AGENDA – I .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Disec: An Overview .........................................................................................................................................................................................4

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................................4

Background .....................................................................................................................................................................................................4

Current situation .............................................................................................................................................................................................5

Connections to defense industry ................................................................................................................................................................6

Violations till date ...........................................................................................................................................................................................6

Individual responsibility ..............................................................................................................................................................................6

State responsibility .....................................................................................................................................................................................7

Combatants ................................................................................................................................................................................................7

Claims by the media/Events/Incidents .......................................................................................................................................................7

Trophy video ...............................................................................................................................................................................................7

The Case Of Jamie Leigh Jones .................................................................................................................................................................8

Abuses by certain nations ..............................................................................................................................................................................8

A Private Army Guards US Officials ............................................................................................................................................................8

Discount Soldiers ........................................................................................................................................................................................8

Actions taken by the council ..........................................................................................................................................................................8

Response from the international community .................................................................................................................................................8

Questions A Resolution Must Answer ..........................................................................................................................................................10

References ....................................................................................................................................................................................................10

AGENDA - II .......................................................................................................................................................................................................11

History Of Arms Trafficking In The World .....................................................................................................................................................11

Early European domination of the trade ...................................................................................................................................................11

The Persian Gulf and Middle East .............................................................................................................................................................11

The Nature Of Weapons ............................................................................................................................................................................12

Syria And The Civil War.............................................................................................................................................................................12

Current Situation In Syria .............................................................................................................................................................................12

Arms Trafficking In Syria: Violations Till Date ..............................................................................................................................................13

Actions Taken By The Council ......................................................................................................................................................................13

Response From International Community ....................................................................................................................................................14

China .........................................................................................................................................................................................................14

The Russian Federation ............................................................................................................................................................................14

The United States of America ...................................................................................................................................................................14

The United Kingdom .................................................................................................................................................................................14

Saudi Arabia .............................................................................................................................................................................................14

Iran ............................................................................................................................................................................................................14

Germany ...................................................................................................................................................................................................14
 India ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................15

United Arab Emirates ................................................................................................................................................................................15

Turkey .......................................................................................................................................................................................................15

Questions A Resolution Must Answer..........................................................................................................................................................16

References ....................................................................................................................................................................................................16
Steps To Disarm PMSCS (Private Military &Security Services) And Tackle Privatisation Of War
The First Committee (DISEC) seeks to deal primarily with
disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect
the international community and to deliberate upon solutions to
the challenges in the international security regime.
All disarmament and international security matters are dealt with
within the scope of the United Nations Charter or relating to the
powers and functions of any other organ of the United Nations.
The committee works in cooperation with the United Nations
Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament,
based in Geneva.
It is the only Main Committee of the General Assembly entitled to
verbatim records coverage as according to Rule 58 (a) of the
rules of procedure of the General Assembly. {58(a) Verbatim
records of the meetings of the General Assembly and of the
Disarmament and International Security (First Committee) shall
be drawn up by the Secretariat and submitted to those organs
after approval by the presiding officer. The General Assembly
shall decide upon the form of the records of the meetings of the
other Main Committees and, if any, of the subsidiary organs and
of special meetings and conferences. No organ of the General
Assembly shall have both verbatim and summary records.
DISEC sessions are well structured and fall into three distinct
pre- defined stages:
 General Debate
 Thematic Debate
 Action on drafts
“Today, the contractor issue is transnational, and requires a
transnational solution. Companies easily change headquarters,
names, and corporate forms. They recruit from around the world
and operate around the world. No one country can regulate this
business.“ – Faiza Patel, Chairwoman of the UN Working Group
on the use of mercenaries, 25 September 2012
The face of war is changing, for the better and worse at the same
time. Enormous progress has been made not only in drafting
binding rules and regulations for armed conflicts, protecting
especially the most vulnerable groups affected by them, but also
in implementing such rules. With the creation of International
Tribunals and other specialized courts, investigating and
prosecuting allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone
and Cambodia and with the establishment of a permanent
International Criminal Court, significant steps were taken to
ensure that perpetrators of such heinous crimes would have to
expect to be brought to justice. Humanitarian efforts for
refugees and other victims of internal and external armed
conflicts nowadays are unparalleled in the history of mankind
yet there is a reverse side of every medal. During the 20
th
century, technological progress led to the development of a new
generation of weaponry, containing the devastating potential to
destroy all human civilization on earth. The end of the cold war
appeared to put an end to the ever-existing threat of global
destruction as well. But with it new dangers emerged, new or
previously underestimated groups and entities began to alter the
design of armed conflict, again, ultimately pushing it to a new
limit.
Among these groups, among terrorists, separatists, religious and
ethnic groups and other non- state actors have also been an
increasing number of private contractors, used for various
purposes, including direct involvement in combat.
The use of mercenaries to replace or reinforce a regular militia
has a long-standing tradition, dating back to ancient times. The
Egyptian Pharaohs used foreign troops, recruited from Nubia and
other regions under Egyptian control. Later mercenary
contingents played an important role for the ancient Persian,
Greek and Roman forces. They were recruited or acquired in
various ways, in all parts of the respective empires and beyond.
The Romans for example mainly used Celtic or Germanic men,
which they continued to call “barbarians”, to secure the borders
and the very existence of the empire, especially during its last
few centuries. Earlier on the
Persians acquired Greek mercenaries for their wars against the
Greeks themselves, thereby not only using their abilities but also
weakening those of the enemy.
In medieval times, with a multitude of quasi-national entities in
Europe and continuously changing borders and affiliations,
mercenaries continued to play a vital role in warfare. And they
continued to be recruited not only by their home country but also
by foreign powers.
Among the numerous nationalities that provided contingents of
mercenaries, the Swiss stood out. Equipped with an enormous
reputation and quite contrary to today’s “Swiss neutrality”, they
were employed by several European royal courts, armies and
other entities. Of these so called “Swiss Guards”, only one
remains on duty today, the Papal or Pontifical Swiss Guard,
founded in 1509.
With the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the global private
military sector experienced a major upswing. The United States
Department of Defense but also the governments of several
other nations began to work with an increasing number of
private companies for various purposes. In some cases even the
United Nations themselves rely on the services of private
contractors.
Private contractors are used in numerous areas, at the frontlines,
for protective and intelligence services and with pure
administrative or logistical duties. While their use may cause
serious problems and concerns there are also several important
aspects that, from the point of view of governments employing
them, give them a real advantage over regular military or police
forces.
The first and foremost argument is a significant cost reduction.
Military operations are enormously expensive. Private
companies have to work in a much more cost efficient way if
they want to be successful in their competitive market.
Another point is greater flexibility. Compared to regular military
with a strict command structure, they can act more freely and
independently in exercising their tasks. Because of numerous
different specializations among the world’s private contractor
companies, governments can choose and alter, depending on the
nature of the task at hand, specifically the contractor that is
properly trained and prepared for their purposes. And again, the
cost argument plays its part, with the training costs not having
to be covered by any national governments.
The tasks that private companies fulfil for and on behalf of
national governments or indeed other private companies are
wide ranging. They are used in combat to support regular
military units or work and fight in areas, which require
specialized training and covert tactics. They secure buildings
such as embassies and protect diplomats and other dignitaries,
both at home and in some of the most dangerous areas in the
world.
In recent years the issue of maritime piracy gained a lot more
media attention due to several incidents off the coast of
Somalia, but also in South East Asia and Western Africa. Ship
owners are nowadays advised to take steps, ensuring the
capability of their merchant ships to protect themselves from
pirate attacks. Many private security companies are used for
that purpose.
Private security companies also run an increasing number of
prisons, in their home country and abroad. Prisons, where
criminals are detained, but also camps and compounds where
prisoners of war are held. Additionally there have been
accusations that they were also involved in running secret
prisons for suspected terrorists.
It should be clarified that private military companies are not
mercenaries, either, although certain similarities cannot be
denied.
In recent years large numbers of private contractors were
recruited in Africa, some of them by parties to a conflict on the
continent itself, others by foreign powers to fight in other
regions. It has been alleged that among those recruits are
significant numbers of former child soldiers, whose previous
experience but also emotional degradation appears to be quite
appealing to contracting companies and governments. One of
the most notorious companies in the business was the South
Africa based “Executive outcomes”, which ceased operating in
1998.
The most recent report by the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia
and Eritrea revealed that a large number of foreign private
military and security groups are active in war-torn Somalia as
well. Among these groups are African companies, but also
Lebanese and other Arab firms, some of which are closely
connected to American security firms. Their actions apparently
constitute violations of the present arms embargo in an
immensely unstable situation.

Several private military companies have certain economic
connections to the defense industry. While these connections
ensure that they are adequately equipped for their duty, it has
also been alleged, that they might contain a possible conflict of
interests, contrary to the position of the national government.
Even without such a connection, it cannot be denied that private
military firms profit largely from armed conflicts. In certain
situations, they might have an interest to prolong an ongoing
conflict. Since the government has only limited control over such
forces, it cannot directly order them to cease their actions. The
companies on the other hand might try to persuade the
government to refrain from signing a peace accord.
While no report of such persuasion attempts has been made
public so far, this scenario is a most disturbing one, which has to
be addressed by the Council as well.
It is a sad but undeniable fact that war without grave violations
of individual human rights is virtually unthinkable. But a
consequence of that is also that parties involved in a conflict
have to exercise utmost caution to protect human rights and
especially the civilian population wherever possible. For this
purpose, numerous documents were drafted and adopted by the
several organs and specialized agencies of the UN and other
organizations, arguably the most prominent being the Fourth
Geneva Convention. It clearly states in Article 3, common to all
four Conventions:
“Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members
of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed
hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other
cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any
adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex,
birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.”
Some acts are explicitly prohibited, including:
“a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
b) taking of hostages;

c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and
degrading treatment;
d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted
court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as
indispensable by civilized peoples.”
As mentioned before, International Courts and Tribunals were set
up to investigate and prosecute atrocities against the civilian
population. Domestic judiciary is also called upon to investigate
all crimes within its jurisdiction.
Several private military companies have been accused of serious
atrocities during the last years. Just one example is an incident
that occurred on September 16, 2007 in Baghdad, Iraq. A convoy
consisting of US state department vehicles with several
diplomats on board and guarded by personnel from private
security firm Blackwater, encountered a small car, driven by a
woman, that was slowly but steadily approaching the convoy.
After shouts and a warning shot, the Blackwater security guards
opened fire on the car right in the Center of the Iraqi capital. This
drew the attention of several Iraqi policemen and civilians. The
guards tried to clear the scene using stun grenades, but were
met with significant resistance and found themselves, according
to a US state department, in an increasingly threatening
situation. Several Blackwater guards opened fire at what they
thought were potential attackers. They were horribly wrong. 17
people were shot and killed, 14 of which were unarmed civilians.
One guard continued to fire on civilians even after being called
and even commanded by his colleagues to stop firing. It was not
before a colleague pointed his own gun at the guardsman that he
dropped his weapon.
This incident led to a deterioration of Iraqi-American relations.
Blackwater’s license to operate in Iraq was suspended
temporarily. Five Blackwater employees were charged with
manslaughter in the U.S.A. District court judge however later
dismissed all charges, because testimony against the accused
was allegedly gained under the promise of immunity.
Human rights violations are also committed by members of
regular armed forces and other government officials, but there is
one major difference, one question that arises when contractors
of private companies are the perpetrators: who can be held
responsible?
Societies with a functioning judicial system tend to think about
the concept of criminal justice in very simple ways. If a person
commits a crime, a prosecutor, authorized by the state, will
investigate it and charge the person with the offense. He or she
will then be brought to trial and sentenced by an impartial and
competent court according to law. Afterwards the perpetrator
will pay a fine or serve a prison sentence, and so justice is done.

Even more controversial and essential to the solution of this
problem is the question of state responsibility. In the context of
our topic, this question is of special importance with regard to
the issue of holding a state accountable for acts committed by
individuals acting on its behalf. So far all the numerous attempts
to modify and implement regulations concerning state
responsibility into international public law have merely led to the
formulation of so called “draft articles”, created by the
International Law Commission in 2001. Under these draft articles
its officials and organs can consider a state responsible for any
action or omission. The same shall apply even if the official or
organ is organized independently from the state and even if it is
in excess of its original powers. The consequence of state
responsibility for such an act would depend on the actual
international commitment that was violated by it. States would
be obliged to cease committing such acts and ensure full
reparation.
personnel can be regarded as combatants and subsequently, if
captured by a hostile party, as prisoners of war.
A person taking direct part in armed hostilities (combatant),
while, among others, being a member of the armed forces of a
party to the conflict, or a member of a militia under the
command of the armed forces following a certain command
structure, is when captured considered to be a prisoner of war
(POW) and enjoys the protection of the Third Geneva Convention.
The status of personnel of private military companies on duty in
armed conflicts as combatants and as a consequence as PoWs
is disputed. They are neither regular soldiers, nor mercenaries or
historically mainly foreign nationals seeking enlistment by other
armed forces for the sole purpose of gaining profits, nor mere
civilians taking up arms in a conflict.

Despite the provision that state responsibility also refers to

officials or organs independent from the state’s authorities, the
question whether private security companies are (or should be)
In 2005, a “trophy video” featuring presumably Scottish or Irish
included is subject to significant dispute. Private companies do
Men randomly Iraqi civilians was uploaded on a site that was
not necessarily exercise governmental or state authority. What
Unofficially affiliated with Aegis Defense Services—a private
they do is just the fulfillment of a contract with the government.
Military company that incidentally employs both Scots and
They have to be in no other relation to it. On the other hand,
Irishmen. The incident caused considerable outcry in news
official personnel before often made the services they undertake,
Media all over the world, and sparked dialogue about the state Of
working directly under the auspices of the government. When a
Iraqi defense. At that point, over 25,000 private security
private security firm protects a diplomatic mission or guards a
Contractors were stationed in the country. They were widely
prison, these are inherently tasks of the state authorities,
hated and had a reputation for abusing and even killing civilians
outsourced to private firms.
At the slightest provocation. None of them had ever been
State responsibility also calls for an effective control and brought to law, because the local law enforcement had been
oversight by the state. This matter is far from being resolved. As Specifically forbidden to prosecute them. Despite video footage,
mentioned before, the independence of private security this case was not an exception. Upon Carefully reviewing the
companies can be an advantage, but it can also create serious available material, US Army’s Criminal Investigation Division
and in fact grave problems. The state cannot simply command a eventually concluded that they are not going to press charges.
company to take specific action, as it would do with its own Meanwhile, Aegis Defense is keeping Its own internal
soldiers. It has to enter a contract with it and if the company investigations carefully under wraps. None of the incident’s
fails to fulfill its tasks, the state would have to cancel the investigative files have been released to the Public.
contract instead of just assigning the troops with another task
elsewhere. Another potential risk is that private security firms,
unlike regular military units, could go bankrupt in the middle of
an assignment, with wide-ranging consequences.

There is another aspect of this topic that appears to be an

essentially legal argument at first, but may have wide ranging
consequences. It is the question whether or not private military

In 2007, Jamie Leigh Jones, an employee of private military
contractor Halliburton/KBR, claimed she was gang-raped by
several of her co-workers. This traumatic experience was just the
beginning of her struggles with the private military company. Her
employer then decided to cover up the incident by locking her in
a shipping container with no food or water for 24 hours.
This was followed with a warning: They’d immediately fire her if
she left Iraq to seek medical treatment
Abroad Triple Canopy, like Defion Internacional, is known to
employ
Discount South American soldiers. However, that’s just a small
fraction of their business. Founded by ex-members of the US
Army
Special Forces, Triple Canopy is a mercenary force that works
mainly for the US government in Iraq. Their employees include
former Navy SEALs, Rangers, Special Operations personnel and
police officers. After Saddam Hussein’s fall, the company found
employment in Iraq, guarding and escorting US officials and
performing other high-risk duties. As a company that works
closely with the military, some have dubbed them the “other
army” of the United States.
Defion Internacional has been able to hire their personnel withas
little as US$1000 per month. The soldiers get lured into pmsc
because the average salary in a underdeveloped country like
Peru is $200.
As such PMSCs are not subject to the “International Convention
against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of
Mercenaries” of 1989, adopted by the General Assembly as
Resolution 44/34.
Recent years have seen some significant efforts to deal with the
increasing importance of private military and security forces.
The government of Switzerland has been on the forefront of
these efforts and hosted a number of conferences and
international meetings to address this issue. Among the
outcomes of such meetings is the Montreux Document of 2008.
Developed by 17 nations, including for example the US, China,
France and the UK, but also Afghanistan and Iraq, under the
auspices of the Swiss federal government, the document defines
private military and security forces as follows:
“‘PMSCs’ are private business entities that provide military
and/or security services, irrespective of how they describe
themselves. Military and security services include, in particular,
armed guarding and protection of persons and objects, such as
convoys, buildings and other places; maintenance and operation
of weapons systems; prisoner detention; and advice to or
training of local forces and security personnel. “This is the most
comprehensive and internationally most accepted definition as
of today. Several questions however remain unanswered; several
issues are still not sufficiently resolved. These include the issues
of individual and/or state responsibility and the implementation
of an efficient control mechanism over private military
contractors. It should also be noted that the Montreux Document
is not legally binding to any government and contains mere
recommendations for further steps, regulating the private
military market and the conduct of such companies.
Several security companies agreed to formulate a Code of
Conduct, which aims at setting rules for their operations. These
rules are not legally binding, but may be considered as forming a
basis for further attempts to regulate the actions of these
companies. There is another striking aspect of this Code: the
number of signatories, all of them internationally active security
firms, which gives the reader an idea of the actual scale of the
issue. No less than 591 companies have signed the Code of
Conduct so far.
While the military involvement of the US and other Western
nations in Iraq and Afghanistan is slowly coming to an end, the
private military companies are about to look for new areas to do
their work. Recent attacks on western embassies especially in
Arab countries may create a new demand for security personnel.
One should also keep in mind that, while most private military
companies have their headquarters in Western nations, those
countries have not at all a monopoly over their services. Other
nations, including despotic regimes may also be interested in
enlisting them for their purposes, to protect the status quo but
also to oppress parts of the civilian population.
Coordinated efforts to regulate the use of private military and
security forces are urgently needed. The first steps have been
taken, especially by the Swiss government and through the
Montreux Document. It is now up to the Council to address this
issue and find comprehensive solutions to the problems arising
from it.
 Who must be held responsible in the event of abuse of power?
 Ways to control illicit trade of weapons by PMSCs?
 Actions to be taken against the PMSCs who violate international law?
 How to stop banned PMSCs from rebranding and regrouping in form of a another company?
 Types of weapons that can be used by PMSCs?
 Situations at, which PMSCs can be deployed?
 Way to stop recruitment for PMSCs from underdeveloped countries?

http://controlpmsc.org/

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/military-police-and-arms/private-military-and-security-companies

http://kingsofwar.org.uk/2012/07/the-un-using-pmscs-is-that-a-bad-thing/

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Mercenaries/WGMercenaries/Pages/NationalRegulatoryFrameworks.aspx

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Mercenaries/WGMercenaries/Pages/NationalRegulatoryFrameworks.aspx
Arms Trafficking By Religious Extremist Groups In Syria
European traders began trafficking arms into African, American,
and on a somewhat lesser extent into Asian markets starting in
the sixteenth century, During this time there was a general
dispersal of firearms technology and a number of states
developed production capabilities as gunpowder states primarily
West European center’s emerged as the main sources of arms
across Europe and around the world.
This Western European domination of the trade was in part
because of advances in firearm and gunpowder technologies and
also because of their ever-expanding global trade networks.
Despite Papal bans on the sale of weapons to non-Christians
issued first in 1179 and iterated numerous times thereafter, the
Portuguese initiated the arms traffic into the African Gold Coast
in the sixteenth century, thus making Portugal the chief conduit
of firearms trade in Asia and Africa.
The Dutch became the leading arms exporters internationally, by
the seventeenth century, with Amsterdam becoming the new
epicenter of the trade. Purchasers of Dutch weapons came from
neighboring European states such as France and England, as
well as other peripheral states including from Sweden, Russia,
Poland, Portugal, Venice, and Morocco.
By the onset of the eighteenth century, early English private
commercial interests began the export of arms to Africa. The
increase of trade of European firearms in Africa is largely
credited to increased European demand for African slaves as
African traders now found themselves in a position to demand
more guns in exchange for slaves. By the second half of the
eighteenth century there was a surge of English arms exports.
England accounted for nearly 45 percent of the estimated
283,000-394,000 firearms annually imported into West Africa
between 1750 and 1807.
France, England, Netherlands and some states in Germany
became self sufficient in arms production, with diffusion and
migration of skilled workers to other peripheral nations like
Portugal and Russia since the early modern period. In 1854, the
British Government contracted a deal to the Elswick Ordinance
Company owned by industrialist William Armstrong for the
supply of the latest break loading rifled artillery pieces. This deal
was pivotal to the galvanization of the private sector into
weapons production, with the surplus being increasingly
exported to foreign countries. William Armstrong thus became
one of the first international arms dealers, selling his weapon
systems to governments across the world.
1860-1918 witnessed an expansion in the volume of arms
trafficking. As industrialization spread across Europe, more arms
could be produced more quickly than before. The main players in
the extra-European arms traffic were the French and Belgians
primarily to West Africa, and the Italians to a lesser extent in the
case of East Africa.
The modern arms industry thus emerged in the second half of
the nineteenth century as a product of the creation and
expansion of the first large military- industrial companies. As
smaller countries (and even newly industrialized countries like
Russia and Japan) could no longer produce cutting-edge military
equipment with their indigenous resources and capacity, they
increasingly began to contract the manufacture of military
equipment, such as battleships, artillery pieces and rifles to
foreign firms.
In the early 1880s, both the Italians and the French worked to
supply Ethiopia with arms. And the end of 1882 imported
French rifles imported in Ethiopia from Marseilles. The Italians
too committed to deliver 4,000 rifles immediately and 50,000
Remington’s with 10 million cartridges over the next decade.
Further In 1884 William Armstrong opened a shipyard at Elswick
to specialize in warship production—at this time, it was the only
factory in the world that could build a battleship and arm it
completely. The factory produced warships for many navies,
including the Imperial Japanese Navy, many of which were
pivotal in defeating the Russian fleet at the Battle of Tsushima in
1905.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, while the arms
trade into East Africa via Djibouti carried the most volume of
traffic, another trade route flowed from the Persian Gulf into
South and Central Asia beginning in the second half of the
nineteenth century.
This route included Muscat, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the Arabian
Peninsula. Muscat, in particular served as the epicenter for the
arms traffic. There was a free flow of arms into Muscat and from
there throughout Persia and inland to Baluchistan and north to
Afghanistan. French merchants from Marseilles and Belgians too
imported arms into Muscat. In 1908 an estimated number of
30,000 rifles and 3 million rounds arrived in Afghanistan via
Muscat, with an additional 40,000 rifles arriving in 1909.
Although the trade of second-hand arms was vast and the illegal
trade in weapons relatively uncontrollable, greater profits were
found to be in the manufacturing and selling of the new weapons
to governments. In this regard, the major military industrial
producers included Krupp (Germany), Schneider-Creusot
(France), and Vickers (Britain). This exemplified the reemergence
of the leading role of private suppliers in the global arms
business as opposed to the country to country transactions that
dominated the Cold War era. However, the sea change in attitude
about war in general leads to governments reigning in the
controls on the trade.
More recently, in 2011, the United States alone sold about $66.3
billion in weapons globally (more than 75% of the world arms
market that year) and considerably more than the previous
record of $31 billion. “Trade in arms and technological diffusion
is thus as old as the history of war itself.”
From the perspective of war, the most important characteristic
of weapons is that weapons are durable goods. While certain
types of weapons and weapon components have a limited shelf
life such as battery-coolant units, numerous other weapons
remain functional for many decades.
But on the downside, ammunition, which is also an important
facet of the global arms trade, tends to be less durable than
weapons, and is also consumed at high rates. This suggests that
the durability of weapons and their functionality would prove to
be an asset only when sufficient supplies of ammunition are
available. This is precisely the reason why generic weapons like
the AK-47 have proliferated so widely, because of the low cost
and relative ease of finding compatible ammunition. In the case
of Syria, the rebels can both purchase ammunition for weapons
like the AK-47 and seize it from the government.
Idealistically, Weapons are also interchangeable. Take for
example, an AK-47-style rifle manufactured in Russia is
essentially the same as one manufactured in Pakistan or Egypt.
In fact in a place like Syria, it is not unusual to find AK-47-style
rifles manufactured in various countries and decades being
carried within the same rebel group.
Protesters calling for the release of political prisoners in March
2011 prompted the outbreak of civil unrest. National security
forces responded to the peaceful demonstrations with brutal
violence. By the onset of the summer of 2011, incumbent Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad refused to halt attacks and implement
the demanded reforms of the protestors.
By July, many civilians took to arms and joined the violent
protest and army defectors organized the Free Syrian Army.
Conflicts between secular and Islamist fighters, and between
other ethnic groups aggravated the conflict in the region.
With the passage of time, opposition to the government began to
loosely organize, creating several opposition organizations like
the Syrian National Council (SNC), an organization of Syrians
who had been exiled and the Free Syrian Army, composed largely
of Syrian army defectors and armed rebels.
Violence between the rebels and the government further
escalated when in August 2011, the FSA attacked the Syrian
army brutally.
A full-blown Civil War broke out following rapidly increasing
violence in the region between the Syrian Army and the rebels.
The organization formed to represent opposition to the
government, the Syrian National Council, remains highly
localized and fractured, hence failing to add coherence or form
meaningful links with the revolt in Syria. Three years on and the
war has killed over 190,000 people, most of whom are believed
to be civilians. Incessant bombings have destroyed largely
populated cities and horrific crimes against humans, leading to
gross violations of human rights are prevalent. Even basic
necessities like medical aid and food are scarce.
The current conflict in Syria seems like a battle between those
loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and those who oppose him.
Al-Assad has been in power since 2000, when he succeeded his
father, who had ruled the country for 30 years. A large number of
mass massacres have taken place since the conflict began,
including one in Houla in May 2012 in which 49 children died. In
response to this brutality, the UN has accused forces loyal to the
government of violating international law by targeting civilians.
Further the European Union has not renewed the arms embargo
originally imposed in May 2011. Neighboring Middle Eastern
states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar have stepped in by arming
rebels, Saudi Arabia with the vested interest of weakening the
regime’s ally, Shia Iran, and Qatar to extend its own influence in a
post-Arab Spring Middle East.
Recent tests carried out by British and French governments have
uncovered the use of sarin gas as a weapon, though Russia
denies any proof of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict
thus far. But a chemical attack outside Damascus on August 21,
2013 brought the US on the brink of a military intervention in
Syria, but President Barack Obama pulled back at the last
moment after Russia offered to broker a deal under which Syria
would hand over its stockpile of chemical weapons.
Since the onset of the civil war in Syria over two years ago, one
of the major issues for the rebels has been access to weapons,
needed to defend themselves against the well equipped army of
Bashar al Assad, Syria’s incumbent president.
Currently the President’s regime is being supplied legally by the
Russian Federation. At the same time, the army is further
supplied arms by Iran, but under U.N. Resolution 1747 Iran is
forbidden from export of weapons, thus these transactions are
illegal or occurring on the black arms market.
A confidential UNSC report published last year, as viewed by
Reuters said that of the three seizures of large shipments of
Iranian weapons, when investigated upon by a panel of experts
over the past year showed that:
“Two of these cases involved the Syrian Arab Republic, as were
the majority of cases inspected by the Panel during its previous
mandate, underscoring that Syria continues to be the central
party to illicit Iranian arms transfers.”
The arms that Iran attempted to send to Syria before the Turkish
authorities seized the shipments included assault rifles,
explosives, 60mm and 120 mm mortar shells, machine guns,
detonators among other items. Recently an arms shipment truck
seized on the Turkish border with Syria led to Turkey announcing
an arms embargo on Syria.
Light arms from the United States are also being shipped to
"moderate" Syrian rebel factions in the south of the country and
the Congress has approved funding for further deliveries, in a
secret vote, through the end of government fiscal year 2014,
according U.S. and European security officials. These weapons,
most of which are moving to non-Islamist Syrian rebels via
Jordan, include a variety of small arms, as well as some more
powerful weapons, such as anti-tank rockets.
A U.S. official has gone on to say that national security officials
and members of the Congress are confident that weapons
delivered to southern Syria are going to, and remaining in, the
hands of moderate rebels rather than militant jihadist factions.
Also Saudi Arabia and Qatar, believing that Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad would soon fall and that Sunni political Islam
would prevail, funded groups like the Liwa al-Tawhid, Ahrar al-
Sham, Jaish al-Islam- all of which hold links to the al-Nusra
front, al-Qaeda’s operational wing in Syria, an extremist group
with strong Islamist credentials.
At the onset of the civil war in Syria, initially regional outfits like
the League of Arab States and the Gulf Cooperation Council were
hesitant to respond as a result of which the UNSC was unable to
reach a consensus on decisive action to end the conflict.
After about a year of incessant war, on 23 February 2012, former
Secretary General Kofi Annan was appointed as the Joint Special
Envoy for the UN and the League of Arab States. The six point
peace plan was set forth by Annan which committed a ceasefire
and timely provision of humanitarian assistance. This plan
however failed to end the conflict. In April 2012, the UNSC
further authorized deployment of a UN Supervision Mission in
Syria (UNSMIS) to facilitate this plan. These observation
activities were suspended on 19 August 2012. As a result of this
Annan resigned from his position and cited the lack of political
unity in the UN as a hurdle to peaceful solution of a crisis.
Lakhdar Brahimi then replaced Kofi Annan. Under his regime, the
UNSC passed Resolution 2118 on 7 September 2013, requiring
Syria to destroy its current stockpile of chemical weapons. It
also prohibits Syria from using, developing, stockpiling chemical
weapons. Syria would be penalized under Chapter VII of the UN
Charter for not fulfilling these terms. The OPCW is overseeing
this compliance.
Trade restrictions (which includes an arms embargo) are also in
force on Syria, these are EU imposed embargoes, which are
directly applicable in UK law.
On 22 February 2014 the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution
2139 to ensure access for humanitarian aid in Syria, urging lift of
sieges of populated area and condemning the use of barrel
bombs and terrorists acts by Al-Qaeda-linked organizations.
The UN also launched an emergency appeal for $5 billion to
provide humanitarian aid to victims of the war.
The Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu said on 24 May
2011: "China believes that when it comes to properly handling
the current Syrian situation, it is the correct direction and major
approach to resolve the internal differences through political
dialogue and maintain its national stability as well as the overall
stability and security of the Middle East. The Syrian people
themselves should independently decide the future of Syria free
from external interference. We hope the international community
continues to play a constructive role in this regard.”
On 2 June 2011, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "It is not in
the interests of anyone to send messages to the opposition in
Syria or elsewhere that if you reject all reasonable offers we will
come and help you as we did in Libya. It's a very dangerous
position." He further added, "The situation doesn't present a
threat to international peace and security. Syria is a very
important country in the Middle East and destabilizing Syria
would have repercussions far beyond its borders" and asserted
that Assad had made attempts at major reform.
On 9 April, 2011 it was reported that President Barack Obama
had said: "I strongly condemn the abhorrent violence committed
against peaceful protesters by the Syrian government today and
over the past few weeks. I also condemn any use of violence by
protesters. I call upon the Syrian authorities to refrain from any
further violence against peaceful protesters. Furthermore, the
arbitrary arrests, detention, and torture of prisoners that has
been reported must end now, and the free flow of information
must be permitted so that there can be independent verification
of events on the ground. Violence and detention are not the
answer to the grievances of the Syrian people. It is time for the
Syrian government to stop repressing its citizens, and to listen to
the voices of the Syrian people calling for meaningful political
and economic reforms.”
Obama also warned that Assad was "on the wrong side of history
and his people", and added, "Through his own actions, Bashar al-
Assad is ensuring that he and his government will be left in the
past, and that the courageous Syrian people who have
demonstrated in the streets will determine its future. Syria will
be a better place when a democratic transition goes forward."
While he did not explicitly demand that Assad resign, he said the
US would step up its efforts on the international stage to "isolate
the Assad government and stand with the Syrian people”.
Obama said explicitly for the first time that Assad should resign:
"The future of Syria must be determined by its people, but
President Bashar al-Assad is standing in their way. For the sake
of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to
step aside.”
On 24 March 2011, Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "We
call on the government of Syria to respect their people's right to
peaceful protest, and to take action about their legitimate
grievances.”
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah became the first Arab head of state
to openly condemn the Syrian government over its response to
the uprising on 8 August 2011, saying, "What is happening in
Syria is not acceptable for Saudi Arabia." He warned Syria "will
be pulled down into the depths of turmoil and loss" if it did not
immediately move to enact major political reforms and withdrew
the country's ambassador to Syria.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei spoke in favour of the
Syrian government in regard to the uprising – “In Syria, the hand
of America and Israel is evident” and “Wherever a movement is
Islamic, populist and anti-U.S., we support it”
Then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview on
25 August 2011 that the violence should end and "the people and
government of Syria" should join in a national dialogue. "When
there is a problem between the people and their leaders, they
must sit down together to reach a solution, away from violence”
In May 2013 Iranian Ambassador to the UN, Mohammad
Khazaee stated: “We believe that, apart from the Syrian sides, all
relevant regional and international partners that wield some
influence over the parties and could help the Syrians move
towards peace should participate in the conference and
endeavor towards its success. Iran's participation in the
conference will depend on the details that we will consider when
we receive them.”
On 24 March 2011, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said:
"The violence must end immediately. The Syrian government
must make sure that basic human and civil rights, as well as the
rule of law, is observed,” In early August 2011, the chairman of
the German government's committee on foreign relations
advocated a global boycott of Syrian gas and oil exports. On the
same day a German government spokesman declared that if
Assad continued to reject dialogue and resort to violence, the
Syrian government would lose its legitimacy.
Indian Permanent UN Representative Hardeep Puri read the
3 August statement agreed to by the Security Council
condemning Syrian authorities use of force and "widespread
violations of human rights”. Moreover, India abstained from
voting against the violence committed by the Syrian
government.
On June 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, called for
immediate ceasefire. India had voted the US-backed resolution
at United Nations Human Rights Council condemning the
massacre at El-Houla.
On 29 March 2011, United Arab Emirates President Sheikh
Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan called Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad and reaffirmed that the UAE stands by Damascus.
On 25 September 2013, Foreign minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al
Nahyan said that UAE continued to support the Syrians and
their legitimate aspirations for restoring security and stability to
the country.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on 2 April
2011, that he would press Assad on 4 April to remove emergency
rule, release political prisoners and adopt a new constitution.
President Abdullah Gul sharply condemned the siege of Hama
escalation on 1 August 2011, saying the Syrian government's use
of heavy weapons against the general populace "has given me a
deep shock". Gül said it was "impossible to remain silent in the
face of events visible to everyone and accept a bloody
atmosphere at the start of Ramadan". He called upon the Syrian
government to stop the violence and institute reforms to restore
"peace and stability".
On 10 April 2012, Erdoğan slammed the Syrian government
saying, "They are even shooting these fleeing people from
behind. They are mercilessly shooting them, regardless of
whether they are children or women." and added "Indeed, he
(Assad) gave his word to Mr. Annan, but despite giving his word
he is continuing to kill 60, 70, 80, 100 every day. This is the
situation Erdoğan began trying to cultivate a favorable
relationship with whatever government would take the place of
Assad."
On 7 October 2013, Erdogan called Assad a terrorist, he said "I
don’t regard Bashar Assad as a politician anymore. He’s a
terrorist carrying out state terrorism. A person who killed
110,000 of his people is a terrorist. There’s state terrorism — I’m
speaking frankly.”
 What will be the effect of the UN Arms Trade Treaty on the Syrian conflict?
 What can be implemented to combat the root causes of armed violence? Are there certain initiatives that can wipe out illicit
movement of arms?
 Should additional limitations be imposed on arms dealers to prevent illicit movement? How can illicit transfers of arms be
prevented?
 What can be done on an international level to counteract the Illicit Small Arms Trade, its effects upon Syria and the escalation of
internal conflicts within the country?
 With the illicit flow of arms into Syria from Iran, despite UNSC Resolutions forbidding the trade, how can the security of innocent
civilians be assured within the country?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/17/us-iran-sanctions-un-idUSBRE84F14520120517
http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/
http://origins.osu.edu/article/merchants-death-international-traffic-arms
http://middleeast.about.com/od/syria/tp/Current-Situation-In-Syria.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-activists-accuse-government-of-deadly-chemical-attack-near-
damascus/2013/08/21/aea157e6-0a50-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/30/us-iran-sanctions-un-idUSBRE85T02Q20120630
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sc11520.doc.htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/27/us-usa-syria-rebels-idUSBREA0Q1S320140127
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29004253
http://www.euronews.com/2013/06/13/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-syrian-conflict/