1

Delegates,

Welcome to the Disarmament and International Security Committee at the twelfth annual Gator Model United Nations! My name is Aaron Kalafarski and I will be your director and guide during your GatorMUN XII experience. I started my Model United Nations career during my second year of high school and have competed and staffed at over thirty conferences since that time. Some of my favorite MUN experiences have been being the Secretary-General of GatorMUN XI, working as a Diplomacy Fellow for Best Delegate and helping the University of Florida become the number 16 team in North America. I am a fourth year at the University of Florida, pursuing both a degree in Political Science and an international relations certificate. This will be my fourth and final year staffing the conference, which makes me excited for the discussions that will be had in February.

The two topics that will be discussed within this background guide ask important questions for countries of the 21st Century and are some of my personal favorite MUN topics. These solutions, which will be discussed in-depth over the weekend, will offer every delegate a unique perspective on issues that not only affect the world now, but also will help shape international politics in the years to come. Every delegate will have a position on the topics at hand that I hope will encourage creativity throughout your research process. It should be noted that this background guide is only your first step at understanding the topics of this committee. Therefore, I encourage every delegate to research into these topics, their country’s position and so on in order to find comprehensive solutions to these very real problems. With that in mind, staying in country policy will be essential for your success during the weekend. Debate will adhere to strict parliamentary procedure, so please become familiar with those rules prior to our first session. I am also requiring every delegate to write a 1-2 page Position Paper for this committee. These papers are essential for organizing one’s thoughts in order to be prepared for a weekend of discussion and debate. I must also inform you that we have a no tolerance policy towards plagiarism. The Position Paper guide can be found at www.gatormun.org under the delegate tools. Please bring your position paper to the first committee session. I look forward to getting to know you all in February and observe the means by which this committee will find the solutions to these topics. Please do not hesitate to contact me at aaron.kalafarski@gmail.com with any questions or concerns you may have regarding the conference or committee. Good luck! Best regards, Aaron Kalafarski Director of GA1

2

Topic One: The Responsibility to Protect Introduction

The Responsibility to Protect (hereafter, R2P) is an emerging norm within the international community. R2P is based around sovereignty (a state’s authority to govern itself within a set of recognized territory without the interference of outside entities) and a state’s responsibility to protect its population. It is based off of three theoretical pillars from the Secretary-General’s 2009 report entitled “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect.” The first pillar says that it is the state’s responsibility to protect its population from genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. The second pillar complements the first pillar, stating that the responsibility of the international community to help states accomplish the first pillar. Lastly, the third pillar urges the international community to intervene through measures such as economic sanctions and military intervention as a last resort if all peaceful measures to resolve the aforementioned atrocities have failed.1

The notion behind R2P is based around the ideals found within human rights that the United Nations has attempted to preserve throughout its over 70 years of existence. It is also a

fundamental concept discussed within the General Assembly, Security Council and of course DISEC.

Therefore, questions regarding the definition of sovereignty, what constitutes mass atrocities, how the international community can prevent international and international conflict all center around R2P. This topic will dive into the historical significance, certain case studies related to R2P and the issues related to the

discussion and implementation of it. R2P and the International Community The international community began to question the ideals behind R2P after NATO intervened militarily – without the approval of the UN Security Council –in Kosovo during the 90s.2 The question arose, when is it legitimate for countries to intervene and protect civilians within another state without the explicitly expressed permission of the Security Council? Other mass atrocities such as the genocide within Rwanda and Bosnia sparked the debate over R2P and

1 http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/R2PSummary.pdf 2 Ibid.

3

the Secretary-General at the time, Kofi Annan, pushing the question onto the international community.3

Although the concept is not new, R2P was not officially formalized into any sort of international document until 2000 under the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.4 At the time the goal was ““to try to develop a global political consensus on how to move from polemics – and often paralysis – towards action within the international system, particularly through the United Nations.”5 In 2005 Kofi Anna would address the issue of R2P directly through a report and later on that year the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document was drafted by the United Nations General Assembly. Within paragraphs 138-139 world leaders had a consensus on the responsibility to protect civilians from mass atrocities.6 It would not be until 2006 that the Security Council would officially reference R2P within resolution 1674.7 Numerous other Security Council resolutions have also addressed the topic that has used the concept as a precedent to involve itself with states experiencing turmoil. Numerous other Secretary-General reports have followed the aforementioned documents, summits, and meetings. Following the 2009 report entitled “Implementing the Responsibility to Protect” reports were subsequently released in 2011 entitled “the Role of Regional and Sub-Regional Arrangements”, in 2012 entitled “the Responsibility to Protect: Timely and Decisive Response”, and in 2013 entitled “State Responsibility and Prevention”.8 As the titles suggest, these reports look directly at what measures should be taken to prevent conflict as well as how international actors should respond to R2P related issues. Each of these documents was presented to the United Nations and is central to the discussion of R2P with scholars, world leaders, and international actors. Scholars have debated back and forth regarding the importance and legitimacy of R2P within the modern era. In fact, Anne-Marie Slaughter from Princeton University described R2P as “the most important shift in our conception of sovereignty since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.”9 The rationale behind such arguments is that R2P would in essence, change the very nature of how the international community functions. Sovereignty as previously mentioned is a concept dating back to the Treaty of Westphalia. In short, this treaty established international political borders within Europe, the definition of sovereignty, and the international recognition of other states’ legitimacy to their own sovereignty. Even now, the international community has used the Treaty of Westphalia as a foundation for sovereignty and the interactions between

3 http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/publications/core-rtop-documents 4 http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/ICISS%20Report.pdf 5 http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/R2PSummary.pdf 6 http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/publications/core-rtop-documents 7 http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml 8 Ibid. 9 http://us.macmillan.com/responsibilitytoprotect/RichardCooper

4

states. However, the implementation of R2P would disregard a state’s sovereign right to not have their domestic affairs interfered with. Case Studies As it was previously mentioned, the world began to openly debate and discuss the relevance of R2P after the tragedy in Rwanda and the Balkans (especially with the conflict in Kosovo). With and without direct UN involvement the following countries have been relevant to the invoking of R2P: Burma, Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Darfur, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Nigeria, South Sudan, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Syria, and Zimbabwe. This guide will take a closer look at specifically Kenya beginning in 2007 and Syria in 2012.10 Kenya Within Kenya in 2007 and 2008 there was ethnic violence sparked primarily by the presidential election at the time. After Mwai Kibaki was declared the winner conflict erupted especially between the Orange Democratic Movement and Party of National Unity, which led to over 1,000 deaths and the displacement of approximately 500,000 civilians. In January of 2008 France made an appeal to the UN Security Council while citing R2P as precedent to act. The international community and UN organs such as the UN High Commission of Human Rights was fast to call on the Kenyan government to abide by its human right obligations. In 2008, former Secretary-General Kofi Annan was accepted as the head mediator between the two leading political parties. This led to many compromises and agreements to be made between the parties to quell the violence and hold new elections. With the help of the UN and other regional and national governments elections occurred between 2012 and 2013. More information regarding the situation in Kenya and the outcome of the conflict can be found here.11 Syria Within Syria the government under President Bahar al-Assad responded to primarily peaceful protests with ruthless force beginning in March of 2011. He would continue to use force against his population, which led to widespread accounts of brutality reaching the purview of the international community. Al-Assad went on to prevent humanitarian aid to be delivered to the general population and caused a shortage of basic human necessities without the assistance of NGOs and the UN. This led to the creation of factions groups such as the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army that in which time the civil conflict intensified. The UN Security Council took nearly a year of fighting before reaching consensus to again appoint for Secretary-General Kofi Annan to partner with the League of Arab States to be the head mediator

10 http://www.un.org/en/preventgenocide/rwanda/about/bgresponsibility.shtml 11 http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-kenya

5

of a six-point peace plan. However, reaction to the conflict was slow and the Assad government would use chemical weapons against its population.

Several actors voiced the international community had failed at its responsibility to protect Syrians. UN Security Council Resolution 2118 would begin the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons but it has yet to be determined if the entire stockpile has been destroyed as of yet. Recent reports have put the death count in the thousands with UNHCR reporting over 9 million internationally displaced persons (IDPs) due to the conflict. Due to the severity of the conflict and amount of IDPs, the international community is still dealing with the fallout of the crisis in Syria. More information regarding the situation in Syria can be found here.12 Making Progress with the Responsibility to Protect Through the historical precedence, case studies, and academic work done on the topic of R2P, it still remains an extremely new concept within the international sphere. The intention of R2P is to protect civilian populations by having a mechanism in place that will allow countries the opportunity to intervene when they deem it necessary. However, while the intentions may be founded in good there may be unintended consequences relating to state sovereignty as precedents are set moving forward. Thus, the role of R2P is still being molded and requires acute attention from all international actors in order to ensure that it does not get out of hand. It is important that the doctrine of R2P is not used as a means to oppress countries but instead continues to fight against the dangers of mass atrocities. As sovereignty evolves from a right to a privilege, it will continue to be at the forefront of the discussion of international security. Therefore, having DISEC establish when and how R2P is implemented will have an effect on the fundamental concept of what it means to be a state within the 21st Century. Moreover, understanding when R2P should not be implemented is of equal importance for the world.

12 http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/crises/crisis-in-syria

6

Research Questions 1. How does your country define sovereignty, mass atrocities, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity? 2. What actions/historical events has your country been involved with in regards to R2P? Why? 3. What tangible steps should DISEC take to encourage the further development of R2P? Are there any instances in which R2P may be overstepping its boundaries? 4. How should DISEC go about implementing R2P? What steps can the international community take to more efficiently implement the doctrine? 5. R2P encompasses concepts of prevention, taking action, and peace building, what has your country suggested are the best means of implementing R2P? Which UN documents does your country support? Helpful Websites 1. http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/R2PSummary.pdf 2. http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php/publications/core-rtop-documents 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zql34A4elhY 4. http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/journals/10.1163/187598409x405460 5. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23847169

7

Topic II: Towards the Abolishment of Nuclear Weapons Introduction

Nuclear weapons can cause significant devastation to populations worldwide. First employed on large-scale populations by the United States in World War II, these weapons have been characterized as one of the most deadly forces to mankind in human history. Recent studies on weapons arsenals only further confirm their deadly power. The projected effects of thermonuclear attack scenarios by medical doctors with the current Russian nuclear arsenal show death figures close to 52 million at initial impact.13 This is not including an additional 9 million long-term injuries and the complete destruction of a significant portion of US healthcare facilities. This represents just one of many bilateral relationships that could boil over into absolute destruction for the international community.14

As nuclear weapons cause large levels of destructions on both sides of a conflict, the utilization of these weapons is mutually feared. This introduces the concept of mutually assured destruction. The Congressional Research Service reports that this allowed for stability during the Cold War as the notion that both Russia and the United States could cause massive casualties “created a sort of perverse stability in international politics”.15 Going forward, nuclear disarmament for the purpose of increasing stability worldwide is an additional key strategy employed by nations. By removing the threat entirely, nations are forgoing the potential to defend themselves. However, by reducing global stores of weapons, the potential for mass casualties is significantly reduced. Nuclear Disarmament History

It is of paramount importance to understand the following treaties and organizations in as much detail as possible: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The NPT drafted in 1968 represents the foundation for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting the cooperation and peaceful use of nuclear technology, and achieving nuclear disarmament. It is signed by 190 states and specifically recognizes five states, the US, UK, France, China, and Russia (also the Permanent Five members of the UN Security Council) as the only recognized nuclear weapon states. Several states such as India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel are not signatories to the treaty and are assumed to possess stockpiles of different levels.16 The aforementioned nuclear weapon states have yet to abolish their stockpiles and several states have

13 http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/projected-us-casualties-and-destruction.pdf 14 Ibid. 15 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34487.pdf 16 http://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/treaties/npt

8

developed nuclear weapon capabilities on their own which puts into question the successfulness of the NPT. The IAEA is the sister organization working to enforce the three pillars laid out in the NPT and is known as a “watchdog” organization. This is because it investigates all signatories to the treaty of their nuclear facilities to ensure that they are abiding by their treaty obligations. Again, its goal is to promote the peaceful use of nuclear technology and prevent its use for military purposes. An example of non-compliance and issues is represented by Iran within the past 5 years as it has garnered much international attention and criticism for its nuclear endeavors.17 Although the IAEA is an autonomous organization, it reports to the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. Similar to the IAEA and NPT is the CTBT, which is an effort to prevent the use of nuclear weapon testing in all environments for all purposes, and was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 1996.18 However, it has not entered into force due to the non-ratification of a few specific states.

Nuclear disarmament has been a long-term goal of many within the international community. The United Nations has set an outright goal of nuclear weapons reduction and has passed numerous resolutions condemning their use. Most important of these resolutions is Resolution 1653 of 1961. The resolution specifically condemned the use of nuclear weapons and stated that nuclear weapons would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to mankind and civilization”.19 The United Nations has recently affirmed, “disarmament is the best protection against such dangers, but achieving this goal has been a tremendously difficult challenge”.20 However, due to growing fear of the reduction of mutually assured destruction, nations have instead taken approaches to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons without completely eliminating them. The key issue nations face in these international agreements still appears to be the paradoxical notion that personal security needs to be reduced for total global security to be achieved. Furthermore, nations have worked together to create a series of independent treaties in which nuclear weapon free areas are created. These areas explicitly ban the utilization of nuclear weapons in specific areas.21 DISEC and Disarmament

Upon its inception, the United Nations organized itself by creating a series of committees. One of the first committees created was the Disarmament and International Security Committee. Still referred to as “The First Committee” by the United Nations General Assembly,

17 Ibid. 18 http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/ 19 http://www.abolitionforum.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/IHL-or-nuclear-weapons_choose-one.pdf 20 http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/ 21 http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/pdf/NWFZ-postcard-2010.pdf

9

the committee is tasked with addressing the global challenges to nuclear disarmament. It contains a tiered structure system in which general debate is first established, thematic discussions take place, and then action of individual drafts is finalized. The committee has made various landmark achievements in terms of reducing arms worldwide after its inception. Resolution 1 was invoked in which a commission was established to address “problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy.”22 Additionally, Resolution 1378 was introduced and was entitled “general and complete disarmament.” The resolution called all “Governments to make every effort to achieve a constructive solution” and expressed goals towards “general and complete disarmament.”23 The resolution specifically worked towards creating a “ten-nation disarmament committee” but did not state any specific action. Therefore, it appears that while DISEC is wholeheartedly enthusiastic about nuclear disarmament, it does not provide any significant means of achievement. It seems more idealistic than action driven. Why Goals for Disarmament Have Not Been Achieved

One of the largest issues with disarmament is compliance and enforcement. If nations cannot trust other nations to actively disarm themselves, then they do not obtain personal benefit or stability from personal disarmament. This directly plays into the argument of mutually assured destruction. Countries generally feel that a nuclear arsenal provides stability against enemies with nuclear weapons and may be less likely to comply if they feel vulnerable. A recent report from the United States Department of State indicated that “there are compliance questions and concerns – and in some instances, findings of serious treaty violations” that arose when analyzing disarmament compliance treaties.24 Furthermore, compliance is not easily verified. Verification of compliance currently relies on “open admission of violations, on-site inspections, reports by human intelligence, and national technical means.”25 However, none of these methods are foolproof, and various countries still maintain arsenals. Finally, various scholars still promote the enhancement of nuclear weapons regimes. Some scholar fear the “risks of nuclear proliferation by states such as Iran and North Korea,” and they therefore “underrate the value of deterrence” in establishing nuclear safety.26 Case Studies

22 http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/ 23 http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/1378(XIV) 24 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/230108.pdf 25 http://www.compton.edu/facultystaff/pflor/ps10docs/Pol.%20Science%2010%20Ch.%209.pdf 26 http://www.cfr.org/arms-control-disarmament-and-nonproliferation/global-nuclear-nonproliferation-regime/p18984

10

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

One important country to analyze is North Korea. It is asserted that North Korea currently has some form of nuclear weapons technology, and many nations are pressuring the nation to disarm. It is reported that after the United States and other nations pressured North Korea to disarm, it received no response from the nation’s leadership. North Korea was steadfast about maintaining its arsenal and not responding to threats from outside nations. In the current political context, the United States and many other nations took a policy of non-recognition and ignorance. It would not formally deal with North Korea in any diplomatic sort of way; however, with recent knowledge that North Korea has hacked into Sony databases in response to the recent American film “The Interview,” many scholars and political thinkers are pushing for formal deliberations with the nation.27 Furthermore, past discussions to disarm North Korea ended in massive failure. In 2008, the country participated with “South Korea, China, the United States, Japan, and Russia” in the Six Party Talks. These talks were explicitly established to increase relations with the participating nations and to increase overall international stability. However, North Korea’s response to the deliberations was that it “publicly renounced the goal of denuclearization and stressed that its nuclear-weapons program is permanent.”28 Some are advocating for a return to the Six Party Talks and for North Korea’s participation in disarmament, but at this time, it appears the country is unwilling to peacefully reduce any of its arsenals.

World War II One successful form of disarmament that resulted was after World War II. This disarmament was not the result of peaceful talks but instead of direct military action that was followed by diplomatic relations. After Japan acknowledged defeat, it worked with nations to call for a complete reduction of its nuclear arsenal. This arsenal was considered a “small, low-priority nuclear weapons program” but it was swiftly disarmed in “Article 9 of its 1947 Constitution”.29 It was considered a “unilateral decision” that prohibited current use and further creation of nuclear weapons by the nation. To this day, the nation of Japan defends its policy on disarmament. It states that “never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government” and wishes to avoid all types of nuclear combat.30 Therefore, it appears

27 http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/18/opinion/whiton-sony-hack-response/ 28 http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/07/03-america-reengage-north-korea-einhorn 29 A Global History of the Nuclear Arms Race 30 http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/un/disarmament/policy/pamph0404/part1.pdf

11

that one of the strongest examples of disarmament is the result of a military loss. While potential diplomatic relations are possible, it is interesting to note that the key distinction between the disarmament of Japan and the potential disarmament of North Korea is that Japan suffered real human losses prior to any real disarmament discussion. Arguments Against Disarmament

A major argument against disarmament is that it is not always mutual and can lead to power discrepancies within regions. After Ukraine gave up its 2,000 nuclear weapons it faced a greater power distribution with Russia. Political analysts reported that “Vladimir Putin wouldn't have seized Crimea if Ukraine had kept their nuclear weapons” but that the lack of a nuclear Ukraine to defend Crimea increased the domineering power of Russia within the region.31 Therefore, disarmament does not appear to be a successful strategy unless it is coupled with careful analysis. This analysis has to directly allow for balanced stability in a region. Power imbalances that result from single disarmament of nations can result in political problems.

A second issue that disarmament causes is an increase in the use of conventional warfare. It is reported that total disarmament would actually increase reliance on ground troops. Specifically, “if military assets were limited to conventional weapons, nations would experience fewer inhibitions against armed conflict.”32 Therefore, it is important to be cognizant of the potential for increased casualties that result from direct military action. While nuclear weapons themselves can cause drastic casualties, the mutually assured destruction scenarios and lack of actual use of these weapons can lead to overall stability and a lack of actual conflict.

31 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/too-bad-ukraine-didnt-kee_b_5235374.html 32 http://thebulletin.org/zero-correct-goal/case-against-total-nuclear-disarmament

12

Research Questions 1. Is your country a member state and supporter of the NPT, IAEA, or CTBT? Why or why not? 2. Have the NPT, IAEA, CTBT and related treaties and organizations been successful in reducing the spread of nuclear weapons and their goals of non-proliferation? 3. How would nuclear stability be achieved if disarmament were staggered? Is there a way for nations to disarm themselves at the same time? 4. Is there a peaceful way to convince nations like North Korea to disarm or is military action required? 5. Will the reduction of nuclear weapons increase or decrease international stability? Helpful Websites http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/projected-us-casualties-and-destruction.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34487.pdf http://www.abolitionforum.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/IHL-or-nuclear-weapons_choose-one.pdf http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/ http://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/treaties/npt