensic-investigation.
Trapp, Ralf. “Advances in Science and
Technology and the Chemical Weapons
DISEC DartMUN XIV
29
Convention.” Arms Control Today, vol.
38, no. 2, 2008, pp. 18–22,
www.jstor.org/stable/23628352.
Trevithick, Joseph. “U.S. Navy Film
Reveals Crazy Cold War Chemical
Weapons Plans,” The National Interest,
March 12, 2017,
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-
buzz/us-navy-film-reveals-crazy-cold-
war-chemical-weapons-plans-19763.
“Types of Chemical Weapons .” Federation
of American Scientists, 2013,
fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/cwa
gents.html.
“United Nations: Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling, and Use of
Chemical Weapons and on Their
Destruction.” International Legal
Materials, vol. 32, no. 3, 1993, pp. 800–
873, www.jstor.org/stable/20693809.
Walker, Paul F. “Syrian Chemical Weapons
Destruction: Taking Stock And Looking
Ahead.” Arms Control Today, vol. 44,
no. 10, 2014, pp. 8–17,
www.jstor.org/stable/24336693.
Wittlaan, Johan de. “Three Types of
Inspections.” Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, 10
Oct. 2014,
www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/events/
program-in-a-box/documents/2016-
global-security/cw-inspections.pdf.
“1925 Geneva Protocol – UNODA.” United
Nations, UNODA, 1925,
www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/192
5-geneva-protocol/.