CAIMUN 2021

United Nations Security Council

Background Guide A CANADA INTERNATIONAL MODEL Tenth Annual Session | May 28-30, 2021

Dear Delegates,

Othman Mekhlouf My name is Emily Ni, and it is my utmost pleasure to welcome you Secretary-General to the United Nations Security Council at Canada International Model United Nations 2021.

Five years ago, I stumbled into the esoteric world of Model UN with the Angel Yuan intent of seeking academic enrichment. Twenty conferences later, at the Director-General end of this long journey, I can confdently say that the impact that Model UN has had on my life extends far beyond any intellectual beneft. Now, Nikki Wu I can only hope to instill the same passion in you, the delegate, as my Chief of Staff directors did for me. Cherish the memories you make as a delegate, and learn today so that you may lead tomorrow.

Alongside me, Betty Pan will be serving as your Chair. Betty is a senior Matthew Leung Director of Logistics at West Point Grey Academy and is equally as excited to witness a weekend of riveting debate. Together, we look forward to welcoming you virtually come May! Madeline Kim USG of General Assemblies CAIMUN prides itself on its high level of educational discourse and professionalism. In the United Nations Security Council, delegates should come prepared with a comprehensive understanding of their Mikael Borres committee’s mandate, the topic at hand, and their country’s foreign USG of Specialized Agencies policy. These topics require thorough research and knowledge to allow for constructive debate; your work as a delegate will not only beneft Alec Yang yourself, but the committee as a whole. USG of Delegate Affairs The entire dais team welcomes you to the United Nations Security Council at CAIMUN 2021. Please do not hesitate to contact any of us at Caitlin Adams [email protected] if you have any questions or concerns; I look forward USG of Delegate Affairs to a weekend of rewarding debate.

Godspeed, Emily Hu USG of Media Emily Ni Director of the United Nations Security Council — CAIMUN 2021 Table of Contents

Committee Description ...... 2

Topic Overview ...... 3

Timeline of Events ...... 4

Historical Analysis ...... 6

Current Situation ...... 8

Past Involvement ...... 10

Potential Solutions ...... 12

Bloc Positions ...... 13

Discussion Questions ...... 14

Further Resources ...... 15

Bibliography ...... 16

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 1 Committee Description

Following the two World Wars, delegates from over forty-six countries met in San Francisco in 1945 to prevent such tragedies from reoccurring. In the international system of their creation, “the maintenance of international peace and security” is entrusted to a body known as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).1

As an organization belonging to the United Nations (UN), the UNSC consists of fifteen members. The (US), (UK), , , and China are the five designated permanent members given their status as victors of the Second World War2 and are commonly referred to as the P5. All substantive matters of the UNSC require consensus among the five permanent members, should one strongly disagree with the draft at hand, they can single-handedly defer it. This ability is known as the veto power. The other ten members of the Council are temporary and elected to two-year terms on a regional basis. The current temporary members of the UNSC are Belgium, the Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Germany, Indonesia, the Ivory Coast, Kuwait, Peru, Poland, South Africa.

Whereas the General Assembly and other international organizations create non-binding resolutions, the Security Council is unique in that all Member States of the UN are obligated to comply with its decisions.3 This power is monumental and unprecedented, yet has rarely been exercised to its full extent. For better or worse, the veto power held the Council in paralysis during the Cold War,4 as the Communist bloc of the Soviet Union and China actively opposed almost all resolutions sought by the Western bloc of the US, UK, and France. This level of dysfunction has dialled down since the end of the Cold War in 1991, and many regard the Council to be on an upward slope towards restoring its legitimacy.5 However, the Council’s inaction towards crises such as the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 and the Darfur Genocide of 2003 continues to draw significant criticism.

The Security Council is a central figure in international relations today. Beyond dealing with day- to-day issues regarding international affairs, it also responds to the crisis on an hourly basis as an authoritative voice. The Council handles many of the world’s most sophisticated issues, and its success is not only expected but also crucial to the stability of the international community.

1 Hurd 2008, p. 83. 2 Kennedy 2006. 3 Lagon, Arend 2014, p. 27 4 Manusama 2006, p. 20 5 Ibid.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 2 Enforcing the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in Topic Overview

“Chemical weapons are something that scares everybody.” -Abdullah II, King of Jordan

Although all weapons that employ explosion and combustion are chemical in a way, the term “chemical weapons” specifically describes chemicals applied in warfare for their toxic properties.6 Common types of chemical agents include , , Phosgene, and VX, all of which are either lethal or at least permanently harmful.

Infrequently employed by a variety of militaries prior to the 20th century, the first large-scale weaponization of chemicals occurred during the First World War. Together with trench-based tactics, chemical weapons revolutionized the atmosphere and impact of warfare. Although the use of chemical weapons continued, its frequency declined significantly following the War.

In recent years, the problem has been most explicitly present in the , which began in 2011 with protests against President Bashar al-Assad. Today, the civil war is described as a mixture of conflicts, most prominently featuring rebel groups against Assad’s government and sectarian strife between terrorist groups, religious militias, and competition for influence among the US, Russia, and .7 While the war is ongoing, neither the government nor the rebels appear to be on a clear path to victory. Yet both sides remain dedicated to their cause and are highly unwilling to compromise, often enacting military plans at the cost of Syrian civilians.

The Security Council has a reputation to restore. Overlapping alliances revolving around the conflict have severely complicated the Council’s role. While choosing an action or another may cause a member of the Council to impair its foreign relations, the failure to act will accelerate an already escalating humanitarian crisis.

6 Coleman 2005, p. 27. 7 Gilsinan, 2015, n.p.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 3 Timeline of Events

January 13, 1915 — German artillery units fire T-Stoff shells containing xylyl bromide against Russian forces at Bolimov, in current-day Poland, marking the first military use of chemicals in the First World War.

February 8, 1928 — The Geneva Protocol of 1925 enters into force, becoming the first treaty to place a blanket prohibition on chemical weapons.

July 31, 1941 — As part of the Second World War, Nazi Commander Reinhard Heydrich initiates the “Final Solution,” a genocide against people of the Jewish faith and other minorities through chemical agents. Although not extensively employed on the European battlefield, over ten million people fell victim to chemical agents in German concentration camps.

January 9, 1962 — The US Air Force deploys a weapon codenamed “Agent Orange,” a herbicide and defoliant chemical, in Vietnam against agricultural areas during the Cold War.

April 29, 1997 — Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) enters into force, formally prohibiting large-scale ownership and production of chemical weapons and creates the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

July 17, 2000 — Bashar al-Assad is inaugurated as the President of Syria following his father’s death.

March 15, 2011 — Political protests in Damascus and Aleppo trigger the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. Loosely coordinated opposition forces take over several cities, however are unable to overthrow the government.

August 20, 2012 — American President Barack Obama issues a controversial red-line speech: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime… a red line for us is if we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons." The Obama administration and its allies later face criticism for not delivering on this threat upon Syrian forces using chemical weapons.8

March 19, 2013 — The Syrian government requests the UN to investigate uses of chemical weapons by rebel forces.9

8 https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity 9 Ibid.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 4 March 21, 2013 — Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issues the United Nations Mission to Investigate Alleged Uses of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, to be headed by Åke Sellström, henceforth referred to as the Sellström mission.

August 21, 2013 — A chemical attack in , Syria claims an estimated number of over one thousand civilian lives.10

September 14, 2013 — Syria signs the CWC and commits to declare all chemical weapon possessions and arrange for their destruction. This decision came after signs of an increase in Western involvement in Syria. Later that month, the Security Council adopted Resolution 2118. The OPCW-UN Joint Mission is established to oversee and verify the results of the Assad government’s commitments under the CWC.11

April 29, 2014 — Director-General of the OPCW Ahmet Üzümcü creates the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) in Syria. The mission is tasked only with determining if chemical weapons were used, not which group is responsible.

June 21, 2014 — The OPCW Joint Mission verifies that the Syrian government has transported all of its declared chemical weapons out of the country for destruction. Later in the year, the OPCW confirms the use of chlorine gas but does not assign blame.

March 6, 2015 — The UNSC adopts Resolution 2209, condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria and threatening to use Charter Chapter VII powers, such as economic sanctions and military intervention, in the face of future non-compliance. All members voted in favour with the exception of Venezuela’s abstention.12

August 7, 2015 — The UNSC adopts Resolution 2235, establishing the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) to determine the use of chemical weapons and the responsible party.13

April 4, 2017 — At least 74 die as a direct result of a chemical attack reported in the town of Khan Shaykhun, Syria. America., under the leadership of President , fires 59 cruise missiles against an alleged chemical weapons facility in Syria without Security Council approval.14

10 https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks-ghouta/analysis-alleged-use-chemical-weapons-syria 11https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3- CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2118.pdf 12 https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc11810.doc.htm 13 https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12001.doc.htm 14 https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 5 November 16, 2017 — Russia vetoes the draft resolution to renew the OPCW-UN JIM’s mandate, causing it to expire. The termination of the JIM marks the end of a formal process to determine and attribute responsibility for chemical weapon use.15

April 7, 2018 — An alleged chemical weapon attack in the city of Douma, Syria kills at least 49 and directly affects hundreds more.16

September 12, 2018 — The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, established in 2011 by the UN Human Rights Council, reports that the Syrian government used chlorine as a weapon four times from January to July 2018.17

March 1, 2019 — The OPCW Fact-Finding Mission releases a final report concluding that a toxic chemical, likely chlorine, was used as a weapon on April 7, 2018 in Douma, Syria. The OPCW had issued an interim report on the incident in July 2018.18

Historical Analysis

Chemical warfare began long prior to the Assad regime or even the modern era. Some argue that the first recorded use of chemicals in conflict occurred in ancient India at around 2000 BCE, or during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE) as recorded by Thucydides.19 Indeed, the widely condemned practise has profound historical roots and must be studied in context.

A peculiar feature of is that, for a very long time, knowledge of it relied on designs and plans rather than incidents of its usage. Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebooks revealed designs for weapons containing arsenic and sulfuric powder to be used in naval warfare. In 1812, Thomas Cochran proposed to the future King George IV of England a plan to attack Napoleonic France with explosives and sulphur weaponry.20 Both Da Vinci's and Cochran’s proposals were turned down, and the world did not see the use of chemical weapons until the First World War.

Through experimentally firing tear-gas grenades in August 1914, the French were the first to seriously consider chemical warfare as part of “the war to end all wars.” The Germans, however, gave it a significant role by applying it on a large scale and devoting resources for its research and development.21 Many scholars view the use of chemical weapons as a result of the stalemate in the

15 https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Coleman 2005, p. 27. 20 Ibid. p. 28. 21 Ibid. p. 40.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 6 trenches; however, some scholars also regard it as an unsatisfactory solution to an undesirable situation. Scholars would eventually estimate that 1,297,000 soldiers and civilians suffered from chemical agents during the First World War, while 91,000 lives were claimed by it.22 The psychological damage inflicted upon the enemy eventually haunted every soldier on the battlefield, regardless of their allegiance or nationality.

The League of Nations banned the use of chemical weapons in 1925 through the Geneva Protocol, which entered into force in 1928. Despite this treaty, Spain, France, Japan, and Italy continued to employ the use of chemical weapons from 1928 to 1939. During the Second World War, most major powers stockpiled chemical weapons, and many feared the reintroduction of chemical warfare. The US, UK, and Germany, however, made conscious decisions to refrain from such use due to the fear of overwhelming retaliation.

Despite the absence of chemical weapons in the European theatre, Japan used chemical weapons against China, while over ten million people of the Jewish faith and other minorities were massacred at Nazi concentration camps in lethal gas chambers.23

The end of the Second World War coincided with the beginning of the atomic age. The gradual proliferation of nuclear weapons led scholars and politicians to reclassify chemical weapons as a form of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), in the same category as nuclear and biological weapons. The five-decade-long Cold War also prevented the UNSC from reaching any agreements to meaningfully prohibit chemical weapons, or for that matter, any compromise to do anything in terms of international security.24

In 1993, 153 states signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), prohibiting the ownership and production of chemical weapons and creating the treaty's enforcement agency, The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Despite being generally regarded as a success of the international community, its goal to entirely eliminate the existence of chemical weapons is nowhere near complete.

Both the reputation of the Security Council and the efforts to prohibit chemical weapons have been on the rise since the end of the Cold War. The situation in Syria is capable of shaping the Security Council’s future involvement in the field of chemical weapons. Delegates must not only address the evolving situation in Syria but also consider potential future regulations with regards to these weapons.

22 Prentiss 1937, n.p. 23 Coleman 2005, p. 64. 24 Abe 2017, p. 168.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 7 Current Situation

The standing consensus in the international community is that chemical weapons carry a moral atrocity exceeding acceptable standards of war. Many argue that neither soldiers nor civilians deserve to die from torture-like methods such as poison gas, while others claim that chemical weapons usage may incur long-lasting effects beyond the intent of the perpetrator. Dissenting scholars do point out, however, that war’s nature is cruel, and that alternatives to chemical warfare are often not much more humane.25 Regardless, the current international discourse on chemical weapons has moved beyond the question of morality and is instead more focused on investigative and preventive measures.

The OPCW is independent, but it often operates in collaboration with the UNSC and is highly responsive to the Council’s recommendations. The OPCW’s parent treaty—the CWC—currently consists of 191 states, all of which have committed to the total elimination of chemical weapons in their respective countries. Yet only 91 members have completed the destruction process as of 2013, and the current goal of the international community is for 90% of member states to complete the process by 2025.26

The first allegation of chemical weapons usage in Syria came about in December 2012, following President Barack Obama’s famous red-line speech threatening military intervention against Syria in light of chemical weapons usage in August.27 In a span of two years, the Syrian government admitted its possession of chemical weapons in March 2013, ratified the CWC to destroy its stockpile in April of the same year, and began using it again sometime in 2014.28 A variety of factors contributed to this political turn-around, two significant ones are international pressure and President Obama’s failure to deliver on his red-line threat.

Since then, the Assad regime has been repeatedly accused of using chemical weapons. The US, UK, and France estimated that the had employed chemical agents at least 50 times since the beginning of the civil war,29 while Russia and China condemned the allegations as artificial tools of political propaganda. The international community has mandated numerous investigations; while most members lean towards the United States’ interpretation of the situation, it remains divided on how to attribute blame and prevent similar incidents from recurring.

Scholars disagree upon the primary reason behind the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria. Some argue that Assad’s primary motivation is the military necessity to use chemical weapons.

25 Waitt 1942, pp. 12-13. 26 Kelle 2017, p. 10. 27 Kimball, 2018, n.p. 28 Makdisi, Hindawi, 2017, p. 11. 29 Haley, 2018

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 8 They speculate that the government is at a disadvantage in terms of conventional military forces, therefore the use of chemical weapons is a form of compensation. Others contend that there is a terror element behind the attacks, viewing them as a strategic tool for the Assad government to force civilians to obey the government’s authority. Many have also argued that the deployment of chemical weapons is leverage against the international community, used by making promises in return for political favours and later failing to deliver on the promises.

The use of chemical weapons in Syria is a cause for concern for many reasons. Unlike its nuclear WMD counterpart, chemical weapons do not have a preservation value based on deterrence. In other words, chemical weapons exist solely as an offensive option as their lack of defensive value relegates it to a definitive moral low ground. For this reason, chemical weapon prohibition has so far received a moral consensus, one whose actualization and enforcement requires the works of the UNSC.

In terms of investigation, the Syria situation is evidence that the international community is in desperate need of a mechanism to investigate allegations of chemical weapons usage. The reality today in Syria is that the presence of chemical agents tends to be reported by governments. The animosity between the US or France and Russia in the Middle East has led Russia to veto several proposals to conduct full investigations into chemical weapons in Syria. The Russian justification for the vetoes is generally that UN and OPCW investigations could be schemes under the influence of the Americans and the French.

Prevention is an even more complicated subject. Although Russia and China do not publicly believe the Assad regime to be at fault for chemical attacks, the US and its allies are not shying from taking punitive measures against Syria anyways. These measures include increasing military presence in the Middle East, economic actions, and on military facilities. Unsurprisingly, Russia and China condemn these actions as violations of international law and vows to retaliate in similar forms if they continue.

Case Study: Chemical Attacks in Douma

On April 7th, 2018, at least 42 were killed in an attack apparently involving chemical agents in the city of Douma.30 The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that at least 500 people were directly impacted, while Russia and Syria denied the use of any chemicals and referred to the reports as “bogus.”31

30 Sanders-Zakre 2018, n.p. 31 Ivanova, 2018. “Russian lawmaker calls reports of Syria gas attack bogus”

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 9 With the Security Council in gridlock, the US, UK, and France conducted a series of airstrikes against Syria on April 14, specifically targeting areas claimed to be chemical weapons facilities.32 The Russian government immediately responded by calling an emergency session of the Security Council and proposed a series of draft resolutions to condemn the airstrikes, none of which received enough votes to be adopted.

For the following two weeks, international discourse on the Douma attack diverged into two directions. Media in the US, UK, and France mainly debated the effectiveness and legitimacy of the airstrikes, with public opinions in all three countries leaning towards approval. Russian and Chinese media, on the other hand, portrayed the fallout of the alleged attack as schemes directed by the American and British governments.

The extent to which the airstrikes were successful remains unclear. Supporters of the airstrikes argue that they were successful since the Syrian government refrained from chemical attacks for the six following months. Others point out, however, that the Assad regime needs chemical weapons to succeed in the Syrian Civil War.33 Thus, it is only a matter of time before another incident surfaces. Nevertheless, the international community should caution upon the fact that the airstrikes did not receive the Security Council’s approval. Hence a significant number of international legal scholars do not reject Russia’s position that the US, UK, and France were in blatant violation of international law.34

Past Involvement

Three investigative efforts have been prominent and will be briefly discussed.

Sellström mission (March-December 2013)

Officially known as the United Nations Mission to Investigate Alleged Uses of Chemical Weapons in the Syrian Arab Republic, the Sellström mission was originally designated by former Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon in response to the Syrian government’s allegations that the rebels had used chemical weapons. It took five months for the team to arrive in Syria, by which time a major chemical weapons incident occurred in the suburb of Ghouta. The mission confirmed that a “large scale” of chemical weapons were used against civilians, however was not mandated to attribute blame for the use of these WMD.35

32 Borger 2018, n.p. 33 Al-Maghafi 2018. 34 Partlett, 2018. 35 Madiski, Hindawi 2017, p.17.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 10

UN-OPCW Joint Mission (October 2013-June 2014)

After intense negotiations, Syria voluntarily joined the CWC and agreed to the elimination of its chemical weapon arsenal. The purpose of the Joint Mission was to oversee this process and verify its validity. Surprisingly, both Syrian officials and Russian diplomats were generally cooperative, destroying all declared chemical weapons by June 23rd, 2018. The US, France, and several Gulf states, however, have explicitly maintained that Syria did not declare the entirety of its chemical weapon possession.36

OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria

After the end of the UN-OPCW Joint Mission in 2014, the OPCW created a succeeding investigative mission called the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria. The mission’s goal is to investigate any possible attacks using chemical weapons during the Syrian Civil War. The mission has been responsible for investigating the April 2018 Douma chemical attack that killed and injured several Syrians. Despite the politicization of this investigation (which was caused by Russia and America accusing each other of interference), the fact-finding mission was able to collect samples of the chemical agent used during the attack, concluding that it was a chlorine agent.37

OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (August 2015-November 2017)

Following further allegations of chemical weapons usage in Syria, the Security Council mandated the JIM to determine not only the use of chemical weapons but also “to the greatest extent feasible individuals, entities, groups or governments responsible for any use of chemicals as weapons.”38 The JIM returned with reports that found the Syrian government responsible for at least three chemical weapon attacks from 2014 to 2016,39 and its mandate expired in November 2017 following Russia’s veto against renewal.

36 Ibid. p.9 37 Ibid. 38 S/RES/2235, 7 August 2015, paragraph 4. 39 Ibid. p. 11.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 11 Relevant Security Council Resolutions40:

S/RES/2118 Sep 27th, Establish UN-OPCW Joint Mechanism to verify the destruction of chemical 2013 weapons

S/RES/2209 Mar 6th, Condemn the use of chemical weapons, attribute no blame to their use 2015

S/RES/2235 Aug 7th, Establish UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism to determine responsibility 2015 of chemical weapon use

S/RES/2314 Oct 31th, Extend the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism mandate to Nov 18, 2016 2016

S/RES/2319 Nov 17th, Renew the UN-OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism mandate for a year 2016

Potential Solutions

New Investigative Mechanism

The creation of a new investigative mechanism is a highly speculated solution for the issue. Russia, China, and Syria often express suspicion against investigations led by agencies dominated by Western states, and the continued international disagreement over basic facts is damaging to all sides. Some international scholars have proposed the establishment of a permanent mechanism similar to the former UN-OPCW JIM, which would include representatives from different governments. Russia and its allies would lean towards accepting this compromise, while the US and France are reluctant to propose it due to fears that Russian representatives will cause the mechanism to be dysfunctional.

Determining and Attributing Blame

On the other hand, the UK has advocated another method to better investigate allegations of chemical weapon usage by proposing to increase the power of the OPCW by granting it the resources and authority to attribute blame. Currently, the OPCW is only allowed to investigate with permission from the accused government and is forbidden from drawing a conclusion of the responsibility of the attacks. The expansion of its role is opposed by Russia and China, who are suspicious that the power could be abused.

40https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un_documents_type/security-council- resolutions/page/2?ctype=Syria&cbtype=syria#038;cbtype=syria

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 12 OPCW Challenge Inspections

There have also been proposals to grant the OPCW the power to conduct challenge inspections, which under the CWC, is allowed between member states. In theory, the challenge inspection could exist “anytime, anywhere, without right of refusal.”41 In the two-decade history of the CWC, however, it has never been invoked.42 Allowing the OPCW to conduct challenge inspections would assign the power and responsibility to an agency independent from political considerations. Every member of the Security Council is concerned with this proposed giveaway of political power. It would, however, allow the Council to act more efficiently and effectively to resolve chemical weapon disputes.

Punitive Actions Against Perpetrators

Many government leaders have also proposed to increase the severity of the consequences for those who employ chemical weapons. Some have argued for severe economic sanctions on Syria, while others have contended military consequences. These efforts have mostly been rebuked by Russia and China, who argue that national sovereignty precedes deterrence against chemical weapons. There have been calls by other bodies of the UN for the Council to impose sanctions and more coercive measures against the Assad government. Their position, however, is more practically based on foreign interests rather than ideology, and thus is subject to influence.

Bloc Positions

Russia and China

Russia and China hold the position that allegations of chemical attacks are unfounded. They are heavily aligned with the Assad regime, and Russia especially has publicly acknowledged the presence of around 63,000 Russian military personnel in Syria to assist the government.43 Equatorial Guinea is loosely aligned with this position and has voted with Russia in most cases relating to Syria’s chemical weapon possessions. Members of this bloc believe that the Assad government should remain as the only legitimate authority in Syria, and have strongly condemned US-led airstrikes on Syria in retaliation to alleged chemical attacks. It is important to note that the objective of the bloc is for the Assad government to prevail in the ongoing civil war. Hence, if deemed necessary, they would privately accept the use of chemical weapons. Due to this dynamic, an ideal outcome for this bloc would be for the Assad government to give up chemical weapons but win the war.

41 Asada, 1998. p.229. 42 Abe, 2017. p.117. 43 Ibid.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 13 NATO Members

The US, UK, and France are confident that Syria has employed chemical weapons and are determined to prevent its future usage. These western states also oppose the Assad regime, often aiding rebel groups in their stride to topple the current government. Other NATO members in the Council, such as Belgium and Poland, also share these stances. Although, they are involved to a lesser extent and are possibly less vocal about the issue. Members of this bloc are opposed to the usage of chemical weapons primarily for ideological and political reasons and are willing to prevent or punish perpetrators of chemical attacks as long as the domestic or international backlash is proportional. These states are eager to impose economic sanctions or even launch military action upon Syria in response to chemical weapon usage. Government leaders belonging to this bloc have frequently debated the strategic priority of whether to enforce the prohibition of chemical weapons or maintain the survival of rebel groups in Syria. Choosing one or the other will result in substantial political backlash, while the coexistence of the two objectives appears to be extremely difficult.

Neutral Members

The other members of the Council align with neither side. The Ivory Coast, the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Kuwait, Peru and South Africa belong to this group and may have voted for both major blocs in the past depending on the specific issue at hand. These states generally accept that chemical weapons have been employed by Assad (although sometimes only privately), but also stress the importance of having a blanket policy of eliminating the use of chemical weapons by both sides of the Syrian Civil War. That is not to say that this group votes like a monolith; each nation in this group may differ in views regarding the Syrian government’s compliance with international guidelines and reports made about their use of chemical weapons.

Although none of the neutral members hold the veto power, a majority of the Council is still required to pass resolutions. The P5 members value their vote at a high price and are often willing to concede on other areas of international economics or security to obtain their favour.

Discussion Questions

1. To what extent has the Syrian government employed chemical agents in the Syrian Civil War?

2. What are the incentives for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons?

3. How could the Security Council better determine responsibility for the use of chemical weapons?

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 14 4. Should the OPCW be given the power to independently investigate suspected chemical weapon incidents or the power to assign responsibility?

5. What appropriate actions should be taken against those who use chemical weapons?

6. What are ways to prevent, or further prohibit, the production and use of chemical weapons?

Further Resources

Encyclopedia Britannica | Article on the United Nations Security Council https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Security-Council

History.com | “Why Is There a Civil War in Syria?” https://www.history.com/news/syria-civil-war-assad-rebels

United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) | “Chemical Weapons” https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/chemical/

Arms Control Association | “Timeline of Syrian Chemical Weapons Activity, 2012-2020” https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity#2013

The Guardian | “Dozens killed in suspected chemical attack on Syrian rebel enclave” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/08/syrian-government-accused-of-chemical- attacks-on-civilians-in-eastern-ghouta

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 15 Bibliography

Abe, Tatsuya. 2017. “Challenge inspections under the Chemical Weapons Convention: between ideal and reality.” The Nonproliferation Review, 24 (1-2): 167-184.

Al-Maghafi, Nawal. 2018. “How chemical weapons have helped bring Assad close to victory.” BBC, October 15, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45586903

Asada, Masahiko. 1998. Effectiveness and Limitations of Challenge Inspection. New York: Transnational Publishers.

BBC. 2018. “Russia says 63,000 troops have seen combat in Syria.” BBC, August 23, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45284121

Borger, Julian. 2018. “Syria: US, UK and France launch strikes in response to chemical attack” , April 14, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/syria-air-strikes-us-uk-and- france-launch-attack-on-assad-regime

Coleman, Kim. 2005. A History of Chemical Warfare. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-1-4039-3460-4.

Gilsinan, Kathy. 2015. “The Confused Person’s Guide to the Syrian Civil War.” The Atlantic, October 10, 2015. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/syrian- civil-war-guide-isis/410746/

Haley, Nikki. "Speech at United Nations Security Council" 2018. http://time.com/4727499/nikki-haley-unsc-transcript-syria/

Hurd, Ian. 2008. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 978-0-691-13834-3.

Ivanova, Polina. 2018. “Russian lawmaker calls reports of Syria gas attack bogus.” , April 8, 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-douma-russia/russian-lawm aker-calls-reports-of-syria-gas-attack-bogus-idUSR4N1R802U

Kelle, Alexander. 2017. “Power in the chemical weapons prohibition regime and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.” International Politics (2018): 403-420.

Kennedy, Paul. 2006. The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present, and Future of the United Nations. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-375-50165-4.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 16 Kimball, Daryl. 2018. “Timeline of Syrian Chemical Weapons Activity, 2012-2018.” Arms Control Association, June 2018. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of- Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity

Lagon, Mark P. and Arend, Anthony Clark. 2014. Human Dignity and the Future of Global Institutions Washington: Georgetown University Press. ISBN 978-1-62616-119-1.

Madiski, Karim and Hindawi, Coralie Pison. 2017. “The Syrian chemical weapons disarmament process in context: narratives of coercion, consent, and everything in between” Third World Quarterly 38 (8): 1691-1709.

Manusama, Kenneth. 2006. The United Nations Security Council in the Post-Cold War Era: Applying the Principle of Legality. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV. ISBN 13: 978-90-04- 15194-9.

Partlett, William. 2018. “Does It Matter that the Strikes Against Syria Violate International Law?” Global Research, April 16, 2018. https://www.globalresearch.ca/does-it-matter-that-the-strikes-against-syria-violate-international- law/5636526

Prentiss, Augustin M. 1937. Chemicals in War: A Treatise on Chemical Warfare. London: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

United Nations Security Council. 2118. “Resolution 2118 (2013).” UN Document S/RES/2118. September 27, 2013.

United Nations Security Council. 2209. “Resolution 2209 (2015).” UN Document S/RES/2209. March 6, 2015.

United Nations Security Council. 2235. “Resolution 2235 (2015).” UN Document S/RES/2235. August 7, 2015.

Waitt, Alden H. 1942. Gas Warfare. The Chemical Weapon. Its Use and Protection Against It. New York: Duell, Sloane & Pearce.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 17