anatolia college model united nations 2008 · 2017-01-31 · anatolia college model united nations...

ANATOLIA COLLEGE MODEL UNITED NATIONS

2008

SECURITY COUNCIL STUDY GUIDES

by the Committee Directors

Anatolia College Model United Nations 2008

3rd Anatolia College Model United Nations

Panagiotis F. Progios Secretary-General

Konstantinos Vavelidis President of the General Assembly

Danai Kyriakopoulou Deputy Secretary-General

Saide Nicole Ashaboglu Deputy President of the General Assembly

Anatolia College PO Box 21021 Pylea, Thessaloniki Phone:+302310398328 Fax: +302310332313 http://www.anatolia.edu.gr

Dear ACMUN Delegates,

The Directors of this year’s Anatolia College Model United Nations have worked extensively in order to prepare the following study guides on the topics which you will discuss in February. These study guides offer the basic knowledge of the topic you should have, so please refer to them not only prior to but also during the conference. Understandably, these study guides should not be the entire basis of your work for ACMUN, but you should also look for further reading sources and ways to expand your knowledge on the topic.

All delegates should have prepared an informal working paper by the conference. The working paper is an unofficial document which consists of basic solutions and suggestions which reflect each delegate’s country’s policy. Please refer to the section “Questions a Resolution Must Answer” of the study guides – the most important section – in order to author efficient working papers and resolutions. Your chairs can be contacted at the email addresses under their introductory paragraph. Feel free to email them for any questions you might have, as they are the experts on the topics of each committee.

Hopefully you will benefit greatly from these study guides. I am looking forward to meeting you all in February.

Sincerely,

Panagiotis F. Progios Secretary-General [email protected]


3rd Anatolia College Model United Nations SECURITY COUNCIL

Elizabeth Willis Director

Dennis Diamantatos Deputy Director

Anatolia College PO Box 21021 Pylea, Thessaloniki Phone:+302310398328 Fax: +302310332313 http://www.anatolia.edu.gr

Dear Delegates, As President of the Security Council I would like to heartily welcome you to Anatolia’s 3rd Model United Nations. My name is Elizabeth Willis and I am a senior at Anatolia College, enrolled in the IB program. This will be my eighth MUN experience and my second as a chair. I like animals, I love hanging out with my friends and listening to music and I adore chocolate (hint hint!). It is my opinion that the problems on the agenda for the Security Council in this year’s conference require an in-depth knowledge of the problem before the basis for a solution can be sculpted. For this reason we have provided study guides and are always at your disposal through email if any questions arise. I am looking forward to a productive session and cannot wait to hear your inspired ideas. Remember though, that fun is also important so this activity must be undertaken seriously but with an aspect of creativity and zest. Elizabeth Willis [email protected]

Honourable delegates, My name is Dennis Diamantatos and I am greatly honoured to be the deputy director of the Security Council of the 3rd Anatolia College MUN in 2008. This is going to be the second time I attend a conference with the position of a student officer (the first was in the 10th DSAMUN, which I attended as the co-chair of the political committee with great success) and I am thereby sure that we are going to have a fruitful debate and constructive conversations in the committee. Furthermore I hope that the P5 members will not be willing to misuse their veto power, which is something that always complicates the work of the Security Council and I inform you that smart humour is always welcome ;) Concerning me, I am a student of the 11th grade in the German School of Athens (DSA) and I intend to study law in Germany. Running, music, going out with friends, watching movies, snowboarding and many other sports are some of my interests. Of course I try to keep up with what’s going on in the world and try to update my knowledge regularly, as often as my strict school and my out-school programme allow me to. I am looking forward to meeting you all soon! Dennis Diamantatos [email protected]


Security Council

Topic Area A The question of Nuclear Proliferation and Iran Statement of the Problem History of the Problem Current Situation Bloc Positions Questions a Resolution Must Answer Conclusion Bibliography

5 5 7 7 7 8 8

Topic Area B The question of Myanmar

Statement of the Problem History of the Problem Current Situation Bloc Positions Questions a Resolution Must Answer Conclusion Bibliography

9 9 11 14 14 15 15


TOPIC AREA A Statement of the Problem

Nuclear proliferation is a term used to describe the spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear technology, information and fissile material to countries not recognized by the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (also known as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or NPT) as “nuclear weapon states”. Iran has been accused, primarily by the United States, of hosting a uranium enrichment program in secret, which may be being used to create nuclear weapons. History of the Problem

The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty was initially opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries that have signed the treaty, five of which possess nuclear weapons and are recognized as the “nuclear weapon states”. These five countries are the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and the People’s Republic of China. Only four countries are not signatories, India and Pakistan that possess and have openly tested nuclear bombs, Israel that does not have a clear policy on its own nuclear weapons program and North Korea that ratified the treaty and later withdrew because the treaty was violated. The NPT is considered to have three parts or pillars: non-proliferation, which is directed to the nuclear weapon states, disarmament and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

Iran foundations for a nuclear program were laid in 1953 when the democratically elected Prime Minister was deposed by a CIA-supported coup and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power. The west decided in 1957 that the regime was stable and nuclear proliferation would not be a threat. By 1968 when Iran signed the NPT various nuclear programs and research centers became operational. Iran ratified the treaty in 1970 and with US help plans were made to build 23 nuclear power stations by the year 2000.

In March of 1974 the Shah decided to prepare for the time when the world’s oil supply would run out and envisioned producing electricity using nuclear power plants. So, more nuclear plants were constructed and Iran’s programs were inspected by the IAEA. In 1983 the production of enriched uranium began in Iran under the Technical assistance Program and the IAEA planned to

provide assistance to Iran. The program was terminated by the IAEA later due to US pressure.

The Russian Federation formed a joint research organization with Iran called Persepolis in the early 1990s. This organization provided Iran with Russian nuclear experts, and technical information stolen from the West as well as help for Tehran to improve its missiles. In 1995, Iran signed a contract with the Russian Federation to continue work on the partially complete Bushehr plant. In 1996, the U.S. tried to block the People’s Republic of China from selling a conversion plant to Tehran and providing the gas needed to test the uranium enrichment process, but had no success.

On August 14, 2002 the existence of two nuclear sites under construction in Iran were revealed, Natanz and Arak. The IAEA requested immediate access to the facilities as well as information and cooperation regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Although Iran was not obliged to give the IAEA access to the facilities under the safeguards agreement and so investigation only began in 2003 after Iran accepted the decision that facilities should be reported during the planning phase even before the start of construction.

On October 21, 2003 in Tehran, Iran issued a statement with the Foreign Ministers of the UK, France and Germany (the EU-3), in which Iran agreed to stop its enrichment and reprocessing activities while negotiating and to cooperate with the IAEA, by filing the required reports and allowing access to the IAEA inspectors. An IAEA report on November 10, 2003 stated that Iran has failed a number of times over an extended time period to report their nuclear material and its processing, as well as the facilities where this material is stored, therefore not meeting the obligations of the Safeguards Agreement. Iran attributed the failure to report these actions and activities to US obstructionism which included pressuring of the IAEA to stop providing assistance to Iran’s uranium conversion program in 1983. The IAEA stated that there was no evidence that Iran possessed hidden nuclear weapons but they were also unable to conclude that Iran’s nuclear programs were solely peaceful.

The IAEA decided that Iran’s failures comprised a non-compliance with the Safeguard Agreement and so a referral was not given to the UN Security


Council and a formal decision by the IAEA was only given two years later in September of 2005 so that Iran could have time to diplomatically cooperate with the EU-3. The final report was submitted to the UN in February of 2006 when the IAEA Board of Governors chose to vote on the resolution instead of following the usual procedure of adoption by consensus. In August of 2005, Iran eliminated seals on its uranium enrichment equipment in Isfahan and several days later the EU-3 offered a package including benefits in the political, trade and nuclear fields in addition to long-term supplies of nuclear materials in return for a permanent termination of enrichment. Iran rejected this offer on the premises that it was insulting and was not what Iran was looking for.

In late February of 2006 the IAEA suggested a deal by which Iran would terminate industrial-scale enrichment and instead carry out a small-scale program. The Iranians agreed to the compromise stating that while they were not willing to give up enrichment they were willing to carry it out at a smaller scale. The Bush Administration however opposed this agreement by making it clear that they would not accept any enrichment in Iran.

In April of 2006 it was announced that Iran successfully enriched uranium to 3.5%, a level at which it could be used in a nuclear reactor. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice encouraged the Security Council to take measures so that Tehran would change its course in nuclear ambition while Iran vowed that it would not back away and would like to be treated as a nuclear power. Iran offered to continue negotiating on the subject in August of 2006 but adamantly stated that enrichment would not end since Iran had the right to peaceful application of nuclear technology. John Bolton, the US ambassador to the UN, stated the expectation of sanctions on Iran as soon as possible while a congressional report from August 23, 2006 led to the IAEA’s calling it erroneous and misleading as information that it contained was in cases false.

Since the August 31, 2006 deadline which called for Iran to comply with UN Resolution 1696 and end its nuclear activities or face the consequences of economic sanctions, Iran has tried to compromise with the countries opposing its policy by limiting its nuclear programs beyond the requirements of the NPT in order to guarantee that it cannot be diverted secretly to the production of weapons. Some measures taken to ensure this were

the operation of Iran’s nuclear program as an international consortium where foreign governments would have full participation, an offer to plutonium extraction technology, the operation of uranium centrifuges that self-destruct when used to enrich uranium beyond what is necessary for civilian purposes. Iran has though refused to stop its enrichment program as the UN Security Council has demanded, even though the five permanent members of the Security Council have made offers of nuclear cooperation. Iran supports that their peaceful nuclear program poses threat to peace and security on an international scale and that the way the Security Council was dealing with the issue, was contrary to the views of the majority UN member states and had no legal basis.

Article 19 of Iran's safeguards agreement allows a report to the Security Council if the IAEA is unable to verify that nuclear material has not been diverted, something that the IAEA has been unable to prove. Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute requires a report to the UN Security Council for any noncompliance with the safeguards provisions, such as the 18-year history of "breaches" and "policy of concealment" first reported by the IAEA in November 2003. Also, Iran minimizes the significance of the IAEA's inability to verify the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program, by arguing that the IAEA has drawn such conclusions in thirty-two states that have implemented the Additional Protocol.

Iran has been repeatedly threatened with nuclear first strikes by the United States. Investigative reporter Symour Hersh reported that the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. President Bush claimed "All options were on the table", when questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran. The Iranian authorities consistently insist that they are not seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the United States, and instead emphasize the creation of a nuclear-arms free zone in the Middle East.

IAEA officials complain that most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. about Iran's nuclear program proved to be inaccurate, and none of the information has led to significant discoveries inside Iran. On 10 May 2007, a report stating that Iran blocked IAEA inspectors when they sought access to the Iran's enrichment facility was vehemently denied by both Iran and the IAEA. ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing


rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it."

Iran refuses to stop its uranium enrichment program and so the UN Security Council has imposed sanctions against Iran. Iran’s representative to the UN argued that Iran firmly rejected the development of nuclear weapons but that the sanctions imposed by the UN may lead Iran to abandon its rights under the NPT to peaceful nuclear technology. Iran has been repeatedly threatened with nuclear first strikes by the United States. Investigative reporter Symour Hersh reported that the Bush administration has been planning the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. President Bush claimed, "All options were on the table", when questioned about the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran. The Iranian authorities consistently insist that they are not seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the United States, and instead emphasize the creation of a nuclear-arms free zone in the Middle East.

IAEA officials complain that most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. about Iran's nuclear program proved to be inaccurate, and none of the information has led to significant discoveries inside Iran. On 10 May 2007, a report stating that Iran blocked IAEA inspectors when they sought access to the Iran's enrichment facility was vehemently denied by both Iran and the IAEA. Current Situation

On December 6, 2007, American intelligence admitted that their 2005 statement “that Iran had a secret nuclear program and was determined to get a bomb” was wrong. They now support that Iran had been working on a bomb until fall of 2003 but this practice was stopped and has not yet started up again. Iran does have the scientific, technical and industrial capacity to eventually produce nuclear weapons but unless fuel was obtained from abroad, the earliest Iran could make a bomb using its own resources is late 2009, while the most likely estimate is the around 2015. Although it is possible that this new statement may be wrong, this seems highly unlikely.

This new assessment might make the work of the USA and Europe to maintain or tighten the sanctions on Iran’s work at Natanz (where they are centrifuging and enriching uranium) all the more

difficult. The USA will have to become more flexible in its dealings with Iran and could offer to discuss their troubled relations.

On December 19, 2007, President George Bush stated, "If the Iranians accept the [Russian] uranium for a civilian power plant, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich." Iran however does not agree and continues to import Russia’s fuel while maintaining its uranium enrichment program as well as planning to bring in as many as 50,000 more centrifuges. The Russian Federation’s decision to help Iran risks undermining the plans to limit the spread of nuclear technologies while at the same time weakening the efforts of the UN Security Council to end Iran’s defiance. Bloc Positions

� The primary nations against Iran and its nuclear program are the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, the latter three being responsible for the decision of referral of Iran to the Security Council.

� The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China are wary of Iran’s nuclear program although they have mixed objectives and seek their advantage because the Russian Federation has signed a contract with Iran binding them to help with the completion of the Bushehr plant. The People’s Republic of China has sold a conversion plant to Tehran and is also responsible for selling the gas needed to test the process of uranium enrichment. Algeria, Indonesia, Belarus, South Africa and Libya abstained from the decision of referral and do not have a distinct view on Iran’s nuclear program.

� Venezuela, Syria and Cuba voted against referral of Iran to the Security Council and although not purely in favor of its nuclear program, are definitely not against it either.

Questions a Resolution Must Answer:

� What are the current nuclear facilities in Iran and how are they being used?

� Should the advanced nuclear technology of Iran be recognized?

� What other offers can be made by states not willing to accept Iran’s programs in order


for Iran to terminate its uranium enrichment program?

� How can we ensure that Iran is in fact adhering to the non-proliferation policy? (In other words, that they are NOT spreading weapons or technology etc.)

� Should the United States meet some consequences because of its misleading and in some cases false congressional reports?

� Should further sanctions be placed on Iran than are already enforced or should the sanctions on Iran be reduced since Iran claims that it is “disobedient because it feels restricted”?

� How should Iran be dealt with if it refuses to comply with the measures put forward in this resolution?

Conclusion

Iran is set in its view not to stop its uranium enrichment program even with the sanctions imposed on it by the UN Security Council. The previous American Intelligence that Iran is creating nuclear weapons and is determined to get a bomb was proved wrong and this limits the USA’s ability to support maintaining the sanctions imposed on Iran. The Russian Federation has further weakened the efforts of the sanctions by exporting fuel to Iran, thus allowing Iran to keep its defiant stance. Bibliography

� www.un.org � http://www.economist.com/research/article

sBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id � http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cf

m?story_ID=10254592 � http://www.economist.com/research/article

sBySubject/displayStory.cfm?story_id � http://www.un.org/sc/1540/index.shtml � en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of

_Iran � www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/n

uke.htm � news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.s

tm � www.cdi.org/terrorism/menukes.cfm � www.cfr.org/publication/8877/iran_and_nu

clear_proliferation_rush_transcript_federal_news_service_inc.html

� www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060412_iran_uncertainty.pdf

� pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=826

� blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/nie-report-iran.html

� www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

� www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/index.html

Authored by Elizabeth Willis of Anatolia College


TOPIC AREA B Statement of the Problem

As a matter of fact the world today is plagued by many armed conflicts and violations of human rights, which date back to previous decades and still exist in the 21st century and result in the suffering of entire nations in developing countries where the disrespect for the fundamental human rights of a person is abundant and the value of the lives of thousands of people is questioned and expressed through means like armed conflicts.

Among the regions where people are doomed to sustain the violation of their rights, is Burma (also known as Myanmar). Myanmar is ruled by a government based on its military power, the so called junta, which has always been able to suppress every kind of revolutionary attempts by its people and possesses absolute power, regardless of the disapproval and the sanctions of the International Community.

In the context of overpowering every dissension of the public the generals and the army of Myanmar have made an excessive use of violence, resulting in grave situations, like the demise of many people, the massive displacement of the people living in the constant insecurity of eastern Myanmar, and the seizing of thousands of protestors, who faced most of the times forced labour, conscription, torture, rape and even execution. The rest of these people who were willing to return home had also to overcome the fear of stepping on landmines laid after their escape. Instead, the displaced live in temporary camps in the jungle, somehow surviving through the worst health conditions in any world crisis today.

There is a need for an immediate solution to this situation, since through the escalation of this crisis not only Myanmar but the larger region will face the threat of destabilization mainly because of the fact that the enormous number of refugees contributes negatively to the economy and to the society of the neighbouring countries, since many

economic and social problems could occur impeding the further development of these countries. These problems would also predispose these countries to epidemics like HIV/AIDS and to many other internal entanglements.

A successful solution to this crisis, which has already deprived many people of their lives, their families and their entire villages, and imposes them to contribute to the exportation of the world-popular gemstones of Burma, can only be achieved through broader international consensus and diplomatic pressure which would also allow entry of adequate amounts of humanitarian aid, and provide a political solution and a transition to democracy for ethnic minorities and the entire population in Myanmar. History of the Problem

If we take a closer look at Burma’s history, we can easily perceive that it is a country with an obviously unstable historical background, which could be partially one of the causes of the current situation we see today.

Based on historical evidence, the first people having settled in the region of Myanmar, also the historically known Burma, were a mixture of Indo-Aryans around 700 BC, until the leader of the Mongolian invaders Anawrahta (1044-1077) unified the region for the first time. Centuries later, in the 17th century, Burma persistently refused to accept the establishment of posts along the Bay of Bengal by British, Dutch and Portuguese traders, in spite of the efforts of the British East India Company. It was not before the Anglo-Burmese War (1824-1826) and two successive wars that the British East India Company was developed on the greater part of Burma. Consequently Burma was attached to India by 1886 and in 1937 it became a separate colony in 1937.

Burma played also an important role during the World War II. In fact it was a key battleground, mainly because of the fact that the 800-mile Burma Road was the only supply line to China, thus of vital importance for the Allies. This is the reason


why the Japanese invaded Burma in December 1941, and through a series of battles, had occupied most of it by May 1942, cutting off the Burma Road. The attempts of the Allied forces to liberate the region by the Japanese forces were successful, despite the fact that they had taken place before the Japanese surrender in August 1945.

The Dictatorship

Burma’s independence from the Commonwealth was accomplished on 4. January 1948. The

government of the country was first dominated by General NE WIN over a large period of time (1962 to 1988), who had first taken action as a military ruler, then as

self-appointed president, and later as

political lynchpin. General Ne Win was left-wing; after seizing illegally the power in the country, he banished every kind of political disapproval, suspended the constitution and initiated the “Burmese way of Socialism”.

It seems that the Burmese people couldn’t help but provoke massive demonstrations in 1987 and 1988, after having sustained 25 years of economic adversity and strict despotism. Unfortunately these demonstrations were suppressed by the State Law and Order Council (SLORC), resulting in the death of many innocent civilians and in the destabilization of the region. According to witnesses and historical information, “What is the legacy of 8-8-88? On the 8th day of the 8th month of 1988, Burmese soldiers opened fire on peaceful pro-democracy marches occurring throughout Burma and massacred approximately ten thousand people. Thousands of students and others fled to the border areas and forged alliances with the ethnic resistance movements.”

After the demonstrations the military government converted the name of the country into Myanmar and the name Rangoon into Yangon, names that are not recognised by the United States State Department and the United Kingdom, because of the military regime that embodies them, although in the United Nations and in many countries around the globe Myanmar is the most prevalent name.

The National League For Democracy In the elections that took place in Myanmar in

May 1990, SLORC lost by the National League for Democracy (NLD) but kept on ruling the country. In fact the ruling junta refused to recognise the result of theses multiparty legislative elections and to hand over power in the main opposition party - the National League for Democracy (NLD), which had won an overwhelming victory. The leader of the opposition party was AUUNG SAN SUU KYI, who was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, one year after the elections, which concentrated the public’s attention on the dictatorship and the authoritarian governing of SLORC.

Auung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of the assassinated general Auung San, who was idolized as the “father of Burmese independence”. However the leader of the National League of Diplomacy was not only refused to govern the country, but was also deprived of her liberty, since she was under house arrest from 1989 to 1995 and 2000 to 2002, until she was imprisoned in May 2003 and afterwards placed again under house arrest until today. In detail, in the spring of 2003, the SLORC clamped down on the democracy movement, restraining Suu Kyi and shuttering the headquarters of NLD. Unfortunately she is being forced to remain practically incommunicado, while all of the adherents of this great person have been regularly persecuted and even imprisoned. The government also opened a constitutional convention in May 2004, but many observers questioned its legitimacy. The Karen National Union

Despite the efforts of the ruling junta, who have been striving to suppress every protest in Myanmar since 1988, an insurgency in the south of Myanmar has been going on for decades. The Ethnic Karen movement has been pursuing to create a region independent from the junta along the south borders of Myanmar with Thailand. The goals of the Karen National Union (KNU) as laid down in the Second


Karen National Union Congress in June and July 1956 are the following:

� The establishment of a Karen State with the right to self-determination.

� The establishment of National States for all the nationalities, with the right to self-determination

� The establishment of a genuine Federal Union with all the states having equal rights and the right to self-determination.

� The Karen National Union will pursue the policy of National Democracy.

Although a consensus was achieved in January 2004 between the government and the insurgents from the Karen National Union to end the hostilities, a cease-fire was never signed.

Furthermore there has been decadence in the economy, with the heroin trade controlled by the junta as the only exception; the universities are being kept closed and epidemics and diseases like AIDS have been uncontrollably spreading throughout the country.

In October 2004, Prime Minister Gen. Khin Nyunt was incriminated, because he was accused of corruption and was therefore arrested. However it is believed that the incentive for his seizure is the fact that the government was enraged by his late experiments on reform, which he expressed through releasing Suu Kyi from house arrest and through proposing a seven-step “road map to democracy".

He had angered the leadership of the junta with his recent experiments on reform, first by freeing Suu Kyi from house arrest and later by proposing a seven-step “road map to democracy.”

Current Situation

Unfortunately the tragic events which involve not only economic losses but also losses of human lives continued. As a matter of fact in May 2005 a dozen people were massacred and over a hundred were injured, after three near-simultaneous explosions in the shopping districts of the capital Rangoon. The government puts the death toll at 23 and accuses the Karen National Union and the Shan State Army for the attacks. However the ethnic revolutionist groups disclaimed any kind of association.

Several months later, on the 13th of November, the military junta transferred the seat of the government from Rangoon (the capital) to a mountain compound with the name Pyinmana in

Naypyidaw, in a massive and reticent move. This action baffled many, while the junta justified this in a rather imprecise manner, by saying: “Due to changed circumstances, where Myanmar is trying to develop a modern nation, a more centrally located government seat has become a necessity.”

Towards the general concept of enhancing democracy in Myanmar, the junta called more than one thousand delegates in December to cope with the drafting of a constitution, which would allow the government to reach its goal. The conference was adjourned in January 2006, without any special development. It was in September 2007 that the representatives to the convention issued a draft composition, according to which the military junta will keep on supervising the ministries and legislature and will also have the right declare a state of emergency. Furthermore the rights and thereby the political power of the political parties are circumscribed, while rival parties were prohibited to participate in the convention.

Despite the efforts being made by the International Community and the United Nations, the violations of the rights of the Burmese people have escalated in the past few months. In January 2007 the International Community and the United Nations expressed their discontent by vetoing a US draft resolution in the Security Council in an attempt to incite Burma to refrain from prosecuting minority and opposition parties. However the government does not seem to feel threatened from all the sanctions proposed by the United States and the European Union and the grave problems perpetuate.

As a matter of fact in August 2007 many protests

occurred throughout the country, triggered by the fact that there had been an enormous increase in fuel prices. The participation in these pro-democracy protests wasn’t to be neglected by the


government since many citizens and monks were marching every day in the streets of Yangon. However it was after the incident of the 5th of September that the protests grew in size, when government troops fired over the heads of the protesting monks in Pakkoku. From that moment the demonstrations reached even the astronomical amount of tens of thousands of people marching every day. Consequently the government used its military forces to suppress these attempts of expressing political dissension and approaching democracy and proceeded on a widespread repression of the demonstrations on 26 September, after having declared them illegal.

At that day the government troops swarmed into the capital of Myanmar and obstructed every kind of access to the Schwedagon pagoda and to many other religious sites of great importance for the protesters. The next day the military junta fired on many innocent civilians who were considered to be guilty for demonstrating, resulting in the death of hundreds of people. Since this event the government claims to have arrested more than 3000 demonstrators, of which 2100 were detained. However the number of those who are still kept in custody is vague, although the government estimates that the prisoners are not over 500.

Several weeks passed without any particular bloody events, since the government had imposed a curfew, under which many cities like Yangon were set. Yet the troops of the government were once again deployed on the 26 October, because of the one-month anniversary of the protests and the fear of the government that new greater crackdowns could be incited and harder to dispose of.

The government justifies all the arrests, the strict restriction on the internet access, the manipulation of the media and generally every violation of the rights of its citizens through claiming that it follows the so-called “road-map to democracy”, a plan that also led to the before mentioned 54-member committee aiming to draft a new constitution without the presence of any other political party that was serving democratic beliefs. Unfortunately the junta do not seem willing

enough to accept and take into consideration the calls of the international community, which forced the Security Council of the United Nations to express its disapproval for the used of violence against peaceful demonstrators through its first official statement on 11 October 2007. According to the statement the government is also urged to release every person detained for political crimes and engaged in dialogue with Suu Kyi. The government of Myanmar stated that it “deeply regretted” the statement of the United Nations.

According to Ibrahim Gambari, the Special Envoy of the Secretary General of the UN, who met junta leader General Than Shwe and leader of the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD) and Auung San Suu Kyi during his first mission in the region, from 29 September to 2

October, Suu Kyi was ready to “cooperate” with the government, while she was allowed to come in contact with the other leaders of the NLD and with a government representative, former general Aung Kyi. These facts have led the Special Envoy after his second mission on the beginning of November to the conclusion that a “process” has been initiated, that could “ lead to substantive

dialogue”. Since then the government granted the UN with access for the Human Rights Envoy Paulo Sergio Pinheiro for the first time after 2003, who has been having dialogue with the government.

However the tensions between the military junta and the United Nations are still prevalent. Specifically, the highest-ranking UN official based in Myanmar, Charles Petrie, was expelled from the country on 2 November after a publication that noted the “deteriorating humanitarian situation” in Myanmar and because of the fact that he urged the government to listen to the demonstrators. The government has as many other times claimed that the accusations against it made by the UN team in Myanmar were “false”. Yet no matter how many vague justifications the junta give for their actions an international effort towards the national and the international reconciliation of Myanmar is taking place and keeps on developing.


Bloc Positions In this section of the study guide you will find

information about the political stance of many countries involved in the issue, either directly or indirectly and thereby recognise the international political parties outside the borders of Myanmar which are trying to affect the plan of action for this crisis in different ways.

Concerning the United States, the European Union and Australia, we could imply that the fact that strict economic sanctions have been imposed means that there is no particular influence in Rangoon. In fact US President George Bush announced a tightening of US economic sanctions and a ministerial meeting involving the Americans and the 27 European Union countries called for UN Security Council action, while on 15 October, the EU announced plans to expand its sanctions to profitable Myanmar products such as jade, rubies and teak. In particular the U.S. has imposed to 25 leading members of the junta sanctions, including a freeze on all U.S. assets. On 24 October, Australia imposed financial restrictions on 418 individuals, including members of the military government and their collaborators.

Japan was also to impose its own financial restrictions encouraged after the death of a Japanese Journalist during the September demonstrations and withdrew on 16 October US$4.7 from a project to build a human resources centre at Yangon University, an amount equal to the one-sixth of Japan’s annual aid to Myanmar.

The question of Myanmar was also on the agenda of the 13th ASEAN Summit on 19

November, when the

Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Hsien Loong stated that attempts were made by some ASEAN leaders to persuade the military regime to enter a “meaningful dialogue” with Suu Kyi, to release all political prisoners and to make further steps toward a “peaceful transition to democracy”. However during this summit the goals of most of the member states were not achieved, while the UN Special Envoy Gambari was objected to participate by Myanmar.

Following a statement of the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the British ambassador to the UN, John Sawers issued an unsharpened warning to the military government, emphasizing that “the age of impunity is dead”.

On the other hand, China, Russia and other Asian countries like North Korea seem to be having a more neutral political stance concerning the military regime. As a matter of fact in April 2007 the diplomatic ties between Myanmar and North Korea were restored, after 24 years of political disaccord, which were incited by the fact that North Korea was accused of staging a deadly bomb attack against the visiting South Korean President.

Yet as everyone can infer, there are other deeper reasons for countries like Russia, India, China and North Korea “supporting” Myanmar. Particularly there are strong trading relations between Myanmar and these countries. Furthermore there seem to be key strategic interests in the region for China, which make the government of India try to strengthen diplomatic ties with Rangoon in order to counter-balance China’s growing influence. Therefore the statement of the UN ambassador of China, Wang Guangya, that sanctions would not be helpful, shouldn’t be surprising. China has played a very important role in this issue, since its support for Myanmar has obstructed many attempts to impose sanctions, because of the fact that China is a permanent member of the Security Council, and as such has vetoed with Russia a SC resolution last January, that would have brought this country one step closer to a solution.

Russia’s stance can be further explained by the fact that it planned to provide Myanmar with a nuclear research reactor. However the abundant amount of energy resources, like oil and off-shore gas fields, incite Russia, China, India and even South Korea to overlook the criminal aspect of the junta government and consider it to be a beneficial partner. Unfortunately this struggle for exploiting Myanmar’s natural resources prevents the regime from isolation, which would be liable to bring the government to justice without so many debating procedures.


Questions a Resolution Must Answer

In order to be able to create a resolution with sufficient arguments and proposals for this crisis, that has triggered many unfortunate events and caused a lot of disaster, you should try to figure out what should be done, not only what kind of contribution the United Nations should make, but also what measures should be taken within the borders of Myanmar. Precisely you should judge the quality of the current regime and the question of the respect for the basic rights of a person living in a developing country of the 21st century.

Furthermore you should consider how the rehabilitation of peace and stability in the region can be achieved. Are democracy and the free exchange of political notions without restrictions the only way? And if yes, how could the present military government and the dictatorship be altered without inducing new and uncontrollable consequences, like civil wars and the violent separation of an entire nation, considering the fact that there are also other military forces in the region like the Karen National Union?

Last but not least you should try to dispose of the obstacles brought about by countries with special economic and political interests in the region, which is a goal you can achieve by finding out through meticulous research what the countries involved in the issue have done and what are planning to do in order to achieve their goals. Remember that the measures proposed by another country bound to other interests would benefit the people of Myanmar less than some of the people of this country that could be trying to exploit the Burmese people for its own benefit, so shouldn’t you act accordingly?

In an effort to help you partially to answer these questions and drafting a resolution, I have listed some of the measures that could inspire you during your research.

� Provide and promote education and training opportunities for younger and older people in order to reach the goal of having a mentally healthy population that recognizes the value of freedom and knows how to defend it

� Create more workplaces with funding of the World Bank, in order to stabilize the country’s economy, boost the economic development of the civilians and urge them thereby refrain from illegal trade

� Absolve the mass media from the state control and expand the media activities in the region

� Encourage the establishment of more ties in sciences, arts and technology

� Urge the World Health Organization to fund and supervise the construction of sanitary facilities and hire the proper personnel

� Encourage the holding of public debates between the political parties on every important ethnic issue

� Demand strong and scrupulous police forces for the proper conducting of the voting procedures and for the security in the everyday life of the citizens

� Enhance the tolerance for the Burmese minorities through efforts of preserving their language, tradition and culture with the assistance of the political system.

Conclusion

Unfortunately as the crisis in Myanmar has been escalating throughout many decades the International Community sees more and more people having to overcome the obstacles brought about by the lack of democracy, by the violation of their rights and by the worst living conditions among most of the countries of the developing world, not only for the civilians imprisoned and detained, but also for the thousands of refugees since over 3000 villages in eastern Burma have been destroyed in the past decade.

A solution to this crisis should be found, with the contribution of the United Nations and especially of the Security Council, which is able to take immediate action and impose every kind of sanction, if it is considered to be necessary. Furthermore the notions of the neighbouring countries of Myanmar should be taken into consideration, since a further deterioration of the present situation would not only provoke the destabilization of Myanmar, but would also result in many economic and political repercussions in the entire region.


Bibliography The following websites would be of particular help in your research. Make sure you visit them.

� www.un.org � www.cia.gov � www.witness.org � www.geographia.com � www.ethnologue.com � www.topics.nytimes.com � www.soros.org � www.sfgate.com � www.burmacampaign.org � www.amnesty.org � www.reliefweb.int � www.state.gov � www.miroguide.com � www.pbs.org � www.reuters.com � www.spiegel.de � www.en.wikipedia.org � www.scoop.co.nz � www.abcnews.go.com

Authored by Dennis Diamantatos of Deutsche Schule Athen

anatolia college model united nations 2008 · 2017-01-31 · anatolia college model united nations...

Documents