DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY TOPIC A: Information Warfare TOPIC B: Land Mine Use Dear Delegates, I would like to be the first to welcome you to the Disarmament and International Security committee, which will be dealing some of the most pressing issues facing the global community in the twenty-first century. As you know the world that we inhabit is rapidly changing and with that change comes many issues facing those who choose to confront them in an effort to produce a better future. The topics we have selected are reflections of both the past and the present state of the world, while looking toward the future. These topics will be challenging but exciting and should inspire some great debate. At this time I would like to introduce myself as well as my committee. My name is Lacey Skalisky and I am a senior at the University of Washington. I am majoring in English with a minor in political science. I have been involved with various model United Nations programs since my junior year in high school. This year it is my privilege to be the Chairman for this excellent committee. The other members of the committee are Eric Brunnell, Danielle Rynd, and Brita Stevenson. Eric is a sophomore at the University of Washington, who is studying biochemistry. He will be the moderator for this committee during our sessions. Danielle is a senior at the University and is a journalism and political science double major. She has been involved with the Model United Nations for the last couple of years. Brita is working on her thesis this year and will graduate this June with majors in French and European Studies. This is her first year of involvement with model United Nations. Both Danielle and Brita will be the secretaries for this committee. All of us have high hopes for the work that this committee will produce in its resolutions. We are all looking forward to meeting you at the conference. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments about our topics. Sincerely, Lacey Skalisky lskaz@u.washington.edu 1
HISTORY OF THE COMMITTEE During the existence of the United Nations, disarmament and international security have always been primary objectives. The United Nations demonstrated this when they created the First Committee or the committee on Disarmament and International Security in 1945. Even though the enforcement power remains in the Security Council the six other main committees along with the First Committee demonstrate the opinions of the international community since all member states are represented in the General Assembly. These committees recognize and debate the many issues that face the world s populations. In conjunction with these debates the committees create proposals that act as the basis for General Assembly resolutions. In turn, they also serve as recommendations to the secretariat and Security Council. The first resolution passed in the General Assembly originated in the Disarmament and International Security committee. This resolution, which was passed in 1946, established the Atomic Energy Commission. This commission was designed to encourage the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to encourage the elimination of nuclear weapons. Six years after the formation of that commission it was combined with the Commission on Conventional Armaments to create the Disarmament Commission, which was then given the task of reducing armed forces worldwide and eliminating weapons of mass destruction. At the close of the 1950 s, the GA passed a proposal from the First Committee about achieving a state of complete disarmament. This goal has been reiterated in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, which have been labeled Disarmament Decades. The Disarmament and International Security committee has jurisdiction over any matter that is related to its title as long as the Security Council is not addressing the issue. The original focus of the committee was on nuclear weapons due to its recent emergence in warfare during WW II. It helped to resolve this issue with recommendations on the Partial Test-Ban Treaty (1963), the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968), and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (1996). Although the committee focuses largely on nuclear weaponry it does not limit itself to only this topic. It has created such things as the Biological Weapons Convention (1972) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (1992), which focus on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of these types of weapons. In 1981 the committee turned its efforts towards conventional weapons with the Convention on Excessively Injurious Weapons. This recommendation discussed things such as lasers used to blind personnel. This action paved the way for the Ottawa APM Convention (1997), where the use of anti-personnel mines had a moratorium placed upon the sale of them. Other areas that the committee has turned its attention to are prevention of militarization of certain areas such as the ocean floor and Antarctica. It has also helped to create regional agreements that ban nuclear weapons in places such as Latin America, the Caribbean, South Pacific, Southeast Asia, and Africa. 2
In the years since the formation of the United Nations and the subsequent formation of the Disarmament and International Security committee, the committee has played a major role in aiding in peace and prosperity for the world. It will continue in this capacity for many years to come as new and different challenges arise. TOPIC A: INFORMATION WARFARE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Even though this topic can be seen as an old problem it is constantly changing and forcing a new definition to be created. Because of this, many topics fall under what can be seen as information warfare. For example, one report lists the first airplane hijacking as a type of informational warfare, since it weakened the other party. Another argument over informational warfare is how militaristic is it, since civilians and private companies become part of it. This also includes the affects that it could have on a nation. For example, the transportation systems, financial networks and telephone exchanges could potentially be targeted. The dynamics of this problem are different as well in their scope because the definition of what should be covered by various policies in regards to military versus non-military or private business is complicated. Many nations are intrigued by information warfare because it is a cost-effective way of waging war. It requires little man-power which allows for funds to be elsewhere. These states also see it as a way to level the playing field between poor and rich nations. Part of the issue as well includes the belief that in doing this a nation or business can gain an industrial edge. HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM The idea of information warfare has been around for a long time. However, what it entails is constantly changing. For example, in early human interaction hitting someone over the head, which could knock out their information system, versus in the stomach, which caused them pain, could be considered information warfare since one side had more information about the other and its weaknesses. This topic has obviously evolved since then. The term Information Warfare was coined in the 1970 s, when technology began to rapidly change the way that people did things. Information warfare can be tied to such tactics as deception and psychological operations. It reached a high during WW II when electronic war entered the scene. Also, when militaries began to set up permanent positions in other countries, this created the opportunity for more information to be gathered and these locations became susceptible to attacks. This opening for attacks increased again as countries developed software that can be hacked into. This term can cover things from computer viruses to smart bombs. It is noted that this specific idea came with the introduction of the Information Age, which led to the breakdown of organized violence. This erosion of the previous standard can be partly attributed to the ill-defined enemies that have been created. Some groups believe that information warfare includes such things as anything that was planted to have a major influence on the population s perceptions and behaviors. 3
BLOC POSITIONS Africa Because so many of these nations are working on other problems, this issue does not register as one of their highest concerns. The limited amount of technology present also hinders what many consider the standard idea of information warfare. Even the different militaries lack the funding and other resources as well to be at the forefront of this movement. East Asia These nations are interested in the research that is going on about this topic. They believe that they can either gain or lose if this topic is mishandled. Because of the ongoing tension between North Korea and South Korea both are trying to stay ahead of each other in development of technologies and other areas that might be considered in this topic. European Union Europe is focused on this problem. Since shifting to a standardized currency, they recognize their potential precarious position. They want to make sure that they have the most recent technology so that they can combat any threat that may emerge. Middle East This area is watching the developments with great interest. These nations see this as their way of being able to fight other nations without a large military force being necessary. Because the definition is so unclear about what information warfare is, these states feel they can benefit the most from this. Russia and China In these nations the topic of information warfare is something to be contemplated for the future. They pose what they believe will be the status of this idea in ten years. However, they do have an interest in the developments in this area of study. United States The United States is strong in its development of transferring of information. It has an edge on the market. However, because of the nature of information warfare they are just as susceptible as anyone else. They are still in the research phase of what to do about this type of problem. PAST U.N. ACTION This is a relatively new topic for the United Nations. Attention was brought to it in 1996 at the Information Society and Development Conference as well as the Ministerial Conference on Terrorism. It first entered in as a resolution in 1998 titled, Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of 4
International Security. The purpose of that document is to create awareness amongst the international community. It asks for the creation of a definition of informational warfare and other basic notions as well as promoting the discussion of problems and their solutions. Since then each year, the First Committee has had reports regarding this issue. In 1999 they added the term disarmament to the title, but the statements still remained the same. In Resolution 55/28, the title was shortened to Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications, with the addition of the examination of security strengths as a purpose. During the last session in 2001, the resolution called for the formation of a group of government experts to conduct a study in which information warfare is to be studied and then reported on in 2004. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS What is your country s definition of information warfare? How should the United Nations address existing and potential threats concerning information warfare? What security measures are necessary to safeguard information? Should member states be recommended to share information? What is the effect of media on your country? TOPIC B: LANDMINE USE STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In the decades since WW II, anti-personnel mines have increased in their usage. Many countries have become laden with mines, some of because the nation has decided to use them as border protection. The other landmines are usually there because they are remnants of previous wartime activities, for example when nations would use planes to drop them and blanket specified areas. This situation has become vital to many since this instrument of war is harming many civilians, thus drawing negative attention to the problem. Also, because landmines are cheap to build and distribute they have become a weapon of choice for many poorer nations. Their widespread proliferation has complicated this problem even further. They are easily hidden and hard to find once in place. Because of the multiple types of anti-personnel mines it is hard to create a generic description of them with which to educate the public. Some of the states that have this problem lack the means necessary to remedy it, i.e. they are unable to generate the funds required to finance the removal efforts. Even when organizations whose primary goal is to assist with the removal efforts, each group works independently of each other, thus creating a patchwork effect in the landscape. 5
HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM Some of the earliest use of landmines is found in the United States, which dates back to 1862 during the American Civil War. The next time that they were used is during WW I when German soldiers used them to attack enemy forces as they were assaulted. However, it needs to be mentioned that during these initial stages the various military organizations manipulated other weapons into doing the work of what is now called an anti-personnel mine or landmine. The emergence of TNT in the 1920 s also had a considerable effect on landmine use. Once this component was added many countries were then able to create their own technology concerning land mines. The focus of these early landmines was not necessarily human targets, but tanks and other machinery used for wartime activities. During WW II, the use of land mines shifted from vehicular targets to humans. The reason for this shift was that organizations found that they could demoralize soldiers and scare civilians by doing such things as booby-trapping everyday items, such as cans, as well as the bodies of deceased troops. The study of landmines was conducted mainly in North Africa where there use was the highest. The facilities built there created the doctrines for landmine use and the development of counter-mine warfare. One of the ways that technology changed this type of warfare was that it created landmines that could be dropped from planes without detonating on impact. They were known as scatterables and help to create the issue of minegardens that is currently plaguing many nations. An interesting note at this point is that while the scatterables appeared as though they would help, many times they hurt the forces that had distributed them because they would be forced to retreat across them since they did not know where the boundaries for the minegardens lay. Anti-personnel landmines are widely used not only because many nations see them as a cost effective way to conduct various warfare strategies, but because it is not necessary to have advanced technology to make them work. However, there were developments made such as the creation of radio-controlled mines and mines with delayed charges. As the technology advanced the tactics for clearing mined areas changed. Some states would use tanks and other such equipment to clear paths for the soldiers to take, while others used the human sea approach, i.e. sending in a sacrificial group of troops to set off any mines. Many of these variations were seen during WW II on the eastern front where Russia was conducting the war. In more recent years landmines have been used to line demilitarized zones and to form the perimeter defense in variations operations, including marking country boundaries. They were also used extensively during the 5o year standoff between Eastern and Western Europe. BLOC POSITIONS Africa The countries here are divided on this issue. Many of them use landmines as a way to protect their borders and do not want to see them banned for this reason. Because of the constant threat of other groups attempting to seize power these governments will 6
not comply if they are banned. However, other countries in Africa want to be rid of the anti-personnel mines. This is the opinion of many of the states that have a high concentration of them within their borders left over from previous wars, including WW II. These states are also willing to allow outside resources to be brought in for the removal of the mines. East Asia Many of these nations have large territories covered with land mines. However, the countries here want the removal of some land mines, for example those left over from a variety of wars, yet want to be able to maintain their borders with them. European Union The position of most countries in this organization is that of no anti-personnel mines. They see it as an unnecessary part of warfare and that it tends to harm others, i.e. civilians, instead of the intended target, military posts. India This area sees landmines as a necessary part of their defense system. They see it as a legitimate requirement around the boundary of their nation. Also, India refuses to sign the Ottawa Convention because it does not adequately address their security concerns. Russia and China Neither government has chosen to support the Ottawa Convention. They believe that it is in the best interest of their respective countries to not push for the banning of anti-personnel mine usage. United States The stance that the US takes on this issue is one that involves an understanding. It is willing to discuss potential solutions, however it does not want to see the complete use of land mines banned. It maintains its stance on not using them on one s own citizens, but military action is a separate issue. PAST U.N. ACTION The topic of landmines was first addressed in 1977 in the Resolution Incendiary and Other Specific Conventional Weapons Which May be the Subject of Prohibitions or Restrictions of Use for Humanitarian Reasons. This resolution promoted the idea of conducting research into the area weapons that had the potential to harm civilians. This is followed by multiple resolutions that became more specific as time passed. In 1981, the United Nations enacted the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Injurious Effects. This resolution specifically addresses the issue of landmines, whereas before it was general in its scope. After maintaining its stagnant position on landmines for a decade, the General Assembly passed Resolution 48/7 in 1993 that created a mine clearance program to assist nations with the removal of anti-personnel mines. In each of the successive years the General Assembly received reports on the status of anti-personnel mines, when in 2000, the General Assembly created the Mine Action Service as well as the Voluntary Trust Fund for Assistance in Mine Action with resolution 54/35. This resolution also reiterated the ideas that national programs should 7
be created and that the many states and organizations should focus on coordinating their efforts. Finally, in 2001, the United Nations asked for the creation of the Electronic Mine Information Network so as to allow the process of removal of landmines to have an easier coordination to it amongst the different groups. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS Does your country have and currently use landmines? If so, would it support the banning of their proliferation and use (perhaps, with conditions)? Why? Has your country ratified the Ottawa Convention? Is it in violation of the premises of that document? Is your country threatened if this weapon were no longer in use? Would your country support, either monetarily or with manpower, the removal effort of existing landmines? How should the international community deal with violations of the Ottawa Convention? CONCLUSION It is important that your position papers are well thought out, as they will serve as a springboard for your discussions at the conference. They need to address some of the questions proposed previously, while including solutions that your country would support. But most importantly they need to describe your country s position on each of the topics (approx. ½ page). The paper should be headed with your name, Committee name, country, and Topic Area. Please keep them to a single page maximum. Also, you need to write a separate position paper for each topic. Remember that there is no reason for you to plagiarize any part of your position papers. If a delegate is found to have copied any part of their paper, they will be required to rewrite the position paper. BIBLIOGRAPHY TOPIC A: INFORMATION WARFARE Bibliography of Informational Warfare and Infrastructure Vulnerability Documents www.aracnet.com/~kea/info_war.html Institute for the Advanced Study of Information Warfare www.psycom.net/iwar.l.html 8
FAS Intelligence Resource Program www.fas.org/irp/wwwinfo.html What is Information Warfare? www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/forum28.html TOPIC B: LAND MINE USE United Nations Development Programme www.undp.org/erd/mineaction/index.htm Terrorism Research Center www.terrorism.com/iwdb/ Ottawa Convention www.mines.gc.ca Adopt a Minefield Campaign www.landmines.org/glc United Nations Organization for Landmine Removal www.mineaction.org Landmines: The Scope of the Problem www.professorlandmine.com/landmines.html United Nations Website on Disarmament http://disarmament.un.org/vote.nsf.issue.htm Geneva International Centere for Humanitarian Demining www.gichd.ch 9