MEDIMUN XV Annual Session 2020

RESEARCH REPORT Historical Security Council The Events of 1986 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Contents Topic 1: The Response to Chernobyl’s Nuclear Disaster, 1986...3 Topic 2: The Situation in South Africa, 1986...... 4 Topic 3: The Iran-Iraq War, 1986...... 4 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Topic 1: The Response to the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster

Introduction

The Chernobyl Disaster was a nuclear accident which took place on the 26th of April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, near the city of Pripyat, north of The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. It was the result of a flawed reactor design (RMBK- 1000) that was operated with inadequately trained personnel. It is considered the most disastrous nuclear accident of all time.

General Overview

The accident started during a safety test on an RBMK-type nuclear reactor. The test was a simulation of an electrical power outage to aid the development of a safety procedure for maintaining cooling water circulation until the back-up generators could provide power. This operating gap was about one minute and had been identified as a potential safety problem that could cause the nuclear reactor core to overheat.

The test was delayed by 10 hours, so the operating alteration that had been prepared was not present. The test supervisor then failed to follow procedure, creating unstable operating conditions that, combined with the RBMK reactor design flaws and the intentional disabling of several nuclear reactor safety systems, caused an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction.

Research Report | Page 3 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

A large amount of energy was suddenly released, superheating hence vaporising cooling water, and rupturing the reactor core in a highly destructive steam explosion. This was immediately followed by an open-air reactor core fire that released considerable airborne radioactive contamination. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Impact

The reactor explosion killed two of the reactor operating staff. In the emergency response that followed, 134 firemen and station staff were hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome due to absorbing high doses of ionizing radiation. Of these 134 men, 28 died in the days to months afterward.

The accident caused the largest uncontrolled radioactive release into the environment ever recorded for any civilian operation, and large quantities of radioactive substances were released into the air for about 9 days. This caused serious social and economic disruption for large populations in Belarus, USSR, and Ukraine.

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located next to the Pripyat River, which feeds into the Dnieper reservoir system, one of the largest surface water systems in Europe, which at the time supplied water to Kiev, and was still in spring flood when the accident occurred. The radioactive contamination of aquatic systems therefore became a major problem in the immediate aftermath of the accident. In the most affected areas of Ukraine, levels of radioactivity in drinking water caused concern in the continuing months.

An increased incidence of thyroid cancer was observed for about 4 years after the accident and slowed in 2005. The large increase in incidence of thyroid cancer happened amongst individuals who were adolescents and young children living during the time of the accident, and residing in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

The economic damage caused by the disaster is estimated at $235 billion.

Responses and Aftermath

Pripyat was evacuated on 27 April (45,000 residents). By 14 May, some 116,000 people that had

Research Report | Page 5 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 been living within a 30-kilometre radius had been evacuated and later relocated, hence The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Exclusion Zone was setup.

To reduce the spread of radioactive contamination from the wreckage and to protect the site from further weathering, the remains of reactor No. 4 The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant sarcophagus was built and finished by December 1986, and would also provide radiological protection for the crews of the undamaged reactors at the site, with No. 3 continuing to produce electricity until 2000 and later in 2017 Chernobyl New Safe Containment was built.

Two months after the disaster, the Kiev water supply was switched from the Dnieper to the Desna River. In the meantime, massive silt traps were constructed, along with an enormous 30-metre deep underground barrier to prevent groundwater from the destroyed reactor entering the Pripyat River.

In the morning of 28 April, radiation levels set off alarms at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, over 1,000 kilometres from the Chernobyl Plant. Workers at Forsmark reported the case to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, which determined that the radiation had originated elsewhere. That day, the Swedish government contacted the Soviet government to inquire about whether there had been a nuclear accident in the Soviet Union. The Soviets initially denied it, and it was only after the Swedish government suggested they were about to file an official alert with the International Atomic Energy Agency, that the Soviet government admitted an accident took place at Chernobyl.

In direct response to the Chernobyl disaster, a conference to create a Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident was called in 1986 by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The resulting treaty has bound signatory member states to provide notification of any nuclear and radiation accidents that occur within its jurisdiction that could affect other states, along with the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

The first official explanation of the accident, later acknowledged to be inaccurate, was published in August 1986. It effectively placed the blame on the power plant operators. To investigate the causes of the accident the IAEA created a group known as the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG), which in its report of 1986, INSAG-1, on the whole also supported this view, based on the data provided by the Soviets and the oral statements of specialists. In 1991 a Commission of the USSR State Committee for the Supervision of Safety in Industry and Nuclear Power reassessed the causes and circumstances of the Chernobyl accident and came to new insights and conclusions. Based on it, in 1992 the IAEA Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) published an additional report, INSAG-7.

Multiple Resolutions were passed by the Economic and Social Council in the coming years with the title Strengthening of international cooperation and coordination of efforts to study, mitigate and minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, and by the General Assembly.

First Inter-Agency Task Force meeting on Chernobyl 24 May 1991, Vienna was set up.

Major Parties and Figures Involved

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic: one of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union from the Union's initiation in 1922 to its breakup in 1991. The republic was governed by the Communist Party of Ukraine as a one-party socialist soviet republic. The Ukrainian SSR was a founding member of the United Nations.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): a federal sovereign state in northern Eurasia that existed from 1922 to 1991; a union of multiple national Soviet republics, in practice its government and

Research Report | Page 7 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 economy were highly centralized. The country was a one-party state, governed by the Communist Party (Bolshevik Party) with Moscow as its capital in its largest republic, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic

Viktor Brukhanov: Director of the Chernobyl Atomic Energy Station. Appointed by the Communist Party.

Boris Scherbina: Deputy chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers; chairman of the government commission in Chernobyl. Scherbina was responsible not only for bringing the catastrophe under control but investigating its consequences. He dismissed calls for immediate evacuation of the city of Pripyat. It was not until almost 36 hours after toxic radionuclides began pouring from the wreckage of the reactor that the city’s residents were finally allowed to evacuate.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons. The IAEA was established as an autonomous organisation on 29 July 1957.

The KGB (The Committee for State Security): the main security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954 until its break-up in 1991. It was suspected to cover up and release altered facts to the international bodies mainly due to the inaccuracies of the INSAG-1 Report. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Official Policy advice proposed by the UN

“In an effort to facilitate a reorientation in spending on Chernobyl, UNDP offers recommendations on policy change to the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. These efforts will focus on overcoming the culture of dependency that has developed among many affected communities, and on targeting scarce funds to the truly needy as well as to investments that promote growth and new jobs. Specific policy proposals include an overhaul of zoning definitions and regulations to reflect conditions now recognized to be safe for habitation and commercial activity; a reorientation of health care spending towards better primary and preventive care; and a radical overhaul of Chernobyl benefits and privileges, so that the needy are covered by an efficient mainstream social welfare programme covering the entire population.”

Research Report | Page 9 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Sources http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/ga_res.shtml http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/ecosoc_res.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ United_Nations_Scientific_Committee_on_the_Effects_of_Atomic_Ra diation https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and- security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html https://www.iaea.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Convention_on_Early_Notification_of_a_Nuclear_Accident Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Topic 2: The Situation in South Africa, 1986

Introduction

The year of 1985 signaled the beginning of the end of apartheid society and governance in South Africa. The government reacted to the increased unrest and organization through banning people and organizations, through violence and suppression and eventually through a state of emergency. Following an upsurge of violent and non- violent resistance to the system of apartheid, the government, under PW Botha, declared a partial State of Emergency on 20 July 1985. This moment of draconian law enforcement against the majority Black, Coloured and Indian population of South Africa proved a focal moment in the struggle against apartheid, as the international condemnation of the apartheid regime and other internal factors contributed to the rejuvenation of the resistance inside and outside the country. The partial State of Emergency initially applied to 36 magisterial districts in the Eastern Cape and the Pretoria-Witwatersrand- Vereeniging area. However, with continued resistance throughout the country, the Act was lifted on March 7th, with a new State of Emergency eventually enforced nationally on 12th June, 1986. The new state of Emergency is far stronger than the one lifted on March 7, and it offers the authorities sweeping powers, including an indemnity from prosecution and the right to arrest without a charge and to search without a warrant. As in the previous decree, the authorities barred television, radio and photographic coverage of ''any public disturbance, disorder, riot, public violence, strike or boycott.'' This resulted in between 8,000 to 12,000 people being detained without trial, with many being tortured in detention and hundreds

Research Report | Page 11 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 of people being killed either in detention, on the streets by police or because of political protests or unrest. The police, who even sometimes provided weapons, are considered in support of this violence. These measures, however, have failed to halt the daily protests and violence that have claimed far in excess of 1,600 lives since September 1984. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Definition of Key Terms

1. Apartheid refers to the racially-exclusive system which saw the minority White population of South Africa exclusively govern and control the social, economic and political mechanisms of everyday life for 37 years. 2. A state of emergency gives the police and state the ability to restrict certain freedoms in order to protect the public on matters of national security. During a state of emergency, the state affords itself special powers and bypasses normal laws that protect the human and civil rights.

General Overview

The nationwide state of emergency and the detainment of hundreds of activists on 12th June is said to be a part of the effort to crush dissent before Monday, the 10th anniversary of the Soweto uprisings1.

In the first day of the decree, the Government-controlled television said, more than 1,000 people were detained. Many of those, including church and labor leaders, were the supporters of the United Democratic Front (UDF). President P. W. Botha told Parliament in Cape Town that he had ordered the emergency because ''I am of the opinion that the ordinary laws of the land at present on the statute book are inadequate to enable the Government to Ensure the security of the public and to maintain public order.''

1 The Soweto uprisings was a series of demonstrations and protests led by black school children in South Africa that began on the morning of 16 June 1976 in response to the introduction of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in local schools. It is estimated that 20,000 students took part in the protests. They were met with fierce police brutality. The number of protesters killed by police is usually given as 176, but estimates of up to 700 have been made.

Research Report | Page 13 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

''In fact,'' he said, ''the Government possesses intelligence regarding plans which have been made by radical and revolutionary elements for the coming days, which pose real danger for all population groups in the country.'' He offered no details of these plans. The impression created by the decree, analysts of the UN argue, was of a Government set against conciliation with its black majority and ready to risk outsiders' opprobrium in pursuit of a forceful settlement to its crisis. They argue that the decree was imposed pre-emptively, rather than in response to existing violence, which suggested a loss of official faith in current powers of control. Following the last emergency decree “It is a sad day for issued in July 1985, months of protest South Africa when and violence had left more than 500 the Government people dead. The tally of killing rose admits it cannot during the seven months the emergency govern the country decree was in force. The killing has without the continued unabated since then, powers given to it reflecting, increasingly, battles in the in a state of segregated black townships between Government-supported vigilantes and emergency.'' oppressed members of the public who call themselves radicals.

The rights that were limited by the National State of Emergency included: 1. The right to physical integrity 2. Freedom of expression and of information 3. Freedom of association 4. Freedom of political association 5. Freedom to gather and demonstrate peacefully 6. Rights to personal freedom

Resistance to the State of Emergency Within the country, resistance comes from various civic groups, trade unions, church organisations and political organisations. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

The African National Congress’s (ANC) internal influence is limited by the banning of the party, and the subsequent exiling of many of its leaders across the world. Moreover, resistance from the UDF increased with Boesak2 calling for a march to Pollsmoor Prison3 in protest. Sabotage has become an effective weapon of resistance against the apartheid government. Examples include the attacking of power plants, the bombing of shopping centres and businesses and the bombing of South African national essential services. The National Party has responded to the continued insurrection by taking a harder stance against resistance from the ANC, UDF, civic groups and individuals fighting against the state. Newspaper, radio and television coverage of ‘unrest’ in these townships has been banned by the state. This ban was enforced under the Newspaper and Imprint Act 63 of 1971. In a blow to anti-apartheid resistance, The Rand Daily Mail, a leading anti-apartheid publication, has been controversially shut down. This loss of a critical voice against the state arguably has provided the government with more momentum in enforcing censorship. A number of anti-apartheid leaders disappeared or are murdered under mysterious circumstances, with most deaths arguably occurring in detention. Due to the enforced State of Emergency, the police has gained the absolute power to detain persons without a warrant and without the prospect of appeal or representation. These powers were enforced under the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. This meant that the apartheid state has constitutionally legitimated the use of excessive force in order to apprehend ‘questionable’ and ‘security-threatening’ targets.

The apartheid state continues to respond violently to any perceived form of “protest” or “gathering” that might threaten state security.

2 Allan Aubrey Boesak is a South African Dutch Reformed Church cleric and politician and anti-apartheid activist.

3 The prison in which Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners were held

Research Report | Page 15 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Particular events that mark the government’s particularly aggressive responses include the 25th anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre4 where 17 people were killed during a commemoration in Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape. From September 1984 to March 1986, 1 416 people have died due to political violence, with March and January 1986 having the highest monthly figures of 171 and 167 people respectively. The apartheid government’s complete clamp-down of citizens’ rights resulted in the numerous house arrests of influential anti- apartheid leaders, and the detaining of 2346 people under the Internal Security Act, in the attempts of ending internal resistance to the state’s power. Under the State of Emergency, the apartheid government militarised and heavily policed all aspects of South African society - which heightened feelings of mutual tension, paranoia and distrust between white South Africans and Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans. Though effective in disrupting a number of anti-apartheid organisations by arresting a number of their leaders, the State of Emergency was not effective in ‘governing the ungovernable’ townships, as violent protest and fierce resistance continued against the state. By attempting to control and dictate every minute aspect of Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans’ lives, the apartheid government wanted to ensure that White-minority rule in the country was not only (willingly or unwillingly) accepted by these excluded groups, but was seen as a natural and long-term institution in order to maintain White South Africa’s economic prosperity. Under PW Botha, the apartheid regime would go on to use State of Emergencies as a normalised governing tactic as it allowed the state to ‘legitimately’ use not only The South African

4 The 1960 Sharpeville Massacre was the result of a peaceful protest regarding racist South African policies of apartheid. The police response to the protest became the primary cause of the massacre. The police assembled and used disproportionate responses to the protest. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Police (SAP)5, but also the South African Defence Force (SADF) 6, to violently repress any resistance against the state.

Timeline of Events in South Africa, 1986

7 The State of Emergency imposed on 21 July 1985 is lifted. March

March The South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU), the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the ANC issue a joint statement in Lusaka, reiterating their commitment to overthrow white supremacy in South Africa.

11 Security Laws Amendment Act No 13: June Imposed imprisonment for up to ten years for disruption of any educational institution, unlawful strikes, boycotting of consumer goods, civil disobedience, obstruction of public places, or attending a restricted funeral. Commenced: 11 June 1986

12 Countrywide state of emergency declared in terms of June the Public Safety Act No 3 of 1953.

20 World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South June Africa, UNESCO House, Paris, organised by the United Nations in cooperation with OAU and the Movement of Non-aligned Countries.

26 Public Safety Amendment Act No 67: Allowed for any June area to be declared an ‘unrest area’ by the Minister of Law and Order, thus avoiding the negative consequences of declaring a national state of emergency. Denied the Supreme Court the jurisdiction

5 The South African Police (SAP) was the national police force and law enforcement agency in South Africa from 1913 to 1994; it was the de facto police force in the territory of South West Africa (Namibia) from 1939 to 1981. 6 The stated and chief duty of the SADF was to defend and protect South African territory. The SDAF is used to crush rebellions and strikes (e.g. the 1922 Rand Rebellion), during states of emergency (such as after the massacre at an anti-apartheid protest in Sharpeville), and during the Soweto Uprising and the township revolts of the 1980s.

Research Report | Page 17 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

to set aside any regulations in terms of the Act. Commenced: 26 June 1986

July The Transkei, Kangwane and KwaNdebele ‘homelands’ are plagued by violence and Piet Ntuli, Home Affairs Minister for KwaNdebele, is killed in a bomb explosion. Major Parties Involved

1. P.W. Botha or Pieter Willem Botha, commonly known as Die Groot Krokodil (Afrikaans for "The Great Crocodile"), was a South African politician. He served as the last Prime Minister from 1978 to 1984 and the first executive State President from 1984 to 1989. 2. The National Party (NP) or in full National Party of South Africa is a South African political party, founded in 1914, which ruled the country from 1948 to 1994. Its following included most of the Dutch-descended Afrikaners and many English-speaking whites. The National Party was long dedicated to policies of apartheid and white supremacy, but by the early 1990s it had moved toward sharing power with South Africa’s black majority. 3. The United Democratic Front (UDF) was a very important organization during the 1980s. The UDF was a grouping of many different organizations (over 400) all acting together. It had close links with the ANC. The UDF consisted of hundreds of women, student, church, trade union, cultural, sporting and other groups. The United Democratic Front, which says it has a following of two million, is the biggest nonparliamentary opposition group in the country. One of the biggest moments of resistance practiced by the UDF was the opposition to the establishment of the Tricameral Parliament7 in 1984. On 25th May, the government enforced the Prohibition of Political Interference Act8, which repealed the

7 The Tricameral Parliament was the structure of the South African government from 1984 to 1994, established by the South African Constitution of 1983. It strengthened the political power of the White section of the population (thus the NP) only gave a limited political voice to the country's Coloured and Indian population groups. The majority Black population group was still excluded. 8 The Prohibition of Political Interference Act, 1968 (Act No. 51 of 1968), was a piece of apartheid legislation in South Africa that sought to prevent racial groups from collaborating with each other for a political purpose. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

banning of racially-mixed political organisations. This move effectively diluted the organisational capacity of anti-apartheid groups as many of them advocated for non-racialism. 4. By 1986, the African National Congress (ANC), with headquarters in Lusaka, London, and New York, has taken on the key role position of any future black regime. ANC recruits at military camps were influenced by Russian and East German instructors, and the practice of sending ANC students to Russia on scholarships was having a visible effect on the ideological leanings of the younger leaders. Consequently, in its struggle to achieve its aim, the ANC appeared less concerned about ideological arguments, more with change in tactics. Through Radio Freedom it announced a ‘Peoples' War' calling on members to incite local violence to make the country ungovernable. But those who joined in promoting violence faced the ascending role of the South African military. International Community

''South Africans will not allow themselves to be humiliated in order to prevent sanctions. We are not a nation of weaklings. We do not desire it and we do not seek it, but if we are forced to go it alone, then so be it.'' - PW Botha

South Africa has always had very fragile and hostile relationship with most members of the international community. South African occupation of Namibia (renamed South-West Africa), as well as the apartheid regime, violates many customary international laws, as well as international human right laws, which has resulted to the continuous use of sanctions against South Africa. Referring to revolutionary takeovers in countries including Angola and Vietnam, Mr. Botha said his Government would ''not allow our heritage of more than 300 years to be placed needlessly on the altar of chaos and decay.'' Moreover, in May 1986, South Africa raided three black-ruled African countries (Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia), saying it was

Research Report | Page 19 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 striking at strongholds of the outlawed and exiled African National Congress. Political pressures from anti-Communist United States of America and Britain – under the conservative leadership of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher respectively - were exerted on the apartheid state, with the intention of keeping South Africa a capitalist state. America and Britain chose to controversially follow a ‘constructive engagement’ stance with apartheid South Africa where it sought to ensure free trade with the state. This is particularly important as the power struggle between the superpowers USA and USSR has effectively separated the world into different spheres of influence for the United States and for the Soviet Union; with many African countries becoming involved in proxy wars that were indirectly influenced by the USSR and the USA. The apartheid administration feared a communist attack and went to great lengths to ensure that Die Rooi Gevaar would not threaten white South Africa’s diplomatic, political and economic relations with America and Britain. The ANC’s socialist leanings and the presence of its cadres in Russia also acted as a deterrent to the apartheid state, as they feared a creeping coup that would see the white-minority rule overthrown. Margaret Thatcher famously declared the ANC a “terrorist organisation” and with Reagan attempted to ensure that apartheid South Africa remained a ‘bastion against Marxist forces’. The apartheid state also attempted to extend its influence into Southern Africa, with the intention of supporting the governments of any state whose main intentions are to perpetuate white- minority rule. The government militarily interfered in the following countries, with varying degrees of success: Rhodesia (now independent Zimbabwe), Mozambique, Angola, Botswana and Namibia amongst others. This strategy was termed Total Onslaught.

Relevant Legal Framework

1. The nationwide State of Emergency imposed on 12th June 1986 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

It includes, among other things: a. The indemnification of the security forces from prosecution or civil liability for unlawful acts committed in good faith (Regulation 16) b. The Exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to set aside regulations issued in terms of the Act (Regulation 16(3)) c. Th prohibition of publication or dissemination of “subversive” statements Numerous challenges to the regulations resulted in further amendments. Commissioners of Police were authorised to restrict township funerals, impose curfews, prohibit school pupils from being outside their classrooms during school hours and prohibit indoor gatherings by named organisations. The state of Emergency is justified in the belief of an imminent external Communist (Die Rooi Gevaar9) attack and to ‘maintaining peace and order’10 which is threatened by the increasingly ‘ungovernable’ nature of the Black townships and radical Black nationalists throughout the country. In the enforcement of a State of Emergency, the South African Law Commission states that the aforementioned rights and freedoms of citizens can only be legally interfered with by the state only if there is a threat to “considerations of state security, public order, public interest, the boni mores, public health, the administration of justice, conflict with the rights of others and the prevention of chaos and crime. Such curtailment is, however, permissible only to that extent and in such a manner as is generally accepted in a democratic society.” (Article 30) The South African Law Commission further states that a State of Emergency can only be enforced if the following occur beyond reasonable doubt: a. The extraordinary machinery inherent in state security may only be utilised if and when the continued existence of the state as such is in question. b. Security legislation itself must be limited: “Order and rule are needed to maintain freedom, but vigorous restraints are needed to

9 Die Rooi Gevaar (English: Red danger) is an Afrikaans phrase, sometimes translated into English as "Communist danger". 10 Public Safety Act No 3 of 1953

Research Report | Page 21 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 contain rulers within the bounds of a constitutional order which protects human rights. 2. International Conventions and Declarations a. Universal Declaration of Human Rights has become binding as a new rule of customary international law since 1948. Although South Africa abstained from the declaration, it imposes the “imperious obligation of civilization” on all contracting states to “ensure respect of the present Convention in all circumstances” - obliging U.N. member states to ensure that the South Africa regime complies with the provisions of the Declaration. b. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 provide framework for protection of victims of apartheid. c. Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination d. International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid 1973 3. UN resolutions A series of United Nations resolutions and declarations firmly rooted in the seminal Universal Declaration have laid an ample foundation for legal analysis of the continuous crimes against humanity committed by the apartheid regime and the creation of legal obligations upon other states to support people seeking to exercise their human rights and rights to self-determination. In 1975, in resolution 3379, the General Assembly stated that “The racist regime of South Africa is illegitimate and has no right to represent the people of South Africa”. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

South Africa and the United Nations South Africa and apartheid was placed on the agenda of the United Nations for the first time in 1946 by India regarding the treatment of people of Indian origin living in South Africa. In 1952 apartheid was again raised, this time in connection with the wider question of race conflict in the country in reaction tothe ANC Defiance Campaign. The South West African question was also on the agenda annually as from 1946. Initially the South African government responded to comments on its policy by saying that apartheid was part of the internal affairs of the country, and for this reason fell beyond the scope of the United Nations. Many Western countries agreed with this claim, but nonetheless continued to hold discussions and appealed to South Africa to change its policies year after year. In 1960 the worldwide view changed as a result of the Sharpeville Incident. As from this point many Western countries no longer held the view that apartheid fell within internal affairs and they began to openly criticise South Africa. On 1 April 1960 the Security Council also discussed the issue, and recognised that it might be a threat to world peace and security. They called upon the government to introduce measures to bring about racial harmony. The South African government instead reacted with banning the ANC and PAC11. From this point on the UN decided to follow steps to try and ensure the following of the UN Charter within South Africa.

In 1961 United Nations Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold visited South Africa, but reported back that he could not come to an acceptable agreement with the Prime Minister. In the same year H.F. Verwoerd announced South Africa’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Nations as a result of criticism from this organisation, and the Foreign Minister was criticized for his speech in the General Assembly. In 1966, the first of many UN seminars on

11 The Pan Africanist Congress of Azania is a South African Pan-Africanist movement, that supports African politicians

Research Report | Page 23 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 apartheid was held in Brazil, and later in the same year the General Assembly proclaimed 21 March to be International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in remembrance of the Sharpeville Incident. A 1971 General Assembly resolution condemned the establishment of homelands. In 1974 there was a resolution to expel South Africa from the United Nations as a result of human rights violations, but it was not accepted as France, the UK and the USA did not support it. In 1959 the UN found that South Africa’s administration went against the principles of the UN Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights and the advisory opinion of the International Court. South Africa’s violent actions in Windhoek after some black people protested against being moved to a new area led to the UN appointing a one-man commission and African states starting actions through the International Court. The UN called on South Africa to lift all apartheid laws from Namibia and told the Trusteeship Committee to visit Namibia with or without the permission of South Africa. This proved difficult, and the UN eventually agreed on the formation of a seven-nation committee that would visit Namibia before 1 May 1962, prepare the country for the removal of South Africa and free and democratic elections so that Namibia could become independent. The UN would provide technical assistance and would ensure freedom for political prisoners and an end to discriminatory laws. South Africa assisted the committee in their visit to Namibia, and they found that South Africa’s administration of the area was not against the mandate system or a threat to peace. However, after leaving South Africa the same committee changed its findings, but action at this stage was difficult as the case was before the International Court. In 1962, the court decided that it did have jurisdiction to try the case and it started to look at the record of South Africa’s action in Namibia, heard reports on the treatment of the people there and looked into the restrictions placed on black Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 people in the country. During the hearings, which took six years, one judge died and was replaced with a judge with more pro-South African ideas. It was eventually found, by a majority of 8 against 7, that the countries that brought the case before the court had no standing. This bought South Africa more time as otherwise the UN would have found itself in a position where it needed to start sanctions or other actions against South Africa. The decision brought caused an outcry in the General Assembly, which called on the Security Council to put pressure on South Africa. The Security Council’s first action on the issue was in January 1968 when it demanded that 37 political prisoners be released. In 1969 it recognised the General Assembly resolution of 1966 ending South Africa’s mandate over Namibia and calling for South Africa to leave the area. It saw South Africa’s refusal to do so as an aggressive action against the authority of the UN. The Security Council asked the International Court for the opinion on South Africa’s continued occupation in 1970. In 1971 the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion finding South Africa’s occupation of Namibia illegal and after this South Africa was defying the United Nations in her continued occupation of Namibia. The UN declared that South Africa’s mandate over Namibia was terminated. South African armed forces continued to occupy Namibia. The UN did not accept the proposal by South Africa to hold an all-races referendum in Namibia to test the popularity of the continued mandate. In 1971 the Security Council called on the Secretary General, Kurt Waldheim, to contact all people of Namibia and to prepare for self- determination. Waldheim went to South Africa where he met with and had talks with Vorster. He also visited Namibia and held talks with different groups in that country. In Namibia a Convention was held between all the groups that wanted the immediate withdrawal of South Africa, and Waldheim’s representative met this Convention at the end of the year. Discussions were underway, until a deadlock was reached in 1973 when the Security Council called for an end to Waldheim’s mediation. The Convention called for the immediate withdrawal of South Africa, and the Security Council echoed this call in 1974. On 16 December 1974 the General assembly recommended that South Africa be excluded from participation in international organisations as long as it continued to practice

Research Report | Page 25 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 apartheid and ignore the UN regarding Namibia and Zimbabwe. A deadline for withdrawal was set for 30 May 1975, and the Council met again on this date, but France, the USA and the UK vetoed the idea of sanctions. In 1975 the Portuguese left Angola and Mozambique, changing the situation in southern Africa as the western powers began to fear socialist take over in the independent countries. The South African government negotiated with an Advisory Council in Namibia, which excluded SWAPO12, and the Turnhalle Assembly 13reached a decision regarding a three-tier system of government and independence in 1978. This agreement however failed after it was seen that some apartheid laws would still be in place and there was political change inside Namibia, with parties re-forming. In September 1978 the Security Council passed a resolution finding that UN supervised elections were the only possibility for change. The five western powers on the Security Council visited Vorster in 1977 to discuss change. It was felt that South Africa should loosen constitutional bonds over Namibia and stop Namibian representation in the South African government, but it was agreed that South Africa could appoint an Administrator-General to the area. SWAPO accepted that the Administrator-General and a UN Commissioner would together supervise elections once political prisoners had been freed and discriminatory laws removed. The Security Council accepted this plan in July 1978, but after the South African government carried out an attack on a SWAPO base, the problem opened up again. The South African government then held internal elections in Namibia in December 1978, which went against the UN elections planned for April 1979. Pik Botha proposed called for a regional conference in 1984, but by this time the problems had mounted. The situation in southern Africa had also undergone change after South Africa held talks with

12 During 1962 SWAPO had emerged as the dominant nationalist organisation for the Namibian people. It co-opted other groups such as the South West Africa National Union (SWANU), and later in 1976 the Namibia African People's Democratic Organisation. SWAPO used guerrilla tactics to fight the South African Defence Force. It was recognized by the UN as the official representative for Namibian people. 13 The Turnhalle Constitutional Conference was a conference held in Windhoek between 1975 and 1977, tasked with the development of a constitution for a self- governed Namibia under South African control. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 the USSR, a ceasefire was agreed on, and the Nkomati Accord14 was signed. After discussions with SWAPO in Lusaka in 1984 a transitional government was brought into being that was meant to replace the work of the Administrator General. The transitional government came into power in June 1985, which was proof of a deadlock at international level.

Sources https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/south-africa-and-united-nations-1946-1990 https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/13/world/state-of-emergency-imposed- throughout-south-africa-more-than-1000-rounded-up.html https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/state-emergency-1985

The Road to Democracy in South Africa: Volume 4 [1980-1990]Part 2, South African Democracy Education| Gastrow, S., (1995).

Who’s Who in South African Politics, no. 5. Johannesburg, Ravan Press.| South African History Archive (2015).

Commemorating the End Conscription Campaign. Available at https://www.saha.org.za/ecc25/ecc_under_a_state_of_emergency .htm l

Overcoming Apartheid (2015). State of Emergency in the mid-1980’s. Available at https://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/multimedia.php? id=65-259-16

Potgieter, D.J. (ed)(1970). Standard Encyclopedia of Southern Africa Vol 7, Cape Town: Nasou, pp. 395-404|South African Army: History [Online]. Available at: encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com [Accessed 16 October 2009

Sass, BB. 1993. An Overview of the Changing South African Defence Force. South African Defence Review [Online] issue No 13. Available at: iss.co.za [Accessed 16 October 2009]

14 The Nkomati Accord was a non-aggression pact signed on 16 March 1984 between the People's Republic of Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa.

Research Report | Page 27 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Topic 3: The Iran-Iraq War, 1986 Introduction With a history dating back to ancient and Biblical times, the Middle East has a long tradition of conflict. The seeds for the Iran-Iraq War were laid years before the first shots were fired. The protracted war between these neighboring Middle Eastern countries resulted in at least half a million casualties and several billion dollars’ worth of damages, but no real gains by other side. Started by Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein in September 1980, the war was marked by indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks, extensive use of chemical weapons and attacks on third-country oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. Political Changes leading to the War On the one hand, Iran saw major regime changes prior to the war. For several decades, it had a pro-Western government. Radical factions within Iran were angered by this, and in 1979, the Iranian Revolution overthrew the government and began the new Islamic Republic.

Iraq had a similar story before the war. In the late 1960s, a coup d'état, or a seizure of power, occurred when the Ba'ath Party15 took control. By July 1979, General Saddam Hussein, a leading Ba'athist figure, was the Iraqi president. Hussein had large aspirations as Iraq's leader. He wanted to expand his country's power, prestige, and influence, hoping to become the leading nation in the Middle East. One way of accomplishing many of his goals was to attack Iran, gaining new oil fields, more land and power, and dealing a blow to the threatening regime. Tensions between the two countries built rapidly following the Iranian Revolution when the country's new leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, declared that Iraq needed to stage another coup and overthrow the ruling Ba'ath party. This threatened Hussein and the Ba'athists, who saw the new Iranian government

15 The Ba'ath Party was a regional branch in Iraq of a larger political movement sweeping the Middle East that was socialist in nature and had a strong nationalist appeal. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 as a threat to Iraq. Numerous border disputes intensified these disagreements .Thus, in 1979, both Iraq and Iran saw major leadership changes that ultimately opened the door for years of conflict to come between the two countries. Causes for the War The roots of the war lay in a number of territorial and political disputes between Iraq and Iran. Iraq wanted to seize control of the rich oil-producing Iranian border region of Khūzestān, a territory inhabited largely by ethnic Arabs over which Iraq sought to extend some form of suzerainty. Iraqi president Saddam Hussein wanted to reassert his country’s sovereignty over both banks of the Shaṭṭ al- ʿArab, a river formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers that was historically the border between the two countries. Saddam was also concerned over attempts by Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government to incite rebellion among Iraq’s Shīʿite majority. By attacking when it did, Iraq took advantage of the apparent disorder and isolation of Iran’s new government—then at loggerheads with the United States over the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehrān by Iranian militants—and of the demoralization and dissolution of Iran’s regular armed forces. In the months leading up to the outbreak of war, Saddam began strengthening and mobilizing his massive military forces. Iraq had nearly 200,000 soldiers, with thousands of tanks and hundreds of aircraft. Conversely, the Iranian army had just undergone severe officer purges and executions. But Iran still had a strong air force, meaning that any war against them would not be easy. In September 1980, Iraq launched attacks on Iran and the fighting began in earnest.

General Overview

1980:

Iraq launched a full-scale invasion of Iran on 22 September 1980. The Iraqi Air Force launched surprise air attacks on ten Iranian airfields in

Research Report | Page 29 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 order to destroy the Iranian Air Force. The attack failed to damage the Iranian Air Force significantly.

The next day, Iraq launched a ground invasion in three simultaneous attacks. The invasion's purpose, according to Saddam, was to dull the edge of Khomeini's movement and to frustrate his attempts to export his Islamic revolution to Iraq and the Persian Gulf states. Saddam hoped that by capturing Khuzestan, he would cause such a blow to Iran's prestige that it would lead to the new government's downfall, or at least the end of Iran's calls for his overthrow.

On 24 September, the Iranian Navy attacked Basra, Iraq, destroying two oil terminals near the Iraqi port Faw, which reduced Iraq's ability to export oil. The Iranian ground forces (mainly the Revolutionary Guard) retreated to the cities, where they set up defences against the invaders.

On September 1980, Iran attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor which was the first attack on a nuclear reactor and one of six military attacks on nuclear facilities in history. It was also the first instance of a pre-emptive attack on a nuclear reactor in order to limit the development of a nuclear weapon, although it did not achieve its aim, as France repaired the reactor after the attack.

1982:

On 19th of March Iraq launched an order to avert the Iranians as Iraq anticipated an attack from the Iranians. Saddam and his generals assumed they had succeeded, in reality the Iranian forces remained fully intact. The Iranians had concentrated their forces by bringing them directly from the cities and towns throughout Iran. Saddam’s army remained unprepared for the offensives. (Operation Undeniable Victory, Operation Beit ol-Moqaddas, Second Battle of Khorramshahr)

1983-1984: Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Operation Before the Dawn: Operation Fajr al-Nasr was launched on 6 February 1983, the Iranians shifted focus from the southern to the central and northern regions. Iran attacked along a 40 km section near al- Amarah, Iraq, in an attempt to reach the highways connecting northern and southern Iraq.

Operation Dawn 1: An Iranian offensive to capture the Baghdad- Basra Highway. The operation was fought mostly by Pasdaran forces and was one of the three costly human wave offensives of 1983, the Iranians failed to defeat the Iraqis.

Operation Dawn 2: On July 22, Iranian forces advanced from Piranshahr and were highly successful against the Iraqis, effectively seizing Haj Omran in the process. The Iranians and Kurdish guerrillas launched ambushes on Iraqi positions and convoys. They seized roughly 390 square kilometres of Iraqi territory. Iraq responded with a counteroffensive, launching an airborne assault and employing the use of poison gas for the first time in the entire war. The Iraqis hit Iranian troops near Haj Omran with mustard gas while their troops properties of poison gas and the agent descended back down to the Iraqi troops. At the same time, the rugged terrain held up Iraqi tanks. The use of helicopter gunships was also in a weak position, since the Iranian and Kurdish fighters had better cover. Hence Iraqis lost the battle.

Operation Dawn 3: an operation during Iran-Iraq war which was initiated on 3 August 1983 at 23 o'clock with the operation code of "Ya Allah". Around 180,000 Iranian troops participated in this offensive, which targeted the central front in the region of Mehran. Iraqi firepower in support of deeply entrenched troops, overwhelmed the advancing Iranians. Although Iranian troops were highly motivated, they were poorly trained and equipped for this

Research Report | Page 31 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 battle. For Iran, it was one of the worst losses amongst the Operation Dawns.

Operation Dawn 4: An Iranian operation launched in 1983. Saddam Hussein responded with a counterattack, using the Iraqi Republican Guard and poison gas. However, they failed to dislodge the Iranians, who were reinforced by Kurdish fighters. The Iranians and Peshmerga guerrillas of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan took 650 square kilometres of territory. This included a number of Kurdish villages and exerted a significant amount of pressure on Penjwin.

Operation Dawn 5: An Iranian offensive with the goal to split the Iraqi 3rd Army Corps and 4th Army Corps near Basra. The Iranians lacked artillery, air support and armoured protection, while the Iraqis were well equipped. The armies inflicted severe casualties on each other and the Iranians failed to achieve their aim.

Operation Dawn 6: a military operation conducted by the forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the armed forces of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, from 22 to 24 February 1984. It was part of a larger strategic operation to secure part of the Baghdad–Basra highway, in order to divide two of the most important cities in Iraq and threatening the network supplying the Iraqi military on the front line. The operation met an Iraqi defence which stood up to every attack, and the Iranians called off the attack after two days. Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

1986:

First Battle of al-Faw (10 February 1986 – 10 March 1986): Operation Dawn 8 was launched by Iran which was an assault across the Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) river against the Iraqi troops defending the strategic al-Faw Peninsula, which connects Iraq to the Persian Gulf. The Iranians defeated the Iraqi defenders, capturing the tip of the peninsula, including Iraq's main air control and warning centre covering Persian Gulf, as well as limiting Iraq's access to the ocean. The First Battle of al-Faw was a major success for Iran who now held an important strategic position. The battle damaged the prestige of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government, who began improving defences for the threatened major city of Basra.

Battle of Mehran: after the Iranian capture of Al-Faw, Saddam declared a new offensive against Iran, Al Defa Al Muthaharraka designed to enter deep into Iran. The Iranian border city of Mehran, Ilam Province was selected as the first target. On 15-19 May the Iraqi Army supported by helicopter gunships captured the city. Saddam then offered the Iranians to exchange Mehran for Al-Faw. The Iranians rejected the Iraqi offer. Iraq then continued the attack attempting to force deeper into Iran. However, Iraq's attack was quickly shattered by Iranian helicopters with missiles destroying Iraqi tanks and vehicles.

On June 30, Iran launched Operation Karbala 1, recapturing the area by July 3. Saddam ordered the Republican Guard to retake the city on July 4, but their attack was unsuccessful. The Iraqi losses were so heavy the Iranians managed to capture some territory inside of Iraq as well. Iraq's defeats at al-Faw and at Mehran was a severe blow to the prestige of Iraq.

From this point onwards, YOU will rewrite History.

Research Report | Page 33 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Major Parties Involved

USA: USA mainly supported Iraq during the war because the Reagan Administration believed that if Iran was able to advance to enter Israel and disrupt balance amongst the Gulf states which would lead to an increase in oil prices. The United States supported Iraq through a military aid program known as "Bear Spares", whereby the U.S. military provided countries with spare parts and ammunition in order to reduce the dependence of these countries on the USSR as most weapons were based on Soviet designs. The USA also provided tactical battlefield advice with intelligence and gave billions of dollars of credit to Saddam. They also provided Iraq with some US made weapons such as Mark 84 general purpose bombs. The USA also sold “biological research material” to Iraq such as Pathogenic and Toxigenic Microorganism such as Anthrax, which was later discovered that they were being used by the Biological Warfare program of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein: He was the president of Iraq during and extending the war period (1979-2003). He was a leading member of the revolutionary Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party which adopted Ba'athism, a mix of Arab nationalism and socialism, which was the main ideology and rule of the government until Saddam’s execution.

Ruhollah Khomeini: He was the Supreme Leader of Iran until 1989. He was the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the leader Kurdistan Democratic Party(KDP): the longest standing and well- known political party of the Kurdish people. It was created in 1946 under Mulla Mustafa Barzani with initial goals based on Kurdish nationalist aspirations and the desire for self- government. It was involved in the Kurdish Rebellion of 1983, in order to gain sovereignty for Kurdish people, against Saddam Hussein’s government.

Research Report | Page 35 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Patriotic Union of Kurdistan(PUK): it was established in 1975 under Jalal Talabani. The PUK draws its supporters from central and southern Kurdistan. The PUK has come to represent a more urban, intellectual, and politically forward group of people, versus the traditional rhetoric of the KDP. It was also one of the groups who was involved in the Kurdish Rebellion of 1983.

Previous Iniciatives by the UN to resolve the Issue

The conflict between Iran and Iraq, which Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim accurately characterized as "not an incident," but "war," prompted several different peace initiatives by the United Nations within a week of the Iraqi air attack of September 22, 1980.

On the day of the attack, the Secretary-General promptly offered his good offices to help end the conflict. On September 23, 1980, the Security Council, by presidential declaration, 5 3 appealed to Iran and Iraq to "desist from all armed activity ... and to settle their dispute by peaceful means." As expected by most delegates, however, the declaration and offer of good offices were not strong enough to quell the fighting.

Resolution 479 On September 28, 1980, the Security Council adopted Resolution 479. Although obviously stronger in form than the declaration, it was not much stronger in substance. The resolution simply supported the Secretary-General's offer of his good offices and called upon Iran and Iraq "to refrain immediately from any further use of force" and to settle their dispute by peaceful means. Moreover, Resolution 479 did not name Iraq as the aggressor, a failure which would be cited repeatedly by Iran as evidence of the Security Council's bias toward Iraq. Not suprisingly, because the resolution effectively called for a cease-fire with Iraq in possession of Iranian territory, Iraq stated that it would accept the resolution if Iran did. Iran rejected the resolution, however, vowing not to cease Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 fighting until the last Iraqi soldier had been driven back across the border. They maintained this position until 1986.

By late October 1980, many Security Council members were of the view that "the war ha[d]n't been too bad .... Two unpleasant regimes [had] both been bloodied, and now there [was] less chance that either [would] realize its ambition to take over the region." As a result, the Security Council produced only a presidential declaration urging Iran and Iraq to refrain from the use of force and asking the Secretary-General to send an envoy to the Middle East to try to resolve the conflict.

Islamic conference Organization On January 26, 1981, Secretary-General Waldheim tried another approach to resolve the conflict, urging the forty-two-member Islamic Conference Organization to mediate the Iran-Iraq war. The plan, however, or a variation of it, was rejected on more than one occasion by both Iran and Iraq.

Research Report | Page 37 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Resolution 514 During the first half of 1982, the United Nations undertook no new peace initiatives. Iran's repeated success on the battlefield, however, prompted Iraqi President Hussein to declare on June 20, 1982, that Iraq would withdraw completely from Iranian territory during the next ten days. Significantly, with Iraq facing a possible Iranian invasion, the Security Council was suddenly quick to respond. On July 12, 1982, the Security Council adopted Resolution 514, which called for a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces to internationally recognized boundaries under the supervision of a team of United Nations observers.

The timing of Resolution 514 was not lost upon Iran. Iran argued, that the Security Council was biased in favor of Iraq. Iran noted that Resolution 514's call for a withdrawal to internationally recognized boundaries was a courtesy not extended to Iran in Resolution 479, when the Security Council had called for a cease-fire with Iraq still in possession of Iranian territory. Moreover, Iran pointed out that the Security Council had been silent for twenty-two months while the fighting continued on Iranian territory, but acted swiftly to protect Iraq once Iraqi territory was threatened. As a result, Iran rejected Resolution 514 and invaded Iraq the day after the resolution had been adopted.

Resolution 522 Less than three months later, on October 4, 1982, the Security Council adopted Resolution 522, which basically repeated the Resolution 514 provisions for a cease-fire, withdrawal and military observers. Iraq accepted Resolution 522 and argued that Iran had an explicit obligation under article 25 of the Charter to "accept and carry out" the decision of the Security Council. Iran, however, rejected the resolution for largely the same reasons it had rejected Resolution 514.

Resolution 540 In May 1983, in response to an Iranian request, Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar sent a mission to both Iran and Iraq to examine civilian areas damaged by the war. Diplomats hoped that an objective report by the mission would demonstrate that the United Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

Nations was not biased toward Iraq, provide international recognition of Iran's suffering during the war, and give the Khomeini Government an excuse to call upon the United Nations to oversee peace talks. Iran's delegate to the Security Council, Said Rajaie-Khorassani, stated that the possibility of a negotiated settlement would depend on the Security Council's reaction.

On October 31, 1983, by a vote of twelve to zero with three abstentions, the Security Council adopted Resolution 540. Resolution 540 called upon the parties to end all attacks on civilian targets and all hostilities in the Persian Gulf region and asked the Secretary-General to consult with the parties to develop ways to sustain and verify a "cessation of hostilities."

Iraq, as it had with the three prior Security Council resolutions, accepted Resolution 540. Iraq warned, however, that its acceptance was conditioned upon the resolution being treated as an "integrated and indivisible" whole. No partial implementation would be accepted. Iran, adamant in its position, rejected the resolution as "yet another exercise by the Council ... in favour of the Iraqi aggressor." Specifically, Iran contended that Iraq should have been the party called upon to stop attacks on civilian targets. Further, Iran argued that the conflict should not be described in terms of "hostilities," since for Iran it was a "painful defensive war of liberation . . . [designed] to reverse the consequences of the [Iraqi] aggression."

Iran indicated that it remained ready to cooperate with the Secretary General, but suggested that mediation efforts "would stand a much better chance of positive achievement when the Security Council modifie[d] its biased position . . . in favor of Iraq, the aggressor."' Thus, the optimism created by the Iranian reaction to the report on damage to civilian areas quickly dissipated.

Chemical Weapons investigation The United Nations' next involvement with the Iran-Iraq war came on March 8, 1984, when Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar decided to send a team of experts to Iran to investigate charges that Iraq was using chemical weapons. Iraq had previously denied such charges and denounced the United States State Department for

Research Report | Page 39 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 concluding that "available evidence" suggested that Iraq had used chemical weapons. Nevertheless, although the experts did not name Iraq in their report, they unanimously concluded that "chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran." In response to the report, the Security Council "strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons" but did so in the weaker form of a presidential declaration and not a resolution.

Resolution 544 On June 1, 1984, the Security Council adopted Resolution 552. Although the third world members managed to prevent any mention of Iran, the resolution "condemn[ed] attacks on commercial ships in the Gulf region and in particular the recent attacks on ships en route to and from ports of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait."' Predictably, Iran rejected the resolution, calling it the "one-sided" product of a "partial, callous and indifferent" Security Council.'

The United Nations undertook few peace initiatives in 1985. The Secretary-General did send a United Nations mission to Iran and Iraq to investigate the conditions of prisoners. The mission reported mistreatment of prisoners by both countries, with physical mistreatment more widespread in Iraq and psychological abuse more common in Iran. In addition, in April 1985, the Secretary- General made personal visits to both Iran and Iraq. Although he concluded after his visits that the gap between the combatants was "as wide as ever," the Secretary-General kept the lines of communication open and maintained his position as "the only go- between trusted by both sides.

Resolution 582 On February 9, 1986, Iran launched an offensive in which it captured the Fao Peninsula and gained control of about 175 square miles of Iraqi territory. In response, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 582, which one Security Council member described as a "resolution [that] is a little more objective and tries to bring the Council back to the center." In Iran's favor, the Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 resolution deplored "the initial acts which gave rise to the conflict" and the use of chemical weapons, while in deference to Iraq, it called for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal to internationally recognized boundaries. Iraq accepted the resolution provided it was interpreted as indivisible, but Iran rejected the resolution, in large part because it failed to specifically condemn Iraq as the initial aggressor.

Third Investigation on Chemical Weapons

From February 26 to March 3, 1986, a United Nations mission dispatched by the Secretary-General visited Iran to conduct a third investigation into the use of chemical weapons in the war. The mission unanimously concluded that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iran and named Iraq as the offender. The Security Council responded with a presidential declaration that strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons and, for the first time, named Iraq as the guilty party. Iraq did not reject the declaration but did criticize it for its lack of balance and for what Iran perceived as its focus on a "secondary issue[ ]" which detracted from United Nations efforts to end the hostilities entirely. Iran welcomed the condemnation of Iraq but made clear that the Security Council needed to do more than pass a resolution identifying and condemning Iraq as the aggressor responsible for starting the war.

Resoluti Date Vote Concerns on 479 28 Unanimo Noted the beginning of September us the Iran-Iraq War 1980

Research Report | Page 41 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

514 12 July 1982 Unanimo Called for an end to the Iran– us Iraq War. 522 4 October Unanimo Called for an end to the Iran– 1982 us Iraq War. 540 31 October 12-0-3 Condemned violations of 1983 international law in the Iran– Iraq War. 582 24 February Unanimo "Deplores" the use 1986 us of chemical weapons in the Iran–Iraq War.

Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Iraq-War https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/ uniimogbackgr.html https://undocs.org/S/RES/479(1980) https://undocs.org/S/RES/522(1982) https://undocs.org/S/RES/514(1982) https://undocs.org/S/RES/540(1983) https://undocs.org/S/RES/588(1986) https://undocs.org/S/RES/582(1986) https://undocs.org/S/RES/598(1987) https://undocs.org/S/RES/612(1988) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_Iran %E2%80%93Iraq_War Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran_(1980) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1983) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn-4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_al-Faw https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Iraq-War https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-iran-iraq-war-causes- timeline.html

Research Report | Page 43 of 44 Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020