Disarmament and International Security council

1

Disarmament and International Security council Committee Introduction The Conference on Disarmament, established in 1979 as the single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community, was a result of the first Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly (SSOD- I) held in 1978. It succeeded other Geneva-based negotiating fora, which include the Ten-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1960), the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament (1962-68), and the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (1969-78). The current Director-General of UNOG is the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament as well as the Personal Representative of the UN Secretary-General to the CD. The terms of reference of the DISEC include practically all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems. Currently the committee primarily focuses its attention on the following issues: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters; prevention of an arms race in outer space; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons including radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament and transparency in armaments. The DISEC meets in an annual session, which is divided in three parts of 10, 7 and 7 weeks, respectively. The first week shall begin in the penultimate week of the month of January. The committee is presided by its members on a rotating basis. Each President shall preside for a period of four weeks. 2

In order to ensure a coherent approach among the six Presidents of the session to the work of the Conference, as of 2006, an informal coordination mechanism - the P6 - was established that provides for the six presidents of the session to informally meet, usually on a weekly basis. Also on a weekly basis, the President meets informally with the Regional Group Coordinators and China together with the P6 (Presidential Consultations). As originally constituted, DISEC had 40 members. Subsequently its membership was gradually expanded (and reduced) to 65 countries. The council has invited other UN Member States that have expressed a desire to participate in the DISEC s substantive discussions, to take part in its work as non-member States. DISEC adopts its own Rules of Procedure and its own agenda, taking into account the recommendations of the General Assembly and the proposals of its Members. It reports to the General Assembly annually, or more frequently, as appropriate. Its budget is included in that of the United Nations. Staff members of the Geneva Branch of the Office for Disarmament Affairs service the meetings of the committee, which are held at the Palais des Nations. The Conference conducts its work by consensus. The committee and its predecessors have negotiated such major multilateral arms limitation and disarmament agreements as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, the Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction and Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. 3

Topic A: Biochemical Warfare Introduction Biological warfare (BW) also known as germ warfare is the use of biological toxins or infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with the intent to kill or incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war. Biological weapons (often termed "bio-weapons", "biological threat agents", or "bio-agents") are living organisms or replicating entities (viruses) that reproduce or replicate within their host victims. Entomological (insect) warfare is also considered a type of biological weapon. This type of warfare is distinct from nuclear warfare and chemical warfare, which together with biological warfare make up NBC, the military acronym for nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). None of these are conventional weapons, which are deployed primarily for their explosive, kinetic, or incendiary potential. Biological weapons may be employed in various ways to gain a strategic or tactical advantage over the enemy, either by threats or by actual deployments. Like some of the chemical weapons, biological weapons may also be useful as area denial weapons. These agents may be lethal or non-lethal, and may be targeted against a single 4

individual, a group of people, or even an entire population. They may be developed, acquired, stockpiled or deployed by nation states or by non-national groups. In the latter case, or if a nation-state uses it clandestinely, it may also be considered bioterrorism. There is an overlap between biological warfare and chemical warfare, as the use of toxins produced by living organisms is considered under the provisions of both the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Toxins and psychochemical weapons are often referred to as midspectrum agents. Unlike bioweapons, these midspectrum agents do not reproduce in their host and are typically characterized by shorter incubation periods. The use of biological weapons is prohibited under customary international humanitarian law, as well as a variety of international treaties. The use of biological agents in armed conflict is a war crime. Offensive biological warfare, including mass production, stockpiling, and use of biological weapons, was outlawed by the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The rationale behind this treaty, which has been ratified or acceded to by 170 countries as of April 2013, is to prevent a biological attack which could conceivably result in large numbers of civilian casualties and cause severe disruption to economic and societal infrastructure. On the other hand, chemical Weapons rose to prominence during World War 1 when they were used by both the Allies and the Germans. Each side indiscriminately used poisonous gases particularly chlorine and mustard gas, deployed by the means of a canister or through standard munitions such as grenade or artillery, to cause massive casualties to the enemy. As such, the first large scale attack occurred on 22 nd April 1915 at leper in Belgium at the start of the Second Battle of Ypres. At around 17.00 hours, the German began bombarding the area but this time they utilized pressurized cylinders in order to deliver poison gas. In retaliation on 24 th September 1915, the Allied forces released chlorine gas on Loos. However, the direction of the wind was not in their favor and so, it blew back the gases into the Allied emplacements. Now, both sides of the conflict had begun researching chemical weapons and were looking into more effective ways of delivering them. By the end of World War 1, a total of 124,000 chemical agents had been expended and which had, in turn, caused 100,000 casualties 5

in Austria-Hungary, 188,706 in British Empire, 190,000 in France, 200,000 in Germany, 60,000 in Italy, 419,340 in Russia, 72,807 in United States and 10,000 in other countries. The death and destruction bought about by the use of chemical weapons caused a public outrage and forced the global community to re-consider their use and development. In that regards, several international conferences were held with the aim of reaching a resolution that would prohibit their deployment and research. These included the Washington Conference (1921 1922), the Geneva Protocol (1923-1925) and the World Disarmament Conference (1933). Though these conferences managed to agree to prohibit the use of chemical weapons, there was no consensus on their research and development. However, these treaties did not have a solid foundation and despite the general agreement, the use of these destructive weapons continued in the upcoming years. During the second Italo-Abyssinian War, Italy used chemical weapons against the Ethopian soldiers and civilians, the Spanish used them in Morocco and the Japans in China. The manufacture and stockpiling of chemical weapons continued during the Cold War. Both the United States and the Soviet Union maintained around tens of thousands of chemicals weapons. The Soviet Union had even developed a two strike Cold War military plan, according to which they would first carry out a nuclear strike against the American cities and then unleash biological and chemical weapons upon them. It was in the late 1980s, after pressure from the Soveit Union and its NATO allies, that United States began destroying its stockpiles. However, even to this present day it maintains an arsenal for tactical use. Alleged Uses in History Rudimentary forms of biological warfare have been practiced since the dawn of human civilizations. During the 6th century BC, the Assyrians poisoned enemy wells with a fungus that would render the enemy delirious. In 1346, the bodies of Mongol warriors of the Golden Horde who had died of plague were thrown over the walls of the besieged 6

Crimean city of Kaffa. It is doubted that this operation may have been responsible for the spread of the Black Death into Europe. The British Army used smallpox against Native Americans during the Siege of Fort Pitt in. An outbreak that left as many as one hundred Native Americans dead in Ohio Country was reported in 1764. The spread of the disease weakened the native's resistance to the British troops led by Henry Bouquet. It is not clear, however, whether the smallpox was a result of the Fort Pitt incident or the virus was already present among the Delaware people. It has been claimed that the British Marines used smallpox in New South Wales in 1789. In Britain, the 1950s saw the weaponization of plague, brucellosis, tularemia and later equine encephalomyelitis and vaccinia viruses, but the program was unilaterally cancelled in 1956. The United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories weaponized anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, Q-fever and others. In 1969, the UK and the Warsaw Pact, separately, introduced proposals to the UN to ban biological weapons, and US President Richard Nixon terminated production of biological weapons, allowing only scientific research for defensive measures. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was signed by the US, UK, USSR and other nations, as a ban on "development, production and stockpiling of microbes or their poisonous products except in amounts necessary for protective and peaceful research" in 1972. However, the Soviet Union continued research and production of massive offensive biological weapons in a program called Biopreparat, despite having signed the convention. By 2011, 165 countries had signed the treaty and none are proven though nine are still suspected to possess offensive BW programs. 7

By 1900 the germ theory and advances in bacteriology brought a new level of sophistication to the techniques for possible use of bio-agents in war. Biological sabotage in the form of anthrax and glanders was undertaken on behalf of the Imperial German government during World War I (1914 1918), with indifferent results. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibited the use of chemical weapons and biological weapons. North Yemen The civil war in North Yemen began on 1962. It was between the royal partisans of the Mutawakkilite Kingdom and the supporters of the Yemen Arab Republics led by Abdullah as-sallah. The latter were successful in dethroning the newly crowned King, Muhammad al-badr who then escaped to the borders of Saudi Arabia where he managed to garner support from Jordan, Saudi Arabia and United Kingdom. On the other hand, the republics were supported by Egypt and Soviet Union. Egypt took part in the war by deploying around 70,000 soldiers to act alongside the republic forces. As the war intensified, Egypt began struggling against the guerilla 8

forces and the local s growing support for the kingdom. To counter, Egypt decided to resort to chemical weapons with the aim of eradicating the guerillas and also forcing the local population to change their support. Hence, on 8 th June 1963, Egyptian Air Force dropped chloroacetophenone tear gas bombs on royalist villages south of Sadah resulting in the death of the village inhabitants as well as the royalists who had taken refuge in caves and tunnels. Then on 5 th January 1967, nine Egyptian bombers dropped poison gas, or more specifically 27 phosgene bombs on the village of Kitaf which reportedly killed more than 200 people. Another chemical attack was carried out on May 1967 on the town of Gahar and as a result of which, 75 people were killed. 243 people were further murdered when Egypt dropped chemical bombs on the villages of Gabas, Hofal, Gadafa and Gadr. Iran-Iraq War The Iran-Iraq war had come to a standstill but that changed in 1983 when Iran launched an offensive, Wal Fajr. In order to be more effective, Iran decided to launch attacks at different places simultaneously and they particularly struck the north of Iraq where Kurdish forces were also present and hostile to the Iraqi regime. This unnerved Saddam Hussain as Iran successfully managed to gain some ground and he instructed his military to stop the offense at any costs even if it meant using chemical weapons. As such, reports arose according to which Iraq had begun using chemical weapons in order to halt the Iranian forces. On 25 th October, Iran reported to the UN Security Council that Iraq had bombarded the Piranshahr area with canisters containing poison gas and as evidence sampled sands and also attached pictures of the victims. Two further attacks were reported by Iran. One on the town of Baneh in northwestern Iran which reportedly killed 31 people and the other on the village of Bandemjan which caused 11 death and injured numerous others. The use of chemical weapons by Iraq was also confirmed by the UN delegation that arrived in Iran from 13 th March to 19 th March 1984. Then on 28 th February, reports arose of Iraq deploying mustard gas in Khaybar which reportedly claimed 700 deaths. The chemical attack is supposed to be in response to Iran s successful push and their capture of Majnoon Islands and the outskirts of Qurna. The scale at which the chemical 9

weapons were being deployed increased in 1985. According to the Iranian representative to the UN, Iraq had used chemical weapons around the Hawizeh marshes on two separate occasions. As a result, 180 Iranian soldiers had died. Soon enough, a second later was dispatched by Iran according to which, on 16 th March, Iraqi planes had dropped 6 capsules which Iranian experts believed contained cyanide, phosphorous and mustard gas. Soon after, four other chemical attacks were carried out. Altogether, there were 28 such separate occasions between 13 th and 20 th March. Then on 9 th February 1986, Iran launched an operation, namely Wal Fajr 8, to take Faw and the peninsula was taken after a week. This was a huge setback for Iraq and to take back the city it resorted to using Tabun and mustard gas, delivered through artillery, and managed to inflict 700 casualties. These allegations were confirmed when a UN delegation led by Dr.Manuel Dominguez, a UN Specialist, visited hospitals in Europe and examined the victims of these chemical attacks. Lastly but not the least, the largest chemical attack against civilians was carried out by Iraq on 16 th March 1988. Iraqi Air Force carried out successive sorties dropping chemical weapons including mustard gas, cyanide and sarin. The attack killed a total of 12,000 and injured a further of 7000 people. The Iraqi official responsible for the attack was Chemical Ali or Al-Anfal who made it clear that chemical weapon would continue to be used to ensure complete annihilation of the Kurdish people. Persian Gulf War On 25 th May 1994, US Defense Secretary William J.Perry and Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, General John M. Shalikashvili, declared, There is no evidence, classified or unclassified, that indicates that chemical or biological weapons were used in the Persian Gulf. A similar declaration was made by both, in May 1996, by the then CIA representative Sylvia Copeland and the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illness. However, while these statements do seem to indicate that chemical weapons had not been used on a large scale by Iraq in the war, there are still some intelligence reports and other sources of evidence that indicate the presence and perhaps, the use of chemical weapons. The following tables have been taken from an article called 10

Evidence Iraq Used Chemical Weapons During the 1991 Persian Gulf War by Jonathan B.Tucker which suggests the presence of chemical weapons. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Angola Angola received independence on November 1975 but immediately descended into a civil war that lasted till 2002. The civil war was a struggle against the Soviet-Union and Cuban backed People s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and United- States, South-Africa and Zaire backed National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA) and National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). Soon enough, both Cuba and South Africa sent in their forces in order to aid their respective allies. As the war progressed, reports of both side using chemical weapons emerged. According to an investigation conducted by the UN and WHO over the mass murders at Kassinga in 1978, it revealed the South African Special Forces, in order to ensure complete extermination of the people, had used poison to paralyze their victims before shooting them. Later in 2000, the Angolan army made an announcement that it had found chemical weapons in UNITA arms caches in the central highland. However, South Africa and UNITA weren t the only reported to be utilizing chemical weapons and new evidence suggested the use of chemical weapons by the Cubans. The latter claim was confirmed by Prof. Aubin Heyndrickx, head of toxicology at the University of Ghent in Belgium and a U.N. specialist on biological and chemical warfare and when he took environmental samples from the Angolan battle zone and which showed evident traces of mustard gas and nerve gases. Then in 1993, UNITA claimed that the MPLA had dropped chemical weapons on the city of Ndalatando and Huambo. Syrian Civil War The Syrian civil war began on March 2011 when people started demanding an end to the authoritarian government of Bashar-Al-Assad and instead raised their voice for democracy. The Syrian government resorted to using violence to suppress the protests which caused the situation to further worsen. Militias began to rise up and took up arms against the government. By 2012, the situation had converted into a full-fledged war. 19

On 23rd July 2012, a Syrian Foreign Military released a statement, Any stock of W.M.D. or unconventional weapons that the Syrian Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances, said Foreign Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, according to a New York Times story from 2012. These weapons are made to be used strictly and only in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic. But is that true? Should the global community believe a state that has already committed numerous atrocities against its own citizens? Soon enough, chemical weapons started being used throughout Syria. On 23 rd December 2012, the first chemical attack occurred. Agent 15, a chemical weapon, was dropped on Al-Bayadah, Homs. It was then under the control of the Free Syrian Army and the attack is reported to have 6 rebel fighters. Then on 19 th March 2013, there was a sarin gas in the Syrian cities, Khan al-assel neighborhood of Aleppo and the Damascus suburb of al-atebeh. It reportedly killed 26 people and injured dozens more. An investigation by U.N revealed that it was sarin gas but the report did not establish the perpetrator of the attack. 5 days later, on 24 th March 2013, Syrian opposition activists claimed another chemical attack by the Syrian military on the town of Adra which caused two death and injured at least 23 others. There was no formal investigation carried out by the international community but the local doctors described the weapons as phosphorous gas. Hardly half a month had gone by, 13 th April 2013, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) accused the Syrian army of dropping gas bombs on Aleppo, then controlled by Kurdish forces. It killed two people and wounded 12 others. Soon after that, on 29 th April 2013, a helicopter dropped chemical filled canisters on Saraqb which killed 1 people and caused breathing problems to eight others. 20

But then the largest chemical attack occurred on 21 st August 2013 in the suburbs of the Ghouta region. At the same time, Syrian forces were trying to eliminate the rebel force from that area. According to reports, it was a gas attack and it managed to take the many lives of 1000 people, many of whom were civilians. Once again, the U.N could not determine the body responsible behind the attack but U.S intelligence forces accuse Bashar al-assad for it. Then on 11 th April 2014, new reports emerged as per which chlorine bombs had been dropped on the village of Kafr Zita, then under the control of opposition forces. Chlorine is not banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention as it is used for various purposes in daily life but its use as a chemical weapon is certainly banned. The OPCW announced that it would investigate this attack. Another chlorine gas attack was reported on 10 th August 2016 by Hospital officials and on 7 th September that killed two people, both of them in Aleppo. The most recent chemical attack occurred on 4 th April 2017 on Syria s Ibid province. Sarin gas, a nerve agent, was used and killed at least 92 people, 30 of them children. The Syrian government is believed to have carried out the attack as its aircrafts were flying over the area at the time of attack. Chemical Terrorism Terrorist organizations have now resorted to using chemical weapons to carry out mass murders. On 27 th June 1994, a religious cult known as Aum Shinrikyo carried out a sarin gas attack on the city of Matsumoto in Japan. The chemical was manufactured by the group itself as some of their members were experts in virology and it was sprayed from a modified van. The attack poisoned about 600 residents and rescue staff and killed 8 people. The same organization carried out another chemical attack on 20 th March 1995. This time the group deployed 5 men and instructed them to release the gas in the Tokyo Subway system. Once done, they took the antidote and escaped. The gas took the lives of 13 people and poisoned 6000 others. This was followed by two other chemical attacks on May and July 1995 in which the group used hydrogen cyanide, resulting in the injury of 4 people. ISIS has also particularly been reported of using chemical weapons in both Syria and Ira. According to intelligence reports and independent analyses, it has employed 21

chemical weapons at least 52 times and out of which, 19 have been around Mosul. One instance is on the 1 st March 2017 when Isis launched a chemical attack on Mosul. The terrorist organization is thought to have apparently used mortars to delivers the chemical agents. AGREEMENTS AND RELEVANT BODIES Biological Weapon Institutions With the onset of World War II, the Ministry of Supply in the United Kingdom established a BW program at Porton Down, headed by the microbiologist Paul Fildes. The research was championed by Winston Churchill and soon tularemia, anthrax, brucellosis, and botulism toxins had been effectively weaponized. In particular, Gruinard Island in Scotland, during a series of extensive tests was contaminated with anthrax for the next 56 years. Although the UK never offensively used the biological weapons it developed on its own, its program was the first to successfully weaponize a variety of deadly pathogens and bring them into industrial production. Other nations, notably France and Japan had begun their own biological weapons programs. Later in 1942 British military planned the Operation Vegetarian. It was a British military plan disseminate linseed cakes infected with anthrax spores onto the fields of Germany. These cakes would have been eaten by the cattle, which would then be consumed by the civilian population, causing the deaths of millions of German citizens. Furthermore, it would have wiped out the majority of Germany's cattle, creating a massive food shortage for the rest of the population that remained uninfected. Preparations were not complete until early 1944. Operation Vegetarian was of course only to be used in the event of a German anthrax attack on the United Kingdom. The cakes themselves were tested on Gruinard Island, just off the coast of Scotland. Because of the widespread contamination from the anthrax, the land remained a no-go area until 1990. The five million cakes made to be disseminated in Germany were eventually destroyed in an incinerator shortly after World War II ended in 1945. When the USA entered the war, allied resources were pooled at the request of the British and the U.S. established a large research program and industrial complex at Fort Detrick, Maryland in 1942 under the direction of George W. Merck. The biological 22

and chemical weapons developed during that period were tested at the Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah. Soon there were facilities for the mass production of anthrax spores, brucellosis, and botulism toxins, although the war was over before these weapons could be of much operational use. In this process the US army Biological warfare laboratories were set and activities were carried out. Not only this but many operations were part of US army entomology warfare. Following these were the projects carried out namely Project Bacchus, Project Clear Vision, Project SHAD and Project 112 in the name of military and war research. The Soviet Union began a biological weapons program in the 1920s. During World War II, Joseph Stalin was forced to move his biological warfare (BW) operations out of the path of advancing German forces and may have used tularemia against German troops in 1942 near Stalingrad. By 1960, numerous BW research facilities existed throughout the Soviet Union. Although the USSR also signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), the Soviets subsequently augmented their bio-warfare programs. Over the course of its history, the Soviet program is known to have weaponized and stockpiled the following eleven bio-agents (and to have pursued basic research on many more): 1) Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) 2) Yersinia pestis (plague) 3) Francisella tularensis (tularemia) 4) Burkholderia mallei (glanders) 5) Brucella spp (brucellosis) 6) Coxiella burnetii (Q-fever) 23

7) Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEE) 8) Botulinum toxin (botulism) 9) Staphylococcal enterotoxin B 10) Smallpox 11) Marburg virus These programs became immense and were conducted at 52 clandestine sites employing over 50,000 people. Annualized production capacity for weaponized smallpox, for example, was 90 to 100 tons. In the 1980s and 1990s, many of these agents were genetically altered to resist heat, cold, and antibiotics. In the 1990s, Boris Yeltsin admitted to an offensive bio-weapons program as well as to the true nature of the Sverdlovsk biological weapons accident of 1979, which had resulted in the deaths of at least 64 people. Defecting Soviet bioweaponeers such as Colonel Kanatjan Alibekov confirmed that the program had been massive and still existed. An agreement was signed with the US and UK promising to end bio-weapons programs and convert BW facilities to benevolent purposes, but compliance with the agreement and the fate of the former Soviet bio-agents and facilities is still mostly undocumented. Saddam Hussein (1937 2006) initiated an extensive biological weapons (BW) program in Iraq in the early 1980s, in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) of 1972. Details of the BW program along with a chemical weapons program surfaced only in the wake of the Gulf War (1990 91) following investigations conducted by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) which had been charged with the postwar disarmament of Saddam's Iraq. By the end of the war, program scientists had investigated the BW potential of five bacterial strains, one fungal strain, five types of virus, and four toxins. Of these, three anthrax, botulinum and aflatoxin had proceeded to weaponization for deployment. Because of the UN disarmament program 24

that followed the war, more is known today about the once-secret bioweapons program in Iraq than that of any other nation. During UN inspections in 1998, it emerged that Hussein had had prisoners tied to stakes and bombarded with anthrax and chemical weapons for experimental purposes. Human experiments began in the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War after initial experiments on sheep and camels. Dozens of prisoners are believed to have died in agony during the program. According to an article in the London Sunday Times: In one incident, Iranian prisoners of war are said to have been tied up and killed by bacteria from a shell detonated nearby. Others were exposed to an aerosol of anthrax sprayed into a chamber while doctors watched behind a glass screen. Two Britishtrained scientists have been identified as leading figures in the programme. According to Israeli military intelligence sources, 10 Iranian prisoners of war were taken to a location near Iraq's border with Saudi Arabia. They were lashed to posts and left helpless as an anthrax bomb was exploded by remote control 15 yards away. All died painfully from internal haemorrhaging. In another experiment, 15 Kurdish prisoners were tied up in a field while shells containing camel pox, a mild virus, were dropped from a light aircraft. The results were slower but the test was judged a success; the prisoners fell ill within a week. Iraqi sources say some of the cruellest research has been conducted at an underground facility near Salman Pak, southwest of Baghdad. Here, the sources say, experiments with biological and chemical agents were carried out first on dogs and cats, then on Iranian prisoners. The prisoners were secured to a bed in a purpose-built chamber, into which lethal agents, including anthrax, were sprayed from a high-velocity device mounted in the ceiling. Medical researchers viewed the results through fortified glass. Details of the experiments were known only to Saddam and an inner circle of senior government officials and Iraqi scientists educated in the West. The facility, which is understood to have been built by German engineers in the 1980s, has been at the centre of Iraq's experiments on "human guinea pigs" for more than 10 years, according to Israeli military sources. 25

The most notorious program of the period was run by the secret Imperial Japanese Army Unit 731 during the war, based at Pingfan in Manchuria and commanded by Lieutenant General Shirō Ishii. This unit did research on BW, conducted often fatal human experiments on prisoners, and produced biological weapons for combat use. Although the Japanese effort lacked the technological sophistication of the American or British programs, it far outstripped them in its widespread application and indiscriminate brutality. Biological weapons were used against both Chinese soldiers and civilians in several military campaigns. In 1940, the Japanese Army Air Force bombed Ningbo with ceramic bombs full of fleas carrying the bubonic plague. Many of these operations were ineffective due to inefficient delivery systems, although up to 400,000 people may have died. During the Zhejiang-Jiangxi Campaign in 1942, around 1,700 Japanese troops died out of a total 10,000 Japanese soldiers who fell ill with disease when their own biological weapons attack rebounded on their own forces. During the final months of World War II, Japan planned to use plague as a biological weapon against U.S. civilians in San Diego, California, during Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night. The plan was set to launch on 22 September 1945, but it was not executed because of Japan's surrender on 15 August 1945. 26

Geneva Protocol The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8 February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September 1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Convention for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War signed on the same date, and followed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. 27

It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons, but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover these aspects the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). In the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the use of dangerous chemical agents was outlawed. In spite of this, the First World War saw large-scale chemical warfare. France used teargas in 1914, but the first large-scale successful deployment of chemical weapons was by the German Empire in Ypres, Belgium in 1915, when chlorine gas was released as part of a German attack at the Battle of Gravenstafel. Following this, a chemical arms race began, with the United Kingdom, Russia, Austria- Hungary, the United States, and Italy joining France and Germany in the use of chemical weapons. This resulted in the development of a range of horrific chemicals affecting lungs, skin, or eyes. Some were intended to be lethal on the battlefield, like hydrogen cyanide, and efficient methods of deploying agents were invented. At least 124,000 tons were produced during the war. In 1918, about one grenade out of three was filled with dangerous chemical agents. Around 1.3 million casualties of the conflict were attributed to the use of gas and the psychological effect on troops may have had a much greater effect. As protective equipment developed, the technology to destroy such equipment also became a part of the arms race. The use of deadly poison gas was not only limited to combatants in the front but also civilians as nearby civilian towns were at risk from winds blowing the poison gases through. Civilians living in towns rarely had any warning systems about the dangers of poison gas as well as not having access to effective gas masks. The use of chemical weapons employed by both sides had inflicted estimated 100,000-260,000 civilian casualties during the conflict. Tens of thousands of more (along with military personnel) died from scarring of the lungs, skin damage, and cerebral damage in the years after the conflict ended. In the year 1920 alone, over 40,000 civilians and 20,000 military personnel died from the chemical weapons effects. 28

The Treaty of Versailles included some provisions that banned Germany from either manufacturing or importing chemical weapons. Similar treaties banned the First Austrian Republic, the Kingdom of Bulgaria, and the Kingdom of Hungary from chemical weapons, all belonging to the losing side, the Central powers. Russian bolsheviks and Britain continued the use of chemical weapons in the Russian Civil War and possibly in the Middle East in 1920. Three years after World War I, the Allies wanted to reaffirm the Treaty of Versailles, and in 1922 the United States introduced the Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare at the Washington Naval Conference. Four of the war victors, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan, gave consent for ratification, but it failed to enter into force as the French Third Republic objected to the submarine provisions of the treaty. At the 1925 Geneva Conference for the Supervision of the International Traffic in Arms the French suggested a protocol for non-use of poisonous gases. The Second Polish Republic suggested the addition of bacteriological weapons. It was signed on 17 June. 29

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 United Nations Security Council resolution 1540 was adopted unanimously on 28 April 2004 regarding the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The resolution establishes the obligations under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter for all Member States to develop and enforce appropriate legal and regulatory measures against the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and their means of delivery, in particular, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction to non-state actors. It is notable in that it recognizes non-state proliferation as a threat to the peace under the terms of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, and creates an obligation for states to modify their internal legislation. Furthermore, the resolution requires every state to criminalize various forms of nonstate actor involvement in weapons of mass destruction and its related activities in its domestic legislation and, once in place, to enforce such legislation. By virtue of its universal scope and mandatory nature, resolution 1540 marks a departure from previous nonproliferation arrangements and adds a novel layer to the nonproliferation regime. Before the resolution was adopted, the non-proliferation regime was based on many partly overlapping arrangements, none of which established universal mandatory obligations. There exists a modest consultative compliance mechanism, but negotiations to establish an international organization for the prohibition of biological weapons to oversee implementation and conduct monitoring and verification have broken down in 2001. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the status and effectiveness of states parties measures to implement and comply with the BTWC. UNSCR 1540 has established a monitoring system based on states declarations on implementation through the reports provided to the 1540 Committee. The resolution does not provide a compliance regime, but rather favors cooperative efforts since non-compliance can be caused by lack of awareness or capacity. But if states persist in their non-compliance despite assistance, then the Committee will report this to the UNSC. Resolution 1540 also fulfills a function compliance role since it requires BTWC states parties to review 30

their compliance with its obligations while they can use the more detailed criteria for national implementation in the resolution. The Australian Group The Australia Group is an informal group of countries (now joined by the European Commission) established in 1985 (after the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in 1984) to help member countries to identify those exports which need to be controlled so as not to contribute to the spread of chemical and biological weapons. The group, initially consisting of 15 members, held its first meeting in Brussels, Belgium, in September 1989. With the incorporation of Mexico on August 12, 2013, it now has 42 members, including the European Commission, all 28 member states of the European Union, Ukraine, and Argentina. The name comes from Australia's initiative to create the group. Australia manages the secretariat. The initial members of the group had different assessments of which chemical precursors should be subject to export control. Later adherents initially had no such controls. Today, members of the group maintain export controls on a uniform list of 54 compounds, including several that are not prohibited for export under the Chemical Weapons Convention, but can be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons. In 2002, the group took two important steps to strengthen export control. The first was the "no-undercut" requirement, which stated that any member of the group considering making an export to another state that had already been denied an export by any other member of the group must first consult with that member state before approving the export. The second was the "catch-all" provision, which requires member states to halt all exports that could be used by importers in chemical or biological weapons programs, regardless of whether the export is on the group's control lists. Delegations representing the members meet every year in Paris, France. 31

Paris Conference of Chemical Weapons While the Geneva Protocol was a great initiative taken against chemical weapons, it was lacking. It did ban the use of chemical weapons but not address their manufacturing and stockpiling. Not to mention, despite it being ratified by many countries, chemical weapons continued to be used in the upcoming years. On 15 th December 1989, a conference was organized by France and Finland which aimed to adopt a consensus with regards to the chemical weapons. It was called at the recommendation of United States which was concerned at the chemical weapons program of Iran and Libya. Given Libya s known relations with terrorist organization and its plan to build a chemical weapon facility, the U.S felt the need of an immediate plan that would ban the production of chemical weapons and disallow their exports. Representative from 149 countries attended the five-day conference. At the end of session, a declaration was issued. It reaffirms the countries commitment to the Geneva Protocol and prioritizes the formation of a resolution that would enforce a ban of manufacture, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. The Paris Conference also reemphasizes that the states should adhere to the recent resolution against the use of biological weapons. Furthermore, the declaration also hints towards measures such as sanctions that could be taken against states that utilize chemical weapons. However, it fails to mention export controls regarding those weapons. 32

1990 Chemical Accord On a superpower summit meeting on Washington D.C in June 1990, the United States and Soviet Union signed the U.S.-Soviet Chemical Weapons Accord, also officially known as the Agreement on Destruction and Non-Production of Chemical Weapons and on Measures to Facilitate the Multilateral Convention on Banning Chemical Weapons. This treaty between the two superpowers was meant to serve as an example, for other nations, of an initiative taken stop the production and stockpiling of chemical weapons. As of then, there wasn t a proper resolution adopted by the international that would ban these practices and neither were there export controls which would ensure that no exchange of chemical weapons take place. The United States was already concerned by the development of a chemical weapons program in Libya and their use in the Iran- Iraq and the Persian Gulf War. Not to mention, they also had a valid concern that the weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist organization. In the 1990 Chemical Accord, both United States and Soviet Union agreed to crease the production of these weapons as well as reduce their then chemical stockpile. With regards to this, they decided that they would destroy 50% of their chemical stocks by 1999 and reduce them to 5000 agent tons. To ensure that each country would stick to the commitment, there would be on-site inspection during the destruction process. The monitoring would continue even after that and data regarding the declared chemical stockpile would be exchanged on a yearly basis. The destruction of the chemical weapons began after Soviet Union became dissolved, from the year 1990 and in 1993, U.S, Russia and 150 other nations signed a treaty to ban chemical weapons. 33

Chemical Weapons Convention The Chemical Weapons Convention was a result of negotiation of 12 years. It was adopted on 3 rd September 1992 by the Conference on Disarmament and came into force on 13 th January 1993. The Convention serves as a multilateral platform for banning of manufacturing, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It also prohibits the transfer of chemical weapons between states and neither does it allow the use of agents to qualm riots. To summarize the CWC, states parties must declare their chemical weapon stockpiles that they possess and the facilities that function to produce or research chemical weapons. In this regards, they must also draft plans to deconstruct such facilities and destroy the chemical agents. They are also required to submit receipts of chemical weapons or the equipment used to manufacture them since 1946. The Convention classifies the chemical weapons into three categories; Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3. Category 1 are those that can be used either as chemical weapons or to manufacture. Category 2 and category 3 consists of those chemical agents that, once again, can be used as weapons but have legitimate applications as well. To differentiate between the two, the former category has small-scale applications while the latter has large-scale applications. CWC requires that the destruction of category 1 chemical weapons start two years after CWC enters into force for a stateparty. States must destroy all of their stockpiles within 100 years. Destruction of category 2 and category 3 chemicals must start within 1 year after CWC enters into force for a state-party. In order to ensure that the states are in compliance with the rules of the convention, it promises on-site inspections. These include routine-inspections of chemical weapon facilities, challenge inspection that can be conducted at any facility or location and investigations into alleged uses of chemical weapons. If the states are not found of being compliant to the Convention, then the matter shall be forwarded to the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly and strong measures shall be taken. QARMA 34

1) What is the cause of militarization? 2) How is the global structure, political and economic being affected by all these measures? 3) How does this affect the third world countries? What measures can be taken to resolve these issues? 4) How do these actions affect those countries that are either not involved directly, have trade relations with those involved or are alias with them or are not even involved even indirectly? What measures can be taken to resolve these issues? 5) How have the past actions failed to resolve the issue at hand? 6) What diplomatic regulations must be in place to contain the issue at hand? 7) How will the taken measures be executed for long term sustainability? 35

References: https://www.unog.ch/80256ee600585943/%28httppages%29/bf18abfefe5d344dc1 256F3100311CE9?OpenDocument https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc1200679/ http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/chemicalweapons/http://theweek.com/articles/460335/brief-history-chemical-warfare http://www.emedicinehealth.com/biological_warfare/article_em.htm https://c.aarc.org/resources/biological/history.asp http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1198743x14641744 http://world.time.com/2014/01/20/iran-still-haunted-and-influenced-by-chemicalweapons-attacks/ http://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/9153/128400983.pdf?sequence=1 http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/chemical_warfare_iran_iraq_war.php https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/timeline-of-syrian-chemical-weapons-activity http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/05/middleeast/syria-sarin-chemical-weaponsexplainer/index.html https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/terrorist_cbrn/terrorist_cbrn.htm https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/geneva/bwc/ https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcglance https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/sc1540/ http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/civ1540/1540.pdf 36

https://www.britannica.com/event/geneva-protocol 37

Topic B: Militarization of the Arctic Introduction With the rapid melting of ice in the Arctic region, the long-isolated region is becoming a more accessible zone for commercial fishing, fresh water, minerals, coal, iron, copper, oil, gas, and shipping. Thus, the region is increasingly catching the world powers attention. Arctic states Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Russia, Norway and the U.S. are in rush to exploit all these opportunities from the region, which is believed to hold huge oil and natural gas resources. With such lust for resources, there is the likelihood that the slow militarization, which has already been initiated by the stake-holding states, will be intensified, jeopardizing the peace and stability of the region and the globe. As of yet, the Arctic region is largely untouched by mankind. However, with the ice caps melting, access to the Arctic oil and gas reserves, which is estimated to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars, will become easier a prediction that has already sparked a military competition in the region. Such militarization of the region is likely to increase with almost all the countries urging for increasing their military deployments and exercises, and there appears little hope & opportunity for any diplomatic resolution (or political agreement) regarding the disputes. It can be well presumed that without any diplomatic resolution (or political agreement), the current non-hostile debate over the Arctic could turn into a violent confrontation. 38

It seems our globe does not lack reasons to engage in chaos. The two world wars began as European conflicts, only to turn gradually into world wars. Likewise, if the disputes over the control of the Arctic resources are not resolved quickly, it could turn into a larger military conflict that would not just involve the Arctic countries, but would also drag a larger part of the world into this conflict. And for sure, the start of such war would mean the cold, yet beautiful, Arctic region would become the targets of war machines destroying the environment and the stability of the region and the globe. Resources An assessment conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in 2008, revealed that about 22% of the world s undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas resources (equivalent to about 412 billion barrels oil) are stored in the Arctic seabed. This estimate reportedly contains 15% of the world s remaining oil, 30% of its natural gas deposits and 20% of its liquefied gas. The survey further states that approximately 87% of these untapped resources are located in the seven Arctic basin provinces; East Greenland Rift Basin, West Siberian Basin, Yenisey-Khatanga Basin, Amerasian Basin, Arctic Alaska Basin, East Barents Basin, and West Greenland-East Canada Basin. Recent expeditions also have discovered more than 400 oil and gas field in the north of Arctic, about 500 of them in the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Region (KMAR) and also in other areas of the Arctic Circle. However, the biggest oil field region was discovered in the coastal areas of Alaska and Siberia. The Arctic Circle is also flush with minerals. The Russian Arctic is known for having abundant deposits of copper, coal, gold, nickel, tungsten, and diamond, the North American Arctic for: uranium, copper, nickel, iron, natural gas and oil, Canada s Yukon province for quartz, coal and gold and finally Greenland has deposits of cryolite, coal, marble, zinc, lead and silver. The total approximate value for the discovered Arctic minerals is around 1.5 to 2 trillion dollars. A large amount of the Arctic minerals are concentrated in Russia. About 20,000 of mineral deposits have been discovered and 30% are being presently mined by the country. For Russia, the export of these minerals stood at 37 billion dollars in 2005 and for the United States 3.9 billion dollars in 2008. Canada s mining industry contributed 3.4% to the national GDP in 2007. Last but not 39

the least, in 2007 Norway produced 80 million tons of various minerals valued at 1.5 billion dollars. However, many regions of the Arctic have yet to be deeply explored and it is likely that a huge quantity of oil resources or minerals are present there. This has further encouraged these seven countries to lay down their claims over parts of the Arctic Circle. Lomonosov Ridge and Beaufort Sea are two such areas which are being hotly contested especially because they may hold hydrocarbon reserves. Hence, why it has become more necessary to diplomatically solve the situation as quickly as possible. Shipping Routes 40

As the ice melts, shipping routes for vessels to transit the Arctic are opening up. The main trans-arctic routes are the Northeast Passage, the Northwest Passage, the Transpolar Sea Route, the Northern Sea Route and the Arctic Bridge. If developed successfully, each of these routes have the potential to alter world trade and greatly boost the global economy. The Northeast Passage, also known as the Northern Sea Route, lies in the economic exclusive zone of Russia and connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Being just one-third of the total distance through the Suez Canal, it can reduce transit time by 12 to 15 days. Moreover, it is expected to save at least $180,000 in fuel costs. The Northwest Passage, connects the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and is 7000 km shorter than the current route through the Panama Canal. It offers numerous benefits from reducing the ship routes from Europe to Eastern Asia by 2,500 miles to granting Canada the opportunity to easily and economically set up its mineral market. Moreover, it also has the capability to allow much larger ships to transit through it which can t be done through the Panama or Suez canals. The Transpolar route, lies completely in international waters as determined by the UNCLOS. It links the Strait of Bering and the Atlantic Ocean of Murmansk through the Arctic s central part and is considered the shortest route as compared to the Northwest and Northeast Passage. However, due to the presence of multi-year ice it has still yet to attract the attention of the global players. 41

Lastly, the Artic Bridge links Murmansk in Norther Russia with Churchill in Canada. It was proposed by the Canadians in the 1900s with the intent of linking the two seaports. The route will give Russia an easier access to Northern American and give Canada access to the Northern Sea Route from Murmansk. The global marine sector is also expected to fare better since it ll provide Asian nations the opportunity to trade with the Western Countries and vice versa. expected to fare better since it ll provide Asian nations the opportunity to trade with the Western Countries and vice versa. 42