CAIMUN 2021

DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE Background Guide A CANADA INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED NATIONS Tenth Annual Session | May 28-30, 2021

Dear Delegates,

Othman Mekhlouf My name is Lincoln Lee, and I am excited to welcome you to the Disarmament and Secretary-General International Security Committee at CAIMUN 2021 alongside your chairs Nick Liu and Jan Peng. This year, we will discuss two widely relevant issues: Interventions in Foreign Warfare and Threats to Global Energy Security. As stakeholders in each topic, I encourage you to research the topic thoroughly and represent your countries Angel Yuan accurately so as to build a high quality of debate. Director-General

Even after four years of Model UN, I still remember my frst conference where Nikki Wu every one of my speeches was accompanied by a trembling voice. I barely kept my Chief of Staff composure in front of what looked like a room full of prying eyes and struggled to stay relevant in the fast-paced debate. After several conferences, however, I found the true value of Model UN. Through this activity, I learned to overcome my fears, fnd a passion for politics, and most importantly, met new people who are now my Matthew Leung Director of Logistics mentors and best friends. To delegates feeling nervous about speaking out in front of a large crowd, I encourage you to make an active effort to come up to the podium as much as possible. MUN has been, without exaggeration, life-changing for me, and I Madeline Kim hope you’ll fnd the same benefts I have. USG of General Assemblies I also cannot end this letter without giving credit to last year’s committee Director Nikolas Michael for his incredible dedication and hard work poured into both the Mikael Borres frst and second background guides. Though the previous iteration of CAIMUN was USG of Specialized Agencies cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, his two background guides gave this committee’s 2021 iteration the foundation from which to refne and perfect. Thank Alec Yang you Nikolas for your hard work—your several months’ effort has not gone to waste. USG of Delegate Affairs On behalf of my dais team, I welcome you to CAIMUN 2021! Please direct all committee-related inquiries to [email protected], and I will be happy to help you. Caitlin Adams USG of Delegate Affairs Sincerely,

Lincoln Lee Emily Hu Director of the Disarmament and International Security Committee — CAIMUN USG of Media 2021 Table of Contents

Committee Description ...... 2

Topic Overview ...... 3

Timeline of Events ...... 4

Historical Analysis ...... 6

Current Situation ...... 8

Past Involvement ...... 10

Potential Solutions ...... 12

Bloc Positions ...... 15

Discussion Questions ...... 18

Further Resources ...... 18

Bibliography ...... 19

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 1 Committee Description

The Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC) is the first of six main committees of the United Nations General Assembly that invites all 193 states with full United Nations (UN) membership to participate in committee proceedings.1 Established shortly after the end of World War II, DISEC serves as the international forum for debate and deliberation surrounding disarmament and the preservation of peace and security. The committee’s mandate is constituted in Article 11 under Chapter IV of the UN Charter, which permits the General Assembly to “discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations.”2 During sessions of this committee, governmental representatives seek to reach a cooperative understanding of how to protect global peace by reducing the threat of nuclear warfare and the size of conventional military arsenals.

Since its inception in 1946, DISEC has been directly responsible for drafting the preliminary frameworks for what would become treaties of substantial importance to the limitation of dangerous weapons. DISEC endorsed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968, the Convention on the Prohibition of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons (BTWC) in 1972, and the Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (CWC) in 1992. Additionally, DISEC has successfully adopted numerous resolutions designed to combat the illicit small arms trade, including the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in 2013. In recent years, DISEC members have channelled their efforts towards confronting the renewed global anxiety about nuclear weapons, examining the implications of space militarization, and developing strategies to address conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa.3

As a committee of the General Assembly, DISEC has limited jurisdiction over the affairs of sovereign states, which prevents its adopted resolutions from being legally enforced. While its resolutions are not formally binding, however, they are considered internationally normative in that they can prescriptively outline a set of general guidelines for the expected behaviour of countries.4 Thus, the responsibility of thorough criticism and discussion falls upon every delegate so as to set an accurate global standard.

1 https://www.un.org/en/ga/first/ 2 http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/ 3 https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/united-nations-general-assembly/ 4 http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/unga

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 2 Interventions in Foreign Warfare Topic Overview

Foreign intervention refers to any action taken by a government designed to influence the trajectory and outcome of a conflict out of their domestic realm and traditional jurisdiction. Such measures commonly include political and diplomatic assistance, military and logistical reinforcement, or capital relief.5 Historically, the motives for governments choosing to involve themselves in foreign warfare have ranged from the advancement of their national interest to resolving humanitarian crises, upholding international treaty law, and achieving national or global security.6

However, intergovernmental entities such as the UN have designed a general framework delineating the conditions that must be met for a military foreign intervention to be valid under international law. Before a military intervention is considered justified, a government must demonstrate that all non-violent measures, diplomatic or otherwise, have failed to neutralize a threat to the rule of law, a vulnerable population or state, or global collective security.7

Among the several wide-ranging implications of World War II on international dynamics, one of the most notable is the departure from traditional interstate warfare in favour of increasingly frequent civil conflicts.8 This trend was fuelled by the decline of European colonial empires which had established hegemonic rule by overcoming unrest. For instance, as the British and French began to lose ground during World War II, they were prompted to relinquish control over their respective colonial subjects by allowing historically ethnic, religious, or otherwise tribal fault lines to incite armed factional militancy against the Germans.9 Many of these conflicts, however, grew to affect neighbouring countries, which modified the peace of entire regions or even the global power balance. As such, select affected neighbouring nations began to take interest in improving the status of foreign conflicts by means of foreign intervention in these civil conflicts.10

At present, however, many civil conflicts already intervened with have not seen significant improvements in status. Thus, the international community has called into question the efficacy and motives behind the use of interventionism as a strategy; they suspect that intervening nations may cite peaceful reasons for their involvement while working towards an alternative goal. This focus on a goal other than achieving peace may be the cause of the intervention's inefficiency: lack of concentration on actually achieving peace. This skeptical sentiment is common among

5 Ibid. 6 https://www.iep.utm.edu/interven/#SH3b 7 https://www.interactioncouncil.org/publications/justifiable-cases-military-intervention 8 https://www.english-online.at/history/world-war-2/results-and-aftermath-of-world-war-ii.htm 9 https://www.usi.edu/media/2431739/ram-barber.pdf 10 https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2018-10/sipri08seybolt.pdf

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 3 governments of observer nations, as well as certain actors who have a direct stake in the outcome of a given civil war.11 At present, there is no definitive set standard legal criteria for determining the legitimacy of military intervention with impartial arbitrators bearing overall jurisdiction over such matters. Thus, delegates are tasked with codifying and ultimately settling an agreed upon standard for the uncertainty surrounding military foreign intervention, as much as DISEC's mandate allows.

Timeline of Events

September 4, 1839 – October 24, 1860 — During the First and Second Opium Wars, the British Empire forcibly ends the Qing dynasty’s attempts to obstruct the British opium trade in coastal China.12 Continued sale of opium in China perpetuated widespread addiction and thus serious social and economic damages.

June 10, 1900 – September 7, 1901 — The , France, Japan, and other European powers assemble the Eight-Nation Alliance in response to the Boxer crisis in Imperial China. The allies manage to promptly subdue the anti-Western rebels, and the Chinese Qing Dynasty is left severely weakened in the aftermath.13

October 24, 1945 — The United Nations Charter enters into law after ratification by all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).14 Among its provisions is Chapter VI, outlining the conditions under which a foreign intervention is legitimate and legal under international law.15

June 25, 1950 – July 27, 1953 — After communist-backed North Korean military forces cross the 38th parallel to invade South Korea, a UN coalition consisting of forces from the United States, Britain, France, and others intervene in the . The combat ended in stalemate with all belligerents agreeing to divide the peninsula at the 38th parallel, creating a demilitarized zone under neutral auspices.16

August 15 – August 19, 1953 — The American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) launch Operation Ajax, a covert intervention designed to remove Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh from power in Iran after a crisis results from his

11 https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/dilemma-humanitarian-intervention 12 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Opium-Wars 13 https://www.history.com/topics/china/boxer-rebellion 14 https://www.un.org/en/sections/history-united-nations-charter/index.html 15 https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/ 16 https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 4 nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. Oil trade resumed after Mosaddegh was ousted, but the United Kingdom retains 40% of its stake in Iranian oil revenue despite dissenting public opinion.17

June 18 – June 27, 1954 — A covert CIA operation in Guatemala forcibly ousts president Jacobo Arbenz from power and replaces him with the military dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas— thus bringing an end to the ten-year Guatemalan Revolution.18

August 2, 1964 — The USS Maddox, an American military naval vessel, sustains heavy damage after being allegedly fired upon by the North Vietnamese Navy during an intelligence mission in the Gulf of Tonkin near the Vietnamese coast. The incident is cited as the reason for President Lyndon B. Johnson’s escalation of American involvement in the .19

August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991 — An American-led coalition intervenes in Kuwait, halting Iraqi forces under the command of President Saddam Hussein during their invasion of the small, oil-rich country. The operation was successful, resulting in the full withdrawal of the Iraqi military, harsh UN sanctions, and the enforcement of no-fly zones over Iraq.20

March 24 – June 10, 1999 — The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) begins its military intervention in the Kosovo War with airstrikes in Yugoslavia. The intervention persists until invading Yugoslav forces agree to withdraw from Kosovo, at which point the operation is replaced with a UN peacekeeping mission.21

October 7, 2001 — The US-led invasion of begins following the September 11th terrorist attacks. The allied forces successfully topple the Taliban's regime in order to deny Al- Qaeda the infrastructure used to further carry out its terrorist operations.22

March 20 – May 1, 2003 — The first phase of the US-led invasion of Iraq commences, aimed at toppling the Ba’athist government led by Saddam Hussein (who was alleged to have harboured terrorist activity and stockpiled weapons of mass destruction). The Iraqi government falls and is replaced with a provisional authority pending a parliamentary election.23 The United States suffered damage to its foreign policy reputation after the situation in Iraq descended into intense sectarian conflict and an eight-year occupation.

17 http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/operationajax.html 18 https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/ 19 https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/gulf-of-tonkin-resolution-1 20 https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/firstgulf 21 https://www.rferl.org/a/operation-allied-force-before-after/29831978.html 22 https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan 23 https://www.cfr.org/timeline/iraq-war

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 5 August 7 - August 12, 2008 — During the Russo-Georgian war, following a period of worsening relations between the two nations, Russian forces advance into South Ossetia, where they are met by the Georgian military. After five days, Georgia loses control of parts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where Russia asserts de facto sovereignty.24

March 19 – October 31, 2011 — A NATO-led coalition intervenes in the Libyan Civil War in response to the impending assault on civilian protesters by the Libyan government led by Muammar Gaddafi. After seven months, Gaddafi is overthrown, and a no-fly zone is enforced as per the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 in 2011.25

September 22, 2014 — The US-led intervention in the begins with airstrikes in territory held by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The United States and its coalition partners also target the Syrian Government of Bashar al-Assad—and primarily its capacity to carry out chemical weapons attacks. The coalition provides assistance to the armed Syrian Opposition, which fails to overthrow the Assad government.26

February 20, 2014 — The Russian military enters eastern Ukraine amidst protests against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Russia is met by widespread condemnation, sanctions, and eventual expulsion from the G8. Russia also intervenes in the Crimean peninsula, which it later annexes.27

Historical Analysis

At the end of World War II, the idea of mutually assured destruction emerged. The concept entails that when multiple global powers have the nuclear weapons necessary to decimate their opposition, an all-out war between two such nations would result in the assured destruction of both parties.28 As such, it soon became clear that mutually assured destruction would force the world’s dominant powers—still equally set on expanding their geopolitical influence—to act with more discretion in their use of military capital. Namely, this came in the form of a gradual shift away from traditional international conflict in favour of civil warfare: 163 of the 225 conflicts between 1946 and 2001 can be classified as civil wars.29 Furthermore, this trend was exacerbated by the rise in in the developing world, as incumbent imperial powers slowly abdicated power.30

24 https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/2008-georgia-russia-conflict/index.html 25https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/topics_71652.htm 26 https://apnews.com/96701a254c5a448cb253f14ab697419b 27 https://www.thebalance.com/ukraine-crisis-summary-and-explanation-3970462 28 https://www.britannica.com/topic/mutual-assured-destruction 29 https://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/63998 30 https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/195659/helfont_-_hi_-_post-colonialism.pdf

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 6 The interest in civil wars, however, was not exclusive to leaders with large militaries at their disposal. Scholars and diplomats began to develop an understanding of foreign pressure on internal conflicts, especially regarding their impact on the severity and duration of a civil war. More generally, the world sought to abandon the era of isolationism, with many scholars identifying it as one of the key flaws that allowed the Second World War to occur. Thus, the general concept behind new institutions such as the United Nations and NATO was to foster cooperative relations as a deterrent and mediator for disputes, which have historically escalated into deadly wars.31 In addition, the UN sought to condense the norms of international behaviour into treaties and protocols which would codify the expectations of sovereign states in the new era. Among these included a standardized process for a state to infringe upon the legitimate sovereignty of another— in other words, conditions and procedures under which an intervention would be permitted.32

The UN came into existence with a primary mandate to reduce the frequency and scale of interstate conflict as well as human suffering to the greatest extent feasible.33 The question of intervention became a source of heated debate, as national sovereignty is the most fundamental precept of international relations. However, it became increasingly evident that this principle of respecting national sovereignty would often conflict with the goal of limiting civilian casualties in intrastate warfare. Debate around the subject quickly began to reflect the reality that the UN needed to recognize the role third-party states could play in upholding humanitarian principles in conflicts; the international community came under increased pressure to uphold human rights by taking punitive action against violators of the doctrine.34

The intellectual foundation for humanitarian intervention long predates the United Nations but was only afforded any real legitimacy once the UN Charter, the United Nations’ guiding document, came into official effect. Chapter VII of the Charter outlines the powers of the Security Council to decide on a course of action in situations that present a “threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression.”35 The Security Council, however, is the only organ of the UN that holds the power to order a military intervention and often suffers from gridlock as each of the five permanent members have great differing geopolitical interests and the right to unilaterally veto any resolution.36 As such, many critics argue that the UNSC is fundamentally unproductive because it is subject to decisions of politically motivated actors which often prioritize strategic gain at the expense of the humanitarian good. Critics maintain that there should be a recognized right to unilateral humanitarian intervention, so as to avoid a substantial death toll in the case of gridlock or apathy at the Security Council.37

31 https://www.un.org/development/desa/dpad/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/WESS_2017_ch2.pdf 32 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13533312.2019.1659733 33 https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=ijgls 34 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6850080/ 35 https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/ 36 https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/what-security-council 37 http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&context=ilj

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 7

Perhaps the most notable example of the United Nations’ failure is the Rwandan Genocide. During an ethnic war, more than 800,000 of the Tutsi minority in Rwanda were slaughtered by the rival Hutu faction without significant intervention from the UNSC. The UN’s failure to intervene has left many scholars and diplomats skeptical of the UN’s efficacy in preventing and mitigating humanitarian issues. Critics argue that the bureaucratic nature of UN procedure prevented responsible military interventions from bringing an end to immense suffering or instability caused by rogue governments.38

Current Situation

In Articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter which define the “purposes and principles of the United Nations,”39 Article 2(4) prohibits the “threat or use of force in international relations,” calling on all member states to “respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence” of other states. Article 2(7) establishes the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs, stating that the UN has “no authority to intervene in matters which are within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” while emphasizing that “this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII of the Charter.”40 Despite the decades-long debate around this subject, the UN and its most prominent members have nonetheless proceeded with foreign military intervention—humanitarian and otherwise—as it sees fit.41 Delegates must address the core dilemma underlying this topic: whether the status quo, which is best summarized as the absence of a universally accepted procedure on intervention, is an acceptable layout for state interaction.

Without standard legal criteria for determining the legitimacy of a given intervention, nations will continue to act on a basis premised on their own judgment so long as they have the means and will to do so. Without a set international standard by an independent, impartial body acting as a moderator or arbitrator on these matters, intervening parties may disregard minority rights in search of political gains, or cause instability in target nations by altering their government. Ultimately, the legal standard on foreign intervention aims to ensure that no human rights are undermined in favour of political or monetary advancements.

International viewpoints on whether the legal criteria should be adjusted vary depending on a series of factors. The most prominent of these include the strategic alignment of the country, the current needs of a given population, and the history of the country with respect to intervention. For instance, a population that has been previously victimized by a genocidal regime, or experienced

38 https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=gsp 39 https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/purposes-and-principles-un-chapter-i-un-charter 40 https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html 41 https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/united-states-interventions

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 8 some form of ethnic cleansing, may be averse to the addition of bureaucratic steps in the intervention process. This is because an increase in pre-intervention formalities would likely delay the immediate humanitarian action that they may desperately require.

Figure 1: A map of ongoing military conflicts of international importance, civil or otherwise.42

The Security Council is the only mechanism within the UN that holds the legal capacity to authorize a humanitarian peace-keeping intervention. Such action often involves the Security Council directly initiating and administering an intervention, but a common alternative entails the council merely authorizing a state or coalition of states to intervene independently. UN peacekeeping missions differ from standard military personnel of a state in that they are bound by stricter rules of engagement and must abide by three principles that reinforce their mandate as peacekeepers (as opposed to combatants).

The first of these principles requires the consent of the main parties of the conflict for the peacekeeping force to enter and carry out its mandated tasks. In addition, there must be a commitment by the parties involved to seek a political solution to the conflict. This becomes difficult at times, however, as these conflicts often lack central authority figures who can deliver universal guarantees with any degree of certainty that it will be approved at the local level.

The second principle is impartiality, which is crucial to maintaining cooperation with critical actors in the conflict. The principle of impartiality requires UN peacekeepers to be neutral in their interaction with combatants while remaining wholly committed to fulfilling the tasks of their mandate. The third principle outlines that the use of force is only permitted in the case of “self- defence and defence of the mandate.” Justification for peacekeepers to use force is therefore at the

42 https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-conflict-tracker

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 9 discretion of the Security Council, which takes into consideration the circumstances of each conflict and authorizes varying degrees of force on those grounds.43

Past Involvement

While there remain vast areas of disagreement over foreign intervention in the international community, there has been no shortage of precedent for humanitarian intervention since the founding of the United Nations. The UN Security Council has, in the face of many grave humanitarian crises, resorted to deploying UN peacekeeping forces to provide a source of neutrality in active conflict zones.44

Republic of Congo, 1960

The first peacekeeping mission authorized by the Security Council was deployed in the Republic of Congo. In June 1960, Belgium vacated its colonial dominion over the Congo, ceding power in the country to a new independent government––shortly thereafter, a dispute within the Congolese military ranks led to a series of armed mutinies.45 The Government of Belgium, recognizing that thousands of Belgian nationals would be placed in the way of harm, deployed troops to Congo in an attempt to protect its interests and reverse the descent into general instability.46 Moreover, the mineral-rich province of Katanga had recently elected a secessionist government, which immediately moved to assert independence against the wishes of the Congolese government.47

Within 48 hours, UN Security Council Resolution 143 was adopted, allowing a peacekeeping force of up to 20,000 troops to enter the country to restore peace and distribute relief to affected communities.48 Namely, the United Nations engaged in combat with the Katanga forces to reinstate the Congolese government’s power, engaged in food and supply aid programs targeted at the general population, and helped bring the crisis to an end.49 Thus, the UN peacekeepers were successful in effectuating their mandate; further aggression from Belgium was forestalled, humanitarian disaster was averted by restoring and protecting the normal function of essential public services, and Katanga was promptly subdued and reintegrated. Within four years, the UN force was able to leave the country.50

43 https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/principles-of-peacekeeping 44 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5603976/ 45 https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/past/onucB.htm. 46 Ibid. 47 https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1735&context=etd 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid. 50 Ibid.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 10 The , 1965

In select cases, such as the Dominican Civil War of 1965, nations may opt to intervene unilaterally without consulting the UN or NATO. The United States intervened in this conflict after receiving intel that the situation threatened the lives of American citizens and diplomats. They did so without assembling an international coalition, arguing that the process would be lengthy, ineffective, and risk American lives. The civil war began when supporters of former Dominican President Juan Emilio Bosch attempted to defeat the military junta which had overthrown and exiled Bosch during his presidency in 1963.

Contradicting his advisors, President Lyndon B. Johnson expanded the evacuation plan into a full- scale intervention after learning of allegations that the rebels had been receiving foreign support.51 Johnson, among members of Congress and those in his own cabinet, feared that the minor conflict could develop into a repeat of the , which had resulted in a Communist government seizing control of the island just six years earlier. Bosch, having expressed the pro- Castro stance of his Dominican Revolutionary Party, was a source of concern for many in the United States.52 Allowing , and, by extension, the , to expand its influence in the Western hemisphere would damage the United States’ Cold War policy of (the effort to prevent the spread of communist ideals). The civil war concluded with American withdrawal, after the formation of an interim government to manage the transition; an election was held in 1966, in which Bosch was defeated. The intervention ended more than thirty years of American non-intervention in Latin America.53

NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia, 1999

Armed interventions in foreign warfare do not originate exclusively from the United Nations, as entities such as NATO have often acted independently of the UN Charter. For instance, NATO intervened by bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 without the approval of the Security Council, instead citing Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty as justification for the campaign.54 The intervention was predicated on upholding Kosovo’s sovereignty by forcing a withdrawal of the invading Serbian military. Additionally, supporters of this military action cited the immediate danger facing refugees and other displaced civilians directly affected by the violence, which NATO sought to prevent.55 Detractors, such as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, were critical of the decision to intervene unilaterally, arguing that the Security Council was the primary entity responsible for

51https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/dom_republic/Power_Pack- US_Intervention_Dominican_Republic_1965-1966.pdf 52 https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-9780199766581-0071.xml 53 Ibid. 54 http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/S6800/courseworks/NATOhumanitarian.pdf 55 Ibid.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 11 such measures.56 NATO argued that it had a legitimate right to intervene, given that the immediacy of the conflict had ramifications extending to the stability of the region as a whole and impacted the alliance’s interest in regional peace.57

The Syrian Civil War, 2011

Intervention in foreign warfare is not limited to direct deployment of military forces, as it commonly involves multi-faceted strategies consisting of monetary aid, humanitarian, etc. An example of this would be the early stages of United States involvement in the Syrian Civil War (2011 – Current). After anti-dictatorship protests in Syria were met with brutal force, the US imposed sanctions on several Syrian officials, then later the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. US measures continued, though largely limited to financial, logistical, and tactical support for the Free Syrian Army—a loosely affiliated coalition of militant groups attempting to overthrow the dictatorial government.58 In addition, the United States and its allies made resources available for the administration of humanitarian aid and supplies.59

Furthermore, the Security Council and other states may independently opt to impose sanctions or other economic powers as an alternative to military force. For instance, the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 was met with a strict sanctions regime, as well as diplomatic pressure—typified by the Russian eviction from the Group of Eight (G8, now G7).60

Potential Solutions

Delegates will be primarily tasked with evaluating a fundamental concern of foreign intervention that, at present, lacks a widely agreed-upon framework that adequately and accurately describes the legal basis on which different types of intervention are justified. While many delegations must consider the interests and foreign policies of their respective countries, some of which benefit from the status quo, it is important to balance this with the collective good of the international community and the effectiveness of such solutions. Delegates should keep in mind that the mandate of DISEC is strictly confined to making recommendations and clarifying official stances of the majority of the general assembly.

56https://reliefweb.int/report/serbia/statement-un-secretary-general-kofi-annan-regarding--airstrikes-serbian- military 57 https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/4355/5009 58 https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/iwr_20161123_free_syrian_army1.pdf 59 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf 60 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1007/s12290-014-0297-3

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 12 Formalization of Intervention Procedure

This approach advocates the codification of a standard process by which an ongoing conflict is assessed, allowing for a common set of customs governing a prospective intervention. The end goal of this approach is to produce a clear universal criterion used to evaluate the legitimacy of military intervention in a given situation. Any such criteria would need to take into account the existing stance of the UN on what constitutes a legitimate state interest in a foreign matter; this mainly focuses on the preservation of regional peace and security, protection of sovereign interest and direct defence of borders or personnel, as well as humanitarian causes and acting in the interest of upholding normalcy of internal behaviour among governments. In addition, delegates will have to propose a standard course of action in the case that these criteria were violated, or even insufficient in light of any new unanticipated developments. For example, breaches of international law or convention have been historically punished with at least official condemnation or military action at maximum with sanctions and divestment serving as a common tool of influence as well.

Proponents of this argue that it would eliminate much of the conflict between principles of sovereignty and the obligation to uphold human rights which results from the ambiguity of the UN Charter. In addition, it would become much easier to identify cases where international law has been violated, allowing for a robust system of consequences to take place for nations in breach of this legal procedure. Such a plan would likely be passed in the form of a proposed amendment to sections VI and VII of the United Nations Charter,61 which outlines the general goals and procedure for handling international disputes.62

This plan, while ideal, may suffer setbacks as a result of the difficult process that must be carried out before a charter amendment may be ratified. Article 108 in Chapter XVIII of the UN Charter outlines the amending formula as follows:

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.63

Since the founding of the UN in 1945, the charter has been amended five times, and not since 1973—indicative of the difficulty involved with the diplomatic process.64 While this solution may not reach the point of codification due to its controversial nature, delegates may find value in outlining a general framework to serve as the basis for future deliberation of the matter.

61 https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=ilj 62 https://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html 63 https://ask.un.org/faq/140440 64 Ibid.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 13 Reform of the UN Security Council

Many critics of past UN intervention, or the lack thereof, hold that the main inhibiting factor in peacekeeping missions is a structural failure of the Security Council itself. This becomes especially relevant to the question of foreign intervention when the only current legitimate source in the UN of non-defensive military action is the Security Council, which often suffers extensive gridlock. One such proposal for Security Council reform involves amending—or outright abolishing—veto power. Resolutions affecting the most pressing international matters at any given time are often subject to the use of the veto, which has called into question the effectiveness of the UN to respond to crises due to its potential political implications and motives.65

Stripping the five permanent Security Council members of their veto power would be difficult to achieve, as such structural reform would require the approval of the Security Council, meaning that a majority of these five would have to relinquish a significant portion of their direct influence on UN decision-making. This said, delegates should consider how the UNSC could be otherwise reformed, or even have its role in international affairs relative to other entities adjusted.

Releasing the UN Monopoly on Legitimate Force

The UN Charter holds that a humanitarian intervention may only proceed with legitimacy if it receives a mandate from the United Nations itself. For many of the aforementioned reasons, powerful critics see benefits in having the UN attenuate this stance, yielding to entities such as NATO which claim credit for successful non-UN humanitarian action in the past.

Delegates would need to consider that this may work in the direction of diminishing the international credibility of the UN and ultimately undermine the progress it has made along with any potential for future progress.66 While the UN has not always been the most effective solution to resolving crises, it is still generally held internationally as an entity worthy of preservation and respect. Delegates should carefully consider whether the provisions of the UN Charter are well- equipped to govern intervention in the modern era, especially given the evolving nature of state interests that influence foreign policy.67 Delegates should also consider whether weakening the United Nations is preferable to finding an alternative solution that addresses any flaws in the UN Charter. Historically, influential countries such as the United States have been able to contravene the procedure outlined in the Charter, opting to pursue unilateral military action such as in Iraq, 2003. While the United States was met with international criticism, they proceeded to complete the mission in Iraq without major consequence.68

65 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17487870.2017.1305903 66 https://www.diis.dk/files/media/publications/import/extra/humanitarian_intervention_1999.pdf 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 14 Bloc Positions

NATO members, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Australia

Member states of NATO, especially the United States, as well as major non-NATO allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, generally hold the position that humanitarian intervention should be conducted with less restriction from the UN. These countries maintain that taking action to intervene in foreign warfare is morally justified and legally in order if the implications of the conflict represent a threat to NATO interests, regional stability, or human life. This bloc respects the efforts of United Nations peacekeeping efforts but acknowledges that certain situations call for a prompt response from countries willing and able to uphold human rights in cases that any of the previously mentioned intricacies in the structure of the UN disable it from sufficiently doing so. These interventions often breach the UN Charter, on the grounds that NATO adversaries are obstructing progress from within the Security Council to advance their own geostrategic standing.69

Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and

Oftentimes, foreign interventions, especially those sanctioned by the UN, NATO, and other Western organizations and powers are led by the United States—denoting its position as leading the free world: what can ultimately be characterized as western liberal democracies. Therefore, foreign interventions are often heavily associated with the United States. The countries in this bloc have a populace wherein the public is strongly averse to interventionism as a whole, especially in countries recently affected by American foreign policy. For instance, public opinion in Libya and Syria holds that the United States is responsible for prolonging disastrous civil wars by arming one or more of its combatants. In the case of Iraq, public trust in the United States is low after the 2003 invasion caused the country to descend into unrest in near perpetuity. Countries such as Iran and North Korea tend to oppose acts of intervention, as they have been historically positioned as adversaries of the United States and wish to avoid becoming military targets of American foreign policy. These two countries, as well as China and North Korea, are ruled by authoritarian governments that view the American-led order as an affront to their sovereignty, as their institutions of governance differ from the liberal democratic system promoted by the United States and its allies.

These countries are adamant in their support for sovereignty and the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs unless the host nation has made an explicit request.70 This bloc is reluctant to

69 https://www.bits.de/public/pdf/rr00-4.pdf 70 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14702430500336459

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 15 allow the UN to weaken its rules surrounding intervention; they strongly oppose the abolition of the Security Council veto, which works to their advantage in critical votes.71

African Union (AU)

Many states of the African Union (AU) are wary of foreign intervention due to the legacy of colonialism on the continent. In the past, most notably during the Second World War, expansionist forces from nations such as Germany and Italy have driven many African nations destitute, with foreign action leading to rampant human rights violations and the destruction of the national economy. Furthermore, numerous African populations emerged from colonial rule only to have their newly autonomous politics dominated by the competing philosophies of the east-west geopolitical divide; inevitably, these countries' affairs became subject to more external influence as both the United States and the Soviet Union looked towards much of Africa as the next surrogate battleground. An example of this is Angola, which achieved independence from Portugal in 1975 and struggled to reach long-term peace until 2002;72 this period of enduring strife arose from the country’s divisive ethnocultural dynamics but was exacerbated by the American and Soviet funding directed at whichever political faction best suited their respective interests.73 Colonialism, compounded by Cold War proxy conflict, is a large contributor to the desire among many African countries to dissuade Western powers from further intervention in domestic affairs on the continent.

Recent developments such as the Arab Spring of 2011 have also shaped public sentiment in many African countries. The NATO-led intervention to topple the Libyan government of Muammar Gaddafi was widely criticized as a poorly executed mission;74 consequently, the reputation of the powers in charge of the intervention suffered irreparable damage within many African populations.75

The main objective of members of this bloc is to find a solution to the perpetual civil wars which engulf large portions of the continent to this day. African countries ultimately seek to achieve or maintain peace within their borders, while asserting sovereignty by avoiding long-term obligations to powerful nations.76 While AU members’ foreign policies generally lean toward skepticism of the interventionist approach, certain governments––particularly those of war-torn countries––have embraced foreign military assistance. For instance, countries such as Libya, Niger,77 and Somalia

71 http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=curej 72 https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/proxy-wars-during-cold-war-africa 73 Ibid. 74 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600826.2015.1094029 75 Ibid. 76 https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-117 77 https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/jsotf-ts.htm

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 16 have sought the direct support of the United States in dealing with terrorist cells actively hindering peace,78 social tranquillity, and economic development.79

Latin America

With a few exceptions, South American nations are generally skeptical of foreign humanitarian intervention, as many of them were impacted by American-led efforts to overthrow their democratically elected communist governments in the 20th century.80 During the Cold War, specifically in the 1960s and 1970s, the United States intervened in Chile, , Argentina, , Guatemala, and Panama, among others. In most cases, these interventions were designed to contain and eliminate communism by installing or supporting right-wing authoritarian leaders over left-wing socialist parties, which represented an expansion of Soviet interest in the Western hemisphere.81

Since many of these countries are still dealing with the aftermath of these interventions, such as rampant organized crime, their citizens tend to strongly distrust foreign powers who have long had intentions to expand their influence within South America.82 Though this is not true in every case, as a 2013 survey found that 68% of Chileans viewed the United States’ influence as positive;83 this is true despite the American overthrow of democratically-elected Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973, who was replaced with the repressive dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. The public opinion in each of these countries is highly variable,84 and delegates are encouraged to consider the foreign policy of their respective countries concomitantly with the general feelings of their populations.

78 https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-somalia/ 79 https://www.accord.org.za/conflict-trends/terrorism-in-africa/ 80 http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=whemsac 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2013/07/18/chapter-1-attitudes-toward-the-united-states/ 84 Ibid.

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 17 Discussion Questions

1) To what extent should state sovereignty be respected?

2) Is the existing legal framework governing intervention in foreign conflicts adequate?

3) What is the correct procedure for an intervention to be initiated?

4) Which entity should be tasked with regulating the behaviour of intervening nations?

5) In which cases should a unilateral humanitarian intervention be tolerated?

6) How should nations who abuse the scope of their intervention be punished?

7) Are UN peacekeeping missions a sufficient remedy for humanitarian crises?

Further Resources

United Nations | Charter of the United Nations https://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/

Encyclopedia Britannica | On humanitarian intervention https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanitarian-intervention

Stanford University | On the principle of sovereignty https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/

Global Policy | On reform of the UN Security Council https://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/security-council-reform.html

UN Peacekeeping | Active UN peacekeeping missions https://peacekeeping.un.org/en

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 18 Bibliography

Amadeo, Kimberly. “Ukraine Crisis Summary and Explanation.” the balance, 2020, https://www.thebalance.com/ukraine-crisis-summary-and-explanation-3970462

Arias, Inocencio. “Humanitarian Intervention: Could the Security Council Kill the United Nations?” Fordham International Law Journal, Fordham University School of Law, 1999, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1688&context=ilj

Associated Press. “A timeline of the US involvement in Syria’s Conflict.” AP News, 2019, https://apnews.com/96701a254c5a448cb253f14ab697419b

Atomic Heritage Foundation. “Proxy Wars During the Cold War: Africa.” Atomic Heritage Foundation, 2018, https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/proxy-wars-during-cold-war-africa

Bajoria, Jayshree and Robert McMahon. “The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention.” Council on Foreign Relations, 2013, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/dilemma-humanitarian- intervention

Barber, Dr. Charles T. “British and French Impacts on the Middle East: Three Phases of Influence, 1905 to 2005.” University of Southern Indiana, n.d., https://www.usi.edu/media/2431739/ram-barber.pdf

Benjamin, Barry M. “Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention:Legalizing the Use of Force to Prevent HumanRights Atrocities.” Fordham International Law Journal, Fordham University School of Law, 1992, https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=ilj

Blanchard, Christopher M. and Carla E. Humud. “Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response.” Congressional Research Service, 2020, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf

“.” History, A&E Television Networks, 2019, https://www.history.com/topics/china/boxer-rebellion

Brockmeier, Sarah, Oliver Stuenkel and Marcos Tourinho. “The Impact of the Libya Intervention Debates on Norms of Protection.” Taylor & Francis Online, Informa PLC, 2015, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600826.2015.1094029

Cable News Network. “2008 Georgia Russia Conflict Fast Facts.” CNN, 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/2008-georgia-russia-conflict/index.html

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 19 “Can the UN Charter Be Amended, and How Many Times Has This Occurred? - Ask DAG!” United Nations, United Nations, 15 Aug. 2019, ask.un.org/faq/140440.

Chapple, Amos, Andy Heil and Fatlum Jashari. “Operation Allied Force: The NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia.” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 2019, https://www.rferl.org/a/operation-allied-force-before-after/29831978.html

Coatsworth, John H. “United States Interventions.” ReVista, David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University, 2005, https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/book/united-states-interventions

Danish Institute of International Affairs. “Chapter V: Humanitarian Intervention without Authorisation from the UN Security Council.” Humanitarian Intervention: Legal and Political Aspects, Danish Institute of International Affairs, n.d., pp. 79-81.

Delbruck, Jost. “The Role of the United Nations in Dealing with Global Problems.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, 1997, https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1096&context=ijgls

Doyle, Kate and Peter Kornbluh. “CIA and Assassinations: The Guatemala 1954 Documents.” The National Security Archive, The George Washington University, 2017, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

Dörfler, Thomas and Madeleine O. Hosli. “Why is change so slow? Assessing prospects for United Nations Security Council reform.” Taylor & Francis Online, Informa PLC, 2017, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17487870.2017.1305903

Druckman, Daniel, Paul K. Huth and Todd Sandler. “International Peacekeeping Operations: Burden Sharing and Effectiveness.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Sage Publications, 2017, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5603976/

Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Mutual Assured Destruction.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/mutual-assured-destruction.

Fields, David. “Two Decades Out of the Whirlpool: Past (andPossible Future) United States Interventions in Latin America [Student's Paper Series]” FIU Digital Commons, Florida International University, 2011, http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=whemsac

Fraser, Malcolm. “Justifiable Cases of Military Intervention.” InterAction Council, n.d., https://www.interactioncouncil.org/publications/justifiable-cases-military-intervention

Gleijeses, Piero. “The United States Invasion of the , 1961–1966.” Oxford Bibliographies, Oxford University Press, 2017, https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766581/obo-978019

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 20 9766581-0071.xml

“Global Conflict Tracker.” Council on Foreign Relations, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/interactive/global-conflict-tracker

Gromes, Thorsten and Theresa Werner. “Humanitarian Military Interventions: Conceptual Controversies and Their Consequences for Comparative Research.” Taylor & Francis Online, Informa PLC, 2019, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13533312.2019.1659733

Grünfeld, Fred and Wessel Vermeulen. “Failures to Prevent Genocide in Rwanda (1994), Srebrenica (1995), and Darfur (since 2003) (1995), and Darfur (since 2003).” Genocide Studies and Prevention, International Association of Genocide Scholars, 2009, https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1141&context=gsp

“Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.” History, A&E Television Networks, 2019, https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/gulf-of-tonkin-resolution-1

Helfont, Samuel. “Post-Colonial States and the Struggle for Identity in the Middle East Since World War Two.” Footnotes, Foreign Policy Research Institute, 2015, https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/195659/helfont_-_hi_-_post-colonialism.pdf

Kambela, Lweendo. “Terrorism in Africa.” ACCORD, African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes, 2019, https://www.accord.org.za/conflict-trends/terrorism-in- africa/

Kaufman, Joyce P. “NATO and the Former Yugoslavia: Crisis, Conflict and the Atlantic Alliance.” Journal of Conflict Studies, 1999, https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/jcs/article/view/4355/5009

Lidén, Kristoffer. “The Protection of Civilians and ethics of humanitarian governance: beyond intervention and resilience.” Disasters, Overseas Development Institute, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6850080/

Linter, J.E. “Humanitarian Intervention: Legitimising the Illegal?” Taylor & Francis Online, Informa PLC, 2006, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14702430500336459

Lister, Charles. “The Free Syrian Army: A decentralized insurgent brand.” Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution, 2016, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/iwr_20161123_free_syrian_arm y1.pdf

Middlebury Institute of International Studies. “United Nations General Assembly.” Nuclear Threat Initiative, 2018, https://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/united-nations-general-assembly/

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 21 Millett, Allan R. “Korean War.” Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2020, https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War

Mosely, Alexander. “Interventionism.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d., https://www.iep.utm.edu/interven/#SH3b

Mund, Brian Zachary. “In Defense of Sovereignty: An Analysis of RussianVoting Behavior in the United Nations Security Council (1995-2012).” College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, University of Pennsylvania, 2013, http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=curej

“NATO and Libya (Archived).” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2015, https://www.nato.int/cps/ic/natohq/topics_71652.htm

Nix, Stephen B. “Responding to the Russian invasion of Crimea: policy recommendations for US and European leaders.” Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies, 2014, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1007/s12290-014-0297-3

“Operation Ajax (1953).” The Latin Library, n.d., http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/operationajax.html

Pew Research Center. “Chapter 1. Attitudes toward the United States.” Pew Research Center, 2013, https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2013/07/18/chapter-1-attitudes-toward-the-united-st ates/

Pike, John. “Joint Special Operations Task Force - Juniper Shield (JSOTF-JS)” GlobalSecurity, 2018, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/jsotf-ts.htm

Pletcher, Kevin. “Opium Wars.” Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2018, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Opium-Wars

Portela, Clara. “Humanitarian Intervention, NATO and International Law.” Berlin Information-center for Transatlantic Security, 2000, https://www.bits.de/public/pdf/rr00- 4.pdf

Quinn, John James. “African Foreign Policies.” Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Oxford University Press, 2019, https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.000 1/acrefore-9780190846626-e-117

“Results and Aftermath of World War II.” English Online, n.d., https://www.english-online.at/history/world-war-2/results-and-aftermath-of-world-war- ii.htm

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 22 Roberts, Adam. “NATO’s ‘Humanitarian War’ over Kosovo.” The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1999, http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/S6800/courseworks/NATOhumanitarian.pdf

Seybolt, Taylor B. Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure. Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 2-6.

Souleyman, Saleh Souleyman. “Cold War Battleground in Africa: American Foreign Policy and the , January 1959-January 1961.” ScholarWorks, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, 2013, https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1735&context=etd

Tetra Information Services Pvt. Ltd. “UN General Assembly First Committee.” Reaching Critical Will, n.d., http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/unga

“The : 2003-2011.” Council on Foreign Relations, n.d., https://www.cfr.org/timeline/iraq-war

“The U.S. War in Afghanistan: 1999-2020.” Council on Foreign Relations, n.d., https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan

United Nations. “Chapter I.” United Nations, United Nations Publications, n.d., https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-i/index.html

United Nations. “Chapter II: Post-war reconstruction and development in the Golden Age of .” World Economic and Social Survey 2017, United Nations Publications, 2017, pp. 23-48.

United Nations. “Chapter VII.” United Nations, United Nations Publications, n.d., https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vii/

United Nations. “Disarmament and International Security (First Committee).” United Nations, United Nations Publications, n.d., https://www.un.org/en/ga/first/

United Nations. “History of the United Nations Charter.” United Nations, United Nations Publications, n.d., https://www.un.org/en/sections/history-united-nations- charter/index.html

United Nations. “Principles of Peacekeeping.” United Nations Peacekeeping, United Nations Publications, n.d., https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/principles-of-peacekeeping

United Nations. “UN Charter (full text).” United Nations, United Nations Publications, n.d., https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 23 United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations. “Republic of the Congo: ONUC.” United Nations, 2001, https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/past/onucB.htm.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. “Statement by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan regarding NATO airstrikes of Serbian Military Targets.” ReliefWeb, 1999, https://reliefweb.int/report/serbia/statement-un-secretary-general-kofi- annan-regarding-nato-airstrikes-serbian-military

United Nations Security Council. “Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” United Nations Security Council, United Nations Publications, n.d., https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/purposes-and-principles-un-chapter-i-un-char ter

United Nations Security Council. “What is the Security Council?” United Nations Security Council, United Nations Publications, n.d., https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/what-security-council

United States Department of State. “The First .” Office of the Historian, n.d., https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/firstgulf

United States Department of State. “U.S. Relations With Somalia.” Bureau of African Affairs, 2018, https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-somalia/

Woo, Jung-Yeop. “Chapter One: Foreign Military Intervention in Civil Wars.” Foreign Intervention in Civil Wars, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017, pp. 1-8.

Yates, Lawrence A. “Power Pack: U.S. Intervention in the Dominican Republic, 1965-1966.” Combat Studies Institute, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 1988, https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/resmat/dom_republic/Power_Pack-US_Interve ntion_Dominican_Republic_1965-1966.pdf

Canada International Model United Nations 2021 24