Background Guide Sample Templateummun/pdf/Security Council Background Guide.pdf · Welcome to UMMUN...

"Do not follow where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." Muriel Strode

UMMUN 2007 Background Guide

Security Council

UMMUN 2007


UMMUN 2007


Dear delegates,

Welcome to UMMUN 2007’s Security Council. My name is Bret Kabacinski, and I will be the director for this committee. I am currently a sophomore at Michigan, majoring in Political Science and Economics, with a hope to someday have a law degree or a degree in public policy. This is my 2nd year with UMMUN and my 2nd year in the Security Council, though it is the 9th year that I am involved in Model UN of some sort. As this is one of the most advanced committees at UMMUN, I expect the debate to be lively and the delegates to be prepared.

This year’s conference brings with it a few rules changes, including a new section of the rules dedicated to Security Council procedure. Before you come to the conference, please review the rules, as they are how this council will run, and it may be different than how things run at other places or have run in the past. I will be happy to answer any questions on procedure that you may have at the conference. Please note the addition of a third topic at the request of the secretariat, the situation in Kashmir. This was added to quell fears that we would run out of things to talk about. Also, be aware of the size of the committee: at 15 delegates, it is one of the smallest at the conference. As such, it depends on the active participation of all of the members of the committee to function well. This being the case, delegates for this committee must be prepared, and know that reading this guide is only the first step.

Certainly, this guide has good background information, but I encourage you to go beyond this in order to form more complete positions on your nation’s policy. Finally, be prepared for anything, and be willing to be flexible; this committee can be unpredictable at times. Good luck, and see you at the conference. Sincerely, Bret Kabacinski

UMMUN 2007


Table of contents

....................................................................................................................... Page Committee Background and Mission Statement................................................... 1 Topic Overviews................................................................................................... 1 Topic A: The Situation in Iran ............................................................................... 3 Background ............................................................................................... 3 Current Situation........................................................................................ 5 Bloc Positions ............................................................................................ 6 Focus Questions........................................................................................ 7 Research Links.......................................................................................... 8 Topic B: The Situation in Sudan ......................................................................... 10 Background ............................................................................................. 10 Current Situation...................................................................................... 13 Bloc Positions .......................................................................................... 14 Focus Questions...................................................................................... 15 Research Links........................................................................................ 15 Topic C: The Situation in Kashmir ...................................................................... 17 Background ............................................................................................. 17 Current Situation...................................................................................... 18 Bloc Positions .......................................................................................... 19 Focus Questions...................................................................................... 20 Research Links........................................................................................ 20 References ......................................................................................................... 21

UMMUN 2007


1Committee Background and Mission Statement

The United Nations Security Council is the main body of the UN responsible for

maintaining international peace and security. It is no wonder, therefore, that it is also one of the most closely-watched bodies of the UN as well. The Security Council is the only body of the UN that can take direct action to force or compel a nation to do anything; this can include calling upon member states to apply economic sanctions to a state, authorizing the use of military force against an aggressor state, or authorizing the use of UN peacekeepers. The Security Council also has other duties, such as recommending the admission of new states to the UN, but such duties should not come up during the course of debate in this conference. The Security Council is one of the most visible bodies of the UN, having dealt with issues such as the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, crises in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Timor-Leste (East Timor), and broader issues, such as international terrorism. It is also one of the smallest bodies in the UN, being made up of only fifteen nations – five permanent members (People’s Republic of China, Russian Federation, France, United States and United Kingdom) and ten seats for non-permanent members elected to two year terms. Any substantive matter must have the concurrence of the five permanent members to pass (see rule SC-4).

Technically, the Security Council has the authority to discuss any topic it wishes, but for this conference it is my hope that debate will only take place on the topics in this guide. Of course, if other events arise, such as a committee passing an important question and needing it ratified by the Council (see rule SC-3 for more details), we will discuss those events as well.

Topic overviews

The Situation in Iran

Nuclear proliferation in the nation of Iran has become an issue at the forefront of today’s potential threats to international peace and security. The issue of whether Iran is attempting to make progress with its nuclear technology is a moot one; the Iranian leadership admits that this is the case. However, there is disagreement over what that technology will be used for. While Iran maintains that the program is entirely for peaceful uses (i.e. nuclear power), some nations have expressed doubt over whether this is actually the case, and claim that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear weapon. While it is unlikely that Iran possesses the missile technology needed to threaten most of the European continent or North America, they would be able to target their hated rival, Israel. As Israel is a nation that already maintains a nuclear arsenal, the advent of an Iranian nuclear device has the potential to spark a disaster in the Middle East. Questions that the Security Council must address include: Does Iran’s program for nuclear proliferation threaten the political stability of the middle east? If so, what action by the Council is appropriate in order to prevent proliferation from taking place, or maintain the stability of the region if the Iranian program is successful?

UMMUN 2007


2The Situation in Sudan

The recent history of the nation of Sudan is one filled with internal conflict and civil strife. This conflict has created millions of refugees and left over 200,000 dead since the most recent wave of fighting began in 2003, as rebel groups, such as the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), and Sudanese government-backed militias fight, most notably in the region of Darfur, but also in other parts of the country as well. The rebel groups claim that the Sudanese government has engaged in the ethnic cleansing of the region’s black population, in favor of the Arabs in the area, though the UN has not declared the actions of the government and allied groups as such. While the both the UN and African Union have passed measures to bring peace to the region, their efforts have fallen short thus far, as the fighting rages on. The Security Council must consider a few things when coming to a resolution on this topic, including whether the actions of the government and allied militias constitute genocide, whether UN or African Union peacekeepers can and should be used to bring a temporary end to the conflict in order to facilitate long-term peace talks, and what consequences the perpetrators of the conflict should face.

The Situation in Kashmir

Kashmir has been a region rife with conflict since the then-ruler of the territory, Maharaja Hari Singh, decided to cede the territory to India, during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947. Recently, the conflict has taken on a new dimension, as both sides developed nuclear weapons during the 1990s. This conflict has sparked three wars, the last of which came to an end in 1971. However, tensions still exist between the two nations, as evidenced by the continuing existence of a UN observer force on the border of India and Pakistan, established in 1949. Today, the Council must consider what actions, if any, are prudent in the cessation of the conflict and brokering of peace in the region.

UMMUN 2007


3Topic A: The Situation in Iran

For over fifty years, the nation of Iran has attempted to develop nuclear technology.

The revolution of 1979, and the subsequent formation of the Islamic Republic of Iran,

ended the willingness of the western powers to assist Iran in its nuclear development, and

began the era which the world finds itself in today. With the declaration by the United

States that Iran is attempting to not only develop nuclear power, but also nuclear weapons,

a great deal of pressure has been put on the Islamic Republic to open its nuclear program

to international scrutiny, a move that the leadership in Iran has been reluctant to make.

The Council must decide whether Iran’s nuclear program constitutes a threat to

international peace and security, and if so, what to do about it.

Background

The United Nations has stood at the forefront of the movement to prevent the

proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is the

latest in a long line of nations of concern with nuclear aspirations. Iran’s nuclear program

dates back to the mid-1950s, when Iran and the United States cooperated to found Iran’s

nuclear program for energy purposes only. This cooperation continued into the 1970s, until

Iran’s revolution of 1979. The revolution caused Iranian-Western relations to deteriorate

greatly, not least because of the occupation of the U.S. embassy by Iranian revolutionaries

for 444 days. Between then and 2002, Iran continued to develop nuclear technology, with

varied results. This period was marked by bilateral cooperation between Iran and Russia

and Iran and China, with Russia and China both providing assistance in construction of

nuclear facilities, as well as supplies for nuclear enrichment.

UMMUN 2007


4The most recent era of this situation began in 2002, with President of the

United States George W. Bush including Iran on his list of nations actively seeking

Weapons of Mass Destruction (the “axis of evil”) during his State of the Union address.

Later in 2002, Iranian exiles came forward to announce that Iran had built two previously-

unknown facilities for the enrichment of uranium and procession of heavy water, both

crucial in the development of nuclear power or weaponry. Also in 2002, the Russians and

Iranians began work on the previously-started but incomplete nuclear reactor at Bushehr,

which is scheduled to be completed in late 2006.

In 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN subsidiary body

charged with the duty of inspecting nuclear facilities worldwide in order to ensure

compliance with relevant international treaties, began inspecting Iran’s nuclear plants, with

limited success. Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, criticized Iran for not being as

cooperative with the IAEA inspectors as they could be, however later in 2003 also

announced that there was “no evidence” that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. The

United States, of course, disagreed with Mr. ElBaradei’s assessment of the situation, and

reasserted their belief that Tehran was seeking a nuclear device.

In late-2003, Iran met with ambassadors from France, Germany and the United

Kingdom in an attempt by the Europeans to get Iran to stop enriching uranium and sign the

IAEA’s “additional protocol”, allowing for more inspections of Iranian nuclear sites. Iran

later threatened to pull out of the additional protocol, but not the Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty (NPT), if its nuclear program was reported to the UN (this reporting occurred in

February 2006, and Iran restarted their enrichment program soon after). Iran’s refusal to

carry out its diplomatic agreements has been a continuing theme over the past few years.

UMMUN 2007


5Starting with the agreement on the “additional protocol”, Iran has pledged to halt

uranium enrichment no less that 4 times, only to restart their enrichment program each

time.

The United Nations Security Council took up the issue of Iranian nuclear

proliferation in 2006 with resolution 1696. In this resolution, the Council demanded that

Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, and submit to more

inspections from the IAEA to ensure that such activities have in fact stopped. The deadline

for Iran to comply with the Security Council’s demands passed on August 31st, 2006, with

Iran failing to suspend any nuclear enrichment activities.

Current Situation

Today, the situation stands at an impasse. Iran says that it has been successful in

enriching uranium, but continues to claim that the uranium was enriched for the sole

purpose of making nuclear power, not weapons. Iran has stated multiple times that nuclear

weapons go against the tenets of Islam, and so could not be produced in the Islamic

Republic on a moral basis. The United States does not accept this, and continues to allege

that Iran’s nuclear program is for the purpose of making weapons. The Europeans still

seek a diplomatic solution, but since the UN passed resolution 1696, no diplomatic

solutions have been presented.

As of this writing, Iran is still a ratifying member of the NPT, though not of the

additional protocol, and as such is, in theory, held to the standards of that treaty.

Resolution 1696 was passed in part to ensure Iran’s compliance with the treaty, though

some of the provisions of the resolution were not followed by Iran by the deadline set by

the resolution. At this time, no further negotiations or resolutions have been proposed on

UMMUN 2007


6the floor of the Council, though a resolution is currently being written by the UK,

France and Germany. This resolution proposes sanctions on trade involving nuclear

technology and travel restrictions. The US has pushed for a stronger resolution, while

Russia and China have both worked for a more watered-down proposal, involving time

limits on sanctions.

This issue of Iranian nuclear weapon proliferation may be a bit less urgent than

some parties would like to claim, as the IAEA, as well as third party sources have claimed

that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, they are still several years away from obtaining

them. Investigative reporters in the United States have reported that the US Central

Intelligence Agency believes that there is “no proof” of Iranian nuclear weapons, though

this is a claim that the US government denies.

Bloc Positions The United States – The current administration of the United States has been resolute in

its claim that Iran, in addition to any nuclear power aspirations they may have, is actively

seeking the technology needed to make a nuclear weapon. The US has no active bilateral

diplomatic ties with Iran, and has not since the revolution of 1979, making diplomacy more

complicated. That having been said, the US spearheaded the effort in the UN to pass

resolution 1696, showing that the US is open to diplomatic as well as other solutions.

China and Russia – China and Russia have both been more open to the possibility of Iran

developing nuclear technology than most others on the Council, assisting in either the

construction of nuclear facilities or the supply of nuclear materials. However, there has

UMMUN 2007


7been a bit of a falling out between Russia and Iran after Russia proposed to supply

Iran with nuclear fuel that could only be used in reactors and not for weapons, and Iran

refused.

Western Europe – Western Europe, like the United States, has tried to prevent the

proliferation of Iranian nuclear weapons, but unlike the United States have diplomatic

relations with Iran. This has allowed nations in this bloc to negotiate directly with Iran as

well as work in the United Nations for a diplomatic solution. This bloc prefers to use

diplomacy first, though the efficacy of such an approach remains in question.

Iran and the Middle East – Iran has remained steadfast in its desire to develop nuclear

technology, be it for power generation (as Iran has claimed), or weapons (as the US has

claimed), and has found support from its neighbors. Resolution 1696 passed by a vote of

14 in favor to 1 against, the one being Qatar. However, instead of simply wanting to give

Iran a blank check to do with what it wishes, Qatar objected to the resolution on the

grounds that it would further inflame the region, an outcome not good for Iran or its

neighbors.

Focus Questions • What is the reason that Iran is seeking nuclear technology? Is it peaceful, or is it

possible that Iran also seeks nuclear weapons?

• Does Iran’s nuclear program threaten the stability of the Middle East? (note that this is

not the same as the question above – Iran’s program could be peaceful and threaten

the stability of the region if nations around it do not fully trust Iran.)

UMMUN 2007


8• What place, if any, does the Security Council have in preventing Iran from

seeking nuclear technology? Should the Council only enforce prior agreements made

by Iran (remember, they remained a signatory to the NPT, even after withdrawing from

the additional protocol), or can the council take a more proactive role?

• What resolutions to the current situation does your nation see as acceptable? Is your

nation in favor of the status quo, does it favor more diplomacy, economic sanctions on

Iran, or some other solution?

• Does your nation possess nuclear technology (peaceful or otherwise)? Are they a

signatory to relevant protocols governing nuclear technology (NPT, Comprehensive

Test-Ban Treaty, etc.)?

Research Links http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/ -- The home page for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/6193046.html -- Text of Security Council Resolution 1696, concerning the proliferation of nuclear technology in Iran http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/809969.7.html -- Transcript of Security Council meeting #5500, the meeting during which Resolution 1696 was agreed to http://www.iaea.org/index.html -- Home page for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf -- A PDF made by the American Congressional Research Service on the recent history of Iran’s nuclear program http://www.osce.org/fsc/22156.html -- The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s page on non-proliferation, including the OSCE’s formal position on the subject. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192435,00.html -- Time magazine article written by Iran’s former top nuclear negotiator outlining Iran’s basic position http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm -- Good site for the history of Iran’s nuclear program since 2002, and details on Iran’s current nuclear capabilities

UMMUN 2007

http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/

http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/6193046.html

http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/809969.7.html

http://www.iaea.org/index.html

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf

http://www.osce.org/fsc/22156.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1192435,00.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm


9 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm -- BBC News: “’No proof’ of Iran nuclear arms” (Nov. 20, 2006); states that Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker claims intelligence sources have found no development of Iranian nuclear weapons http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6086084.stm -- BBC News: “US demands UN sanctions on Iran” (Oct. 26, 2006)

UMMUN 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6167304.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6086084.stm


10Topic B: The Situation in Sudan

The conflict in Sudan has reached catastrophic proportions, with accusations of

genocide by the government and government-backed militias gaining more credibility with

every passing day. While both the African Union and United Nations have acted to attempt

to quell the violence, neither body’s actions have been sufficient to date, and the fighting

rages on. With nearly two million people displaced and over 400,000 dead, it is clear that

the Security Council must consider this topic again, with the possibility of taking stronger

action than in the past, to end this conflict once and for all.

Background

Sudan’s history is one rife with conflict and civil strife, and the situation today is no

different. The latest round of violence began around 2003, and is multi-faceted, involving a

civil war, the conflict in Darfur, and a war with neighboring nation Chad.

The civil war began in the early 1980s, between the government in northern Sudan,

and a group of rebels, the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), based in the south.

Currently, the civil war appears to have ended, with a peace treaty signed on January 9th,

2005, after taking an estimated 2 million lives. This gave the south autonomy and a chance

to hold a vote on secession from the north in 2011, along with other concessions. Parts of

this conflict have fed into the more widely-known, still continuing conflict in Darfur, so while

the war itself is over, its effects are still being felt.

The conflict in Darfur has claimed over 400,000 military and civilian lives, according

to the UN and other non-government organizations (NGOs), and continues to kill and

displace even more. The latest era of the conflict started in 2003, pitting the Sudanese

UMMUN 2007


11Liberation Army (not the same as the SPLA in southern Sudan) and the Justice and

Equality Movement (JEM) against the Janjaweed militias.

The SLA and the JEM were founded with different goals in mind, but have

cooperated in their struggle against the government and the Janjaweed. The SLA was

founded in the late 1980s in response to a famine in the area and, in turn, the formation of

the Janjaweed. That famine brought on the formation of the Arab Janjaweed militia, formed

to fight the black farmers of the area. While the SLA was created with secession from

Sudan in mind, it has since publicly rescinded that goal, now seeking “a united democratic

Sudan”. The SLA has accused the government of ignoring Darfur and its needs, and thus

has rebelled against the government in Khartoum.

The Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), a group of black Muslims in the Darfur

region, was founded in 1999, after the president of Sudan at the time, Omar Al-Bashir,

dissolved the national assembly, declared a state of emergency, and expelled the black

Muslims from Darfur from the government. These expelled went on to found JEM, for the

purpose of gaining greater African representation in the Sudanese government.

The government of Sudan, while not officially in the conflict at all, has been accused

of backing the Janjaweed, as there have been demands by the international community for

the disarming of the Janjaweed, with little to no action taken by the government. Indeed,

during the famine of 1987, the government disarmed black Muslim groups in Darfur, in

favor of arming the Arab Janjaweed.

In 2003, the SLA began to raid Sudanese military bases and towns. In response to

these raids, the Janjaweed started to fight back against the SLA, and thus the conflict

began. The first attempt at a peaceful resolution came on April 8, 2004, when the JEM,

UMMUN 2007


12SLA and Sudanese government signed a ceasefire brokered by Chad and the

African Union (AU). However, this ceasefire did not stop the raids by the Janjaweed or the

rebel groups. The raids continued for more than a year, some of them directed against the

citizens of Darfur, which led then-Secretary General of the UN Kofi Annan declaring that

the humanitarian situation in Sudan was dangerously close to genocide, given the tactics

of the groups involved, and the lack of food or medical supplies (however, to this day, the

UN has not formally declared the situation in Sudan “genocide”). Due to these raids, more

than one million Sudanese civilians were displaced, mostly to Chad and the surrounding

region.

In December of 2005, the Janjaweed raided a town in eastern Chad, which caused

Chad to declare war on Sudan, starting the Chadian-Sudanese conflict. As an opponent to

the Janjaweed and the government of Sudan, Chad and the SLA and JEM were natural

allies, and for a limited time in early 2006, the SLA and JEM merged to form a united rebel

group. The fallout from such a conflict was evident quickly, as Chad threatened to evict the

estimated 200,000 refugees from Darfur if no resolution to the conflict was formed by June

of 2006. While no resolution was agreed to, nearly 200,000 refugees still live in camps in

eastern Chad.

2006 brought no end to the conflict, if anything, the diplomatic situation has

worsened. In April, the government of Chad officially cut diplomatic ties with the Sudanese

government, citing Sudan’s support for the Janjaweed rebels. The humanitarian situation

also worsened, as new attacks cut off supplies from some 350,000 Sudanese refugees.

Throughout the conflict, the UN Security council has considered the situation in

Sudan, passing a number of resolutions on the topic, beginning in 2003. These resolutions

UMMUN 2007


13were merely declarations of the Council’s desire for a peaceful ending to the crisis in

the region until resolution 1706 was passed in September 2006, authorizing a new, 17,300

troop international peacekeeping force to be sent into Sudan, to join the already-in-place

UNMIS force installed in 2005 to enforce the peace agreement ending the civil war. This

new UN force was meant to reinforce the under-equipped, under-funded African Union

(AU) force of about 7,000 troops already in Sudan. However, this new UN force would

never make it to Sudan, due to objections from the Sudanese government. Things looked

even bleaker when the AU declared that they would pull their force out when their mandate

expired on September 31st, but they later reconsidered, and extended the mandate to the

end of 2006.

Current Situation

The current situation in Sudan is dire. As the conflict continues, the humanitarian

situation worsens and the death toll rises. The end of November brought hope that a UN-

led peacekeeping force would be established in Darfur, but again this was stopped due to

recalcitrance by Sudan. The UN Security Council is currently briefed on the situation

frequently, passing a resolution with its findings (examples include resolutions 1663, 1665,

1672, 1679, 1706, 1709, 1713 and 1714, all from 2006). In its latest resolution, it extended

the mandate of UNMIS until April 30, 2007, leaving a UN presence in the region, if not the

one preferred by the council.

The 17,300 troop peacekeeping force originally proposed appears to be an idea that

will never be realized, though third-party observers claim that with more great-power

pressure, Sudan would be forced to capitulate to the demands of the UN and allow the

force to enter.

UMMUN 2007


14 Bloc Positions African Union – The African Union has maintained a force of approximately 7,000

peacekeepers in Sudan since April 2005, made up mostly of Rwandan and Nigerian

troops. The force was originally authorized in April 2004, starting with 150 troops and

slowly growing to the size that it is today. The Union appears to be wavering, however,

threatening to end the mandate of the mission in September 2006 due to the high

monetary costs and constant attacks from rebel groups. This group has been especially

concerned with ending the conflict, seeing as how their proximity to it makes it easier for

the instability to spill over into Union nations. The Union, however, has not declared the

violence “genocide”, much like the UN. The Union has also welcomed the possibility of the

UN sending peacekeepers of their own to reinforce the AU mission, but that has not come

to pass.

Great Powers– The developed world has been resolute in their rhetoric on the Sudanese

crisis, wishing for a peaceful resolution as quickly as possible. The United States congress

unanimously declared in 2004 that the situation in Darfur constituted genocide, and in

2006 voiced its support for the AU peacekeeping force, calling for increased support from

the NATO powers for this force. The United States has also put into place sanctions on

Sudanese oil and oil revenues. The US and UK have been some of the strongest

proponents of both the AU peacekeepers and the proposed UN peacekeeping mission. Of

the five permanent members on the body, Russia and China have been the most cautious

regarding the proposal to send in UN peacekeepers, both abstaining on resolution 1706.

UMMUN 2007


15Focus Questions • What is the most effective way to end the violence? Is it a UN mission, a strengthened

AU mission, or some other proposal?

• Does the situation constitute genocide? If so, should the UN declare so, and what

would that mean for the region?

• Is your nation willing to give money, troops, or other supplies if a UN mission in Darfur

required such a donation?

• How closely affected is your nation by the crisis in Darfur?

• What are your views on the use of sanctions or other punitive measures to compel the

Sudanese government to comply with the wishes of the Council?

Research Links http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/darfur.htm -- A good primer on the background of the conflict http://www.unmis.org/ -- Home page for UNMIS, the UN Mission in Sudan http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/3517516.html -- Text of resolution 1714, the latest resolution passed by the UNSC. http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/9111280.html -- Text of resolution 1706, the resolution authorizing a UN peacekeeping mission for Darfur. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm -- BBC NEWS: “Q&A: Sudan’s Darfur conflict” (Nov 16, 2006) http://www0.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20617&Cr=sudan&Cr1= -- UN News Centre: “To stop Darfur conflict spreading, foreign presence needed on border with Chad – Annan” http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/chad0206/ -- Human Rights Watch’s analysis of the Darfur conflict spreading into Chad http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1668902 -- ABC NEWS: “Security Council split on Darfur Conflict” (Feb 27, 2006)

UMMUN 2007

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/darfur.htm

http://www.unmis.org/



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3496731.stm

http://www0.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20617&Cr=sudan&Cr1

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/chad0206/

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1668902


16 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/17/news/darfur.php -- International Herald Tribune: “Sudan to let UN force enter Darfur” (Nov 17, 2006) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20855&Cr=sudan&Cr1= -- UN News Centre: “Sudan: Clashes in North Darfur prompt humanitarian warning from UN mission” (Dec 5, 2006)

UMMUN 2007

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/17/news/darfur.php

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20855&Cr=sudan&Cr1


17Topic C: The Situation in Kashmir

India and Pakistan have fought over the regions of Kashmir and Jammu for nearly

60 years, as long as either nation has been independent. The Security Council has passed

some measures on this conflict, but has done nothing of true substance other than

establish a limited military “observer force”. The Council must again consider this conflict,

in the hope that changes in the political landscape, both in India and Pakistan, and in the

world as a whole, can better broker peace and stability in the region.

Background

The conflict over Kashmir is one of the longer-running territorial conflicts that the

Security Council has had to deal with, dating back to October 1947 and the independence

of India from the United Kingdom. When India got its independence, it was declared that its

565 states would be divided up into two countries: states with a majority Muslim population

would become Pakistan, all others would become India. Jammu and Kashmir were two

states with majority Muslim populations, but were ruled by a Hindu prince, Maharaja Hari

Singh. As such, Singh preferred Jammu and Kashmir to remain independent from either

new state, but neither state liked that solution. Under heavy pressure from India, including

the threat of invasion, Singh decides to give the territory to India, a decision made final on

October 26, 1947.

The decision by Singh to give Jammu and Kashmir to India sparked the first of three

wars over the territory in 1948. The end of that war brought what appeared to be a

resolution to the dispute: a withdraw of all troops from the contested regions, and a

ceasefire line, known as the “line of control”. The ceasefire to end this war brought with it

the provision that the final owner of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by a plebiscite

UMMUN 2007


18in the contested region under the supervision of the United Nations. The ceasefire

was successful in ending the war, but not much else; few troops were actually removed,

and no plebiscite was ever held. This ceasefire only settled the situation until 1965, when

the two nations went to war again over the contested region. They fought for five weeks,

ending in a stalemate, and agreeing to another UN-backed ceasefire. The final round of

conflict came in 1971, ending in defeat for Pakistan and leading to the Simla Agreement, a

treaty that stated that India and Pakistan would attempt to settle their disputes via bilateral

negotiation. The Simla Agreement also reinforced the Line of Control as the border

between India and Pakistan.

The 1990s complicated the conflict, as both nations conducted underground tests of

nuclear devices. Both nations possessing nuclear weapons had the potential to escalate

the conflict to a nuclear war, a much more serious proposition than the three wars that had

already taken place. However, after a number of skirmishes between the Indian army and

Pakistani rebels in the Kashmir region in the late 1990s, both sides agree to draw down

their forces in the region. This peace did not last long, as in 2001, an attack on the Indian

parliament raised tensions again. For the next year, the two sides traded threats, but no

war ever broke out. This era of conflict largely ended when India and Pakistan renewed

diplomatic ties in May 2003, but this diplomatic maneuver does not mean the area is no

longer contested, and new conflict could break out at any time.

Current Situation

Today, the Line of Control is a semi-official border, not explicitly accepted by either

side, as they each maintain a claim to the entire region. To resolve the issue, Pakistan still

prefers a plebiscite, knowing that the largely-Muslim population of the region would likely

UMMUN 2007


19choose to join Pakistan. India accepts the possibility of a plebiscite, but first

demands that Pakistan vacate its part of the territory demarcated by the line of control.

That having been said, India still argues that the entirety of Jammu and Kashmir is

rightfully India’s, having been granted to India in 1947.

The UN maintains an observer force on the Line of Control (UNMOGIP),

established in 1949 by UNSC resolution 47, for the purpose of supervising the ceasefire

line agreed to by both parties. After the resolution of the 1971 war, India claimed that the

mandate of UNMOGIP had expired, though Pakistan disagreed. Due to this disagreement,

the UN has decided to keep UNMOGIP in place. A Security Council resolution would be

required to disband the force.

Pakistan has recently offered to give up its claim over the region, in return for a

demilitarization of the region, and semi-autonomy for the Kashmiris. So far, little response

has been seen from India, though Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has found some

opposition from hard-line Islamists in his own country.

Bloc Positions Islamic World – The Islamic world has stood squarely behind the Pakistanis in their pursuit

of the disputed region, however, it is unclear if Mr. Musharraf’s new proposal will cause

that support to splinter, and create two factions: those who support Musharraf, and those

who still seek ownership of the entire region for Pakistan. Still, it is likely that the majority of

the Islamic world will continue to support Pakistan, one way or another, into the future.

Great Powers – The west has been largely inactive in the resolution of the conflict over

Kashmir since the end of the second conflict in 1965, and with the exception of

UMMUN 2007


20establishing and sending forces for UNMOGIP in 1948, has done very little of

substance in the UN. Still, support for peace has been unanimous. The only dissent on the

Council has been from the then-USSR, on the issue of troop withdrawal from the region (in

the form of an abstention on resolution 215 (1965)).

Focus Questions • What solution would your nation like to see to the territorial conflict? Do you prefer the

territory be given entirely to India, entirely to Pakistan, a division of the territory, a

plebiscite, or some other solution?

• What role should the Security Council (or the entire UN) have in resolving this conflict?

What steps should be taken to ensure that conflict does not break out for a fourth time

between India and Pakistan?

• What should happen to the UN observer force (UNMOGIP) currently on the border

between India and Pakistan? Should it be disbanded? If not, what events would bring

the end of its mandate?

Research Links http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/ -- The home page for the UN observer force established in 1949 and still operating on the Indian-Pakistani border. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/kashmir/front.html -- Short background of the conflict from the Washington Post http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/kashmir/index.html -- CNN’s report on the conflict, including other links to somewhat recent events in the region. http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/6063892.html -- Text of Security Council resolutions 38, 39, 47 and 51 (1948), passed in response to the ongoing conflict, and establishing UNMOGIP. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp -- A think tank’s analysis of the amount of damage a nuclear war between India and Pakistan would cause

UMMUN 2007

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/kashmir/front.html

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/kashmir/index.html


http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/southasia.asp


21References

All sources in the “research links” section of the paper were used, as well as those below: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4224757.stm -- BBC NEWS: “UN rules out genocide in

Darfur” (Published Feb, 1 2005, accessed Dec 6, 2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4227835.stm -- BBC NEWS: “US convinced of Darfur

‘genocide’” (Published Feb 1, 2005, accessed Dec 6, 2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6144498.stm -- BBC NEWS: “Q&A: Peacekeeping in

Darfur” (Published Dec 1, 2006, accessed Dec 7, 2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6208660.stm -- BBC NEWS: “Musharraf pushes

Kashmir proposal” (Published Dec. 6, 2006, accessed Dec 12, 2006) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/353352.stm -- BBC NEWS: “Q&A: Kashmir Dispute” (Published

Nov 25, 2002, accessed Dec 7, 2006) http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/06/kashmir.timeline/ -- CNN News:

“Timeline: Conflict over Kashmir” (Published Nov 25, 2003, accessed Dec 8, 2006) United Nations. Security Council. 1245th meeting. Resolution 214 (1965) (Concerning the

situation in Kashmir) (S/RES/214). September 27, 1965. United Nations. Security Council. 1251st meeting. Resolution 215 (1965) (Concerning the

situation in Kashmir) (S/RES/215). November 5, 1965.

UMMUN 2007




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6208660.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/353352.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/02/06/kashmir.timeline/

Background Guide Sample Templateummun/pdf/Security Council Background Guide.pdf · Welcome to UMMUN...

Documents

Transcript of Background Guide Sample Templateummun/pdf/Security Council Background Guide.pdf · Welcome to UMMUN...