Topic A: The Development, Production
and Stockpiling of Biological and
Mandate of the Disarmament
International Security Committee:
The goal of DISEC, the first committee,
from its very inception has been to make
sure that international peace and
cooperation does not break down and all
actions within the committee must be in
line with this general goal. DISEC also
falls under the General Assembly,
therefore its decisions are not legally
binding to its members however it can
make suggestions to the United Nations
Security Council and is still an important
line of international communication and
can prove to be an effective tool in the
management of international affairs or
crises. DISEC mainly deals with issues of
disarmament and other general challenges
to global security and peace.
The committee will be presented with
issues and challenges to world peace and
must present reasonable and rational
solutions to the challenges at hand that do
not contradict their countries foreign
policies and are agreeable enough to other
delegates. Issues of power imbalances,
implementation, root causes etc. must all
be addressed within the committee. By the
very nature of DISEC, it is essential that
delegates act with some level of
diplomacy, however maintaining your
stance and recognising when points of
contention can not be resolved is also an
important part of the committee.
Chemical Weapons:
Biological weapons, as defined by the
World Health Organisation are:
‘Biological and toxin weapons are either
microorganisms like virus, bacteria or
fungi, or toxic substances produced by
living organisms that are produced and
released deliberately to cause disease and
death in humans, animals or plants,’
These weapons are often incredibly
effective and deadly, especially within
wartime considering that living conditions
and standards are often below average.
Therefore, disease and plague spread
incredibly quickly through trenches and
barracks’s leading to high levels of
infection among soldiers and the military,
possibly leading to civilian infections and
risking a total outbreak. However this
threat is not a new one, and there already
exists a large repertoire of past UN
legislation on this most pressing of issues.
Past UN Actions and Legislations:
1. The Geneva Protocols
The 1925 Geneva Protocols, drawn
up by the League of Nations,
prohibits the use of Biological
weapons or toxins in war due to the
fact that their uses during the first
 world war had demonstrated them
to be incredibly dangerous and
inhumane. These protocols, some
of the first legislation around the
matter at hand and are undoubtedly
important building blocks when
discussing this issue however they
are notably flawed and somewhat
out of date. The primary flaw
within these protocols was the lack
of prohibition against stockpiling
or further development of
biological weapons or toxins.
Additionally, the protocols lost
support in Britain due to a party
shift which greatly damaged their
credibility and allowed for the
USSR and USA to effectively
ignore the treaty all while building
up their own arsenals of weaponry.
These mistakes were later
addressed within the Biological
Weapons Convention however it
too has its critiques. All together,
the Geneva Protocols, although a
necessary and greatly useful step in
the prohibition of the use of
biological warfare/toxins, was
ultimately ineffective due to a
number of bureaucratic mistakes
within its legislation along with the
lack of any real push for
disarmament from the wider
international community. From
this, we learn that any push for the
removal of biological weapons in
the UN must also have support
from a majority of all nations
present.
2. UNSC Resolution 2325
Ahead of an open debate on
keeping weapons of mass
destruction out of the hands of
terrorists and other non-State
groups, the Security Council called
today for intensified efforts to
ensure the development of a secure
international framework for that
purpose in the face of rapid
technological advances and
increasingly ambitious malefactors.
Unanimously adopting resolution
2325 (2016), the Council called on
all States to strengthen national
anti-proliferation regimes in
implementation of resolution 1540
(2004)- which seeks to keep
non-State actors from acquiring
nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons of mass destruction- and
to submit timely reports on their
efforts. It called for greater
assistance for building State
capacity in that regard, including
through voluntary contributions,
and for greater cooperation among
all stakeholders, civil society and
academia among them.
3. The Biological Weapons
Convention (BWC)
The Biological Weapons and toxins
Convention is the main source of
modern international legislation
regarding Biological and Toxin
based weapons .
This convention builds upon many
of the issues and concerns raised
by the Geneva protocols however
addresses them in an ultimately
different manner, choosing to move
towards a more cooperative
approach, relying on international
communication and collective
security to keep everyone safe
rather than the approach of the
Geneva protocols which was to
force cooperation of all countries
around a set of guidelines primarily
dictated by a group of powerful
countries.
The convention serves as an
important precedent for
international law surrounding
biological weapons, allowing for it
to be used as a base for any future
legislation. The convention has
almost unanimous support with
183 states either signing/ratifying
the convention with the only 10
outliers being Chad, Comoros,
Djibouti, Eritrea, Israel, Kiribati,
Micronesia, Namibia, South Sudan
and Tuvalu. These states, mostly
those who either have no real threat
of being attacked by biological
weapons or those who actively
benefit from their use will
undoubtedly be those who pose the
greatest challenges to any new
legislation regarding the topic.
The convention also prominently
bans the transfer or aiding in
acquisition of toxins and
bioweapons of any state party to it
(Article III) which will relevant
within the committees debate
particularly regarding the issue of
US involvement within the funding
and governance of the State of
Israel (who is not a party to the
BWC) which may be discussed
within the committee.
Within its second article the
convention also commits its parties
to move towards the destruction or
otherwise reappropriation of
biological or toxin based weapons,
which have been effectively
pursued by countries such as the
USSR and United States.
However, the problems with the
convention lie within their failure
to address how compliance with
the convention is to be checked.
Countries, who are technically
parties to the convention, may in
secret carry out development,
storage and use of biological
weapons without the knowledge of
the UN or other parties, therefore
posing an incredible challenge that
is difficult to overcome for the
convention or any future legislation
regarding the issue of biological
warfare.
4. The Chemical Weapons
Convention
The Chemical Weapons
Convention was signed on April
29, 1997, and has 193 signatory
states.
The Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) is a
multilateral treaty that bans
chemical weapons and requires
their destruction within a specified
time frame. The treaty is
open-ended and far more
comprehensive than the 1925
Geneva Protocol, which bans the
use but not the possession of
chemical weapons.
CWC proceedings began in 1980 at
the UN Conference on
Disarmament. The Convention was
opened for signature on 13 January
1993 and entered into force on 29
April 1997.
The CWC is implemented by the
Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
which is based in The Hague and
has about 500 staff. The OPCW
receives declarations from Parties
detailing chemical weapons-related
activities or materials and relevant
industrial activities. Upon receipt
of a declaration, the OPCW
inspects and monitors the facilities
and activities of States Parties that
are relevant to the Convention to
ensure compliance.
The CWC is open to all nations and
currently has 193 state parties.
Israel has signed the convention
but has not yet ratified it. Three
states have not signed or ratified
the convention (Egypt, North
Korea and South Sudan).
The Chemical Weapons
Convention prohibits:
engage in CWC-prohibited
activity.
● The use of riot control
agents “as a method of
warfare.”
The CWC requires parties to notify
the OPCW in writing of their
chemical weapons stockpiles,
chemical weapons production
facilities (CWPFs), relevant
chemical industry facilities, and
other weapons-related information.
This must be done within 30 days
of the entry into force of the
convention for each member state.
Chemical Weapons
Stockpiles—States-parties must
declare all chemical weapons
stockpiles, which are broken down
into three categories:
● Category 1: chemical
weapons based on Schedule
1 chemicals, including VX
and sarin. (See below for an
explanation of “scheduled”
chemicals.)

● Developing, producing, ● Category 2: chemical

acquiring, stockpiling, or weapons based on
retaining chemical non-Schedule 1 chemicals,
weapons. such as phosgene.

● The direct or indirect ● Category 3: chemical

transfer of chemical weapons including unfilled
weapons. munitions, devices and
equipment designed
● Chemical weapons use or specifically to employ
military preparation for use. chemical weapons.

● Assisting, encouraging, or Other weapons-related

inducing other states to declarations states-parties must
make include:
 ● Chemical weapons
production facilities on
their territories since
January 1, 1946.
● Facilities (such as
laboratories and test sites)
designed, constructed, or
used primarily for chemical
weapons development since
January 1, 1946.
● “Old” chemical weapons on
their territories (chemical
weapons manufactured
before 1925 or those
produced between 1925 and
1946 that have deteriorated
to such an extent that they
are no longer useable).
● “Abandoned” chemical
weapons (abandoned by
another state without
consent on or after January
1, 1925).
● Plans for destroying
weapons and facilities.
● All transfers or receipts of
chemical weapons or
chemical
weapons-production
equipment since January 1,
1946.
● All riot control agents in
their possession.
Chemical Industry—The CWC
requires states-parties to declare
chemical industry facilities that
produce or use chemicals of
concern to the convention. These
chemicals are grouped into
“schedules,” based on the risk they
pose to the convention. A facility
producing a Schedule 1 chemical is
considered a Schedule 1 facility.
● Schedule 1 chemicals and
precursors pose a “high
risk” to the convention and
are rarely used for peaceful
purposes. States-parties
may not retain these
chemicals except in small
quantities for research,
medical, pharmaceutical, or
defensive use. Many
Schedule 1 chemicals have
been stockpiled as chemical
weapons.
● Schedule 2 chemicals are
toxic chemicals that pose a
“significant risk” to the
convention and are
precursors to the production
of Schedule 1 or Schedule 2
chemicals. These chemicals
are not produced in large
quantities for commercial
or other peaceful purposes.
● Schedule 3 chemicals are
usually produced in large
quantities for purposes not
prohibited by the CWC but
still pose a risk to the
convention. Some of these
chemicals have been
stockpiled as chemical
weapons.
The CWC also requires the
declaration of facilities that
produce certain non-scheduled
chemicals.
Destruction Requirements
The convention requires
states-parties to destroy:
● All chemical weapons
under their jurisdiction or
control.
● All chemical weapons
production facilities under
their jurisdiction or control.
● Chemical weapons
abandoned on other states’
territories.
● Old chemical weapons.
The destruction of Category 1
chemical weapons must begin
within two years after the CWC
enters into force for a State Party.
Contracting states must destroy 1
percent within three years of the
CWC's entry into force, 20 percent
within five years, 45 percent within
seven years, and 100 percent
within 10 years. States that signed
the treaty when it entered into force
in 1997 had until April 29, 2007 to
complete the phase-out of Category
1 chemicals.
States parties that signed the treaty
when it entered into force were
supposed to destroy all their
stockpiles by 29 April 2012.
However, the OPCW can extend
these deadlines due to "exceptional
circumstances", and in December
2006 the OPCW Executive Council
granted almost all owners
extensions of various lengths. The
only exception was Albania, which
was the only state party that came
close to completely destroying its
stockpile at the time,
The destruction of category 2 and 3
chemical weapons must begin
within one year after the CWC
enters into force for a state party.
The phase-out of CWPFs capable
of producing Schedule 1 chemicals
must begin within one year after
the CWC enters into force for a
State Party. States parties that
signed the treaty when it originally
entered into force had until April
29, 2007 to complete CWPFs
producing Schedule 1 chemicals.
Liquidation of other CWPFs must
begin within one year after the
CWC enters into force for a State
Party. States parties that signed the
treaty when it originally entered
into force had until 29 April 2002
to complete the destruction.
Contracting States may request the
conversion of CWPFs into devices
that they may use for
non-prohibited purposes. Once
their requests were approved, the
States Parties that had signed the
treaty when it originally entered
into force had until 29 April 2003
to complete the conversion.
Trade
The convention encourages trade
among states-parties, calling upon
them not to maintain restrictions on
one another that would hamper the
trade of chemical-related items to
be used for peaceful purposes. The
 convention does restrict trade with
non-states-parties, outlawing the
transfer of Schedule 1 and 2
chemicals. To ensure that
Schedule 3 transfers to
non-states-parties are not used for
purposes prohibited by the
convention, the CWC requires
exporting states-parties to obtain an
end-use certificate from importing
states.
5. Previous Usage of Biological
Weapons/Toxins in War:
Since the first war broke out, man
has sought to use and abuse all
weapons at his disposal to deal
with enemies and biological
weapons and toxins are no
exception to this rule. From the
tossing of small-pox infected
blankets into indigenous
strongholds by American officers
to the use of biological weaponry
by the Japanese in WW2,
biological weapons, whether crude
or sophisticated, have played an
important role in the history of the
human race.
Unit 731
Unit 731 of the Imperial Japanese
Army, also known as the Kamo
Detachment or Ishii Unit, was a
secretive biological warfare
research and development unit that
partook in the manufacturing of
biological weapons alongside
deadly and inhumane
experimentation on humans. It was
based in what is now North-east
China which at the time was an
Imperial protectorate/puppet of the
Japanese Empire known as
Manchukuo’s largest city, Pingfang
with several branch offices all
throughout China and the rest of
Asia.
This unit is directly responsible for
approximately 200,000-300,000
deaths as a direct result of the
usage of its weapons and an
additional 500,000 deaths through
experimentation. Unit 731’s
weapons were primarily used in
areas of China that were not
occupied by Japan in order to
spread disarray and confusion
among the crumbling Qing
dynasty.
Unit 731 was disbanded after the
Tokyo district court found that it,
along with the Imperial Japanese
Army in general, had committed
several war crimes.
The impact that Unit 731 had upon
China and the war crimes
committed by the Imperial
Shogunate of Japan in general was
never acknowledged due to the
diplomatic immunity granted by
the United States of America to all
those who partook in the use of
biological weaponry within China
after they took control of the
persecution of the war crimes in
the region. Japan to this day does
not recognise its use of biological
weaponry as a war crime and
defends it despite having
dismantled Unit 731.
Korean War Allegations
The governments of the
People's Republic of China,
the Soviet Union, and North
Korea all claimed that the
US military employed
biological weapons during
the Korean War (June 1950
- July 1953). The claims
were made for the first time
in 1951. The story was
widely published and led to
a highly publicized
international inquiry in
1952. The charges were
dismissed as a hoax by
Secretary of State Dean
Acheson and other
American and allied
government officials.
As the conflict went against
the US in 1951, the Chinese
and North Koreans made
vague charges of biological
warfare, but these were not
investigated. General
Matthew Ridgway, the UN
Commander in Korea,
condemned the initial
claims in May 1951. He
accused the communists of
disseminating "deliberate
misinformation". Vice
Admiral Charles Turner Joy
reiterated the denials a few
days later.
The Chinese People's
Volunteer Army HQ got
word of a smallpox
epidemic southeast of
Incheon on January 28,
1952. More bulletins
recorded sickness
epidemics in the areas of
Chorwon, Pyongyang, Kim
Hwa, and even Manchuria
from February to March
1952. When 13 Korean and
16 Chinese troops caught
cholera and plague, and
another 44 recently
deceased tested positive for
meningitis, the Chinese
grew alarmed. Although the
Chinese and North Koreans
did not know how the
soldiers got the infections,
suspicion quickly fell on
the Americans.
In 1952, American planes
had dropped diseased
insects on North Korea. He
went on to say that the
Americans were "openly
working with Japanese
bacteriological war
criminals, former jackals of
Japanese militarists whose
crimes are undeniably
proven. Shiro Ishii, Jiro
Wakamatsu, and Masajo
Kitano were among the
Japanese war criminals
transferred to Korea." The
US administration quickly
refuted Pak's charges.
Eyewitness testimony from
Australian reporter Wilfred
Burchett and others backed
up the claim.
In June 1952, the United
States suggested to the
United Nations Security
Council that the claims be
investigated by the
International Red Cross.
The Soviet Union vetoed
the American resolution
because of the US's
substantial influence inside
the Red Cross, and it, along
with its allies, insisted on
the authenticity of the
biological warfare
claims.To back up their
claims, China and North
Korea provided two
captured US Marine Corps
pilots in February 1953.
Colonel Frank Schwable
was quoted as saying, "The
primary goal at the time
was to obtain various
aspects of bacteriological
warfare under field
circumstances and maybe
expand field testing at a
later date into an element of
regular combat operations."
According to Schwable's
allegation, B-29s began
flying biological warfare
missions to Korea from
airfields on
American-occupied
Okinawa in November
1951. According to the US
military, Schwable's
declaration was acquired
after months of torture and
abuse at the hands of his
captors. Colonel Walker
"Bud" Mahurin, another
captive American, made
similar remarks. Following
their release, the prisoners
of war denied their
confessions, which they
said were obtained under
torture.
The retractions, however,
took place in front of
military cameras when the
US administration
threatened to prosecute the
POWs with treason for
cooperating with their
captors. When Al Jazeera
reporters tracked down
Kenneth Enoch, one of the
former POWs who
withdrew his testimony, in
2010, he denied being
ill-treated or brainwashed
by North Korean or
Chinese guards.
Bio Weapons in World
War 1
World War I was called
``chemical warfare''
because it ushered in the
modern era of chemical
warfare. However, most of
the key chemical warfare
agents used during the war
were discoveries of the
eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries. Although
substances containing
cyanide have been used for
centuries as poisons, it was
not until 1782 that
hydrogen cyanide or
hydrocyanic acid (HCN)
was also isolated and
identified by Karl Scheele,
who later may have died
from cyanide poisoning in a
laboratory accident. The
agent is a colorless liquid
with a faint odor of bitter
almonds. The French called
it Yperite and the Germans
Lost. The German name
was derived by taking the
first two letters of the two
Germans Lommel and
Steinkopf, who proposed
and studied the use of this
agent in warfare. The first
use of mustard agent by the
Germans near Ypres,
Belgium, in July 1917,
marked the beginning of a
new phase of chemical
warfare, and inflicted about
15,000 British casualties in
three weeks. Chloropicrin
or trichloronitromethane
was prepared in 1848 by
Stenhouse and was
extensively used in World
War I. It is a pungent,
colorless, oily liquid that
caused oral–nasal irritation,
coughing, and vomiting. In
high dosages, it causes lung
damage and pulmonary
edema. It was first
employed dissolved in
sulfuryl chloride by the
Russians in 1916 in hand
grenades. In Germany it
was known as Klop, in
France as Aquinite, and PS
in the United States. At the
beginning of World War I,
both sides used munitions
filled with irritants such as
ethyl bromoacetate ,
chloroacetone,
o-dianisidine
chlorosulfonate, xylyl
bromide , or benzyl
bromide.
Thus, the first use of
chemicals in World War I
involved nonlethal tear gas,
which were used by both
the French and the Germans
in late 1914 and early 1915.
Germany was the leader in
first using chemical
weapons on the battlefield
and then introducing or
developing new chemical
agents to counter new
developments in protective
equipment.
Germany’s use of chemical
weapons on the battlefield
began on October 27, 1914
when they fired shells
loaded with dianisidine
chlorosulfonate, a tear gas,
at the British near Neuve
Chapelle. This tear gas
normally produces violent
sneezing. In this case,
however, the chemical
dispersed so rapidly in the
air that the British never
knew they were attacked by
gas. Following this
experiment, the Germans
continued to test other
potential chemical
weapons.
By the end of the war, it
was estimated that
approximately 1.2 million
soldiers were wounded by
the use of gas and over
91,000 were killed.
Reportedly, the Russians
alone suffered
approximately half a not use nerve agents or any
million chemical casualties.
Over 113,000 tons of
chemicals were released
and over 66 million gas
shells were fired during
World War I. What started
as innocent, peaceful, and
even humanitarian
commercial use of chemical
products led to the horrors
of chemical warfare on the
battlefield. With the end of
World War 1, innovation
struck the field of chemistry
in the form of a new
chemical.
Known as Zyklon A, the
gas contained an odorous
marker as a warning system
to prevent poisoning. One
of his insecticides, Zyklon
B, later became a standard
means for killing detainees
in Nazi concentration
camps during the World
War II Holocaust.
Bio Weapons in World
War 2
With the start of World War
II, Germany filled bombs,
shells, and rockets with
Tabun nerve agent. The
Germans, however, never
used them on the
battlefield. They remained
in storage until the end of
the war when the Allies
captured them and
discovered their existence.
The reasons Germany did
other chemical weapons are
still debated.
President Franklin
Roosevelt’s pledge in 1943
to not use chemical
weapons unless the United
States was attacked first
probably also helped
convince the Germans not
to initiate chemical warfare.
The U.S. preparation for
chemical warfare, however,
came at a cost. As part of
their preparations in case
Germany or Japan did use
chemical weapons, the U.S.
forward positioned
chemical agent stockpiles
around the world.
The only U.S. casualties
from mustard agent in
hostile action during World
War II, were those injured
or killed following a
German air raid on the
harbor of Bari, Italy, that
was heavily congested with
merchant ships off-loading
war supplies on December
2, 1943.
There were over 600
mustard agent casualties of
whom 83 died within a
month
. During the war, research
continued on both sides to
find new chemical warfare
agents. Soman, eventually
designated GD by the
United States, was
developed by the Germans
in 1944. Its name might
have been either derived
from the Greek verb ‘‘to
sleep’’ or the Latin stem
‘‘to bludgeon.’’ It is a
colorless liquid with a
fruity or camphor odor.
As the Allies overran
Germany in 1945, they
discovered the German
nerve agent program for the
first time. Both the United
States and the Soviet Union
took German technology
and made it their primary
focus for chemical warfare
agents.
The Russians apparently
continued to research new
nerve agents after World
War II. According to public
disclosures, the Russians
developed a highly toxic
binary nerve agent series
designated Novichok
during the 1980s. In
Russian, Novichok means
newcomer. Other than
tidbits disclosed by
defectors and disgruntled
scientists, very little else
about the Novichok series
is publicly known. For the
Russians, the advantage of
having new chemical agents
is that they have never been
previously used on the
battlefield. Thus the agents
are not banned by treaty,
there are no existing
detection and warning
devices, and the current
protective equipment is not
effective.
Bio-Weapons in the Cold
War:
In the Cold War era, which
followed World War II,
both the Soviet Union and
the United States, as well as
their respective allies,
embarked on large-scale
biological warfare R&D
and weapons production
programs. Those programs
were required by law to be
halted and dismantled upon
the signing of the
Biological Weapons
Convention (BWC) in 1972
and the entry into force of
that treaty in 1975. In the
case of the United States
and its allies, compliance
with the terms of the treaty
appears to have been
complete. Such was not the
case with the Soviet Union,
which conducted an
aggressive clandestine
biological warfare program
even though it had signed
and ratified the treaty. The
lack of a verification
regime to check members’
compliance with the BWC
made it easier for the
Soviets to flout the treaty 6. Role of Terrorist organizations
without being detected. and other Non state Actors:

The UN has defined

terrorism as the unlawful
After the demise of the use of force or violence
Soviet Union in 1991 and against persons or property
its subsequent division into to intimidate or coerce a
15 independent states, government, civilian
Russian Pres. Boris Yeltsin population, or any segment
confirmed that the Soviet thereof, to furtherance of
Union had violated the political or social
BWC, and he pledged to objectives. The first
terminate what remained of large-scale chemical
the old Soviet biological terrorism incident occurred
weapons program. (See also in the United States in
yellow rain.) However, 1982. Seven relatively
another problem young people in the
remained—that of the Chicago, Illinois area
potential transfer of collapsed suddenly and died
information, technical after taking Tylenol
assistance, production capsules that had been
equipment, materials, and laced with 65–100 mg
even finished biological cyanide per capsule. The
weapons to states and lethal dose of cyanide is
groups outside the borders approximately 0.5–1.0
of the former Soviet Union. mg=kg or about 70 mg for
The United States and the an adult person. These were
former Soviet republics the first victims to die from
pledged to work together to product tampering.
contain the spread of Not all chemical terrorism
biological warfare incidents involved lethal
capabilities. With financing chemicals. For example, a
from the U.S. Cooperative Palestinian homicide
Threat Reduction Program bomber sprinkled
and other sources, help in anticoagulant rat poison
obtaining civilian jobs in among the nuts and bolts of
other fields was also made his bomb that he exploded
available for some of the in a bus in Jerusalem,
estimated 60,000 scientists Israel. Among the
and technicians who had survivors, a 14 year old girl
worked in the Soviet was bleeding
biological warfare uncontrollably from every
programs. one of her puncture
wounds. Use of a coagulant
drug eventually stopped the
young victim’s bleeding.
Perhaps the most publicized
incident involving chemical
terrorism occurred in Japan
in 1995.
The Aum Shinrikyo, a
Japanese religious
doomsday sect, used Sarin
against civilians in Japan on
June 27, 1994. The sect
targeted a dormitory in
Matsumoto where three
judges who ruled against
them in a land deal trial
lived. The sect attempted to
spread Sarin in the open,
however, the chemical
reaction did not work right
and the wind changed
direction. The judges
survived, but became ill.
Seven victims in the
neighborhood died that
evening and over 144
civilians were injured. Aum
Shinrikyo’s next attempt
was to spread Sarin in a
closed area. They chose the
subway system in 16
Chemical Warfare Agents:
Chemistry, Pharmacology,
Toxicology, and
Therapeutics Tokyo, Japan
on March 20, 1995, where
five trains would meet at
8:15 AM. Members of the
sect on the trains pierced
plastic bags containing 30%
Sarin with sharp tipped
umbrellas and let the Sarin
evaporate into a lethal gas
cloud. Twelve passengers
on the train died and about
5500 sought medical
treatment.
7. Implementation of
Anti-Biological Weapons
treaties:
The BWC: The biological
weapons and toxins convention has
not been very successful in
preventing the stockpiling and use
of biological weapons due to the
fact that it lacks a verification
mechanism as well as a mechanism
for the accountability of countries
which violate the convention.
8. Health effects of biological
weapons:
Biological and toxin weapons are
either microorganisms like viruses,
bacteria or fungi, or toxic
substances produced by living
organisms that are produced and
released deliberately to cause
disease and death in humans,
animals or plants.
Biological agents like anthrax,
botulinum toxin and plague can
pose a difficult public health
challenge causing large numbers of
deaths in a short amount of time.
Biological agents which are
capable of secondary transmission
can lead to epidemics. An attack
involving a biological agent may
mimic a natural event, which may
complicate the public health
assessment and response. In case of
war and conflict, high-threat
pathogens laboratories can be
targeted, which might lead to
serious public health consequences.
Biological weapons form a subset
of a larger class of weapons
sometimes referred to as
unconventional weapons or
weapons of mass destruction,
which also includes chemical,
nuclear and radiological weapons.
The use of biological agents is a
serious concern, and the risk of
using these agents in a terrorist
attack is thought to be increasing.
Many analysts rank cultured and
genetically engineered biological
organisms as the most dangerous of
all existing weapons technologies,
with the potential for producing
more extensive and devastating
effects on human populations than
even fusion nuclear weapons
(Henderson 1999). Biological
weapons (bioweapons) are defined
as biological organisms, and
substances derived directly from
living organisms, that can be used
to cause death or injury to humans,
animals, or plants. Diseases and
biological toxins have been used as
weapons of war throughout
recorded history, from at least as
early as Biblical times to the
present day. Historically,
bioweapons were used primarily,
although not exclusively, for direct
attacks against human populations.
Biowarfare has historically
involved the use of plant and
fungal toxins (hellebore, ergot),
animal carcasses, human cadavers,
disease-contaminated clothing or
blankets, and fecal matter. The
potential spectrum of bioterrorism
ranges from isolated acts against
individuals by individuals (rogue
scientist or Una bomber-type
scenarios) to tactical and strategic
military uses and state-sponsored
international terrorism intended to
cause mass casualties within or
among humans or animals or both.
Perhaps the oldest traditional
application of bioweapon
techniques has been the
contamination or poisoning of
drinking water sources using
animal carcasses, human cadavers,
feces, or poisonous plants and their
derivatives. During the 14th
century, Mongol armies catapulted
the infected corpses of plague
victims over the walls into the
besieged city of Caffa, in what is
now the Crimea, to try to force the
surrender of the city's inhabitants.
During the 18th century, the British
colonial army used
smallpox-contaminated blankets to
spread disease among Native
American tribes in northeastern
North America and
smallpox-infected civilian
infiltrators to spread disease among
insurgent American militias during
the American Revolutionary War.
Government-sponsored scientific
research into the development of
technologically sophisticated
applications of biological weapons
for use against humans, livestock,
and crops began during the early
decades of the 20th century. Most
government bioweapons programs
included research on the culture
and testing of disease agents
intended specifically for use
against livestock and food crops
(Ban 2000). During World War I,
Germany investigated techniques
for using anthrax, glanders,
cholera, and fungal diseases of
wheat as biological weapons.
German espionage agents
attempted to create outbreaks of
anthrax among livestock in
Romania and Argentina and spread
glanders among horses and
mules—then still critically
important as cavalry mounts and
draft animals for the transport of
artillery, ordnance, and
supplies—in Mesopotamia, France,
Argentina, and the United States.
Germany was also implicated in an
attempt to precipitate an epidemic
of plague among humans in St.
Petersburg, Russia. Japan
developed and used biological
weapons against human and animal
populations in Asia during the
period 1932–1945. Plague-infected
fleas were reportedly used by the
Japanese to precipitate plague
epidemics in China during World
War II, and it has been estimated
that some 10,000 human subjects
were used for bioweapon
experiments in China involving
anthrax, plague, tularemia, and
smallpox.
During the 1980s and 1990s,
Soviet scientists used newly
developed genetic engineering
techniques to create
antibiotic-resistant and
vaccine-subverting strains of
smallpox, anthrax, plague, and
tularemia for bioweapon
applications. Genetically modified
zoonotic and epizootic diseases of
humans and animals (plague,
tularemia, anthrax) and virulent
cultivated or wild strains of natural
livestock diseases (e.g., foot and
mouth disease [FMD], rinderpest,
brucellosis) represent potentially
serious threats to livestock,
wildlife, and endangered species
populations. Plant diseases
developed for bioweapons
applications against food crops,
opium poppies, and coca plants
may, however, infect non-targeted
species of wild plants and become
established locally subsequent to
their introduction to new
environments.
Bioterrorist uses of enzootic
livestock diseases and emerging
zoonotic diseases (diseases that can
be transmitted between animal and
human populations) represent a
potentially serious threat to
livestock and wildlife populations
never previously exposed to these
diseases. This risk holds true even,
and perhaps especially in some
instances, for wildlife species that
may become infected by serious
livestock diseases without
exhibiting overt clinical signs of
infection. Many formerly
ubiquitous diseases that have been
eradicated from livestock
populations in the United States
and Western Europe over the past
century are still common elsewhere
and readily accessible to
individuals and terrorist
organizations. Vaccines for many
animal diseases still common in
developing countries have been
phased out in Europe and North
America, and these vaccines, along
with drugs for routine treatment,
may not be readily available in
sufficient quantities to suppress
large-scale disease outbreaks
among animals and livestock.
Many of the bioweapons agents
cultured and tested for use against
animals and humans during the
early decades of the 20th century
were not highly contagious
organisms. Current biological
weapons arsenals, however,
include diseases that are highly
infectious and contagious, easy to
produce and deploy, and able to
cause high morbidity or mortality
in human and animal populations.
Diseases of particular concern for
their bioweapons potential include
smallpox, tularemia, plague,
Newcastle disease, FMD, classical
swine fever (“hog cholera”), avian
influenza, African swine fever, Rift
Valley fever, African horse
sickness, rinderpest, and
Venezuelan equine
encephalomyelitis. Prior
assumptions that bioweaponeers
and bioterrorists might not be
willing to endanger their own lives
in developing and deploying highly
contagious human diseases need to
be reevaluated in the light of the
many recent suicide attacks in the
United States and Israel.
It is important to emphasize that
bioterrorist attacks against
livestock or crops do not require
access to weaponized diseases or
laboratory cultures of disease
organisms, nor do they involve
organisms that may cause disease
in humans. Samples of infectious
materials obtained or cultured from
infected plants or animals (or
by-products thereof) are all that
would be required in many
instances. Natural, highly virulent
diseases of livestock that are easily
acquired and transported, not
dangerous to humans, and capable
of causing catastrophic epidemics
in countries with industrialized
livestock production methods are
common and widely distributed
within many countries around the
world. Virulent contagious diseases
of livestock such as anthrax,
rinderpest, and FMD are still
enzootic and sometimes even
common within a number of
countries associated with highly
organized, well-financed, and
globally active terrorist
organizations. No elaborate
delivery technologies or methods
are necessary for clandestine,
economically targeted bioweapons
attacks on agricultural crops or
livestock. All that is required is a
willing actor or conspirator, a little
careful planning, and access to an
appropriate disease agent.
The use of bioweapons for the
purpose of economic sabotage
against national agricultural and
livestock industries is a potentially
serious threat to biodiversity. Not
only do bioweapons have direct
effects on the genetic diversity of
domesticated plants and animals,
there is also the potential for both
direct and indirect consequences on
plant and animal populations. In
this article, we focus on the
potential effects of the use of
laboratory-cultured bioweapons as
well as natural (“wild-type”)
disease organisms as biological
weapons within and among animal
populations. Much of what we
discuss also applies to the potential
effects of plant bioweapons on
nontarget species of wild and
domesticated plants.
CASE STUDIES:
1. Syria
In July 2012, Syria publicly
acknowledged that it
possesses chemical
weapons. For a number of
years preceding this
announcement, the U.S.
intelligence community
assessed that Syria has a
stockpile of chemical
weapons, including blister
agents such as mustard gas,
and nerve agents such as
sarin and VX. Syria has the
capability to deliver these
agents using aerial bombs,
ballistic missiles, and
artillery rockets. An
Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons-UN joint
investigative team found
Syria and the Islamic State
responsible for numerous
chemical weapons attacks
in Syria over the past
several years.
2. Yemen
When hundreds of
thousands of people rallied
in Yemen in a show of
support for the Supreme
Political Council, which
was recently formed to run
the country, the Saudis were
disillusioned. Initially
aiming to reinstate former
President Abd Rabbu
Mansour Hadi, who
answers to Riyadh, the
Saudis launched the bloody
war and have been
pounding Yemen in order to
secure their grip on power.
The wide public support
that this council received
following the failure of
negotiations between the
Saudis and Yemenis dealt a
blow to authorities in the
kingdom.
This political development
in Yemen, where despite all
the killings and destruction
people still believe that they
will triumph against the
Saudi-led coalition, has
been much of a
disappointment to the
Saudis whose agenda
implementation has been
hindered.
Aware of this, Saudi
Arabia’s Mufti Abdul Aziz
al-Sheikh has called for the
forced recruitment of young
people to participate in the
attack on Yemen.
The use of chemical
weapons is another sign of
an ongoing crisis in the
Saudis’ camp. The Saudis
believe that the more they
hurt the Yemeni people, the
easier it will be to defeat
them but this strategy has
proven to be
counter-effective.
Nonetheless, they are still
following it in a bid to turn
the course of the war to
their advantage.
Although the use of
chemical weapons against
civilians is supposed to be a
US-drawn red line, Saudi
Arabia and its allies are
using it freely. Amid
international silence and
lack of action against the
Saudi-led aggression on
Yemen, the red lines that
are allegedly drawn to
protect the innocent during
wartime are being crossed
blindly simply because
there is no world power
ready to hold Riyadh
accountable for its actions.
There are, however, meager
efforts by organizations to
put an end to the Saudi war
on Yemen in the form of
calls to halt arms sales to
Riyadh.
On Monday, Control Arms,
a coalition of NGOs, called
on France, Britain and the
United States to halt sales
to Saudi Arabia over its
actions in Yemen, saying
the trio was guilty of “the
worst kind of hypocrisy”.
The call was made during
the second conference on
the UN-backed Arms Trade
Treaty (ATT).
By continuing to sell
weapons to Saudi Arabia
the three countries “are
violating [the treaty] with
impunity”, said Control
Arms director Anna
Macdonald referring to
ATT which “requires states
to block arms deals if there
are grounds for believing
the weapons will be used
against civilians.”
Yet it would not be a
surprise should these
countries continue their
arms sales to Saudi Arabia
despite the atrocities it is
committing against the
people of Yemen. The past
has shown that such powers
don’t always take the side
of the oppressed but rather
that in which their interests
lie.
The Israeli regime for
example has carried out
numerous wars against the
Gaza Strip. The crimes the
Israelis have committed
have not stopped donations,
arms sales, and
endorsements.
Tel Aviv possesses weapons
of mass destruction and is
in fact considered a
nuclear-armed country
which is not recognized as a
Nuclear Weapons State by
the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
According to the US
Congress Office of
Technology Assessment,
the Israeli regime is
reported as having
undeclared chemical
warfare capabilities and an
offensive biological warfare
program.
Former US deputy assistant
secretary of defense
responsible for chemical
and biological defense Dr.
Bill Richardson said in
1998: "I have no doubt that
Israel has worked on both
chemical and biological
offensive things for a long
time... There's no doubt
they've had stuff for years.”
We can learn from the
West’s stance toward the
Israeli regime. We can also
see that history repeats
itself. What the Israelis
have allegedly done to
Palestinians, the Saudis are
allegedly doing to Yemenis.
All the while, the world
stands idly by ranting about
human rights and doing
nothing about it.
3. Ukraine
After the intervention
conducted in Ukraine by
the Russian Federation in
2022, The Russian
Federation found
documents in April 2022
regarding Biological
weapons labs in Ukraine
producing a plethora of
biological weapons in
collaboration with the
United States of America .
The United States of
America and Ukraine have
outright declined any
affiliation with these
Biological weapons labs
while the Russian
Federation blames the 2
countries for violating
multiple international
treaties and conventions
Topic B: Disarmament and the
Security of the Levant and the
wider Middle East region:
From being the cradle of
human civilization to being
the birthplace of the semitic
religions, the Levant and
the Middle East represent
one of the most important
regions in the world. The
only thing to match the
region’s historical, religious
and geopolitical importance
is its socio-economic and
 political instability. This
instability has a number of
causes, primarily a mixture
of its colonial past and
economic disparity that
leads to this very instability.
1. Defining the ‘Middle
East’;
The Middle East, in its
most accurate definition,
encompasses Arabia, Asia
Minor, East Thrace, Egypt,
Iran, the Levant,
Mesopotamia, and the
Socotra Archipelago. In
terms of countries, you
have Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bahrain, Iran, Iraq,
Israel/Palestine, Jordan,
Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria,
Turkey, United Arab
Emirates, and Yemen. The
term Middle East came into
use fairly recently, as a
replacement for the term
Near-East which was
deemed to be too
insensitive and euro-centric.
The idea of the Middle East
as a region stems from the
ideas of Orientalism and the
vague European notion of
an East and a West. It was
this very split that allowed
for colonialism and
imperialism to take root
during the age of Empires.
However, historically
speaking, the Middle East
has had more in common
with places like Italy and
France than Nordic
countries have for a
majority of history. From
being prominent parts of
the Roman Empire, to then
the seats for the Byzantine
Empire and being the
birthplace of Christianity,
the religion of the West, the
Middle East has not been a
politically distinct area
from the West or Europe.
2. The Middle East’s
Colonial Past;
I. Armenia,
The regions of medieval
Armenia (also known as
Eastern Armenia) under
Persian authority, centered
on Yerevan and Lake
Sevan, were absorbed into
Russia following Qajar
Persia's forced surrendering
in 1828 per the Treaty of
Turkmenchay. The area
roughly matching
modern-day Armenian
territory was known as the
"Province of Yerevan"
during Russian
administration. In
comparison to their
Ottoman counterparts,
Russian Empire Armenian
subjects lived in greater
safety, however skirmishes elderly, and the infirm on
with Tatars and Kurds were death marches leading to
common in the early the Syrian Desert. Driven
twentieth century. Despite forward by military escorts,
benefiting from the the deportees were deprived
advanced Russian culture, of food and water and
wider access to European subjected to periodic
philosophy, and larger robbery, rape, and
economic initiative, massacre.
Russian Armenians were
denied equal educational
and administrative chances It was this oppression and
as many other ethnic and colonialism that eventually
religious minorities. led to the shattered
economic and political state
that Armenia finds itself in
In 1915, the Ottoman today.
Empire allegedly carried
out a systematic genocide
against Armenians in the
region's western areas. This
was foreshadowed by a II. Azerbaijan,
wave of killings from 1894
With the Iranian loss in the
to 1896, and another in
Russo-Persian war of
Adana in 1909. On April
1826-1828, the remaining
24, 1915, Ottoman officials
Caucasian areas, under
gathered, imprisoned, and
Persian control, were then
deported between 235 and
ceded by the Qajars, which
270 Armenian academics
included the rest of
and community leaders
Azerbaijan (the Nakhchivan
from Constantinople to the
and Lankaran Khanates)
Ankara territory, where the
and Armenia's Erivan
majority were executed.
Khanate. Tariffs on Russian
The genocide occurred
exports were reduced, and
during and after World War
Russia could maintain a
I, and was carried out in
navy in the Caspian Sea.
two stages: the wholesale
The Treaty of Turkmenchay
slaughter of the able-bodied
governed Russian-Iranian
male population through
ties until 1917, creating
massacre and the forced
Azerbaijan and Iran's
labour of army conscripts,
current boundaries once
followed by the deportation
Khanate rule ended. Two
of women, children, the
provinces were created in
the
newly-Russian-controlled
regions, which comprised
the majority of modern-day
Azerbaijan: Elisavetpol
(Ganja) in the west and
Shamakhi District in the
east. Azerbaijanis are
presently split between two
countries: Azerbaijan and
Iran. The Russian invasion
prompted a migration of
Caucasian Muslims to Iran,
including numerous Turkic
peoples from north of the
Aras.
Despite the Russian
intervention, interest with
Iranian culture, literature,
and language remained
prevalent among Shia and
Sunni intellectuals in the
Russian-held towns of
Baku, Ganja, and Tiflis
during the whole 19th
century (Tbilisi, now
Georgia). At the end of the
nineteenth century, in
post-Iranian Russian-held
East Caucasia, an
Azerbaijani national
identity evolved.
Azerbaijan was ruled by the
Tsar's troops from the
Russian invasions until the
1840s. Russia divided the
region's khanates into
provinces, each ruled by an
army general and subject to
a hybrid amalgamation of
local and Russian law.
However, because of the
officers' unfamiliarity with
local customs, Russian
imperial law was
progressively imposed,
causing local resentment.
Non-Christian Azerbaijanis
were treated unequally by
Russian rule; religious
officials were kept under
control, which irritated
non-Christians. Russia
made active attempts to
govern the administration
of Islamic law, and two
ecclesiastical boards were
established to monitor
Islamic activities; a mufti
was appointed to the Sunni
board, while a shaykh
al-Islam was appointed to
the Shia board. Georgian
and Armenian religious
leaders were allowed to
censor their individual
communities in 1857, while
Muslim religious writings
were accepted by an
Odessan censorship board.
Russian evangelism
targeted Azerbaijani Turks.
III. Bahrain,
Bahrain, while never an
outright colony, was for a
good period of time a vassal
and protectorate of the
British. So in essence, true
self determination for
Bahrain was not possible
during this period.
The British signed two
treaties with Al Khalifa (the
ruler of Bahrain) in 1880
and 1892, ceding authority
of Bahrain's defense and
foreign affairs to Britain
and establishing Bahrain as
a British colonial
protectorate. Following an
episode in 1904 in which a
relative of the emperor
assaulted Persians and
Germans, the ruler
consented to delegate
authority over foreign
affairs to the British.
Because Bahrain had no
naturalization programme,
population census, or
emigration bureau, the
word "foreigner" was
ambiguous. This, along
with the fast increasing
number of foreigners as a
result of the pearl boom,
resulted in the
establishment of a dual
authority structure, one led
by the British agent and the
other by the Al Khalifa
monarch (Isa bin Ali).
During the First World War,
Bahrain was threatened
again by Wahhabis, who
re-occupied the eastern part
of Arabia, Ottoman and
Persian, both of which did
not drop their claims over
the island. Britain
responded to tightening its
hold over Bahrain.
Bahrainis were not
sympathetic with the allies,
which the British attributed
to their lack of attention
toward Shia oppression and
enforcement of reforms.
When war ended, Britain
changed its policy in
Bahrain from being
cautious and giving advice
to the ruler, to directly
implementing reforms.
IV. Iran,
Iran was never colonized by
European nations, yet this
did not shield it from the
United Kingdom's colonial
reach.
The British-India Company
gained a monopoly on the
tobacco trade in Iran in the
late nineteenth century, at
the expense of the
indigenous merchant class.
The UK obtained exclusive
rights to prospect for oil in
Iran around the turn of the
twentieth century, resulting
in the founding of the
Anglo-Persian Oil
Company in 1908.
Dissatisfaction with these
exclusive privileges, as well
as the Persian dynasties'
failure to defy colonial
pressure, were important
sources of public outrage
and strikes.
The 1906 constitutional
revolution was motivated
by a desire to limit the
king's absolute authority
and foreign influence in
Iran. The revolution began
in the public garden outside
the British Embassy in
Tehran, which is telling.
Until 1951, when it agreed
to nationalize Iranian oil
and kick out the
Anglo-Persian Oil
Company, the Iranian
parliament had stayed a
symbolic power. This was a
significant accomplishment
in defending Iran's national
interests, but charismatic
Prime Minister Mohammad
Mossadegh paid a high
price for his leadership.
The American CIA and the
British government worked
along with the Iranian King
to remove Mossadegh from
power in 1953. Mossadegh
was humiliated in a false
trial after the coup and
spent the remainder of his
life under house
imprisonment.
Until 1979, the main theme
of Iran's dealings with the
West was weak dynasties
submitting to colonial
forces. This was how the
people perceived the
Pahlavi dynasty as it
solidified its ties with the
United States in the
post-World War II era. The
anti-American component
of the 1979 revolution
reflected a widely held
perception that Washington
was the dynasty's basis.
V. Iraq,
During World War I, Britain
captured Iraq from Ottoman
Turkey and was given a
mandate to rule the country
by the League of Nations in
1920. In 1921, a Hashemite
monarchy was established
under British protection,
and the kingdom of Iraq
gained independence on
October 3, 1932. The Iraqi
government maintained
tight economic and military
links with the United
Kingdom, sparking many
anti-British revolts. In
1941, a pro-Axis uprising
prompted British military
involvement, and the Iraqi
government agreed to back
the Allied war effort. The
monarchy was deposed in
1958, and Iraq was
administered by a
succession of military and
civilian governments for the
following two decades.
This constant state of
upheaval and duress in the
region is what eventually
caused the economic and
political collapse of Iraq
later down the line.
VI. Israel/Palestine,
The issue of Israel-Palestine
is one that has endless
complications and oddities
and has such powerful
political biases at play that
it is nie-impossible to
present simple facts about
the situation. Therefore, the
best way to understand the
colonial past of
Israel-Palestine is through a
simple timeline.
1948: A regional conflict
grows amid the end of the
British mandate for
Palestine and Israel’s
declaration of independence
in May 1948. A coalition of
Arab states, allied with
Palestinian factions, battle
Israeli forces. In the end,
Israel controls a large
portion of territory.
Hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians flee or are
driven from their land.
July 1956: Egyptian
President Gamal Abdel
Nasser nationalizes the
Suez Canal, a vital trade
route connecting the Red
Sea and Mediterranean.
Israel invades Egypt,
followed by forces from
Britain and France. A peace
deal, backed by the United
States and Soviet Union,
ends the fighting. But the
canal was blocked by
sunken ships and did not
reopen until 1957.
June 1967: The “Six-Day
War” begins with Israeli
warplanes striking Egyptian
airfields and Israeli ground
forces entering the Sinai
Peninsula. The war broke
out amid lingering
conflicts, including Egypt’s
continued block of shipping
into the Gulf of Aqaba.
Jordan joins the fighting
alongside Egypt, but Israeli
forces have the upper hand
after nearly wiping out
Egypt’s air power. Israel
takes control of the Gaza
Strip, Sinai, the West Bank,
the Golan Heights and
predominantly Arab East
Jerusalem. Hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians
flee or are displaced.
October 1973: A coalition
of Arab nations, led by
Egypt and Syria, launch a
surprise attack on Israel.
The Arab forces initially
gained ground, but were
driven back by an Israeli
counteroffensive aided by
supplies from allies,
including the United States.
1978: A peace deal between
Egyptian President Anwar
Sadat and Israeli Prime
Minister Menachem Begin,
known as the Camp David
accords, is brokered on
Sept. 17, 1978, by President
Jimmy Carter. Potential
Palestinian peace proposals
were discussed, but never
carried out.
December 1987: A compound in Jerusalem
Palestinian uprising, or
intifada, brings clashes and
protests in the West Bank,
Gaza and Israel. Unrest
continues for years, with
many killed or injured on
both sides.
1993: The first of two
pacts, known as the Oslo
accords, are signed between
Israel and the Palestine
Liberation Organization,
setting out a peace process
based on previous U.N.
resolutions. (A follow-up
accord was signed in 1995.)
The agreements created the
Palestinian Authority, to
oversee most administrative
affairs in the West Bank
and Gaza. The PLO is
recognized by Israel and the
United States as a 1,110 Palestinians and at
negotiating partner. Left
unresolved, however, are
key issues such as Israeli
settlements in the West
Bank and the status of
Jerusalem, which is viewed
by the Palestinians as the
capital of any future state.
2000: The second intifada,
or Palestinian uprising,
begins after riots broke out
following a visit by
right-wing Israeli political
figure Ariel Sharon (and
later prime minister) to a
venerated in Judaism,
Christianity and Islam.
Clashes and other violence
continued until 2005,
leaving hundreds dead on
both sides.
2006: The Palestinian
militant group Hamas wins
elections in Gaza, leading
to political strains with the
more moderate Fatah party
controlling the West Bank.
December 2008: Israel
begins three weeks of
attacks on Gaza after rocket
barrages into Israel by
Palestinian militants, who
are supplied by tunnels
from Egypt. More than
least 13 Israelis are killed.
November 2012: Israel
kills Hamas military chief
Ahmed Jabari, touching off
more than a week of rocket
fire from Gaza and Israeli
airstrikes. At least 150
Palestinians and six Israelis
are killed.
Summer 2014: Hamas
militants kill three Israeli
teenagers kidnapped near a
Jewish settlement in the
West Bank, prompting an
Israeli military response.
Hamas answers with rocket
attacks from Gaza. A
seven-week conflict leaves
more than 2,200
Palestinians dead in Gaza.
In Israel, 67 soldiers and six
civilians are killed.
December 2017: The
Trump administration
recognizes Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel and
announces that it plans to
shift the U.S. Embassy
from Tel Aviv, stirring
outrage from Palestinians.
2018: Protests take place in
Gaza along the fence with
Israel, including
demonstrators hurling rocks
and gasoline bombs across
the barrier. Israeli troops
kill more than 170
protesters over several
months. In November,
Israel stages a covert raid
into Gaza. At least seven
suspected Palestinian
militants and a senior
Israeli army officer are
killed. From Gaza,
hundreds of rockets are
fired into Israel.
May 2021: After weeks of
tension in Jerusalem led to
Israeli police raiding
al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the
holiest sites in Islam,
Hamas fired rockets toward
the city for the first time in
years, prompting Israel to
retaliate with airstrikes. The
fighting, the fiercest since
at least 2014, saw
thousands of rockets fired
from Gaza and hundreds of
airstrikes on the Palestinian
territory, with more than
200 killed in Gaza and at
least 10 killed in Israel.
VII. Jordan,
Following the Great Arab
Revolt against the
Ottomans in 1916 during
World War I, Britain and
France partitioned the
Greater Syria territory. The
Hashemite, then Emir,
Abdullah I, formed the
Emirate of Transjordan in
1921, and the emirate
became a British
protectorate. Jordan
obtained independence in
1946 and was renamed the
Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan in Arabic.
VIII. Saudi-Arabia,
 Saudi-Arabia, although
never formally colonized,
has been in what can be
roughly referred to as the
“British Sphere of
Influence”. After the
collapse of the Ottoman
Empire, the Arabian
Peninsula, which was
primarily comprised of
Ottoman vassals or outright
Ottoman territories, was
transferred from the
Ottomans to the British and
Saudi-Arabia was part of
these countries.
Overview;
Once you look at the
Middle East as a whole a
pattern of colonialism and
imperialism emerges rather
soon. The impact of this
imperialism and whether or
not it is to blame for the
current instability within
the region is up for debate.
3. The Role of Non-State
Actors in the Middle East
Non-state actors have been
critical in all Middle
Eastern crisis’, particularly
where these groups are
violent. Various
organizations and
governments, many of
which cooperate in one area
while competing in another,
have backed non-state
actors in these disputes.
Influential nations have
tried to hijack non-state
actors for geopolitical
objectives, often blurring
the distinctions between
traditional civil society
organizations (CSOs) and
militarily active groups,
particularly in crisis zones.
Many of the countries in
MENA that are now in
conflict had little to no
active civil society before
the 2011 uprisings.
International powers then
flooded conflict zones with
financial and military
support that flowed through
to non state actors, armed
and unarmed alike. As the
wars have unfolded, the
digitization of conflict has
deepened polarization.
Social media has been a
primary tool in spreading
misinformation and
disinformation and in
fostering culture wars that
have penetrated societies
and deepened social
fractures, which will endure
long after the fighting stops.
This is another aspect in
which international
geopolitics has conditioned
the nonstate sphere in
MENA conflicts. Finally,
funding from external
actors has been geared
toward influencing the
court of public opinion to
drive support for these
 actors’ positions in the Islamic State,
conflicts. although it abruptly
withdrew some of
4. Recent Conflicts in the its forces in 2019
Middle East ahead of Turkey's
a. The Syrian Civil North Atlantic
War Treaty Organization
(NATO) invasion of
Ten years since northern Syria. ally.
protesters in Syria The Turks have
first demonstrated pushed Kurdish
against the Assad forces, the United
family's four-year States' main local
rule, hundreds of partner in the fight
thousands of against Islamic
Syrians have been State, out of the
killed and some border areas. Russia
twelve million has also carried out
people - more than airstrikes in Syria,
half of the country's putting itself on the
pre-war population - defense of the Assad
displaced. The regime, while
country descended Iranian forces and
into an increasingly their Hezbollah
complex civil war: allies have done the
jihadists promoting same on the ground.
a Sunni theocracy
overshadowed Syria is likely to
opposition forces face years of
fighting for a instability. Hopes
democratic and for regime change
pluralistic Syria, and have largely faded
regional powers and peace talks have
supported various been fruitless. The
local forces to government has
advance their regained control of
geopolitical interests most of the country
on Syria's and Assad's hold on
battlefields. The power appears
United States leads secure. However,
the coalition Turkish forces
carrying out remain entrenched
airstrikes against the in the north and
self-proclaimed areas of
 northeastern Syria
are either under the
control of Kurdish
forces or remain
without a Israeli-Palestinian
government.
Meanwhile, the
Syrian people are
suffering from an
economic crisis.
b. Palestinian-Israeli
Conflict
The Israeli-Palestinian
conflict is one of the
world's most enduring
conflicts, which began in
the mid-20th century.
Various attempts have been
made to resolve the conflict
within the
Israeli–Palestinian peace
process, along with other
efforts to resolve the
broader Arab–Israeli
conflict. Public declarations
of claims for a Jewish
homeland in Palestine,
including the First Zionist
Congress in 1897 and the
Balfour Declaration of
1917, caused early tensions
in the region. After the First
World War, the Mandate for
Palestine contained a contested areas. Most peace
binding obligation to
"establish a national home
for the Jewish people in
Palestine". The tension
escalated into open
sectarian conflict between
Jews and Arabs. The 1947
Partition Plan for Palestine
was never implemented and
sparked the 1947–1949
Palestine War. The current
status
quo began after Israel's
military occupation of the
Palestinian territories in the
1967 Six-Day War.
The Oslo Accords of
1993–1995 made progress
towards a two-state
solution, but the occupation
and blockade of the Gaza
Strip has continued since
2005. Final status issues
include the status of
Jerusalem, Israeli
settlements, borders,
security and water rights, as
well as Palestinian freedom
of movement and the
Palestinian right of return.
The violence of the conflict
in the region – rich in sites
of historical, cultural and
religious interest worldwide
– has been the subject of
many international
conferences dealing with
historical rights, security
issues and human rights;
and has been a limiting
factor for tourism in, and
general access to, highly
efforts have centered
around the two-state
solution, which involves the
creation of an independent
Palestinian state alongside
Israel. However, public
support for the two-state
solution, which previously
enjoyed the support of both
Israeli Jews and
Palestinians, has been
waning in recent years.
In Israeli and Palestinian
society, the conflict creates
a wide range of views and
opinions. Since the
beginning of the conflict,
casualties have not been
limited to combatants, with
large numbers of civilian
casualties on both sides. A
minority of Jewish Israelis
(32 percent) support a
two-state solution with the
Palestinians. Israeli Jews
are divided along
ideological lines, with
many favoring the
maintenance of the status
quo. About 60% of
Palestinians (77% in the
Gaza Strip and 46% in the
West Bank) support armed
attacks against Israelis in
Israel as a means to end the
occupation, while 70%
believe a two-state solution
is no longer possible.
practical or possible as a
result of Israeli settlement
expansion. More than
two-thirds of Israeli Jews
say that if the West Bank
were annexed by Israel,
Palestinians living there
should not be allowed to
vote. Mutual mistrust and
significant disagreements
run deep on fundamental
issues, as does mutual
skepticism about the other
side's commitment to honor
commitments in a potential
bilateral agreement. Since
2006, the Palestinian
Authority has been torn by
conflict between Fatah, the
traditionally dominant
party, and its later electoral
rival, Hamas, the militant
Islamist group that gained
control of Gaza. Attempts
to fix it have been repeated
and continue. Since 2019,
the Israeli party has also
experienced political
upheavals, with four
inconclusive parliamentary
elections held in two years.
The latest round of peace
talks began in July 2013 but
was suspended in 2014.
Since 2006, Hamas and
Israel have fought four
wars, the last in 2021.
c. Kurdish Crisis
The main rebel
group is the
Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK)
(Kurdish: Partiya
Karkerên
Kurdistané). Most
of the conflict has
taken place in
northern Kurdistan,
which corresponds
to southeastern
Turkey. The conflict
has cost the Turkish military coup in
economy an 1980, the Kurdish
estimated $300 language was
billion to $450 officially banned in
billion, mostly in public and private
military costs. life until 1991.Many
who spoke,
published or sang in
The PKK Kurdish were
revolutionary group arrested and
was founded in imprisoned.
1978 in the village d. Yemeni Civil War
of Fis, Lice by a
group of Kurdish The Yemeni Civil
students under the War is an ongoing
leadership of multilateral civil
Abdullah Öcalan. war that began in
The original reason late 2014 primarily
given by the PKK between the Yemeni
for this was the government led by
oppression of the Rashad al-Alimi and
Kurds in Turkey. At the armed Houthi
the time, the use of movement, along
the Kurdish with their supporters
language, dress, and allies. Both
folklore and names claim to form the
was banned in areas official government
inhabited by Kurds. of Yemen.
In an attempt to
deny their existence,
the Turkish
government
categorized the The civil war began
Kurds as "Mountain in September 2014
Turks" during the when Houthi forces
1930s and 1940s. took over the capital
The words "Kurds", Sanaa, followed by
"Kurdistan" or a swift takeover of
"Kurdishness" have the Houthi
been officially government. On 21
banned by the March 2015, the
Turkish Houthi-led Supreme
government. After a Revolutionary
Committee declared influence in the
a general region.
mobilization to
overthrow
then-President
Abdrabbuh Mansur
Hadi and expand its Houthi forces
control by driving currently control the
into the southern capital Sana'a and
provinces. A Houthi all of North Yemen
offensive, allied except Marib
with military forces Governorate. They
loyal to Saleh, clashed with
began fighting the Saudi-backed
following day in pro-government
Lahij Governorate. forces loyal to Hadi.
On March 25, Lahij Since the formation
fell to the Houthis of the Southern
and they reached the Transitional Council
outskirts of Aden, in 2017 and the
the seat of power of STC's subsequent
Hadi's government. capture of Aden in
Hadi fled the 2018, the
country the same anti-Houthi
day. In parallel, the coalition has
Saudi-led coalition fragmented, with
launched military regular clashes
operations using between
airstrikes to restore Saudi-backed
the former Yemeni pro-Houthi forces
government. and US-backed
Although there has southern separatists.
been no direct Arab Emirates.
intervention by Iran, Al-Qaeda in the
which supports the Arabian Peninsula
Houthis, Western (AQAP) and the
sources have seen Islamic State have
the conflict as an also launched
extension of the attacks against both
proxy conflict factions, with
between Iran and AQAP controlling
Saudi Arabia and as territory inland and
a means of along the coast. On
countering Iranian April 2, 2022, the
UN brokered a attention that the
two-month Syrian civil war did
nationwide ceasefire in 2018.
between the Yemeni
warring parties, e. Iraqi Insurgency
which would also The Islamic State
allow the insurgency in Iraq is
importation of fuel an ongoing
into low-intensity
Houthi-controlled insurgency that
areas and some began in 2017 after
flights operating the Islamic State
from Sanaa (ISIS) lost its
International Airport territorial control in
to Jordan and Egypt. the War in Iraq. ISIS
On 2 June 2022, the and allied White
UN announced that Flags fought the
the nationwide Iraqi military
ceasefire had been (largely backed by
further extended by the United States,
two months. United Kingdom
According to the and other countries
UN, over 150,000 conducting
people have been airstrikes against
killed in Yemen, as ISIS) and allied
well as estimates of paramilitary forces
over 227,000 dead (largely backed by
due to ongoing Iran).
famine and lack of Context
medical facilities
due to the war. In
2018, the United
The insurgency is a
Nations warned that
direct continuation
13 million Yemeni
of the War in Iraq
civilians were
from 2013 to 2017,
facing famine in
with ISIL
what it said could
continuing armed
become "the world's
opposition against
worst famine in 100
the Shia-led Iraqi
years". The crisis
Government. Along
has only begun to
with the Islamic
garner the kind of
State, other
international media
insurgents fighting strategy toward a
the government classical insurgency.
include a group
known as the White
Flags which is Since ISIL's loss of
reportedly all territory in Iraq
composed of former in late 2017 which
ISIL members and was declared as
Kurdish rebels and Iraq's victory over
is believed by the ISIL and widely
government of Iraq seen as an end to the
to be part of Ansar war, and declared as
al-Islam and such by Iraq's Prime
possibly affiliated Minister Haidar
with al-Qaeda. The al-Abadi, multiple
group operates incidents of
mostly in the Kirkuk violence have
Governorate and has occurred being
used an assortment carried out by the
of guerilla tactics conflicting sides, in
against government spite of Iraq's
forces. In September declaration of
2017, Abu Bakr victory over ISIL
al-Baghdadi, the the group is widely
leader of ISIL, seen as far from
called on ISIL gone and continues
supporters around to retain a presence
the world to launch throughout Iraq, and
attacks on Western still capable of
news media and carrying out attacks
continued in his and skirmishes with
message the ISIL pro-government
must focus on forces. ISIL has
combating the been waging a
two-pronged attack guerrilla war with a
on the Muslim strong presence in
Ummah; these the governorates of
statements marked a Kirkuk, Diyala,
departure from Saladin, and
previous rhetoric Sulaymaniyah, with
which was focused local forces largely
on the state building ill-equipped and
of ISIL and heralded inexperienced, ISIL
a shift in ISIL's
has also taken described ISIL in
advantage of the Iraq as
areas' rough terrain "diminished”. Iraqi
to carry out intelligence
operations. ISIL has estimated that ISIL
also made a notable has 2,000–3,000
presence in the fighters in Iraq.
cities of Kirkuk,
Hawija and Tuz Following ISIL's
Khurmatu and has defeat in December
carried out attacks at 2017, they have
night in rural areas. been greatly
weakened and
ISIL fighters also violence in Iraq has
reportedly move been sharply
through villages reduced. 23 civilians
during the day lost their lives from
without interference violence-related
from security forces, incidents during
and locals have been November 2021, the
asked by ISIL to lowest figure in 18
give fighters food years.
and give
information on the f. Golan Heights
whereabouts of Iraqi Crisis
personnel, locals After the collapse
have also stated that of the Ottoman
ISIL fighters will empire, the Golan
frequently enter Heights area
Mosques and ask for became part of the
Zakat to fund the French mandate in
insurgency. Among Syria and the state
ISIL's operations of Damascus. When
include the mandate ended
assassinations, in 1946, it became
kidnappings, raids part of the newly
and ambushes. independent Syrian
As of 2021, U.S. Arab Republic. At
officials warned that the end of the 19th
ISIL "remains century, the Golan
capable of waging a Heights were
prolonged inhabited mainly by
insurgency” but also colonized peasants
(fellaḥîn), Bedouin
Arabs, Druze, which stated that
Turkmen and "Israel's decision to
Circassians. impose its laws,
jurisdiction and
administration on
Since the Six-Day the occupied Syrian
War in 1967, the Golan Heights is
western two-thirds invalid and without
of the Golan international legal
Heights have been effect" and
occupied and Resolution 242,
administered by which emphasized
Israel, while the "the inadmissibility
eastern third of the acquisition of
remains under territory by war".
Syrian control. After Israel insists it has
the war, Syria the right to keep the
rejected any Golan and also cites
negotiations with the text of
Israel under the Resolution 242,
Khartoum which calls for
Resolution at the "secure and
Arab League recognized borders
summit in 1967. without threats or
Israeli settlement acts of force."
construction began
on the remainder of
the territory held by Following the
Israel, which was outbreak of the
under military Syrian Civil War in
administration until 2011, control of the
the Knesset passed Syrian-administered
the Golan Heights portion of the Golan
Law in 1981, which Heights was divided
applied Israeli law between the state
to that territory; the government and
move was described Syrian opposition
as annexation. The forces, with the
Golan Heights Act United Nations
was condemned by Observer Force
the UN Security (UNDOF)
Council in maintaining 266
Resolution 497, km2 (103 sq mi).
mi) a buffer zone European Union
between to help have successively
establish an declared that they
Israeli-Syrian do not recognize
ceasefire across the Israeli sovereignty,
Purple Line. From and several
2012 to 2018, the international law
eastern half of the experts have
Golan Heights reiterated that the
became the scene of principle remains
repeated battles that land acquired
between the Syrian by defensive or
Army and rebel offensive wars
factions of the cannot be legally
Syrian opposition annexed under
(including the international law.
US-backed Southern
Front), as well as 5. Economic state of the
various jihadist Region;
organizations such The basis of all societal and
as the al-Nusra political action is,
Front and the ultimately, a countries
Islamic State of Iraq economy. An unstable
and the army of economy can lead to
Khalid ibn al-Walid political and societal
allied with the instability, therefore
Levant. In July understanding the
2018, the Syrian economies of the Middle
government East is a necessary part of
regained full control disarmament.
of the eastern Golan
Heights. On March The Middle Eastern
25, 2019, economy is extremely
then-President of diversified, ranging from
the United States hydrocarbon-exporting
Donald Trump rentiers to centralized
announced that the communist regimes to
US had recognized free-market economies. The
the Golan Heights region is well known for oil
as part of the State production and export,
of Israel, becoming which has a considerable
the first country to influence on the entire
do so. The 28 region in terms of money
member states of the and labor use. Many of the
 region's countries have
made attempts to diversify
their economies in recent
years.
I. Bahrain,
Bahrain has a per capita
GDP of US$50,700 in
2018. Bahrain is the first
"post-oil" economy in the
Persian Gulf. Bahrain has
made significant
investments in the banking
and tourist industries since
the late twentieth century.
Many big financial
institutions are located in
the country's capital,
Manama. Bahrain has a
high Human Development
Index (48th in the world)
and is classified as a
high-income economy by
the World Bank. In an effort
to broaden its export base,
Bahrain has increased its
industrial capacity to
include aluminum
manufacturing and inked a
Free Trade Agreement with
the United States. Bahrain
has also established itself as
a major participant in
Islamic banking in an effort
to diversify its economy
away from resource exports
and onto a larger role in the
worldwide service industry.
II. Egypt,
Tourism contributes
significantly to Egypt's
foreign exchange earnings.
As a result, the majority of
its workforce is employed
in the service industry.
Agriculture contributes
significantly to the
Egyptian economy. Egypt
has some of the most fertile
territory in the Middle East
because to the Nile River. It
grows food for internal use
and export, as well as
cotton for domestic and
international textile
manufacture. The Suez
Canal is Egypt's other
valuable resource. The
canal transports around
7.5% of world marine trade,
providing Egypt with yearly
profits in excess of $3
billion. Egypt's industrial
basis may be traced back to
the 1960s, when the country
implemented import
substitution
industrialisation strategies.
Because of the
inefficiencies of the
state-run programme, the
government initiated a
privatization initiative, and
Egypt had significant GDP
growth in the first decade of
the twenty-first century. It
has also used the
Qualifying Industrial Zone
to strengthen ties with the
United States. Despite these
advancements, Egypt
 remains a developing nation
with a per capita GDP of
$5,500. The Egyptian
Commodities Exchange is
the region's first electronic
exchange, breaking a continuing five-year plan,
monopoly and allowing
small farmers to trade at
market pricing.
III. Iran,
Iran has one of the most
developed economies in the
Middle East. By PPP, it is
the world's 18th largest.
The majority of Iran's major
enterprises are state-owned.
The nature of Iranian
state-owned firms has
resulted in some
inefficiencies. In the Global
Competitiveness Report,
Iran ranks 69th out of 139
countries. With its
substantial oil earnings,
Iran has been able to
support inefficient
industries while
maintaining decent growth
rates. Because of the
structure of the state-run
economy, there has been
substantial brain drain in
recent years as educated
Iranians seek opportunities
overseas. As a result, Iran
has initiated a privatization
initiative to encourage
commerce as part of its
as well as an ambitious
economic reform plan.
The main benefit of Iran's
capital market over other
regional markets is that it is
directly involved in 40
industries. The Tehran
Stock Exchange trades
shares in industries such as
automotive,
telecommunications,
agricultural, petrochemical,
mining, steel, iron, copper,
banking and insurance,
financial mediation, and
others, making Iran unique
in the Middle East. Iran has
a strong chance of
becoming one of the
world's greatest economies
in the twenty-first century.
SWIFT CEO Gottfried
Leibbrandt announced in
2018 in Belgium that
several Iranian institutions
would be suspended from
the financial messaging
service. On November 13,
2018, the International
Monetary Fund issued a
study predicting that Iran's
inflation rate might reach
40% by the end of the year
Iran's annual inflation rate
was 42.4% from December
21, 2021 to January 20,
 2022, according to the
Statistical Center of Iran.
Prices for housing and
utilities (28.5% vs 27.9% in
January), transportation
(36.1% vs 35.3%),
communication (3.8% vs
2.3%), and tobacco (35.0%
vs 33.3%) all increased.
IV. Iraq,
Fighting for over 30 years,
against Iran in the 1980s
and the United States after
1991, has hampered Iraqi
economic progress. Iraq's
major economic activity
remains oil production.
Other industries' lack of
growth has resulted in
18-30% unemployment and
a $4,632 per capita GDP.
Reconstruction aid has
aided in the improvement
of the nation's
infrastructure.
V. Israel/Palestine,
When Israel was formed in
1948, its national leadership
established a social
democracy. The goal of this
method was to develop
economic self-sufficiency,
notably in agriculture, in
the face of unfriendly
neighbors, as well as to
provide jobs for a quickly
rising population through
immigration. The
communist basis of the
economy resulted in
significant inefficiencies,
which the government was
able to counteract with
foreign help, initially in the
form of West German
Holocaust reparations and
afterwards through direct
funding, largely from
Western nations.
Following the Yom Kippur
War, Israeli defense
spending increased rapidly,
revealing the state-run
economy's flaws. As a
result of the rapid inflation,
Israel recalled the pound in
1980 and issued the sheqel.
This change did not
adequately reduce inflation,
thus the sheqel was recalled
in 1985 in favor of the
Israeli new sheqel, a move
conducted alongside a
comprehensive economic
stabilization programme
that reduced inflation and
paved the ground for rapid
growth in the 1990s.
Beginning in the late 1970s,
Israel began a privatization
movement.
The entrance of several
hundred thousand
immigrants from the former
Soviet Union boosted the
economy in the early 1990s.
Because a large proportion
of the immigrants were well
educated, Israel hurried its
privatization in order to
keep the highly trained
personnel. Foreign direct
investment was also drawn
by the new labor. Israel's
development during the last
decade has been
comparable to that of
Western industrialized
nations, as has its per capita
GDP (PPP), which is over
$35,000 per year, the third
highest (after Bahrain and
the UAE) among Middle
Eastern countries not reliant
on natural resources. It also
has the highest economic
complexity rating of any
Middle Eastern country.
Israel is listed as a
“highly-developed” due to
it’s thriving economy.
Israel joined the OECD
(Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and
Development) in September
2010, which hailed Israel's
scientific and technical
advancement and described
it as having "delivered
excellent results on a global
scale." Much of the
country's economic growth
over the last two decades
has been attributed to the
software, biomedical,
electronics,
telecommunications, and
other high-technology
sectors, as the percentage of
Israelis engaged in
scientific and technological
inquiry is among the
highest in the world, and
the amount spent on
research and development
(R&D) in relation to gross
domestic product (GDP) is
among the highest in the
world. The high-tech
industry accounts for
around 43 percent of Israeli
exports but employs just 8.3
percent of the industry's
workforce.
The continuous war with
Israel has severely
weakened Palestine's
economy. Since the start of
the Second Intifada in 2000,
production has decreased.
Since June 2007, when
Hamas gained control of
Gaza during a struggle with
rival Palestinian
organization Fatah, the
Gaza Strip has been
blockaded by Israel and
Egypt. According to the UN
Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs,
the official economy in
Gaza has collapsed since
the embargo was imposed
in 2010. Since the
Palestinian power structure
dissolved and Fatah
assumed authority in the
West Bank, the West Bank
has fared substantially
better. In 2015, the West
Bank's official GDP per
capita was more than twice
that of Gaza. Collectively,
 Palestine had a per capita
GDP of $4,300 in 2014.
VI. Jordan,
Jordan has a rentier
economy that is heavily
reliant on foreign aid,
investment, and
remittances. Jordan relies
largely on its highly
qualified workers in the
oil-rich Persian Gulf to
send money back to support
thousands of Jordanian
families. As a result, its
economic fortunes are
linked to world events.
Although Jordan has a
substantially higher quality
of life than other nations
with comparable wages, as
well as one of the top
education and healthcare
systems in the Middle East,
many Jordanians choose to
work abroad due to rising
living costs and high
unemployment in their own
country. Jordan is reliant on
remittances, which account
for roughly 20% of GDP
since 1975. Jordan's
reliance has had negative
implications. Following
Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in
1990, hundreds of
thousands of Palestinians
were driven out of
neighboring Arab countries.
This resulted in a huge loss
of remittance earnings for
Jordan.
Jordan suffered a
significant loss in
remittance earnings as a
result of this.
Although the 2003 Iraq War
initially had a negative
impact on Jordan's
economy, rich Iraqis
relocating to Jordan
provided a significant boost
in commerce and
investment; Amman
became a transit hub for
business and trade destined
for Iraq. Jordan became
known as the "Gateway to
Iraq" and, subsequently, the
"Gateway to the Middle
East" as a result. Jordan's
pro-business and
pro-Western administration
has established incentives
and free trade zones in
order to stimulate further
economic growth.
Jordan's private sector
development has received
more attention in recent
years. Manufactured
exports have expanded as a
result of Qualifying
Industrial Zones, mostly
due to the expansion of the
textile sector. Jordan's
transition to a free-market
economy has resulted in
unprecedented investment.
Jordan has one of the freest
economies in the Middle
East as a result of various
important economic
 changes implemented in
recent years. Jordan's
economy will be supported
by tourism, ICT, commerce,
and future oil shale and
uranium exports.
VII. Saudi-Arabia,
Saudi Arabia's economy is
one of the top twenty in the
world, and it is the largest
in the Arab world and the
Middle East. Saudi Arabia
is a member of the G20
group of nations.
Saudi Arabia possesses the
world's second most
valuable natural resources,
valued at $34.4 trillion. The
country boasts the world's
second-largest proven
petroleum reserves and is
the world's largest
petroleum exporter. It is
also regarded as an "energy
superpower" and has the
fifth-largest known natural
gas reserves.
Saudi Arabia's economy is
primarily reliant on oil, and
the country is a member of
OPEC. The Saudi
government unveiled the
Saudi Vision 2030 in 2016
in order to lessen the
country's reliance on oil and
diversify its economic
resources. Saudi Arabia's
budget had its first surplus
since 2014 in the first
quarter of 2019. This
surplus of $10.40 billion
was created as a result of an
increase in oil and non-oil
income.
6. Religious Extremism in the
region;
Islamic extremism within
the Middle East and Levant
primarily manifests itself
through the form of
extremist
insurgency/pressure groups
who attempt to insight
radical change within their
countries in order to
achieve a political goal.
There are a large amount of
extremist groups operating
within the region, however
there are 2 key groups.
I. Hamas
Hamas is a Sunni-Islamic
extremist, militant, and
nationalist Palestinian
group. It has a social
service wing called Dawah,
as well as a military wing
called the Izz ad-Din
al-Qassam Brigades.
Following the 2007 Battle
of Gaza, it won the
Palestinian parliamentary
election in 2006 and
became the de facto ruling
body of the Gaza Strip. It
also has a majority in the
Palestinian National
Authority's parliament.
Hamas has been labeled a
terrorist group by Canada,
the European Union, Israel,
Japan, Australia, the United
Kingdom, and the United
States. Only its military
branch has been recognised
as a terrorist group by New
Zealand and Paraguay.
Brazil, China, Egypt, Iran,
Norway, Qatar, Russia,
Syria, and Turkey do not
consider it a terrorist group.
The United Nations General
Assembly rejected a US
resolution branding Hamas
as a terrorist organization in
December 2018. Ismail
Haniyeh and Khaled
Mashaal, leaders of Hamas,
are located in Qatar.
Hamas was created in 1987,
shortly after the outbreak of
the First Intifada, as an
offshoot of the Egyptian
Muslim Brotherhood,
which had previously been
nonconfrontational toward
Israel and antagonistic to
the Palestine Liberation
Organization in its Gaza
branch (PLO). Hamas was
created in 1987, according
to co-founder Sheik Ahmed
Yassin, and the Hamas
Charter was confirmed in
1988, to free Palestine,
including modern-day
Israel, from Israeli rule and
to build an Islamic state in
what is now Israel, the West
Bank, and the Gaza Strip.
Since 1994, the
organization has declared
repeatedly that it will
accept a truce provided
Israel withdraws to the
1967 boundaries, pays
reparations, allows free
elections in the areas, and
allows Palestinian refugees
to return.
Israel and Hamas have
fought multiple conflicts of
different severity. Hamas'
military arm has committed
operations against Israeli
citizens and troops,
typically claiming that these
are reprisal for killings of
its senior echelons. Suicide
bombers and rocket strikes
have been used as tactics
since 2001. Though
primarily comprised of
short-range homemade
Qassam rockets with a
range of 16 km (9.9 mi),
Hamas' rocket arsenal also
includes Grad-type rockets
(21 km (13 mi) by 2009)
and longer-range (40 km
(25 mi)) rockets that have
reached major Israeli towns
such as Beer Sheva and
Ashdod, as well as some
that have struck Tel Aviv
and Haifa. Human Rights
Watch has denounced both
Hamas and Israel for strikes
on civilians throughout the
conflict, arguing that the
argument of retaliation is
never justified when
civilians are attacked.
In the Palestinian
parliamentary elections in
January 2006, Hamas
defeated the PLO-affiliated
Fatah party to win a
majority in the PNA
Parliament. Following the
elections, the Quartet (the
European Union, Russia,
the United Nations, and the
United States) made future
foreign aid to the PNA
contingent on the PNA's
commitment to
nonviolence,
acknowledgment of Israel's
statehood, and acceptance
of past accords. These
terms were ignored by
Hamas, prompting the
Quartet to halt its foreign
aid programme and Israel to
apply economic sanctions
on the Hamas-led
administration. A national
unity administration led by
Hamas Prime Minister
Ismail Haniyeh was
temporarily created in
March 2007, however it
failed to renew foreign
financial aid. Tensions over
leadership of Palestinian
security forces quickly
erupted in the 2007 Battle
of Gaza, during which
Hamas assumed control of
Gaza and its representatives
were removed from
government positions in the
West Bank. Israel and
Egypt subsequently placed
an economic embargo on
the Gaza Strip, claiming
that Fatah troops were no
longer providing security.
II. ISIL,
The Islamic State
(IS) is a militant
Islamist group and
former
unrecognized
quasi-state that
follows the Salafi
jihadist branch of
Sunni Islam. It was
founded by Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi
in 1999 and gained
global prominence
in 2014, when it
drove Iraqi security
forces out of key
cities during the
Anbar campaign,
which was followed
by its capture of
Mosul and the
Sinjar massacre. In
Syria, the group
conducted ground
attacks against both
Syrian government
forces and Syrian
opposition factions.
By the end of 2015,
it held an area that
contained an
estimated eight to
twelve million
people and stretched
from western Iraq to
eastern Syria, where
it enforced its
interpretation of
Islamic law. ISIL
was estimated at the
time to have an led by the United
annual budget of States intervened
more than US$1 against ISIL in Syria
billion and more as well as in Iraq
than 30,000 fighters. with an airstrike
Islamic State campaign, in
pledged allegiance addition to
to Al-Qaeda, and supplying advisors,
participated in the weapons, training,
Iraqi insurgency and supplies to
following the 2003 ISIL's enemies in
invasion of Iraq by a the Iraqi Armed
multi-national Forces and the
coalition led by the Syrian Democratic
United States. In Forces. This
2014, the group campaign
proclaimed itself to reinvigorated the
be a worldwide latter two forces and
caliphate, and began damaged ISIL,
referring to itself as killing tens of
the Islamic State thousands of its
(‫اإلسالمية‬ ‫الدولة‬, fighters and
ad-Dawlah reducing its
al-Islāmiyah). As a financial and
caliphate, it claimed military
religious, political, infrastructure.The
and military American-led
authority over intervention was
Muslims worldwide. followed in 2015 by
Its adoption of the a Russian military
name "Islamic intervention
State" and its idea of exclusively in Syria,
a caliphate have in which ISIL lost
been criticised, with thousands more
the United Nations, fighters to airstrikes,
various cruise missile
governments, and attacks, and other
mainstream Muslim Russian military
groups rejecting its activities, and had
statehood and its financial base
legitimacy. In further degrade. In
mid-2014, an July 2017, the group
international lost control of its
military coalition largest city, Mosul,
to the Iraqi military, other types of
followed by the loss executions of both
of its de facto soldiers and
political capital of civilians, including
Raqqa to the Syrian journalists and aid
Democratic Forces. workers, as well as
By December 2017, its destruction of
IS controlled just cultural heritage
2% of its maximum sites. The
territory (achieved international
in May 2015). In community holds IS
December 2017, responsible for
Iraqi forces had committing massive
driven the last human rights
remnants of the abuses, genocide,
group in that war crimes, and
country crimes against
underground, three humanity. The
years after it had group committed
captured about a genocide against
third of Iraq's Yazidis and against
territory. By March Christians on a
2019, IS lost one of historic scale in
their last significant northern Iraq and
territories in the Syria, and
Middle East in the systematically
Deir ez-Zor persecuted Shia
campaign, and Muslims during its
effectively rule. In October
surrendered their 2019, ISIL media
"tent city" and announced that Abu
pockets in Al-Bagus Ibrahim al-Hashimi
Fawani to the Syrian al-Qurashi had
Democratic Forces become the new
after the Battle of leader of the group
Baghuz Fawqani. after Abu Bakr
The group has been al-Baghdadi, the
designated as a group's previous
terrorist leader since 2013,
organization by the died during an
United Nations. It is American military
well known for its operation after
videos of detonating his
beheadings and suicide vest in
 Barisha, Syria. ISIL due to it’s immense
has also had a political and economic
presence outside of importance in the global
the Middle East economy.
through its various
"provinces" and Legal firearms too can turn
affiliates, and has illicit when a country or
had a notable state pretends to be buying
militant presence the arms for themselves,
outside of the Arab whilst actually planning to
world, use the arms for illicit
predominantly in purposes. For instance: a
countries with company believes to be
significant or supplying arms to the
majority Muslim police force in country A,
populations such as country A however never
Nigeria, Cameroon, has had the intention to use
Chad, and Niger these arms in their own
(West Africa country, but gives the arms
Province); to rebels in country B,
Afghanistan and hoping to benefit from the
Pakistan (Khorasan outcome. Furthermore,
Province); as well as corruption is a big problem.
in countries with The arms that are imported
relatively low to a country may, at some
Muslim minority point, get into hands of
populations such as officials that are willing to
the Philippines (East financially benefit from it,
Asia Province), the they sell the weapons to an
Democratic organization of some sort,
Republic of the just because they make a
Congo (Central profit out of it. Thirdly, the
Africa Province), weapons may be stolen
and the Caucasus from stockpiles, and thus
states (Caucasus reach their way to an illicit
Province). organization. Since the
Arab Spring, there has been
no sign of impact on the
policies of the top
7. Use of Illegal and exporters, ignoring the
Prohibited Weapons, evidence that their export
Illegal firearms have been a products are used for illicit
long standing issue within purposes. The main
the Middle Eastern region exporters are the USA,
Russia, China, Germany,
France and the UK.
Together, they have a
market share of roughly
75%. The black market is
yearly makes about 1
billion dollars via arms
trade each year. The market
functions as a circuit, the
goods go from one person
to another, which makes
them difficult to track.
Traffickers often rely on
counterfeit documents, or
corrupt officials. They
generally disguise their
illegal goods as
humanitarian products.
Corruption is a massive
factor in the illicit arms
trade: government officials
often sell weapons, or aid
traffickers. They are open
to bribery and are willing to
cooperate. Transparency
International has made an
index on the corruption of a
state regarding arms trade,
in the critical risk-category
F, 50% are Middle Eastern
countries. Corruption in
arms trade makes up for
about 40% of all corruption
worldwide, and is thus
extremely difficult to battle.
Big steps have been taken
with the implementation of
the Arms Trade Treaty in
2013, the treaty aims to
“establish and maintain a
national control system,
including a national control
list” and “designate
competent national
authorities in order to have
an effective and transparent
national control system
regulating the transfer of
conventional arms” 1 . It
also prohibits transfers that
do not follow the
requirements in the treaty.
Major Countries and
Organizations Involved The
Middle Eastern
governments The
governments of the Middle
Eastern countries are of
course involved. They can’t
battle the trade on their
own, seeing that the roots
often lie outside of their
countries. The ongoing
conflicts in the Middle East
also heavily influence the
trade, whereas more arms
create more violence. The
governments all have their
own goals and do not
always cooperate well. To
tackle the issue, the
governments will have to
cooperate. The United
States of America (USA)
The USA is currently the
leading exporter of
weapons all around the
world. With a market share
of 31% it is rising together
with the Russian Federation
(27%) way above the other
countries. Of course, the
companies that export the
arms don’t directly sell their
goods to a criminal
organization. However, it is
often believed that these
organizations do get their
hands on new equipment
via the black market. The
US government does have
an interest in keeping the
export, due to the fact that a
part of the money earned
goes into research and
development. Timeline of
Events Date Description of
event July 20, 2001
Adoption of the Programme
of Action August 31, 2001
First SC meeting on small
arms March 7, 2003 First
SC resolution on Small
arms December 8, 2005
Adoption of the
International Tracing
Instrument March 28, 2013
Arms Trade Treaty is
created May 22, 2015 Most
recent resolution by the
Security council created
Relevant UN Treaties and
Events • United Nations
Arms Trade Treaty, 28
March 2013,
(A/CONF.217/2013/L.3) •
Security Council
Resolution on the
proliferation of small arms
as a threat to peace and
security in West Africa, 7
March 2003
(SC/RES/1467) • Security
Council Resolution on
Question of Small Arms,
Light Weapons, 26
September 2013,
(S/RES/2117) • Report of
the Secretary General on
Small Arms, 22 August
2013 (S/2013/503) • in the treaty. Before the
Security Council
Resolution on small arms
that contained new
provisions aiming to
strengthen UN coordination
and action on small arms,
promote effective
implementation of UN arms
embargoes and support the
Arms Trade Treaty, 22 May
2015, (SC/RES/2220)
Previous Attempts to solve
the Issue The question of
illicit arms trade is an issue
that has been rising the past
few decades. Thus there are
not a whole lot of previous
attempts. The most
important attempt is the
Arms Trade Treaty (ATT),
it is signed by 130 out of
193 member states, and is
ratified by 79 countries.
The treaty is a legally
binding agreement that
regulates the arms trade and
that establishes standards
for the international trade.
Its aim is to require
countries to regulate the
flow of weapons across
their border: “establish and
maintain a national control
system, including a national
control list” and “designate
competent national
authorities in order to have
an effective and transparent
national control system
regulating the transfer of
conventional arms”. It also
prohibits transfers that do
not follow the requirements
ATT there was a
Programme of Action
(PoA) by the General
Assembly. This programme
aimed to “Prevent, Combat
and Eradicate the Illicit
Trade in Small Arms and
Light Weapons in All Its
Aspects”. It was a occurrence of war however,
multi-year action plan and
it was meant to work for a
long time. Every country
had to report to the UN
every year, the first few
years this worked properly.
But as time passed by, less
and less countries submitted
their report. In 2013 only
very few countries
submitted their reports.
Possible Solutions In order
to solve the issue at hand,
delegates must realize how
vastly spread the problem
is. Delegates must realize
that for some countries the
arms trade is of high
importance. A solution
could be found in
regulating the trade even
more. When trade is
regulated, it is easier to
make sure that the weapons
will not be used for illicit
purposes. Another
possibility is the idea of
marking the weapons,
marking them in a way that
when found to be used for
illicit purposes one can find
out as well as the exporter
as the importing party.
8. Past UN Actions,
The United Nations,
generally speaking, works
towards defusing tensions
within the region and
attempts to prevent the
in terms of specifics, the
UN has taken countless
actions within the area. For
example the intervention
within Libya, UN
peacekeeping forces
deployed all throughout the
Middle East and aid given
to several countries.
9. Foreign Intervention
within the region,
During the political
upheaval in the Middle East
in 2011, Western states
pursued policies of both
military involvement and
so-called "humanitarian
intervention" in the
governments of the region.
Europe, the United States
and other Western nations
have perverted
UN-sanctioned
"legitimacy" and used
military force to enforce
regime change in Libya,
significantly disrupting the
international order. Their
intervention efforts in this
area went well beyond
pre-Cold War efforts. They
sought to obtain
authorization for their
intervention, to adopt
collective intervention, and
to develop and assist the
opposition parties in the
country in order to establish
a "civil war" method as a
model of intervention
within the intervention.
Their intervention was
overt, deceptive, covert and
mandatory. Given the
importance of the
geopolitical and strategic
energy positions of the
Middle East and North
Africa, as well as the
pursuit of the global
geopolitical goals of
Western countries, the
interventions of Western
powers in the Middle East
and North Africa will
continue. These countries
will continue to bear the
historical obligation to
resist power interference.
Their self-development and
ability to maintain their
own security will encounter
significant obstacles in the
future. Types of
interventions; Military
intervention; The Politics of
Humanitarian Intervention
in the Middle East For more
than half a century, the
contemporary countries of
the Middle East and North
Africa (MENA) have been
trying to cleanse themselves
of foreign aggression and
involvement.
However, they are still
working to eliminate
foreign interference.
Western countries have
traditionally been involved
in MENA affairs and there
are two types of
intervention: military
intervention and
"humanitarian
intervention". During the
political upheaval in the
Middle East in 2011,
Western states pursued
policies of both military
involvement and so-called
"humanitarian intervention"
in the governments of the
region.
Their interventions in this
matter went much further
than during the Cold War. I.
The most common type of
Western intervention Since
the end of the Cold War, the
global balance of power has
shifted in favor of Western
countries. Western
interventions in Middle
Eastern countries have
become more common in
this environment. The
United States started its war
in Afghanistan almost 10
years ago. The United
States and the United
Kingdom went to war in
Iraq ten years ago.
"Humanitarian
intervention" was cited as a
pretext in NATO's 2011 war
in Libya.
And cloaked in legitimacy,
military tactics were used to
effect regime change in
Libya. Intervention efforts
in this area far outstripped
those during the Cold War.
(A) Western nations will
investigate the legality of
the operation. Whether
through military action or
so-called “humanitarian”
engagement in MENA's
political turmoil, the United
States and other Western
governments have focused
heavily on gaining globally
recognized legitimacy.
Legitimacy was derived
primarily from the mission
of the United Nations (UN)
and the applicable
principles of international
law.
They paid attention and
acted within the UN,
lobbied Russia and China to
support the Libyan
intervention, and pushed for
the resolution on Libya to
finally pass in the Council.
And so they obtained the
legality of using force
against Libya. When the
UN Security Council
passed resolutions in 1970
and 1973, the West
immediately used the UN
Security Council banner to
establish a "no-fly zone"
over Libya to "protect
civilians" in the name of the
"responsibility to protect".
On March 19, France
deployed the first fighter to
carry out an air strike
codenamed "Odyssey
Dawn" on Libya, which
was a prelude to military
intervention by Western
countries in Libya.
Airstrikes against Libya, in
other words, are means of
war.
The West repeatedly
emphasized the legitimacy
of their military strikes,
claiming that they were
implementing UN Security
Council Resolution 1973.
Through their cries, it
seemed that the military
strikes against Libya indeed
had some sort of
"legitimacy". From the
specific content of Security
Council Resolution 1973,
we found no words to
Journal of Middle Eastern
and Islamic Studies (in
Asia) Vol. 7, No. 2, 2013 4
expressly "authorize the use
of force against Libya". The
text of the resolution
pointed out that the no-fly
zone was established to
protect civilians. The
so-called wording
empowering the relevant
member states to “take all
necessary measures” cannot
be interpreted as
“permitting the use of
force” (Li, B., 2011).
Regarding the legality of
the UN authorization, does
Resolution 1973 allow
intervention including
force? In this regard, the
international community
has different interpretations.
Vitaly Churkin, Russia's
permanent representative to
the UN, said: “Resolution
1973 is not a legitimate
authorization for the use of
force. The military actions
of the Western coalition
against Libya were
completely outside the
mandate of the UN,
challenging the authority of
the UN. The Russian
scholar emphasized: "The
coalition's 'humanitarian'
intervention in Libya is in
fact no different from war.
(Russian Independent,
2011: March 8).
The military action of the
US and the West in Libya
represents a severe test of
the current system of
international relations.
Enforcing regime change in
other countries is extremely
important in the military
intervention in Libya. The
war in Libya is a typical
case of the new Western
doctrine of meddling and
forcing regime change in
other countries. However,
this is never the intention of
the UN, but an arbitrary
distortion of the intention of
the UN resolutions by the
European and American
powers. As the US and
Western powers succeeded
in intervening in Libya's
internal affairs to topple the
Gaddafi regime, they
wished to copy the "Libyan
model" to Syria. On
October 4, 2011 and
February 4, 2012, they tried
twice to approve a draft
resolution in the UN
Security Council to
intervene in the internal
affairs of Syria.
Bearing in mind the painful
lessons of the UN's
authorization of military
intervention in Libya,
China and Russia twice
vetoed the draft On Major
Power Intervention in the
Middle East on Coup and
Political Trend in the
Middle East 5, effectively
preventing Western
countries from continuing
to interfere in internal
affairs and sovereignty
other countries and avoided
misinterpretation, distortion
or abuse of Security
Council resolutions. Then
the West immediately
turned to get a draft
resolution of the same
content to be voted on and
approved by the UN
General Assembly, which
of course had no legal
effect. Subsequently, the
West submitted a resolution
condemning the Syrian
government for civilian
repression in the UN
Human Rights Council to
exert severe political and
public pressure on the
Syrian government.