Australia

Australia is deeply alarmed by the use of continued usage of biological and chemical weapons andreaffirms the necessity of immediate disarmament. However, it must be acknowledged that there hasbeen substantial progress since the formation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) andBiological Weapons Convention in 1992. We encourage all states to participate in the implementationof all relevant resolutions regarding the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling ofbiological weapons.

Australia continues to monitor issues regarding chemical and biological weapons through the NewWeapons and Equipment Development Committee, which was formed after World War Two andcurrently chairs the Australia Group. Australia continues to urge member nations to continue or begintaking steps to ensure safety by prohibiting the development of any further biological and chemicalweapons.

The issue of biological and chemical weapons deserves serious attention and Australia hopes to cometo a resolution that will allow for a safer world. Australia continues to support the CWC and BWC andlooks forward to a fruitful debate.

China

Honorable Chairs, and fellow delegates.

Today we are gathered to discuss the issue of chemical and biological weapons, an issue that isextremely prevalent in our world today. China has signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and metits regulations. However, we believe this issue is far from over. Today is the time to to take multiplesteps in order to stop the widespread use of chemical and biological weapons. Although World War IIis behind us, during this time Japan released chemical weapons on chinese citizens, causing about80,000 casualties, the effects of which we can still feel today. China wishes this sort of attack on no oneand therefore encourages and promotes a complete prohibition and destruction of chemical weapons.Therefore, we propose a three step plan: firstly China wishes to utilize all aspects of the OPCWincluding encouraging signatories to develop labs, and allow the OPCW to conduct multipleinspections of the country per year, to take this a step further China also encourages states that havenot ratified the OPCW to ratify it immediately. Next we hope to involve the WHO in this issue, so thata conduct can be written for what happens when a biological or chemical attack occurs. Finally wepropose and encourage a defensive chemical weapons program in each country. A program that willprepare its individuals citizens in case an attack occurs. Although these measures may seemcontradictory to China’s ultimate goal, this delegate realizes that this issue can not be solved by oneresolution, and this three step plans ensures the safety of the people, China’s ultimate goal. Thisdelegate looks forward to a fruitful and lively debate.

Thank You.

France

The devastation caused by chemical and biological weapons in the past and the potential for theirusage not only by countries at war but in other violent conflicts and by non-state actors, provide theimperative for the France’s commitment to the international effort to uphold the ban on such weaponsand to work towards their elimination.

As one of the first victims of the mass use of chemical weapons during the First World War, Francehas a longstanding commitment to the fight against chemical weapons. France’s position was firstexpressed in the Geneva Protocol of 1925 on the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating,poisonous or other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare, which France ratified on 17 June1926.

France has been deeply involved in the process of eliminating chemical weapons. The organization inParis in January 1989 of a Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Conference, chaired by the FrenchMinistry of Foreign Affairs and bringing together 149 participating States, was pivotal in the processwhich led to the signing of the CWC during a second conference in Paris on 13 January 1993, under theleadership of the French President. Furthermore, France was the first permanent member of the UNSecurity Council to ratify the CWC, doing so on 2 March 1995. Today, France continues to fulfill all of itsobligations under the Convention, in particular those relating to declarations and inspections ofmilitary and civilian sites subject to international verification.

The main tool in the fight against biological weapon proliferation is the Convention on the Prohibitionof the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons andon Their Destruction (BTWC) of 1972, which currently has 163 states Parties. France ratified theBiological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) on 27 September 1984, and has worked unendinglysince then to strengthen the authority of this Convention as well as for the improvement of itsapplication.France, which is a non chemical-weapon possessor State, is committed to the sharing and usage of itsexpertise in chemical disarmament. In the past, this has enabled France to participate in the trainingof the first Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspectors. France also hasone of the world’s only expert laboratories designated for OPCW use. France’s expertise isfurthermore used in aiding the destruction of chemical weapons. During the G8 Summit in Kananaskis(June 2002), France decided to cooperate with Russia and other countries in order to help destroy ofstockpiles of Russian chemical weapons declared to the OPCW. France will continue working towardselimination and fully supporting the actions of the OPCW.In regard to biological weapons, France will continue to actively participate in biannual meetings ofthe Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), submit confidence-building measures, or annualdeclarations on BWC-related activities, reinforce international control measures, and take steps touniversalize the BWC.

Georgia

Georgia has always been an active member in regards to the topic of chemical and biological weapons. We have given our continuous supports to any actions that are related in implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is our belief that countries should have a firm stance in the prohibition and elimination of all chemical and biological weapons. These weapons pose huge threats towards humanity, as they are capable of killing and also leaving irreparable injuries upon innocent victims. Not only will we encourage countries to further their actions in disarmament chemical and biological weapons, but we also demand for a complete ban of research on any such weapons.

In the past, Georgia had the capability of producing biological weapons. Some vaccine manufacturing facilities were left behind in Georgia after the Soviet era. Vaccine manufacturing facilities such as the Biokombinat Production Facility are both used in manufacturing vaccine for illness and the research of biological weapons. However, with the cooperation and agreement from the United States government, we were able to safely disarm the facility and remove the equipmentsused in the research of such biological weapons.

As we recognize the threats of producing and stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons, we have signed both the Biological Weapons Convention in 1996 and Chemical Weapon Convention in 1993. We do not possess such weapons nor are we aiming to obtain biological or chemical weapons. We have been closely monitoring any illegal trafficking across our borders. Along with implementing both of the conventions in our nation, we also have a workshop located in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, named “Countering Biological Threats: National Implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention and Multinational Outbreak Response and Bioterrorism Investigation Demonstration”. The workshop is organized by the United States government, with the support of Georgia’s government and other international organizations. This workshop aims to promote cooperation between different agencies in preparing infectious disease outbreaks, establishing regional partnership in enhancing training and strengthen the core of capacities and measurement under Biological Weapons. Georgia is also a member state of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

Georgia deeply believes that the main goal of the member states of the United Nations should be to eliminate all biological and chemical weapons in order to prevent any more harmful injuries inflicted upon human lives. Georgia will continue to provide assistance in training and disarmament of biological and chemical weapons.

Germany

Germany also has signed the ban on chemical and biological weapons. Germany thoroughly is againstusing chemical and biological weapons in any form of war whatsoever. Chemical weapons are verydangerous and can harm civilians, soldiers, and the environment. Germany wants peace and security.When war simply cannot be avoided, it would be preferred not to use such chemical weapons asneurotoxins, mustard gas derivatives, and blood toxins. These weapons go against humanity. Theyare rightfully outlawed and any country that uses these weapons in war should be tried for warcrimes. Germany can look to its past and some of the wrongs it has committed. It has moved on fromthat and now Germany is a beacon of peace and security. Both in domestic law and internationalpolicies that Germany has signed, it cannot produce and/or use chemical/biological weapons. Worldorder must be preserved and barbaric devices such as chemical weapons simply cannot be sold,purchased, or used.

Republic of India

On account of their indiscriminate and devastating results, proliferation of chemical and biological weapons has been one of the most significant issues on the security agenda of United Nations since the Cold War. The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNOA) and Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) have created a powerful platform the global community to initiate a constructive dialog on the disarmament and prohibition of chemical and biological weaponry use. Although the UN has repeatedly sought to outlaw weaponising the chemical and biological industry, through the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWTC) and Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), the existence of hostile non-state actors and rogue states, as well as unparalleled scientific innovations, pose various challenges to effective non-proliferation regimes.

The Republic of India remains fully committed to the non-proliferation of chemical, bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons, having signed and ratified both Conventions. Domestically, India has destroyed its entire chemical weapons stockpile under OPCW verification in 2009, which further strengthened the CWC as an effective instrument for promoting the objectives of peace and security. Furthermore, India has a well-established export control mechanism in place with updated guidelines relating to items categories as special chemicals, organisms, materials, equipment and technologies (SCOMET). Despite having advanced biotechnological capability for the research and development (R&D) of biological weapons, India’s Defence Research and Development Establishment (DRDE) has pledged to adhere to the BWTC and CWC: researching on the detection and countering of numerous diseases, conducting instructor training courses for the OPCW, and developing antidotes for chemical warfare agents. Hence, the Republic of India has played an active role in UNODA and the international community’s endeavours towards chemical and biological elimination.

The Republic of India recognises that preventing the re-emergence of chemical and biological weapons requires a credible industrial verification regime, a strong inspectorate, and ratification and enactment by all States Parties to fully enforce the CWC. These are all areas of paramount importance for the success and longevity of the CWC and BWTC, as well as the OPCW and UNODA. In 2011, the External Affairs Minister, Mr. S.M. Krishna, assured the OPCW Director-General, Mr. Ahmet Uzumcu, of India’s continued strong support for efforts to ensure comprehensive implementation of the CWC globally. A range of CWC-related issues were discussed, focusing on the destruction of existing chemical weapons and maintenance of effective non-proliferation regimes to prevent their re-emergence.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, chemical and biological weapons have utility across the spectrum of conflict and are well suited to asymmetric strategies against stronger opponents. For instance, India-Pakistan relations have been strained by the latter’s active nuclear weapons programme, which may have played an increasingly important role in its defense and deterrent strategy, in response to India’s limited nuclear weapons capability and superior conventional military strength. Even though India’s declaration of chemical weapons stockpile introduced new uncertainties for nuclear stability with Pakistan, The Republic of India signed the bilateral India-Pakistan Agreement on Chemical Weapons in 1992, prohibiting the use chemical weapons against each other. Thus, chemical and biological weapons will continue to destabilise international security as potential nuclear deterrents, unless defenses against these alternate weapons of mass destruction are improved, governments can reliably detect biological weapons activities, the proliferation of biological weapons materials and expertise is eradicated, and the norms against their possession and use are strengthened.

UNODA remains an indispensable multilateral body with a global responsibility, making significant progress due to the combined efforts and commitment of member states. In 2010, the Republic of India participated in the Third Exercise on the Delivery of Assistance (ASSISTEX 3), a multilateral exercise in Tunisia on the OPCW’s response to a State Party threatened and attacked with chemical weapons. By proving its professional expertise during the exercise, India’s delegation

fulfilled its obligations under the CWC to provide assistance and protection to fellow States Parties against chemical weapons. The Republic of India continues to call on the Syrian government to eliminate its chemical weapons arsenal and join the Chemical Weapons Convention, and we will continue to work with the international community toward that end. All State Parties “determined for the sake of all mankind, [have] to exclude completely the possibility of the use of chemical weapons through the implementation of the provisions of” the CWC. We must stand together to make this goal a reality.

Ultimately, it is the Republic of India’s earnest hope that the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWTC) and Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) will be adhered to by all States, including all the major Powers. By taking steps to collaboratively eradicate biological terrorism, dual-use research, disease pandemics, as well as to carry out confidence-building measures (CBM) for greater transparency and cooperation, a high-level policy dialogue and joint advocacy of global disarmament can be started between all State Parties, including non-state actors and potential rogue states.

Works CitedCheema, Zafar Iqbal. “IPRI :: Islamabad Policy Research Institute.” Islamabad Policy Research Institute -

Building Consensus. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2013. <http://ipripak.org/journal/summer2004/therole.shtml>.

“Defence Research and Development Establishment | Facilities | NTI.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. N.p., 11 Nov. 2011. Web. 13 Jan. 2013. <http://www.nti.org/facilities/215/>.

Gillis, Melissa. "UNODA - Disarmament: A Basic Guide." Welcome to the United Nations: It’s Your World. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.<http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/ODAPublications/AdhocPublications/HTML/BasicGuide.shtml>.

“India and United Nations: Disarmament.” Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2013. <www.un.int/india/india%20&%20un/disa.pdf>.

“India | Country Profiles | NTI.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. N.p., 1 Aug. 2012. Web. 13 Jan. 2013. <http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/india/>.

“India-Pakistan Agreement on Chemical Weapons | Treaties & Regimes | NTI.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. N.p., 6 Mar. 2009. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.<http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/india-pakistan-agreement-on-chemical-weapons/>.

“OPCW Director-General Visits India, Meets External Affairs Minister and Other Senior Officials.” Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. N.p., 14 Jan. 2011. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.<http://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-director-general-visits-india-meets-external-affairs-minister-and-other-senior-officials/>.

Pasko, Tetyana. “The Proliferation of Chemical and Biological Weapons.” Old Dominion University. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.<al.odu.edu/mun/docs/Issue%20brief%202011%20-%20The%20Proliferation%20of%20Biological%20and%20Chemical%20Weapons.pdf>.

“The Hindu : Opinion / Interview : Year of transition for the OPCW.” The Hindu : Home Page News & Features. N.p., 17 Jan. 2011. Web. 13 Jan. 2013. <http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/interview/ article1097773.ece>.

“Third OPCW Exercise on the Delivery of Assistance (ASSISTEX 3), Tunis, Tunisia, 11 to 15 October 2010.” Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2013.<http://www.opcw.org/events-calendar/past-events/29-april-day-of-remembrance/assistex-3/>.Indonesia

Indonesia is proud to state that it has not and does not possess chemical or biological weapons. In 1992, we signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Conventions (BTWC), which prevented the production of any biological weapons. We also became a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in 1993. We currently rely on domestic laws and regulations to prevent the possession of biological weapons. Moreover, we emphasize the importance of the total destruction of chemical weapons by all remaining states that possess them, as this is the main priority of the OPCW. We actively cooperate with Singapore and Malaysia on maritime security issues and strongly support the nonproliferation of chemical and biological weapons. However, we are growing skeptical of multilateral export control regimes such as the Australia Group, believing that these regimes seem more to be agreements that prevent the spread of technology to the developing world.

Iran

Chemical and biological weapons, with its tremendous capability of inflicting severe and lastingdestruction to populations and terrains, are considered weapons of mass destruction. One spray of amanufactured chemical can easily kill thousands of people. Biological weapon could be a strain ofbacteria and virus, spreading through a system. It is extremely difficult to prevent the spread of theseweapons, thus these types of warfare have the potential for creating an uncontrolled mass ofdestruction, destabilizing and threatening not only regional but international security as well.

With regards to the devastating damage of chemical and biological weapons, protocols andconventions have been proposed by the international community so as to restrict the growth anddeployment of these weapons, and hopefully disarm of these weapons on a global basis. Iran stronglysupport this course of action, for during the Iran-Iraq War between 1982 and 1988 Iran suffered severelosses from Iraq's use of chemical weapons. As a result, Iran has significant experience with theeffects of chemical warfare (CW). Iran ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in November1997 and has been an active participant in the work of the Organisation for the Prohibition of ChemicalWeapons (OPCW) since then. Iran has publicly acknowledged the existence of a chemical weaponsprogram developed during the latter stages of the 1980 to 1988 war with Iraq. However, uponratifying the CWC, Iran has opened its facilities to international inspection, a prove that all itsoffensive CW activities had been terminated and the facilities destroyed prior to the treaty's entry intoforce.Iran has also signed and ratified the Biological Weapons Convention in 1973. This disarmamenttreaty effectively prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, retention, stockpilingand use of biological and toxin weapons and is a key element in the international community’s effortsto address the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Iran has in the past participated, and is still continuing her participation in different disarmamentsagreements and commitments. When tackling a problem that affects every nation, every city,cooperation of the international community become evermore crucial. The Islamic Republic of Iranstrongly supports international cooperation through treaties and conventions, which provides aplatform for the sharing of expertise, knowledge, understanding and best practices or show-casesolutions. Iran also encourages greater participation of member states in the prohibition for chemicaland biological weapons. Lastly, the country urges member states to oblige by their promises in theconventions, so as to improve international cooperation against the full spectrum of risks of biologicaland chemical weapons and promote the goal of universal membership in the treaty.

Israel

Currently, biological and chemical weapons pose an enormous threat to our current world, howeverthey would not exist if they were not necessary. Israel believes that the creation of biological andchemical weapons is to deter other countries that pose a threat, and this is the fundamental reason ofwhy these weapons are being made. Israel believes that the production of chemical weapons is inorder if there is enough reason. Israel believes that it does in fact have reason to create such biologicaland chemical weapons, as the current situation between Israel and the gaza strip is extremely seriousand Israel believes the production of biological weapons is necessary in order to deter the threat of thegaza strip. Israel recognises the immense amount of damage biological and chemical weapons pose tothe civilian life and terrain, however the dispute has escalated to the point where such a large threat isnecessary in order to prevent any further attempts of offence coming from the any of israel’s enemiesand bordering nations.Because of the above reasons, Israel has not signed or ratified the Biological Weapons Convention of1972. The Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993 has been signed, but not ratified. Israel has stronglyfelt that its own status on chemical and biological weapons should be kept in secrecy, for the sake ofeffective national defense.Israel will not release information about the progress of its own chemical and biological weaponry. Asa matter of policy, officials will refuse to comment on claims by other countries. Israel will not sign aresolution that calls for total chemical and biological disarmament.

Regarding the subject of legal framework for international intervention, Israel does not believe thatall nations must abide by a certain resolution if it did not agree with it. Israel understands that theunderlying purpose of the united nations is to promote peace keeping and to work towards the sevenmillenium goals, however Israel does not always agree with the methods in which this is carried outand believes that a resolution should not apply to a certain country if that country did not approve ofthe resolution.Israel has opposed the idea of international intervention in its war with the Gaza Strip and also in itswar with Syria. However, during the 2008 South Ossetia War, Israel has provided military support tothe Georgian military in a sort of unilateral military intervention.A recommendation Israel proposes is to create multiple resolutions regarding different nations, asIsrael recognises that different nations have different objectives. These resolutions should indeedhave the same ultimate goal, however they can be carried out differently for different countries.Concerning how these will be carried out, Israel believes the country itself should agree to theresolution so much that it is willing to carry out the objectives of the resolution.

Concerning the last topic discussed in the MUN forum, foreign military bases, Israel believes foreignmilitary bases can prove to be either a massive threat or a defensive measure. Israel believes thatthese foreign military bases are necessary, however they are not always in order. Israel justifies itsreasons for placing military bases in foreign countries as Israel’s top concern is the safety of its ownnation, and in order to do this, these actions must be taken. However, if military bases are put intoplace offensively, Israel believes this is a massive breach in sovereignty and this issue must be dealtwith before too much damage will be inflicted.

Overall, Israel believes that the issues to be discussed in this sessions are indeed pressing issues andhopes that a pleasing result can be seen as a result of this assembly.

Italy

I: General Statement:Chemical and biological weapons are a type of weapons of mass destruction that has been used in thepast. These weapons can date back to ancient Greece. Athenians had poisoned wells and the Spartansin turn hurled sulfur over the walls of Athens. The first uses of biological weapons was in 1317 by theMongols who through infested bodies over the walls of Ukraine. These types of weapons have beenresearched and used continuously throughout history. Currently around 177 countries have signed thebiological weapons conventions treaty and the chemical weapons convention. However, nations mustbe aware of the research and production of these weapons by a few countries as an alternative for themore expensive nuclear or atomic weaponry.Chemical and biological weapons have serious impacts on our society and we must make it a priority toensure that countries do not harbor such weapons. Italy acknowledges the use of these weapons ofmass destruction in the past, however it must be noted that the use of these weapons are non-existent.Italy has signed and ratified the chemical weapon convention (CWC) and the biological weaponconvention (BWC).The uses of these weapons are catastrophic and the effects of these weapons can be seen through theafter math of World War I, Vietnam War, Iraq-Iran war and many others. With the use of chemicaland biological weapons, the effects are much more prominent and severe. Biological weapons forinstance can create an epidemic which can rapidly spread considering our highly interconnectedworld. Chemical weapons too, have a prominent impact on the society. War is usually between twocountries or governments, but why do the civilians have to pay the price for what the governments arenot able to achieve? The government of Italy is concerned that some countries are still producing orresearching these methods of mass destruction. The volatile situation in the Middle East has causedsome concern for the Italian government.Italy believes there are still many countries that have not signed or ratified the BWC and the CWC andthat the UN should ensure that it is signed and followed by all the countries. The UN should compile areport every year, regarding the type and the number of weapons under the possession of a country toensure that no country has any type of chemical or biological weaponry.

Republic of Kenya

I. General StatementBiological and chemical weapons allow for the potential to create a level of destruction and loss

of life far in excess of nuclear or conventional weapons, relative to their mass and cost of developmentand storage. These kinds of weapons of mass destruction rely on the spread and transmission of theagents, thus the nature of them being easily harmful to an entire population and an extensive groupof life forms. These kinds of warfare are extremely volatile and constitute a class of hazardousweapons stockpiled by many nations as they serve as a form of threat, counterbalance and militarystatus similar to owning nuclear weapons, they are also well suited to asymmetric strategies againststronger opponents, exacerbating the difficulty for actors to forgo them. But the significant differencebetween biological and chemical warfare and nuclear weapons is that the former imposes a difficultyin safe and secure stockpiling and destruction as bio-technology revolution is making bio-technologymore readily available and presents a potential future proliferation risk, while the dual-use chemicalprocesses present a series of ongoing challenges.

To address the problem of these weapons being capable of potentially inflicting lastingdamage to civilians and terrain and cause uncontrollable mass destruction, various peace progresseshave been made, including:

1. The 1925 Geneva protocol prohibits the use of biological weapons2. The 1972 Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention prohibit their development, stockpiling,

and transfer3. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention outlaws chemical weapons development, possession

and use

One of the roles of Republic of Kenya’s in East Africa serves as a place for humanitarian aid toneighboring countries. Bio-and-chemical safety and security in some African regions is insufficient. Ifterrorist groups such as al-Qaeda obtain and deploy such weapons of mass destruction against fellowAfrican countries, immigrants that are victims of the attack that enters our country would prove to bea liability that we simply can’t risk. The Republic of Kenya has always agreed and ratified to treatiesthat supports the disarmament of biological and chemical weapons. We have acceded to the 1925Geneva Protocol and the treaties from the Biological Weapons Convention and we have also signedtreaties of the Chemical Weapons Convention. We have also received help from foreign countriesregarding security gaps in the country’s research facilities and laboratories.

The Republic of Kenya has constantly been hoping for more regulations to private researchinstitutes among other countries at operational level so to prevent unauthorized research to beconducted without the knowledge of responsible authorities. The Republic of Kenya regrets that notall peace progresses done so far has had a significant effect in minimizing allegations and resolved theproblem of dual-use in chemical and biological technology. In consequence, the Republic of Kenyawould like to suggest the General Assembly to consider the actions listed below.

I. Particulars

The Republic of Kenya sincerely recommends refining practical mechanisms to eliminate thepossession, development and use of chemical and biological weapons. Right now, it is difficult toperceive whether countries have abided to the treaties as there is the issue of dual-use of chemical andbiological technologies. Our nation suggests the possibility of the UN establishing peer monitoringschemes on top of Confidence-Building Measures to review institutions and laboratories that handlebiological and chemical research and have access to raw materials of these deadly weapons. Moreover,

a lot of private institutions are currently free from present inspections, we would like to explore thechance of minimizing such exceptions and loopholes in the system. Therefore, the Republic of Kenyagenuinely implores the General Assembly to take the issue seriously to vaporize misunderstandingand build trust among nations.

Libya

The History of Libya includes the history of its rich mix of ethnic groups added to the indigenousBerber tribes, but early last year our beloved leader Mummer Gaddafi, was savagely killed by rebelsand the evil western empires.

Libya has repeatedly noted that it’s chemical weapons are only for peaceful purposes only, to powerelectricity to our citizens and to ensure stability to the region. Such as Iran our brother, sisters, ourfamily has 5 nuclear bomb for self defense purposes.

Did not the Bush Jr. Administration, Tony Blair, and their circle of war criminals-in-office not lie to theentire international community and say that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and weapons ofmass destruction in 2003, but it ended up being false?

We would like to further stress that a further revision of a weapons agreement will only lead to morepolitical instability.

As China and Russia has mentioned that they are unwilling to discuss over this, Libya do so to.

Malaysia

For decades we have faced the question whether the human race will still be in existence in the context of civilians being at risk of dangerous instruments, namely chemical and biological weapons. The delegation of Malaysia believes that the issue of chemical and biological weapons is very important to the United Nations Assembly. We feel that the existence and development of said weapons in countries such as Soviet Russia, Iraq, and Japan poses a threat to Malaysia.

This threatens the security and health of the country and its people. Biological agents have been considered a weapon of mass destruction or even an agent in elimination of certain minorities. However, the nature of biological weapons is that most of them cannot be controlled entirely. For example, a biological warfare, if it has undergone an unpredicted and unpreventable mutation, can develop into a new type of germ that not even the releaser could have cures or immunizations for. Moreover, due to the potential of cross-border contamination, the germ could be easily transmitted across different regions via human contact or transportation, hence the area of destruction cannot be limited or calculated precisely. Chemical weapons demonstrate an equally dangerous threat. According to Harvard biologist Meselson, “in a battle where chemicals are used, the ratio of civilian to military casualties would be on the order of twenty to one.” Therefore, there is a paramount ethical issue encompassing the use or misuse of chemical weapons. Henceforth, biological and chemical weapons have the most potential and capacity for global annihilation and elimination of the human race. There is also the potential threat that despite several countries’ claim that their chemical facilities are contained and secured, the weapons would fall into wrong hands, i.e. terrorists, which could lead to disastrous consequences ranging on a global scale.

The delegation of Malaysia believes that biological and chemical warfare should be prevented from weaponry development in the hopes of protecting civilians that are in or surrounding Malaysia from long term or short term viruses or diseases, which will affect human lives and ultimately the country’s development. Therefore, Malaysia would like to put forward regulations that restrict certain countries from using the weapons for harm. This can avert bioterrorism and biological threats as a consequential effect.

Nigeria

Despite the social instability and poverty, on the military level, Nigeria has not yet engaged anyconflicts with other nations so far. Also, due to our geographical location, treaties signed by us and ourneighboring countries, and the common economical and political situation shared by us and otherAfrican countries, we have yet to experience the threat of a chemical and biological weapon attack.Therefore, the possession and usage of such weapons are not our major concerns.Nigeria currently possesses no biological, chemical or nuclear stockpiles. The Chemical WeaponsConvention and Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention are successfully signed and ratified. OurNational Authority arranges the implementation of the BTWC and leads our nation to a Biological andChemical nation. Nigeria is actively implementing both treaties, which means we do not develop,produce, stockpile and directly or indirectly transfer biological and chemical weapons. Also, Nigeriadoes not assist with chemical weapons or encourage the use of those weapons.As the most populated country in Africa, we are fully aware of our responsibility, in order to become arole model of other African countries in protecting human rights and achieving world peace. Webelieve this is also a common goal shared by all of the member states in this committee as well. We dorecognize the necessity for a discussion, since biological and chemical weapons are life-threateningwhich hugely place a negative impact on human beings when being used. Nigeria is looking forwardto a hotly contended interaction with other member states.

Palestine Liberation Organization

Biological weapons are fatalistic viruses, poisonous organisms planted and replicated in a human body. They are not the most direct weapons used during warfare, but usually strategies and tactics which are employed to threaten the rival country. Sometimes,biological weapons could be byproducts of medical research and development. Chemical weapons, on the other hand, create a more immediate and large-scale impact and are more efficient in warfare. Due to its destructive nature in warfare,it is more extensively developed than biological weapons. Both chemical and biological weapons will only affect living organisms, instead of causing mass destruction of infrastructures.

The current political situation of our country denies the terminal prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. There are many active political groups within our country. Most of them are armed and have great influence over the community. With limited resources and bargaining power,it is impossible for the government to urge all political groups to abandon their plans to develop chemical and biological weapons, let alone the complete destruction of the entire stockpile.

We are advocates of peace. However, when there are situations when the use of military forces is unavoidable. By replacing explosives with chemical and biological weapons, the recovery of the affected area could be speeded up. Chemical and biological weapons only poses effects to living things, but do not damage any infrastructures. Large scale destruction of buildings and infrastructures could be avoided, which is a common result of bombardment. The use of chemical and biological minimizes the impact of wars on infrastructures and this allows of faster recovery of the involved places.

The above statement does not imply that our country supports the abuse of military. It only states that we deem chemical and biological weapons as more feasible weaponry.

The Palestine Liberation Organization recognize the importance of chemical and biological weapons in strengthening our national defense .We are at the borders of Israel who often stages terrorist attacks on us with the help of chemical and biological weapons, along with other advance weapons.To defend ourselves from the aggression, the possession of chemical and biological weapons are inevitable. The sovereignty of our country and the safety of the people will be protected by the possession of these weapons . Social stability of our country is maintained.

On behalf of our people and the interest of our country, we will not deny the possession of chemical and biological weapons. We will continue to increase our stockpile of these weapons, either purchasing them from other countries or develop them on our own. We believe that under strict measures and regulations, the development and possession of chemical and biological weapons will be under control and will only be used for defensive purposes.

The Republic of the Philippines, recognizing the tremendous threats posed by chemical and biological weapons, affirms the country’s advocacy of the non-proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. Such weapons cause needless and devastating mass destruction, death, affects livelihoods and is a contradiction against the United Nation’s aim of maintaining world peace. Member states should therefore collaborate on prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical and biological weapons.

With this goal in mind, the Philippines has signed the Geneva Protocol of 1925 and actively participated in the Biological Weapons Convention as well as the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the annual report to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons submitted on June 26, 2001, the Philippines declared that the country does not possess any chemical weapons, including old and abandoned ones, in any place under its jurisdiction or control.

From the 27th to the 28th of June, 2011, the Government of the Philippines, working with the BTWC Implementation Support Unit and the EU Joint Action implementation group at UNODA, held the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Conference Week for East Asia and the Pacific in Manila. The workshop was successful in meeting its aims of raising awareness of States Parties' obligations and undertakings under the BTWC and means for their national implementation. The importance of connectivity through networking, cooperation and coordination to promote capacity building was also emphasized.

In order to ensure a safe and peaceful environment, the Philippines strongly suggests the annual reports on the Confidence Building Measures (CBM) to be made compulsory for all signatories and accessible to the public for reference. Countries should meet together annually to discuss about the effectiveness, implementation as well as the sustainability of the treaties regarding the non-proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.

The Philippines also suggests the committee t set up grants for research and monitoring of chemical and biological substances to aid scientists in finding an effective way of addressing the current problems arising from the misuse of chemical and biological weapons and prevent such problems from happening. Additionally, resources and training for law enforcement agencies around the world should be provided in order to implement decisions made by the committee.

Only through forming connections and networking to achieve coordination and cooperation on all levels between member states can the ideal of a world free of threats posed by chemical and biological weapons be realized. The Republic of Philippines hereby urges all nations to abide by the existing treaties and gradually reduce the stockpiles of such weapons in order to create a safer and better tomorrow.

South Korea

The issue of limiting biological and chemical weapons has long been disputed amongst theUnited Nations. The republic of South Korea recognizes the concern that the United Nations has fordisarmament measures and is more than willing to cooperate and implement these pivotal measures.We affirm that we are entirely unassociated with any offensive biological weapons programs. In Juneof 1987, we ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Conventions, which prohibits the development,production, and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons. Before ratifying this convention, we havedestroyed all of our biological weapons. Although we acknowledge our need for defensive biologicalweapons research and development, we pledge to only utilize these weapons for nonviolent purposes.Keeping the Chemical Weapons Conventions in mind, which outlaws the production, stockpiling, anduse of chemical weapons, we have taken stringent measures in the annihilation of chemical weaponsstockpiling since July 2008 and can proudly declare ourselves as the second CWC member to do so.

Syria

Regional security concerns, and most notably Syria's adversarial relationship with Israel, represent themost likely present-day motivation behind Syria's chemical weapons program. Specifically, a series ofdisastrous military defeats to Israel in 1967, 1973, and 1982, followed by the weakening of Arab unityagainst Israel following the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and Israel's presumed acquisition ofnuclear weapons, provided impetus for Syria to pursue a strategic deterrent against the conventionaland nuclear Israeli threats. Syria has neither signed nor acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention(CWC), and has officially stated that while it supports a region-wide ban on WMD, it cannotunilaterally renounce chemical weapons for as long as Israel continues to pose a threat to its security.In recent years, the Syrian government has assured all countries that it will only use these weapons ifSyria were attacked by foreign powers during the civil war and would never use these weaponsagainst Syrian citizens. This has been backed with the fact that there has been no credible evidenceover the past years that Syria has used these weapons in its battle against rebel armed forces.The Syrian delegation believes that there is no need in eliminating the possession, development anduse of chemical, biological and toxin weapons as the country which has been developing chemicalweapons for years has clearly shown no intent in using the chemical weapons. Syria also believes thatsuch weapons should be treated no differently with other weapons in terms of the danger it poses andSyria will continue to develop its chemical weapons program while assuring that these weapons arestored securely, and that such weapons would only be used in the event of "external aggression”.

Turkey

Chemical and biological weapons can impose eternal damage to civilians and land, causing uncontrolled mass destruction. Its dangerous impact in terms of safe stockpiling and destruction exacerbates the urgency of new protocol. However, some may view it as a counterbalance to nuclear weapon making the disarmament more difficult.

Turkey is situated in a notoriously dangerous neighborhood, with Iran, Iraq and Syria. We are, however, the bridge between Europe and Asia. We are unique with democracy, respect of human rights and a free-market economy in a majority-Muslim population.

Turkey does not possess nor develop chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Turkey firmly supports the position to disarm all weapons of mass destruction.

Turkey is in good standing of all of the major treaties. Turkey is active in preventing proliferation of these weapons and signed the following treaties. It includes the 1925 Geneva Protocol Treaty, which prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials" But it does not prohibit the development, production, stockpiling, or transfer of such weapons. In addition, Turkey also supported the Treaty of Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention in 1972 to establish verification mechanism to prohibit the development, production, stockpiling, or transfer of such weapons. Finally, the Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty in 1993 made comprehensive bans on development, production, stockpiling and use of Chemical Weapons. Therefore, from these treaties, Turkey is strongly against these weapons.

The biological and chemical weapons are of mass destruction; these weapons are not only targeting soldier but also civilians. They have long-term effects on people, premises and environment. These are main reason why Turkey is having a strong opposition towards these weapons.

At present, both biological and chemical weapons have been relatively cheap and easy to produce compared to other weapons of mass destruction liked nuclear weapons. Therefore these have been described as poor man’s atomic bomb.

Rogue countries without sophisticated conventional arms are more eager to acquire biological and chemical weapons especially in Middle East. Iraq was notorious in using chemical weapons to Kurdish civilians in 1991 under the regime of Saddam Hussein. In post-911 era, increasing possible terrorist attacks, accidental releases from stockpile sites or buried weapons are needed for response planning.

Emergency health facilities around the World are poorly prepared and equipped for such incidents, especially with a sudden appearance of large numbers of contaminated individuals. It imposes great difficulty in patient triage, decontamination and treatment. Collapse of medical system may be inevitable.

In addition, cleaning of chemical warfare agents from building structures, environment is difficult and dangerous. It involves special equipment and knowledge. Inadequate decontamination will cause environmental disaster lasted for many generations. Decontamination of biological weapon is even more hazardous because of transmission of infective agents. All these are very costly.

All these reinforces why Turkey decide that measures against these weapon should be enforced. Control regime should be implemented to minimize the probability that these weapons will be used, and to control their proliferation.

The uses of chemical weapons are generally not welcomed among member states except for some exceptions.

Although around 71% of chemical weapons were destroyed after the 1993 Convention, non- members are suspected of still having chemical weapons, especially Syria and North Korea.

Some member states including Sudan and the People's Republic of China have been accused of failing to disclose their stockpiles.

Furthermore, although deadlines are set to complete destruction of chemical weapons, no country reached total elimination by the original treaty date. Only several have finished under allowed extensions.

As Syria is next to Turkey, its civil war is a serious threat to us. Fearing that chemical weapons may be used, we appeal the United Nations to help set up a safe haven inside Syria for regime opponents or to establish humanitarian corridors to besiege population centers and medical emergency assistance. We need to secure those stocks and prevent them being used.

Turkey appreciates the role of the US and European countries in the Middle East in solving conflicts. We strive to discuss with the United States for a safe and secure policy on this area in the territory surrounding Turkey. Turkey hereby appeals for cooperation of all countries to observe the disarmament agreements and maintain global peace and safety.

Uganda

There have been claims in the international arena that Uganda has stockpiled biological and chemicalweapons within its territories. Uganda believes that the allegations is the instability between Ugandaand the neighboring countries, such as Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan, which leads tothe speculations of the existence of various biological and chemical weapons within Uganda’sterritories. Biological and chemical weapons caused a mass destruction and can be used for terroristattacks. Therefore, Uganda has signed a number of conventions to limit the use of chemical andbiological weapons within its territories:On 17th June 1925, Uganda made an accession to an agreement to the Geneva Gas Protocol. Theprotocol is for the prohibition of the use of asphyxiating, other poisonous gases and of biologicalmethods of warfare.In 1972, Uganda signed the Biological Weapons Convention on the prohibition of the development,production and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons.In 1993, Uganda signed the Chemical Weapons Convention on the prohibition of the development,production and stockpiling of chemical and toxin weapons, being the 35th State on the Africancontinent to join the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).In 1995, Uganda signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.However, Uganda doubts the credibility of the developed countries which claims to have the sanctionpower to penalize countries who been allegedly owning biochemical weapons by false accusationsfrom the developed countries. Uganda believes that regular inspection of alleged presence ofbiochemical weapons in Uganda is politically motivated and is a direct violation of human rights of theUgandans. This is tantamount to accusing the people of Uganda of secretly producing the weaponswhich could jeopardize the interest and safety of human beings. Therefore, Uganda is strongly againstit. Uganda is very concerned since Uganda believes that the inspectors from the internationalcommunity have an illegitimate reason to claim the existence of any biochemical weapons in Ugandaas they have a secret agenda of trying to scrutinize every aspect of Uganda, which is a direct violationof state sovereignty.

Ukraine

Chemical and Biological Weapons have had a long history in warfare. However, it was during WorldWar I that its usage was so widespread and so extensive that the Geneva Protocol was introduced toprohibit the first use of chemical and biological weapons. Unfortunately, the treaty did not address theissues of possession and development of such weapons, so the Biological and Toxin WeaponsConvention and the Chemical Weapons Convention were introduced. Nevertheless, despite the effortsof these conventions, the threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons still remains as a few states stillmaintain stockpiles and active programmes.

Since gaining our independence in 1991, Ukraine has not engaged in any offensive or defensive BWand CW activities. Ukraine sees such weapons as threats to our national security and we have nointention of establishing any Biological or Chemical Weapon programmes. By January 1992, Ukrainehad transferred all Chemical Weapons on our territory back to the Russian Federation. Furthermore,Ukraine was one of the first signatories of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and is amajor participant in the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Currently with the United States’ help, we are upgrading the security to biological research instituteswhere dangerous pathogens are kept, in hope to ensure national safety when researching thesediseases. Even now, more than 10 years after the Iran-Iraq war, 30,000 Iranians are still suffering anddying due to the chemical weapons used then.

Lethal even in small quantities, Biological and Chemical Weapons can easily be acquired as theequipment and materials needed for manufacture are often available in the civil sector. For suchreasons, Ukraine believes that it is necessary for all states to stop all production of such weapons anddestroy any such existing weapons in their possession. We would also like to encourage all states toratify to both the aforementioned BWTC and CWC.

As our foreign minister Khandogiy has said, “Ukraine is really disappointed that a world withoutweapons of mass destruction (WMDs) remains a distant dream.” Hence, Ukraine wishes for allcountries, especially those in Africa and the Middle East to follow our example and disarm themselvesfrom Biological and Chemical Weapons to ensure better safety for all our nations.

USA

The United States of America is resolute in its stance against the usage of Biological and Toxins Weapons (BW) and Chemical Weapons (CW) for non-peaceful purposes. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BWC) were implemented in 1997 and 1975 respectively to provide an extensive set of guidelines against these instruments of war. Although the United States of America has signed and ratified both treatises, we do support and engage in research into these topics for solely peaceful purposes.

The Chemical Weapons Convention’s primary target was for the complete destruction of all CW stockpiles across the globe. The final deadline for each party state to destroy its own stockpile was April 2012. To this date only 4 party states have been verified by OPCW to have fully destroyed their stockpiles.

Although the United States of America has not fulfilled the targets set by the deadline, we possessed one of the largest chemical weapons stockpiles in the world and have successfully destroyed approximately 90% of it as well as provided financial aid for Albania to completely destroy their stockpile under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR).

Unfortunately, the current issue is that there are 188 states in total that have signed the convention. There are several possible reasons for this. Firstly, the country itself does not have the means to assess and/or destroy its own CW stockpiles. In this situation, similar programs such as the CTR should be introduced by the UN in order to aid these countries without the means to fulfill the goals due to limitations in technological advancements. Secondly, the country itself may not be willing to destroy its own CW stockpiles. In this situation punitive measures must be taken.

A very important point is concerning the transparency of information and non-signatory states. Non-signatory states do not have the obligation to present information on chemical weapon stockpiles, which could lead to international tension. The situation in Syria is an example of this, as the CIA reports the possibility of the Syrian government possessing chemical weapons such as mustard gas and sarin. We believe that threats presented by non-signatory states should be dealt with by the UN using force instead of the imposing of sanctions, which may potentially aggravate situations in the non-signatory state and worsen any on-going negotiations.

However, an even more distressing situation is brought about by the lack of information transparency. The weapons could be traded off to terrorist groups or fellow non-signatory states without the knowledge of the international community. This is one of the main worries of the second Gulf War. Although no CWs were found in the aftermath of the war, a major concern is that the weapons may have been sold to third parties instead.

USA has had a successful history regarding the destruction of BW stockpiles as well as played a major role in the implementation of the BWC. Under the Nixon Administration, the Biological Warfare Program was ended in 1969. Weapons were destroyed over the following years, with research and storage facilities being fully decontaminated in the process. Following the success in our nation itself, the USA became one of the major parties calling for an international treaty addressing the issue of BWs. The United Kingdom had already written a draft proposal, but the only support received was from Canada. However, signatories were soon gathered in the aftermath of the USA’s unprecedented

ending of the Biological Warfare Program. The BWC was hence approved of by the United Nations General Assembly.

A major problem of the BWC is a lack of any enforcement of the guidelines themselves. Unlike the case of the CWC, which had the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), there existed no organisation or professional team to verify whether party states actually followed the rules set.

However, as stated by many leading experts on the matter, verification checks may no longer be viable. Many CWs and BWs could easily be recreated by terrorist groups with access to the correct substances, as shown by the Sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway in 1995. BW and CW research is also found to be too simple to be disguised, due to the fact that substances involved can be used for other purposes. As stated earlier, even though Iraq was found by the UN to not contain any large CW stockpiles, they may have been sold to groups such as the Al-Qaeda long before the war began. Hence we believe that our efforts should be directed towards preparation and planning for BW and CW attacks, as well as promotion of international cooperation.

Finally, we would like to suggest several solutions to deal with issues surrounding both topics. Firstly, enhanced transparency of information is extremely important in the first step of creating a global defense against CW and BW threats. Sharing research between nations concerning topics such as immunity and vaccinations would promote international cooperation as well as help each party state be more prepared for BW or CW attacks from terrorist groups, etc. In addition, we have already looked into discussions with the World Health Organisation into aiding them with handling and controlling outbreaks in less developed and prepared nations. This will help them be more prepared to handle situations alone, hence acting as a Confidence Building Measure (CBM). Protocols should also be introduced in order to more tightly control substances involved in the creation of more lethal chemicals, as well as restrict trade of chemical and biological substances to non-ratified and non-signatory states.

In conclusion, the United States of America would like to once again confirm on its stance against the usage of BWs and CWs for malicious purposes. We would like to urge the UN and member nations to draft a new resolution introducing protocols aiding in creating a global defense against both BW and CW attacks.