DISEC DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

Transcription

1 DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY I

2 Position Paper Guidelines Position Paper Guidelines What s it all about? The purpose of a position paper is to display your understanding of the committee topics as well as your position s stances on different issues. Writing a position paper will assist you in your research and preparation for the conference. The position paper will be comprised of three to four sections, depending on the number of topics your committee covers. Section One: Background Information Introduce your country or position by providing basic information and background. This section should start out broad, followed by any general information that is relevant to the committee as a whole. This only needs to be done once not for every topic. Remaining Sections: Topics Write one section for each topic. The header of each section should be the topic name as it is titled in your Background Guide. These sections should be roughly half a page to one page (double spaced) in length and should include: 1. Background information on the topic 2. Your position/country s stance on the issue at hand 3. Statistics and other relevant information with respect to your position 4. Policies or actions your position/nation has supported 5. Proposed solutions to each of your topics 6. Responses to the Questions to Consider provided throughout the Background Guide

3 Position Paper Guidelines Formatting A position paper should be formatted like a formal essay: use 12 pt Times New Roman font, black ink, and 1 margins. All information that is not common knowledge should be cited using your most comfortable format (ex. MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.). The header of your paper should include the following pieces of information: 1. Your Full Name 2. Full School Name 3. Committee (World Health Organization, United Nations Development Program, etc.) 4. Country/Position

4 Letter from the Director Dear Delegates, Welcome to the sixteenth session of the William & Mary Middle School Model United Nations Conference, and to the Disarmament and International Security Committee. My name is Rory Oates, and I am so excited to hear your perspectives on geopolitics and see you explore how the United Nations operates as you tackle the pressing security issues of I am a freshman at the College. My academic interests are philosophy and political science, and I am considering majoring in Government and History. Since high school, I have participated in Model UN, which has rewarded me in many ways. Model UN has helped me develop public speaking and leadership skills, and allowed me to meet some of my best friends in both high school and at William & Mary. Outside of Model UN, I enjoy watching sports, running, and playing street hockey. I love fantasy novels and will gladly discuss them with you. Also, I am interested in alternative and Irish music, which may or may not be played in committee... As your director, I expect rigorous debate that takes advantage of the unique setting of the committee. As you form coalitions in committee, I want to see cooperation and leadership from you. Because this is the United Nations, diplomatic and respectful behavior is mandated. Finally, your positions should reflect those of the country you represent. Following these guidelines will provide a healthy environment for intellectual investigation. Finally, I hope you come ready to have fun! Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns, and I encourage you to do so. I look forward to 1985 and wish you the best of luck! Best wishes, Rory Oates, Director roates@ .wm.edu

5 Background History of, or the Disarmament and International Security Committee, is the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. focuses on threats to global peace and works to find international security solutions by reducing the threat of war. Since is a forum of the General Assembly, the resolutions the committee passes are international standards. The Charter, however, ensures that these measures are not legally binding, and the United Nations strives to respect the rights of nations. Nonetheless, serves as a theater for countries to reach consensus on military issues and resolve border disputes. To accomplish this, works with the United Nations Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament. The First Committee has passed several landmark resolutions. Resolution 1, for instance, is a set of nuclear recommendations, passed in Other resolutions focus on reforming military practices and working to dampen the humanitarian consequences of war. It is January 1, 1985, and growing conflicts threaten the credibility of. What can the First Committee of the General Assembly do to achieve disarmament? A critique of is that gridlock and partisanship in the General Assembly has negatively affected the performance of the committee. When debate stagnates, the United Nations loses influence in setting the global policy agenda. Therefore, delegates, it is important to coordinate and compromise to create resolutions that provide effective and realistic guidelines for international security. Topic 1: Iran-Iraq War Introduction The Iran-Iraq War was a border dispute that exploded economic, political, and religious tensions in the Middle East. The conflict lasted from 22 September 1980 to 20 August Given the timeframe of this session of, however, no information about the war beyond 1985 is relevant or allowed in committee. First, consider what factors might have led to Iraq seizing Iranian territory in More broadly, how could any country defend an invasion of its neighbor? Why did Iraq not respect the existing border between it and Iran? If Iraq s action was so unfair, then why did

6 members of the international community, including the United States and France, support Iraq, while Iran essentially had no allies? Overall, what makes border disputes like that between Iran and Iraq in 1985 so contentious? Origins The Iran-Iraq War had old roots. During the Ottoman-Persian Wars of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, for instance, the Ottoman Empire and Persia (now Iran) fought for control of Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Specifically, these nations hoped to control access to the Shatt al-arab, an important river. In 1937, Iran and Iraq tried to settle their historic dispute over their mutual border at the Shatt al-arab. The two countries signed the Treaty of Saadabad, giving Iraq ownership of the waterway. In 1955, Iran and Iraq joined the Baghdad Pact, a military alliance that tried to stabilize the region by promoting common security between the Middle East with the West. Moreover, this partnership improved ties between the two nations, but Iraq suddenly left the agreement in 1959 after revolutionaries overthrew the Iraqi monarchy. In a major reversal, Iraq rejected the Saadabad consensus for its border with Iran. Iraq supported separatist efforts in Khuzestan Province, Iran. When Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, it captured both the Shatt al-arab and Khuzestan Province. Politics and religion help explain why this happened. The 1970 s in Iraq saw the rise of the Socialist Ba ath Party in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, who became president of Iraq in 1979, led this party. The Baathist politicians that controlled Iraq were nationalist, meaning that they valued intense patriotism and believed that Iraq had an important role in the world. Saddam and his Baathist Party rejected the Saadabad and Baghdad contracts because they argued that Iraq should be the strongest nation in the Middle East. Saddam s worldview did not allow for a powerful Iran. Iraq, therefore, reignited its border dispute with Iran to assert itself in the region. Iraq sent troops into Iran, starting a series of border wars that ended in 1975 with the Algiers Agreement. In this treaty, Iraq gave its control of the Shatt al-arab to Iran, and they resumed normal relations. There was a temporary peace between the two countries, but Saddam s nationalism moved him to renew the conflict in Iran also experienced political turmoil. The Iranian Revolution replaced the monarchy with a theocratic republic in The head of this new government was Supreme Leader Ruholla Khomeini.

7 He was an important cleric in the Shi ite school of Islam, one of two major Muslim sects, with the other sect being Sunni Islam. Iran was and still is the most important Shi ite power in the Middle East. Iraq, a majority Shi ite country, was led by Saddam s nationalist, secular government. Khomeini and Saddam were both prepared to end the peace to settle the rivalry between Iraq and Iran, which would decide the most powerful country in the region. As tensions heightened, Khomeini tried to convince Shi ites in Iraq to rebel. Saddam feared that a similar revolt to the one in Iran could happen in Iraq because of the Shi ite majority. He also disliked the Algiers Agreement, and thus aimed for Iraq to become the strongest country in the Middle East by taking over Khuzestan. Saddam believed that Khuzestan, a majority Arab province, should be part of Iraq, an Arab country. Iran, on the other hand, is majority Persian. The Iranian government rejected Iraq s idea that ethnicity should dictate who controlled Khuzestan. This ethnic tension, however, coincided with political and economic factors. The region was a hub of trade and allowed easy access to the Persian Gulf. Control of Khuzestan could grant a regional economic advantage, and both Iraq and Iran were desperate to annex it. Saddam and Khomeini rejected diplomacy as a solution. After Khomeini s attempt to start an Islamic rebellion in Iraq, Saddam formally ended Iraq s diplomatic relationship with Iran, dissolving the Algiers Agreement. Both sides readied for armed conflict. War On 22 September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran. Saddam s armies focused on taking Khuzestan and the Shatt al-arab. Iraq wanted to regain control of these disputed territories after losing them as a result of the Algiers Agreement. At first, Iraq was successful in its attack. The war, however, stagnated and ultimately ended in a stalemate. Tactics like house-to-house fighting and trench warfare slowed down the pace of battles and left no clear winner. By 1982, Iran launched a counterattack, forcing Iraq out of areas of Iran including Khuzestan in a major victory. Meanwhile, Iraq received military and financial aid from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and several European countries. After recapturing land from Iraq, Iran invaded its neighbor. Their attack, however, was unsuccessful in its goal of taking Baghdad. From , the stalemate returned, and ground attacks were not fruitful for both sides. Air warfare dominated, and

8 other nations took a more active role in helping Iraq So far, Iran has lost at least 300,000 soldiers, while Iraq s losses are about 150,000. In addition to the human cost, the economies of both Iran and Iraq are devastated by the conflict. With no apparent winner, this war seems like it could go on for years. What can do to resolve this border dispute? Regarding Possible Solutions must address both Iraq s border dispute, in terms of a political conflict, and the human consequences of a devastating war. A strong solution should achieve consensus among delegates on a mechanism to settle border disputes and on a path to disarmament for Iraq and Iran. Finally, any solution must keep in mind humanitarian, economic, and social concerns. Questions to consider: 1. How can and the international community offer aid to Iran and Iraq? 2. With decades of conflict over Khuzestan and Shatt al-arab, to which country do these territories belong? 3. What can do to prevent border disputes from becoming wars? Topic 2: Nuclear Security Introduction Nuclear weapons forever changed the world in 1945, when the United States launched atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending World War II. For the first time, a single weapon had the potential to devastate an entire city, altering the course of a war. Both non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and countries reacted against the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Groups like the Federation of Atomic Scientists sought to limit the development of nuclear weapons and disarm existing arsenals. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, founded in Britain, protested the creation of atomic bombs and called for the international regulation of nuclear power. Likewise, the United Nations opposed the spread of nuclear weapons, and from its first meeting in 1946, the organization worked to eliminate them. The General Assembly s resolution starting a commission to analyze the threat of atomic energy was the first international

9 effort to limit the danger of nuclear weapons. It established a long-term theme: The United Nations opposition to the development and spread of nuclear weapons. The General Assembly used a two-prong approach over the next decade, attacking both the use of atomic energy with strict regulations and trying to limit the production of nuclear weapons themselves. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), founded in 1957, is an international organization separate, although tied, to the United Nations. Its goal is to protect the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to prevent it from being used for military purposes. The IAEA is most known for its nuclear safety policies, which member states contribute to and implement. Additionally, the agency monitors the use of nuclear energy, and the IAEA often sends scientists to review a nation s practices or aid in the clean-up after a nuclear disaster. Along with NGOs and the IAEA, multilateral treaties have had an important role in nuclear disarmament. These include the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT), which banned test detonations. Recognizing that the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China already had nuclear weapons, the international community sought to limit their spread. The result was the NPT, enacted in The treaty defined states with existing weapons as nuclear powers, with the hope that these nations would eventually dismantle their nuclear arsenals. The central agreement of this treaty is that no nation would pursue nuclear weapons, while nuclear-weapon states would share their peaceful nuclear technologies with non-nuclear countries. Almost all of the international community signed this agreement, while India, Israel, and Pakistan did not (North Korea ultimately left the treaty in 2003, but since this committee is set in 1985, the DPRK remains a signatory of the NPT). The countries that did not join the NPT are suspected of possessing nuclear weapons, threatening international security The main obstacle to disarmament is the superpower politics that dominate international relations. After World War II and the demise of Britain as a superpower, the United States and the Soviet Union are the most powerful countries in the world, economically and militarily. When the United States displayed its nuclear power

10 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviet Union aggressively pursued the creation of an atomic bomb. The largest challenge for the USSR s nuclear capability was an initial lack of uranium ore, a key ingredient to the construction of nuclear weapons. However, the Soviet Union s expansion in neighboring Socialist Republics allowed it access to vast amounts of uranium in countries like Tajikistan. The fight over global uranium stockpiles was a pivotal part of the Cold War, and the United States and Soviet Union engaged in a secret clash to control the most uranium. Given uranium s significance and its potential threat to international security, management of this resource is necessary to the process of disarmament. The two superpowers, both desiring to be the most powerful country in the world, became adversarial for many reasons. The capitalist United States and Communist Soviet Union are ideologically opposed. Both economic systems are so different that coexistence will be impossible. This rivalry realizes in the military and diplomatic opposition between the United States and the Soviet Union. When the USSR acquired the atomic bomb, it formally began an arms race between the superpowers. Both countries launched numerous nuclear tests, with environmental consequences. Nuclear arsenals slowly grew into the thousands, and the weapons themselves became more sophisticated. In the later 1950 s, both countries achieved Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMS), which increased the ability of nuclear weapons to reach their targets essentially anywhere on the globe. Moreover, nuclear weapons themselves have expanded far beyond the power of the atomic bomb, and nuclear war between the superpowers guarantees global destruction. In 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to limit antiballistic systems. This might seem counterproductive, but the notion of mutually assured destruction, in which a missile launch by one country would be met by the other s nuclear weapons, actually restrained the superpowers from using their nuclear stockpiles. Clearly, this impacted international diplomacy. Western capitalist countries sided with the United States, while nations alienated by Western influence might aid the Soviet Union. A large group of developing states, however, created the Group of 77, a non-aligned bloc, to focus on their economic and social improvement

11 outside of the sphere of superpower politics. They dislike the arms race, believe mutually assured destruction is a hollow agreement, and are eager to pursue disarmament. Currently, America has as many as 25,000 nuclear weapons, while the Soviet Union has about 40,000. Clearly, the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union has endangered the entire world. Despite promises of disarmament, both Cold War superpowers have ramped up their nuclear arsenals. Moreover, both countries seem to disregard the PTBT, still testing their weapons. Can the prospect of mutually assured destruction safeguard the international community, or can discover other means to disarm nuclear weapons owning countries? Regarding Possible Solutions In 1985, nuclear states are the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, and Israel. Nuclear non-proliferation, the dismantling of nuclear weapons, requires agreement by nuclear weapons owning nations. Any strong resolution must compromise with nuclear powers so that its recommendations have the best chance of success. Finally, NGOs, given their independent nature, are integral to any nuclear disarmament solution. Questions to consider: 1. What can do to limit the threat posed by nuclear weapons? 2. Has disarmament failed, and if so, what new strategies could the international community employ? 3. Does the General Assembly need the superpowers to provide effective reform?

12 References References i "Disarmament and International Security (First Committee)." United Nations. Accessed January ii MacFarlane, S. Neil, and Yuen Foong Khong. Human security and the UN: A critical history. Indiana University Press, Harvard. iii Karsh, Efraim. The Iran-Iraq War. The Rosen Publishing Group, Harvard. iv Hiro, Dilip. The longest war: the Iran-Iraq military conflict. Psychology Press, v Cordesman, A. H. "The Iran-Iraq War and Western Security Strategic Implications and Policy Options." Sea Power 30 (1987): 55. Harvard. vi Karsh, Efraim. The Iran-Iraq War. vi Pelletiere, Stephen C. The Iran-Iraq war: chaos in a vacuum. ABC-CLIO, Harvard. i Lodgaard, Sverre, and Bremer Maerli, eds. Nuclear proliferation and international security. Routledge, ii Murray, Raymond L. "Nuclear Non-Proliferation." In Physics and Contemporary Needs, pp Springer, Boston, MA, iii Gaddis, John Lewis. We now know: rethinking Cold War history. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Harvard. iv Fleming, Denna Frank. The Cold War and Its Origins: : Vol. 2. Doubleday, Harvard. v Glasstone, Samuel, and Philip J. Dolan. Effects of nuclear weapons. No. TID Department of Defense, Washington, DC (USA); Department of Energy, Washington, DC (USA), Harvard.