Middle East has become a centre of attention of international and regional political affairs. Ever since the inception of Israel, the region has been in continuous turmoil and witnessed six official Arabo-Israeli wars and continuous regional aggression and military provocation. To date, the Israeli-Arab question of statehood and sovereignty remains unclear. The situation is the Middle East is further complicated by Iranian nuclear ambitions and continuous armed conflicts in Iraq and intermittent military interventions in Syria and Lebanon. Israel, the only non-Arab and non-Muslim country in the region, is currently counted among unofficial nuclear powers, non-signatories of NPT. This state of affairs is seen as unjust and undesired by its members, many of which have cherished or cherish a notion of developing a nuclear capacity.
Most recent events on this front included unilateral and unsolicited bombing of a site in Syria by Israeli Air Force claimed to be a hotbed of Syria nuclear programme. Iran’s ambitions and its defiance to all UN SC resolutions has been a significant factor in escalating the entire nuclear issue in the ME region and raising stakes for the concerned countries and, increasingly, independent parties – Hezbollah, al Qaeda as possible candidates – for developing or obtaining nuclear weapons or development capacity thereof.
The few prior proposals of creating a nuclear free Middle East have led so far nowhere and it is not clear whether there is going to be a possible political solution to it.
Nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East – background guide
The first proposal for regional denuclearization of the Middle East was advanced in Israel as early as 1962. In 1957, six members of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission had resigned following Israel’s decision to develop nuclear weapons, and two of them had formed the Committee for Denuclearization of the Arab–Israel conflict. It was this committee that in April 1962 first publicly called for the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.
The regional denuclearization initiative took concrete shape in the Middle East in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab–Israeli War. Aware of how close Israel had come to using the nuclear weapons in the war, and the demonstration of how close the then two superpowers could be drawn to the region, Egypt and Iran, who had close relations at that time, proposed in the United Nations that a nuclear weapon-free zone be established in the Middle East.
In the twenty-ninth session of the General Assembly, “Establishment of a Nuclear-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East” was included mainly at the behest of Iran and was then joined by Egypt. Intense negotiations between Egypt and Iran resulted in bilateral understanding between both the countries to change the title of the item from “Establishment of a Nuclear-free Zone” to “Establishment of a Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone.” Both countries had agreed that the thrust of the initiative should be directed against the dangers of nuclear weapons and should not hamper the quest for the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
For the Arabs, Israel’s nuclear monopoly presents an insurmountable challenge. The destructive capacity of these weapons, uncertainty regarding the circumstances that might lead Israel to use these weapons and the consequent nuclear blackmail that the Arab states were exposed to constituted the threat. The different nuclear policies pursued by the Arab states are basically the reflections of their particular political, social and economic circumstances. Iraq was perhaps the only state that was developing the deterrent, including against Israel. Egypt was perhaps the only other regional state that considered developing nuclear weapons in response albeit for a brief period in the 1960s. Its decision to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1980 closed the option forever. Iran may have thought of the deterrent against Israel, but Gulf War realities could not but have turned its attention to Iraq also. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria refrained from joining the nuclear club.
Israel, however, did not become a party to the NPT. Its continuing grounds for not signing the treaty are based on lack of confidence in the NPT’s capacity to provide adequate security guarantees, concerns about its provisions to withdraw after only three months’ notice and concerns regarding inspection and verification procedures.
The resolution on a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East became a regular feature with minor changes in nuances. The First UN Special Session on Disarmament in 1978 approved a final document by consensus. There was no reference in it to the NPT. From 1979, after the Iranian revolution and a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, the latter decided to sponsor the resolution alone. On December 11, 1979, the UN General Assembly also adopted a resolution—Resolution 34/89—put forward by Iraq, which sought preparation of a study on Israeli nuclear armament.
In October 1980, Israel put forward its own draft, but dropped it soon. In 1991, Egypt suggested that the UN Secretary General distribute to members of the Arab League, Israel, and Iran, a questionnaire to solicit their views regarding the modalities for a Middle East nuclear weapon-free zone, including its geographical extent.
The main difference between the Israeli and Egyptian texts was the mechanism by which an NWFZ should be established in the Middle East. The Egyptian draft resolutions did not elaborate a mechanism for such establishment or even suggest that a formal agreement to create such an NWFZ should be negotiated and signed by the region’s states. Rather, they implied that the Middle East should simply comply with the stipulations of the announced zone.” The Egyptian proposal also did not define the obligations that these states would be taking towards each other: instead, it referred to their commitment towards the zone. Egypt did recognize that “efforts aimed at redressing the threats posed by the nuclear dimensions of the arms race would, without doubt, be facilitated by the resolution of the political problems in the region and vice-versa.” But it rejected the linkage between the two, arguing that arms control cannot wait for peace.
compromise ahs been found. It remains to
In contrast to Egypt’s nuclear weapon-free zone proposal, the Israeli proposal emphasized the need to negotiate the terms of such a zone. Israel’s focus on the negotiation mechanism may have resulted from the conviction that Israel should not surrender the deterrent effect of its nuclear potential unless Arab acceptance of Israel’s existence in the region is manifested in a willingness to negotiate with the Jewish state. Such willingness was regarded as a test of Arab states’ intentions, and the negotiation process was seen as an essential part of the efforts to build mutual confidence among the region’s states without which a nuclear weapon-free zone could not be established.
To date, no universally applicable or acceptable be seen, in view of all ongoing regional conflicts and frictions, whether a political solution will be possible to agree upon by all regional powers and involved parties.
Nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East
1. GlobalSecurity: MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE SUBJECT OF FIRST COMMITTEE DRAFT TEXTS.
2. GlobalSecurity: National Intelligence Estimate: Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, November 2007
3. GlobalSecurity: STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND DETERRENCE, November 2005
4. BBC News: Iran nuclear crisis refuses to go quiet , May 2008
5. BBC News: Brief description of Middle Eastern nuclear ambitions and current status in the Middle East, April 2008
6. Wikipedia: Nuclear program of Iran
7. NTI Israel Profile
8. Brower, Kenneth S., “A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East,” Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14, (February 1997), 14-15. Brower notes that he is making a high estimate of the number of weapons.
9. Israel - Nuclear Weapons, Federation of American Scientists.
10. Transcript of the Director General's Interview with Al-Ahram News. International Atomic Energy Agency.
11. Mordechai Vanunu: The Sunday Times articles
12. The Legality of the UN Security Council demands on Iran Cyrus Safdari, IranAffairs.com, August 2007
13. "A Tale of Nuclear Proliferation: How Pakistani Built His Network"
14. CFR: Israel’s Nuclear Program and Middle East Peace
Thursday, December 16, 2010
UNHRC Human Rights situation in Myanmar
Myanmar, which was formerly known as Burma, has been the subject of many human rights violations since its independence in the late 1940s. A major factor in their instability was the “divide and rule” policy of the British that had previously resided in Myanmar. When the Burmese attempted to build themselves a democracy, they
encountered numerous civil wars and internal conflicts. In the 1960s, it fell under a military dictatorship—a regime that was strongly upheld by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia. Since this
dictatorship, the human rights of the people living in Myanmar have been oppressed. For example, according to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children are
currently being forced to work against their will by the administration. Anyone refusing to work against there will is susceptible to torture, rape and even death. In 1990, Aung san Suu Kyi’s party, or the “opposition”, won the
elections with 80% of the vote. However, the military cancelled the election results and placed the party leader, Aung san Suu Kyi, under house arrest. She was not the only person arrested—according to Amnesty International,
approximately 1,300 political prisoners were imprisoned between the years 1989 and 2004 for “being wrongfully denied their liberty for peaceful acts that would not be considered crimes under international law.”
Unfortunately, as a result of the rich resources that Myanmar possesses (such as oil, timber and natural gas) many MEDC’s turn a “blind-eye” to the human rights violations that Myanmar undergoes. It is therefore imperative that
a resolution be made to aid the unfortunate situation of those suffering under the human rights violations imposed by the current military dictatorship in Myanmar.
Delegates seeking helpful links for their research on the topic are suggested the following links:
Human Rights Watch: Burma
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=burma
Amnesty International: Myanmar
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/asia-and-pacific/south-east-asia/myanmar
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/a/mmya.htm
Global Issues: Myanmar and Human Rights
http://www.globalissues.org/article/147/myanmar-formerly-burma-and-human-rights
UCLA Library: Burma
http://www.library.ucla.edu/yrl/colls/sea/linksburma.htm
Drafting
encountered numerous civil wars and internal conflicts. In the 1960s, it fell under a military dictatorship—a regime that was strongly upheld by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Australia. Since this
dictatorship, the human rights of the people living in Myanmar have been oppressed. For example, according to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children are
currently being forced to work against their will by the administration. Anyone refusing to work against there will is susceptible to torture, rape and even death. In 1990, Aung san Suu Kyi’s party, or the “opposition”, won the
elections with 80% of the vote. However, the military cancelled the election results and placed the party leader, Aung san Suu Kyi, under house arrest. She was not the only person arrested—according to Amnesty International,
approximately 1,300 political prisoners were imprisoned between the years 1989 and 2004 for “being wrongfully denied their liberty for peaceful acts that would not be considered crimes under international law.”
Unfortunately, as a result of the rich resources that Myanmar possesses (such as oil, timber and natural gas) many MEDC’s turn a “blind-eye” to the human rights violations that Myanmar undergoes. It is therefore imperative that
a resolution be made to aid the unfortunate situation of those suffering under the human rights violations imposed by the current military dictatorship in Myanmar.
Delegates seeking helpful links for their research on the topic are suggested the following links:
Human Rights Watch: Burma
http://hrw.org/doc/?t=asia&c=burma
Amnesty International: Myanmar
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/asia-and-pacific/south-east-asia/myanmar
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/a/mmya.htm
Global Issues: Myanmar and Human Rights
http://www.globalissues.org/article/147/myanmar-formerly-burma-and-human-rights
UCLA Library: Burma
http://www.library.ucla.edu/yrl/colls/sea/linksburma.htm
Drafting
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
IAEA
DO we really need that commiitee
We dont have any money and with the given amount of time we've got i dont know how much money we will be able to raise
With IAEA, we will need about 60k more. Minimun .
So, like what the ppl at BITSMUN (goa) have done,
keep it as a standby committe
If we get that many delegates and if we are able to raise more funds then we shall accomodate it
as of now, we must keep 150 delegates (including the press) as the benchmark and work in that direction. and raise 2lak.
whatever we get more will be bonus and if affordable we can make another committee.
please comment and tell me about your opinions.
Thank you,
regards
Mojito :)
We dont have any money and with the given amount of time we've got i dont know how much money we will be able to raise
With IAEA, we will need about 60k more. Minimun .
So, like what the ppl at BITSMUN (goa) have done,
keep it as a standby committe
If we get that many delegates and if we are able to raise more funds then we shall accomodate it
as of now, we must keep 150 delegates (including the press) as the benchmark and work in that direction. and raise 2lak.
whatever we get more will be bonus and if affordable we can make another committee.
please comment and tell me about your opinions.
Thank you,
regards
Mojito :)
Topics for UNHRC (pick anyone)
1.The Humanitarian Situation in the Gaza Strip
After a few years of almost complete closure, the Gaza Strip – a densely populated piece of land locked between Israel, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea – is witnessing a critical degradation in the primary services for its inhabitants, in terms of availability of food, fuel, medical care, and, very importantly, freedom of movement. Caught in the midst of a 60-year-old conflict, civilians in Gaza are trapped in a situation where they must endure daily hardships due to scarcity and lack of appropriate means of sustenance in addition to the constant threat of Israeli air raids. The political situation is not reassuring either. Even though Hamas has seemed able to restrain itself in the recent months, its record in regards to human rights is not perfect, and as its power is increasingly threatened by the rise of groups tied to Al-Qaeda, the context becomes jumbled up into a potentially explosive mix.
While most discussions approach this topic from the perspective of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian Committee will concentrate of the issues that involve international law in the sub-fields of human rights and humanitarian treaties, both in terms of assuring basic necessities, reducing harmful situations, and setting a framework for the creation of a situation which can aid the Gazans – most of them refugees from previous conflicts – create a better livelihood for themselves in terms of peace, security, and livelihood.
What will necessarily have to be taken into consideration are the demands by Israel and its security issues. Important points will involve giving enough reassurance to Israel for it to loosen up its grip on goods flow into Gaza, as well as bringing in important regional players to provide a less tense environment to negotiate in. Useful documents to be considered include past UN statements and resolutions, findings by human rights groups, and documents regarding the living conditions and necessities of the inhabitants of Gaza.
2. Refugess.
Topic Area A: Food Security and Nutrition of Refugees
It is the host nation’s responsibility to ensure that refugees have access to a sufficient amount of nutrient-rich food and safe water because these elements are essential for health, survival, and the general welfare of life. This right to freedom from hunger and malnutrition is supported by current international initiatives such as the Millennium Developmental Goals, the United Nations humanitarian reform process, the Reinforcing Efforts to Address Child Hunger, and the internationally recognized Right to Adequate Food. UNHCR has striven to improve the nutritional status of refugees, with an emphasis on women and children. UNHCR has also highlighted the improvement of food security and nutrition of refugees as a key objective in the UNHCR’s Global Strategic Objectives for 2008-2012, These efforts to solve the problem of malnutrition in refugee settings have been ongoing and current initiatives have included the distribution of micronutrient blends in refugee populations that are entirely dependent on food that lacks vital nutrients. In addition, widespread distribution of vitamin A and edible oil has also been implemented. Despite these efforts in reducing the level of malnutrition, information from the Health Information System, surveys, and nutrition-related databases show that the number of identified cases in micronutrient malnutrition has remained at a high level. A universal indicator of malnutrition is the measurement of globally acute malnutrition (GAM) and severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in refugee populations illustrates this pressing issue. In nations with a high number of refugees, such as Kenya and Tanzania, close to 20% of the population experiences GAM and 5% of the population experiences SAM. Moreover, there is a clear link that exists between nutrition and public health. Mass displacement of refugees often results in a high rate of malnutrition, which often leads to sickness and death. While shortage of food also makes refugees more vulnerable to problems such as sexual abuse, children who receive poor quality diets often display delayed childhood development.
Topic Area B:
The Role of Sustainable Environmental Management on Refugees
It is the UNHCR’s belief that forced displacement should not result in detrimental changes to the environment. In addition to the basic necessities within refugee camps such as safe, clean drinking water and nutritional food, the physical structure and location of refugee camps or settlements could potentially have a negative impact on the local environment because these factors add pressure to the ecosystem and create environmental concerns. In the worst scenario, refugee activities could result in irreversible changes to the ecosystem which include: the extinction of animal and plant species, the destruction of ecosystems, the depletion and/or long-term pollution of ground water supplies within the region, and destructive factors to the economy of the host nation. Thus, strategies and actions need to be implemented to address key environmental issues to prevent environmental degradation from taking place. Moreover, there is also a need to identify environmental changes that could prevent economic and social progress within the host country. If these problems could be addressed, a healthy environment would protect refugees and other members of the community, contribute to sustaining the livelihoods and essential aspects of the residents, and allow the host nations the opportunity to reduce poverty and achieve a high level of sustainable development in their nations. It is also important to note that sustainable environmental management programs cannot maximize their efficiency without the active involvement of refugees or internally displaced people, as conflicts could arise as an increasing number of people compete for a decreasing amount of resources.
1.The Humanitarian Situation in the Gaza Strip
After a few years of almost complete closure, the Gaza Strip – a densely populated piece of land locked between Israel, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea – is witnessing a critical degradation in the primary services for its inhabitants, in terms of availability of food, fuel, medical care, and, very importantly, freedom of movement. Caught in the midst of a 60-year-old conflict, civilians in Gaza are trapped in a situation where they must endure daily hardships due to scarcity and lack of appropriate means of sustenance in addition to the constant threat of Israeli air raids. The political situation is not reassuring either. Even though Hamas has seemed able to restrain itself in the recent months, its record in regards to human rights is not perfect, and as its power is increasingly threatened by the rise of groups tied to Al-Qaeda, the context becomes jumbled up into a potentially explosive mix.
While most discussions approach this topic from the perspective of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian Committee will concentrate of the issues that involve international law in the sub-fields of human rights and humanitarian treaties, both in terms of assuring basic necessities, reducing harmful situations, and setting a framework for the creation of a situation which can aid the Gazans – most of them refugees from previous conflicts – create a better livelihood for themselves in terms of peace, security, and livelihood.
What will necessarily have to be taken into consideration are the demands by Israel and its security issues. Important points will involve giving enough reassurance to Israel for it to loosen up its grip on goods flow into Gaza, as well as bringing in important regional players to provide a less tense environment to negotiate in. Useful documents to be considered include past UN statements and resolutions, findings by human rights groups, and documents regarding the living conditions and necessities of the inhabitants of Gaza.
2. Refugess.
Topic Area A: Food Security and Nutrition of Refugees
It is the host nation’s responsibility to ensure that refugees have access to a sufficient amount of nutrient-rich food and safe water because these elements are essential for health, survival, and the general welfare of life. This right to freedom from hunger and malnutrition is supported by current international initiatives such as the Millennium Developmental Goals, the United Nations humanitarian reform process, the Reinforcing Efforts to Address Child Hunger, and the internationally recognized Right to Adequate Food. UNHCR has striven to improve the nutritional status of refugees, with an emphasis on women and children. UNHCR has also highlighted the improvement of food security and nutrition of refugees as a key objective in the UNHCR’s Global Strategic Objectives for 2008-2012, These efforts to solve the problem of malnutrition in refugee settings have been ongoing and current initiatives have included the distribution of micronutrient blends in refugee populations that are entirely dependent on food that lacks vital nutrients. In addition, widespread distribution of vitamin A and edible oil has also been implemented. Despite these efforts in reducing the level of malnutrition, information from the Health Information System, surveys, and nutrition-related databases show that the number of identified cases in micronutrient malnutrition has remained at a high level. A universal indicator of malnutrition is the measurement of globally acute malnutrition (GAM) and severe acute malnutrition (SAM) in refugee populations illustrates this pressing issue. In nations with a high number of refugees, such as Kenya and Tanzania, close to 20% of the population experiences GAM and 5% of the population experiences SAM. Moreover, there is a clear link that exists between nutrition and public health. Mass displacement of refugees often results in a high rate of malnutrition, which often leads to sickness and death. While shortage of food also makes refugees more vulnerable to problems such as sexual abuse, children who receive poor quality diets often display delayed childhood development.
Topic Area B:
The Role of Sustainable Environmental Management on Refugees
It is the UNHCR’s belief that forced displacement should not result in detrimental changes to the environment. In addition to the basic necessities within refugee camps such as safe, clean drinking water and nutritional food, the physical structure and location of refugee camps or settlements could potentially have a negative impact on the local environment because these factors add pressure to the ecosystem and create environmental concerns. In the worst scenario, refugee activities could result in irreversible changes to the ecosystem which include: the extinction of animal and plant species, the destruction of ecosystems, the depletion and/or long-term pollution of ground water supplies within the region, and destructive factors to the economy of the host nation. Thus, strategies and actions need to be implemented to address key environmental issues to prevent environmental degradation from taking place. Moreover, there is also a need to identify environmental changes that could prevent economic and social progress within the host country. If these problems could be addressed, a healthy environment would protect refugees and other members of the community, contribute to sustaining the livelihoods and essential aspects of the residents, and allow the host nations the opportunity to reduce poverty and achieve a high level of sustainable development in their nations. It is also important to note that sustainable environmental management programs cannot maximize their efficiency without the active involvement of refugees or internally displaced people, as conflicts could arise as an increasing number of people compete for a decreasing amount of resources.
Topic for GA
Topic A: Humanitarian Crisis in Kashmir
In 1947, both India and Pakistan formally declared war against another, mobilizing some 1,000,000 and 300,000 combat forces respectively. While the numbers of casualties are still unclear, approximately 1,500 soldiers lay dead on each side with 3,000 additional civilian casualties until the UN- mediated ceasefire in 1949.
Reenacting the military and humanitarian concerns during the first Indo-Pakistan War of 1947, the UNCIP Member States are called upon to devise ways to protect civilians in Jammu and Kashmir in amidst a virtual civil war within the region. Given the state of war, Member States would have to devise creative methods to provide protection from conflict, along with food, shelter, and medical supplies for the affected families. Issues that must be addressed include ensuring basic sanitary condi- tions and access to freshwater resources, especially for those who reside in the mountainous regions. A catalyst to the escalation in violence is the presence of militarized Islamic tribal groups that aim to overthrow Indian rule.
These tribal groups have stirred tensions and division among religious lines—Hindu versus Muslim— in a region where the two groups have mingled over hundreds of years. In some areas, villages and towns have formed around religious communi- ties, while in other areas, through years of resettlement and intermarriage, populations have integrated into a single com- munity. The ignited enmity among religious minority groups, have spurred fear of discrimination and violence. Suppressing militancy of these tribal groups that instill fear in civilians is a key to quelling the conflict and mitigating humanitarian viola- tions. The UNCIP has few options in dealing with the militancy of tribal groups—holding diplomatic talks with leaders of the tribal groups, exercising power to mobilize MOGIP to quell the tribal groups as a third party, or backing the operations of one country to stop the violence.
At the end of the day, India and Pakistan must come to an agreement on ceasefire in order to bring an end to the humanitar- ian crisis. Holding talks with the two opposing parties, as well as other international actors and regional leaders would help facilitate communication among the different interest groups that are fueling the conflict and hold the key to resolving the conflict. The MOGIP also has the authority to intervene in conflicts when necessary, thus it is up to the discretion of the committee to exercise its power to intervene if utmost necessary.
Topic B: Territorial Settlement in Kashmir
Drawing the territorial boundary for Kashmir has been the root cause of the conflict in the region. Apart from the ethnic division in Kashmir, the political motive that is driving both countries is geopolitical importance of the Kashmir region. The Jammu and Kashmir region has contiguous boundaries with China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Russia, rendering it a politi- cally, economically, and militarily strategic region. Furthermore, the endowment of physical resources in the region, such as lignite, a poorer quality of coal found in the Kashmir valley, limestone in all three states of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh, iron ore and copper ore deposits, could be utilized to fuel growth of industrial power. Consequently, the accession of this region is deemed important to determining the relative strength and status of the new-born state.
Given strong national interests in the Kashmir region, how could India and Pakistan agree on a territorial boundary while re- specting the opinion of the residents of Kashmir? The UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan holds the author- ity to mobilize its troops to legitimize a territorial boundary that could eventually become permanent. Settling on which parts would be acceded to India or Pakistan, or even gain independence, would be the first step towards a viable solution.
The UNCIP would attempt to actually examine a map and draft a resolution that identifies the territorial boundaries. The Member States would have to take into consideration the population and politics of specific provinces, such as Udhampur, Jammu, and Kampur, the interests of India and Pakistan, and other surrounding neighbors to reach a consensus. In the real course of history, the UN drafted a resolution that ordered the Pakistani troops to withdraw and determine accession to In- dia or Pakistan based on a UN-monitored plebiscite. The success of the plebiscite is arguable as a permanent solution to the conflict as the issue persists till today. Whether self-determination is the most practical, morally, and politically sound solution will probably become the core of the debate for this topic.
Topic A: Humanitarian Crisis in Kashmir
In 1947, both India and Pakistan formally declared war against another, mobilizing some 1,000,000 and 300,000 combat forces respectively. While the numbers of casualties are still unclear, approximately 1,500 soldiers lay dead on each side with 3,000 additional civilian casualties until the UN- mediated ceasefire in 1949.
Reenacting the military and humanitarian concerns during the first Indo-Pakistan War of 1947, the UNCIP Member States are called upon to devise ways to protect civilians in Jammu and Kashmir in amidst a virtual civil war within the region. Given the state of war, Member States would have to devise creative methods to provide protection from conflict, along with food, shelter, and medical supplies for the affected families. Issues that must be addressed include ensuring basic sanitary condi- tions and access to freshwater resources, especially for those who reside in the mountainous regions. A catalyst to the escalation in violence is the presence of militarized Islamic tribal groups that aim to overthrow Indian rule.
These tribal groups have stirred tensions and division among religious lines—Hindu versus Muslim— in a region where the two groups have mingled over hundreds of years. In some areas, villages and towns have formed around religious communi- ties, while in other areas, through years of resettlement and intermarriage, populations have integrated into a single com- munity. The ignited enmity among religious minority groups, have spurred fear of discrimination and violence. Suppressing militancy of these tribal groups that instill fear in civilians is a key to quelling the conflict and mitigating humanitarian viola- tions. The UNCIP has few options in dealing with the militancy of tribal groups—holding diplomatic talks with leaders of the tribal groups, exercising power to mobilize MOGIP to quell the tribal groups as a third party, or backing the operations of one country to stop the violence.
At the end of the day, India and Pakistan must come to an agreement on ceasefire in order to bring an end to the humanitar- ian crisis. Holding talks with the two opposing parties, as well as other international actors and regional leaders would help facilitate communication among the different interest groups that are fueling the conflict and hold the key to resolving the conflict. The MOGIP also has the authority to intervene in conflicts when necessary, thus it is up to the discretion of the committee to exercise its power to intervene if utmost necessary.
Topic B: Territorial Settlement in Kashmir
Drawing the territorial boundary for Kashmir has been the root cause of the conflict in the region. Apart from the ethnic division in Kashmir, the political motive that is driving both countries is geopolitical importance of the Kashmir region. The Jammu and Kashmir region has contiguous boundaries with China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Russia, rendering it a politi- cally, economically, and militarily strategic region. Furthermore, the endowment of physical resources in the region, such as lignite, a poorer quality of coal found in the Kashmir valley, limestone in all three states of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh, iron ore and copper ore deposits, could be utilized to fuel growth of industrial power. Consequently, the accession of this region is deemed important to determining the relative strength and status of the new-born state.
Given strong national interests in the Kashmir region, how could India and Pakistan agree on a territorial boundary while re- specting the opinion of the residents of Kashmir? The UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan holds the author- ity to mobilize its troops to legitimize a territorial boundary that could eventually become permanent. Settling on which parts would be acceded to India or Pakistan, or even gain independence, would be the first step towards a viable solution.
The UNCIP would attempt to actually examine a map and draft a resolution that identifies the territorial boundaries. The Member States would have to take into consideration the population and politics of specific provinces, such as Udhampur, Jammu, and Kampur, the interests of India and Pakistan, and other surrounding neighbors to reach a consensus. In the real course of history, the UN drafted a resolution that ordered the Pakistani troops to withdraw and determine accession to In- dia or Pakistan based on a UN-monitored plebiscite. The success of the plebiscite is arguable as a permanent solution to the conflict as the issue persists till today. Whether self-determination is the most practical, morally, and politically sound solution will probably become the core of the debate for this topic.
Country GA UNHRC NATO UNSC
Albania g n
Angola g *
Argentina g *
Bangladesh g *
Belgium g * n
Brazil g *
Burkina Faso g *
Bulgaria g * n
Cameroon g *
Canada g n
Chile g *
China g * u
Columbia g u
Cuba g *
Czeck Republic g n
Denmark g # n
Djibouti g *
Ecuador g *
Egypt g #
Estonia g n
Ethiopia g #
France g * n u
Germany g # n u
Ghana g *
Greece g n
Guatemala g *
Hungary g * n
Iceland g n
India g * u
Italy g n
Japan g *
Jordan g *
Latvia g n
Libya g * u
Lithuania g n u
Lebanon g u
Luxembourg g n
Malaysia g *
Maldives g *
Mauritius g *
Mexico g * u
Netherlands g n
Nigeria g * u
Norway g * n
Pakistan g *
Poland g * n u
Portugal g * u
Quatar g *
Republic of Korea (South Korea) g *
Romania g # n
Russia g * u
Saudi Arabia g *
Slovakia g n
Slovenia g n
South Africa g * u
Spain g * n
Sri Lanka g #
Turkey g n u
Uganda g * u
Ukraine g
United Kingdom g * n
Uruguay g *
USA g * n u
Zambia g *
Albania g n
Angola g *
Argentina g *
Bangladesh g *
Belgium g * n
Brazil g *
Burkina Faso g *
Bulgaria g * n
Cameroon g *
Canada g n
Chile g *
China g * u
Columbia g u
Cuba g *
Czeck Republic g n
Denmark g # n
Djibouti g *
Ecuador g *
Egypt g #
Estonia g n
Ethiopia g #
France g * n u
Germany g # n u
Ghana g *
Greece g n
Guatemala g *
Hungary g * n
Iceland g n
India g * u
Italy g n
Japan g *
Jordan g *
Latvia g n
Libya g * u
Lithuania g n u
Lebanon g u
Luxembourg g n
Malaysia g *
Maldives g *
Mauritius g *
Mexico g * u
Netherlands g n
Nigeria g * u
Norway g * n
Pakistan g *
Poland g * n u
Portugal g * u
Quatar g *
Republic of Korea (South Korea) g *
Romania g # n
Russia g * u
Saudi Arabia g *
Slovakia g n
Slovenia g n
South Africa g * u
Spain g * n
Sri Lanka g #
Turkey g n u
Uganda g * u
Ukraine g
United Kingdom g * n
Uruguay g *
USA g * n u
Zambia g *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)