Dear Delegates, Action and inaction. This is the decision that policymakers must confront. Global issues may seem as impenetrable and insurmountable as mountains, with mammoth amounts of ethnic, religious, and cultural issues impeding their resolutions, with eons of history maintaining their most rigid dispositions, with waves of complications and varying factors threatening the efforts of legislators and diplomats all over the world. However, issues must be faced issues with global superpowers as adversaries, and issues whose scope and implementation span many leagues, temporally and spatially. The topics chosen for SPECPOL CAIMUN 2017 the Crisis in Ukraine, and Stateless Nations reflect the colossal and immense challenges that face communities around the globe today, with solutions seemingly too idealistic and complex to be realized. But realized they must be. And it is in the face of such strenuous embarkments that SPECPOL shall fully manifest the spirit and the passion of action, of struggle, or idealism. Model UN is an activity designed to foster diplomatic skills, public speaking skills, and teach to delegates the tool that is compromise and negotiation. I challenge you at this conference to tap into another ability. It is an ability that has guided our dreams, our ambitions, and our successes as a species. It is an innate ability that you possess, by virtue of your own humanity. It is your idealism. The topics that have been selected for CAIMUN SPECPOL 2017 will challenge delegates to find practical and real solutions to longstanding and pressing global issues, issues that many observers have deemed impregnable. Your intellectual skills and expertise in negotiation will be challenged to the maximum. Your ideals may waver, as solutions seem far and nearly impossible. But an adherence to your innate idealism will be essential in order to solve these issues, that exist not only within the metaphysical realm of a Model UN committee, but within our most physical human realm. Please do not hesitate to email us if you have any questions. We welcome all delegates to SPECPOL and hope that through your participation you will gain invaluable insight into the field of international relations, the art of rational thinking, discourse and negotiation, and find within yourself the strength of your innate and deep-rooted idealism, a force most needed in this modern and ever-changing world. Best Regards, Jason Qu Director of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee
The Parliament of All Nations. The United Nations General Assembly. The main organ through which the nations of the world exercise their collective right to legislate on behalf of humanity. The Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, otherwise known as the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL), is charged with all matters concerning decolonization and territorial disputes, peacekeeping, and human rights. Founded after the Second World War in order to handle former colonial territories, manage non-governing trust territories, and aid decolonization efforts, the Fourth Committee s mandate shifted from one dedicated to streamlining a transitory process to one focussed on territorial and gubernatorial issues which often transcend and obfuscate international and local laws. Although SPECPOL is tasked additionally with managing the Palestinian refugee crisis, outer space, and atomic radiation, at CAIMUN 2017 SPECPOL s main theme will be one of dealing with issues handed down by past inaction; issues such as the Ukraine crisis, and the autonomy of indigenous populations around the world. The mandate of SPECPOL at CAIMUN 2017 shall be to right historical wrongs, and to look forwards to a future of peace. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing EDMUND BURKE Euromaidan was a movement in 2013 Ukraine, held by members of a frustrated public seeking closer relations with the European Union and the Western World. A response to the Ukrainian Parliament s suspension of talks with the EU, and inclinations towards stronger economic ties with Russia, Euromaidan can be seen as a simple call for globalization in Ukraine, to better fit in with the international community. Yet, Euromaidan revealed deeper cleavages within Ukrainian society itself. Euromaidan revealed a Ukraine torn apart by over two centuries of imperialist struggles with the Russian Czarist Empire, the Russian led Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Russian Federation. Euromaidan exposed and exacerbated this fissure. As westward looking Ukrainians protested for increased ties with Europe and the international community, sentiments of a similar passion were stirring in other segments of the Ukrainian population.
Soon, in the East of Ukraine, pro-russian sentiments flared. Protests soon mutated into insurrections. Rebel groups, such as the People s Republic of Donetsk, tore apart the fabric of the Ukrainian state. Ukraine stands as a battleground of historical relations. It is also the first front of a new war, waged between a victorious West emergent in the flames of 1989, and a resurgent Russia seeking to find once again its pre-eminence in the world. Is Ukraine European? Or is it Russian? Or is it ultimately Ukrainian? That question is for the Ukrainian people to answer. However, it is the role of SPECPOL to ensure that the question be put to the Ukrainian people. 1 The Kievan Rus is established, amalgamating the Eastern Slavic Tribes. The Cossack Hetmanate of Ukraine is founded, representing a Free Ukraine. Crimea is annexed by the Russian Empire, and Ukraine soon follows. Ukrainian War of Independence occurs. The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is absorbed into the USSR. The Holodomor, a near-genocidal attempt to kill Ukrainian culture and to russify the region, occurs. Ukraine gains independence from the USSR. The Orange Revolution occurs. Viktor Yanukovych, declared victor initially, is removed from office due to voting fraud. 1 Most information in the timeline derives its factual base from Tignor et al., Worlds Together, Worlds Apart, and "On the Origins of a Conflict." Stratfor, though other sources within the bibliography may have also contributed to this section of the work.
Yanukovych wins the presidency. European Union Association Agreement talks begin. The EUAA stalls, and President Yanukovych seeks closer ties with Russia. Euromaidan protests begin. Yanukovych and flees to Russia. The Ukrainian parliament removes Yanukovych from the presidential office. The Crimean Crisis begins, resulting the annexation of the peninsula. Donbass separatist states proclaim independence. Flight MH17, from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, is shot down by separatists. The Minsk Protocol is signed. Fighting persists in Ukraine and in the Donbass region. The 2016 crisis in the Ukraine, in the context of the 21 st and 20 th centuries and the Euromaidan movement, appears to be closely related to Russia s post-cold War policy of regaining its pre-eminence in world affairs. However, the East-West divide in Ukraine stems from a more historical conflict, one that stems from over a millennium of history. In the 800 s, the Kievan Rus state was founded by Varangian warriors, and encompassed the Eastern Slavic tribes, the progenitors of the Ukrainian and Russian
peoples. In the 1200 s, the Kievan Rus state was sacked and disintegrated by the onslaught of Golden Horde Mongols invading from the East. 2 In the late Middle Ages and the transitionary period to the Early Modern Era, two states formed around the borders of modern-day Ukraine the Catholic Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Russian Orthodox Grand Principality of Muscovy in Moscow, the ancestor of the later Czarist Russian Empire. The conflict between Poland and Czarist Russia resulted in Ukrainian lands being partitioned between the two powers. Resultantly, Western Ukraine adopted a more Western, European outlook, while the East adopted a more Russian twist. In addition, Russian Imperial policy mandated a policy of Russification in Ukraine, designed to eliminate or severely weaken Ukrainian culture and language, in favour of instilling Ukraine with Russian language and culture. While the partitioning of Ukraine between Poland and Russia established the roots of a territorial cleavage within Ukraine, split between East and West, Russian influence and domination over Ukrainian affairs would play a major role in Ukraine in the 19 th and 20 th centuries. As Ukraine was incorporated as a Soviet Socialist Republic within the Soviet Union, Ukraine experienced a series of Russian migrations. Hence Eastern Ukraine became increasingly Russified, with a significant Russian speaking population. Soviet policies in Ukraine during the 20 th century, including the near-genocidal Holodomor, were established to increasingly Russify Ukraine and stamp out Ukrainian culture, language, and values. In the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine gained independence and assumed its modern democratic form in 1991. However, political scandals and crises would continue to rock the stability of its government. During the 2004 Orange Revolution, Presidential elections were halted to a standstill, as claims of election fraud and rigging plagued the legitimacy of the results of the vote. Opposition Leader Viktor Yuschenko challenged the validity of Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych s win in the presidential race. 3 In the ensuing political perturbations that ensued, Yanukovych was deposed as President and Yuschenko was declared President, sworn in alongside Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. 4 2 "On the Origins of a Conflict." Stratfor. 3 Buchanan, Elsa. "Ukraine Crisis Timeline: From the Highs of Independence to a Full-blown War." International Business Times UK. 4 Tymoshenko was arrested in 2011 for embezzlement and abuse of power, charges deemed internationally to be political in nature. She was freed in 2014, after the Euromaidan protests.
Yanukovych s political career, however, had not yet ended. In the 2010 Presidential elections he was able to secure the presidency, embarking upon an agenda of expanding ties with the European Union and the West. By 2012, the EU Association Agreement (EUAA) was commenced in Brussels. In the following months, the EU and Ukraine negotiated on conditions in order for the EUAA to be signed, conditions regarding the condition of democratic reforms and freedoms in Ukraine. 5 By 2013, the progress made on the EUAA abruptly winded down. Tymoshenko was denied access to foreign medical treatment, and the Ukrainian government began exploring closer cooperation with Russia and the CIS. 6 As Ukraine-Europe talks broke down, a major cleavage within the Ukrainian body politic was exposed the East-West split, forged into the blood of the nation from centuries of foreign domination. It is in this split that ensued the Euromaidan Crisis, and the present situation in Ukraine. In the waning hours of 2013, Maidan Nezalezhnosti (Independence Square) in Kiev witnessed a scene it had not seen in 9 years legions of demonstrators filing in to protest an act of government. Crowds of citizens filed into the maidans of Ukraine, angered by the government s lack of initiative in expediting the process of European integration, and urging closer ties with the West. And hence began the Euromaidan movement, a movement greater in both size, consequence, and intensity, than the Orange Revolution in 2004. 7 Pressured by the protesters in Independence Square, the government soon revealed that the delay and stalls in signing the EUAA had been demanded by Russia. In the ensuing days Russian and EU governmental officials and authorities began trading verbal barbs, with Russia publicly denouncing the EUAA as a detrimental for Russian interests, and the EU expressing strong discontent for Russian actions. Within Ukraine itself, protests quickly turned violent. Demands were made to not only ask for European integration and a confirmation of the EUAA, but also to constitutionally limit the power of the presidential office and to depose Yanukovych s government and cabinet. In many regards Euromaidan had mutated from mere demonstrations into a quasi-revolution seeking regime change as well as constitutional amendments. 5 One demand was to allow Tymoshenko to travel abroad in order to receive medical treatment. 6 Commonwealth of Independent states; includes former Soviet States and Satellite States. 7 Most information in this section is substantiated by EU and CSIS sources, as listed in the bibliography.
Protests soon turned into riots. From Kiev to the provinces, security forces clashed with demonstrators. Faced with overwhelming violence, Yanukovych signed the Agreement on Settlement of Political Crisis in Ukraine in February 2014, in order to limit the bloodshed and to bring a resolution to the political crisis. The following day, he fled the country for Russia, and was subsequently impeached by the national legislature. During this unrest significant Anti-Euromaidan forces had accumulated, in support of Yanukovych and pro-russian foreign policy. Pro-Russian protests occurred around Ukraine, but found a base of support in the East, in Donetsk, Luhansk, as well as most noticeably in Crimea. In early 2014 Russia slowly began to infiltrate Crimea with unmarked soldiers. Slowly, the Ukrainian monopoly of violence over the peninsula was replaced by that of an independent Crimean government. After a referendum on independence, which was soundly rejected by the international community, Russia officially incorporated the Crimean Republic into its territorial reaches. However, Crimea was not the only area of unrest. In the Donbass region in east Ukraine (Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts), anti-euromaidan movements and demonstrations took on a more militaristic nature. Separatist forces, under the flags of the Donetsk and Luhansk People s Republics, declared conflict against the Ukrainian government. These movements were largely sponsored and led by Russian citizens. Slowly, in the summer of 2014, Russian humanitarian convoys manifesting in military personnel and equipment crossed into the Donbass. Russian unmarked militia, similar to those used in the annexation of Crimea, also infiltrated into Eastern Ukraine. However, an international controversy soon occurred. Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, from Amsterdam Schiphol to Kuala Lumpur, was shot down over Ukrainian Territory, by rebel forces. In the following investigation it was demonstrated that the most likely cause of crash was due to impact by a Russian missile launcher, given by the Russian government to separatist forces. A UNSC resolution was drafted to establish an international tribunal and investigation into prosecuting those responsible, however was vetoed by Russia. By late 2014, the Ukrainian and Russian governments, and Donbass separatist groups signed the Minsk protocol as to halt the conflict in the Donbass. The protocol called for a ceasefire, for stricter adherence to rule of law and human rights within the Donbass, and for international oversight in the whole process. However, the protocol soon broke down, resulting in a resumption of hostilities and violence. Combatant forces within the Donbass are currently many and varied. On the separatist side are the many militias from the Donetsk and Luhansk people s
republics, as well as armed units from Russia. From Ukraine, the main combatants are the army, as well as other forces from the Security Service, Internal Affairs Ministry, and State Border Guard. Fighting has died down from major conflict into strategically timed offensives and skirmishes. However, despite the many ceasefires that have been proposed and enacted, peace has been a fickle reality. War still flickers in Ukraine. Sometimes, it is a mere nuisance that singes, yet it has the capacity to flair, to propagate, and to ravage the Ukrainian landscape. Today, the situation in Ukraine remains tense. A simple protest on European Integration was exploited by a Russia, concerned over its status as a regional superpower, and grew into a conflict that is poised to tear Ukraine apart. The future of Ukraine lies on this conflict. However, it lies not only in ending the war it lies in reconciling the East-West divide, and in placating Russia s ever growing appetite as it seeks a sense of significance and authority once again. As one of the foundational parties in the Ukraine crisis, the European Union has been one of the most active international bodies in reacting to the whole situation. The European Union has been persistent in supporting Ukrainian sovereignty and peace initiatives, such as the Minsk protocol. Sanctions, travel bans, and asset seizures have all been initiated by the European Union in hopes of pressuring Russia to stand down. In addition, the G8 became the G7 once again, following the expulsion of Russia from the group. OECD member states voted to halt talks concerning the integration of Russia within the organization, and the OSCE was sent to Ukraine in order to inspect humanitarian conditions within Crimea. NATO officially condemned Russia s actions in Ukraine, and former UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon expressed a grave concern over the Ukrainian crisis. In addition, many UN states have expressed support for Ukraine and condemned Russian actions and participation in the context of the crisis. The UNSC, in reaction to the MH17 downing, proposed an international tribunal, which was vetoed by Russia in a vote. The UN, in interacting in this whole affair, must realize several things. As an organization, its mandate is to serve upon humanitarian and democratic principles, rather than to aid either separatist or government forces in the conflict. In addition, the UN must serve as a facilitator rather than as an implementer. It must establish the groundwork and guidelines for referenda, transitory councils, and ceasefires and their maintenance. However, it must not be abused by the misconception that it should take over the reins of power and establish its own mandate in the Donbass.
Understanding this, the UN must consider the legitimacy of the separatist claims, as well as the feasibility of enforcing a peace plan in the conflict, given the presence of a superpower with its own agenda (Russia) and terrorist groups within the region. The UN must also understand the legacy of the former Russian and Soviet Empires. Such an understanding will be crucial to determining how any peace plan or resolution can contribute to long-term stability in the region not only military, but also politically, if Ukraine is to progress forth as a united and single country. With an understanding of Russia s unique mindset and perspective as a former world power, and an acquaintance with the subtle philosophical qualms of right to rule and might makes right, the UN, through the SPECPOL committee, would be well disposed to tackle the problems and issues of the Ukraine crisis. There exist several potential solutions to the issue at hand. Delineated in numerical order, these are 1. The immediate imposition of a UN ceasefire and transitory committee in order to deal with the issues and subtleties of democratic legitimacy; 2. Sanctions against Russia and aggressor states; 3. Creation of a wider and broader union, both informal and formal, between Russia and the West. The first solutions centres upon 2 principles: 1. The utilitarian benefits of peace and 2. The moral compulsion to respect a democratic process. The solution essentially calls for a ceasefire to be established and maintained by independent and international peacekeepers, sent by the UN. Under the auspices of international cooperation, the resolution would establish a UN body to monitor power and humanitarian conditions with Crimea, the Donbass, and Ukraine. This solution would only serve an oversight purpose and aid the establishment of peace within the region, as well as further the cause of self-government and legitimacy. The second solution finds its operational value in the doctrine of Might Makes Right and its philosophical justification in the idea of Moral Absolutism. Using sanctions and other restrictions, the UN would seek to limit the efficacy of Russian business and interactions with the outside world. With this in place, the UN would seek to severely debilitate Russia into cohering with a position endorsed by many countries on the Ukraine crisis that is, to respect Ukrainian sovereignty. The solution, however, is faulted by the fact that such measures may fail to persuade or sway Russia towards cooperation, and may actually result in more hostilities between both international and Russian parties.
The third solution tries to incorporate a more long-term and holistic approach. It understands that the Ukrainian crisis stems from regional and historical issues, stemming from an East-West split and a resurgent Russian nationalist identity. Using the third solution, the UN would aspire to improve and increase trade, economic, and diplomatic ties between the East and West, in order to pacify Russia s growing thirst as well as limit and set standards for its behaviour in the international community. Such a solution would not be following a policy of appeasement; rather, it would be a policy of assimilation. Delegates are advised that these solutions are not mutually exclusive in scope. Rather, a combination of different provisions, each differing in scope and level, can provide an optimal solution to the problems at hand. This bloc forms the majority of states. Comprising of the West and its allies, it is strongly opposed to Russian military intervention, and supports Ukrainian sovereignty as well as a cessation of bloodshed within the region. It prefers Ukrainian sovereignty, and views the Donbass separatist groups as artificially created by Russia, rather than a true manifestation of self-determination. This bloc would prefer sanctions, international oversight, and a heavy-handed approach in dealing with the Russian crisis. This bloc forms a minority of states, but in essence is formed primarily with Russian allies. Syria, Venezuela, and other Russian allies support Russian position. This bloc would prefer to see referenda, but held not under the auspices of the international community, but rather under those of local authorities. This block also greatly condemns the Euromaidan movement and supports the annexation of Crimea, as well as the Luhansk and Donetsk People s Republics. This bloc forms a large amount of states. This bloc is formed of countries who either a. are allied with Russia but also have close relations with the West b. are allied with Russia but find it strategically and politically disastrous to support Russia. This group includes India, China, Israel, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, Argentina, and other countries. This bloc varies greatly in its appraisals of the situation, with most member states urging for restraint and an immediate cessation of hostilities in the conflict.
1. Outside the context of Russian military intervention, have the Donbass separatist regions the right to declare independence from Ukraine? 2. Historical trends and legacies notwithstanding, are there other methods of reaching a long-term solution to the crisis, other than simply further assimilation and relations between Russia and Ukraine? 3. Are current sanctions and exclusionary approaches against Russia doing more harm than good, as they may aggravate the Kremlin? 4. Should the UN consider the restoration of Crimea to Ukraine, or shall it simply see Crimea as lost territory to Russia? 5. How shall the UN tackle the issue of economic redevelopment and stability within Eastern Europe in period after the implementation of ceasefire and dénouement? http://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-east-west-divide/25279292.html https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/infographics/countries-react-to-russianintervention-in-crimea.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/28/ukraine-russia-emergencyun-nato-eu-meetings-invasion-claim http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21598743-europe-and-america-areoutraged-annexation-crimea-lack-strong-response-sixes http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/sanctions/ukraine-crisis/historyukraine-crisis/ https://www.stratfor.com/sample/analysis/ukraine-caught-between-east-andwest http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/can-ukraine-avoid-east-westsplit-bloody-civil-war-n38911 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-27211501 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37243434
http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/euromaidan-ukraine s-self-organizingrevolution Buchanan, Elsa. "Ukraine Crisis Timeline: From the Highs of Independence to a Fullblown War." International Business Times UK. International Business Times, 21 Apr. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "The Crisis in and around Ukraine." OSCE. OSCE, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. Diuk, Nadia. "Euromaidan: Ukraine's Self-Organizing Revolution." World Affairs Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "EU Sanctions against Russia over Ukraine Crisis." Newsroom, European Union. European Union, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. Jamieson, Alastair. "Can Ukraine Avoid an East-West Split and Bloody Civil War?" NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, 26 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. Kates, Glenn. "Ukraine's East-West Divide: It's Not That Simple." RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, 27 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "On the Origins of a Conflict." Stratfor. Stratfor, 28 Dec. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. Pifer, Steven. "Putin and Ukraine's East/west Divide Brookings Institution." Brookings. Brookings, 29 July 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "Putin's Stance on Ukraine Supported by Minority of Nations." Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 14 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "Sixes and Sevens." The Economist. The Economist, 06 Mar. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "Timeline - EU Restrictive Measures in Response to the Crisis in Ukraine." Council of the European Union. European Council, Dec. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.
"Timeline: Ukraine's Political Crisis." Al Jazeera. N.p., 19 Sept. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "Ukraine: Caught Between East and West." Stratfor. Stratfor, 29 Dec. 2015. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "Ukraine Crisis: Key Players in Eastern Unrest." BBC News. BBC, 28 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "Ukraine Crisis: New Ceasefire 'holding with Eastern Rebels'." BBC News. BBC, 01 Sept. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "Ukraine Crisis: Timeline." BBC News. BBC, 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "The Ukraine Crisis Timeline." Center for Strategic & International Studies. Russia and Eurasia Program, 08 Feb. 2017. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "Ukraine: Timeline of Events." European Parliament News. European Parliament, 14 Apr. 2016. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. "Ukraine's Sharp Divisions." BBC News. BBC, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. Walker, Shaun. "Ukraine Crisis: Emergency Nato, UN and EU Meetings after Russian Invasion Claim." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 29 Aug. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. Walker, Shaun. "Ukraine: Tale of Two Nations for Country Locked in Struggle over Whether to Face East or West." The Observer. Guardian News and Media, 14 Dec. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. Whitmore, Brian. "Is It Time for Ukraine to Split Up?" The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 20 Feb. 2014. Web. 26 Feb. 2017.