Page 1 of 8 Dear Delegate, As Chair of the for WASMUN 2004, I welcome you to this exciting committee. My name is Sean Casey, and I have been working with Model United Nations organizations for the past five years as both a delegate and a chairperson. I am a Junior here at the University of Washington, double-majoring in International Studies (specialization in Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Peace, and Security) and Germanics (specialization in Linguistics). The Moderator of the is Brandon Nelson, who also has several years of varied MUN experience and is a junior majoring in International Business. Brandon and I also served together in the same roles in the WASMUN 2003 Disarmament and International Security Committee, and we look forward to working together again, in addition to working with you. By choosing the, you have chosen to work in arguably the most important committee of the United Nations. Sessions can become heated arguments at times, yet the rewards are great when consensus is reached among Council members. Because of its position as the global symbol of diplomacy and international cooperation, Council meetings and actions are the best documented of any UN committee. As such, I expect a certain level of dedication and accuracy from Council delegates, as your country s positions on topics are well documented. Further expectations are described in the following topic synopsis, which was generously provided by my good friend and colleague, Sean Casey, who also chaired the for our Northwest Model United Nations (college) conference in November. On 23 and 24 April each of us will step out of our roles as students and become members of the United Nations. With dedication, I know that this will be an invaluable experience for everyone involved. Sincerely, Nicholas Carlson Chair, WASMUN 2004 nicholascarls39@hotmail.com
Page 2 of 8 : An Overview Since its conception in 1945, the United Nations recognized the need for a small number of nation-states to decide on issues of international importance. Resolutions of this body must also be binding on all Member States, a requirement that its predecessor, the League of Nations, lacked. Permanent membership would be given to the five victors of the Second World War: China, France, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (later the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom, and the United States. Ten non-veto power countries would also hold rotating positions, creating a body of fifteen members. One major criticism of the Council is the veto power which five select countries hold. This has created situations where the majority of Member States in the Council and the entire United Nations support a certain resolution, yet because one power does not, no resolution is passed. The most common occurrence of this in recent history has been the United States use of its veto power to allow no resolutions condemning Israel, its staunchest ally, to be passed. Other critics contend that since the creation of the UN in 1945, the true political power of the United Kingdom and France have diminished greatly, yet they must be consulted on international affairs solely because of this veto power. As a participant of simulations for several years now, I must disagree with the assessment that the veto power creates a situation where non-veto members cannot have a sufficient voice in international affairs. Having veto power, the big five often become more hard-lined in their positions, simply stating that they will veto any resolution that will not go their way. Not being in a position where a hard-lined tactic is required, the ten non-veto power countries often see paths of compromise before the veto powers do, and can find simple ways to create a resolution that everyone can agree on. This is the true beauty of the : compromise and, in optimal situations, unanimity. Since Council resolutions are binding upon member states, it is important when all fifteen Council members vote yes on a resolution because it tells concerned parties that this truly is the best course of action to be taken. When countries vote no or even simply abstain, it can signify disunity in the world body and can show a particular region s possible refusal to follow the resolution. For example, as the Council s lone voice from the Arab world, a Syrian abstention or no vote can signify a major objection to the process in question from the entire Arab world, an important factor considering the number of Council issues in this region. For many simulations, the will have an open agenda, recognizing the changing nature of international diplomacy from day to day and allowing for new international crises to take center stage. However, since this conference is limited to one day, we have chosen a modified open-agenda structure. On the following pages you will find a topic synopsis on Iraq-Kuwait. A topic summary on the Democratic Republic of the Congo shall be posted online shortly. You must write two position papers, with one of them being on one of these topics. Your second position paper can either be on the second topic or chosen from a topic list following the synopses (I expect virtually everybody will research Iraq-Kuwait, which is why I have focused more on it as well). The topics from the list have been chosen because information on positions for every country are easily available; whatever the topic for the simulation may be, you will be responsible for that information as it pertains to your country. Upon receiving all the position papers, we will write an update informing you of who wrote what and providing you with additional information.
Page 3 of 8 Iraq-Kuwait The scope of the situation between Iraq and Kuwait varies from country to country. Representatives of Syria at the UN frequently made parallels to include Israel in this topic. Meanwhile, American media outlets often connect rumored weapons of mass destruction in Iran and Syria under the same guise. For the purpose of this simulation, I must ask that each delegate confine this topic to the current situation on the ground in Iraq. Delegates may make references to other countries in speeches, but a focus on this current situation must be maintained if the Council decides to take this topic. This topic was first created in 1990, when Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait in an attempt to make it an 18 th province of Iraq. Following the 1991 liberation of Kuwait, the international community felt it was necessary to ensure that the Iraqi leader, President Saddam Hussein, would be no threat to his neighbors or to his people. They sighted previous uses of chemical and biological weapons by the leader against his own people and against the Iranians during the Iran- Iraq war, and his reported attempts to obtain nuclear weapons. Though these countries took no action at the time of these occurrences, now was the time to ensure President Hussein did nothing else. Sanctions were placed on Iraq that prohibited the country to obtain any materials that could remotely be used in the creation of weapons of mass destruction. United Nations weapons inspectors entered the country searching for and destroying said WMDs. Four years later, when it was revealed that these sanctions had created a humanitarian crisis for the people of Iraq, an oil-for-food program was created so that the Iraqi government could sell limited amounts of its oil in exchange for purchasing humanitarian supplies. In 1998, the inspectors left Iraq, though the manner in which they left depends on which country or non-governmental organization (NGO) you ask. They did not return until November 2002 after the passed resolution 1441 (2003) authorizing a new inspections regime and demanding Iraq allow the inspectors to have full immediate and unconditional access to its perceived weapons programs. Though the inspectors entered Iraq, and many felt progress was achieved, the United States and the United Kingdom felt otherwise. In March 2003 they invaded Iraq under the guise of disarming the country, an action that they felt Iraq was not complying with. The following month the governmental structure of Iraq collapsed, and since then Saddam Hussein has been in hiding. Iraq is still occupied. Coalition forces created the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council as a body to represent the Iraqi people, yet they still have very little authority. They also have had a difficult time working with what authority they do have; when asked to choose a leader for the Council, they chose nine. An original plan for the full transfer of power from the occupying forces to the Iraqi people was scrapped, and to this day no plan has been created, either by the United Nations or the occupying Authority, for this completed transfer. The United Nations has a very limited role in postwar Iraq. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI) has helped facilitate humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people, a service that, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, is supposed to be provided for by the occupying forces, or the American and British people. United Nations offices in Baghdad have also been bombed, killing the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello. Since then, Secretary General Kofi Annan has dramatically scaled back the
Page 4 of 8 number of United Nations personnel in the country, citing security concerns. As the occupying power, it is again the job of American and British forces to provide security in Iraq. This security has been hard to find, as well. The Iraqi people, worried that the occupying forces may be there for years, have been calling for a swift return to Iraqi rule. Numerous attacks have plagued occupying soldiers, to the point where more American soldiers have now died since President Bush declared the invasion over than died during the invasion. Attacks have also plagued local buildings of worship, and many feel that there is no law and order in Iraq. Meanwhile, NGOs voice complaints about heavy-handedness by occupying forces. The international community has also largely ignored one major pre-war problem: Iraq s weapons of mass destruction. Resolution 1483 (2003) states, in one operative clause, that the weapons inspectors mandate will be revisited at a later date. Five months later, the inspectors remain virtually jobless. Inspections by the occupying Authority have also come up with no conclusive evidence, problematic in that it was the presence of these weapons that was used as a basis for invasion. Country Positions The United Kingdom and the United States are proud of their role in liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein s brutal regime. Problems do exist on the ground today, but these are expected in any post-war situation. The United Nations does still have a vital role to play in the creation of a free Iraq. More soldiers and funds are needed from the UN to maintain peace on the ground. Spain and Bulgaria are also proud allies of the US and the UK, and happy to be part of the coalition of the willing. It was disappointing that the UN could not achieve consensus, but the responsibility for this lies solely on the head of Saddam Hussein, a known deceiver who set the international community against itself. The United Nations needs to be a factor in rebuilding Iraq; UN sponsorship can be seen as the whole world helping the Iraqi people. China, France, Germany, and the Russian Federation feel it was terrible that two Council members waged war outside the auspices of the United Nations. War could have and should have been avoided. Now that the previous leader has been disposed, power needs to be transferred to the Iraqi people as soon as possible. United Nations leadership in postwar Iraq will be more effective in preparing the country for self-rule than will Coalition leadership. Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic have always considered the Iraqi people first. Through this consideration they opposed an unjust and illegal invasion of Iraq s sovereign territory. Work should have been done to properly implement resolutions throughout the Middle East. The United Nations is needed to help the Iraqi people recover from such a war and return the country to self-rule. Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, and Mexico feel it was a shame that diplomacy failed in finding a peaceful solution to the problem of Iraq s weapons of mass destruction. Attention must now be focused, however, on helping the Iraqi people. The international community must do everything in its power to help them recover from a brutal regime and an invasion.
Page 5 of 8 Additional Information Position papers need to be as thorough and concise as you can make them. Come up with possible solutions, but make sure they are in line with your country s policies. Do not simply copy sentences from UN speeches; I will notice this, so you will not get away with plagiarism. Online Resources Let me preface this section with one comment that I have noticed in my years of attempting to find the truth: All media is inherently biased. Every source you will come across is attempting to appease a certain audience or is trying to push a certain idea onto you. That being said, these are a few sources that I feel are key to a successful simulation: http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact2003.htm This page has all the press releases for the year, with links to previous years. If this has any bias, it is a pro-un one, which is necessary considering you will be attempting to work in a UN committee These also have very accurate summaries of speeches by your country s representatives, and may hold keys as to what your country feels is important in a certain topic. http://www.un.org/docs/sc/unsc_members.html This page has links to the UN embassies of all your countries, with the exception of Guinea and the Syrian Arab Republic. Those sites will have the bias you want, of course, to be a representative of that country in the committee. It is extremely important that you keep informed on up-to-date information on possible topics. This forces you to resort to other news sources. To find out the real situation and get around certain biases, I recommend checking out three different sources. My choices are: http://english.aljazeera.net/homepage http://www.bbcnews.com/ (click on No ) http://www.cnn.com/world/
Page 6 of 8 Democratic Republic of the Congo Though the war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is supposedly over, few Congolese people agree. They long to forget a five-year war that killed an estimated three million people. Seven nations and many rebel groups took part in this humanitarian catastrophe. Even today, tensions remain high in the Ituri region of the northeast. Reports come out of this region almost weekly about new ethnic conflicts, new fatalities of the war. A combination of greed and ethnic hatred created this fiasco. Though one country, the DRC has over 250 separate ethnic groups within its borders, each trying to provide for itself and profit from the country s vast natural resources. In 1998 rebels who tried to overthrow Congolese President Laurent Kabila received backing from Rwanda and Uganda. These countries, accusing him of allowing rebel groups to attack their countries from within a Congolese safe haven, sent troops to assist the rebels. Before they could seize power, the Congolese government asked for and received troops from Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe, creating an international conflict and a long stalemate. With its troops inside the country, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe may have taken the opportunity to steal natural resources, mainly diamonds, from the country, according to the United Nations Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It soon became obvious that no side could secure a military victory. The international community began to press all parties involved to end the conflict. Humanitarian aid would be stopped, they said, unless countries withdrew their forces. South Africa hosted many peace talks between various governments and rebel groups, which eventually led to a cease-fire. Foreign troops have now left the country, though many still support certain rebel factions. For the Congolese people, peace has been a dream rather than a reality. Several peace deals have come and gone with little success. Since achieving independence from Belgium in 1960, The DRC (also known as Zaire) has spent all its years with either a dictator or a war. The free and fair elections promised by this latest peace deal in two years time seems far too optimistic to such a large country lacking an interconnected infrastructure. An interim parliament was inaugurated in August of 2003, attempting to bring the country s many factions together. Yet even this event was marred by a simple row over the number of bodyguards each side was allowed to have in Kinshasa, the capital city. The army had to be rebuilt, with units representing each faction created. United Nations teams have attempted to stop the fighting in the Ituri region, yet have come with little success. The militias in this region have not been recognized in the new government, which may in itself lead to a continuation of fighting in this region. How can a country of 50 million, separated into so many factions, achieve peace? That remains to be answered, but one thing remains clear: a peaceful DRC will have positive repercussions for the entire region. Ethnic conflicts in Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda are directly connected to conflicts inside the country, and peace here could spread to these countries. Many Western companies, however, still have their eyes on the mineral wealth; as the property of the Congolese government, peace here could lead to a powerful global source for natural resources.
Page 7 of 8 For further information on the history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I highly urge you to check out this page along with the many offshoots of this page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1076399.stm Also, the website for the United Nations force for the Congo (MONUC) http://www.monuc.org/home.aspx?lang=en The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs also has its own site with news about the DRC: http://www.irinnews.org/frontpage.asp?selectregion=great_lakes&selectcountry=drc Here is a website from Amnesty International summarizing many of the human rights concerns still facing the country. Any position papers on this topic should address these issues from your country s standpoint, along with viable solutions. http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/dr_congo/summary.do
Page 8 of 8 Other Possible Topics International terrorism Israel-Palestine Israel-Syrian Arab Republic North Korea Afghanistan Chechnya and the Caucasus Bali (Indonesia) West African peace and security (Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc.) Justice and the rule of law: The United Nations role Pacific settlement of disputes Peace and security regional organizations Sanctions Peacekeeping Security of nuclear facilities and materials Weapons of mass destruction There are many others, but these are the most likely subjects the will discuss, so it is best to focus your research on them. We will facilitate your research as much as possible.