Background Guide Security Council
Dear delegates, Welcome to s Security Council. My name is Bret Kabacinski, and I will be the director for this committee. I am currently a sophomore at Michigan, majoring in Political Science and Economics, with a hope to someday have a law degree or a degree in public policy. This is my 2 nd year with UMMUN and my 2 nd year in the Security Council, though it is the 9 th year that I am involved in Model UN of some sort. As this is one of the most advanced committees at UMMUN, I expect the debate to be lively and the delegates to be prepared. This year s conference brings with it a few rules changes, including a new section of the rules dedicated to Security Council procedure. Before you come to the conference, please review the rules, as they are how this council will run, and it may be different than how things run at other places or have run in the past. I will be happy to answer any questions on procedure that you may have at the conference. Please note the addition of a third topic at the request of the secretariat, the situation in Kashmir. This was added to quell fears that we would run out of things to talk about. Also, be aware of the size of the committee: at 15 delegates, it is one of the smallest at the conference. As such, it depends on the active participation of all of the members of the committee to function well. This being the case, delegates for this committee must be prepared, and know that reading this guide is only the first step. Certainly, this guide has good background information, but I encourage you to go beyond this in order to form more complete positions on your nation s policy. Finally, be prepared for anything, and be willing to be flexible; this committee can be unpredictable at times. Good luck, and see you at the conference. Sincerely, Bret Kabacinski
Table of contents... Page Committee Background and Mission Statement... 1 Topic Overviews... 1 Topic A: The Situation in Iran... 3 Background... 3 Current Situation... 5 Bloc Positions... 6 Focus Questions... 7 Research Links... 8 Topic B: The Situation in Sudan... 10 Background... 10 Current Situation... 13 Bloc Positions... 14 Focus Questions... 15 Research Links... 15 Topic C: The Situation in Kashmir... 17 Background... 17 Current Situation... 18 Bloc Positions... 19 Focus Questions... 20 Research Links... 20 References... 21
Committee Background and Mission Statement 1 The United Nations Security Council is the main body of the UN responsible for maintaining international peace and security. It is no wonder, therefore, that it is also one of the most closely-watched bodies of the UN as well. The Security Council is the only body of the UN that can take direct action to force or compel a nation to do anything; this can include calling upon member states to apply economic sanctions to a state, authorizing the use of military force against an aggressor state, or authorizing the use of UN peacekeepers. The Security Council also has other duties, such as recommending the admission of new states to the UN, but such duties should not come up during the course of debate in this conference. The Security Council is one of the most visible bodies of the UN, having dealt with issues such as the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, crises in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Timor-Leste (East Timor), and broader issues, such as international terrorism. It is also one of the smallest bodies in the UN, being made up of only fifteen nations five permanent members (People s Republic of China, Russian Federation, France, United States and United Kingdom) and ten seats for non-permanent members elected to two year terms. Any substantive matter must have the concurrence of the five permanent members to pass (see rule SC-4). Technically, the Security Council has the authority to discuss any topic it wishes, but for this conference it is my hope that debate will only take place on the topics in this guide. Of course, if other events arise, such as a committee passing an important question and needing it ratified by the Council (see rule SC-3 for more details), we will discuss those events as well. The Situation in Iran Topic overviews Nuclear proliferation in the nation of Iran has become an issue at the forefront of today s potential threats to international peace and security. The issue of whether Iran is attempting to make progress with its nuclear technology is a moot one; the Iranian leadership admits that this is the case. However, there is disagreement over what that technology will be used for. While Iran maintains that the program is entirely for peaceful uses (i.e. nuclear power), some nations have expressed doubt over whether this is actually the case, and claim that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. While it is unlikely that Iran possesses the missile technology needed to threaten most of the European continent or North America, they would be able to target their hated rival, Israel. As Israel is a nation that already maintains a nuclear arsenal, the advent of an Iranian nuclear device has the potential to spark a disaster in the Middle East. Questions that the Security Council must address include: Does Iran s program for nuclear proliferation threaten the political stability of the middle east? If so, what action by the Council is appropriate in order to prevent proliferation from taking place, or maintain the stability of the region if the Iranian program is successful?
The Situation in Sudan 2 The recent history of the nation of Sudan is one filled with internal conflict and civil strife. This conflict has created millions of refugees and left over 200,000 dead since the most recent wave of fighting began in 2003, as rebel groups, such as the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), and Sudanese government-backed militias fight, most notably in the region of Darfur, but also in other parts of the country as well. The rebel groups claim that the Sudanese government has engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the region s black population, in favor of the Arabs in the area, though the UN has not declared the actions of the government and allied groups as such. While the both the UN and African Union have passed measures to bring peace to the region, their efforts have fallen short thus far, as the fighting rages on. The Security Council must consider a few things when coming to a resolution on this topic, including whether the actions of the government and allied militias constitute genocide, whether UN or African Union peacekeepers can and should be used to bring a temporary end to the conflict in order to facilitate long-term peace talks, and what consequences the perpetrators of the conflict should face. The Situation in Kashmir Kashmir has been a region rife with conflict since the then-ruler of the territory, Maharaja Hari Singh, decided to cede the territory to India, during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. Recently, the conflict has taken on a new dimension, as both sides developed nuclear weapons during the 1990s. This conflict has sparked three wars, the last of which came to an end in 1971. However, tensions still exist between the two nations, as evidenced by the continuing existence of a UN observer force on the border of India and Pakistan, established in 1949. Today, the Council must consider what actions, if any, are prudent in the cessation of the conflict and brokering of peace in the region.
Topic A: The Situation in Iran 3 For over fifty years, the nation of Iran has attempted to develop nuclear technology. The revolution of 1979, and the subsequent formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, ended the willingness of the western powers to assist Iran in its nuclear development, and began the era which the world finds itself in today. With the declaration by the United States that Iran is attempting to not only develop nuclear power, but also nuclear weapons, a great deal of pressure has been put on the Islamic Republic to open its nuclear program to international scrutiny, a move that the leadership in Iran has been reluctant to make. The Council must decide whether Iran s nuclear program constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and if so, what to do about it. Background The United Nations has stood at the forefront of the movement to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is the latest in a long line of nations of concern with nuclear aspirations. Iran s nuclear program dates back to the mid-1950s, when Iran and the United States cooperated to found Iran s nuclear program for energy purposes only. This cooperation continued into the 1970s, until Iran s revolution of 1979. The revolution caused Iranian-Western relations to deteriorate greatly, not least because of the occupation of the U.S. embassy by Iranian revolutionaries for 444 days. Between then and 2002, Iran continued to develop nuclear technology, with varied results. This period was marked by bilateral cooperation between Iran and Russia and Iran and China, with Russia and China both providing assistance in construction of nuclear facilities, as well as supplies for nuclear enrichment.
The most recent era of this situation began in 2002, with President of the 4 United States George W. Bush including Iran on his list of nations actively seeking Weapons of Mass Destruction (the axis of evil ) during his State of the Union address. Later in 2002, Iranian exiles came forward to announce that Iran had built two previouslyunknown facilities for the enrichment of uranium and procession of heavy water, both crucial in the development of nuclear power or weaponry. Also in 2002, the Russians and Iranians began work on the previously-started but incomplete nuclear reactor at Bushehr, which is scheduled to be completed in late 2006. In 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN subsidiary body charged with the duty of inspecting nuclear facilities worldwide in order to ensure compliance with relevant international treaties, began inspecting Iran s nuclear plants, with limited success. Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, criticized Iran for not being as cooperative with the IAEA inspectors as they could be, however later in 2003 also announced that there was no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The United States, of course, disagreed with Mr. ElBaradei s assessment of the situation, and reasserted their belief that Tehran was seeking a nuclear device. In late-2003, Iran met with ambassadors from France, Germany and the United Kingdom in an attempt by the Europeans to get Iran to stop enriching uranium and sign the IAEA s additional protocol, allowing for more inspections of Iranian nuclear sites. Iran later threatened to pull out of the additional protocol, but not the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), if its nuclear program was reported to the UN (this reporting occurred in February 2006, and Iran restarted their enrichment program soon after). Iran s refusal to carry out its diplomatic agreements has been a continuing theme over the past few years.
Starting with the agreement on the additional protocol, Iran has pledged to halt 5 uranium enrichment no less that 4 times, only to restart their enrichment program each time. The United Nations Security Council took up the issue of Iranian nuclear proliferation in 2006 with resolution 1696. In this resolution, the Council demanded that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, and submit to more inspections from the IAEA to ensure that such activities have in fact stopped. The deadline for Iran to comply with the Security Council s demands passed on August 31 st, 2006, with Iran failing to suspend any nuclear enrichment activities. Current Situation Today, the situation stands at an impasse. Iran says that it has been successful in enriching uranium, but continues to claim that the uranium was enriched for the sole purpose of making nuclear power, not weapons. Iran has stated multiple times that nuclear weapons go against the tenets of Islam, and so could not be produced in the Islamic Republic on a moral basis. The United States does not accept this, and continues to allege that Iran s nuclear program is for the purpose of making weapons. The Europeans still seek a diplomatic solution, but since the UN passed resolution 1696, no diplomatic solutions have been presented. As of this writing, Iran is still a ratifying member of the NPT, though not of the additional protocol, and as such is, in theory, held to the standards of that treaty. Resolution 1696 was passed in part to ensure Iran s compliance with the treaty, though some of the provisions of the resolution were not followed by Iran by the deadline set by the resolution. At this time, no further negotiations or resolutions have been proposed on
the floor of the Council, though a resolution is currently being written by the UK, 6 France and Germany. This resolution proposes sanctions on trade involving nuclear technology and travel restrictions. The US has pushed for a stronger resolution, while Russia and China have both worked for a more watered-down proposal, involving time limits on sanctions. This issue of Iranian nuclear weapon proliferation may be a bit less urgent than some parties would like to claim, as the IAEA, as well as third party sources have claimed that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, they are still several years away from obtaining them. Investigative reporters in the United States have reported that the US Central Intelligence Agency believes that there is no proof of Iranian nuclear weapons, though this is a claim that the US government denies. Bloc Positions The United States The current administration of the United States has been resolute in its claim that Iran, in addition to any nuclear power aspirations they may have, is actively seeking the technology needed to make a nuclear weapon. The US has no active bilateral diplomatic ties with Iran, and has not since the revolution of 1979, making diplomacy more complicated. That having been said, the US spearheaded the effort in the UN to pass resolution 1696, showing that the US is open to diplomatic as well as other solutions. China and Russia China and Russia have both been more open to the possibility of Iran developing nuclear technology than most others on the Council, assisting in either the construction of nuclear facilities or the supply of nuclear materials. However, there has
been a bit of a falling out between Russia and Iran after Russia proposed to supply 7 Iran with nuclear fuel that could only be used in reactors and not for weapons, and Iran refused. Western Europe Western Europe, like the United States, has tried to prevent the proliferation of Iranian nuclear weapons, but unlike the United States have diplomatic relations with Iran. This has allowed nations in this bloc to negotiate directly with Iran as well as work in the United Nations for a diplomatic solution. This bloc prefers to use diplomacy first, though the efficacy of such an approach remains in question. Iran and the Middle East Iran has remained steadfast in its desire to develop nuclear technology, be it for power generation (as Iran has claimed), or weapons (as the US has claimed), and has found support from its neighbors. Resolution 1696 passed by a vote of 14 in favor to 1 against, the one being Qatar. However, instead of simply wanting to give Iran a blank check to do with what it wishes, Qatar objected to the resolution on the grounds that it would further inflame the region, an outcome not good for Iran or its neighbors. Focus Questions What is the reason that Iran is seeking nuclear technology? Is it peaceful, or is it possible that Iran also seeks nuclear weapons? Does Iran s nuclear program threaten the stability of the Middle East? (note that this is not the same as the question above Iran s program could be peaceful and threaten the stability of the region if nations around it do not fully trust Iran.)
What place, if any, does the Security Council have in preventing Iran from 8 seeking nuclear technology? Should the Council only enforce prior agreements made by Iran (remember, they remained a signatory to the NPT, even after withdrawing from the additional protocol), or can the council take a more proactive role? What resolutions to the current situation does your nation see as acceptable? Is your nation in favor of the status quo, does it favor more diplomacy, economic sanctions on Iran, or some other solution? Does your nation possess nuclear technology (peaceful or otherwise)? Are they a signatory to relevant protocols governing nuclear technology (NPT, Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, etc.)? Research Links http://www.un.org/depts/dda/wmd/treaty/ -- The home page for the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) http://daccess-ods.un.org/tmp/6193046.html -- Text of Security Council Resolution 1696, concerning the proliferation of nuclear technology in Iran http://daccess-ods.un.org/tmp/809969.7.html -- Transcript of Security Council meeting #5500, the meeting during which Resolution 1696 was agreed to http://www.iaea.org/index.html -- Home page for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/rs21592.pdf -- A PDF made by the American Congressional Research Service on the recent history of Iran s nuclear program http://www.osce.org/fsc/22156.html -- The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe s page on non-proliferation, including the OSCE s formal position on the subject. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192435,00.html -- Time magazine article written by Iran s former top nuclear negotiator outlining Iran s basic position http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm -- Good site for the history of Iran s nuclear program since 2002, and details on Iran s current nuclear capabilities
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm -- BBC News: No proof of Iran nuclear arms (Nov. 20, 2006); states that Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker claims intelligence sources have found no development of Iranian nuclear weapons http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6086084.stm -- BBC News: US demands UN sanctions on Iran (Oct. 26, 2006) 9
Topic B: The Situation in Sudan 10 The conflict in Sudan has reached catastrophic proportions, with accusations of genocide by the government and government-backed militias gaining more credibility with every passing day. While both the African Union and United Nations have acted to attempt to quell the violence, neither body s actions have been sufficient to date, and the fighting rages on. With nearly two million people displaced and over 400,000 dead, it is clear that the Security Council must consider this topic again, with the possibility of taking stronger action than in the past, to end this conflict once and for all. Background Sudan s history is one rife with conflict and civil strife, and the situation today is no different. The latest round of violence began around 2003, and is multi-faceted, involving a civil war, the conflict in Darfur, and a war with neighboring nation Chad. The civil war began in the early 1980s, between the government in northern Sudan, and a group of rebels, the Sudanese People s Liberation Army (SPLA), based in the south. Currently, the civil war appears to have ended, with a peace treaty signed on January 9 th, 2005, after taking an estimated 2 million lives. This gave the south autonomy and a chance to hold a vote on secession from the north in 2011, along with other concessions. Parts of this conflict have fed into the more widely-known, still continuing conflict in Darfur, so while the war itself is over, its effects are still being felt. The conflict in Darfur has claimed over 400,000 military and civilian lives, according to the UN and other non-government organizations (NGOs), and continues to kill and displace even more. The latest era of the conflict started in 2003, pitting the Sudanese
Liberation Army (not the same as the SPLA in southern Sudan) and the Justice and 11 Equality Movement (JEM) against the Janjaweed militias. The SLA and the JEM were founded with different goals in mind, but have cooperated in their struggle against the government and the Janjaweed. The SLA was founded in the late 1980s in response to a famine in the area and, in turn, the formation of the Janjaweed. That famine brought on the formation of the Arab Janjaweed militia, formed to fight the black farmers of the area. While the SLA was created with secession from Sudan in mind, it has since publicly rescinded that goal, now seeking a united democratic Sudan. The SLA has accused the government of ignoring Darfur and its needs, and thus has rebelled against the government in Khartoum. The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), a group of black Muslims in the Darfur region, was founded in 1999, after the president of Sudan at the time, Omar Al-Bashir, dissolved the national assembly, declared a state of emergency, and expelled the black Muslims from Darfur from the government. These expelled went on to found JEM, for the purpose of gaining greater African representation in the Sudanese government. The government of Sudan, while not officially in the conflict at all, has been accused of backing the Janjaweed, as there have been demands by the international community for the disarming of the Janjaweed, with little to no action taken by the government. Indeed, during the famine of 1987, the government disarmed black Muslim groups in Darfur, in favor of arming the Arab Janjaweed. In 2003, the SLA began to raid Sudanese military bases and towns. In response to these raids, the Janjaweed started to fight back against the SLA, and thus the conflict began. The first attempt at a peaceful resolution came on April 8, 2004, when the JEM,
SLA and Sudanese government signed a ceasefire brokered by Chad and the 12 African Union (AU). However, this ceasefire did not stop the raids by the Janjaweed or the rebel groups. The raids continued for more than a year, some of them directed against the citizens of Darfur, which led then-secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan declaring that the humanitarian situation in Sudan was dangerously close to genocide, given the tactics of the groups involved, and the lack of food or medical supplies (however, to this day, the UN has not formally declared the situation in Sudan genocide ). Due to these raids, more than one million Sudanese civilians were displaced, mostly to Chad and the surrounding region. In December of 2005, the Janjaweed raided a town in eastern Chad, which caused Chad to declare war on Sudan, starting the Chadian-Sudanese conflict. As an opponent to the Janjaweed and the government of Sudan, Chad and the SLA and JEM were natural allies, and for a limited time in early 2006, the SLA and JEM merged to form a united rebel group. The fallout from such a conflict was evident quickly, as Chad threatened to evict the estimated 200,000 refugees from Darfur if no resolution to the conflict was formed by June of 2006. While no resolution was agreed to, nearly 200,000 refugees still live in camps in eastern Chad. 2006 brought no end to the conflict, if anything, the diplomatic situation has worsened. In April, the government of Chad officially cut diplomatic ties with the Sudanese government, citing Sudan s support for the Janjaweed rebels. The humanitarian situation also worsened, as new attacks cut off supplies from some 350,000 Sudanese refugees. Throughout the conflict, the UN Security council has considered the situation in Sudan, passing a number of resolutions on the topic, beginning in 2003. These resolutions
13 were merely declarations of the Council s desire for a peaceful ending to the crisis in the region until resolution 1706 was passed in September 2006, authorizing a new, 17,300 troop international peacekeeping force to be sent into Sudan, to join the already-in-place UNMIS force installed in 2005 to enforce the peace agreement ending the civil war. This new UN force was meant to reinforce the under-equipped, under-funded African Union (AU) force of about 7,000 troops already in Sudan. However, this new UN force would never make it to Sudan, due to objections from the Sudanese government. Things looked even bleaker when the AU declared that they would pull their force out when their mandate expired on September 31 st, but they later reconsidered, and extended the mandate to the end of 2006. Current Situation The current situation in Sudan is dire. As the conflict continues, the humanitarian situation worsens and the death toll rises. The end of November brought hope that a UNled peacekeeping force would be established in Darfur, but again this was stopped due to recalcitrance by Sudan. The UN Security Council is currently briefed on the situation frequently, passing a resolution with its findings (examples include resolutions 1663, 1665, 1672, 1679, 1706, 1709, 1713 and 1714, all from 2006). In its latest resolution, it extended the mandate of UNMIS until April 30, 2007, leaving a UN presence in the region, if not the one preferred by the council. The 17,300 troop peacekeeping force originally proposed appears to be an idea that will never be realized, though third-party observers claim that with more great-power pressure, Sudan would be forced to capitulate to the demands of the UN and allow the force to enter.
14 Bloc Positions African Union The African Union has maintained a force of approximately 7,000 peacekeepers in Sudan since April 2005, made up mostly of Rwandan and Nigerian troops. The force was originally authorized in April 2004, starting with 150 troops and slowly growing to the size that it is today. The Union appears to be wavering, however, threatening to end the mandate of the mission in September 2006 due to the high monetary costs and constant attacks from rebel groups. This group has been especially concerned with ending the conflict, seeing as how their proximity to it makes it easier for the instability to spill over into Union nations. The Union, however, has not declared the violence genocide, much like the UN. The Union has also welcomed the possibility of the UN sending peacekeepers of their own to reinforce the AU mission, but that has not come to pass. Great Powers The developed world has been resolute in their rhetoric on the Sudanese crisis, wishing for a peaceful resolution as quickly as possible. The United States congress unanimously declared in 2004 that the situation in Darfur constituted genocide, and in 2006 voiced its support for the AU peacekeeping force, calling for increased support from the NATO powers for this force. The United States has also put into place sanctions on Sudanese oil and oil revenues. The US and UK have been some of the strongest proponents of both the AU peacekeepers and the proposed UN peacekeeping mission. Of the five permanent members on the body, Russia and China have been the most cautious regarding the proposal to send in UN peacekeepers, both abstaining on resolution 1706.
Focus Questions 15 What is the most effective way to end the violence? Is it a UN mission, a strengthened AU mission, or some other proposal? Does the situation constitute genocide? If so, should the UN declare so, and what would that mean for the region? Is your nation willing to give money, troops, or other supplies if a UN mission in Darfur required such a donation? How closely affected is your nation by the crisis in Darfur? What are your views on the use of sanctions or other punitive measures to compel the Sudanese government to comply with the wishes of the Council? Research Links http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/darfur.htm -- A good primer on the background of the conflict http://www.unmis.org/ -- Home page for UNMIS, the UN Mission in Sudan http://daccess-ods.un.org/tmp/3517516.html -- Text of resolution 1714, the latest resolution passed by the UNSC. http://daccess-ods.un.org/tmp/9111280.html -- Text of resolution 1706, the resolution authorizing a UN peacekeeping mission for Darfur. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm -- BBC NEWS: Q&A: Sudan s Darfur conflict (Nov 16, 2006) http://www0.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsid=20617&cr=sudan&cr1= -- UN News Centre: To stop Darfur conflict spreading, foreign presence needed on border with Chad Annan http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/chad0206/ -- Human Rights Watch s analysis of the Darfur conflict spreading into Chad http://abcnews.go.com/international/wirestory?id=1668902 -- ABC NEWS: Security Council split on Darfur Conflict (Feb 27, 2006)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/17/news/darfur.php -- International Herald Tribune: Sudan to let UN force enter Darfur (Nov 17, 2006) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsid=20855&cr=sudan&cr1= -- UN News Centre: Sudan: Clashes in North Darfur prompt humanitarian warning from UN mission (Dec 5, 2006) 16
Topic C: The Situation in Kashmir 17 India and Pakistan have fought over the regions of Kashmir and Jammu for nearly 60 years, as long as either nation has been independent. The Security Council has passed some measures on this conflict, but has done nothing of true substance other than establish a limited military observer force. The Council must again consider this conflict, in the hope that changes in the political landscape, both in India and Pakistan, and in the world as a whole, can better broker peace and stability in the region. Background The conflict over Kashmir is one of the longer-running territorial conflicts that the Security Council has had to deal with, dating back to October 1947 and the independence of India from the United Kingdom. When India got its independence, it was declared that its 565 states would be divided up into two countries: states with a majority Muslim population would become Pakistan, all others would become India. Jammu and Kashmir were two states with majority Muslim populations, but were ruled by a Hindu prince, Maharaja Hari Singh. As such, Singh preferred Jammu and Kashmir to remain independent from either new state, but neither state liked that solution. Under heavy pressure from India, including the threat of invasion, Singh decides to give the territory to India, a decision made final on October 26, 1947. The decision by Singh to give Jammu and Kashmir to India sparked the first of three wars over the territory in 1948. The end of that war brought what appeared to be a resolution to the dispute: a withdraw of all troops from the contested regions, and a ceasefire line, known as the line of control. The ceasefire to end this war brought with it the provision that the final owner of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by a plebiscite
in the contested region under the supervision of the United Nations. The ceasefire 18 was successful in ending the war, but not much else; few troops were actually removed, and no plebiscite was ever held. This ceasefire only settled the situation until 1965, when the two nations went to war again over the contested region. They fought for five weeks, ending in a stalemate, and agreeing to another UN-backed ceasefire. The final round of conflict came in 1971, ending in defeat for Pakistan and leading to the Simla Agreement, a treaty that stated that India and Pakistan would attempt to settle their disputes via bilateral negotiation. The Simla Agreement also reinforced the Line of Control as the border between India and Pakistan. The 1990s complicated the conflict, as both nations conducted underground tests of nuclear devices. Both nations possessing nuclear weapons had the potential to escalate the conflict to a nuclear war, a much more serious proposition than the three wars that had already taken place. However, after a number of skirmishes between the Indian army and Pakistani rebels in the Kashmir region in the late 1990s, both sides agree to draw down their forces in the region. This peace did not last long, as in 2001, an attack on the Indian parliament raised tensions again. For the next year, the two sides traded threats, but no war ever broke out. This era of conflict largely ended when India and Pakistan renewed diplomatic ties in May 2003, but this diplomatic maneuver does not mean the area is no longer contested, and new conflict could break out at any time. Current Situation Today, the Line of Control is a semi-official border, not explicitly accepted by either side, as they each maintain a claim to the entire region. To resolve the issue, Pakistan still prefers a plebiscite, knowing that the largely-muslim population of the region would likely
choose to join Pakistan. India accepts the possibility of a plebiscite, but first 19 demands that Pakistan vacate its part of the territory demarcated by the line of control. That having been said, India still argues that the entirety of Jammu and Kashmir is rightfully India s, having been granted to India in 1947. The UN maintains an observer force on the Line of Control (UNMOGIP), established in 1949 by UNSC resolution 47, for the purpose of supervising the ceasefire line agreed to by both parties. After the resolution of the 1971 war, India claimed that the mandate of UNMOGIP had expired, though Pakistan disagreed. Due to this disagreement, the UN has decided to keep UNMOGIP in place. A Security Council resolution would be required to disband the force. Pakistan has recently offered to give up its claim over the region, in return for a demilitarization of the region, and semi-autonomy for the Kashmiris. So far, little response has been seen from India, though Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has found some opposition from hard-line Islamists in his own country. Bloc Positions Islamic World The Islamic world has stood squarely behind the Pakistanis in their pursuit of the disputed region, however, it is unclear if Mr. Musharraf s new proposal will cause that support to splinter, and create two factions: those who support Musharraf, and those who still seek ownership of the entire region for Pakistan. Still, it is likely that the majority of the Islamic world will continue to support Pakistan, one way or another, into the future. Great Powers The west has been largely inactive in the resolution of the conflict over Kashmir since the end of the second conflict in 1965, and with the exception of
establishing and sending forces for UNMOGIP in 1948, has done very little of 20 substance in the UN. Still, support for peace has been unanimous. The only dissent on the Council has been from the then-ussr, on the issue of troop withdrawal from the region (in the form of an abstention on resolution 215 (1965)). Focus Questions What solution would your nation like to see to the territorial conflict? Do you prefer the territory be given entirely to India, entirely to Pakistan, a division of the territory, a plebiscite, or some other solution? What role should the Security Council (or the entire UN) have in resolving this conflict? What steps should be taken to ensure that conflict does not break out for a fourth time between India and Pakistan? What should happen to the UN observer force (UNMOGIP) currently on the border between India and Pakistan? Should it be disbanded? If not, what events would bring the end of its mandate? Research Links http://www.un.org/depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/ -- The home page for the UN observer force established in 1949 and still operating on the Indian-Pakistani border. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/kashmir/front.html -- Short background of the conflict from the Washington Post http://edition.cnn.com/specials/2002/kashmir/index.html -- CNN s report on the conflict, including other links to somewhat recent events in the region. http://daccess-ods.un.org/tmp/6063892.html -- Text of Security Council resolutions 38, 39, 47 and 51 (1948), passed in response to the ongoing conflict, and establishing UNMOGIP. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp -- A think tank s analysis of the amount of damage a nuclear war between India and Pakistan would cause
References 21 All sources in the research links section of the paper were used, as well as those below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4224757.stm -- BBC NEWS: UN rules out genocide in Darfur (Published Feb, 1 2005, accessed Dec 6, 2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4227835.stm -- BBC NEWS: US convinced of Darfur genocide (Published Feb 1, 2005, accessed Dec 6, 2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6144498.stm -- BBC NEWS: Q&A: Peacekeeping in Darfur (Published Dec 1, 2006, accessed Dec 7, 2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6208660.stm -- BBC NEWS: Musharraf pushes Kashmir proposal (Published Dec. 6, 2006, accessed Dec 12, 2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/353352.stm -- BBC NEWS: Q&A: Kashmir Dispute (Published Nov 25, 2002, accessed Dec 7, 2006) http://www.cnn.com/2003/world/asiapcf/south/02/06/kashmir.timeline/ -- CNN News: Timeline: Conflict over Kashmir (Published Nov 25, 2003, accessed Dec 8, 2006) United Nations. Security Council. 1245 th meeting. Resolution 214 (1965) (Concerning the situation in Kashmir) (S/RES/214). September 27, 1965. United Nations. Security Council. 1251 st meeting. Resolution 215 (1965) (Concerning the situation in Kashmir) (S/RES/215). November 5, 1965.