Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LASALLEMUN 2018 STOP WISHING, START DOING
LASALLEMUN 2018
“Stop wishing, start doing” Background Guide
UNODA United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs
Topic A: “Developing post-Bioweapon attack measures”
Topic B: “Buying-Selling weapons to countries in conflict”
Topic A: “Developing post-Bioweapon attack measures”
Topic B: “Buying-Selling weapons to countries in conflict”
Fellow Delegates,
Welcome to LASALLEMUN 2018! My name is Alberto Lagunas Pérez and I’m more than excited to be this year’s president in the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, as well as witnessing this model unfold with the different ideas you will be presenting.
I’m currently 17 years old and going through my junior year of high school. Whenever I’m not busy doing homework or school assignments, I enjoy drawing or going to the movies. I also like spending time with my friends and family when I get the chance. I believe that if I’m going to spend most of my life working, it has to be something I love and makes me truly happy, which is why I’m considering studying animation, either in Mexico City or in California. There’s just something about a story worth telling with amazing visuals that catches my attention.
When I was in my freshman year, I was asked to be in the tenth anniversary of ULSACUNMUN and even though I didn’t give it much thought at first, I then came to realize that participating in this model was one of the greatest things I could have done. Not only have I had a great time in the four models I’ve been to, but I’ve also learned so much! MUN has taught me about responsibility, problem solving skills, about the different views everybody has of the world, and even learned a thing or two about leadership.
Given that my first committee was UNODA, I wish to make the most of it, and hope you deliver an exceptional work. This is your chance to make your voices heard, so I recommend you prepare yourself as much as possible! If by any means, you wish to ask me anything feel free to do so, I’ll be happy to help. Remember to give your best and may the force be with you.
Yours truly,
Alberto Lagunas Pérez United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA)
Committee Description
UNODA provides substantive and organizational support for norm-setting in the area of disarmament through the work of the General Assembly and its First Committee, the Disarmament Commission, the Conference on Disarmament and other bodies. It fosters disarmament measures through dialogue, transparency and confidence-building on military matters, and encourages regional disarmament efforts.
It also provides objective, impartial and up-to-date information on multilateral disarmament issues and activities to Member States, States parties to multilateral agreements, intergovernmental organizations and institutions, departments and agencies of the United Nations system, research and educational institutions, civil society, especially non-governmental organizations, the media and the general public.
UNODA supports the development and implementation of practical disarmament measures after a conflict, such as disarming and demobilizing former combatants and helping them to reintegrate in civil society.1
Topic A: “Developing post-Bioweapon attack measures”
Introduction
A biological agent — also called bio-agent or biological threat agent — is a bacterium, virus, protozoan, parasite, or fungus that can be used purposefully as a biological weapon in bioterrorism or biological warfare.2 A biological attack is the intentional release of germs or other biological substances that can cause disease. These agents are classified into three basic groups: bacteria, virus and toxins. They are capable of causing death or incapacitate people, cattle and crops. Most of them are hard to maintain and harvest, and can’t be preserved once they’re exposed to sunlight and other environmental factors (anthrax being one of the exceptions, which lives for quite some time).
These agents can be dispersed by:
Spraying them into the air: agents are sprayed into the air forming a fine mist that reaches long distances.
Infecting animals that carry the disease to humans: agents are transmitted through insects and animals, like fleas, mice, flies, mosquitoes and cattle.
1 https://www.un.org/disarmament/about/ 2 http://www.definitions.net/definition/biological%20agent
Contaminating food and water: some pathogenic organisms and toxins persist in water supplies and food. Although it is possible to eliminate microbes and deactivate toxins cooking the food and boiling the water.
Person-to-person contact: it is also possible the contagion of some infectious agents (humans have been the source of smallpox infection and Lassa fever)
A biological attack may or may not be noticeable, although unusual patterns of sickness can be identified as well as waves of sick people seeking emergency medical attention. Antibiotics are generally the adequate treatment to diseases related with biological weapons, although they have to be for that sickness in particular. This is because one antibiotic can work for one but be inadequate for others.3
Historical Background
Their use go far back in time, before people even knew about microbiology and biotechnology.
On the 6th century BC, the Assyrians poisoned water wells from the enemy using ergotamine. The Persians, Greeks and Romans used to poison the wells and sources of water with bodies of humans and animals who died with contagious illnesses so they could eradicate the population of a specific zone.
It is known that the bubonic plague started in China and entered Europe for the first time via Kaffa in 1347. Asian caravans travelling through the Silk Road in order to trade products, ended up in the ports of Kaffa. In the spring of 1347, the city had been besieged by a khan4, Jani Beg, who had discovered that the plague decimated his troops. So before leaving, it is believed he catapulted the infected corpses over the city walls in order to poison the Christians. Kaffa was liberated but it carried the disease. This was the first voluntary use of microorganisms to kill or incapacitate their enemies.5
WWI
Evidence suggests the existence of a biological warfare program in Germany during World War I. During the time the war was taking place, reports circulated of attempts by Germans to ship horses and cattle inoculated with disease-producing bacteria to the USA and other countries. The same agents were used to infect Romanian sheep that were designated for export to Russia.
3 https://www.ready.gov/Bioterrorism 4 Khan: A title given to rulers and officials in central Asia, Afghanistan, and certain other Muslim countries 5 http://veterinaria.org/revistas/redvet/n030310B/0310B_HV06.pdf
In response to the horror of chemical warfare during World War I, international diplomatic efforts were directed toward limiting the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction (biological and chemical weapons).
On June 17, 1925, the Geneva Protocol of 1925 was signed. A total of 108 nations, including eventually the 5 permanent members of the Security Council, signed the agreement. However, the Geneva Protocol did not address verification or compliance, making the document less meaningful. Several countries that were parties to the Geneva Protocol of 1925 began to develop bio weapons soon after its ratification.
WWII
During World War II, some of the mentioned countries began a rather ambitious biological warfare research program. The center of the Japanese biowarfare program was known as “Unit 731”. Various allegations and countercharges clouded the events during and after World War II. Japan conducted biological weapons research from approximately 1932 until the end of World War. Several military units existed for research and development of biological warfare.
In the USA, an offensive biological warfare program was begun in 1942 under the direction of the War Reserve Service. The program included a research and development facility at Camp Detrick, Maryland. Initially, organisms of interest were B. anthracis and Brucella Suis. Although about 5000 bombs filled with B. anthracis spores were produced at Camp Detrick, the production facility lacked adequate engineering safety measures, precluding a large-scale production of biological weapons during World War II.
POST WWII
During the years immediately after World War II, newspapers were filled with articles about disease outbreaks caused by foreign agents armed with biological weapons. During the Korean War, the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea accused the USA of using agents of biological warfare against North Korea. In later years the USA admitted that it had the capability of producing such weapons, although it denied having used them.
1972 BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION
During the late 1960s, public and expert concerns were raised internationally regarding the indiscriminate nature of, unpredictability of, epidemiologic risks of, and lack of epidemiologic control measures for biological weapons. In July 1969, Great Britain submitted a proposal to the UN Committee on Disarmament outlining the need to prohibit the development, production, and stockpiling of biological
weapons. Furthermore, the proposal provided for measures for control and inspections, as well as procedures to be followed in case of violation.
Subsequently, the 1972 “Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction” known as the BWC, was developed. This treaty prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of pathogens or toxins in “quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes”. It further required the parties to the BWC to destroy stockpiles, delivery systems, and production equipment within 9 months of ratifying the treaty. Signatories to the BWC are required to submit the following information to the UN on an annual basis: facilities where biological defense research is being conducted, scientific conferences that are held at specified facilities, exchange of scientists or information, and disease outbreaks.
However, like the 1925 Geneva Protocol, the BWC does not provide firm guidelines and adherence to the protocol. In addition, there are no guidelines on enforcement and how to deal with violations.6
Current Situation
To date there have been no recent attacks using biological weapons or even hints of biological weapons being used in an attack;; yet, warnings were issued by the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls of the potential use of biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD). 7
Rapid advances in technology have made the development of biological weapons more accessible, cheaper, and quicker to create. It must be seriously considered that each time advances are made in biology;; these advances remove the historic barriers to biological weapons manufacturing. With the simplified and ever-increasing reliability of biological manufacturing processes, it becomes more likely that terrorist organizations will spend time and resources pursuing WMDs. Furthermore, advances in biotechnology and synthetic biology are unparalleled compared to chemical and/or nuclear processing technology thus more likely to become reality. As it gets easier, it is also more likely that a terrorist sympathizer with a background in biology possesses the required skills to synthesize a weapon.
Ultimately, we need to recognize that the lack of biological terrorism is not the result of the lack of a threat. The threat increases all the time in every country struggling with terrorism. Governments, intelligence agencies, and scientists must
6 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/ 7 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-‐attacks-‐french-‐pm-‐risk-‐chemical-‐biological-‐weapons-‐raids-‐belgium/
be vigilant to not overlook the threat from WMD terrorism and biological terrorism in particular. If we do, we are only enabling terrorism to get closer to biological weapon capability at a time when it is getting easier to attain and harder to detect. All it is going to take for a biological attack to happen is the right terrorist at the right time. That could be tomorrow.8
Guide Questions
• What measures can be taken to protect civilians from bio weapon attacks? • If your country has had Biological attacks in the past, how has it dealt with them?
• How can we make sure signatories act accordingly to the proposed UN solutions?
• How can we identify Bioterrorism before it affects our countries?
Bibliography
• About Us – UNODA. (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2017, from https://www.un.org/disarmament/about/
• Translations for biological agent. (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2017, from http://www.definitions.net/definition/biological%20agent
• Bioterrorism. (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2017, from https://www.ready.gov/Bioterrorism
• Riedel, S. (2004, October). Biological warfare and bioterrorism: a historical review. Retrieved December 21, 2017, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/
• C. (2015, November 19). New raids as France warns of possible chemical attacks. Retrieved December 21, 2017, from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/paris-attacks-french-pm-risk-chemical-biological-weapons-raids-belgium/
• Adam J. Bernier. (2015, December 11). Retrieved December 21, 2017, from http://www.cbrneportal.com/the-growing-threat-of-bioterrorism-borne-from-the-surge-of-global-terror/
8 http://www.cbrneportal.com/the-‐growing-‐threat-‐of-‐bioterrorism-‐borne-‐from-‐the-‐surge-‐of-‐global-‐terror/
Topic B: “Buying-Selling weapons to countries in conflict”
Introduction
The arms industry, also known as the defence industry or the arms trade, is a global industry responsible for the manufacturing and sales of weapons and military technology. It consists of a commercial industry involved in the research and development, engineering, production, and servicing of military material, equipment, and facilities.
Arms-producing companies produce arms for the armed forces of states and civilians. Departments of government also operate in the arms industry, buying and selling weapons, munitions and other military items.
An arsenal is a place where arms and ammunition are made, maintained and repaired, stored, or issued, in any combination, whether privately or publicly owned. Products include guns, artillery, ammunition, missiles, military aircraft, military vehicles, ships, electronic systems, hand grenades, landmines and more. The arms industry also provides other logistical and operational support.
Many industrialized countries have a domestic arms-industry to supply their own military forces. Some countries also have a substantial legal or illegal domestic trade in weapons for use by its citizens, primarily for self-defense, hunting or sporting purposes. Illegal trade in small arms occurs in many countries and regions affected by political instability.
The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to hurt human beings. A cycle of violence is a real concern. Though the arms trade may not always be a root cause, their impacts are of course significant. Most arms supplier nations will have champions defending the sales;; it creates wealth, it provides jobs, etc. To want such an industry to be a major driver for economic growth can perhaps raise some moral questions given that the murky arms industry has helped fuel. That’s why we have to tackle this issue do something about it.
“War will not stop anytime soon, for there is too much profit to be made. Especially, when arms companies are very closely aligned to the governments.”
Historical Background
The issue of arms industry and arms exports in and by developing and "emerging" countries has been at the forefront of two recent remarkable political
revolutions: that of the "velvet" revolution of Czechoslovakia in 1989 and that of the democratic election, in 1994, in South Africa.
In both cases, leaders as revered as Vaclav Havel and Nelson Mandela quickly articulated odd-sounding reasons to promote the continuation of their countries’ indigenous arms production capacities and even to promote arms exports to a stable of strange and fearsome clients. This suggests that the issues and questions surrounding arms production capabilities, including relatively unsophisticated weaponry ("small arms"), are highly important matters that are likely to reemerge from time to time.
The US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) lists countries’ arms exports, by year, between the years 1985 and 1995. Arms exports do not necessarily imply arms production: in a small number of cases. In addition, some countries might produce but not export arms and would therefore not be captured in ACDAs listing.
Non-economic motives
The initial motivation for “indigenous arms”9 production in developing nations almost always is strategic. Chief among the strategic reasons are weapons embargoes or other threats to an existing arms-import supply line. For example, in the 1950s both China and Egypt used to rely on Soviet weaponry before the supply line became uncertain and unreliable, and both went on to develop indigenous arms industries. Taiwan and South Africa suffered generalized arms supply embargoes, and both went on to set up indigenous arms industries. Turkey and Brazil suffered specific arms supply embargoes from the administration of US President Carter, and both went on to build up indigenous arms industries.
Noting this pattern, it is suggested that the increasing threat, in the post-cold war era, to impose arms embargoes of various sorts might drive even more countries into efforts to produce indigenous weaponry and to achieve some degree of self-sufficiency in at least some arms category. This suggestion may not hold for the new century, however, since unlike the 1960s, there are so many more alternative weapon supply lines available that an embargoed country could draw upon.
A relatively new version of the acute strategic motive is the preemptive strategic motive. It runs as follows: even if no actual conflict involving the country is thinkable, a country may nonetheless wish to produce arms indigenously just in case a conflict emerges. Moreover, the arms in question will have to be suffused
9 Indigenous weapon: one that is usually built by and used by people who are usually considered native or residents of a land or country
with high-technology so as not to place oneself at a military disadvantage in case an armed conflict actually arises.
With the arms trade, governments and corporations can cooperate to meet their different political and economic agendas. The military industrial complexes of the powerful countries also help influence and shape foreign and military policies in a way that enhances their bottom line of profits. For governments though, selling arms can help other geopolitical and strategic interests.
Current Situation
The Grimmett Report notes that,
• Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers though most arms are supplied by just 2 or 3 major suppliers.
• Despite the global economic climate, major purchases continue to be made by a select few developing nations in these regions, mainly India in Asia, and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East.
• The strength of individual economies of a wide range of nations in the developing world continues to be a significant factor in the timing of many of their arms purchasing decisions.
• Increases in the price of oil, while an advantage for major oil producing states in funding their arms purchases, has also caused economic difficulties for many oil consuming states, contributing to their decisions to curtail or defer new weapons acquisitions.
For arms suppliers, despite the impact the global economic situation has had recently on sales, a number of weapons-exporting nations have increased competition for sales, going into areas and regions they may not have previously been prominent. Competition between sellers will only intensify due to the limits for growth.
Although recent years were showing a sign of declining sales, 2011 saw a massive jump, almost solely by what the report describes as an extraordinary increase in market share by the US, whose massive sales to Saudi Arabia distorted an otherwise downward trend in arms sales. 10
10 http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-‐arms-‐trade-‐is-‐big-‐business#GlobalArmsSalesTrends2004-‐2011
Just ten developing nation recipients of arms sales accounted for 61% of the total developing nation’s arms market between 2004 and 2011:
11
Currently, the gravity of the civil war situation in Syria is drawing attention from across the globe. The war started with the spread of the wave of Arab Spring protests in Syria in the early spring of 2011. The revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests swept across Syria, demanding the eradication of President Bashar al-Assad’s government. The government’s forces meted out a violent response to these protests, which were heavily criticized by the European Union and the United Nations. The civilian protests soon transformed into an armed rebellion, and escalated into the Syrian Civil War of the present day. The war has displaced more than 11 million Syrians from their homelands, and claimed the lives of at least 250,000 people. Although peace initiatives have been attempted, fighting continues on as of the end of 2017.12
Guide Questions
• What has the UN done to regulate this issue and how has it affected the arms industry to this date?
• Where is the limit when it comes to the manufacture of weapons? • How can the trade of weapons be successfully regulated? • How does selling weapons to Syria and the Middle East affect their conflicts and the civilians?
• Could any laws be created that address this issue? If so, how would you make sure it is followed and respected?
11 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42678.pdf 12 https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-‐world-‐s-‐most-‐war-‐torn-‐countries.html
Bibliography
• About Us – UNODA. (n.d.). Retrieved December 21, 2017, from https://www.un.org/disarmament/about/
• Brauer, J. (n.d.). The Arms Industry in Developing Nations: History and Post-Cold War Assessment. Retrieved from http://carecon.org.uk/Chula/Ch09-Brauer.pdf
• The Arms Trade is Big Business. (n.d.). Retrieved December 22, 2017, from http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business#GlobalArmsSalesTrends2004-2011
• Grimmett, R. F., & Kerr, P. K. (2012, August 24). Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2004-2011. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42678.pdf
• Nag, O. S. (2016, April 27). The World's Most War-Torn Countries. Retrieved December 22, 2017, from https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-s-most-war-torn-countries.html
