Security Council

SECURITY COUNCIL

DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMITTEE Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has the responsibility of keeping international peace. It is the most powerful body of the United Nations; while other committees can only make recommendations, the Security Council makes decisions that countries have to follow. The Security Council meets throughout the year to address the most serious security issues facing the UN and the world. The Council is made up of 15 nations: five are permanent members and the remaining 10 seats rotate every two years among the nations in the UN. The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Each of these nations has “veto power,” which means that whenever any one of these countries votes “no” on a resolution, that resolution automatically fails. In order for a resolution to pass, all the permanent members must vote “yes.” The Security Council may deal with international conflict in many ways. When fighting breaks out, the Council's first goal is usually to call for a ceasefire, or an end to violence. It may also send peacekeeping forces to protect citizens and ensure that any UN decisions are carried out. The Security Council can use more forceful measures too, such as economic sanctions, which prevent a country from receiving money or trade. In the most serious situations, the Security Council can order the use of military force.

COMMITTEE TOPICS:

1. Non-proliferation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. 2. Piracy and the Laws of the High Sea. 3. The Situation in the Former Soviet Republic of Moldova

BACKGROUND REPORTS:

Topic #1 – Non-proliferation of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea

INTRODUCTION The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), commonly called North Korea, is widely considered a threat to stability in Asia. The government has openly admitted to selling missile technology in defiance of international law and pursuing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs. In 2006, North Korea tested a small nuclear weapon, showing its status as a nuclear power, and straining its already bad diplomatic relationship with the rest of the world.

1 The international community believes that North Korea’s nuclear weapons are a danger to Asia and the rest of the world. North Korea insists the weapons are intended for defense only. How the international community responds to the government of North Korea will impact the security of the region and the world. Since 1990, North Korea has been very dependant on international aid for food, since its own economy, as well as its agriculture industry, is very weak. However, this has not stopped the government’s attempts to try and purchase nuclear technology from other countries. North Korea’s weapons programs have continued in earnest. In spite of a decade of international attempts to negotiate with North Korea to prevent it from proliferating ballistic missiles, North Korea admitted in 1998 to selling missiles to countries considered unstable by the international community. Experts suspect buyers include Iran and Syria. In 2002, United States President George W. Bush listed North Korea as a member of “the axis of evil,” a group of nations accused of supporting terrorist activities. Many nations including the United States, label North Korea a “criminal regime” or a “terrorist state,” and refuse to maintain diplomatic relations with them. Other countries, such as China and Russia maintain diplomatic ties with the country. South Korea, considered most directly at risk from attack by North Korea, is also pursuing closer political ties with the country because of historical and cultural connections between their people. North Korea considers the U.S., S. Korea, and Japan to be imminent threats to its safety.

Nuclear Threat During the 1980s, the government of North Korea denied that it was developing nuclear weapons. It was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an agreement under which countries promised not to make or buy nuclear weapons. Although officials denied they were developing nuclear weapons, North Korea did have nuclear power plants. Under the NPT, countries with nuclear power plants must accept safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a United Nations agency. These agreements allow IAEA personnel to inspect countries’ nuclear power plants for safety and ensure they are not developing nuclear weapons. North Korea allowed IAEA inspectors into the country in 1992, but would not allow them access to certain sites. Although IAEA protested, the government would not cooperate with further investigations. The United States persuaded the North Korean government not to develop nuclear weapons by offering them incentives, or promises of economic and humanitarian aid. The US agreed to provide oil supplies and to help North Korea build more powerful, but safer nuclear power plants. South Korea and Japan also agreed to provide energy resources. In return, the government of North Korea agreed not to develop nuclear weapons and to let IAEA inspectors investigate. These promises became known as the 1994 Agreed Framework. To carry out the Agreed Framework, the US, South Korea and Japan created the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO). This organization arranged the transport of food aid and oil, implemented energy projects in North Korea, and helped maintain peace and stability in the region. In the years following the creation of the Agreed Framework, North Korea received food and oil through KEDO, but the government complained that KEDO was purposefully delaying the construction of nuclear power plants. By 2002, the Agreed Framework started to break down. North Korea revealed it was running a uranium-enrichment program, needed for the development of nuclear weapons. KEDO responded by stopping heavy-oil shipments. North Korea then announced that it would reopen nuclear facilities that it had closed under the Agreed Framework.

2 North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003, making it the first (and, so far, only) signatory to ever withdraw from the historic treaty. In response, the US began fortifying armed force installations and bases near North in South Korea and elsewhere in the region. North Korea saw this move as a direct threat, and warned it would retaliate if attacked. By mid-2003, the Agreed Framework had broken down completely.

PAST INTERNATIONAL ACTION In 2003, the IAEA adopted several resolutions calling for North Korea to comply with international standards. When North Korea continued to ignore those resolutions, IAEA referred the situation to the UN Security Council. The North Korean government demanded to negotiate directly with the United States government, which the US refused. Instead, the governments of South Korea, North Korea and the United States, along with Russia, China and Japan, met several times to discuss an end to North Korea’s nuclear program. These meetings—known as the Six Party Talks—were repeated over three years without resolution, primarily because of disagreements between the United States and North Korean governments. In July of 2005, North Korea tested seven missiles over the Sea of Japan. One long-range The United States, Japan, South Korea and Australia immediately condemned the test as an act of provocation and South Korea suspended food aid in protest. The Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1695 condemning the tests and demanding that North Korea suspend all missile launches. North Korea is now the ninth nation known to possess nuclear weapons. The international community reacted with shock and outrage. The Security Council again convened and unanimously issued a resolution condemning North Korea’s actions. Resolution 1718 also imposed sanctions on North Korea, preventing the country from buying, selling or receiving a range of goods from other nations, and imposing an asset freeze and travel ban on officials related to the nuclear weapons program. In July 2007, North Korea opened its borders for IAEA inspectors. Soon after, North Korea and South Korea signed an 8-point peace agreement on issues of permanent peace, economic cooperation and renewed travel between the countries.. This was the second step of what was outlined in the Six-Party Talks in February 2007, and was an indication of thawing of relations between North Korea and the countries involved in the Six Party Talks. On October 11, 2008, the US removed North Korea from its list of states that sponsor terrorism. In January 2009, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, visited North Korea and offered to normalize economic ties if they agreed to abandon their nuclear program. Days later, however, North Korea confirmed that they were preparing to test the launch of a ballistic missile believed to be capable of reaching the United States, calling it a ‘scientific satellite’.

Questions to Consider when formulating a resolution: 1. How should North Korea be persuaded to end its nuclear program? What methods of persuasion should be used? 2. Should food aid continue in North Korea? What can be done to help North Korea to become self-sustaining and encourage it to invest in its own legitimate economy and agriculture industry? 3. Under what circumstances should force be used to resolve this conflict?

3 4. What type of action regarding North Korea does your country support? 5. Does your country have a history of trade or economic relationships with North Korea? 6. Has your country provided aid, or supported the provision of aid, to North Korea? Has your country issued sanctions against North Korea? 7. What has the Security Council previously done to deal with the situation, what are they currently doing, and has your country supported their actions?

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): the United Nations Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (“Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” or “NPT” for short), adopted in 1970. The NPT has three main points. First, the five countries with nuclear weapons in 1970—China, France, the Soviet Union (today the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom and the United States—would not give nuclear weapons or technology to other countries. Second, non-nuclear-weapons-possessing countries would not develop or obtain weapons. Third, all countries would discuss disarmament and create “a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

Bibliography and Citations IAEA: North Korea www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk BBC: North Korea Nuclear Standoff Timeline http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asiapacific/ 2604437.stm Global Security – North Korea www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk Guardian Unlimited –North Korean and Nuclear Weapons Timeline – http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/subsectionmenu/0,,854619,00.html http://www.unausa.org/Document.Doc?id=313

4 Topic #2 – Piracy and the Laws of the High Sea

Introduction

Piracy today is very different from what it was like during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Nowadays, attacks against ships are not just confined to the high seas, but also take place most often on territorial seas and in ports. They also pose a serious threat to seafarers and to the shipping industry. In 2008, losses from ransoms alone reached tens of millions of dollars. Organized actions by national navies have all but eradicated piracy in their national Waters; However, piracy still flourishes in destabilized regions such as Somalia and developing countries with smaller naval forces such as Nigeria. Modern pirates have grown more sophisticated, using speedboats, GPS tracking devices and automatic weapons to capture primarily crewed cargo ships. After their capture, their crew and cargo can be ransomed for large amounts of money. Unfortunately, some of this money is being used to fund terrorists organizations within the region and around the world. With water covering three-fourths of the Earth's surface, maritime piracy and security is a unique and difficult burden for many nations. This universal concern has led to the creation of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other such groups. The prime goal of this community is to ensure the execution of existing international regulations to improve safety on the high seas. In particular, IMO's mission is to ensure that the world's most international industry, shipping, is protected against threats such as piracy. Piracy, as defined in Article 101 of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), is an illegal act of violence committed for private ends by a crew against a ship, aircraft, or persons/property in an area outside a state's jurisdiction. Voluntary participation of piracy or any act that intentionally facilitates an act of piracy is considered piracy as well. Piracy is still an existing problem for areas like the Malacca strait, between Indonesia and Malaysia, and other locales around the world. Much of international trade is transferred via the movement of merchandise cargo ships from one nation's port to another. To note, the existence of piracy not only undermines the integrity of shipping routes, but also of the nations trading.

One country that has seen a spike in piracy activity is Somalia. Although piracy has a strong presence in Southeast Asia, the escalation of piracy off the coast of Somalia and consequently the Gulf of Aden has exploded in recent years. Piracy in the Gulf of Aden has strategic importance because roughly twelve percent of the total volume of oil transported by sea passes through this gulf. Piracy directly threatens the lives of seafarers and obstructs the flow of humanitarian aid to Somalia. In response, the IMO's secretary general as well as many other institutions and state representatives have requested the UN Security Council take appropriate action to eradicate this maritime threat.

Definition As part of the 1982 UN Convention of the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) piracy is defined (in article 101) as: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

5 (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

History & UN involvement

The rise in piracy off the coast of Somalia is partly due to the lack of a stable government infrastructure within the nation as well as piracy's lucrative business potential. In Somalia, piracy is a highly organized business. It has generated millions of dollars in revenue by hijacking as many as twenty-five ships in the course of a year and demanding million-dollar ransoms for each ship's release. Because of the high pay-back with each hijack, Somali pirates are paid well, and piracy has continued to attract a multitude of gunman in Somalia alone. The issue of piracy has been a main topic of debate on the floor in the UN Security Council. On December 2nd, 2008, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1846 to address the current situation of piracy in Somalia's territorial waters. The resolution states that for the next 12 months, state and regional organizations will cooperate with the Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and therefore can enter Somalia's territorial waters to use "all necessary means" to fight piracy and armed robbery at sea, in accordance with relevant international law. Resolution 1846 enforces the same principles existing in a previously passed resolution by the UN Security Council "Resolution 1816. Resolution 1816, passed on June 2nd, 2008, was a United States & France"sponsored resolution that gave foreign warships the right to enter Somali waters "for the purposes of repressing acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea" by "all necessary means."

As for humanitarian aid, the United Nations World Food Program had been facing difficulty in avoiding pirates as their ships delivered food aid to Somalia. This problem was temporarily solved by the combined naval escorts of France, Denmark, Netherlands, and Canada promised to the UN World Food Program ships from November 2007 to June 2008.

Besides UN involvement, NATO has also addressed the piracy issue in Somalia by sending four equipped ships to police the dangerous waters off Somalia.

Potential for Future Action

Due to the increased frequency of pirate attacks in the Gulf of Aden, nations are seeing that there is a need for a multilateral approach to solving the issue. The United States and several European countries have been talking about ways to patrol the waters together. Within the UN itself, there has been serious consideration for the creation of a maritime peacekeeping force. Other potential actions that have been left open to debate include the creation of a standard shipping lane as well as providing a coastguard for Somalia. With the creation of a standard shipping lane, international forces would find it easier to monitor the flow of shipping traffic and to answer distress calls. Critics of this point out that due to the extensive coastline of Somalia and the Gulf of Aden, approx. 3,898 kilometers, the sufficient amount of naval vessels and

6 military aircraft may not be supplied, leaving the new shipping line more vulnerable as an easier target for pirates.

Conclusion The worsening situation in Somalia has attracted global attention, however it is not the sole locale where piracy has had an impact on local life. It does exhibit some of the problems faced by countries attempting to solve the matter; a non-existent navy, internal strife, and widespread poverty are all to blame for the worsening security. These symptoms are common amongst problem areas, and in dealing with the issue, they will be hurdles to be overcome. Adding to these are problems with international law and national sovereignty, so any solution will have to navigate difficult waters.

For Your Consideration:

1) Who has the right to determine when a country's territorial waters should be open to other countries' military forces?

2) Should the UN take it upon itself to stabilize Somalia's government?

3) What is the best method of patrolling the Gulf of Aden and the waters off the coast of Somalia?

4) How would the radical Islamist movements occurring in Somalia be best addressed?

5) Should crew members of cargo ships and cruise liners be allowed to carry firearms?

6) Under which country's law should captured pirates be brought into trial if they are caught in areas of the ocean not part of any country's territorial waters?

Bibliograhy and Citations:

1 – FT.com - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2bc5ad98-9059-11dd-8abb- 0000779fd18c.html 2 – http://www.somalipress.com/news/2008-aug-24/somali-pirates-fundingrebels. html 3 – http://home.wanadoo.nl/m.bruyneel/archive/modern/is180297.htm 4 – UNCLOS from UN website: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm 5 – IMB - http://www.icc-ccs.org/imb/overview.php 6 – IMO Resources - http://www.imo.org/includes/blastDataOnly.asp/data_id%3D23659/Piracy_28October 2008_.pdf 7 – UN Website - http://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_assembly/general_assembly_reports.htm 8 – IMB - http://www.icc-ccs.org/main/news.php?newsid=120 9 – CIA Worldbook - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/

7 geos/so.html 10 – http://archive.gulfnews.com/region/Somalia/10253872.html 11 - http://www.afsouth.nato.int/JFCN_Operations/allied_provider/news_release/NR_02_ 08.html 12 – http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080923/117048983.html 13 – http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnLL273055.html 14 – ibid. 15 – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7650415.stm

8 Topic #3 – The Situation in the Former Soviet Republic of Moldova.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.geographicguide.net/europe/maps-europe/maps/moldova-map

History

Moldova, which lies between Romania and the Ukraine, has a highly volatile history. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Moldova struggled to find its own identity. Many questioned Moldova’s need for independence, and demanded unification with Romania, a move that was strongly opposed by the Ukrainian and Russian minorities. The situation was exploited by communist bosses in Transnistria, who with the help of the KGB, helped unleash an armed conflict which led to the formation of the separatist Transnistrian Moldovan Republic.

Transnistria is Moldova’s largest obstacle. Immediately following Moldovan independence in 1991, ethnic Russians and Ukrainians in the area of eastern Transnistria (a small territory east of the Dniester river also called “Transdniester”) rebelled with substantial backing from Russia, fearing Moldova would attempt to merge into Romania. A bloody war of secession from Moldova ended in a 1992 ceasefire, and the secessionists declared the birth of the Dniester Moldovan Republic with Tiraspol as its capital. This region, dubbed “the black hole of Europe,” is under the control of president Smirnova’s clan, which profits from smuggling, arms production, and other activities which border on being illegal and break international law. Moldova has long tried to come to an agreement with Russia, which is a supporter of the Transnistria regime, but their attempts continue to be unsuccessful. The Transnistrian region has

9 a struggling economy that is ruled by organized crime. The region is also known for having a poor human rights record, and for its history of aggression and abuse against the media, religious groups, and Moldovan/Romanian-speakers.

Despite negotiations under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), movement toward a settlement of the conflict has been slow. In 1997, Moldova and Transnistria agreed to remain one country, and in 1998 Russia reduced its forces. Negotiations with the OSCE at the 1999 Istanbul Summit resulted in a December 2001 deadline for the evacuation of the remaining Russian troops and arsenal. After a succession of partial and postponed withdrawals, Russia stated in January 2003 that it would maintain its military presence in the region for “security” purposes.

Moldova struggled for several years after independence as a presidential republic with an ineffective parliament, lacking a new constitution and undergoing separatist unrest in the regions of Gaugauzia (in the south) and Transnistria (in the west). A new constitution, adopted in 1994, granted Gaugauzia autonomy, and in 2000 the Parliament approved a constitutional amendment making Moldova a parliamentary republic. The Parliament elects the President and confirms the Prime Minister, a presidential appointment. The 1996 presidential election, considered free and fair by international observers, resulted in victory for center-left President Petru Lucinschi. In December 2000, after the parliament failed to elect a new president, Lucinschi dissolved it and called for new elections. In the 2001 free elections, the Communist Party won a majority of seats. The new parliament, in turn, elected Vladimir Voronin, head of the Communist Party, to succeed Lucinschi as president.

Recent Conflict In February 2003, Voronin, a native of Transdniester, proposed a new initiative to settle the dispute with Transdniester. He called for a new constitution that would turn Moldova into a loose confederation of two states and grant the Russian language official status. Both Moldova and Transdniester would have their own governing and legislative bodies, budgets, defense, customs, and the monetary systems would be common for the federation. However, it was not accepted.

In parliamentary elections in March 2005, the Communist Party—formerly aligned with Russia but recently becoming more pro-Western—won 46% of the vote. In April, President Voronin was reelected president, and he in turn reappointed Prime Minister Vasile Tarlev.

On March 19, 2008, Prime Minister Vasile Tarlev resigned unexpectedly, saying that he had achieved his goals, and he felt it was time for new blood in the government. President Vladimir Voronin nominated a new candidate for prime minister, Zinaida Greceanii. Crowds of demonstrators attacked Parliament after the ruling Communist Party won general elections in March 2009. Violent protests followed, and the country became mired in political deadlock. Inaction of the police and accusatory statements of the authorities angered the public, who continued actions of unrest and discontent, deriving primarily from the overall perception that the elections were derailed from democratic standards.

On the night of April 8, police arrested around 200 protestors, and launched harsh criticism against opposition parties, while continuing to use state media to discredit the majority of

10 protesters, who were peaceful. While in no way addressing the protesters requests, the authorities initiated indiscriminate arrests and beatings of protesters, banned private media, and crushed public meetings and leaders of the opposition. The current crisis has older roots. Public mistrust in the political system in Moldova has been rising in recent years. Accusations of state control over the media, abuse of administrative resources, and lack of public dialogue have been repeatedly heard. The last elections contributed to the atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion, as allegations and documentation of cases of harassment and aggression of opposition party activists and increased control over state media abounded. Resistance of the authorities to a dialogue with the opposition parties on the documented cases of electoral irregularities increased the public frustration and anger. Accusation of neighboring Romania of being behind the violent protests and the unilateral diplomatic punitive measures taken by Moldovan authorities did not help to calm the situation.

In the July revote of parliamentary elections, the Communists lost their majority, taking 44.8% of the vote (48 of 101 seats). A coalition of four parties agreed to form a government.

Until recently, a union between Romania and Moldova was deemed unlikely, owing to a lack of interest in both countries. In Romania, while most political parties give mild support to the concept, at least in theory, unification would most probably be a burden on the Romanian economy, considering that Moldova is currently among the poorest countries in Europe. Additionally, Romania joined the European Union in 2007, and while the country has recently supported Moldova in its foreign policy, many political analysts question Moldova's political preparedness and whether it has made sufficient progress towards unification.

Questions to Consider: 1. How can the Security Council address this current crisis? 2. What can be done to address the results of the current parliamentary elections that took place in Moldova? 3. What can be done to address the government abuses and human rights violations that are taking place in Moldova? 4. How does your country view the proposal to establish a unified Romania and Moldovia? Does your country support the “Belkovski Proposal” for a unified Romanian-Moldovan state? 5. Does your country support the idea of dual citizenship in which citizens of Moldova obtain Romanian citizenship? 6. How can more effective channels of political dialogue between the main opposition parties and the ruling party be established in order to restore trust and stability within the government? Bibliography and Citations: 1. http://www.neww.org/en/news/print/1,4875,4.html 2. www.turkishweekly.net/print.asp?type=1&id=72404 3. http://www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/moldova/HISTORY.html 4. http://www.worldofmoldova.com/en/moldova-general-information/history-of- moldova/ 5. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107787.html