City School Model United

Nations 2013

Counter terrorism committee

Topic A: Threat of terrorism to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal

Topic B: Syria and weapons of mass destruction

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to the Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) at CSMUN 2013! We are your chairs

Ammar Ahmed and Muhammad Huzaifa Arif and we will guide you through CSMUN and the preparation for

the conference.

As you already know, your task at CSMUN will be to act as a diplomat of the country you were assigned.

Naturally, this requires quite a bit of research: You will have to familiarize yourself with the topics at hand

(“Threat of terrorism to Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal” and “Syria and weapons of mass destruction”)

and with your country’s position on these topics Since it is

impossible to know your country’s point of view on every single proposal you will encounter during the

conference, it is important that you also have a solid knowledge of the politics, culture etc. of your country.

That way, you will be able to deduce how a real-life delegate would behave in your place. The goal of your

preparation should be that you are able to contribute to the committee work in accordance with your

country’s interests If every one of you is thoroughly prepared we will have the most realistic, interesting

and challenging debates and the best “MUN-experience” possible.

As your chairs, we will try and support you during your preparation for CSMUN. Therefore, we have put together this study guide. In this document, you will find some general

information on how MUN-conferences work and on how to prepare for CSMUN. Moreover, you will find

research reports on the CTC and on the two topics we are going to discuss. This document is meant to

get you jump-started with your research. Please note, however, that this guide is only a starting point for

you preparation and that you will have to put in quite a bit additional work! For example, there is no

country-specific information in this document. Furthermore, the more you know on our topics, the more

you can contribute to the resolutions.

But enough about work! Speaking from experience, we can also tell you that CSMUN will be a lot of fun,

both inside and outside the conference room We wrote about the “MUN-experience” a little further

above. This does not only include learning a lot about how the UN works and brushing up your soft skills, it

also includes getting to know heaps of nice people with different cultural backgrounds and having a great

time together!

We are looking forward to meeting you on 26th December at The City School, A level block, FSD!

Best regards,

Ammar and Huzaifa.

Honorable Chairs:

Ammar Ahmed

Muhammad Huzaifa Arif

Flow of Debate

Research Reports

The Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Weapons in PakistanJune 7, 2013 | Filed under: International Affairs & Security and tagged with: foolproof security, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Mehsud Pakistan Taliban, Pakistan, Pakistan naval base at Mehran, Pakistan nuclear facilities, Pakistan nuclear weapon components, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, Professor Shaun Gregory, terrorist attacks, terrorist threat, The Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan, United States

Spearhead Research – Pakistan Comment:

Professor Shaun Gregory has comprehensively analyzed the situation. He has rightly brought out the fact that Pakistan has come a long way in ensuring foolproof security and procedures. These have evolved over a period of time and remain under constant review by experts. Professor Gregory’s concerns are valid considering the environment around Pakistan that inevitably impacts its internal security situation. Learning from the pattern of past attacks (none of which actually threatened Pakistan’s nuclear facilities) Pakistan has enhanced security and made this a dynamic process to include sophisticated personnel reliability programs to eliminate  insider collusion and movement related lapses. In any case such movement is minimal and well protected. Professor Gregory’s last point is well taken – there is absolute no room for complacency – and this is fully understood in Pakistan.

The Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan

By Shaun Gregory

In the fifteen years since Pakistan emerged as an operational nuclear weapons state in 1998 there has been no credible report of a terrorist seizure of nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons related material in Pakistan, nor of terrorists penetrating and holding space within a confirmed nuclear weapons facility such as might allow them to gain access to, or otherwise create a threat with, nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons related material. This track-record, and indeed Pakistan’s similarly unblemished history during the decades since the 1950s over which Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme has reached maturity, has persuaded many within and outside Pakistan that the risk of a terrorist threat to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons is at best overstated and at worst a myth designed to impugn the reputation of Pakistan and its Army.

It is certainly the case that with the help primarily of the United States Pakistan has developed robust and serially redundant technologies and practices to assure the security of its nuclear weapons. On the technical side these include the protections of keeping weapons in a disassembled state (with warheads and fissile material kept at separate locations), the use of Permissive Action Link (PAL) technology to make weapons unusable if stolen, the use of authenticating and enabling codes to impose high-level and centralised control over the weapons and ensure against unintended or irrational use by unauthorised or Pakistan armed forces personnel, and the use of concentric physical barrier and related technologies (such as cameras and motion sensors) which impose security around the environments of nuclear weapons facilities, at the perimeter of such facilities, and around the weapons or weapons related material within those facilities.

On the procedural side Pakistan’s nuclear weapons safety and security is under the purview of the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) which began operations in December 1998, the same year as the tests, and which since that time has been under the leadership of the same individual, Lieutenant General

Khalid Kidwai (retd). The fact that Lt Gen. Kidwai, and many of those closest to him, has remained in post so long (defying the usual promotional rotation and retirement norms of the Pakistan Army) and that the SPD has close relations with the United States, has provided an enclave context of stability and bilateral reassurance within which the size and competence of the SPD has continued to grow and within which it has been possible for Pakistan to find responses to security and safety threats as these have emerged.

The authority and control of the SPD over those who operate and have roles in the maintenance, transport, deployment, operations, and protection of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and related infrastructure (thought to number between 40,000 and 70,000 people in total) is maintained through a variety of means. These include robust recruitment and personnel reliability screening to exclude or rotate out of existing duties those thought to be unreliable or potentially subject to outside pressures (for example of blackmail, honey-trap, foreign sympathies, and so forth); the use of intelligence elements within the SPD (intelligence, counter-intelligence and security teams and directorates) to oversee those with operational nuclear weapons duties; the use of other intelligence agencies (primarily the ISI) to vet and monitor those with access to nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons related materials; and the use of the “two-person rule” meaning that all activities related to nuclear weapons operations must include the decisions and actions of at least two individuals. The latter operates throughout the chain of command from the civil-military composition of Pakistan’s National Command Authority (NCA) which includes the Prime Minister, senior ministers and armed forces personnel, and which has overall authority over nuclear weapons and directs the SPD (formally at least), down to the individuals operating a single nuclear weapon.

All nuclear weapons states understand, however, that the terrorist threat to nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons related technology is a dynamic and evolving one, shaped by factors which are both endogenous and exogenous to the terrorist groups themselves. The SPD (and behind them the United States and the wider international community) understands that the rapid growth of

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal – as numbers increase, types of nuclear weapons diversify, and new fissile material production facilities come on stream – increases the security and safety challenges. So too does the proliferation and strength of terrorist groups in Pakistan, including those such as Al-Qaeda which have articulated a desire to possess nuclear weapons or other WMD, and closely allied groups like the Mehsud Pakistan Taliban, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jaish-e-Muhammed which have shown themselves capable of striking against hardened military targets in Pakistan.

In the near to medium term therefore the terrorist threat to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons materials centres on three core concerns. The first of these is the evolving modalities of terrorist attacks which have demonstrated the terrorists’ ability to penetrate security around the approaches to hardened military targets (including some thought to have nuclear roles) at the missile storage facility at Sargodha (November 2007), the aerospace complex at Kamra (December 2007), and munitions complex at Wah (August 2008) and subsequent attacks which have demonstrated the capacity to go further to penetrate base perimeters and – crucially – to hold space within those bases for many hours, including the attacks on the Pakistan Army’s GHQ (October 2009), the Pakistan naval base at Mehran (May 2011), and at Kamra again (August 2012). The consequent concern must be that such tactics will be applied to known nuclear weapons storage facilities and might allow terrorists to gain direct access to storage bunkers. Even if they could not penetrate these bunkers for terrorists to reach so far would be a game-changer.

The second related concern is to be found in the anxiety about insider collusion. Notwithstanding the barriers of recruitment selection, screening, off-rotation, and intelligence scrutiny it is clear that Islamist and terrorist sympathies do exist within the Pakistan armed forces and it is also clear that some of the terrorist attacks listed above appear to have had insider help (for example in knowledge of base defences, the use of plans of military bases, access to military IDs, and so forth).

Finally Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons components, like those of all nuclear weapons states, exist in a cycle of manufacture, transport, storage, deployment, maintenance and refurbishment and are consequently moved about the country and are periodically to be found in civilian sector facilities. At various points in this cycle the weapons or weapons components are temporarily less secure than they would be in hardened military facilities and therefore are at greater risk than formal arrangements would suggest.

These three issues are undoubtedly understood and recognised by the SPD (and the United States and others) and are being addressed in a continuous search for responses to the evolving terrorist threat. If there is an embedded danger within this search it is to be found in the complacency that argues that Pakistan is entirely secure against that terrorist threat and that those who argue otherwise have malevolent motivations.

Professor of International Security in the School of Government and International Affairs at Durham University

Syria and weapons of mass destruction

Pakistan yesterday came under increased pressure over its nuclear arsenal when a Harvard study warned of "a very real possibility" that its warheads could be stolen by terrorists.

The rising concern about poorly-guarded nuclear weapons and material was the subject of an extraordinary two-day summit which began in Washington yesterday. Last night, Ukraine became the latest country to volunteer to give up its stores of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which can be used in weapons, and switch its research reactors to low-enriched uranium.

There was still considerable anxiety at the Nuclear Security Summit over the safety of more than 2,000 tons more HEU and weapons-grade plutonium stored in 40 countries. There were also persistent doubts over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Pakistan's prime minister, YousafRazaGilani, assured Barack Obama the country has an "appropriate safeguard" for its arsenal, understood to consist of 70-90 nuclear weapons.

However, a report by Harvard University's Belfer Centre for Science and International Affairs, titled Securing the Bomb 2010, said Pakistan's stockpile "faces a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any other nuclear stockpile on earth".

Experts said the danger was growing because of the arms race between Pakistan and India. The Institute for Science and International Security has reported that Pakistan's second nuclear reactor, built to produce plutonium for weapons, shows signs of starting operations, and a third is under construction.

At their White House meeting on Sunday, Obama pressed Gilani to end Pakistan's opposition to an international treaty that would ban the production of new fissile material for nuclear warheads, plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU), but the Pakistani leader showed no signs of bowing to the pressure, US officials said.

Pakistan's insistence that India reduces its stockpile first prevented talks on the fissile material cutoff treaty from getting under way in Geneva last year.

Yesterday, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, added to the pressure on Pakistan by calling for talks at the multilateral conference on disarmament to start, warning that "nuclear terrorism is one of the greatest threats we face today".

Both the US and Britain have declared themselves satisfied with Pakistan's security measures for its nuclear weapons, despite the rise of the Pakistani Taliban and other extremist groups. But yesterday's Harvard report said there were serious grounds for concern.

"Despite extensive security measures, there is a very real possibility that sympathetic insiders might carry out or assist in a nuclear theft, or that a sophisticated outsider attack (possibly with insider help) could overwhelm the defences," the report said.

It also warned that weaknesses remained in measures Russia had taken in recent years to guard its nuclear stockpile, the world's largest.

The nuclear security summit, which began yesterday in Washington, brings together leaders and officials from 47 nations, with the aim of focusing global attention on the danger of nuclear terrorism. The summit will endorse Obama's goal of locking up the world's stockpiles of plutonium or HEU within four years.

The Harvard report warned that the world "is not yet on track" to meet that deadline. Its author, Matthew Bunn said: "Sustained White House leadership will be needed to overcome complacency and convince policymakers around the world to act."

As a contribution to the aims of the summit, the US and Russia are due to sign an agreement in Washington to take 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium out of their reserve stockpiles and use it for the generation of nuclear power. Other leaders are being called on to make concrete pledges in the main session today.

Last week, Malaysia adopted much-delayed export controls to prevent its ports being used as channels for the black market in nuclear equipment. Last

month, Chile shipped all the HEU from its research reactors to the US for safekeeping.

While Washington  points its finger at president Bashar al Assad, a United Nations independent commission of inquiry has confirmed [May 2013] that the rebels rather than the government have chemical weapons in their possession and are using sarin nerve against the civilian population:

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin, one of the lead investigators said on Sunday.

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons, which are banned under international law, said commission member Carla Del Ponte.

The Geneva-based inquiry into war crimes and other human rights violations is separate from an investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria instigated by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which has since stalled [discredited]. See “U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator,” Chicago Tribune, May, 5  2013, emphasis added)

Ironically, when the chemical weapons pretext was first launched by the Pentagon in August 2012, the accusations were not directed against President Bashar al Assad to the effect that he was underhandedly conniving to use WMD against Syrian civilians. Quite the opposite. According to the Pentagon, the operation was to ensure that Syria’s WMDs, which allegedly had been “left unguarded” in military bunkers around the country would not fall in the hands of opposition jihadist rebels who are fighting government forces:

Pentagon planners are more focused on protecting or destroying any Syrian stockpiles that are left unguarded and at risk [of] falling into the hands of rebel fighters or militias aligned with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or other militant groups. ( U.S. has plans in place to secure Syria chemical arms – latimes.com, August 22, 2012

What the Pentagon was saying in August 2012, is that these WMD could fall in the hands of  the “pro-democracy” Al Qaeda rebels recruited and financed

by several of America’s close allies including Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, in liaison with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In a twisted logic,  the Pentagon was to ensure that the rebels aligned with Al Qaeda would not acquire WMD, by actually training them in the use of chemical weapons:

The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012, emphasis added

And once these Al Qaeda rebels had been supplied and trained in the use of WMDs by military contractors hired by the Pentagon,  the Syrian government would then be held responsible for using the WMD against the Syrian people.

This in turn would provide a justification for a humanitarian R2P intervention to “protect” and come to the rescue of the Syrian people.

Believe it or not: that is the justification for waging a “humanitarian war” on Syria.

Michel Chossudovsky, May 7, 2013

The Syria Chemical Weapons Saga: The Staging of a US-NATO Sponsored Humanitarian Disaster?

by Michel Chossudovsky

December 12, 2012

Modeled on the Saddam Hussein WMD narrative, the propaganda ploy concerning the alleged threat of Syria’s chemical weapons has been building up over several months.

The Western media suggests –in chorus and without evidence– that  a “frustrated” and “desperate” president Bashar al Assad is planning to use deadly chemical weapons against his own people. Last week, U.S. officials revealed to NBC News that “Syria’s military has loaded nerve-gas chemicals into bombs and are awaiting final orders from al-Assad”.

Western governments are now accusing Syria of planning a diabolical scheme on the orders of the Syrian head of State. Meanwhile, the media hype has gone into full gear. Fake reports on Syria’s WMD are funneled into the news chain, reminiscent of the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The evolving media consensus is that  “the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad appears to be entering its twilight”  and that the “international community” has a responsibility to come to the rescue of the Syrian people to prevent the occurrence of a humanitarian disaster.

“…Fears are growing in the West that Syria will unleash chemical weapons in a last-ditch act of desperation”

Recent reports that the embattled government of Syria has begun preparations for the use of chemical weapons [against the Syrian people] . After two years of civil war and more than 40,000 deaths, events in Syria may be heading to a bloody crescendo.  (WBUR, December 11, 2012)

Syria versus Iraq

Antiwar critics have largely underscored the similarities with the Iraq WMD ploy, which consisted in accusing the government of Saddam Hussein of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The alleged WMD threat was then used as a justification to invade Iraq in March 2003.

The WMD Iraq ploy was subsequently acknowledged in the wake of the invasion as an outright fabrication, with president George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair actually recognizing that it was a “big mistake”. In a recent statement Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu called  for‘lying’ Blair and Bush to face trial in the Hague`s International Criminal Court

The Syria WMD saga is in marked contrast to that of Iraq. The objective is not to” justify” an all out humanitarian war on Syria, using chemical weapons as a pretext.

An examination of  allied military planning as well as the nature of US-NATO support to the opposition forces suggests a different course of action to that adopted in relation to Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011).

The purpose is indeed to demonize Bashar Al Assad but the objective at this stage is not the conduct of an all out “shock and awe” war on Syria, involving a full fledged air campaign. Such an action would, under present conditions, be a highly risky undertaking. Syria has advanced air defense capabilities, equipped with Russian Iskander missiles (see image) as well as significant ground forces. A Western military operation could also lead to a response from Russia, which has a naval base at the port city of Tartus in Southern Syria.

Moreover, Iranian forces from its revolutionary guards corps (IRGC) are present on the ground in Syria; Russian military advisers are involved in the training of the Syrian military.

In recent developments, Syria took delivery of the more advanced Russian Iskander missile system, the Mach 6-7,  in response to the deployment of US Made Patriot missiles in Turkey.  Syria already possesses the less advanced E-

Series Iskander.  Syria is also equipped with the Russian ground to air defense missile system Pechora-2M. 

Iskander Mach 6-7

Description

The Pechora-2M is a surface-to-air anti-aircraft short-range missile system designed for destruction of aircraft, cruise missiles, assault helicopters and other air targets at ground, low and medium altitudes.

Ground to air defense Russian Pechora 2M deployed to Syria

Non-Conventional Warfare

At this juncture, despite US-NATO military superiority, an all out military operation, for the reasons mentioned above, is not contemplated.

Non-conventional warfare remains the chosen avenue. Reports confirm that NATO-led military operations would be largely in support of rebel forces, its command structure, communications systems, recruitment, training, the transfer to rebel forces of more advanced weapons. Part of this undertaking including the training of rebels is being carried by private mercenary companies.

A limited and selective air campaign in support of the rebels, using Syria’s chemical weapons bunker stockpiles as a pretext could be contemplated, but even this would be a risky undertaking given Syria’s air defense capabilities.

What was on the drawing board of a recent “Semi-Secret” Meeting in London, hosted by General Sir David Julian Richards, head of Britain’s Defense Staff  is a coordinated military agenda characterised by “air and naval support, plus military training for the opposition”.

The meeting in London included the participation of  the military chiefs of France, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE and the US. No further details were made public (See Felicity Arbuthnot,  Secret Meetings in London Plotting to Wage War on Syria without UN Authorization, Global Research, December 11, 2012

The thrust of this London gathering behind closed doors (reported on December 10, 2012) was to support a unified military command structure of opposition forces designed to “unify insurgent ranks” fighting government forces. In practice, this will require a renewed influx of mercenaries under the

supervision of Western special forces which are already on the ground inside Syria.

Staging a Humanitarian Disaster?

The training component of  US-NATO action is of crucial importance. How does it relate to the Syria ‘chemical weapons’ issue?

The Western military alliance does not contemplate at this stage an all out war in response to Syria’s possession of chemical weapons. What is contemplated is the need to train the opposition rebels in the handling of chemical weapons.

This specialized training program which was confirmed is already ongoing, implemented with the support of specialized private mercenary and security companies on contract to the Pentagon:

“The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday. ( CNN Report, December 9, 2012)

What is unfolding is a diabolical scenario –which is an integral part of military planning– namely a situation where opposition terrorists advised by Western defense contractors are actually in possession of chemical weapons.

This is not a rebel training exercise in non-proliferation. While president Obama states that “you will be held accountable” if “you” (meaning the Syrian government) use chemical

weapons, what is contemplated as part of this covert operation is the possession of chemical weapons by the US-NATO sponsored terrorists, namely “by our” Al Qaeda affiliated operatives,  including the Al Nusra Front (see image on right), which constitutes the most effective Western financed and trained fighting group, largely integrated by foreign mercenaries. In a bitter twist, Jabhat al-Nusra, a US sponsored “intelligence asset”, was recently put on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

The West claims that it is coming to the rescue of the Syrian people, whose lives are allegedly threatened by Bashar Al Assad.  The truth of the matter is that the Western military alliance is not only supporting the terrorists, including the Al Nusra Front, it is also making chemical weapons available to its proxy “opposition” rebel forces.

The next phase of this diabolical scenario is that the chemical weapons could be used by the US-NATO recruited “opposition” terrorists against civilians, which could potentially lead an entire nation into a humanitarian disaster.

The broader issue is: who is a threat to the Syrian people? The Syrian government of Bashar al Assad or the US-NATO-Israel military alliance which is recruting and training “opposition” terrorist forces.

The Syria Chemical Weapons Pretext: Background

The Syria Chemical Weapons Saga was launched last Summer. In  early August, the Pentagon announced that it would send “small teams of special operations troops” into Syria with a view to destroying Syria’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). These teams would in turn be supported by “precision air strikes”, namely air raids. An all out aerial attack was not contemplated. According to the Pentagon, the precision strikes were intended to “destroy the chemical weapons without dispersing them in the air”, a highly risky undertaking…

Ironically, at the outset of this diabolical plan, the US special forces incursion and air operation were not to be directed against the Syrian regime. In fact quite the opposite. The stated intent of the operation was to protect civilians against “opposition” rebels, rather than government forces.

No accusations were directed against President Bashar al Assad to the effect that he was underhandedly conniving to use WMD against Syrian civilians.

According to the Pentagon, the operation was to ensure that Syria’s WMDs, which allegedly “are left unguarded” in military bunkers around the country do not fall in the hands of opposition jihadist rebels who are fighting government forces:

Pentagon planners are more focused on protecting or destroying any Syrian stockpiles that are left unguarded and at risk [of] falling into the hands of rebel fighters or militias aligned with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or other militant groups. ( U.S. has plans in place to secure Syria chemical arms – latimes.com, August 22, 2012

What the Pentagon was saying in August, was that these WMD could fall in the hands of  the “pro-democracy” freedom fighters recruited and financed by several of America’s close allies including Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, in liaison with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

In essence, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was refuting his own lies. In August he acknowledged the terrorist threat, now he is accusing Bashar Al Assad. Tacitly acknowledged by Washington, the majority of the Syrian freedom fighters are not only foreign mercenaries, they also belong to extremist Islamist groups, which are on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

Israel is a partner in the Syria chemical weapons operation in liaison with NATO and the Pentagon.

Training Terrorists in the Use of Chemical Weapons

If the Obama administration were genuinely concerned in preventing these chemical weapons from falling “in the wrong hands” (as suggested by the Pentagon in August), why then are they now training “opposition rebels” –largely composed of Salafist and Al Qaeda affiliated fighters– to gain control over government stockpiles of chemical weapons?

The training [in chemical weapons], which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American. (CNN, December 09, 2012)

While the news report does not confirm the identity of the defense contractors, the official statements suggest a close contractual relationship to the Pentagon:

The US decision to hire unaccountable defense contractors to train Syrian rebels to handle stockpiles of chemical weapons seems dangerously irresponsible in the extreme, especially considering how inept Washington has so far been at making sure only trustworthy, secular rebels – to the extent they exist – receive their aid and the weapons that allies in the Gulf Arab states have been providing.

It also feeds accusations that the Syrian Foreign Ministry recently made that the US is working to frame the Syrian regime as having used or prepared for chemical warfare.

“What raises concerns about this news circulated by the media is our serious fear that some of the countries backing terrorism and terrorists might provide the armed terrorist groups with chemical weapons and claim that it was the Syrian government that used the weapons,” the letters said.”( John Glaser, Us Defense Contractors Training Syrian Rebels, Antiwar.com, December 10, 2012, See also CNN Report, December 9, 2012)

The central question is: what is the nature of this gruesome covert operation? Is the purpose of the US-NATO led operation to “prevent” or “encourage” the use of chemical weapons by the Free Syrian Army (FSA)?

The above report confirms that the US and NATO are training terrorists in the use of chemical weapons. Does this type of specialized training require the actual handling of toxic chemicals? In other words, is the Western military alliance, through its appointed defense contractors, making chemical weapons available to terrorists for training purposes?

Knowing that the Syrian insurgency is in large part made up of jihadists and Al Qaeda affiliated formations, this is hardly a means to “preventing” the actual use of chemical weapons against civilians. Moreover, amply documented, many of the “opposition” rebels who are receiving training in chemical

weapons, have committed countless atrocities directed against Syrian civilians, including the massacres in Houla:

“Terrorist groups may resort to using chemical weapons against the Syrian people… after having gained control of a toxic chlorine factory [in Aleppo],” the foreign ministry said Saturday.” (Press TV, December 8, 2012)

It should be noted that the use of chemical weapons by opposition forces does not require that the rebels actually secure control over government stockpiles. Chemical weapons could easily be made available –from Western stockpiles– to the defense contractors involved in the specialized chemical weapons training programs.

Needless to say, the chemical weapons training and the involvement of private mercenary outfits on contract to NATO and the Pentagon, increase the risk; they create conditions which favor the use of chemical weapons by opposition forces, thereby potentially triggering a nationwide humanitarian disaster.

The US-NATO coalition has clarified at its “semi-secret” meeting in London (reported on December 10), however, that it does not contemplate “boots on the ground”. The special forces will be working with the opposition insurgency against government forces.

In the absence of an all out US-NATO military operation, the focus is on non-conventional warfare. In this context, one of  several diabolical “options on the table” would be to create conditions whereby chemical weapons “fall in the hands” of the terrorists thereby potentially triggering a nationwide humanitarian disaster.

While this option, were it to be carried out, would not require a US-NATO military intervention, the humanitarian catastrophe would set the stage for the collapse of the Syrian government, namely the long sought objective of “regime change”.

The Libya or Iraq model is not an option. The strategic choice of the Western military alliance points towards the possible staging of a humanitarian catastrophe?

In the logic of war propaganda and media disinformation, the deaths of civilians resulting from the use of chemical weapons would be blamed on

President Bashar Al Assad, with a view to enforcing subsequent actions by the US-NATO military alliance.

We are not suggesting that this option will inevitably be carried out. What we are saying is that the option of chemical weapons in the hands of the rebels which could potentially trigger a humanitarian disaster is on the US-NATO drawing board.

How can we ensure that this gruesome and diabolical option be thwarted and definitively shelved?

The issue must be brought into the open. Public opinion must be mobilized against the US-NATO-Israel led war.

Denounce the Déjà VuWMD lies.

Challenge the mainstream media consensus.

Reveal and refute the lies and fabrications concerning Syria’s chemical weapons program.

Spread the word, far and wide, Bring the issue to the forefront of public debate, Confront the war criminals in high office.

GOOD LUCK Delegates!

Looking forward to meet you all on Thursday, 26th

December 2013.

I hope this study guide will help you in research.

Together we will make CTC , the best committee