GA1 Background Guide - University of...

Hello Delegates! My name is Andrew Merdinger and I will be your director for General Assembly 1st Committee at UGAMUNC this year. I am from Alpharetta, Georgia and in my third year at UGA double majoring in risk management and insurance and international affairs with a minor in Chinese. This is also my third year on the collegiate team and second consecutive year directing DISEC. Outside of Model UN, I am a member of the UGA club ultimate frisbee team, the Underdawgs. I am also an avid Georgia sports fan and you will consistently find me in Sanford Stadium, Stegeman Coliseum, and Foley Field rooting for the Dawgs. My AD this year is Alex Vey. He is a first year majoring in Political Science. Hailing form Chattanooga, Tennessee, Alex has participated in both Model UN and Mock Trial in high school and is attempting to balance both at UGA as well. As you will see below our topics for discussion this year are peacekeeping operation reform, cyberterrorism, and preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction to non-state actors. Alex and I both feel that each of these issues warrant lengthy international attention. Please note a few final procedural considerations. First, in committee, we will be adhering to parliamentary procedure as laid out in the UGAMUNC rules of procedure guide provided on the UGAMUC website (www.uga.edu/modelun). We highly suggest you familiarize yourself with its contents. Second, all delegates are encouraged to submit a position paper. However, papers turned in after the posted UGAMUNC deadline will be significantly penalized. If you have any questions feel free to email me at [email protected]. We look forward to seeing everyone in February. Sincerely, Andrew Merdinger Director, General Assembly 1st

UGAMUNC 2010 General Assembly 1st

1

General Assembly, First Committee Background

Efforts to prevent war and its effects have been a focal point of international relations since the founding of the League of Nations in the 1920’s. As World War II ended, the victorious Allies established the United Nations to prevent such carnage from ever happening again. The charter drafted by the United Nations’ original fifty nations called for a General Assembly to address grievances and international issues. The Charter also established six committees to provide recommendations for resolutions. Currently, the United Nations is composed of 192 member nations, each of which sits on the First Committee. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) First Committee is one of the six main bodies within the General Assembly; it is one of the original organizational bodies established by the United Nations to provide adequate research and information for the UN General Assembly. Formally referred to as the First Committee: Disarmament and International Security (DISEC), the body focuses on issues concerning disarmament and international security. This year marks the 63rd anniversary of the founding of the UN as well as DISEC. Any member of the United Nations General Assembly may introduce a topic for consideration. Members of the General Assembly decide whether the topic requires attention, and if so, it is assigned to the appropriate committee. The First Committee begins work every August with a set of topics for discussion. These topics are then debated within the committee, and the committee suggests particular actions or resolutions to make. Contemporary issues within the First Committee pertain to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction (including biological and chemical weapons), and small arms and lightweight weapons trade. While it is not the First Committee’s role to take decisive action on various topics of pressing need, it does deliberate on various issues and reports its findings to the United Nations Security Council.


2

Topic I: Peacekeeping Operations Reform

Historical Background The United Nations was founded, in the words of its Charter, in order “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”1 Meeting this challenge is arguably the most essential function of the UN, and, to a very significant degree, the standard by which it is judged by the international community. Peacekeeping operations (PKOs) are one of the main mechanisms used by UN to curb conflicts around the globe. Although the UN charter does not directly mention peacekeeping within its text, the authorization to deploy peacekeeping troops stems from the Charter’s call to mediate disputes, as well as the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) ability to authorize the use military force in dispute resolution. In early 1943 world leaders began to advocate for the establishment of a “Keep the Peace Force,” a body comprised of land, air, and sea forces supplied by UN member states. Over the next five years, the foundational groundwork was laid to bring this taskforce to the international community. However, it was not until 1948 that the first UN peacekeeping mission began with the purpose of observing and maintaining the Arab-Israeli ceasefire. Two years later, in 1950, the UN deployed its first non-observer force to the Korean Peninsula, which successfully pushed North Korean forces back to the 38th Parallel mark. The first overwhelming success of armed UN peacekeeping occurred in 1956 when the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) was deployed to mitigate the tension of troop withdraws in the Suez Canal. The success of this event prompted the international community to call for increased UN peacekeeping operations throughout the globe.2

Although largely regarded as a failure, the Congo Operation (UNOC), lasting from 1960 to 1964, is also an essential benchmark for UN peacekeeping for three reasons. First, the conflict occurred within a collapsed state, testing the UN’s ability to mediate peace-talks between hostile parties still engaged in armed conflict in an environment absent of civilian institutions through which the UN could operate. Second, the conflict, in large part, dealt not only with political tensions between the involved groups, but also with a volatile civilian element.

Finally, and most importantly, the United Nations Security Council’s authorization of the use of force marked the first and one of only two incidences where UNSC authorized peacekeepers to play a peace enforcing role rather than simply a peacekeeping role. As US-Soviet tensions 1 "Charter of the United Nations: Preamble." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. United Nations. Web. 23 Sept. 2009. <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml> 2 Goulding, Marrack. "The Evolution of United Nations Peacekeeping." International Affairs 69.3 (1993): 451-64


3

increased with the progression the Cold War, UN peacekeeping efforts around the globe stalled as each superpower blocked action in the Security Council. The end of the Cold War ushered in the second generation of UN peacekeeping operations with twenty new operations authorized over a five-year period from 1989 to 1994. This activity spike led to increased activity in areas where conflict had not yet ceased, specifically throughout Africa and Eastern Europe, and often incorporated both civilian and military personnel into peacekeeping forces.3 Despite an increase of almost 700% in peacekeeping around the globe, the UN began to garner much criticism for its failure to maintain peaceful environments throughout its areas of operation. The mid-1990’s was marked by a series of setbacks to peacekeeping operations. Failures in Rwanda and Srebrenica, Bosnia led to an overall reduction of peacekeeping authorizations by the UNSC. The rise of the new millennium coincided with the beginning of a third generation of peacekeeping operations. A renewed confidence in UN peacekeeping efforts led to several authorized missions in Africa and Eastern Europe. To date, the United Nations has authorized sixty-three peacekeeping missions across six continents, seventeen of which are still active as of early 2009.4 Structure of Peace Operations United Nations peacekeeping operations encompass three main components: peacemaking and conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and peace-building.5 The main goal of UN peacemaking and long-term conflict resolution is "to bring hostile parties to agreement, essentially through such peaceful means as those foreseen in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations: Pacific Settlement of Disputes.”6 This goal is mainly accomplished through the use of civilian personnel who monitor peace processes in post-conflict negotiations. Peacemaking gained prominence in the early 1990’s after the end of the Cold War and acts as an extension of parties’ efforts to settle disputes. Peacemaking efforts are formally defined as “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, [and] resort to regional agencies" in Article 33 of the UN Constitution. Similarly, the UNSC has the ability to intervene through the use of blockades, sanctions as well as strategic uses of force to maintain a hostility free environment. Peacekeeping, like peace operations, is generally subdivided in to three broad categories: maintenance of cease-fires, implementation of settlements involving combatant reintegration into civilian life, and the protection of humanitarian aid.7 The presence of peacekeeping forces within conflict zones allows each party to withdraw troops away from the frontlines, creating an 3 Mingst, Karen A. United Nations in the post-Cold War era. Boulder: Westview, 2000 4"Honouring 60 Years of United Nations Peacekeeping." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 23 Sept. 2009. <http://www.un.org/events/peacekeeping60/60years.shtml>. 5 "UN Peacekeeping : Meeting New Challenges." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 23 Sept. 2009. <http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q1.htm> 6 "An Agenda for Peace." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 24 Sept. 2009. <http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html> 7 "Definition of Peacekeeping." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. Web. 24 Sept. 2009. <http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/field/body_pkeep.htm>


4

environment conducive for peace negotiations. The implementation of conflict settlements between warring states allows a multidimensional and comprehensive solution to evolve into a political system governed by free and fair elections. These solutions are generally implemented for limited periods of time during which the peace-process becomes highly consolidated, creating the foundation for the withdrawal of peacekeeping forces. Moreover, success in the second facet of peacekeeping ensures the strengthening of states’ institutions through the wider implementation of civilian experts within a variety of areas including human rights and local security. While peacekeeping and peacemaking facilitate peace accords within PKO’s, peace-building attempts to prevent states from relapsing into conflict. Peacebuilding involves a full range of approaches, processes, and stages needed for transformation toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships, as well as governance modes and structures. Peacebuilding also includes establishing legal and human rights institutions and fair and effective governance and dispute resolution processes. Effective peacebuilding generally requires careful and participatory planning, coordination among various efforts, and sustained commitments by both local and donor partners. Contextualized within the UN, peacebuilding today extends far beyond the scope of its functioning definition of intrusive missions intending to stabilize societies.8 In 2006 the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), a group of comprised of 31 member states, was created by the UN Secretariat in order to bridge the gap between actions taken by the UNSC and general assembly bodies. While the UNSC deals largely with the task of preventing international security threats, the PBC centers its attention on the prevention of relapse. In order to produce its stated goal, the PBC coordinates aid and redistributes it to states in need.9 Despite the crucial role of peacebuilding within the peace process, due to its highly economic nature, lies strictly within the PBC. Challenges In early 2000 UN leadership called for an in-depth reevaluation of peacekeeping strategy following two catastrophic blunders: the ethnic cleansing of 30,000 refugees and 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in Srebrenica, a declared UN protected safe zone with a peacekeeping presence, and the Rwandan genocide of between 800,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsi civilians. Although the UN had undertaken comprehensive efforts to enhance its current operations as well as implement new ones, successfully enhancing the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping has stretched the organization to its functional capacity. A robust military presence is considered essential during the initial stages of a peacekeeping operation in order to establish the mission’s credibility and deter potential spoilers, parties who derail the peace negotiation process by instigating attacks against negotiating groups in order to reignite hostilities. Finding troops with the necessary training, equipment, and logistical support to effectively undertake the complex and often dangerous tasks required of UN peacekeepers remains a key determinant of an operation’s success. However, this is easier said than done. The

8 Brenner, Thorston, Andrea Binder, and Phillip Rottman. Learning to Build Peace? United Nations Peacebuilding and Organizational Learning: Developing a Research Framework. Tech. Germany, 2007. Print. 9Jenkins, Rob. The UN Peacebuilding Commission and the Dissemination of International Norms. Working paper no. 38. New York: Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, 2008


5

member states that possess such troops are often unwilling or unable to make them available for UN peacekeeping operations. Currently, UN peacekeeping operations employ between 60,000 and 70,000 troops, a large majority of which come from developing nations.10 Without the support of developed nations, peacekeeping will face scarce resources, limited training, and diminished effectiveness. Moreover, threats to the safety and security of UN field personnel is an issue of great concern, particularly following the 2003 terrorist attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad. This concern prompted the Secretary-General to order a review of the entire UN security system. Improvements are ongoing in this area and require further support by member-states. An additional challenge to peacekeeping operations is the need to establish a functional state society simultaneously with maintaining peace. The complexities that arise from these mandates often place UN troops in long-term scenarios. While these steps are necessary for peacekeeping operations to have a lasting effect on conflict-ravaged regions, they also consume a vast amount of limited resources. UN peacekeeping forces may be required anywhere around the globe at any point in time.11 However, globally mobilizing troops in a speedy, effective manner is currently infeasible. Without timely deployment of forces to areas in need, the UN extends an initial perception of weakness to the community that it is serving. Often times, this impression proves to be a key flaw of UN peacekeeping operations. Additionally, without the ability to rapidly respond, UN action often occurs too late to make a difference in the area where they are deployed. The necessity for a rapid response unit presents a number of issues for UN peacekeeping, namely how troops will be supplied and funded. Likewise the implementation of a rapid reaction force spawns debate over a permanent UN peacekeeping faction. Moreover, restrictive rules of engagement, which determine how UN peacekeepers may engage enemies in combat, frequently hinder their ability to enforce peace in high-pressure regions. This limitation not only constrains peacekeeping effectiveness, but also jeopardizes UN peacekeepers themselves if they are placed in positions where hostile action is directed at them

10 Monthly Summary of MIlitary and Police Contribution To United Nations Operations." Chart. Http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/index.htm. United Nations, 2005-12. Web. 30 Sept. 2009 11"Challenges in UN Peacekeeping Operations." Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. Web. 30 Sept. 2009. <http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5068.html>


6

or innocent civilians around them. While the Secretary General has since acknowledged that the use of force is acceptable with the permission of the Security Council, the line between necessary force and using the UN as a mechanism for violence is very fine. As a consequence, the UN is often faced with the task of distinguishing between what conflicts require the deployment of peacekeeping troops, as well as how to use those troops to facilitate peace.

In June of 2000, at the request of Secretary General Kofi Annan, the Panel on UN Peace Operations was announced. This high-level panel chaired by Undersecretary-General Lahkdar Brahimi supervised a four-month study effort designed to produce tangible and implementable recommendations to improve UN peacekeeping and related activities. The results, colloquially known as the Brahimi report, emphasized the integral flaws of UN peacekeeping efforts and addressed methods through which they can be remedied. Perhaps the most important issue

noted in the report is the need for the UNSC to issue clear and precise mandates. The report notes that, without clear direction from the UN Secretariat, completing missions and objectives in a timely and efficient manner becomes increasingly difficult. Questions to Consider As you prepare for UGAMUNC and this topic in particular, you would be well served to analyze the following questions: 1. How should the UN improve the rapid deployment capability of UN peacekeeping troops?

2. What incentives should be offered to states to encourage increased personnel contributions to

UN peacekeeping operations? 3. What should be done to prevent and detect spoilers during peace accords? 4. What strategies should the UN adopt in order to strengthen its peace processes throughout the

globe? 5. What mechanisms should be implemented within highly volatile areas in order to preempt

violence and maintain peace? Suggested Additional Reading The Report on the Panel of Peace Keeping Operations (The Brahimi Report): http://www.un.org/peace/reports/peace_operations/ DPKO: United Nations Department on Peacekeeping: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/


7

Topic II: Cyberterrorism

Introduction As the internet becomes a permanent fixture in all facets of daily life, insurgents, terrorist groups, and nation states can use the anonymity afforded by cyberspace to threaten their enemies without the immediate risks of injury, capture, and death. The expanding scale and complexity of technological vulnerabilities further increases the expected utility of an attack on information systems via cyberspace. Public interest in cyberterrorism arose in the late 1980’s when viruses and worms gained widespread recognition. The publication of the 1986 Cuckoo’s Egg incident, the first documented incident of a hacker infiltrating a national security server, showed that lack of cybersecurity presents a real threat. Throughout the 1990’s the field of technology underwent rapid changes. Networking systems became more complex and highly integrated. This new connectivity presented a number of challenges to information security. The interconnected networks of businesses and government organizations along with expanding internet use created a number of access points to secure information. Similarly, the availability of devices that permit access to information systems has exponentially multiplied, creating a highly suitable environment for attack. In 2000 there were 21,000 reported instances of viruses. Three years later, that number had nearly tripled.12 By 2002 viruses and cyber attacks had cumulatively caused worldwide damage estimated at a staggering $45 billion. Damage caused in 2003 alone saw a figure of nearly the same magnitude. Due to the rapidly changing nature of information technology, defining cyberterrorism and cybersecurity becomes increasingly difficult. For purposes of this committee, cyberterrorism should be considered within the following context. To properly understand cyberterrorism and cybersecurity, it is important to become familiar with the individual components of the term. The term “cyber-” is a prefix derived from cybernetics and generally means “through a computer.”13 While the UN has no formal definition of terrorism, UN Resolution 1566 offers a generally accepted definition of what constitutes a terrorist act:

“criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a

12 Clarke, Richard and Lee Zeichner (2004): Beyond the Moat: New Strategies for Cybersecurity, in: Bank Systems & Technology, January 27. URL: http://www.banktech.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=17501355 13 Dunn, Myriam. A Comparative Analysis of Cybersecurity Initiatives Worldwide. Rep. no. CYB/05. Geneva: International Telecomunication Union, 2005


8

population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”14

Thus, cyberterrorism can be thought of as an attack, against civilians or government, through the exploitation of technology and information networks, to induce fear or change in organizational or governmental policy. On the other hand, cybersecurity is concerned with isolating cyberspace from the threat of attack by individuals or groups. In common usage, cybersecurity refers to the set of activities and other measures, technical and non-technical, intended to protect computers, computer networks, related hardware and devices, software, and the information they contain and communicate, from all threats, including threats to national security. Cybersecurity also refers to the degree of protection resulting from the application of these activities and measures, as well as the associated field of professional endeavor, including research and analysis aimed at implementing those activities and improving their quality.15 While cybersecurity is more than merely information and data security, these components comprise a highly integral part of preventing cyberterrorism. The Use and Conduct of Cyberterrorism When trying to combat cyberterror attacks, it is important to understand not only where but also why cyberterror tactics are employed. First, cyberterrorism attempts to inflict fear. An important characteristic of terror attacks is that victims of an attack are not necessarily the target of the attack itself.16 The most effective way to create fear throughout a population is by victimizing large groups of individuals in order to create an environment of uncertainty amongst the citizenry in hopes that terrorist action will lead to policy reform. The same holds true for attacks against IT systems. Second, terrorist attacks attempt to be spectacular in nature, regardless of the actual damage caused by the attack. Spectacular attacks are “aimed at either creating huge direct losses and resulting in a lot of negative publicity.”17 Finally, cyberterror exploits vulnerability. The inability to guarantee substantial financial losses often leads to terrorists denying either a public or private group access to the commercial server effectively halting their ability to communicate to clients or hindering their ability to process vital external information. While cyber-attacks use an expansive array of technologies, many attacks follow a five step pattern. The first step in this process is a reconnaissance phase. During this step, normal operations of a target are observed in order to gain knowledge of useful information including but not limited to communications formats, active hardware and software components, and timetables of communications. Second, groups often penetrate a potential target by gaining access to a system in order to disrupt the availability and services of a target. Once access has been gained, groups often undertake an identification and expansion phase in which the capabilities established in the penetration phase are broadened and high-value information becomes accessible. This high-value information may include schematics of buildings and

14 UN Resolution 1566: Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist Action 15 Fischer, Eric A. (2005): Creating a National Framework for Cybersecurity: An Analysis of Issues and Options, February 22, CRS Report for Congress, Order Code RL32777 16 Claridge, David. State Terrorism? Applying a Definitional Model. Publication 17 Janczewski, Lech, and Andrew M. Colarik. Cyber Warfare and Cyber Terrorism (Premier Reference). New York: IGI Global, 2007


9

classified files stored electronically on databases. Once the process of identification and expansion has been completed, terrorists take action. In the action taking phase, attacks begin to inflict actual damage to the system or victims of the attack. Data is generally confiscated by the attackers, and the target loses information of the attack. Finally, after the completion of the attack, attackers remove any traces of identification, sustaining anonymity and preventing detection by hosts of the system.18 The emphasis placed on each step is dependant upon the overall goal of the organization or individual carrying out the attack. Consequently, the overall damage resulting from an attack varies depending upon the motivation of the attackers and the policies that they are trying to alter. Strategic Threats The Internet has tens of millions of users. Even if only a small fraction of individuals possess the necessary skills to deliver a destructive network based attack, the pool of potential terrorists remains in the thousands. Terrorist organizations recognize the utility of computing competency and recruit members based on this premise. As of 2002, 19 of the 33 organizations (57.5%) on the United States Foreign Terrorist Organizations list had websites. Among these were al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).19 Cyberterror threats generally fall into two, often overlapping categories: physical and electronic. Physical cyberterror threats emerge from the idea that cyberterrorism and traditional terrorist attacks can combine to destroy essential internet, communications, and power nodes. The destruction of these key resources would undoubtedly jeopardize the physical safety and economic wellbeing of their users. Physical cyberterrorist attacks are advantageous for two main reasons. First, they have the ability to accomplish the same goals as an electronic terrorist attack--disruption of key services to an isolated portion of the population while generating fear. Second, a physical attack may not only play off the vulnerability and fear tactics utilized by many terrorist groups but also be spectacular enough to result in increased media attention and high casualty figures. The fact that cyberterrorist attacks can be carried out without ever touching a computer is one that many overlook.20 Electronic terrorism involves the idea that computer and information networks can be manipulated to cause harm to a civilian population. The use of malicious programming such as viruses or worms to cause the malfunction of systems within governments or private corporations can have an equally large effect on the population as the threat of a physical cyberterror attack. Electronic cyberterrorism can be distinguished from physical cyberterrorism based on the goals of the attacking group. While physical cyberterrorists seek to manipulate physical infrastructure, electronic cyberterrorists aim to sabotage data. Despite being less spectacular than physical cyberterror, electronic cyberterror occurs very frequently.21

18 Ibid. 19 Conway, Maura. Reality Bytes: Cyberterrorism and Terrorist 'Use' of the Internet. Rep. Dublin: Department of Political Science of Trinity College, 2002. Print 20 Verton, Dan. Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber Terrorism. California: Brandon A. Nordin, 2003. Print 21 Janczewski and Colarick, Cyber Warfare and Cyber Terrorism.


10

Combating Cyberterrorism and Enhancing Cybersecurity The international community is slowly taking steps to enhance the security of computer networks. The transnational nature of the internet and the speed with which it evolves require multilateral agreements in order to ensure a full range of responses from individual nations. Developing and securing the universal adoption of technological and policy standards to defend against, prosecute, and deter cyberterrorism will require an international forum with the appropriate authority and capacities to implement such a structure. Cooperation from national, voluntary, and private institutions is vital in order to successfully prevent cyberterrorism. Without functioning set of guidelines applied on a universal level, the ability for states to cooperate is hindered.22 In addition to engaging in international dialogue, some states have begun to engage in cyber-warfare in order to directly confront attackers or provoke policy change. Defensive Information Warfare on the other hand takes steps to safeguard from cyber-attacks. Implementing cyber-defense systems and firewalls take defensive action against cyber-threats.23 This element of information warfare presents the international community with a double-edged sword. The possibilities stemming from Offensive Information Warfare (OIW) provide a state with the ability to justify a cyber-attack against another state or body. However, the blowback from OIW and the provocation of cyber-attacks may prove to be counterproductive in the global community’s quest to eliminate not only cyberterrorism but also terrorism as a whole. The Center for Security Studies at the Swiss Institute of technology specifically emphasizes five key problems that must be addressed in order to successfully combat cyber-attacks.24 The first problem outlined is that of anonymity of actors. The problem of identifying actors is particularly difficult in a domain where maintaining anonymity is easy and where there are time lapses between the action that an intruder takes, the intrusion itself, and the effects of the intrusion. In addition, the continuing proliferation of sophisticated computer technologies among the mainstream population makes the identification of actors increasingly difficult. A second problem in combating cyberterror is the lack of boundaries surrounding cyberspace. Malicious computer-based attacks are not restricted by political or geographical boundaries. Attacks can originate from anywhere in the world and from multiple locations simultaneously. Investigations that follow a string of deliberately constructed false leads can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. A third issue faced in the combatance of cyberterror is speed of technological development. Due to the extremely quick nature of technological progress and evolution, the time between the discovery of a new vulnerability and the emergence of a new tool or technique that exploits that vulnerability is getting shorter. Additionally, the low cost of tools used during attacks presents another problem for the international community in maintaining the security of cyberspace. The technology employed in cyber attacks is simple to use, inexpensive, and widely available. Tools

22 Sofaer, Abraham D., Seymour E. Goodman, et. al.. A Proposal for an International Convention on Cyber Crime and Terrorism. Stanford University, 2000. Print 23 David, M. W., and K. Sakurai. Combating Cyber Terrorism: Countering Cyber Terrorist Advantages of Surprise and Anonymity. Cubic Corporation, 2003. Print 24 Dunn, A Comparative Analysis of Cybersecurity Initiatives Worldwide.


11

and techniques for invading computers are available on computer bulletin boards and various websites, as are encryption and anonymity tools. Finally, the automation of attack methods has lead to increasingly sophisticated abilities of attackers. As a result of higher levels of sophistication, the damage from a single attack has increased as well. Questions to Consider As you prepare for UGAMUNC and this topic in particular, you would be well served to analyze the following questions: 1. What actions should the UN undertake to combat the anonymity and lack of boundaries

associated with cyberterrorist attacks?

2. Considering the general model of attacks (Assessment, Penetration, Processing and Exploitation, Action and Removal of Identification), what methods can the international community take to increase security to both public and private sectors?

3. What methods should the UN employ to foster multilateral agreements that establish

penalties for cyberterrorism? 4. What global repercussions would result from a successful cyberterror attack? 5. How can the UN reduce the risk of physical terrorist attacks to technological structures such

as water treatment plants, nuclear facilities, waste management plants, and communication grids?

Suggested Additional Reading Dunn, Myriam. A Comparative Analysis of Cybersecurity Initiatives Worldwide: Provides an insight to the recent history of cyberterror and highlights methods to counter the reasons that cyberterror is effective. Maura Conway Reality Bytes: Cyberterror and Terrorist “Use of the Internet”: A report of the Working Group on Countering the Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes which examines terrorists’ use of the internet post-September 11, 2001.


12

Topic III: Preventing the Spread of

WMD’s to Non-State Actors

Introduction From the chlorine gas bombs of World War I, to the atom bombs of the Second, even into the weaponized diseases that are fast becoming a major concern, people are well aware of the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Most of the danger, however, has been kept in check by this knowledge. Nations are afraid to unleash such weapons due to international ramifications, moral qualms, or simple lack of ability. For non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, the largest restriction on the use of weapons of mass destruction is their ability to acquire them. The world has seen the forms of destruction and chaos that terrorist groups can create, and the next logical escalation for such groups would be the use of weapons of mass destruction. Unless measures are taken to prevent the spread of the technology and material needed to produce these weapons, the threat of a terrorist WMD attack remains. Types of Threats There are four main types of weapons of mass destructions: biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological. Biological weapons are those that spread disease through food or water supplies, or through personal infection, to create panic and disruption amongst a population. Even a poorly-designed bio-weapon could create a large panic. More advanced agents could potentially cause many deaths, especially if the agent used spreads quickly from person to person, infecting a large swath of the population before public health officials can respond.

Fortunately for the international community, the production of a biological weapon requires somewhat sophisticated knowledge. This knowledge may not be out of reach of a sufficiently educated (and motivated) biologist. Nonetheless, preserving control of this knowledge is a key issue for security. The materials needed for a bio-weapon are relatively easy to find. Some can even be found in nature. Many terrorist groups have made an active effort to create a biological weapon, as evidenced by the discovery of a “partially-built biological weapons facility” in Kandahar, Afghanistan from the Taliban-era.25

Advanced chemical weapons first entered into the public consciousness during World War I, when chlorine and mustard gas were used with devastating effect. In the early 1990’s, the Chemical Weapons Convention outlawed “the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons.”26 Because this restriction does not have the same force against non-state actors, the international community must take action.

The technology related to chemical weapons and their delivery devices has improved since World War I, and it is possible for terrorist groups to improvise delivery methods, as well as the toxin itself. Of greater concern is the accessibility of chemical weapons related materials due to the globally expanding chemical industry. Industrial pesticides and chemical agents are easier

25 “The Global Challenge of WMD Terrorism.” U.S. State Department. 2008. 30 Sept. 2009 <http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/103712.htm>. 26 “The Chemical Weapons Ban: Facts and Figures” Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. 30 Sept. 2009 <http://www.opcw.org/publications/facts-and-figures/#c1936>.


13

and cheaper to acquire than a military grade chemical weapon, making the control of these agents a challenging proposition.27

Nuclear weapons are the most prominent weapon of mass destruction. Their destructive power was shown very clearly at the close of the World War II. So common is knowledge of nuclear weapons that some assembly plans can be found on the internet. More than that, many terrorist organizations, al-Qaeda in particular, have expressed their intent to acquire and detonate a nuclear device. This rapid dissemination of information could allow such terrorist groups to develop a nuclear weapon, assuming they could acquire enough nuclear material for the bomb itself.28 The danger of non-state actors has greatly increased since the fall of the Soviet Union, leaving many unstable countries with large, poorly secured stockpiles of nuclear material. Because of this potential black-market, a lone terrorist group could overcome the many obstacles to acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Even if a terrorist group was unable to acquire a sufficient amount of fissile material for a full-fledged nuclear bomb, a group could still assemble a radiological dispersion device (commonly referred to as a “dirty bomb”) from radioactive materials and conventional explosives, both much more common and accessible than materials for a nuclear device. The physical threat of most forms of dirty bombs in terms of mass public health issues and material destruction is not major, but the resulting panic and economic problems could be great. Since dirty bombs require their builders to handle radioactive material, the construction of one that could cause major damage requires great care to avoid radiation sickness and detection.29

Methods of Acquisition To pose a threat with a weapon of mass destruction, a group must have both the material needed to produce the device and the knowledge needed to put the device together and properly implement it. The simplest way of doing so would be for a state in possession of both material and knowledge to provide assistance to terrorists, a circumstance that, obviously, is against the interests of the international community. In 2004 the UN Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1540/2004, in which the Security Council “decides that all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-state actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery.”30 The challenge appears when the committee considers the role of non-state facilitators in the production of weapons. Acquisition of Material Unless a country aids a terrorist group in obtaining weapons of mass destruction, such materials, particularly those necessary for a nuclear device, would need to be stolen or smuggled to the group. A sufficiently organized group could launch successful attacks at even decently well-guarded facilities, given proper planning and infiltration. Nuclear material lies poorly guarded (if

27“The Global Challenge of WMD Terrorism.” U.S. State Department. 2008. 30 Sept. 2009 <http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/103712.htm>. 28 Ibid. 29 Ibid. 30 “Non-Proliferation Under Security Council Resolution 1540.” Globelaw. 2004. 30 Sept. 2009 <http://www.globelaw.com/Nukes/NonProliferation/NonProlif%20Res%201540.htm>.


14

at all) in many areas of the world, leaving such sites open to the threat of theft. The International Atomic Energy Agency has documented 18 such thefts. This situation is made more disconcerting by the lack of global security standards for nuclear material.31

One chief area of concern is in the security of warheads and other nuclear materials, especially in storage and during transportation. Bookkeeping would be a simple method of controlling weapons proliferation. Ensuring that “every nuclear weapon and every kilogram of weapons-usable nuclear material worldwide is secure and accounted for” would ensure security and allow for the speedy detection of any thefts.32 Furthermore, employees at locations that contain or use potential WMD material are a potential security risk, and instability in their employment is a risk for infiltration by outside groups. If these employees face a desperate situation, and a terrorist group offers them a way out through the sale of weapons secrets. Also, the reduction of excess stockpiles of materials could help enhance security, if only through the consolidation of security needs from having less material to guard in the first place.33 Once material is acquired, the group must transport the material to the site where the weapon will be assembled. Enhanced border security and anti-smuggling efforts would aid in denying terrorists this step in the process of obtaining a weapon of mass destruction.

Acquisition of Knowledge Security of knowledge about the production of WMD’s is almost as crucial as the security of the weapons themselves. Due to the ramifications of a nation supporting a terrorist organization with technological needs, much of this aspect of the threat comes from non-state parties. One such example comes in the form of AQ Kahn, considered the “father of Pakistan’s nuclear program,” who had established a network for the sale of both material and development information for nuclear weapons, assuming those who want this knowledge can pay.34 A sufficiently committed terrorist group could gather enough expertise to put together a nuclear weapon, although such an effort “would be perhaps the most technically challenging operation any terrorist group has ever 31 “Securing the Bomb: A Summary of the Key Issues.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2006. 30 Sept. 2009 <http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/issue.asp>. 32 “Blocking the Terrorist Pathway to the Bomb.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2007. 30 Sept. 2009 <http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/path.asp>. 33 Ibid. 34 “A.Q. Khan.” Global Security. 2000-2009. 30 Sept. 2009 <http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm>.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/pop_path1.html


15

undertaken.”35 In preventing the spread of information about the construction of a WMD, the stability of employment for nuclear scientists is crucial. This would deny terrorists a method of gaining an asset with knowledge about nuclear weapons technology. Potential Issues Simply reducing the amount of material that could be stolen, through the reduction of weapons stockpiles, would most likely be the simplest method of preventing this material from ending up in the hands of terrorists. However, this poses several problems. Nations may not want the United Nations making mandates regarding weapons stockpiles, in particular those nations who believe the possession of such weapons aids in defending their own country.

A similar problem exists with the implementation of a framework for securing weapons-related material, especially nuclear material, and the standards that this framework would entail. This committee must consider whether the United Nations has the authority to mandate such standards, what measures (if any) should be used in implementing a framework, and, above all, what exactly it should include to establish an efficient and effective method of protecting weapons materiel and preventing its acquisition by non-state actors.

Cost is another consideration with these solutions. Ensuring job stability and security for employees, security personnel and scientists in particular, may be an effective method of preventing breaches of security related to both materiel and knowledge. But, it could also be an expensive one, especially for the developing countries of the former Soviet Union. Costs may also stem from the implementation of security standards.

Questions to Consider As you prepare for UGAMUNC and this topic in particular, you would be well served to analyze the following questions:

1. How should an international standard for nuclear material security be implemented and

enforced?

2. What methods should be undertaken to improve security against attack and infiltration at nuclear, chemical, or biological facilities?

3. What measures, if any, should nations take to reduce nuclear stockpiles or remove nuclear

material? 4. What methods of preparedness against a WMD attack should be recommended? 5. How should nations protect expertise and information related to the production of WMDs? Suggested Additional Reading US State Department: The Global Challenge of WMD Terrorism. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2007/103712.htm 35 “Blocking the Terrorist Pathway to the Bomb.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2007. 30 Sept. 2009 <http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/path.asp>.


16

Nuclear Threat Initiative: Securing the Bomb. http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/index.asp

GA1 Background Guide - University of...

Documents

Transcript of GA1 Background Guide - University of...