“The United Nations is designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members” - Harry S. Truman

Catholic University of America Model United Nations Conference 2014 Security Council Background Guide

Ryan Sundstrom Katie Sharma

CUMUNC 2014 CUMUMC 2014 Dear CUMUNC Delegates, Secretariat Welcome to the UN Security Council. I hope you are all prepared to have an amazing time debating international issues in the hopes of preventing war. Or possibly you all we decide to start a war, that’s the power you will be given by being placed in the Security Council. Now the rest of Kait Fuhr this guide should give you a balanced background of the issue of Iran’s Secretary General Nuclear Program, so I’ll take this time to discuss a little bit about myself. My name is Ryan Sundstrom and I am currently a junior here at Catholic University. I am studying international politics as following a Pre-Law course path, so I am very familiar with International issues faced on a daily basis by the UN. I expect you all too also have at least a general knowledge of the Security Council issues we will be discussing in order to facilitate Jacqueline Vesce productive debates. The Pre-Law track of my major also means I am Director-General especially interested in international law, and resolutions from the UN Security Council play a major role in creating international law. Basically I am giving you a fair warning that I am very excited for these debates on these issues that Katie and I will be overseeing. It also means I share a love for international law that I hope you all also share, so I am open to any questions you may have. This will be my second year in a row chairing the Kaitlyn Degnan Security Council; however last year it was a slightly different Council. The Director of Security Council last year was placed historically in the late 1950s, early Logistics 1960s, so a lot of our debates were over Cold War issues. However I am extremely excited for this year as we will be discussing issues in modern context that the actual UN are contemplating at this time. Now if you have any other questions about me personally, feel free to ask. But for now let me tell you what I expect for our debate sessions. CUMUNC’s overall goal is for delegates to have fun being placed in the Dorle Hellmuth shoes of international lawmakers. That being said, I still expect respect and CUA-IAA Advisor parliamentary matters to be followed. I hope to have a lot of fun with all of you, but that is only possible if we all know when to be funny and when it is time to be serious. But I am overall very easy going and will allow you all to lead the debates in the direction you see fit, as long as we do not get too far off topic. My only request is that you show Katie and I respect as your chairs, and we will return that respect. Other than that, just have fun! From now until CUMUNC, I suggest you all read through this background guide as well as the one prepared by Katie. You may also want to do further research on the issues based on the nations you will be representing. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at any time or we can always speak in person at CUMUNC. Katie and I are very excited to meet all of you and keep peace throughout the world! Enjoy and see you all soon!

Ryan Sundstorm

[email protected]

CUMUNC 2014

CUMUMC

2014 Dear CUMUNC Delegates, Secretariat My name is Katie Sharma and I will be serving as your Vice Chair of the Security Council for CUMUNC 2014! I am so pleased to welcome you to this committee, and I hope you thoroughly enjoy your experience at CUMUNC and are excited to be a part of this incredible council. I would like Kait Fuhr to start off by reminding you that as a part of Security Council you have the Secretary General opportunity to create and implement solutions to current, pressing global issues. You have the most authority, and your decisions and resolutions weigh heavily amongst the international community. The topics we have prepared for you are complex and compelling, and will push you to think outside of the box when it comes to resolution building. While researching the topics I personally found myself becoming anxious and eager for Jacqueline Vesce CUMUNC, and I hope you feel the same! Director-General On a personal note, I am a sophomore Politics major with a double minor in Arabic and Islamic World Studies. In high school I was vice president of my Model UN club my Junior Year and President my Senior Year. I have travelled to three MUN conferences, one here in D.C. and two in New York City. I served on Security Council twice in high school, and it was most Kaitlyn Degnan definitely my favorite committee. Director of Logistics If you have any questions at all or would just like to say hello, please feel free to email me. I sincerely hope each of you feels comfortable and excited to be on Security Council, and I promise I will do my absolute best to ensure your experience at CUMUNC is the best it can be. I look forward to seeing you all in February, good luck with your research!

Dorle Hellmuth Sincerely, CUA-IAA Advisor Katie Sharma [email protected]

CUMUNC 2014

Security Council Mission Statement

The UN Charter established six main organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council. It gives primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Security Council, which may meet whenever peace is threatened.

According to the Charter, the United Nations has four purposes:

• to maintain international peace and security; • to develop friendly relations among nations; • to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; • and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

All members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the United Nations make recommendations to member states, only the Security Council has the power to make decisions that member states are then obligated to implement under the Charter.

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council’s first action is usually to recommend that the parties try to reach agreement by peaceful means. The Council may:

• set forth principles for such an agreement; • undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases; • dispatch a mission; • appoint special envoys; or • request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to achieve a pacific settlement of the dispute.

When a dispute leads to hostilities, the Council’s primary concern is to bring them to an end as soon as possible. In that case, the Council may:

• issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict; • dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce tensions, separate opposing forces and establish a calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought.

Beyond this, the Council may opt for enforcement measures, including:

• economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and restrictions, and travel bans; • severance of diplomatic relations; • blockade; • or even collective military action.

A chief concern is to focus action on those responsible for the policies or practices condemned by the international community, while minimizing the impact of the measures taken on other parts of the population and economy.

CUMUNC 2014 Topic A: Issue of the Iranian Nuclear Program

The Security Council is consistently called upon to keep the peace throughout the world and implement the measures necessary to ensure that the peace maintains. Many times this means the Council must step in to either prevent war or implement it where it is deemed necessary. However, the prevention of war is preferable, which is why in the past the Council has taken measures to prevent the continuation of actions that may lead to conflict. This is the case that is faced by the Council upon the current issue with Iran. The Council must find a way to appease both the international world and Iran in concerns to their nuclear program in such a way as to prevent conflict amongst Iran, its neighbors, and their allies.

The primary issue here is the fear of Iran developing a nuclear weapon via their current nuclear enrichment program. While Iran itself claims to only be enriching uranium for energy purposes, the majority of the world powers believe they have underlying goals of enriching uranium for a nuclear bomb. The fear is that Iran will go beyond enrichment for levels and enrich their uranium to 90% purity, which would be the subsequent levels necessary for a bomb. The problem was made even more likely when in 2002 the IAEA could not confirm in their investigations of Iran’s nuclear plants that the program was only for peaceful purposes. Iran has since consistently failed to comply with the safe guards of the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty1. Obvious concerns have been raised in a scenario in which Iran gains nuclear weapons capability. Israel feels they are in the most danger in this scenario from an Iranian nuclear strike, as Iran has historically expressed its distaste for Israel existing in the Middle East. But Israel is not the only country that has concerns. Many nations fear that Iran, with its historical revolutions and corrupt leadership, is not stable enough of a nation to be trusted with nuclear weapons. Another facet of the issue is how to ensure Iran either is not producing nuclear weapons or how to enforce the shutdown of their nuclear program. As things are now, the international community must simply go on the word of the Iranian leadership that they are not producing enriched uranium to be made into weapons.

History

Iran’s nuclear program first came to the attention of the international community in 2002. A political opposition group within Iran leaked information of secret activity by the Iranian government that included uranium enrichment site at Natanz as well as a heavy-water reactor in Arak2. But a deeper look at the full history of Iran’s nuclear program is necessary to understand the tensions of today. Iran began its nuclear program in the 1950’s with assistance from the United States as well as other Western European powers. International assistance would continue with the program until the Iranian Revolution of 1979. As a result of this revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini disbanded the nuclear weapons program in Iran as he felt such weapons were not warranted under Muslim ethics and law. In the time span of the Ayatollah’s rule, Iran signed quite a few treaties and agreements that were against the creation and holding of nuclear weapons by nations. These treaties included the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty3. Iran found itself in trouble in 2003 when the IAEA declared that Iran had failed to give the proper notifications about their sensitive enrichment and

1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428 2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

CUMUNC 2014 reprocessing activities. The IAEA also came to the conclusion that before 2003 Iran likely had conducted research and experiments with the end goal of creating nuclear weapons. The reports detailed evidence of Iran conducting experiments on “nuclear weapons design, including detonator development, the multiple-point initiation of high explosives, and experiments involving nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle”4. But in 2007 the United States declared that while these experiments may have very well occurred previous to 2003, it is their belief that since then Iran has not continued in any activity aimed towards nuclear weapons. Because of the scrutiny of the international community, Iran agreed to allow more transparency for international inspection bodies to come into the country to check on their enrichment programs, as per the Additional Protocol added to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and forced upon the Iranians in 20035. But tensions would again rise in 2005 when the new President Ahmadinejad was elected and stated that Iran had the right to produce a civil-nuclear power as per the framework of the 1970 treaty on non-proliferation. More recently talks have again opened up with the election of a new President who is more open to compromise.

Relevant International Action

Security Council Resolution 1696: Iran must suspend its enrichment program and verify its cooperation with the IAEA Board of Governors’ requirements for the enrichment program. The resolution is meant to encourage Iran to take an opportunity to build trust amongst the international community, but also warns of the consequences of economic sanctions should Iran fail to comply6.

Security Council Resolution 1737- This was in response to Iran’s failure to comply with Resolution 1696 and again calls for Iran to suspend its enrichment program as well as take other measures to build international confidence. However it goes a step farther by forcing Iran to suspend its work on heavy-water reactors rather than just reconsidering their implementation. It also calls from Iran to ratify the Additional Protocol of the IAEA, with enforcement coming in the form of economic sanctions to all individuals and the state for their involvement in proliferation activities7.

Security Council Resolution 1747- Along with again encouraging Iran to follow with the recommendations from the previous two resolutions, 1747 tried to push Iran to consider the June 2006 proposals in hopes of reaching long term agreements with the P5+18.

Security Council Resolution 1835- This simply reaffirmed the previous four resolutions concerned with Iran’s nuclear program as well as reiterating the Council’s wish for “an early negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear issue”9.

24 November, 2013 Geneva Interim Deal- For a “first step” period of six months, Iran agrees to halt uranium enrichment above 5% purity, reduce its stockpile of moderately enriched uranium, stop the increase of the centrifuges, halt work on the reactor at Arak, and provide more

4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran 5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_power_in_Iran 6 http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran 7 http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran 8 http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran 9 http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran

CUMUNC 2014 information to UN inspectors investigating enrichment facilities10. In return the world powers will temporary reverse economic sanctions placed on Iran in response to their nuclear program11.

Analysis

In short, the issue is created by distrust amongst Iran and the international community. The world powers fear that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, while Iran claims to simply be seeking energy-related uses from nuclear power. The issue will not be solved until the two sides can come up with some way of trusting each other to keep their word. Even with the most recent agreement of November, there are still those who do not trust Iran to keep their word.

Possible Solutions:

With trust being the one of the biggest parts of this issue, it seems imperative that there must be some solution in which the international community can be 100% sure Iran is keeping its word. A scenario in which there was a greater international influence involved internally within Iran during its downgrade of the nuclear enrichment program would be a possibly solution path

Conclusion

In closing, it should be clear what task lies ahead for this Council. You must reach some agreement on how to handle the Iran nuclear program as it stands as of the most recent Interim Deal. This deal has been seen by many to be “letting Iran off too easy”. This Council must now decide whether a deal such as this is sufficient or if further action is necessary to ensure peace in the Middle East and throughout the globe.

10 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428 11 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428

CUMUNC 2014 Bibliography http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11709428 http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Security-Council-Resolutions-on-Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_power_in_Iran

CUMUNC 2014 Topic B: The Situation in Jammu and Kashmir

Introduction: Jammu and Kashmir has been a disputed region for nearly sixty years and is constantly under pursuit by both India and Pakistan. Both countries claim to have rights to the territory, and thus the region is susceptible to constant conflict. The United Nations has addressed the conflict on numerous occasions, however no substantive resolutions have been made to cease the dispute over the land. Keeping in mind the political views of India and Pakistan as well as the International Community, it is imperative for the Security Council to take measures to ensure peace and stability within the region.

Statement of the Issue: Jammu and Kashmir is located where the borders of India, Pakistan, and China meet and has a population of nearly 7 million people. The conflict within the region emerged in August of 1947 with the independence of both India and Pakistan. Both countries claimed rights to the region; thus the Indian Independence Act of 1947 stated that Jammu and Kashmir (commonly referred to just as “Kashmir) was free to choose to which country it wished to accede. After pressure of invasion from India, the government of Kashmir decided to accede to India, which caused a great amount of hostility from Pakistan. Full out war between India and Pakistan over the region broke out in 1947 and again later in 1965. The United Nations Security Council has adopted three different resolutions since the beginning of the conflict, yet instability still reigns throughout the region. This is of utmost security concern for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, both India and Pakistan are known to have nuclear weapons, therefore the threat of the conflict escalating to a nuclear level is always present. Jammu and Kashmir is also of security concern due to its ties to international terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Both of these organizations as well as other Islamic militant forces have used acts of terrorism to try to drive India out of the region.

History

CUMUNC 2014 The conflict over Jammu and Kashmir began in 1947 when India gained independence. India split its 565 states into two countries; the states that had a majority Muslim population became present day Pakistan and the rest of the states, which had a predominantly Hindu population, became India. With this split came the question of what to do with the land in the middle of the two new nations. This was an especially difficult decision, for Kashmir was predominantly Muslim yet ruled by a Hindu prince named Maharaja Hari Singh. Ultimately, the government of Kashmir decided to side with India after being put under massive pressure and even threat of invasion from India; this decision caused massive upheaval from the Pakistani government, which in turn caused the first war of three wars between the two nations in October of 1947 and it lasted until December 1948. Following the first India- Pakistani war, the United Nations Security Council adopted its first resolution in an attempt to bring stability to the region. Resolution 39 was adopted in January 1948 and “established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and mediate the dispute” (Peace Kashmir, 1). This resolution called for a ceasefire, also referred to as the “line of control” which successfully ended the war but did not end the dispute. The ceasefire was only effective until 1965 when the second war between the nations commenced. Relations between India and Pakistan became strained “because of their conflicting claims over the Rann of Kutch [an area within the Kashmir region] at the southern end of the international boundary” (Peace Kashmir, 2). Tensions continued to rise and finally in August 1965 military fighting erupted along the “line of control”. The war lasted for five weeks and ended in yet another ceasefire resolution by the Security Council. However, the ceasefire once again was not effective, for the final war between the nations began in 1971. Ultimately, Pakistan lost the battle which lead to the Silma Pact. This agreement stated that both nations would attempt settling their disputes by means of bilateral negotiation and peace talks; the pact also stated that the “line of control” set in the first Security Council resolution was the semi- official border between India and Pakistan. The 1990s only further escalated the conflict between the two nations, for during this time period India and Pakistan both conducted underground tests of nuclear weapons. These tests escalated the conflict to an entirely new level, for nuclear war would be more

CUMUNC 2014 detrimental to the region and people than the past three wars combined. India and Pakistan experienced a number of minor conflicts in the disputed region during the 1990s, however it was generally a peaceful time period. Unfortunately, tensions quickly rose between the two nations in 2001 when an unsuccessful attack occurred on Indian Parliament. “If the December 2001 terrorist attack on Parliament was a success then they would have made Jammu and Kashmir an international issue” (Agarwal, 1). Following this nearly catastrophic event, India and Pakistan renewed diplomatic relations in May 2003; however the threat of war, particularly at the nuclear level, is always present between the disputing nations.

Relevant International Action: Each of the three wars between India and Pakistan over Kashmir were ended by UN Security Council resolutions. The first resolution was in 1947 and was responsible for calling a ceasefire and creating the “line of control”. The resolution stated that the dispute over the region would be settled by a plebiscite. “The Government of India should undertake that there will be established in Jammu and Kashmir a Plebiscite Administration to hold a Plebiscite as soon as possible on the question of the accession of the State to India or Pakistan” (Resolution 47, 2). Although this resolution effectively ended the first India- Pakistani war, it did not end the dispute that caused the war. A plebiscite was never picked by the government of India, for India refuses to do so until Pakistan withdraws its military from the region. Following the first India- Pakistani war, both countries signed the Karachi Agreement in July 1949. This agreement established a ceasefire line “to be supervised by the military observers. These observers, under the command of the Military Advisor, formed the nucleus of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP)” (Peace Kashmir, 4). Following the second India- Pakistani war on January 10, 1966, the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan signed the Tashkent Agreement. In this agreement, both countries conceded to the “withdrawal of all armed personnel of both sides to the positions they had held prior to 5 August 1965 should be completed by 25

CUMUNC 2014 February 1966 and that both sides should observe the terms of the ceasefire” (Peace Kashmir, 5). Following the third war between the two nations, India and Pakistan signed the Silma Pact on July 2, 1972. The pact resolved that both countries would work to put an end to the conflict that had previously severed their relations and also laid down the principles that would govern their future relations.

Analysis: The dispute over the Kashmir region is complex and many of the disputes are related to religion within the region. As stated previously when India declared independence, it split its 565 states up according to the religion of each region. The regions dominated by Muslims became Pakistan and the regions filled with Hindus became India. Jammu and Kashmir was not as easy to split down the middle, for both Hindus and Muslims resided in the territory. However the region is predominantly Muslim, yet controlled by a Hindu government. This disconnect in religion only further escalates the conflict, and thus each nation believes they have a right to the area. Pakistan argues that because the other states were split up according to religion likewise Kashmir should do the same, for in this case the territory would undoubtedly side with Pakistan. On the contrary, India believes it has a right to the region because Kashmir acceded in 1947 to India, even though the territory was under threat of invasion. Should Pakistan step back and allow India to have the jurisdiction over the region it was given in 1947? Or should India allow Pakistan the region on the principle that it is a predominantly Muslim territory? Or should the people of Kashmir be allowed to choose for themselves with which country they wish to be associated?

Possible solutions: Before brainstorming ideas for solutions, it is important to analyze which country has rightful jurisdiction to the region, as well as work to prevent the dispute from escalating to a nuclear level. India has been arguing since 1947 that Jammu and Kashmir is not a disputed region. Prince Singh was given the choice to choose which country Kashmir wanted to be controlled by, and he chose India. This should have settled the dispute from

CUMUNC 2014 the beginning, and by this logic Pakistan should retract all military force in the region and allow India sole jurisdiction. On the other hand, India and Pakistan were split into Muslim and Hindu regions from the time of independence. On this principle, because Kashmir contains more Muslims than Hindus, it should join sides with Pakistan; for if it were given a choice by popular vote, the region most likely would choose its Muslim counterpart. Another possible solution is to follow up on the UN Security resolution 47 which called upon the Government of India to set up a plebiscite in Kashmir to decide which country the region wished to be under jurisdiction of. This plan was never executed because India refused to do so until Pakistan withdraws its troops from the “line of control”. Perhaps if Pakistan could be convinced to withdraw all troops quickly, India could successfully set up a plebiscite which would ultimately work in Pakistan’s favor long term.

Bloc Positions: Middle East: The majority of the countries in the Middle East are Muslim, and thus side with Pakistan on the issue. In addition, India is allies with the United States of America, which has been the cause of some Middle Eastern conflicts such as the war in Iraq. The Middle East sees India’s attempt at taking the Kashmir region almost as an attack toward the Islamic community. As Dr. Shaheen Akhtar from Islamabad states in her article “Kashmir is invariably described as an ‘unfinished agenda’…and is considered integral to the Islamic identity of the Pakistani state” (Akhtar, 1).

United States of America: The United States’ goal in the conflict is to avoid war, especially nuclear war at all costs. In the past the United States has pressured Pakistan to stop the terrorism within its borders and its surrounding areas in Kashmir while simultaneously discouraging India from attacking. The United States’ main goal regarding the conflict is to prevent further terrorist activity in the region, especially in the cases of Al Qaeda and the Taliban while concurrently preventing a full blown nuclear war. For if a war were to start in this region,

CUMUNC 2014 it would be a hotbed for terrorist activity and would further hinder the United States’ war on terror.

China: China tends to lean in the direction of Pakistan regarding the conflict. Although the issue commenced before the People’s Republic of China was founded, China has had much involvement in the dispute due to the fact that it shares a border with the region. China has become increasingly aggressive in its questioning of India’s right to jurisdiction over the region, especially in recent years. For example, in 2008 China began issues visas on a separate paper file to residents of Jammu and Kashmir, rather than stamping the visa in their passport like other Indian citizens as China had done in the past. “China has never accepted India’s sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir, even over the part that is under its control. After all, if it did it would mean giving up the roughly 43, 180 square kilometers of territory that is currently under its control” (Ramachandran, 3). China is also involved in several infrastructure projects in the northern- Pakistani controlled areas of Kashmir.

Conclusion: The situation in Jammu and Kashmir is pressing and needs to be addressed promptly. The three wars India and Pakistan have fought over the disputed region has escalated over the years, and now both countries are nuclear capable. It is imperative for the Security Council to reach a resolution regarding the status of the disputed territory while simultaneously taking measures and precautions to ensure peace and stability within the region as well as India and Pakistan. This conflict has the ability to escalate into a full scale international crisis and must be dealt with promptly.

CUMUNC 2014 Bibliography

1. Agarwal, Bina. "Parliament Attack: Why Didn't the Bomb Explode? Afzal Guru Wonders." The Indian Express. N.p., 9 Feb. 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. .

2. Akhtar, Shaheen. "Kashmir: Pakistan's 'unfinished Agenda' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English." Kashmir: Pakistan's 'unfinished Agenda' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English. N.p., 21 Aug. 2011. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. .

3. "Kashmir, UN Security Council Resolution 47." Kashmir, UN Security Council Reolution 47. N.p., 21 Apr. 1948. Web. 16 Dec. 2013. .

4. Peace, Kashmir. "Indian Pakistan - Background." Indian Pakistan - Dispute. Peace Kashmir, n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2013. .

5. Ramachandran, Sudha. "Asia Times Online :: South Asia News, Business and Economy from India and Pakistan." Asia Times Online :: South Asia News, Business and Economy from India and Pakistan. N.p., 4 Jan. 2011. Web. 16 Dec. 2013. .

6. "What Is Kashmir?" The Washington Post. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. .

CUMUNC 2014

CUMUNC 2014