Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
2
Disarmament and International Security council
Committee Introduction
The Conference on Disarmament, established in 1979 as the single multilateral
disarmament negotiating forum of the international community, was a result of the
first Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly (SSOD-
I) held in 1978.
It succeeded other Geneva-based negotiating fora, which include the Ten-Nation
Committee on Disarmament (1960), the Eighteen-Nation Committee on Disarmament
(1962-68), and the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (1969-78).
The current Director-General of UNOG is the Secretary-General of the Conference on
Disarmament as well as the Personal Representative of the UN Secretary-General to
the CD.
The terms of reference of the DISEC include practically all multilateral arms control and
disarmament problems. Currently the committee primarily focuses its attention on the
following issues: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament;
prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters; prevention of an arms race in
outer space; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States
against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; new types of weapons of mass
destruction and new systems of such weapons including radiological weapons;
comprehensive programme of disarmament and transparency in armaments.
The DISEC meets in an annual session, which is divided in three parts of 10, 7 and 7
weeks, respectively. The first week shall begin in the penultimate week of the month of
January. The committee is presided by its members on a rotating basis. Each President
shall preside for a period of four weeks.
3
In order to ensure a coherent approach among the six Presidents of the session to the
work of the Conference, as of 2006, an informal coordination mechanism - the P6 - was
established that provides for the six presidents of the session to informally meet, usually
on a weekly basis. Also on a weekly basis, the President meets informally with the
Regional Group Coordinators and China together with the P6 (Presidential
Consultations).
As originally constituted, DISEC had 40 members. Subsequently its membership was
gradually expanded (and reduced) to 65 countries. The council has invited other UN
Member States that have expressed a desire to participate in the DISEC’s substantive
discussions, to take part in its work as non-member States.
DISEC adopts its own Rules of Procedure and its own agenda, taking into account the
recommendations of the General Assembly and the proposals of its Members.
It reports to the General Assembly annually, or more frequently, as appropriate. Its
budget is included in that of the United Nations. Staff members of the Geneva Branch of
the Office for Disarmament Affairs service the meetings of the committee, which are
held at the Palais des Nations. The Conference conducts its work by consensus.
The committee and its predecessors have negotiated such major multilateral arms
limitation and disarmament agreements as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile
Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, the Treaty on the Prohibition of the
Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the
Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil thereof, the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological
(Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, the Convention on the
Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons
and on Their Destruction and Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.
4
Topic A: Biochemical Warfare
Introduction
Biological warfare (BW)—also known as germ warfare—is the use of biological toxins or
infectious agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi with the intent to kill or
incapacitate humans, animals or plants as an act of war. Biological weapons (often
termed "bio-weapons", "biological threat agents", or "bio-agents") are living organisms
or replicating entities (viruses) that reproduce or replicate within their host victims.
Entomological (insect) warfare is also considered a type of biological weapon. This type
of warfare is distinct from nuclear warfare and chemical warfare, which together with
biological warfare make up NBC, the military acronym for nuclear, biological, and
chemical warfare using weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). None of these are
conventional weapons, which are deployed primarily for their explosive, kinetic, or
incendiary potential.
Biological weapons may be employed in various ways to gain a strategic or tactical
advantage over the enemy, either by threats or by actual deployments. Like some of the
chemical weapons, biological weapons may also be useful as area denial weapons.
These agents may be lethal or non-lethal, and may be targeted against a single
5
individual, a group of people, or even an entire population. They may be developed,
acquired, stockpiled or deployed by nation states or by non-national groups. In the latter
case, or if a nation-state uses it clandestinely, it may also be considered bioterrorism.
There is an overlap between biological warfare and chemical warfare, as the use of
toxins produced by living organisms is considered under the provisions of both the
Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Toxins and
psychochemical weapons are often referred to as midspectrum agents. Unlike
bioweapons, these midspectrum agents do not reproduce in their host and are typically
characterized by shorter incubation periods.
The use of biological weapons is prohibited under customary international humanitarian
law, as well as a variety of international treaties. The use of biological agents in armed
conflict is a war crime. Offensive biological warfare, including mass production,
stockpiling, and use of biological weapons, was outlawed by the 1972 Biological
Weapons Convention (BWC). The rationale behind this treaty, which has been ratified
or acceded to by 170 countries as of April 2013, is to prevent a biological attack which
could conceivably result in large numbers of civilian casualties and cause severe
disruption to economic and societal infrastructure.
On the other hand, chemical Weapons rose to prominence during World War 1 when
they were used by both the Allies and the Germans. Each side indiscriminately used
poisonous gases particularly chlorine and mustard gas, deployed by the means of a
canister or through standard munitions such as grenade or artillery, to cause massive
casualties to the enemy. As such, the first large scale attack occurred on 22nd April
1915 at leper in Belgium at the start of the Second Battle of Ypres. At around 17.00
hours, the German began bombarding the area but this time they utilized pressurized
cylinders in order to deliver poison gas. In retaliation on 24th September 1915, the Allied
forces released chlorine gas on Loos. However, the direction of the wind was not in their
favor and so, it blew back the gases into the Allied emplacements. Now, both sides of
the conflict had begun researching chemical weapons and were looking into more
effective ways of delivering them. By the end of World War 1, a total of 124,000
chemical agents had been expended and which had, in turn, caused 100,000 casualties
6
in Austria-Hungary, 188,706 in British Empire, 190,000 in France, 200,000 in Germany,
60,000 in Italy, 419,340 in Russia, 72,807 in United States and 10,000 in other
countries.
The death and destruction bought about by the use of chemical weapons caused a
public outrage and forced the global community to re-consider their use and
development. In that regards, several international conferences were held with the aim
of reaching a resolution that would prohibit their deployment and research. These
included the Washington Conference (1921 – 1922), the Geneva Protocol (1923-1925)
and the World Disarmament Conference (1933). Though these conferences managed
to agree to prohibit the use of chemical weapons, there was no consensus on their
research and development. However, these treaties did not have a solid foundation and
despite the general agreement, the use of these destructive weapons continued in the
upcoming years. During the second Italo-Abyssinian War, Italy used chemical weapons
against the Ethopian soldiers and civilians, the Spanish used them in Morocco and the
Japans in China.
The manufacture and stockpiling of chemical weapons continued during the Cold War.
Both the United States and the Soviet Union maintained around tens of thousands of
chemicals weapons. The Soviet Union had even developed a two strike Cold War
military plan, according to which they would first carry out a nuclear strike against the
American cities and then unleash biological and chemical weapons upon them. It was in
the late 1980s, after pressure from the Soveit Union and its NATO allies, that United
States began destroying its stockpiles. However, even to this present day it maintains
an arsenal for tactical use.
Alleged Uses in History
Rudimentary forms of biological warfare have been practiced since the dawn of human
civilizations. During the 6th century BC, the Assyrians poisoned enemy wells with a
fungus that would render the enemy delirious. In 1346, the bodies of Mongol warriors of
the Golden Horde who had died of plague were thrown over the walls of the besieged
7
Crimean city of Kaffa. It is doubted that this operation may have been responsible for
the spread of the Black Death into Europe.
The British Army used smallpox against Native Americans during the Siege of Fort Pitt
in. An outbreak that left as many as one hundred Native Americans dead in Ohio
Country was reported in 1764. The spread of the disease weakened the native's
resistance to the British troops led by Henry Bouquet. It is not clear, however, whether
the smallpox was a result of the Fort Pitt incident or the virus was already present
among the Delaware people. It has been claimed that the British Marines used smallpox
in New South Wales in 1789.
In Britain, the 1950s saw the weaponization of plague, brucellosis, tularemia and later
equine encephalomyelitis and vaccinia viruses, but the program was unilaterally
cancelled in 1956. The United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories weaponized
anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, Q-fever and others. In 1969, the UK and the Warsaw
Pact, separately, introduced proposals to the UN to ban biological weapons, and US
President Richard Nixon terminated production of biological weapons, allowing only
scientific research for defensive measures. The Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention was signed by the US, UK, USSR and other nations, as a ban on
"development, production and stockpiling of microbes or their poisonous products
except in amounts necessary for protective and peaceful research" in 1972. However,
the Soviet Union continued research and production of massive offensive biological
weapons in a program called Biopreparat, despite having signed the convention. By
2011, 165 countries had signed the treaty and none are proven—though nine are still
suspected—to possess offensive BW programs.
8
By 1900 the germ theory and advances in bacteriology brought a new level of
sophistication to the techniques for possible use of bio-agents in war. Biological
sabotage—in the form of anthrax and glanders—was undertaken on behalf of the
Imperial German government during World War I (1914–1918), with indifferent results.
The Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibited the use of chemical weapons and biological
weapons.
North Yemen
The civil war in North Yemen began on 1962. It was between the royal partisans of the
Mutawakkilite Kingdom and the supporters of the Yemen Arab Republics led by
Abdullah as-Sallah. The latter were successful in dethroning the newly crowned King,
Muhammad al-Badr who then escaped to the borders of Saudi Arabia where he
managed to garner support from Jordan, Saudi Arabia and United Kingdom. On the
other hand, the republics were supported by Egypt and Soviet Union.
Egypt took part in the war by deploying around 70,000 soldiers to act alongside the
republic forces. As the war intensified, Egypt began struggling against the guerilla
9
forces and the local’s growing support for the kingdom. To counter, Egypt decided to
resort to chemical weapons with the aim of eradicating the guerillas and also forcing the
local population to change their support. Hence, on 8th June 1963, Egyptian Air Force
dropped chloroacetophenone tear gas bombs on royalist villages south of Sadah
resulting in the death of the village inhabitants as well as the royalists who had taken
refuge in caves and tunnels. Then on 5th January 1967, nine Egyptian bombers dropped
poison gas, or more specifically 27 phosgene bombs on the village of Kitaf which
reportedly killed more than 200 people. Another chemical attack was carried out on May
1967 on the town of Gahar and as a result of which, 75 people were killed. 243 people
were further murdered when Egypt dropped chemical bombs on the villages of Gabas,
Hofal, Gadafa and Gadr.
Iran-Iraq War
The Iran-Iraq war had come to a standstill but that changed in 1983 when Iran launched
an offensive, Wal Fajr. In order to be more effective, Iran decided to launch attacks at
different places simultaneously and they particularly struck the north of Iraq where
Kurdish forces were also present and hostile to the Iraqi regime. This unnerved Saddam
Hussain as Iran successfully managed to gain some ground and he instructed his
military to stop the offense at any costs even if it meant using chemical weapons. As
such, reports arose according to which Iraq had begun using chemical weapons in order
to halt the Iranian forces.
On 25th October, Iran reported to the UN Security Council that Iraq had bombarded the
Piranshahr area with canisters containing poison gas and as evidence sampled sands
and also attached pictures of the victims. Two further attacks were reported by Iran.
One on the town of Baneh in northwestern Iran which reportedly killed 31 people and
the other on the village of Bandemjan which caused 11 death and injured numerous
others. The use of chemical weapons by Iraq was also confirmed by the UN delegation
that arrived in Iran from 13th March to 19th March 1984. Then on 28th February, reports
arose of Iraq deploying mustard gas in Khaybar which reportedly claimed 700 deaths.
The chemical attack is supposed to be in response to Iran’s successful push and their
capture of Majnoon Islands and the outskirts of Qurna. The scale at which the chemical
10
weapons were being deployed increased in 1985. According to the Iranian
representative to the UN, Iraq had used chemical weapons around the Hawizeh
marshes on two separate occasions. As a result, 180 Iranian soldiers had died. Soon
enough, a second later was dispatched by Iran according to which, on 16th March, Iraqi
planes had dropped 6 capsules which Iranian experts believed contained cyanide,
phosphorous and mustard gas. Soon after, four other chemical attacks were carried out.
Altogether, there were 28 such separate occasions between 13th and 20th March. Then
on 9th February 1986, Iran launched an operation, namely Wal Fajr 8, to take Faw and
the peninsula was taken after a week. This was a huge setback for Iraq and to take
back the city it resorted to using Tabun and mustard gas, delivered through artillery, and
managed to inflict 700 casualties. These allegations were confirmed when a UN
delegation led by Dr.Manuel Dominguez, a UN Specialist, visited hospitals in Europe
and examined the victims of these chemical attacks.
Lastly but not the least, the largest chemical attack against civilians was carried out by
Iraq on 16th March 1988. Iraqi Air Force carried out successive sorties dropping
chemical weapons including mustard gas, cyanide and sarin. The attack killed a total of
12,000 and injured a further of 7000 people. The Iraqi official responsible for the attack
was Chemical Ali or Al-Anfal who made it clear that chemical weapon would continue
to be used to ensure complete annihilation of the Kurdish people.
Persian Gulf War
On 25th May 1994, US Defense Secretary William J.Perry and Chairman of the Joint
Chief of Staffs, General John M. Shalikashvili, declared, “There is no evidence,
classified or unclassified, that indicates that chemical or biological weapons were used
in the Persian Gulf”. A similar declaration was made by both, in May 1996, by the then
CIA representative Sylvia Copeland and the Presidential Advisory Committee on Gulf
War Veterans’ Illness.
However, while these statements do seem to indicate that chemical weapons had not
been used on a large scale by Iraq in the war, there are still some intelligence reports
and other sources of evidence that indicate the presence and perhaps, the use of
chemical weapons. The following tables have been taken from an article called
11
“Evidence Iraq Used Chemical Weapons During the 1991 Persian Gulf War” by
Jonathan B.Tucker which suggests the presence of chemical weapons.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Angola
Angola received independence on November 1975 but immediately descended into a
civil war that lasted till 2002. The civil war was a struggle against the Soviet-Union and
Cuban backed People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and United-
States, South-Africa and Zaire backed National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA) and
National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA). Soon enough, both Cuba
and South Africa sent in their forces in order to aid their respective allies.
As the war progressed, reports of both side using chemical weapons emerged.
According to an investigation conducted by the UN and WHO over the mass murders at
Kassinga in 1978, it revealed the South African Special Forces, in order to ensure
complete extermination of the people, had used poison to paralyze their victims before
shooting them. Later in 2000, the Angolan army made an announcement that it had
found chemical weapons in UNITA arms caches in the central highland.
However, South Africa and UNITA weren’t the only reported to be utilizing chemical
weapons and new evidence suggested the use of chemical weapons by the Cubans.
The latter claim was confirmed by Prof. Aubin Heyndrickx, head of toxicology at the
University of Ghent in Belgium and a U.N. specialist on biological and chemical warfare
and when he took environmental samples from the Angolan battle zone and which
showed evident traces of mustard gas and nerve gases. Then in 1993, UNITA claimed
that the MPLA had dropped chemical weapons on the city of Ndalatando and Huambo.
Syrian Civil War
The Syrian civil war began on March 2011 when people started demanding an end to
the authoritarian government of Bashar-Al-Assad and instead raised their voice for
democracy. The Syrian government resorted to using violence to suppress the protests
which caused the situation to further worsen. Militias began to rise up and took up arms
against the government. By 2012, the situation had converted into a full-fledged war.
20
But is that true? Should the global community believe a state that has already
committed numerous atrocities against its own citizens? Soon enough, chemical
weapons started being used throughout Syria.
On 23rd December 2012, the first chemical attack occurred. Agent 15, a chemical
weapon, was dropped on Al-Bayadah, Homs. It was then under the control of the Free
Syrian Army and the attack is reported to have 6 rebel fighters. Then on 19th March
2013, there was a sarin gas in the Syrian cities, Khan al-Assel neighborhood of Aleppo
and the Damascus suburb of al-Atebeh. It reportedly killed 26 people and injured
dozens more. An investigation by U.N revealed that it was sarin gas but the report did
not establish the perpetrator of the attack. 5 days later, on 24th March 2013, Syrian
opposition activists claimed another chemical attack by the Syrian military on the town
of Adra which caused two death and injured at least 23 others. There was no formal
investigation carried out by the international community but the local doctors described
the weapons as phosphorous gas. Hardly half a month had gone by, 13th April 2013, the
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) accused the Syrian army of dropping gas
bombs on Aleppo, then controlled by Kurdish forces. It killed two people and wounded
12 others. Soon after that, on 29th April 2013, a helicopter dropped chemical filled
canisters on Saraqb which killed 1 people and caused breathing problems to eight
others.
On 23rd July 2012, a Syrian Foreign Military released a
statement,
“Any stock of W.M.D. or unconventional weapons that the Syrian
Army possesses will never, never be used against the Syrian people
or civilians during this crisis, under any circumstances,” said Foreign
Ministry spokesman, Jihad Makdissi, according to a New York Times
story from 2012. “These weapons are made to be used strictly and
only in the event of external aggression against the Syrian Arab
Republic.”
21
But then the largest chemical attack occurred on 21st August 2013 in the suburbs of the
Ghouta region. At the same time, Syrian forces were trying to eliminate the rebel force
from that area. According to reports, it was a gas attack and it managed to take the
many lives of 1000 people, many of whom were civilians. Once again, the U.N could not
determine the body responsible behind the attack but U.S intelligence forces accuse
Bashar al-Assad for it. Then on 11th April 2014, new reports emerged as per which
chlorine bombs had been dropped on the village of Kafr Zita, then under the control of
opposition forces. Chlorine is not banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention
as it is used for various purposes in daily life but its use as a chemical weapon is
certainly banned. The OPCW announced that it would investigate this attack. Another
chlorine gas attack was reported on 10th August 2016 by Hospital officials and on 7th
September that killed two people, both of them in Aleppo.
The most recent chemical attack occurred on 4th April 2017 on Syria’s Ibid province.
Sarin gas, a nerve agent, was used and killed at least 92 people, 30 of them children.
The Syrian government is believed to have carried out the attack as its aircrafts were
flying over the area at the time of attack.
Chemical Terrorism
Terrorist organizations have now resorted to using chemical weapons to carry out mass
murders. On 27th June 1994, a religious cult known as Aum Shinrikyo carried out a sarin
gas attack on the city of Matsumoto in Japan. The chemical was manufactured by the
group itself as some of their members were experts in virology and it was sprayed from
a modified van. The attack poisoned about 600 residents and rescue staff and killed 8
people. The same organization carried out another chemical attack on 20th March 1995.
This time the group deployed 5 men and instructed them to release the gas in the Tokyo
Subway system. Once done, they took the antidote and escaped. The gas took the lives
of 13 people and poisoned 6000 others. This was followed by two other chemical
attacks on May and July 1995 in which the group used hydrogen cyanide, resulting in
the injury of 4 people.
ISIS has also particularly been reported of using chemical weapons in both Syria and
Ira. According to intelligence reports and independent analyses, it has employed
22
chemical weapons at least 52 times and out of which, 19 have been around Mosul. One
instance is on the 1st March 2017 when Isis launched a chemical attack on Mosul. The
terrorist organization is thought to have apparently used mortars to delivers the
chemical agents.
AGREEMENTS AND RELEVANT BODIES
Biological Weapon Institutions
With the onset of World War II, the Ministry of Supply in the United Kingdom established
a BW program at Porton Down, headed by the microbiologist Paul Fildes. The
research was championed by Winston Churchill and soon tularemia, anthrax,
brucellosis, and botulism toxins had been effectively weaponized. In particular,
Gruinard Island in Scotland, during a series of extensive tests was contaminated with
anthrax for the next 56 years. Although the UK never offensively used the biological
weapons it developed on its own, its program was the first to successfully weaponize a
variety of deadly pathogens and bring them into industrial production. Other nations,
notably France and Japan had begun their own biological weapons programs. Later in
1942 British military planned the Operation Vegetarian. It was a British military plan
disseminate linseed cakes infected with anthrax spores onto the fields of Germany.
These cakes would have been eaten by the cattle, which would then be consumed by
the civilian population, causing the deaths of millions of German citizens. Furthermore, it
would have wiped out the majority of Germany's cattle, creating a massive food
shortage for the rest of the population that remained uninfected. Preparations were not
complete until early 1944. Operation Vegetarian was of course only to be used in the
event of a German anthrax attack on the United Kingdom. The cakes themselves were
tested on Gruinard Island, just off the coast of Scotland. Because of the widespread
contamination from the anthrax, the land remained a no-go area until 1990. The five
million cakes made to be disseminated in Germany were eventually destroyed in an
incinerator shortly after World War II ended in 1945.
When the USA entered the war, allied resources were pooled at the request of the
British and the U.S. established a large research program and industrial complex at
Fort Detrick, Maryland in 1942 under the direction of George W. Merck. The biological
23
and chemical weapons developed during that period were tested at the Dugway Proving
Grounds in Utah. Soon there were facilities for the mass production of anthrax spores,
brucellosis, and botulism toxins, although the war was over before these weapons could
be of much operational use. In this process the US army Biological warfare laboratories
were set and activities were carried out. Not only this but many operations were part of
US army entomology warfare. Following these were the projects carried out namely
Project Bacchus, Project Clear Vision, Project SHAD and Project 112 in the name of
military and war research.
The Soviet Union began a biological weapons program in the 1920s. During World War
II, Joseph Stalin was forced to move his biological warfare (BW) operations out of the
path of advancing German forces and may have used tularemia against German troops
in 1942 near Stalingrad.
By 1960, numerous BW research facilities existed throughout the Soviet Union.
Although the USSR also signed the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), the
Soviets subsequently augmented their bio-warfare programs. Over the course of its
history, the Soviet program is known to have weaponized and stockpiled the following
eleven bio-agents (and to have pursued basic research on many more):
1) Bacillus anthracis (anthrax)
2) Yersinia pestis (plague)
3) Francisella tularensis (tularemia)
4) Burkholderia mallei (glanders)
5) Brucella spp (brucellosis)
6) Coxiella burnetii (Q-fever)
24
7) Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEE)
8) Botulinum toxin (botulism)
9) Staphylococcal enterotoxin B
10) Smallpox
11) Marburg virus
These programs became immense and were conducted at 52 clandestine sites
employing over 50,000 people. Annualized production capacity for weaponized
smallpox, for example, was 90 to 100 tons. In the 1980s and 1990s, many of these
agents were genetically altered to resist heat, cold, and antibiotics. In the 1990s, Boris
Yeltsin admitted to an offensive bio-weapons program as well as to the true nature of
the Sverdlovsk biological weapons accident of 1979, which had resulted in the deaths of
at least 64 people. Defecting Soviet bioweaponeers such as Colonel Kanatjan Alibekov
confirmed that the program had been massive and still existed. An agreement was
signed with the US and UK promising to end bio-weapons programs and convert BW
facilities to benevolent purposes, but compliance with the agreement — and the fate of
the former Soviet bio-agents and facilities — is still mostly undocumented.
Saddam Hussein (1937–2006) initiated an extensive biological weapons (BW) program
in Iraq in the early 1980s, in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) of
1972. Details of the BW program—along with a chemical weapons program—surfaced
only in the wake of the Gulf War (1990–91) following investigations conducted by the
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) which had been charged with the post-
war disarmament of Saddam's Iraq. By the end of the war, program scientists had
investigated the BW potential of five bacterial strains, one fungal strain, five types of
virus, and four toxins. Of these, three—anthrax, botulinum and aflatoxin—had
proceeded to weaponization for deployment. Because of the UN disarmament program
25
that followed the war, more is known today about the once-secret bioweapons program
in Iraq than that of any other nation. During UN inspections in 1998, it emerged that
Hussein had had prisoners tied to stakes and bombarded with anthrax and chemical
weapons for experimental purposes. Human experiments began in the 1980s during the
Iran–Iraq War after initial experiments on sheep and camels. Dozens of prisoners are
believed to have died in agony during the program. According to an article in the
London Sunday Times:
In one incident, Iranian prisoners of war are said to have been tied up and killed by
bacteria from a shell detonated nearby. Others were exposed to an aerosol of anthrax
sprayed into a chamber while doctors watched behind a glass screen. Two British-
trained scientists have been identified as leading figures in the programme. …
According to Israeli military intelligence sources, 10 Iranian prisoners of war were
taken to a location near Iraq's border with Saudi Arabia. They were lashed to posts
and left helpless as an anthrax bomb was exploded by remote control 15 yards away.
All died painfully from internal haemorrhaging. In another experiment, 15 Kurdish
prisoners were tied up in a field while shells containing camel pox, a mild virus, were
dropped from a light aircraft. The results were slower but the test was judged a
success; the prisoners fell ill within a week. Iraqi sources say some of the cruellest
research has been conducted at an underground facility near Salman Pak, southwest
of Baghdad. Here, the sources say, experiments with biological and chemical agents
were carried out first on dogs and cats, then on Iranian prisoners. The prisoners were
secured to a bed in a purpose-built chamber, into which lethal agents, including
anthrax, were sprayed from a high-velocity device mounted in the ceiling. Medical
researchers viewed the results through fortified glass. Details of the experiments
were known only to Saddam and an inner circle of senior government officials and
Iraqi scientists educated in the West. … The facility, which is understood to have been
built by German engineers in the 1980s, has been at the centre of Iraq's experiments
on "human guinea pigs" for more than 10 years, according to Israeli military sources.
26
The most notorious program of the period was run by the secret Imperial Japanese
Army Unit 731 during the war, based at Pingfan in Manchuria and commanded by
Lieutenant General Shirō Ishii. This unit did research on BW, conducted often fatal
human experiments on prisoners, and produced biological weapons for combat use.
Although the Japanese effort lacked the technological sophistication of the American or
British programs, it far outstripped them in its widespread application and indiscriminate
brutality. Biological weapons were used against both Chinese soldiers and civilians in
several military campaigns. In 1940, the Japanese Army Air Force bombed Ningbo with
ceramic bombs full of fleas carrying the bubonic plague. Many of these operations were
ineffective due to inefficient delivery systems, although up to 400,000 people may have
died. During the Zhejiang-Jiangxi Campaign in 1942, around 1,700 Japanese troops
died out of a total 10,000 Japanese soldiers who fell ill with disease when their own
biological weapons attack rebounded on their own forces. During the final months of
World War II, Japan planned to use plague as a biological weapon against U.S. civilians
in San Diego, California, during Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night. The plan was set
to launch on 22 September 1945, but it was not executed because of Japan's surrender
on 15 August 1945.
27
Geneva Protocol
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other
Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol,
is a treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed
conflicts. It was signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925 and entered into force on 8
February 1928. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 7 September
1929.[4] The Geneva Protocol is a protocol to the Convention for the Supervision of the
International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War signed on the
same date, and followed the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
28
It prohibits the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous
liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This is now
understood to be a general prohibition on chemical weapons and biological weapons,
but has nothing to say about production, storage or transfer. Later treaties did cover
these aspects — the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
In the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the use of dangerous chemical agents
was outlawed. In spite of this, the First World War saw large-scale chemical warfare.
France used teargas in 1914, but the first large-scale successful deployment of
chemical weapons was by the German Empire in Ypres, Belgium in 1915, when
chlorine gas was released as part of a German attack at the Battle of Gravenstafel.
Following this, a chemical arms race began, with the United Kingdom, Russia, Austria-
Hungary, the United States, and Italy joining France and Germany in the use of
chemical weapons. This resulted in the development of a range of horrific chemicals
affecting lungs, skin, or eyes. Some were intended to be lethal on the battlefield, like
hydrogen cyanide, and efficient methods of deploying agents were invented. At least
124,000 tons were produced during the war. In 1918, about one grenade out of three
was filled with dangerous chemical agents. Around 1.3 million casualties of the conflict
were attributed to the use of gas and the psychological effect on troops may have had a
much greater effect. As protective equipment developed, the technology to destroy such
equipment also became a part of the arms race. The use of deadly poison gas was not
only limited to combatants in the front but also civilians as nearby civilian towns were at
risk from winds blowing the poison gases through. Civilians living in towns rarely had
any warning systems about the dangers of poison gas as well as not having access to
effective gas masks. The use of chemical weapons employed by both sides had inflicted
estimated 100,000-260,000 civilian casualties during the conflict. Tens of thousands of
more (along with military personnel) died from scarring of the lungs, skin damage, and
cerebral damage in the years after the conflict ended. In the year 1920 alone, over
40,000 civilians and 20,000 military personnel died from the chemical weapons effects.
29
The Treaty of Versailles included some provisions that banned Germany from either
manufacturing or importing chemical weapons. Similar treaties banned the First
Austrian Republic, the Kingdom of Bulgaria, and the Kingdom of Hungary from chemical
weapons, all belonging to the losing side, the Central powers. Russian bolsheviks and
Britain continued the use of chemical weapons in the Russian Civil War and possibly in
the Middle East in 1920.
Three years after World War I, the Allies wanted to reaffirm the Treaty of Versailles, and
in 1922 the United States introduced the Treaty relating to the Use of Submarines and
Noxious Gases in Warfare at the Washington Naval Conference. Four of the war
victors, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of
Japan, gave consent for ratification, but it failed to enter into force as the French Third
Republic objected to the submarine provisions of the treaty.
At the 1925 Geneva Conference for the Supervision of the International Traffic in Arms
the French suggested a protocol for non-use of poisonous gases. The Second Polish
Republic suggested the addition of bacteriological weapons. It was signed on 17 June.
30
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540
United Nations Security Council resolution 1540 was adopted unanimously on 28 April
2004 regarding the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The resolution
establishes the obligations under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter for all
Member States to develop and enforce appropriate legal and regulatory measures
against the proliferation of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons and
their means of delivery, in particular, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass
destruction to non-state actors. It is notable in that it recognizes non-state proliferation
as a threat to the peace under the terms of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter,
and creates an obligation for states to modify their internal legislation.
Furthermore, the resolution requires every state to criminalize various forms of non-
state actor involvement in weapons of mass destruction and its related activities in its
domestic legislation and, once in place, to enforce such legislation. By virtue of its
universal scope and mandatory nature, resolution 1540 marks a departure from
previous nonproliferation arrangements and adds a novel layer to the nonproliferation
regime. Before the resolution was adopted, the non-proliferation regime was based on
many partly overlapping arrangements, none of which established universal mandatory
obligations.
There exists a modest consultative compliance mechanism, but negotiations to
establish an international organization for the prohibition of biological weapons to
oversee implementation and conduct monitoring and verification have broken down in
2001. The lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess the status and effectiveness
of states parties’ measures to implement and comply with the BTWC. UNSCR 1540 has
established a monitoring system based on states’ declarations on implementation
through the reports provided to the 1540 Committee. The resolution does not provide a
compliance regime, but rather favors cooperative efforts since non-compliance can be
caused by lack of awareness or capacity. But if states persist in their non-compliance
despite assistance, then the Committee will report this to the UNSC. Resolution 1540
also fulfills a function compliance role since it requires BTWC states parties to review
31
their compliance with its obligations while they can use the more detailed criteria for
national implementation in the resolution.
The Australian Group
The Australia Group is an informal group of countries (now joined by the European
Commission) established in 1985 (after the use of chemical weapons by Iraq in 1984) to
help member countries to identify those exports which need to be controlled so as not to
contribute to the spread of chemical and biological weapons.
The group, initially consisting of 15 members, held its first meeting in Brussels, Belgium,
in September 1989. With the incorporation of Mexico on August 12, 2013, it now has 42
members, including the European Commission, all 28 member states of the European
Union, Ukraine, and Argentina. The name comes from Australia's initiative to create the
group. Australia manages the secretariat.
The initial members of the group had different assessments of which chemical
precursors should be subject to export control. Later adherents initially had no such
controls. Today, members of the group maintain export controls on a uniform list of 54
compounds, including several that are not prohibited for export under the Chemical
Weapons Convention, but can be used in the manufacture of chemical weapons. In
2002, the group took two important steps to strengthen export control. The first was the
"no-undercut" requirement, which stated that any member of the group considering
making an export to another state that had already been denied an export by any other
member of the group must first consult with that member state before approving the
export. The second was the "catch-all" provision, which requires member states to halt
all exports that could be used by importers in chemical or biological weapons programs,
regardless of whether the export is on the group's control lists. Delegations representing
the members meet every year in Paris, France.
32
Paris Conference of Chemical Weapons
While the Geneva Protocol was a great initiative taken against chemical weapons, it
was lacking. It did ban the use of chemical weapons but not address their
manufacturing and stockpiling. Not to mention, despite it being ratified by many
countries, chemical weapons continued to be used in the upcoming years.
On 15th December 1989, a conference was organized by France and Finland which
aimed to adopt a consensus with regards to the chemical weapons. It was called at the
recommendation of United States which was concerned at the chemical weapons
program of Iran and Libya. Given Libya’s known relations with terrorist organization and
its plan to build a chemical weapon facility, the U.S felt the need of an immediate plan
that would ban the production of chemical weapons and disallow their exports.
Representative from 149 countries attended the five-day conference. At the end of
session, a declaration was issued. It reaffirms the countries commitment to the Geneva
Protocol and prioritizes the formation of a resolution that would enforce a ban of
manufacture, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. The Paris Conference also
reemphasizes that the states should adhere to the recent resolution against the use of
biological weapons. Furthermore, the declaration also hints towards measures such as
sanctions that could be taken against states that utilize chemical weapons. However, it
fails to mention export controls regarding those weapons.
33
1990 Chemical Accord
On a superpower summit meeting on Washington D.C in June 1990, the United States
and Soviet Union signed the U.S.-Soviet Chemical Weapons Accord, also officially
known as the “Agreement on Destruction and Non-Production of Chemical
Weapons and on Measures to Facilitate the Multilateral Convention on Banning
Chemical Weapons”.
This treaty between the two superpowers was meant to serve as an example, for other
nations, of an initiative taken stop the production and stockpiling of chemical weapons.
As of then, there wasn’t a proper resolution adopted by the international that would ban
these practices and neither were there export controls which would ensure that no
exchange of chemical weapons take place. The United States was already concerned
by the development of a chemical weapons program in Libya and their use in the Iran-
Iraq and the Persian Gulf War. Not to mention, they also had a valid concern that the
weapons could fall into the hands of terrorist organization.
In the 1990 Chemical Accord, both United States and Soviet Union agreed to crease the
production of these weapons as well as reduce their then chemical stockpile. With
regards to this, they decided that they would destroy 50% of their chemical stocks by
1999 and reduce them to 5000 agent tons. To ensure that each country would stick to
the commitment, there would be on-site inspection during the destruction process. The
monitoring would continue even after that and data regarding the declared chemical
stockpile would be exchanged on a yearly basis. The destruction of the chemical
weapons began after Soviet Union became dissolved, from the year 1990 and in 1993,
U.S, Russia and 150 other nations signed a treaty to ban chemical weapons.
34
Chemical Weapons Convention
The Chemical Weapons Convention was a result of negotiation of 12 years. It was
adopted on 3rd September 1992 by the Conference on Disarmament and came into
force on 13th January 1993. The Convention serves as a multilateral platform for
banning of manufacturing, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It also prohibits the
transfer of chemical weapons between states and neither does it allow the use of
agents to qualm riots.
To summarize the CWC, states parties must declare their chemical weapon stockpiles
that they possess and the facilities that function to produce or research chemical
weapons. In this regards, they must also draft plans to deconstruct such facilities and
destroy the chemical agents. They are also required to submit receipts of chemical
weapons or the equipment used to manufacture them since 1946.
The Convention classifies the chemical weapons into three categories; Category 1,
Category 2 and Category 3. Category 1 are those that can be used either as chemical
weapons or to manufacture. Category 2 and category 3 consists of those chemical
agents that, once again, can be used as weapons but have legitimate applications as
well. To differentiate between the two, the former category has small-scale applications
while the latter has large-scale applications. CWC requires that the destruction of
category 1 chemical weapons start two years after CWC enters into force for a state-
party. States must destroy all of their stockpiles within 100 years. Destruction of
category 2 and category 3 chemicals must start within 1 year after CWC enters into
force for a state-party.
In order to ensure that the states are in compliance with the rules of the convention, it
promises on-site inspections. These include routine-inspections of chemical weapon
facilities, challenge inspection that can be conducted at any facility or location and
investigations into alleged uses of chemical weapons. If the states are not found of
being compliant to the Convention, then the matter shall be forwarded to the United
Nations Security Council and General Assembly and strong measures shall be taken.
QARMA
35
1) What is the cause of militarization?
2) How is the global structure, political and economic being affected by all these
measures?
3) How does this affect the third world countries? What measures can be taken to
resolve these issues?
4) How do these actions affect those countries that are either not involved directly,
have trade relations with those involved or are alias with them or are not even involved
even indirectly? What measures can be taken to resolve these issues?
5) How have the past actions failed to resolve the issue at hand?
6) What diplomatic regulations must be in place to contain the issue at hand?
7) How will the taken measures be executed for long term sustainability?
36
References:
https://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/%28httpPages%29/BF18ABFEFE5D344DC1
256F3100311CE9?OpenDocument
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/
http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/chemical-
weapons/http://theweek.com/articles/460335/brief-history-chemical-warfare
http://www.emedicinehealth.com/biological_warfare/article_em.htm
https://c.aarc.org/resources/biological/history.asp
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X14641744
http://world.time.com/2014/01/20/iran-still-haunted-and-influenced-by-chemical-
weapons-attacks/
http://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/9153/128400983.pdf?sequence=1
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/chemical_warfare_iran_iraq_war.php
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Syrian-Chemical-Weapons-Activity
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/05/middleeast/syria-sarin-chemical-weapons-
explainer/index.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/terrorist_cbrn/terrorist_CBRN.htm
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/
https://www.un.org/disarmament/geneva/bwc/
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcglance
https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/sc1540/
http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/civ1540/1540.pdf
37
https://www.britannica.com/event/Geneva-Protocol
38
Topic B: Militarization of the Arctic
Introduction
With the rapid melting of ice in the Arctic region, the long-isolated region is becoming a
more accessible zone for commercial fishing, fresh water, minerals, coal, iron, copper,
oil, gas, and shipping. Thus, the region is increasingly catching the world powers’
attention.
Arctic states – Canada, Denmark (via Greenland), Russia, Norway and the U.S. – are in
rush to exploit all these opportunities from the region, which is believed to hold huge oil
and natural gas resources. With such lust for resources, there is the likelihood that the
slow militarization, which has already been initiated by the stake-holding states, will be
intensified, jeopardizing the peace and stability of the region and the globe.
As of yet, the Arctic region is largely untouched by mankind. However, with the ice caps
melting, access to the Arctic oil and gas reserves, which is estimated to be worth
hundreds of billions of dollars, will become easier – a prediction that has already
sparked a military competition in the region. Such militarization of the region is likely to
increase with almost all the countries urging for increasing their military deployments
and exercises, and there appears little hope & opportunity for any diplomatic resolution
(or political agreement) regarding the disputes. It can be well presumed that without any
diplomatic resolution (or political agreement), the current non-hostile debate over the
Arctic could turn into a violent confrontation.
39
It seems our globe does not lack reasons to engage in chaos. The two world wars
began as European conflicts, only to turn gradually into world wars. Likewise, if the
disputes over the control of the Arctic resources are not resolved quickly, it could turn
into a larger military conflict that would not just involve the Arctic countries, but would
also drag a larger part of the world into this conflict. And for sure, the start of such war
would mean the cold, yet beautiful, Arctic region would become the targets of war
machines– destroying the environment and the stability of the region and the globe.
Resources
An assessment conducted by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), in 2008,
revealed that about 22% of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas
resources (equivalent to about 412 billion barrels oil) are stored in the Arctic seabed.
This estimate reportedly contains 15% of the world’s remaining oil, 30% of its natural
gas deposits and 20% of its liquefied gas. The survey further states that approximately
87% of these untapped resources are located in the seven Arctic basin provinces; East
Greenland Rift Basin, West Siberian Basin, Yenisey-Khatanga Basin, Amerasian Basin,
Arctic Alaska Basin, East Barents Basin, and West Greenland-East Canada Basin.
Recent expeditions also have discovered more than 400 oil and gas field in the north of
Arctic, about 500 of them in the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Region (KMAR) and also
in other areas of the Arctic Circle. However, the biggest oil field region was discovered
in the coastal areas of Alaska and Siberia.
The Arctic Circle is also flush with minerals. The Russian Arctic is known for having
abundant deposits of copper, coal, gold, nickel, tungsten, and diamond, the North
American Arctic for: uranium, copper, nickel, iron, natural gas and oil, Canada’s Yukon
province for quartz, coal and gold and finally Greenland has deposits of cryolite, coal,
marble, zinc, lead and silver. The total approximate value for the discovered Arctic
minerals is around 1.5 to 2 trillion dollars. A large amount of the Arctic minerals are
concentrated in Russia. About 20,000 of mineral deposits have been discovered and
30% are being presently mined by the country. For Russia, the export of these minerals
stood at 37 billion dollars in 2005 and for the United States 3.9 billion dollars in 2008.
Canada’s mining industry contributed 3.4% to the national GDP in 2007. Last but not
40
the least, in 2007 Norway produced 80 million tons of various minerals valued at 1.5
billion dollars.
However, many regions of the Arctic have yet to be deeply explored and it is likely that
a huge quantity of oil resources or minerals are present there. This has further
encouraged these seven countries to lay down their claims over parts of the Arctic
Circle. Lomonosov Ridge and Beaufort Sea are two such areas which are being hotly
contested especially because they may hold hydrocarbon reserves. Hence, why it has
become more necessary to diplomatically solve the situation as quickly as possible.
Shipping Routes
41
As the ice melts, shipping routes for vessels to transit the Arctic are opening up. The
main trans-Arctic routes are the Northeast Passage, the Northwest Passage, the
Transpolar Sea Route, the Northern Sea Route and the Arctic Bridge. If developed
successfully, each of these routes have the potential to alter world trade and greatly
boost the global economy. The Northeast Passage, also known as the Northern Sea
Route, lies in the economic exclusive zone of Russia and connects the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans. Being just one-third of the total distance through the Suez Canal, it can
reduce transit time by 12 to 15 days. Moreover, it is expected to save at least $180,000
in fuel costs.
The Northwest Passage, connects the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean through the
Canadian Arctic Archipelago and is 7000 km shorter than the current route through the
Panama Canal. It offers numerous benefits from reducing the ship routes from Europe
to Eastern Asia by 2,500 miles to granting Canada the opportunity to easily and
economically set up its mineral market. Moreover, it also has the capability to allow
much larger ships to transit through it which can’t be done through the Panama or Suez
canals.
The Transpolar route, lies completely in international waters as determined by the
UNCLOS. It links the Strait of Bering and the Atlantic Ocean of Murmansk through the
Arctic’s central part and is considered the shortest route as compared to the Northwest
and Northeast Passage. However, due to the presence of multi-year ice it has still yet to
attract the attention of the global players.
42
Lastly, the Artic Bridge links Murmansk in Norther Russia with Churchill in Canada. It
was proposed by the Canadians in the 1900s with the intent of linking the two seaports.
The route will give Russia an easier access to Northern American and give Canada
access to the Northern Sea Route from Murmansk. The global marine sector is also
expected to fare better since it’ll provide Asian nations the opportunity to trade with the
Western Countries and vice versa. expected to fare better since it’ll provide Asian
nations the opportunity to trade with the Western Countries and vice versa.
43
MILITIRIZATION
In the prevailing scenario, all the Arctic countries, which are involved in the territorial
and maritime disputes among themselves, have been moving towards militarizing the
region in order to acquire each of their respective objectives in the region. Norwegian
foreign secretary Jonas Gahr Stoere already expressed that the presence of “military,
navy and coastguard” in the region is necessary. Canada planned deep water “naval
facility” at Nanisivik, which lies at the entrance to the disputed Northwest Passage.
Canada promised (under former PM Stephen Harper’s administration) to build armed
ice-breakers, several patrol ships and several vessels in order to proceed towards
gripping the Arctic. In 2011, Canada conducted large-scale “military exercises” in the
region.
In August 2015, the U.S. permitted Shell to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea, which falls
within the periphery of Alaskan Arctic. The U.S. “Coast Guard” has already deployed
“sophisticated ships, aircrafts and other maritime assets” in the Alaskan Arctic for the
duration of Shell’s drilling in the Arctic. Through such presence, the U.S. is not only
trying to exploit energy resources of the Arctic region, but also trying to keep its “military
presence” deep inside the region.
On the otherside, in 2007, Russian scientists dived to the seabed in the Arctic Ocean
and planted a titanium Russian flag (Russia claimed that it was flag of Russia’s ruling
party) in order to beef up their claims. Russia has already moved to restore a Soviet-era
“military base” and other “military outposts” in the Arctic. In early 2015, Russia exercised
Arctic “military patrols” from its Northern Fleet, involving “38,000 servicemen, more than
50 surface ships and submarines and 110 aircrafts”. More interestingly, Russia is
currently planning to jointly explore for oil in Russia’s Arctic fields with China, which is
increasingly becoming a strong “military power” besides being an economic giant.
Through such move, Russia is trying to make sure that Russia has a “rising military
power” like China involved into its stake in the Arctic region so that such cooperation
favours Russia at the time of escalation of any “military conflict”.
DISPUTES AND TERRITORIAL CLAIMS
44
The Arctic region is located around the North Pole and surrounded by landmasses of
the aforementioned five countries. Since the Arctic region was “inaccessible” until the
end of 20th century because of the layers of thick ice, there were less territorial disputes
until the beginning of this (21st) century. However, ice are melting rapidly in the Arctic
region because of the global warming, clearing this ice-covered region from ice. The ice
of the region is already reduced by as much as 50% from 1950s. The region is warming
faster than other areas across the globe. Such rapid melting of ice is making the region
a more “accessible” zone. The melting of the sea ice has been opening up trade routes
(during the summers) between Asia and Europe through the Arctic Ocean; the same
region where such trades routes were unimaginable even couple of decades ago. In
2007, the Northwest Passage between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans opened for the
first time in memory.
The constant change in the climate and the increasing accessibility to the region would
make the extraction of oil and gas from the region much easier. Estimations from
different corners reveal that the region is speculated to hold oil reserves of upto 13% of
the global total of undiscovered oil, upto 30% of natural gas, and also other precious
metals. Such ‘speculations’ and ‘accessibility' have given rise to plenty of disputes that
have emerged among the aforementioned five countries surrounding the region.
However, among those disputes, the most intensified ones are: (i) regarding boundaries
in the Beaufort Sea and the status of the Northwest Passage between the U.S. and
Canada, (ii) regarding Hans Island between Canada and Denmark (via Greenland), (iii)
regarding the Lomonosov Ridge – a mountain range across the region — among
Canada, Denmark and Russia, (iv) and regarding the maritime border from the Bering
Sea into the region between the U.S. and Russia. Following are brief details on each of
these disputes,
45
(i) Boundaries in the Beautfort Sea and the status of Northwest Passage:
Canada supports an extension into the sea of the land boundary between Yukon and
Alaska. The U.S. does not, but instead supports an extended sea boundary into the
Canadian portion of the Beaufort Sea. Such a demarcation means that a minor portion
of Northwest Territories EEZ in the polar region is claimed by Alaska, because the EEZ
boundary between Northwest Territories and Yukon follows a straight north-south line
into the sea. The U.S. claims would create a triangular shaped EEZ for Yukon/Canada.
The disputed area is about 21,440 km2 (8,280 sq mi) in size. The precise translation of
a phrase in the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1825, which was written in French, is part
of the issue. The convention makes reference to the 141st Meridian "in its prolongation
as far as the Frozen ocean."
Canada claims the passage as part of its "internal waters" belonging to Canada, while
the United States regards it as an "international strait" (a strait accommodating open
international traffic). The Canadian Coast Guard and Royal Canadian Navy have
commissioned a new ice breaker along with multiple offshore patrol ships to guard and
patrol the waters.
(ii) Hans Island between Canada and Denmark (via Greenland):
The Danish "Celebration Expedition" of 1920 to 1923 accurately mapped the whole
region of the Northern Greenland coast from Cape York (Kap York) to Denmark
Sound (Danmark fjord). In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice declared
the legal status of Greenland in favour of Denmark. Denmark claims that geological
evidence points to Hans Island being part of Greenland, and therefore that it belongs to
Denmark by extension of the Court's ruling. In 1972, a team consisting of personnel
from the Canadian Hydrographic Service and Danish personnel working in the Nares
Strait determined the geographic coordinates for Hans Island. During negotiations
between Canada and Denmark on their maritime boundary in 1973, both states claimed
that Hans Island was part of their territory. No agreement was reached between the two
governments on the issue. The maritime boundary immediately north and south of Hans
Island was established in the continental shelf treaty ratified by Greenland and Canada
46
and then submitted to the United Nations on December 17, 1973, in force since March
13, 1974.
“The Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Government of Canada, Having
decided to establish in the area between Greenland and the Canadian Arctic Islands a
dividing line beyond which neither Party exercising its rights under the Convention on
the Continental Shelf of April/29/1958 will extend its sovereign rights for the purpose of
exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the continental shelf…”
(iii) Lomonosov Ridge (among Canada, Denmark and Russia):
In the 2000s, the geological structure of the ridge attracted international attention due to
a 20 December 2001 official submission by the Russian Federation to the UN
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in accordance with the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (article 76, paragraph 8). The document
proposed establishing new outer limits for the Russian continental shelf, beyond the
previous 200-nautical-mile (370 km; 230 mi) zone, but within the Russian Arctic sector.
The territory claimed by Russia in the submission is a large portion of the Arctic
reaching the North Pole. One of the arguments was a statement that the underwater
Lomonosov Ridge and Mendeleev Ridge are extensions of the Eurasian continent. In
2002 the UN Commission neither rejected nor accepted the Russian proposal,
recommending additional research.
Danish scientists hope to prove that the ridge is an extension of Greenland, and
Denmark became another claimant to the area in 2014. Canada, also a claimant,
asserts that the ridge is an extension of its continental shelf. In April 2007, Canadian
and Russian scientists were sent to map the ridge as a possible precedent for
determining sovereignty over the area. In late June 2007, Russian scientists claimed
that the ridge is an extension of Russia's territory, and in 2011 a Russian scientist said
that Russia and Denmark claim different parts of the ridge and the claims are not
conflicting. Other sources indicate that some areas are disputed.
Canada is expected to make further claims. Denmark and Russia have agreed to follow
certain procedures when making claims. If the Danish claims are accepted by the
47
Commission in summer 2015, the distribution of areas may still be a matter of
negotiation between claiming countries - a process which can take several years. The
rhetoric used in making claims is also subject to discussion.
A 21-member UN arbitration panel is considering the competing claims, with the focus
on the Lomonosov Ridge.
(iv) The Maritime Border From The Bering Sea into the region between the U.S.
and Russia:
The need for the maritime boundary arose after the United States purchased Alaska
from the Russian Empire. At the time, national maritime interests were restricted only to
the three-mile limit. The purchase treaty did mention a boundary across the Bering Sea;
however, with the introduction of the 200-mile limit by the Law of the Sea, the border
issue became pressing, since neither side could produce the maps used during the
original purchase negotiations. Furthermore, the two sides agreed that the boundary
was intended to be a straight line on a map, but they did not agree which map projection
was used: Mercator or conformal. This resulted in about 15,000 square nautical miles of
disputed area. The 1990 line split the difference between the two lines and introduced
several "special areas", which were beyond the 200-mile zone, but in which the sides
ceded their rights to the opponent. The larger portion of the disputed area in the Bering
Sea was agreed to belong to the United States; the United States Congress quickly
ratified the agreement, but the Soviet Union failed to ratify the agreement before its
collapse in 1991. Many in Russia have criticized Mikhail Gorbachev and Edvard
Shevardnadze for rushing the deal, ceding the Russian fishing rights and other maritime
benefits, and insist on renegotiation. The United States continues efforts to enforce the
boundary line against the encroaching Russian fishing vessels, in order to build up the
evidence of "general state practice" that the 1990 agreement is indeed the marine
border between the two countries.
The United States Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification as early as on
September 16, 1991, and has no intentions to reopen the issue. In its turn, the US–
USSR agreement is the confirmation of the earlier United States – Russia Convention of
48
March 18 (O.S.)/March 30 (N.S.), 1867. This sea border is also known as the Baker-
Shevardnadze line or Baker-Shevardnadze agreement
Therefore, all countries surrounding the region are involved in disputes regarding the
ownership and control over different parts of the region. Along with these five Arctic
countries, China and the UK are also involved in the dispute through their claims over
the Svalbard archipelago, which happens to be within the region.
Some of the Arctic countries that are claimant to the disputes have been attempting to
come to a solution through the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf
(CLCS) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
However, a constructive solution, which would bind all the claimants to the Arctic
disputes to abide by it, could not be reached through these CLCS and UNCLOS. This is
because, both CLCS and UNCLOS lack the appropriate mandate from countries across
the world, including the aforesaid five Arctic countries, to impose “legally binding”
decisions or provisions for any maritime disputes. Therefore, the absence of a binding
legal regime creates scopes for intense territorial and maritime disputes concerning the
control, exploration and exploitation of the energy resources in such a region that is
becoming increasingly accessible for such purpose (i.e. purpose of energy exploration
and exploitation).
It seems our globe does not lack reasons to engage in chaos. The two world wars
began as European conflicts, only to turn gradually into world wars. Likewise, if the
disputes over the control of the Arctic resources are not resolved quickly, it could turn
into a larger military conflict that would not just involve the Arctic countries, but would
also drag a larger part of the world into this conflict. And for sure, the start of such war
would mean the cold, yet beautiful, Arctic region would become the targets of war
machines– destroying the environment and the stability of the region and the globe.
Efforts towards Peace And Cooperation In The Arctic
Murmansk Initiative
49
The Murmansk Initiative was put forward on the 1st of October, in 1987, by Mikhail
Gorbachev, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It
proposed:
A). Coordination on Resource Extraction.
B). A Nuclear Free Zone in Northern Europe
C). Limitations on Military Activity
D). Organization for Arctic Scientific Research Coordination
E). Joint Plan for Environmental Protection and Management of the Arctic Circle.
F). Putting the Northern Sea Route into Operation
To point out a few things in this regards, the USSR was more than willing to deconstruct
its nuclear test facility on the Novaya Zemlya island in its Arctic region given that the
United States either stop their nuclear tests or reduce the stockpiles. Not to mention, in
1974, the USSR had already agreed to provide guarantees for a Nordic NWFP and
once again, in 1981, reaffirmed the commitment.
Moreover, Mikhail Gorbachev suggested negotiations and talks between the Warsaw
Pact and NATO with the focus on reducing military activity in the Baltic, Norwegian,
Northern and Greenland seas. He also proposed a conference to be held that would
discuss banning military activity in international straits and on shipping routes. Lastly, he
floated the idea of a joint energy program for Northern Europe and share of resources in
the Kola Peninsula.
The Murmansk Initiative was welcomed by the Western government. Many of the
present actions taken with the aim of ensuring peace and cooperation in the Arctic
Circle are said to be a fruit of this initiative.
Artic Council
The Arctic Council is composed of Canada, United States, Russia, Demark (Via
Greenland), Norway, Iceland, Sweden and Finland. Permanent participant status is held
by Arctic indigenous groups which are Aleut International Association, Arctic
50
Athabaskan Council, Gwich’in Council International, Inuit Circumpolar Council, Russian
Association of Indigenous People of the North and the Saami Council. Observer status
has been granted to China, India, South Korea, Singapore, Italy and Japan.
The forum aims to encourage and provides a platform for the member states to
cooperate together in order to protect the environment and the indigenous people
residing in the Arctic region. For this purpose, the Council has six different bodies. Not
to mention, to date the Council has successfully managed to pass three legally binding
agreements, the latest in 2017. However, it is important to mention that the Council
does not deal with military disputes.
The Arctic Council came into being on 19th September 1996 when all eight of the Arctic
states ratified the Ottawa Declaration as per which, the Council was now declared as a
high-level intergovernmental forum. The following Ottawa Declaration announces the
formation of the council and states its responsibilities.
51
DECLARATION ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ARCTIC COUNCIL
THE REPRESENTATIVES of the Governments of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States of America (hereinafter
referred to as the Arctic States) meeting in Ottawa;
AFFIRMING our commitment to the well-being of the inhabitants of the Arctic, including
recognition of the special relationship and unique contributions to the Arctic of
indigenous people and their communities.
AFFIRMING our commitment to sustainable development in the Arctic region, including
economic and social development, improved health conditions and cultural wellbeing;
AFFlRMING concurrently our commitment to the protection of the Arctic environment,
including the health of Arctic ecosystems, maintenance or biodiversity in the Arctic
region and conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
RECOGNIZING the contributions of the Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy to
these commitments;
RECOGNIZING the traditional knowledge of the indigenous people of the Arctic and
their communities and taking note of its importance and that of Arctic science and
research to the collective understanding of the circumpolar Arctic;
DESIRING further to provide a means for promoting cooperative activities to address
Arctic issues requiring circumpolar cooperation, and to ensure full consultation with and
the full involvement of indigenous people and their communities and other inhabitants of
the Arctic in such activities;
RECOGNIZING the valuable contribution and support of the lnuit Circumpolar
Conference, Saami Council, and the Association of the Indigenous Minorities of the
North, Siberia, and the Far East of the Russian Federation in the development of the
Arctic Council;
DES l RING Lo provide for regular intergovernmental consideration of and consultation
on Arctic issue.
52
HEREBY DECLARE:
1) The Arctic Council is established as a high level forum to:
2) provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among
the Arctic States, with the involvement of the Arctic indigenous communities and other
Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues 1 , in panicular issues of sustainable
development and environmental protection in the Arctic
3) oversee and coordinate the programs established under the AEPS on the Arctic
Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP); Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna
(CAFF); Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME); and Emergency
Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR).
4) adopt terms of reference for, and oversee and coordinate a sustainable
development program.
2. Members of the Arctic Council are: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the
Russian Federation, Sweden and the United States of America (the Arctic States).
The Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Saami Council and the Association of Indigenous
Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation are
Permanent Participants in the Arctic Council. Permanent participation equally is open to
other Arctic organizations of indigenous peoples*2 with majority Arctic indigenous
constituency, representing:
1) a single indigenous people resident in more than one Arctic State; or
2) More than one Arctic indigenous people resident in a single Arctic state.
The determination that such an organization has met this criterion is to be made by
decision of the Council. The number of Permanent Participants should at any time be
less than the number of members.
The category of Permanent Participation is created to provide for active participation
and full consultation with the Arctic indigenous representatives within the Arctic Council.
3. Observer status in the Arctic Council is open to:
53
(a) Non-Arctic states;
(b) Inter-governmental and inter-parliamentary organizations, global and regional; and
(c) Non-governmental organizations
That the Council determines can contribute to its work.
4. The Council should normally meet on a biennial basis, with meetings of senior
officials taking place more frequently, to provide for liaison and co-ordination. Each
Arctic State should designate a focal point on matters related to the Arctic Council.
5. Responsibility for hosting meetings of the Arctic Council, including provision of
secretariat support functions, should rotate sequentially among the Arctic States.
6. The Arctic Council, as its first order of business, should adopt rules of procedure for
its meetings and those of its working groups.
7. Decisions of the Arctic Council are to be by consensus of the Members.
8. The Indigenous Peoples' Secretariat established under AEPS is to continue under the
framework of the Arctic Council.
9. The Arctic Council should regularly review the priorities and financing of its programs
and associated structures.
THEREFORE, we the undersigned representatives of our respective Governments,
recognizing the Arctic Council's political significance and intending to promote its
results, have signed this Declaration.
SIGNED by the representatives of the Arctic States in Ottawa, this 19th day of
September 1996.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Before UNCLOS came into existence, there was no body that had established an
international piece of legislation according to which the rights and duties of states
regarding the seas and oceans could be governed. It was in the middle of 20th century
54
when there was overexploitation of resources and missile pads started being placed in
the oceanic beds that states began to feel the need for such a charter. Hence, after
World War 2, in 1949, the United Nations International Law began formulating draft
resolutions.
From 24th February till 29th April 1958, the first conference was held by the United
Nations. Though the international community adopted the four resolutions that the UN
had begun formulating in 1949, they failed to determine the territorial sea of a nation.
These four resolutions were: The Convention On The Territorial and Contiguous
zone, The Convention on the High Seas, The Convention on Fishing and
Conversation of Living Resources of the High Seas, and The Convention On The
Continental Shelf. A second conference (UNCLOS II) was held starting from 17th
March in 1960 but that also failed. It was the third conference that bore fruits.
UNCLOS III, also known as the constitution of oceans, was signed in 1982 and came
into effect in 1994. Up to date, 158 countries have ratified this convention including the
Arctic countries except the US. According to Article 56(1a) of UNCLOS, the territorial
sea of a country is 12 miles or 22km beyond its coast, its economic exclusive zone is up
till 200 nautical miles and the contagious zone of a country is until 24 nautical miles.
However, if a state has made claims for regions above the 200nm to be included in its
economic exclusive zone, the UN convention requires that it submit scientific evidence
to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. The CLRS shall then
analyze the submitted evidence and make the final recommendation to the UNCLOS in
accordance with Article 76 and the Statement of Understanding adopted on 29th August
1980. The final decision undertaken by the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea shall
be binding.
Illulssiat Declaration
On 28th May 2008, the Illulssiat Declaration was announced by the five coastal cities of
the Arctic Ocean, namely United States, Canada, Denmark, Russia and Norway. The
Declaration reaffirms the sovereignty and the legal ownership of the five Arctic states. It
recommits the Arctic states to the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) and in doing so, rejects the need for a local regime to govern the Arctic
55
Ocean. In the light of this statement, it also calls for any overlapping territorial claims to
be quickly and efficiently settled. The Declaration reasserts that the Arctic states are
responsible for the development and protection of both the environment of the Arctic
region and the indigenous people living there. To that end, they have taken several
measures such as deciding to share data among themselves and other non-Arctic
states.
BLOC Positions
Canada
To Canada, the Arctic is an important asset. About fourth of the Canada’s region
consists of Arctic and is home to man clay of the indigenous people there. The
Canadian government has again and again stressed the importance of protecting both
the environment and particularly, the natives of the area. As also obvious, when Canada
tasked the Arctic Environmental Protection Agency with to first and foremost protect and
serve the interest of those residing there.
Canada has also been aggressive in its Arctic Defense Policy. To reaffirm its
sovereignty, the state has developed two military bases in the region and there is also
high military activity there. The latest defense policy review identifies three key areas for
the government to focus on: surveillance, communications and tactical movement. It
also further recognizes the threat posed by Russia and so, encourages the
development of military.
Denmark
The Kingdom of Denmark is composed of Demark, Faroe Islands and Greenland. It is
due Greenland that the Kingdom has a claim over the Arctic islands.
Denmark’s Arctic policy revolves around cooperation and coordination with the other
Arctic states. In 2011, the Kingdom published its strategic policy which is divided into
four different chapters. The first chapter is called, “A Peaceful, Secure and Safe
Arctic”. It stresses that the Arctic states must resolutely follow the UNCLOS and must
56
cooperate together for the sake of Arctic’s environment and its indigenous people. The
second chapter is called, “Self-Sustaining growth and development”. It calls for
exploitation of resources in the Arctic to be done under the international law, within the
Economic Exclusive Zone of a state and advocates the use of renewable sources of
energy in the interest of the planet. The third chapter,” Development with Respect for
the Arctic’s Vulnerable Climate, Environment and Nature” requests scientific
expeditions to be taken over the Arctic in order to produce a better understanding of its
climate and the impact of global warming on the Circle. The last chapter, “Close
Cooperation with International Partners” requests coordination with the international
community in order to preserve the environment and protect the natives and so, also
lists worldwide organizations.
Though it seems that the Kingdom is committed to taking steps in coordination with the
global community, yet it holds a strong military presence in the Arctic Ocean. It is still
prepared to invest millions of kroners in order to increase its military presence in the
Arctic and plans to invest 360 million kroner initially and an additional 120 million kroner
in order to enhance its military capabilities. Just recently, Denmark has also been in
talks with Canada, U.S and Norway in order to determine whether a satellite program
can be established in order to carry out surveillance over the Far North of the Arctic.
57
FINLAND
Finland is one of the members of the Arctic Council and will be chairing the organization
for the next two years. Though, Finland doesn’t share a coast in the Arctic ocean it still
intends to be an active player in the Council and is especially focused towards
economic prosperity gained from the Arctic Circle.
Finland released its revised Arctic strategy policy in 2013. It prioritizes the following
seven areas: Security and sovereignty, environment protection and management,
protection for the indigenous people, inclusion of EU in the Council, institutionalization
of the Arctic Council, and infrastructure for the region and economy. Though Finland
has also enthusiastically supported peaceful talks, it has engaged in joint military
activities with its Nordic neighbors mainly because it feels threatened by Russia who it
has a border with.
Iceland
Like Finland, Iceland does not share a coast with the Arctic Ocean and is not included in
the Arctic 5. Even in formal meetings, Iceland is not recognized as being equal to the
Arctic 5. However, it does hope to be recognized as a major player in the world.
Iceland’s Arctic policy was issued in 2011. The policy endorses the Arctic Council and
emphasizes that all decisions regarding the Arctic Circle be taken by this body and no
country has the right to make its own independent decisions. It also highlights the
importance of protecting the environment and the indigenous people and
simultaneously, calls that any territorial claims be verified on the legal basis provided by
the UNCLOS. Given that the Economic Exclusive Zone of Iceland extends to the
Greenland Sea adjoining the Arctic Ocean, the policy specifically encourages
cooperation between the two countries.
Moreover, for non-Arctic states the geostrategic location is extremely important. Iceland
has an economical breakdown in 2008 and received foreign investment from countries
like China. In return, it has open possibilities for these countries to profit from the Arctic
Ocean.
58
Norway
Norway a member of the Arctic 5. Norway’s Arctic policy came out in 2005 and focuses
on international cooperation, business development, knowledge development
infrastructure, environmental protection and emergency preparedness. However, the
main focus of Norway likes on being able to have its business develop and profit
through activities in the Arctic region. To quote “the government is proposing to
intensify efforts in the areas of business- oriented research, infrastructure and
emergency preparedness in particular.”
Norway has also carried out joint military activities with Russia. However, it would seem
that its recent relations with Russia have been sour. The country is patrolling its borders
and is busy in keeping an eye on Russian activities in the Arctic. It has also agreed with
United States and United Kingdom to place Russia under surveillance and plans to
send hundred thousands of soldiers to the border.
Russian Federation
Russia is a prominent member of the Arctic 5. Its Arctic policy was approved in 2009 by
the Russian President Medvedev and is valid till 2020. The policy adopts a military
approach towards the Arctic Circle and avoids any mention of Russia’s nuclear policy
which clearly indicates its unwillingness to holds talks on those grounds.
According to the document, Russia intends to set up a strategic resource base on the
Arctic that would then target the socio economic problems in the country. This is a major
goal for the country because of the present sanctions imposed on it and so, Russia has
to fend for itself. The Arctic policy also focuses on the Northern Sea Route and hopes to
be able to use it to access the Arctic’s shelf resources and plans to transform it into a
proper route for international vessels to transit through.
59
The policy also requests peace through cooperation be maintained in the Arctic but also
outlines that it’s not possible due to hostile attitude adopted by the other Arctic states
towards it. It also mentions that the present global and security architecture that exists
cannot possibly ensure peace as it is completely biased towards the NATO and the
Western countries. Hence, also why it becomes necessary for Russia to tremendously
increase its military forces on its Arctic border. In the light of this, several military bases
have been constructed in the region and it is also being daily patrolled.
United States of America
U.S is an important member of Arctic 5 and its Arctic policy was released on 2009. U.S
has acknowledged but has yet to sign the UNCLOS. The document emphasizes the
importance of Arctic to U.S. It outlines the national altered policies on homeland security
and defense, the impact of climate change and human activities on the area, endorses
the role of Arctic Council and points towards utilization of the Arctic resources under
international standards. United States also has early warning systems, missile defense
systems and SSBNs in the Arctic region. The U.S is also in conflict with Canada on the
Northwest Passage. The latter claims that the area comes under Canada’s jurisdiction
while the U.S refuses to recognize that and maintains that it is international water.
60
Questions A Resolution Must Answer (QARMA)
1) How have the past actions failed to resolve the issue at hand?
2) What diplomatic regulations must be in place to contain the issue at hand?
3) What measures need to be taken to resolve the dispute and induce peace in the
region?
4) How will these measures be executed for long term sustainability?
61
References:
Bibliography:
Foizee, Bahauddin. "Growing Militarization in Arctic amid Increasing Disputes." Editorial.
06 Mar. 2016: n. pag. Modern Diplomacy.
Griffiths, Sian. "US-Canada Arctic Border Dispute Key to Maritime Riches." Editorial.
n.d.: n. pag. BBC News. BBC, 02 Aug. 2010.
Hobart King (2014): What Is The NorthWest Passage? , Geology.com
Tuner, J.T Philips, G.J. Marshall, J.S. Hosking, J.O. Pope, T.J. Bracegirdle, P.Deb.
2017: Artic
Sea Ice News And Analysis. National Snow & Ice Data Centre.
Natural Resources In The Artic: Sputnik
https://www.newsdeeply.com/arctic/background/natural-resources-and-sustainable-
development
http://geology.com/articles/arctic-oil-and-gas/
http://arctic.ru/resources/
http://www.arctis-search.com/Arctic+Mineral+Resources
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/conc1en/polarroutes.html
http://www.discoveringthearctic.org.uk/1_northwest_northeast_passages.html
http://geology.com/articles/northwest-passage.shtml
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/conc1en/polarroutes.html
http://barentsobserver.com/en/topics/russia-canada-resume-arctic-bridge
http://www.marineinsight.com/marine-navigation/what-is-arctic-bridge-sea-route/
https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=5MpsCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=
murmansk+initiative&source=bl&ots=ER-
62
a53fZ1Y&sig=7OFeDFmyQ_dbIj1N3ZZzRQl4c3o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBgOm7
xIjVAhVJUhQKHaPTD2s4ChDoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&q=murmansk%20initiative&f=fal
se
https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=hC4gEsSR1JwC&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=m
urmansk+initiative&source=bl&ots=KSFrn6IeMg&sig=TvFejnk39r7h5CpGhDic2p7xFIw&
hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirtf3svYjVAhWJOhoKHQP0AOIQ6AEITTAI#v=twopage&q=
murmansk%20initiative&f=true
