Zurich

 Model  United  Nations  

[Link]  

DISEC  
Study Guide for Zurich Model United Nations
Written by Ollin Söllner and Vanessa Fabris
April 14th to 17th 2016
Zurich, Switzerland

Contents  
Topic A – Asymmetrical Wars ................................................................................................................. 3  
What are Asymmetrical Wars or Conflicts? ......................................................................................... 3  
Prevention and management of conflict ............................................................................................... 6  
Civil Wars and Development ............................................................................................................... 8  
a. Economical Explanations of Conflict ........................................................................................... 8  
b. Costs and Consequences............................................................................................................... 9  
Natural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 12  
a. Equilibrium Effect ...................................................................................................................... 12  
Types of Natural Resources................................................................................................................ 12  
Social Factors ..................................................................................................................................... 12  
a. Fragmentation ............................................................................................................................. 12  
b. Education .................................................................................................................................... 13  
Topic B – Biological weapons ............................................................................................................... 15  
What are biological weapons? ............................................................................................................ 15  
History of biological weapons ............................................................................................................ 16  
Conventions regarding biological weapons........................................................................................ 19  
a.   Geneva Protocol 1925 ............................................................................................................. 19  
b. Biological Weapons Convention 1972 .................................................................................. 19  
c. The Chemical Weapons Convention..................................................................................... 20  

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  1  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Use of Biological Weapons ................................................................................................................ 21  

Effects of biological weapons ............................................................................................................ 23  

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  2  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Topic  A  –  Asymmetrical  Wars    

What  are  Asymmetrical  Wars  or  Conflicts?  

Asymmetrical   wars   are   best   understood   in   contrast   to   traditional   wars   such   as   napoleonic   wars.  
Traditional  warfare  has  been  used  for  state  building  purposes  or  territorial  enlargement  and  are  
classic   inter-­‐state   wars.   However,   especially   after   the   world   wars   warfare   has   changed.   The  
actors   involved   in   warfare   are   not   necessarily   two   states   anymore.   This   includes   anti-­‐colonial  
struggles  or  the  war  on  terror  after  9/11.    
 
The  counterterror  war  in  response  to  the  attacks  of  9/11  was  based  on  assumption  that  war  is  
transformed  (Crawford  2003).      
 
The   term   “asymetric”   is   also   used   to   describe   modern   (1900-­‐1990)   and   post-­‐modern   wars  
(1990-­‐present)  which  distinct  themselves  from  traditional  warfare  both  in  their  aims  and  actors  
involved.   Both   are   characterized   by   the   involvement   of   non-­‐state   actors.   Whilst   the   traditional  
wars   were   carried   out   between   states   modern   and   especially   wars   after   the   cold   war   don’t   align  
themselves  according  to  state  borders.  
 
There   is   a   quasi   disappearance   of   inter-­‐state   wars   and   a   resurgence   of   ethnic   conflicts.   Since  
1945,   40%   of   all   countries   had   civil   wars   (Fearon   2007).   The   average   duration   of   a   interstate  
war  is  six  months  while  the  average  duration  of  a  civil  war  is  seven  years.  Also  poor  countries  
are  more  conflict   prone.   Interstate   wars   genereally   have   more   options   to   find   a   solution   to   their  
conflict.   In   civil   wars   lasting   peace   treaties   are   extremely   unlikely   because   there   is   no   credibility  
that   the   parties   involved   will   adhere   to   it.   After   an   international   war   the   armies   involved   will  
retreat   to   their   own   territories.   But   in   a   civil   war   the   losing   party   needs   to   disappear   and   be  
completely   demilitarized   to   prevent   a   new   outbreak   (Lisa   Chauvet).   As   a   consequence   civil   wars  
are  more  deadly  (Sambanis  2004).    

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  3  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  4  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Authors   such   as   Mary   Kaldor   refer   to   post-­‐cold   wars   as   „new   wars“.   Globalization   is   said   to   have  
transformed   conflicts   in   such   a   way   that   they   are   not   state-­‐led   and   rational   anymore,   but   mainly  
ethnic  and  religious.  Additionally  to  the  changed  goals  of  warfare  the  methods  and  the  sources  of  
finance   have   changed   as   well.   Since   the   end   of  the   Cold   War   insurgencies   have   lost   international  
support   and   finance   and   have   grown   dependent   on   finding   their   own   resources.   The  
technological   advances   have   made   conventional   war   unattractive   as   an   instrument   of   cross-­‐
national   politics.   Direct   combat   is   avoided;   drones   are   the   preferred   mode   of   warfare.   But   as   the  
traditional   battlegrounds   are   abandoned   conflicts   are   mainly   conducted   in   urban   and   populated  
areas  (Syrian  Civil  War).    
 
It  is  important  to  note  that  as  the  actors  involved  have  changed  and  large  state-­‐led  armies  have  
been   replaced   by   networks   of   non-­‐state   actors   like   terrorists   and   guerilla   groups,   most   oft   he  
violence  is  now  directed  against  the  civilian  population.  This  is  also  responsible  fort  he  creating  
of  cycles  of  violence  and  retaliation  (war  on  terror,  Sunnis  and  Shiites  in  Iraq).  Most  casualties  of  
conflict   are   associated   with   spillover   effects   such   as   famines   and   diseases   rather   than   the  
battlefield.  
 
Other  authors  such  as  Kalyvas  don’t  approve  of  considering  post-­‐cold  wars  to  be  fundamentally  
different.   Especially   to   differ   according   to   motivations   is   said   not   to   be   suitable.   There   may   be  
more   civil   wars   than   before   and   the   media   attention   is   much   higher   but   especially   the  
motivations   have   not   changed.   Old   civil   wars   are   considered   political,   ideological,   collective,  
noble,   justice-­‐seeking   and   disciplined.   New   civil   wars   on   the   other   hand   are   considered   to   be  
criminal,  depoliticized,  private,  predatory,  “loot-­‐seeking”  and  filled  with  senseless  violence.  For  
example   the   rebels   engaged   in   new   civil   wars   are   considered   to   be   only   following   private  
motivations.  They  are  said  to  wage  these  wars  only  in  order  to  loot  the  villages  they  pass  by  to  
increase   their   material   gains.   In   contrast   the   actors   involved   in   old   civil   wars   were   rather  
considered  revolutionaries  whose  au  mint  was  to  ameliorate  the  collective  grievances.  However,  
also   the   old   civil   wars   engaged   in   looting   to   finance   their   operations.   It   is   generally   difficult   to  
differentiate  between  greed  and  economic  opportunity  when  it  comes  to  this  kind  of  financing.  
Did  the  rebels  start  the  war  to  loot  or  are  they  looting  to  continue  the  war?  Looting  has  always  
been   a   consistent   part   of   warfare   as   it   fulfills   a   similar   function   as   efficient   taxation   (Kalyvas  
2001).    
 
When  engaging  in  this  kind  of  classifications  a  common  pitfall  is  to  look  for  “western  patterns”.  
Many   consider   African   rebel   movements   to   lack   ideology   but   they   may   simply   engage   in  
different   forms   of   allegiance   and   discourse.   The   use   of   religious   idioms,   cultural   practices   and  
traditions   does   not   necessarily   signify   an   absence   of   ideology   but   may   just   constitute   a   different  
variety.   Rebel   organizations   may   look   like   criminal   gangs   at   the   first   glance   but   hide   complex  
forms   of   rule   over   their   territories.   Micro-­‐level   research   has   shown   that   ideology   is   secondary  
when   it   comes   to   allegiance   formation.   Decisive   are   social   network   ties   such   as   friendship   and  

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  5  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

family.   When   rebellions   are   articulated   by   elites   using   national   cleavages   they   hide   the  
underlying   patterns   of   family   loyalties.   Vertical   ties   such   as   communities   and   neighborhood  
usually   trump   horizontal   ties   meaning   that   group   interests   are   generally   distinct   from   elite  
framing  and  local  and  region  specific  (Kalyvas  2001).  
 
There  is  also  a  need  to  elaborate  on  the  idea  that  modern  conflicts  inflict  much  more  senseless  
violence.  First  of  all  it  is  important  to  note  that  what  is  often  portrayed  as  senseless  violence  may  
be   part   of   a   larger   scheme   of   psychological   warfare.   Cases   of   mass   rape   are   an   especially  
gruesome   form   of   violence   that   aims   at   taking   the   victims   identities.   Not   only   are   victims  
traumatized   but   widespread   fear   is   inflicted.   In   Sierra   Leone   this   strategy   was   aimed   at  
preventing  women  from  harvesting  the  fields  and  supporting  the  army.  The  occurrence  of  child  
soldiers   has   received   increased   media   attention   and   appeal   to   a   new   consciousness   but   may   not  
necessarily   be   a   modern   phenomena.   Mediatization   has   brought   the   international   audience  
much  closer  to  the  victims  suffering.  Western  bias  may  also  play  a  role  when  we  consider  killings  
using   machetes   to   be   more   gruesome   than   mass   killings   and   bombings   by   air   or   event   with  
drones  (Kalyvas  2001).  
 
A  basis  for  a  valid  and  well-­‐grounded  distinction  in  time  would  be  due  to  the  change  in  sources  
of  income.  There  is  scientific  evidence  supporting  that  new  wars  take  longer  than  old  wars.  Since  
the  end  of  the  cold  war  internal  explanations  have  become  more  important  than  external  ones  in  
explaining   military   expenditure.   During   the   cold   war   it   was   much   easier   to   gain   support   for   a  
civil  war  from  abroad.  
 
Difference  between  wars  and  conflicts    
 
War  remains  the  use  of  military  force  by  political  organizations  (states,  rebel  groups,  and  clans)  
for  political,  religious,  and  economic  objectives  (Crawford  2003:  8).  
 
These   definitions   are   important   in   this   discussion   for   the   following   reasoning.   As   traditional  
warfare   has   been   abandoned   the   definitions   and   concepts   have   to   be   adapted.   Most   conflicts   are  
rather  considered  security  operations  such  as  counter-­‐terrorist  operations  on  a  lower  level  than  
wars.    
 

Prevention  and  management  of  conflict  

Actors:  
Conflict  prevention  has  become  more  complex  as  the  number  of  actors  involved  has  increased.  
As   these   actors   frequently   involve   insurgencies   their   leaders   probably   won’t   be   considered  
legitimate  by  the  state  actors  and  bringing  them  to  the  negotiation  table  more  difficult.  
 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  6  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Solutions:  
Post-­‐cold   war   conflicts   are   fundamentally   altered   by   their   need   for   independent   funding.   War  
lords  and  rebel  movements  exploit  natural  resources  when  possible  and  engage  in  mining,  drug  
and  weapons  trafficking  and  regular  trading  to  sustain  their  military  operations.  In  this  process  
many   of   the   actors   involved   come   to   new   wealth   which   they   want   to   cling   on   to.   Thus   ending  
these  wars  may  not  be  in  everyone’s  interest.    
 
A  problem  specific  to  civil  wars  is  that  there  can  only  be  a  guarantee  for  peace  if  one  party  has  
actually   won   over   the   other   party.   Otherwise   frustrations   and   grievances   will   maintain   a   high  
risk  for  a  new  outbreak.  Especially  important  is  that  the  underlying  party  is  demilitarized.    
 
International  Community:  
There   is   a   clearly   increased   interest   by   the   international   community   to   engage   in   conflict  
resolution  and  prevention.  There  is  higher  media  attention  to  human  suffering.  More  INGOs  are  
involved.   Regional   actors   such   as   the   European   Union   or   the   African   Union   are   crucial   in   conflict  
prevention.  
 
Media:   The   mass   media   pay   much   more   attention   to   human   suffering   and   conflict.   However,   this  
increases  their  responsibility  to  engage  critically  even  more.  Kalyvas  for  example  criticizes  that  
journalists   don’t   always   engage   critically   with   the   people   on   the   ground   concerning   the   purpose  
of  their  movements.  
Moreover  the  mass  media  could  increase  the  perceived  relative  deprivation.  In  our  mass-­‐media  
age   it   might   be   easier   for   the   people   to   compare   their   situation   to   what   could   be   than   it   was  
before  the  Cold  War.  
 
Globalization:  
After  Cold  War  when  international  relations  became  highly  militarized,  there  are  more  arms  on  
the  market.  But  however  those  arms  aren’t  always  small  arms.  
 
Impact  on  Just  War  Theory    
 
Just   war   theory   is   important   to   the   conduct   of   the   United   Nations.    
Just   War   Theory   provides   normative   content   for   ethical   arguments   about   the   resort   to   and  
conduct   of   war   on   the   assumption,   distinct   from   political   Realism,   that   morality   has   a   place   in  
international  politics—although  like  political  Realism,  it  assumes  that  war  is  an  enduring  feature  
of   world   politics   (Crawford   2003:   5).   It   provides   ethical   arguments   and   today   serves   as   a  

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  7  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

guideline   in   humanitarian   interventions   and   guerilla   wars.   Elements   such   as   noncombatant  

immunity   have   been   incorporated   into   treaty   and   customary   international   law.   However,   Just  
War   Theory   developed   in   a   context   of   a   dominant   Catholic   Church   and   a   dominance   of  
symmetrical   wars   over   asymmetric   wars   (Crawford   2003:   1-­‐7).    
Do   asymmetries   in   capabilities   lead   to   asymmetric   conflicts,   in   which   opponents   use  
nontraditional   weapons?  
We  can  assume  that  our  enemies  and  future  adversaries  have  learned  from  the  Gulf  War.  They  
are   unlikely   to   confront   us   conventionally   with   mass   armor   formations,   air   superiority   forces,  
and  deep-­‐water  naval  fleets  of  their  own,  all  areas  of  overwhelming  U.S.  strength  today.  Instead  
they  may  find  new  ways  to  attack  our  interests,  our  forces,  and  our  citizens.  They  will  look  for  
ways   to   match   their   strengths   against   our   weaknesses   (National   Defense   Panel   1997   in  
Crawford   2003)  
 

Civil  Wars  and  Development  

 
Civil  wars  are  a  major  obstacle  to  development.  But  a  lack  of  development  is  also  a  major  source  
of  civil  war.  This  dilemma  is  often  referred  to  as  the  “conflict  trap”.  

a.  Economical  Explanations  of  Conflict  

There  are  different  explanatory  strands  that  can  be  used.  
First  of  all,  we  can  focus  on  frustrations  and  relative  deprivation.  This  explanation  attempts  to  
explain   the   connection   between   discontent   and   civil   mobilization.   The   divergence   between  
people’s   wishes   and   expectations   and   their   realities   is   used   to   explain   the   threshold   which   is  
needed  to  overcome  the  collective  action  problem.    
 
Second,  we  estimate  the  opportunity  of  conflict.  On  the  one  hand  this  refers  to  the  opportunity  
costs  of  the  individuals  in  order  to  drop  their  jobs  and  engage  in  the  conflict.  On  the  other  this  
refers  to  the  financial  basis  of  the  conflict  and  the  occurrence  of  national  resources  such  as  oil  or  
foreign  funding.  
 
Third,  at  first  researchers  assumed  that  it  was  greed  rather  than  simply  the  need  for  funding  that  
lead  to  the  appropriation  of  natural  resources,  this  referred  to  as  Opportunity  to  greed.    
 
There   is   an   ongoing   discussion   between   political   scientists   and   economists   whether   motivations  
or  feasibility  are  decisive.  The  Feasibility  approach  asks  when  is  it  possible  for  a  rebellion  to  turn  
into   a   revolution.   Motivations   are   then   secondary   and   we   rather   ask   what   makes   the   occurrence  

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  8  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

of   launching   a   small   army   possible   (food,   weapons,   etc.).   Rebel   movements   need   a   specific   set   of  
circumstances  like  high  unemployment  of  young  men  to  occur.  
 

b.  Costs  and  Consequences  

The  costs  and  consequences  of  conflict  go  well  beyond  the  end  of  the  fighting  and  are  crucial  to  
conflict  resolution.  Of  course  civilians  are  the  major  victims  and  suffer  most  from  the  economic,  
social  and  political  consequences.  
 
In   the   economic   dimension   there   are   various   processes,   which   cause   development   to   reverse.  
First,   there   is   major   destruction   which   damages   infrastructure,   livestock   and   people   directly.  
Second,  disorder  causes  insecurity,  divestment  and  a  decrease  in  productivity.  Third,  dissaving  
causes   a   decrease   in   capital  stock,   which   means   that   money   is   spent   short-­‐term   and   used   to   flee  
the  country.  
 
Fourth,   diversion   causes   the   productive   industry   such   as   farming,   textile   and   machinery   to   be  
turned  into  unproductive  expenditure  such  as  military.  All  the  positive  spill  over  in  an  industrial  
country   from   increased   military   expenditures   (technology,   education)   are   not   at   play   in   a  
developing  country  because  only  cheap  weapons  are  used  and  there  is  no  training,  education  or  
improved   technology.   Knight   et   al.   (1996)   estimated   that   after   a   conflict   duration   of   ten   years  
the  accumulated  loss  due  to  military  expenditure  is  18%  of  the  initial  GDP.  Military  expenditures  
remain  high  also  after  the  war.  
 

Fifth,  there  is  major  physical,  human  and  financial  capital  flight  that  prevents  reconstruction.  
There  is  a  decrease  in  the  stock  of  productive  capital  and  its  productivity.  Capital  flight  is  likely  
to  remain  high  in  post-­‐conflict  times.  More  financial  capital  is  kept  abroad  than  before  as  it  is  
easily  shifted  abroad.  Loss  in  human  capital  is  caused  by  increased  numbers  of  people  living  
abroad  than  before  the  war  whilst  there  is  less  domestic  investment  in  education  leading  to  a  
further  loss.  Financial  and  human  capital  remain  low  even  after  the  end  of  the  conflict  due  to  a  
lasting  diversion  and  high  uncertainty  (there  is  no  interest  to  invest).  Unsurprisingly,  the  annual  
growth  rate  is  reduced  during  and  after  a  short  war.  After  a  long  war  however,  there  is  an  
increased  growth  rate  compared  to  before  the  war  during  which  the  economy  is  catching  up.  
Especially  the  diversion  towards  unproductive  factors  and  capital  flight  have  long  term  negative  
consequences  for  development  and  cause  a  major  setback,  causing  these  effects  to  be  called  
“development  in  reverse”.  However  according  to  the  model  of  Economic  Growth  proposed  by  
Robert  Solow  and  according  to  studies  by  the  economists  Edward  Miguel  and  Gérard  Roland  on  
the  long-­‐run  impact  of  bombing  Vietnam,  the  destruction  of  capital  stock  alone  has  no  long-­‐term  
negative  impact  on  the  economic  development  of  a  region  (in  terms  of  consumption  etc.)  
because  the  aforementioned  accelerated  catch-­‐up-­‐growth  allows  the  region  to  recover  from  the  
destruction.  But  if  the  destruction  of  capital  stock  is  combined  with  other  aforementioned  
negative  consequences  of  war  the  negative  impact  may  still  be  long-­‐lasting.  

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  9  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

The  social  costs  are  harder  to  asses.  There  is  a  direct  impact  on  the  civilians  who  constitute  the  
clear  majority  of  victims.  But  there  are  also  long-­‐lasting  costs  such  as  increased  infant  mortality  
and   increased   mortality   in   young,   male,   urban   and   the   educated   population.   Mortality   is   also  
affected  by  the  spread  of  infectious  diseases.  A  substantial  proportion  of  the  population  will  be  
prevented   from   working   again.   There   are   many   more   internally   displaced   people   as   a  
consequence  to  the  increased  number  of  civil  wars.    
 
From   a   political   perspective   it   is   important   to   note   that   once   a   country   has   been   involved   in   a  
civil  war,  the  conflict  risk  is  much  higher.  There  is  an  increased  feasibility  as  there  are  many  war  
materials,   many   unemployed   men   with   low   opportunity   costs   to   join   a   movement   and   increased  
motivations,   as   there   are   many   unhappy   people.   However,   after   a   long   war   the   probability  
decreases  again  as  people  thread  the  recurrence  of  conflict.    
 
The  costs  of  conflict  are  not  only  carried  by  the  states  themselves  but  also  their  neighbors.  The  
longer  the  conflict  wages  the  higher  are  the  costs  for  the  region  as  a  whole.  There  are  collateral  
destructions;   there   is   an   arms   race,   refugees,   capital   flight   causing   a   decrease   in   trade   and   the  
risk  of  contagion  of  the  conflict  due  to  reciprocal  funding.    
 
On   a   global   level   the   costs   are   even   more   complex   to   assess.   But   there   is   an   intuitive   link   to  
pandemics   and   international   terrorism.   More   interesting   is   to   know   that   95%   of   the   worlds  
production   of   opium   and   cocaine   comes   from   civil   war   and   post-­‐conflict   countries   whilst  
consumption  is  mainly  in  industrial  countries.  The  costs  for  these  countries  include  public  health  
and  criminal  activity  due  to  drug  use  and  trade  (Collier  2003).    
 

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  10  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

 
Figure  1:  Opium  Production  in  Collier  2003  

 
Figure  1:  Cocaine  Production  in  Collier  2003  

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  11  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Natural  Resources  

a.  Equilibrium  Effect  
As   aforementioned   the   nature   of   Civil   wars   has   significantly   changed   since   the   end   of   the   Cold  
War.   During   the   Cold   War   the   actors   involved   in   civil   wars   were   mainly   financed   by   foreign  
actors.  After  the  end  of  the  cold  war  these  actors  had  to  find  new  financial  strategies  to  finance  
their   operations.   Common   financial   sources   are   drug   and   arms   trade   and   natural   resources.  
Understanding  the  nature  of  these  resources  is  crucial  in  understanding  how  these  conflicts  are  
carried   out.   According   to   Ross   (2004)   especially   the   occurrence   of   oil   increases   the   risk   of  
conflict,   notably   secessionist   conflicts.   Where   there   is   oil   the   prize   or   profit   to   be   won   from  
engaging   in   a   conflict   is   higher.   He   stresses   the   point   that   not   every   kind   of   resource   has   the  
same   effect.   Resources,   which   are   easy   to   loot,   such   as   gemstones   and   drugs,   do   not   increase   the  
risk   of   war   onset   but   their   duration.   This   observation   is   called   the   Equilibrium   Effect.   It   refers   to  
the  fact  that  when  insurgencies  take  control  of  natural  resources  they  have  access  to  long  term  
financing  and  thus  have  fewer  incentives  to  engage  in  peace  restoration.  When  the  financial  flow  
from   these   resources   is   robust   the   rebels   may   even   profit   more   from   continuing   the   war   than  
from  winning  it.    
 

Types  of  Natural  Resources  

Not   every   natural   resource   is   equally   easy   to   extract   and   trade.   According   to   Le   Billon   (2001)  
this  differs  according  to  geographical  characteristics.    The  concentration  of  said  resource  on  the  
territory   can   be   point   or   diffuse.   Point   resources   such   as   oil   or   mines   are   easier   to   loot   and   the  
profit  is  higher.  Consequently  they  notably  increase  the  risk  of  coups  and  wars  over  the  control  
of  the  state,  especially  when  they  are  located  close  to  the  center  of  power.  Diffuse  resources  allow  
groups   of   rebels   to   survive   and   replace   the   state   in   some   parts   of   the   territory   leading   to  
Warlordism.  When  resources  are  located  close  to  the  power  center  they  increase  the  risk  of  riots  
and  rebellion.  Lujala  et.  al  (2005)  researched  the  link  between  diamonds  and  civil  wars.  Primary  
diamonds   are   very   difficult   to   extract   but   secondary   diamonds   are   easily   extracted   by   rebels  
using   poor   instruments.   Primary   diamonds   are   consequently   only   extracted   by   multinational  
organizations,   which   have   to   go   through   government   officials.   On   the   one   hand   this   gives  
opportunity  to  corruption  on  the  other  hand  it  supports  governments  in  deterring  rebellions.    

Social  Factors  

a.  Fragmentation  
The   higher   the   cultural   or   ethnic   fragmentation   in   a   society   the   lower   the   risk   of   civil   war   onset.  
The   higher   the   fragmentation   the   harder   the   organization   and   mobilization   of   rebels.   What   is  
more  important  is  the  polarization  in  a  given  society.    
 

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  12  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

b.  Education  
After  a  civil  war  ends  the  risk  of  a  new  war  is  highest.  It  is  crucial  to  conflict  prevention  to  create  
opportunities  for  the  combatants.  Since  most  joined  the  insurgencies  because  of  lack  of  prospect  
in  the  first  place  it  is  even  more  important  to  create  economic  prospects.  Especially  young  men  
who  are  at  highest  risk  to  continue  fighting  need  to  be  enrolled  in  secondary  education.  
   

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  13  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

 
Le  Billon  P.,  2001.  The   Political  Ecology   of   War:  Natural  Resources   and   Armed   Conflicts.  Political  
Geography  20:  561-­‐584.    

Collier,   Paul.   Breaking   the   conflict   trap:   Civil   war   and   development   policy.   World   Bank  
Publications,  2003.  
 
Crawford,  Neta  C.  "Just  war  theory  and  the  US  counterterror  war."  Perspective  on  Politics  1.01  
(2003):  5-­‐25.  
 
Fearon  J.D.,  2007.  Economic  Development,  Insurgency,  and  Civil  War.  Forthcoming    in  
Institutions  and  Economic  Performance  (E.  Helpman,  ed.)      

Kalyvas,  Stathis.  "New  and  old  civil  wars."  World  politics  54.1  (2001):  99-­‐118.  
 
Knight   M.,   N.   Loayza   and   D.   Villanueva,   1996.   The   Peace   Dividend:   Military   Spending   Cuts   and  
Economic  Growth.  World  Bank  Policy  Research  Paper,  1577.    

Lujala   P.,   N.   P.   Gleditsch   and   E.   Gilmore,   2005.   A   Diamond   Curse?   Civil   War   and   a   Lootable  
Resource.  Journal  of  Conflict    Resolution  49(4):  538-­‐562.    

Ross   M.,   2004.   What   Do   We   Know   About   Natural   Resources   and   Civil   War?,   Journal   of   Peace  
Research  41(3):  337.    

Sambanis  N.,  2004.  What  is  civil  war?  Conceptual  and  empirical  complexities  of  an  operational  
definition.  Journal  of  Conflict  Resolution,  48:  814–58      

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  14  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Topic  B  –  Biological  weapons  

Asymmetric warfare concentrates on the use of unconventional and affordable weapons and
tactics. This includes both traditional guerilla fighting but also the deployment of new
weapons of mass destruction. From a historical perspective biological warfare is not a new
phenomenon however it is shaping the dynamic of modern warfare as well (Block 2001).

What  are  biological  weapons?  

Biological  weapons  are  a  complex  system  that  disseminates  disease-­‐causing  and  life-­‐threatening  
bacteria  as  well  as  organisms  to  injure  and  kill  humans,  animals  and  plants  but  also  Toxins  based  
on   organic   compounds   such   as   Botulinum   Toxin.    
Disease-­‐causing   organism   include   prior   bacteria   and   viruses.   Moreover,   also   fungi,   prions   or  
rickettsiae  can  be  subsumed  under  this  terminology.  A  prion  describes  an  infectious  agent  that  is  
the  cause  of  the  transmissible  spongiform  encephalopathies  (TSEs),  a  condition  that  affects  the  
brain   and   nervous   system   of   humans   and   animals.   This   infection   ends   in   tiny   holes   that   are  
developing   in   the   cortex   that   is   induced   by   the   deterioration   of   mental   and   physical   abilities   in   a  
human   and/or   animal   brain.   Hence,   the   myriad   holes   have   it   look   like   a   sponge   when   it   is  
examined   under   a   microscope.   The   infection   causes   damages   of   the   brain   function   such   as   for  
example  memory  changes,  personality  changes  and  problems  with  the  motor  skills  and  it  can  get  
worse   throughout   the   time.   Rickettsiae   are     pleomorphic   bacteria   that   can   be   transmitted   by  
various   types   of   anthropods   like   chigger,   ticks,   fleas   and   lice.   This   bacteria   are   mostly  
responsible  for  the  diseases  of  Typhus,  Rickettsialpox,  Boutonneuse  fever,  African  tick  bite  fever.    
Furthermore,   some   toxins   can   also   be   seen   as   biological   threat   as   it   is   describes   as   poisons  
derived  from  animals,  plants  or  microorganisms.  It  can  also  be  produced  synthetically.  
These   weapons   are   used   for   political   assassinations,   but   also   for   the   infection   of   livestock   or  
agricultural   productions.   The   aim   is   mainly   to   cause   environmental   catastrophes   that   result   in  
food   shortages   and   economic   loss.   Furthermore,   it   introduces   widespread   illness,   fear   and  
mistrust  of  the  public.    
 
The range of different types of potential biological weapons is very wide. Any viral or
bacterial disease could be potentially transformed into a weapon. In 2002 for example
Leonard Cole outlined the suitable properties of the Ebola virus. Consequently there are also
many different ways to obtain these biological organisms. Their origin is often found in the
laboratories of researchers and doctors who don’t mean any harm. It is crucial to find ways
to identify the true purpose of such research. This is further complicated by the fact that
initially not much of the biological agent or technology is necessary. Bacteria can duplicate at
immense speed and without sophisticated technical assistance (Cole 2002).

The following report shows the most dangerous and most infectious bacteria that have
probably been used in biological warfare:

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  15  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Figure  2:  List  of  Different  Weaponized  Bacteria  

 
Unlike chemical agents bacteria and viruses are contagious and reproductive (Cole 2002).

History  of  biological  weapons  

During  the  past  century,  more  than  500  million  people  died  of  infectious  diseases  such  as  viruses  
and   bacteria.   That   makes   biological   warfare   one   of   the   greatest   dangers   for   the   human  
population.  
Not   only   nowadays   but   also   in   the   past   centuries,   different   population   have   already   used   the  
effects  and  the  harm  of  infections  to  attack  the  enemies.  
 
The  origins  of  biological  weapons  start  much  earlier  than  in  the  20th  century.  The  earliest  known  
and  documented  incident  of  the  use  of  biological  weapons  is  recorded  in  Nesite  that  is  the  extinct  
language   of   the   Hittites,   an   Indo-­‐European   population   in   today’s   north-­‐central   Turkey.   That   was  
within   1’500-­‐1’200   BC.   Victims   of   the   disease   of   Tularemia   –   highly   infectious   and   virulent  
bacteria  that  are  related  to  the  Black  Death  and  that  can  be  life-­‐threatening  to  human  beings  –  
were  driven  to  the  enemy’s  land  to  cause  a  huge  epidemic.    
 
The second documented use of biological weapons was recorded during the Mongol Empire
in today’s Mongolia – Central Asia. During the Middle Ages, victims of the bubonic plague
were used for attacks where the excrements of the victims were thrown into towns and
buildings using catapults. The bubonic plague is caused by the bacteria pesti. The plague
erupts after three to seven days and the symptoms include headache and vomiting. In the
later stage, swollen lymph nodes appear in the area where the person had been first infected.

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  16  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Figure  3:  Attack  of  Caffa  

During the 14 century until the 18 century, more and more conflicts started to include early
th th

“biological weapons”. In the course of time, not only excrements were thrown at the enemies
but also highly infected animals and corpses of infected people.

Biological warfare became more sophisticated in the 19 th

and 20 th
century.
In World War I, there is substantial evidence that a German program included an ambitious
biological warfare plan. Germany has therefore started the modern biological warfare. The
country allegedly attempted to ship horses and other animals infected by different types of
bacteria, such as anthrax and glanders to the United States and also to other countries. The
program featured more covert operations regarding the shipment of sheep also infected by
anthrax and glanders to Romania.

However, in the period between the World Wars, there was an attempt to reduce the modern
reinforced biological warfare. This attempt resulted in the Geneva Protocol “for the
Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating gas, and of Bacteriological Methods of
Warfare” of 1925. Unfortunately, the effort was ineffectual because the resolution aimed the
prohibition of the use of biological weapons but the research, production and possession was

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  17  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

disregarded. Also not every country did sign the protocol; the United States for instance did
not ratify the Geneva protocol until 1975.

In World War II, the Japanese biological warfare program was the most unexplored but yet
the most remarkable plan regarding the use of biological weapons. Japan has created the
special innominate called Unit 731, where a staff of over 3’000 scientists and technicians
developped different biological weapons that they wanted to use to attack the USA. Most
inhuman about the Unit 731 was the fact that Japan tested their weaponry on prisoners and
infected a great number with shigella and cholera, as a consequence, over 10’000 prisoners
died because of their infections.

In the United States, the biological warfare program has only begun in 1942 by a civilian
agency – the War Reserve Service. It had different research and development facilities all
over the country so that it resulted in a large-based production of biological weapons. In the
Cold War between the USA and the USSR, the later accused America of the use of germ
warfare in Korea.

Later, in Vietnam a clear and strengthened use of biological weapons were established The
Communist Viet Cong Guerillas implanted bamboo spikes and other woods that were
contaminated with human feces. Combatant as well as non-combatant who stepped in the
woods was impaled upon the spikes that caused a very rapid and most virulent infection.

Also during the Iran-Iraq War from 1980 to 1988, numerous uses of biological weapons were
counted by Iraq. The UN Secretary General dispatched a team of specialists that verified
allegations to induce over 2’200 causalities. However, the allegations could not be verified
until today.

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  18  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Conventions  regarding  biological  weapons  

a. Geneva  Protocol  1925  

The Geneva Protocol of 1925 was the first Convention stating the prohibition of the use of
chemical and biological weapons. The Protocol was signed at a Conference that was held in
Geneva under the auspices of the League of Nations from May 4th to June 17th 1925. The
Geneva Protocol entered into force in 1928.
The conference adopted the convention for the supervision of the international trade in arms,
munitions and implements of war. Additionally, it has also released a separate document
regarding the use of gases.
After World War I the Geneva Protocol included a “A Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use
in War of Asphyxiating gas, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.” The protocol didn’t
forbid the production and development of biological weapons but its use was banned during
war. After World War II there was little public debate on biological weapons as nuclear arms
were the main concern. Consequently there was intense development of biological weapons.

However, the Convention only prohibits the „asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of
all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare“. The
Geneva Protocol does, therefore, not mention the production, storage and transfer of
biological weapons. According to this lack of regulation, the Biological Weapons Convention
was ratified in 1972 in order to supplement the Protocol.

The Geneva Protocol was violated different times by various countries. Several countries
have deployed and prepared chemical weapons despite of the treaty. As explained in the
history of the biological weapons, Germany, Japan as well as the United Kingdom prepared
several biological an chemical weapons and stockpiled them in order to attack enemies and
defend the country.

b.  Biological Weapons Convention 1972  

Furthermore, over 160 members and signatories of the United Nations created the Biological
Weapons Convention (BWC). The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their
Destruction opened for signature in 1972 and entered into force on March 26 1975.
th

It was the first multilateral treaty regarding the disarmament of biological weapons. The
Convention strictly prohibits the development, the production, the acquisition, the transfer,
the retention, the stockpiling as well as the use of biological or toxin weapons. Moreover, it
builds the key element in the international community’s efforts to reduce the proliferation of
weapons.
The main thought about the BWC was that the United Nations wanted to release a further
convention that should supplement the Geneva protocol of 1925.
On the Second Review Conference in 1986, the States Parties agreed to implement a number
of confidence-building measures in order to prevent and reduce any doubts and suspicions
and in order to improve the collaboration in the field of peaceful and cooperative biological

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  19  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

activities. In 1991, the Third Review Conference took place that strengthened the measures
and multilateral collaborations. The agreements that were signed at the Conferences regulate
that the member states have to provide annual reports on the specific activities of production
facilities, information on national biological defense research and information on the
outbreak of new or virulent diseases and infections.

However, the Biological and Toxic weapons convention could be more effective if it included
monitoring instruments and inspections. It can be useful to look at nuclear weapons treaties
and their anti-proliferation methods to find suitable and efficient methods.
Unfortunately, the convention lacks investigatory measures. Since the convention has been
violated on numerous occasions and there have been no sanctions. Investigations by the
United Nations Special Commission in charge of Iraqi disarmament showed that Saddam
Hussein had established an extensive program in the 1980s (Block 2011).
The main reason why the convention proves to be less effective than other similar
agreements such as the Chemical weapons Convention is the lack of a monitoring body. The
International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA monitors the Convention concerning Nuclear
Weapons (NPT) and the CWC is monitored by the Nobel-peace-price-winning Organization
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons OPCW. The formation of a similar organization
dealing with biological weapons has been opposed by various states such as the USA.

Moreover it would be very difficult to establish such an organization since clear lists of
prohibited substances or equipment could not be made, since a lot of the substances and
equipment used to create biological weapons are also used for civilian purposes. Botulinum
Toxin for example, a very dangerous biological toxin, is produced and marketed under the
name Botox as a beauty product. The toxin Ricin is a byproduct of the production of castor oil
and the fermentation tanks used in beer-production can easily be used in the production of
biological weapons.

c.  The Chemical Weapons Convention  

The modern use of chemical – and not biological – weapons begun during World War I.
Basically, this kind of weapons consist of very well known commercial chemicals that are
combined with different sort of standard ammunition as for example grenades. The results of
chemical weapons are always discretionary and devastating. Chemical weapons caused the
most victims per attack besides biological weapons. Since World War I, they have caused
over one million casualties worldwide.
Since the 1970s and 1980s, an estimated amount of 25 countries have developed different
types of chemical weapons but fortunately, since World War II, only a few cases of the use of
these warfare has been reported.

Already the Geneva Protocol of 1925 regulated the use of chemical weapons. Yet, the
convention has only prohibited the use of chemical weapons but they haven’t included any
prohibition of production etc.

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), therefore, lists chemicals that signatories must
declare to have in their possession and provides other provisions to verify compliance and

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  20  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

increase information exchange. It would be useful to the delegates to consider these kinds in
strategies when tackling the problems specific to biological weapons.

To supplement the Geneva Protocol, the Convention strictly forbids the development,
production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. Furthermore, it focuses on the
destruction of these types of warfare.

The Convention entered into force on April 29 1997 and it is the first disarmament
th

agreement negotiated within a multilateral framework to provide the elimination of an entire

category of weapons and of mass destruction under universal control.

Use  of  Biological  Weapons  

Very few cases are well and for sure known where biological weapons have been used as
war weapons. According to Cole (2002) however: “As the 20th century draws to a close, an
unpleasant paradox has emerged. More states than ever are signing international agreements
to eliminate chemical and biological arms. Yet more are also suspected of developing these
weapons despite the treaties.“ Today the United States name Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, North
Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Egypt, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Bulgaria, India, South Korea, South
Africa, China and Russia as perpetrators of existing treaties.

According to Cole (2002), this may be explained by their gruesome character. Biological
weapons may spread uncontrollably and indiscriminately, inflicting incredible suffering.
Actors he claims are reluctant to use this tactic in fear to alienate the public from their cause.

Researches have also shown that the spreading and the amount of victims strongly
disintegrate between nuclear weapons and biological weapons. Biological weapons spread
uncontrollably and infections can expand over hundreds of miles. There are not reduced to a
specific area that what planned to be attacked, unlike to nuclear weapons:

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  21  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Figure  4:  Difference  between  Nuclear  and  Biological  Weapons  Release  

Another hypothetical danger in the context of biological weapons is the possible
development of so-called Ethnic Bioweapons or Biogenetic Weapons. Ethnic Bioweapons
haven’t yet been developed but would scientifically be possible. They are especially cruel
because they aim to affect only people with a certain set of genes, which are very widespread
among a certain ethnic group. Under the code name Project Coast Apartheid South Africa
started to do research in chemical and biological weapons in 1981. While the project focused
on ordinary biological weapons in the beginning, it soon also included the search for
possible Biogenetic weapons.

It is also crucial to keep in mind how outbreaks are to be prevented. Large populations can
hardly be protected. The protection against Biological weapons is very difficult. The biggest
problem is that they can’t be as easily detected as for example chemical weapons and that the
detection equipment isn’t as widespread in most armies. However most armies have special
CBRN divisions dealing with Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear threats. The
best way to protect civilians as well as army-members is through hygiene and through
education on biological weapons. There are vaccinations against some types of Biological
weapons, such as the vaccine against Anthrax, which was given to American soldiers during
the Golf War, but they aren’t nearly as effective as other vaccinations and therefore highly
controversial. Moreover vaccines are only effective if the exact agent is known and if there is
the infrastructure and financial means for widespread vaccinations (Cole 2002).

Also on the one hand it has been observed for people to be resistant to antibiotics further
complicating the prevention of further spread and healing. On the other hand advances in
biotechnology allow for novel organisms to be engineered being resistant to vaccines and
antibiotics (Cole 2002).

The next point complicating prevention is that biological weapons can hardly be stopped
through physical or military boundaries. Existing combating techniques resolve around the

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  22  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

distribution of gas masks for extended periods of time. But in hot regions this is hardly a
solution (Cole 2002). It is necessary to develop special gear adequate to local circumstances.
However, this would mean that the biological weapons themselves have to be open to
research to develop the most appropriate countermeasures.

But even then the measures are futile if the biological agents can’t be identified quickly on
the battlefield.

In warfare biological weapons can’t only be used directly at populations. But they can
prevent populations from occupying specific territories. Similarly they can have devastating
effects on agriculture, food and water supply. This is very closely linked to the concept of
scorched earth. According to a definition from Wikipedia it is a “military strategy that targets
anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from
an area”. It is important to consider the local properties as rural areas will be affected much
differently than urban. The long-term consequences may include the need to resettle large
populations.

Effects  of  biological  weapons  

Without elaborate response strategies it is necessary to focus on the prevention. However, as
biological weapons are incredibly easyly produced agents will always be able to bypass
international agreements. Considering the nature of biological weapons they have an
incredible potential with non-state actors. Then they could be applied in terrorism, civil
wars, insurgencies, revolutions and other non-traditional warfare. These actors and conflicts
would be much more complex to regulate efficiently.

Moreover, when compared to the costs of nuclear weapons or other chemical and standard
weapons, biological weapons are extremely cheap. It has been estimated that one gram of
toxin could victimize and kill over 10 million people.
Any nation with a reasonably pharmaceutical and medical industry has the capability to
develop large quantities and qualities of biological weapons. That fact leads straight to the
problem that each country can create its own program that includes a great number of
different sorts of bacteria, virus and toxins as well as different defense and attack strategies.
Furthermore, only a few particles would need to be set free to start firstly an infection that
can result a great epidemic.

A further problem is that the scientific and technological development was in the past
decades such that their effects were too unpredictable and the problem of their storages and
their handling has become greater. As a consequence, other weapons combine more
advantages. The civil industry has made it possible to produce weapons that are more
effective and more predictable in their results. That leads to the fact that biotechnological
capabilities have now advanced to the point where bacteria, viruses and toxins can be
produced by synthetic means.

Biological weapons have also found their way into terrorism with the 2001 anthrax attack in
the united States delivered through the mail system that affected people in several states.

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  23  of  24  
Zurich  Model  United  Nations  
[Link]  

Block, Steven M. "The growing threat of biological weapons." American Scientist 89.1 (2001):
28-37.
Cole, Leonard A. "The specter of biological weapons." Scientific American 275.6 (1996): 60-65.
Johnson, Thomas J. “A History of Biological Warfare from 300 B.C.E. to the Present” (2013)
Riedel, Stefan “Biological warfare and bioterrorism, a historical review” (2004)
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other
Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, Geneva Switzerland, June 17 (1925)

 
 
Study  Guide  DISEC  –  ZuMUN  2016     Page  24  of  24