st nd

September 1 & 2

LITMUN 2018
LEARN
Laxminarayan Institute of Technology,
INTROSPECT
Nagpur
TRANSFORM

BACKGROUND GUIDE FOR UNSC

Agenda- The Issue Of Use of Chemical

Weapons In Syria
 LETTER FROM THE EB

Honorable Delegates,
It is our utmost pleasure to welcome you all to LITMUN 2018. It is always an
honor to chair a committee at such a prestigious MUN. We believe that Delegate
preparation is paramount to a successful and exciting for a conference. We have
provided this Background Guide to introduce the topics that will be discussed in
the committee. These papers are designed to give you a description of the topics
and the committee. This Guide is not intended to represent exhaustive research
on every facet of the topics. We encourage and expect each delegate to fully
explore the topics and be able to identify and analyze the intricacies of the issues.
Delegates must be prepared to intelligently utilize their knowledge and apply it to
their own country’s policy. You will find that your state has a unique position on
the topics that cannot be substituted by the opinions of another state. I believe
that together we can have a substantial and a meaningful debate.
Good Luck Delegates,

Archit Venugoplan Vansh Kher

(Co-President) (Co-President)
INTRODUCTION :-
For more than 100 years, humanity has sought to outlaw weapons and methods
of war with indiscriminate or particularly cruel effects – weapons of mass
destruction and terror. The first Hague Peace Conference, held in 1899, adopted
several rules for this purpose. After the extensive use of gas during the First
World War, states bound themselves in the 1925 Geneva Protocol to prohibit the
use of both chemical and biological weapons. In the closing days of the Second
World War, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incinerated with nuclear weapons.
Since then, efforts have been under way worldwide to control their numbers,
prevent their spread, prohibit their use and eliminate them. Nuclear weapons kill
by the effects of heat, blast, radiation and radio- active fallout. The attacks on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed an estimated 200,000 people, virtually all civilians.
The nuclear weapons in one strategic submarine have a combined explosive force
several times greater than all the conventional bombs dropped in World War II.
Biological and toxin weapons kill by using pathogens to attack cells and organs in
human bodies, although they can also be used to target crops and livestock on a
massive scale. Some are contagious and can spread rapidly in a population, while
others, including anthrax and ricin, infect and kill only those who are directly
exposed. Toxins are poisons produced by biological organisms. Some (e.g.
botulinum toxin) are lethal even in microscopic amounts. Chemical weapons kill
by attacking the nervous system and lungs, or by interfering with a body‟s ability
to absorb oxygen. Some are designed to incapacitate by producing severe burns
and blisters. Symptoms can appear immediately or be delayed for up to 12 hours
after an attack. Persistent agents can remain in a target environment for as long
as a week.
The situation in Syria has been disastrous for several years now, and despite
efforts to bring the complex civil war to a peaceful resolution, we can understand
if ordinary Syrians see no end in sight. Syria has suffered a grinding civil war
featuring atrocities on both sides, including the government’s use of chemical
weapons both against rebel fighters and against innocent people caught in the
line of fire. Years of warfare and the wanton bombing of civilians, residential
buildings, and hospitals have driven millions from their homes. While there have
been many international attempts to broker a deal by which Assad has given up
his regime’s chemical weapons, Syria remains a serious challenge to global
security. Arms and aid continue to flow into the country to aid the rebels; the
fighting continues, and millions have fled their homes, creating massive IDP and
refugee crises. The massive human flight within and from Syria due to a lack of
basic safety at home raises the issue of human security – a human-rights oriented
reinterpretation of “security” that places the focus squarely on the well-being of
ordinary people and their ability to live in freedom from fear – that is to say, in a
manner wherein people do not live in fear every day that their physical rights are
severely threatened. This topic guide examines the use of chemical weapons in
Syria through the lenses of human rights and human security, both in the context
of abuses that appear to have occurred, and what could be done to prevent such
abuses in the future.

The first allegations of chemical weapons usage in the war emerged in December
2012. Between that time and the outbreak of the crisis, both the Syrian regime
led by Bashar al-Assad and opposition forces alleged that the other had used
chemical weapons in a number of different attacks. These alleged attacks were
small scale, and the evidence regarding their occurrence was ambiguous. In
March 2013, the Syrian government asked the United Nations to conduct an
investigation into the use of chemical weapons by the opposition. At the same
time, France and the United Kingdom asked the UN to conduct an investigation
into the use of chemical weapons in Syria in general. In response to the invitation
from the Syrian government, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon established a
fact-finding mission on 21 March to investigate the allegations of chemical
weapons usage. This mission, known as the UN Mission to Investigate Allegations
of the Use of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, also involved
representatives of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
(OPCW) and the World Health Organization (WHO). In April 2013, the White
House indicated that US intelligence was assessing “with varying degrees of
confidence” the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, but that the
assessment was uncertain and that investigations were still ongoing.
Historical Background :-
In the year 2000, Hafez Al-Assad, leader of the Alawite faction and former
president of Syria since 1970, dies. His son Bashar Al-Assad rises to presidency.
 There’s a small period of good government and relaxation in the country.
 Little time passed before Bashar started following his father’s steps,
oppression and censorship began in the country
 2011 A group of revolutions led by young people, called the Arab Spring,
initiated in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria and other Middle Eastern
countries
 Protests erupted in different parts of Syria, demanding the end of Bashar’s
presidency.
 After hundreds of deaths in the next protests, the U.S sets sanctions on
Bashar and other Syrian officials
 Thousands are killed after several days of protests in the City of Hama,
tanks and snipers were used. As a consequence, France, Great Britain,
Germany, the U.S and the UE, demand the resignation of Assad, stating that
he’s unfit to lead
 The first opposition to Bashar’s rule is formed and named Syrian National
Council.
 China and Russia veto a UN resolution that threatened to put sanctions to
Syria if they didn’t stop the military oppression against civilians.
 In December 2011, car bombs kill almost 50 people in Damascus, and the
military begin to open fire on thousands of protesters in Hama.
 2012 China and Russia veto another resolution of the UN, a call for Bashar
AlAssad to step out of the presidency.
 The Syrian National Council assembles a military council to help the
unification of all resistance groups in Syria
 Syria promises to work with the UN on a ceasefire plan, except on one
condition, the government had the right to defend themselves from
terrorists behind the uprising. At the end this agreement failed to maintain
 In April 2012, the UN approves the UNSMIS, made out of 300 unarmed
military observers, the UNSMIS mandate ended on August 19 due to the
intensification of violence in the country
 Syria makes the threat of using chemical and biological weapons, in the
case of a foreign attack. The U.S responds they will get involved if Bashar’s
regime uses chemical or biological weapons.
 The Syrian National Council changes to Syrian National Coalition, a new
opposition with representatives of every faction, supported by the Western
and Arab countries.
 2013 The UE stops sending weapons to help Syrian rebels. On the other
hand, the White House authorizes help to Syrian rebels by sending
weapons, given the fact they have evidence of use of chemical weapons in
Syria.
 Assad denies the use of chemical weapons; President Obama says he will
seek authorization of the Congress to take military action against Syria
 To avoid military action from the U.S, Syria suggests they’ll move their
chemical weapons out of the country, with UN control. In October, officers
from OPCW, monitor the dismantling of chemical weapons in Syria.
 2014 Ban Ki-Moon organizes the first peace talks in Geneva, with the
inclusion of the Syrian government and the Syrian National Coalition.
 The second round of Geneva talks fail to agree, as the opposition and
government can’t progress in the talks.
 A presidential election is held on government-held areas, for the first time
in 40 years, more than one person could be a presidential candidate.
 The Levant and the Islamic State of Iraq, create a new caliphate named
“Islamic State”, also known as “ISIS”.
 2015 Russia announces they will continue with their military support for
Syria, with weapons and supplies to Bashar Al-Assad’s government.
 The UN estimates that the conflict has left over 220,000 deaths, and over
one third of the country’s population displaced from their homes.
 U.S and Turkey sign a deal to help on the training and arming of rebels
fighting against IS.
 IS start releasing videos of pilots, militaries and reporters being, beheaded,
burnt alive and tortured.
Summary :-
On 21 August 2013, videos surfaced of a mass chemical weapons attack against
civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, perpetrated by the Syrian regime.
This attack was distinguished from the alleged ones that came before it by its
scale and its verifiability: thousands were affected, videos of the attack surfaced
immediately, and there was consensus among international intelligence entities
that the Assad regime was culpable. This triggered a crisis for the US, which was
concerned about its status and influence in the region, given that this attack was
the first undisputed case of chemical weapons usage by the Assad regime that
occurred after Obama gave his “red line” speech a year earlier. The US was
particularly concerned about the negative repercussions that not responding
would have on countries like Syria and Iran, who might be more likely to challenge
the US in the future. President Obama stated that “this is a big event, of grave
concern,” and the Obama administration initiated the first part of its major
response by starting to reach out to dozens of its international counterparts.
France and the UK were particularly involved: France argued strongly for a
military response and released a declassified intelligence report that helped build
the case against Syria. The UK called an emergency meeting of the UN Security
Council (UNSC) on the day of the crisis trigger and initially moved to introduce a
UNSC resolution authorizing the use of force, until the UK Parliament voted to not
support such involvement. The UNSC met on 21 August, discussed the issue, and
demanded further clarity about the incident.
On 24 August, the US moved naval warships into the Mediterranean Sea in a show
of force, the second part of its major response. This signaled to the Syrian regime
that the US was serious about its threat of force and triggered a crisis for Syria.
Syria’s major response occurred the following day and consisted of agreeing to
allow UN inspectors access to the site of the alleged attack in order to investigate,
as well as Assad vehemently denying that his government was responsible for the
attack and blaming the Syrian rebels instead.
The crisis continued to escalate, though, and on 28 August, President Obama
announced that the U.S. had conclusive evidence of the Assad regime’s guilt. The
following day, the UK released an intelligence report confirming Obama’s
allegations. The US released its own declassified report on 30 August. Then, on 31
August, Obama announced that he would seek Congressional authorization for
the use of force against Syria, the third and most important part of the US’ major
response to the crisis trigger. On 1 September, the Arab League issued a
resolution urging international action against the Syrian regime over its use of
chemical weapons but stopping short of endorsing US military strikes.
On 9 September, Russia announced a proposal to avoid further conflict: if Syria
agreed to dismantle its chemical weapons and place them under international
control, the US would forgo a military strike. The US agreed to consider the
proposal, and so did Syria. Over the next several days, the US and Russia worked
together to draft a full proposal, and Obama postponed any Congressional vote
on the authorization of force. Russia and the US announced a finalized plan to
eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, known as the Framework for
Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons, on 14 September.
On 21 September, Syria started to comply with the US-Russian Framework by
submitting a declaration of its chemical weapons stockpiles and agreeing to give
them up. This terminated the crisis for both sides Throughout the crisis, the
United Nations Secretary General (UNSG) was the most involved of all UN bodies.
The UNSG conducted a fact finding mission that helped put international pressure
on the Syrian government, and in doing so the UNSG played a minor positive role
in helping to abate the crisis. During the crisis, the UNSC was restricted to holding
several emergency meetings, working toward a resolution, and issuing two
statements, including a UNSC Presidential statement condemning the chemical
weapons attack. The UNSC worked hard to come up with a resolution during the
crisis but was unable to reach agreement and issue one until after the crisis had
terminated. Russia opposed a proposed US military strike, blamed Syrian rebels
for the Ghouta attack, and claimed that the evidence implicating the Assad
regime was fabricated. But it nevertheless played an important role in helping to
deescalate the crisis by working with the US to reach the Framework agreement
with which Syria ultimately complied. The Arab League and NATO condemned the
chemical weapons attack and spoke with US Secretary of State John Kerry about
the situation, and the Arab League also issued a call for international action
against the Syrian regime. Neither of these organizations’ involvement had much
effect on the crisis proceedings. The OPCW was heavily involved working before
and during the crisis as a constituent part of the UN fact-finding mission, as well
as after the crisis in terms of setting guidelines for the elimination of Syria’s
chemical weapons and monitoring the weapons destruction process alongside the
UN. One week after the crisis terminated, on 27 September, the Executive Council
of the OPCW adopted and added further benchmarks and timelines to the US-
Russian Framework agreement. Later that same day, the UNSC issued a resolution
endorsing a timeline for destroying Syria's chemical weapons and indicating that if
Syria failed to comply, the UNSC would debate and seek agreement on a follow-
up resolution spelling out punitive measures, including the possibility of Chapter
VII measures. The resolution legally bound Syria to the plan approved by the
OPCW and essentially implemented the US-Russia Framework agreement.
According to the UNSC resolution, Syria had until mid-2014 to eliminate its
chemical weapons. In mid-2014, the OPCW indicated that the destruction of these
weapons was largely on schedule despite some hiccups. In July 2015, the OPCW
reported successful destruction of over 90% of the weapons that were supposed
to have been eliminated. However, accusations emerged that Assad has used
chlorine gas in several attacks during 2015. Chlorine gas was not included in the
UNSC resolution or OPCW plan, but it is on the Chemical Weapons Convention
banned list.

THREE KEY GLOBAL WMD TREATIES:-

TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NPT)
The NPT seeks to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, to promote
cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to pursue nuclear
disarmament. It entered into force in 1970. In 1995, the duration of the NPT was
extended indefinitely. 189 parties have joined the NPT, including the five
nuclearweapon states China, France, Russia, the UK and the US. India, Israel and
Pakistan have not joined. and North Korea has announced its with- drawal from
the treaty. More countries have acceded to the NPT than to any other arms
limitation or disarmament agreement. The NPT represents the only binding
commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-
weapon states.
CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION AND
STOCKPILING OF BACTERIOLOGICAL (BIOLOGICAL) AND TOXIN WEAPONS AND ON
THEIR DESTRUCTION (BTWC)
The BTWC is the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning the acquisition and
retention of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. It builds on the
ban on the use of such weapons contained in the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The
BTWC entered into force in 1975. No agreement has been reached on a
verification regime to monitor compliance with the Convention. The BTWC has
155 states parties.
CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION,
STOCK- PILING AND USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION
(CWC)
The CWC bans the development, production, stockpiling, transfer and use of
chemical weapons. It entered into force in 1997. The CWC has 178 states parties.
CWC parties are required to declare any chemical weapons-related activities, to
secure and destroy any stockpiles of chemical weapons within stipulated
deadlines, as well as to inactivate and eliminate any chemical- weapons
production capacity within their jurisdiction. Six states parties have declared
chemical weapons. The CWC is the first disarmament agreement to require the
elimination of an entire SLS-NOIDA’s SYMMUN’16 category of weapons of mass
destruction under universally applied international control. Its operative functions
are carried out by the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons).
CHEMICAL WEAPONS :-
The abhorrence of the use of „poison‟ as a weapon has deep roots in history. The
1899 Hague Declaration prohibited the use of projectiles whose sole object was
„the diffusion of asphyxiating and deleterious gases‟. The 1907 Hague Convention
IV prohibited the use of „poison and poisoned weapons‟. Nevertheless, gas –
most often mustard gas – was used extensively in World War I. The public was
horrified. As a result, the Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use
in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods
of Warfare) was adopted in 1925. THE MAIN TYPES OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS:
Nerve agent: highly lethal, kills in very small dosages. E.g. sarin, soman, VX.
Blistering agent: causes burns and blisters on the body, damages eyes. If inhaled it
severely damages the lungs, which often leads to death. E.g. mustard sulphurous
gas, lewisite. Asphyxiating agent: causes damage to the lungs. E.g. phosgene,
mustard gas. Psychotomimetic agent: causes a hallucinatory effect similar in kind
to that of LSD. E.g. BZ. Incapacitating agent: relies on irritants and toxic effects to
incapacitate a person temporarily. Depending on purpose of use they might be
allowed under the CWC. E.g. tear gas, CS. Possible new agents: research on new
ways of affecting the human brain to cause aggressiveness, sleepiness, fear or
other emotions. E.g. bioregulators. SLS-NOIDA’s SYMMUN’16 After 12 years of
negotiations, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was adopted by the
Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on 3 September 1992. The CWC allows for
the stringent verification of compliance by State Parties. The CWC opened for
signature in Paris on 13 January 1993 and entered into force on 29 April 1997. The
CWC is the first disarmament agreement negotiated within a multilateral
framework that provides for the elimination of an entire category of weapons of
mass destruction under universally applied international control.In order to
prepare for the entry-into-force of the CWC, a Preparatory Commission of the
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) was established
with the responsibility to prepare detailed operation procedures and to put into
place the necessary infrastructure for the permanent implementing agency
provided for in the Convention. Headquarters for this organization were
established in The Hague, the Netherlands. The CWC entered into force on 29
April 1997, 180 days after deposit of the 65th instrument of ratification.

DEFINITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS (CWC ARTICLE II):-

1. Chemical Weapons means the following, together or separately: (a) Toxic
chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not
prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are
consistent with such purposes; (b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to
cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals
specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employ-
ment of such munitions and devices; (c) Any equipment specifically designed for
use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices
specified in subparagraph (b).
2.Toxic Chemical means: Any chemical, which through its chemical action on life
processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to
humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or
of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in
facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.

United Nations Involvement

The UN News Centre in 2013 published an unequivocal statement about the use
of chemical weapons in Syria, which set the tone for additional UN actions: ‘Clear
and convincing’ evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria, UN team reports
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45856#.We3nSEy-KRs Despite
this tone and the clear evidence of chemical weapons use, the UN Security
Council has been reluctant to hold the Syrian government accountable. As noted
in this Washington Post article, Russia and China in particular have used their
status as permanent members of the UNSC to prevent sanctions from being
placed on Syria’s government: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/russia-china-veto-at-un-on-syria-chemical-weapons-is-outrageous-us-
says/2017/02/28/c69adcf4-fdeb-11e6-99b4-9e613afeb09f_story.html
Nonetheless, the UN Security Council has several sub-committees such as the
1540 Committee,which is tasked with monitoring and overseeing the
international standards on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The
committee is named after the 2004 UN Security Council Resolution 1540 which
under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter “affirms that the proliferation of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery constitutes
a threat to international peace and security.” (http://www.un.org/en/sc/1540/ )
Overall, the goals and laws with which the 1540 Committee is tasked are quite
simple. The committee’s work is based on the principle that it is universally
beneficial to prevent the creation, proliferation, and usage of nuclear, chemical
and biological weapons. Due to the instability that these weapons cause, their
existence challenges global structure and society as a whole. SC Resolution 1540
passed unanimously and has become an integral part of the United Nations
Security Council. Since then, the goals have expanded from proliferation of these
weapons to include fostering the transparency of relevant state weapons
programs as well as increasing state to state cooperation and assistance in this
area. For more information on the 1540 Committee, please see:
http://www.un.org/en/sc/1540/ The following list consists of links to Resolution
1540 as well as subsequent resolutions from the United Nations dealing with Syria
and chemical weapons:
● http://www.un.org/press/en/2013/sc10981.doc.htm
●Resolution1540(2004)
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1540%20(2004)
●Resolution1673(2006)
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1673%20(2006)
●Resolution1810(2008)
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1810%20(2008)
●Resolution1977(2011)
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1977%20(2011)
● http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria/A-HRC-23-
58_en.pdf ○ Report to the Human Rights Council on the use of chemical weapons
in Syria
● http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2332(2016)
● http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2336(2016)
● http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2017/756 ○ Letter from
the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council about chemical
weapons in Syria, from August 29, 2017

Moreover, the UNSC is not the only organ or agency within the United Nations’
framework that may be relevant. If the “high politics” of peace and security at the
Security Council does not allow for the pursuit of justice in this case, perhaps one
or more of the other institutions can play a key role. For example, the Office of
the High Commissioner on Human Rights is involved; see “Human Rights Council
holds interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on Syria”
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22094
&LangID=E See too the UN News Centre’s more general Syria news page, which
includes information about the Joint Investigative Mechanism of the UN and the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or OPCW. The UN Security
Council on 7 August 2015 established for one year a Joint Investigative
Mechanism of the United Nations and the OPCW, which would identify “to the
greatest extent feasible” individuals, entities, groups or Governments
perpetrating, organizing, sponsoring or otherwise involved in the use of chemicals
as weapons in Syria. See:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=146 On that page there
is also a tab for Human Rights concerns that will be of specific interest to you. As
the site notes, “with human rights violations at the heart of the Syrian crisis, the
UN has called for an immediate end to violence; release of political prisoners;
impartial investigations to end impunity, ensure accountability and bring
perpetrators to justice; and reparations for the victims.” Should the use of
chemical weapons against rebels and civilians also be considered part of the
human rights-related issues listed here?

Questions to Consider in Your Research

 Does my country have any stated objectives in Syria?
 How will my country’s national interests be promoted or threatened by getting a significant
portion of Syrian parties to the negotiating table?
 What is the status of Syrian embassies and consulates in my country?

Questions A Resolution Might Address

 What conditions would motivate both sides to negotiate?
 How would negotiations be set up and in what format would they take place?
 What incentives can the League offer to both the Syrian Government and the opposition?
Important links to go through:-
https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/disarmament-and-non-
proliferation/events/article/chemical-weapons-opcw-report-on-the-use-of-chemical-
weapons-in-syria-13-06-18
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-issues-fact-finding-mission-reports-on-chemical-
weapons-use-allegations-in-douma-syria-in-2018-and-in-al-hamadaniya-and-karm-al-tarrab-
in-2016/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-chemicalweapons/interim-opcw-report-
finds-chlorine-used-in-syrias-douma-idUSKBN1JW2IY
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-response-to-russian-briefing-on-syria-chemical-
weapons-use