United Nations Security Council Topic I: The Situation in Syria

Topic Overview:

The self­immolation of a Tunisian fruit vendor in December of 2010 brought with it a

wave of civil unrest across a plethora of Arab nations, marking the beginning of the decade as a

time of reform and protest in the Middle East. Political protest was seen in Algeria, Sudan, Iran

and Oman amongst others. The so­called “The Arab Spring” resulted in the overthrow of

national governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya.

Protests in Syria were violently repressed in March of 2011 by government forces,

uniting the citizens that opposed the Regime of Syrian President Bashar Al­Assad. The years

leading up to present day saw escalating aggression on the part of Syrian government forces and

rebels, the UN­confirmed use of Chemical weapons (and the eventual dismantling of remaining

chemical weapons arsenal by the same

organization), the creation if the Free

Syria Army , the creation of a National 1

Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and

Opposition Forces , the uncontrolled 2

growth of one of the world’s most

dangerous terrorist organizations, and

the largest refugee crisis since World

War II.

1 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria­civil­war­explained­160505084119966.html 2 http://www.bbc.com/news/world­middle­east­14703995

The Syrian Civil War

The current Al­Assad regime began under Hafez Al­Assad in 1971. President Assad

occupied office until his death in June 2000, upon which his son, Bashar Al­Assad, assumed the

office he holds until this day. As was the case with many political leaders in the Middle East

during the late 20th century, both Al­Assad’s have used diverse means to inhibit opposition and

prevent at all costs the undermining of the regime. The Arab Spring of 2011 reached Syria and

manifested at first as peaceful protests sparked by the detainment and torture of a group of

teenagers who had used graffiti to scribble an anti­government message. The Protests were put 3

down by the government, signaling the initial descent into a civil war that has by now claimed

more than 250,000 lives. 4

The conflict is mainly split between government forces supporting the Al­Assad regime,

and the rebels that are demanding its end. These groups have foreign backers: the government

regime having found close allies in Russia and Iran, whilst the rebels are under the patronage of

the Gulf States, Turkey, and the United States. The parties had kept out of direct intervention in 5

the conflict, with President Obama stating that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that

if was to be crossed would result in the involvement of the U.S. This red line was flirted with by

Syria in 2013 with the alleged use of chemical weapons against citizens in the Syrian town of

Ghouta , which prompted Syria (after intense international pressure) to allow the OPCW to 6

dismantle the remains of their declared chemical arsenal stockpile successfully. Up to this day,

3 http://www.reuters.com/article/us­syria­crisis­uprising­idUSBRE92G06420130317 4 http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12008.doc.htm 5 Syria’s War, Who is Fighting?, Vox 6 https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks­ghouta/analysis­alleged­use­chemical­weapons­syria

the alleged use of Chlorine and barrel bombs by the government forces continues, as have

war­crimes committed by the armed opposition groups. 7

The Rise of the Islamic State

There are an estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, out of which roughly 85% are

Sunni Muslims, and 15% are Shia Muslims. Before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Iraqi 8

regime was Sunni, which in the country amounted for roughly 20% of the population. Following

the deposing of Saddam Hussein, the new regime became predominately Shia, not unlike the

majority of the population in Iraq, and was soon faced with Sunni rebel uprisings which opened

the door for terrorist groups to begin forming. One of these groups was called the Islamic State in

Iraq, which was a predominantly Sunni terrorist organization. The group took advantage of the 9

power vacuum in Syria to establish its presence in the war­torn nation, eventually becoming the

Islamic State of Iraq and greater Syria (ISIS) in early 2013. During the following years Al 10

Qaeda cut ties with The Islamic State, which began to be known for its savagery and hardline

form of worship. In January of 2014, The Islamic State took control of Mosul, Ramadi, and

Fallujah, in addition to vast portions of the central Syrian heartland, with its capital in Raqqa in

Syria.

After American Journalist James Foley was beheaded by The Islamic State in August

2014, American President Barack Obama authorized airstrikes against the militant group in

Syria. The group continued to engage in the practice of beheading foreign hostages and

7https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/05/syria­armed­opposition­groups­committing­war­crimes­in­aleppo­city/ 8 https://www.cfr.org/peace­conflict­and­human­rights/sunni­shia­divide/p33176#!/ 9 http://www.bbc.com/news/world­middle­east­29052144 10 http://time.com/4030714/isis­timeline­islamic­state/

continues to murder the citizens against which they have declared war up to this date. The

intrusion of The Islamic State in Syria came along as a major destabilizing factor. Not only was a

new player added into the already chaotic conflict in Syria, but it set up a new source of tension

between the states that backed the opposing sides of the Syrian civil war. After a US­led

coalition of nations including Jordan, Russia, Great Britain and Turkey began bombing The

Islamic State, allegations against Russia were made claiming the nation was in fact bombing

Syrian rebels. Similar allegations were made against turkey claiming they had bombed the Kurds

(which happen to be a minority group in Turkey that enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in

northern Iraq)

The Syrian Refugee Crisis

The Combination of

civil war and war against The

Islamic State has left a

tremendous mark on the 23

million strong population of

Syria. It is estimated that

there are up to 11 million

Syrian Refugees, with roughly 6.6 million internally displaced within Syria. The majority of 11

refugees that are not in neighboring countries head over to Europe, where Germany and Sweden

are the major recipients of Syrian Refugees, welcoming 300,000 and 100,000 respectively. 12

11 http://syrianrefugees.eu/ 12https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/iraq­jordan­lebanon­syria­turkey/quick­facts­what­you­need­know­about­syria­crisis

The refugees often put their lives in great peril when crossing the Mediterranean Sea to

reach the shores of Greece,

resulting in thousands of

deaths every year. Greece has

usually opened its doors to

grant asylum to some of the

displaced, and is often used

as the first of many transit

hubs in Europe for the

refugees. However, in light of recent terrorist attacks in France and Germany, many nations are

considering whether or not to open their borders to all the refugees that desperately need help.

With refugee camps in the middle east dangerously under supplied and overcrowded, the issue is

of great importance.

Key Terms:

Sunni Muslim: Denomination of Islam that holds the belief that Muhammad's first

Caliph was his father in law Abu Bakr, after the death of the prophet Muhammad.

Shia Muslim: Differs in that Shia’s believe that Muhammad’s first caliph was in fact his

son in law, Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

Arab Spring: Movement along the Muslim states of the Middle East and Northern

Africa that began in 2011 where the citizens of their nations demanded reform and liberty

to their leaders.

Barrel Bomb: Makeshift bomb often used by the Syrian Government army made out of

explosives in a barrel mixed with shrapnel to be dropped from helicopters unto their

targets; often civilians.

Kurds: A largely Sunni Muslim group that inhabits the region known as “Kurdistan” that

occupies northern Iraq, parts of Syria, Turkey, Armenia, and Iran.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is the influx of refugees into Europe sustainable?

2. What can the world do to help with the refugee crisis?

3. Should the international community step into the Syrian civil war? Defend your position.

4. Why does The Islamic State encourage terrorist attacks around the world? (Think about

stereotypes and ignorance)

5. How has the situation changed in the front against The Islamic State since Russia joined

the campaign in 2015?

References:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria­civil­war­explained­160505084119966.ht

ml

http://www.bbc.com/news/world­middle­east­14703995

http://www.reuters.com/article/us­syria­crisis­uprising­idUSBRE92G06420130317

http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12008.doc.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKb9GVU8bHE

https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/09/10/attacks­ghouta/analysis­alleged­use­chemical­we

apons­syria

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/05/syria­armed­opposition­groups­committ

ing­war­crimes­in­aleppo­city/

https://www.cfr.org/peace­conflict­and­human­rights/sunni­shia­divide/p33176#!/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQPlREDW­Ro

http://time.com/4030714/isis­timeline­islamic­state/

http://syrianrefugees.eu/

https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/iraq­jordan­lebanon­syria­turkey/quick­facts­what­y

ou­need­know­about­syria­crisis

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

United Nations Security Council Topic II: The Threat of Nuclear Proliferation

Topic Overview:

Throughout most of the twentieth and

twenty­first centuries, nuclear weapons have

been the focus of great fear and anxiety by both

nation states and civilians alike. These

weapons of mass destruction have the power to

destroy entire metropolises, contaminate large

segments of the world’s food supply, and impart serious illness to thousands of individuals.

While nuclear weapons have been used only twice in human history—the United States dropped

bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II—the nuclear

threat is still very real. Today, there is estimated to be about 22,000 nuclear warheads in

existence—more than enough to carry out incalculable damage upon our civilization. 13

There are currently nine nuclear states: The United States of America, the Russian Federation,

the United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Unpredictable 14

and unstable governments are dangerous enough, but adding nuclear weapons to the mix poses a

real threat to not only international peace and security, but the human race’s existence. It is the

United Nations and the Security Council’s duty to ensure the only nations that possess nuclear

arms are those that are authorized by international agreements to do so. The Security Council

13 https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/ 14 http://www.nti.org/learn/nuclear/

must also promote a policy of disarmament among all nuclear nations in order to build a safer

world.

Historical Context:

In 1939 renowned physicists Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard sent a letter to American

President Franklin D. Roosevelt detailing the power that a potential nuclear weapon would yield

and the threat of a nuclear Nazi Germany. FDR responded with the “Manhattan Project”—a

massive undertaking with the goal of developing nuclear capabilities before the Germans. While

nations around the world were scrambling to create atomic weapons, on July 16, 1945 the United

States conducted the world’s first successful nuclear test; the bomb’s power astounded its own

creators. In order to end the war in the Pacific, US President Truman dropped atomic bombs on

the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands of civilians in fractions

of a second.

Soon after the Japanese surrender, many scientists and world leaders called for a ban on

nuclear weapons. However, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union wanted to end their

fledgling nuclear programs. The nuclear arms race had begun. In 1949 the Soviets successfully

tested an atom bomb, prompting US President Truman to launch a program to develop the

drastically more powerful hydrogen bomb. Throughout the 1950s and 60s the Soviet Union and

the United States continued to develop more potent weapons. The United Kingdom, France, and

China developed their own nuclear programs, not wanting to be left out of the new world order.

As the Cold War heightened, the United States and the Soviet Union funneled millions of

dollars into nuclear weapons development, both struggling to assert global dominance. The

United States aided its allies, Great Britain and France, in developing their own nuclear

programs, and the Soviet Union assisted China, its fellow communist nation, with its program.

However, no nuclear program could compare to the sheer size and power of those of the United

States and the Soviet Union. As Cold War tensions grew, nuclear stockpiles swelled. These

stockpiles acted as valuable defensive mechanisms as well. Since nuclear defense systems were

expensive and largely ineffective, the United States and the Soviet Union—and to a lesser extent

the United Kingdom, France, and China—used their nuclear stockpiles to deter other nuclear

nations from attacking. As soon as one nation was attacked, common sense has it that they

would retaliate with even more firepower, escalating into a nuclear war where there are no

winners, only Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This concept of MAD incentivized nations

to avoid nuclear war and prevented any nation from launching a nuclear attack during the Cold

War or throughout the past decades. 15

Arms Control and the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty

Due to the high cost of

the nuclear arms race, in the

early 1960s, the United States

and the Soviet Union became

more open to arms control that

would slow its pace. Current

nuclear states were also

concerned that developing countries in more volatile situations would gain nuclear capabilities,

15 https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html

upsetting the balance of power and putting the world at a greater risk of nuclear war. These

concerns led to the most comprehensive nuclear arms control treaty of the time, known as the

Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 16

The NPT opened for signature in 1968 and attempted to stop the spread of nuclear

weapons without hindering the use of peaceful nuclear energy. It delineates two sets of nations:

nuclear weapons states and non­nuclear weapons states. The group of nuclear weapons states

was made up of the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, China, and France

while the non­nuclear states group is comprised of every other nation party to the treaty. In this

agreement, the nuclear states promise not to help any nation develop nuclear weapons programs

while reducing their own stockpiles. The non­nuclear states promise not to develop or possess

any nuclear weapons. The NPT has the ultimate goal of total nuclear disarmament.

Certain nations—particularly China and France—were hesitant to sign on to the NPT at

first. However, as of today every member state of the United Nations is party to this treaty

except for India, Pakistan, Israel, and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).

North Korea was signed on to NPT until 2003 when it pulled out of the treaty. 17

In addition to NPT, there has been many international nuclear disarmament efforts

throughout the last century. The Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) is a comprehensive agreement

that has banned testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, underwater, or in space. It’s

successor, The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was opened for signature in

1996, but has not gone into effect yet, as numerous nations have yet to ratify it. This treaty

16 https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961­1968/npt 17 https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html

would ban all nuclear weapons detonations and tests. Moreover, a large number of initiatives are

dedicated to the non­proliferation of nuclear technologies: The Wassenaar Agreement, The

Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation, Nuclear Suppliers Group, and the

Missile Technology Control Regime among others. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 18

(START) agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union are the most important

bilateral disarmament documents in the history of the United Nations. Proposed by Ronald

Reagan in 1982 as the third in the series of Strategic Arms Limitation (SALT) treaties. The

SALT I treaty in 1972 had successfully limited the expansion of ballistic missile sites and

submarine­based nuclear weapons between the U.S. and Soviet arsenals. The SALT II treaty was

signed in 1979, but was not ratified by either nation after the invasion of Afghanistan by the

Soviet Union in 1980. After the nuclear tension of the 1980s rose to a fever pitch, under Mikhail

Gorbachev leadership, the USSR began to preach disarmament and the START talks began.

START I came into effect in 1991 and was incredibly successful, limiting the size of each

nation’s conventional military and strategic nuclear arsenal. The START I treaty was successful

in disarming Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, as they transferred their Soviet nuclear

weaponry to the Russian Federation and became non­nuclear states under the NPT.

Unsanctioned Nuclear Activity

Today, there are four nations with unsanctioned nuclear programs: India, Pakistan, Israel,

and North Korea. However, danger also lies in additional rogue states developing nuclear

programs.

18 https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/

In the 1970s India refused to sign the NPT and instead embarked on its own nuclear

program. India rejects the NPT because it states that the treaty makes an unfair distinction

between the five nuclear states and the rest of the non­nuclear countries. In 1974 India

conducted its first successful nuclear test. India and its neighboring country Pakistan have 19

harbored longstanding hostilities over disputed territory and other cultural and historical conflict.

In 1998 after India carried out three nuclear tests, Pakistan responded with its own, heightening

tensions and attracting international attention and outcry. The Pakistani government has stated

that it needs nuclear weapons in defense against the Indian nuclear program and in order to

maintain the balance of powers in South Asia. 20

The nation of Israel allegedly began developing its own nuclear weapons program in the

1950s. As a nation surrounded by hostile neighbors, Israel felt nuclear weapons were necessary

to protect its territory. Israel has a policy of “nuclear opacity,” meaning that it is purposefully

vague about its nuclear capabilities. However, most experts believe it to have developed a

sizeable arsenal over the past decades. 21

North Korea is the most notorious of rogue nuclear

states and—due to its unpredictable nature—its nuclear

program is the cause of great international concern. This

hermit­nation left the NPT in 2003 and is party to very few

non­proliferation treaties. The North Korean government

carried out nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013, and 2016—each

19 http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/india/ 20 http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/pakistan/ 21http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/israel/

met with international condemnation. In 2012 North Korea agreed to suspend their nuclear tests

in return for US food aid, but they later pulled out of that deal and continued with their program.

The North Korean government makes many exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about their

nuclear capabilities, but many experts do agree that they are increasing their nuclear activities. 22

Libya, Iraq, and South Africa used to also possess nuclear programs, though they’ve all

been since dismantled. Moreover, it’s been widely believed that Iran has been pursuing a

nuclear weapons program since the rule of the Shah and continuing into the Islamic Republic. 23

Considering its contentious relationship with many of its neighbors and most of the western

world, a nuclear Iran would prove to be extremely threatening to the precarious balance of power

in the Middle East.

Current Situation:

Since the end of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race, the United States and Russia

have been consistently disarming as required by START I and other nuclear disarmament

agreements. In 2010, they signed the New START Treaty which calls both nations to further

reduce their nuclear stockpiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Today, the

United States’ nuclear stockpile is the smallest it’s been since 1956. However, both nations 24

have a long way to go before they reach complete disarmament. As previously stated, the United

States and Russia account for 93% of the world’s total nuclear weapons supply. Furthermore, as

Russian territorial aggression has increased in recent years, some fear that tensions between

Russia and the West will rise rather than diminish. However, the United States and the Russian

22 http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north­korea/ 23 http://isis­online.org/nuclear­weapons­programs/ 24 http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russia­nuclear­disarmament/

Federation’s mutual distrust stemming from the Crimean crisis has led to numerous bilateral

disarmament agreements being suspended. Both nations are also investing trillions in

modernizing their nuclear arsenals over the next two decades, and with these modernized

weapon systems, the dream of complete nuclear disarmament may be dead for the considerable

future.

The United Kingdom and France are also consistently decreasing their nuclear stockpiles

and account for little international concern. China, on the other hand, is actually increasing and

modernizing its stockpile despite being party to the NPT and other treaties that have the goal of

total disarmament. These increases in nuclear activity paired with its recent aggression in the 25

South China Sea have some governments worried about China’s role as an economic and

military superpower.

In 2016, the provocations

between the Democratic People’s

Republic of Korea (DPRK) and

its neighbors has reached the

level of a potential catastrophe.

In response to continued North

Korean ballistic missile testing,

the Republic of Korea (South

Korea) requested the United

States install the Terminal High

25 http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/nuclear/

Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system on the peninsula. This incensed the People’s Republic

of China, the DPRK, and the disarmament community. China sees the system as a clear

encroachment of American military brinksmanship over the wise course of diplomacy. After the

installation of the THAAD batteries in the South, the DPRK conducted three more ballistic

missile tests, one of which landed in Japanese territorial waters, and on September 9th, they claim

to have successfully tested their largest nuclear device yet, a 10 kiloton warhead. The

international community condemned these actions and imposed even stricter economic sanctions

upon North Korea. It was especially telling that China, a traditional ally of North Korea, also

took part in this condemnation. 26

The 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal

For many years, Iran was suspected of carrying out an unsanctioned nuclear weapons

program. Considering Iran’s anti­western rhetoric and the tensions between their Middle Eastern

neighbors, a nuclear Iran would threaten the safety of the Middle East and the entire world. In

2015, Iran, China, Russia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States all

accepted a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear efforts that was years in the making. Iran agreed to have 27

its nuclear program monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to ensure that

they are pursuing only peaceful nuclear energy. In return, the United Nations has lifted many

crippling economic sanctions from Iran as long as they comply with the deal.

While this deal is often seen as a win for international diplomacy, it has also garnered a

large amount of criticism. For the first ten years of the agreement, if Iran decided to break away

26 http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north­korea/ 27 http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the­iran­debate­moves­on/399713/)

and start working on a nuclear warhead, it would take an entire year to produce enough uranium

for a bomb. During which time the international community would hopefully find a way to put

an end to their nuclear activity. However, after ten years Iran can increase its nuclear capacity

and the time it would take to create a nuclear bomb would drastically decrease. If a contentious

situation were to arise, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in mere weeks—leaving hardly

enough time for a preventative international response. Many individuals say this deal gives Iran

too much leeway in its nuclear program. Critics attest that it will only postpone a nuclear Iran

rather than doing away with the possibility completely. 28

Bloc Positions:

In general, most nations aim for a world free of nuclear weapons, as evidenced by the

great number of signatories to the NPT and other arms control measures. However, there are a

few exceptions. As previously stated, India rejects the NPT because it believes that the NPT

creates an unfair distinction between the five nuclear countries and the rest of the non­nuclear

world. Although, it has taken part in a few arms control treaties other than the NPT. In 29

response to its long­time rival’s nuclear weapons program, Pakistan also maintains its own

program in defense against India and in order to maintain a balance of power in South Asia. 30

Israel—its nuclear program being the topic of much speculation—has stated that it will

not be the first to introduce the Middle East to nuclear weapons. Israel has also supported the

idea of a nuclear weapons ban in the Middle East, but says this region must be totally stable

28 https://www.brookings.edu/research/debating­the­iran­nuclear­deal­a­former­american­negotiator­outlines­the­battleground­issues/ 29 http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/india/ 30 http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/pakistan/

before implementing this type of ban. However, it’s widely accepted that Israel has a sizeable 31

nuclear stockpile. As one of Israel’s closest allies, the United States supports a nuclear weapons

free zone in the Middle East, but it has also been criticized for not condemning Israel’s nuclear

weapons program. While the Iran deal had great support from most of the western world along

with Russia and China, Israel was a staunch opponent. Israel and Saudi Arabia are both staunch

opponents of the deal, and both believe this deal is too weak on Iran and threatens security in the

Middle East. For Israel, it gives its mortal enemy the chance to challenge its nuclear monopoly,

and for Saudi Arabia, a chance for a Shia power in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons.

These strategic problems could result in a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Many have

criticized the United States for seemingly abandoning their closest allies by signing onto this

deal.

For the most part, the international community wants a world free of nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council—as one of the most powerful bodies of the UN—has a duty to

represent the interests of the international community and promote a safer world.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is the Iran Nuclear Deal sufficient in protecting against a nuclear Iran? What further

international action could be carried out to prevent them from creating a nuclear arsenal?

2. What kind of incentives could the international community provide to North Korea in

order to convince them to curb their nuclear program? Would a deal similar to the Iran

Deal be feasible in this area of the world? What role can China play in these

negotiations?

31 http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/israel/

3. What steps could the international community take in order to lessen tensions between

India and Pakistan and have them take on a policy of disarmament?

4. Is it fair to make a distinction between the five nuclear powers and the rest of the world?

Considering that the five nuclear powers are also the only five members of the Security

Council with veto power, is there any way to change the current nuclear world order?

5. What role does the United States play in supporting Israel’s nuclear program? Will this

alliance be helpful or harmful in getting Israel to reduce its nuclear program?

Key Terms:

Nuclear Arms: Nuclear Arms are highly powerful bombs that use energy from nuclear

fission (the splitting of atoms) to create massive explosions. They are some of the most

dangerous weapons in the world with the ability to destroy entire cities and to cause serious

radiation illness.

Hydrogen Bomb: A hydrogen bomb is a nuclear arm that is a thousand times more

powerful than a traditional atomic bomb. It is the most powerful and dangerous type of

nuclear weapons.

Enriched Uranium: Enriched uranium is a type of uranium that is necessary in creating

nuclear weapons. It is also used for peaceful nuclear energy endeavors.

NPT: The Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty is a landmark deal that aims to control nuclear

weapons without limiting peaceful nuclear energy ambitions. It distinguishes between the

five nations allowed to have nuclear weapons (the United States, France, the United

Kingdom, Russia, and China) and the rest of the world. Every member of the UN is party

to this treaty except for India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea.

Cold War: The Cold War was a time of great ideological and military tension between the

United States and the Soviet Union. While neither nation took part in direct conflict with

each other, they both participated in opposing sides of many proxy wars. It was under this

backdrop that the nuclear arms race took place.

Nuclear Arms Race: During the Cold War, the United States and Russia funneled millions

of dollars into nuclear weapons development programs in order to produce larger amounts

of highly powerful weapons in a struggle for global supremacy.

Nuclear Opacity: The Israeli government has a policy of nuclear opacity in which it is

purposefully vague about its nuclear program, divulging very little information.

Iran Nuclear Deal: A deal passed in 2015 in which Iran agreed to have the IAEA monitor

its nuclear program in return for the lifting of UN economic sanctions. It has garnered

great criticism, but its ultimate goal is to ensure Iran does not develop nuclear weapons.

IAEA: The International Atomic Energy Agency is the largest intergovernmental

organization that aims to promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy and reduce the threat of

nuclear weapons.

Resources:

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/

http://www.nti.org/learn/nuclear/

https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/peace/nuclear_weapons/readmore.html

https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/

http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/india/

http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/pakistan/

http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/israel/

http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north­korea/

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/russia­nuclear­disarmament/

http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/united­states­nuclear­disarmament/

http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/china/nuclear/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/debating­the­iran­nuclear­deal­a­former­american­n

egotiator­outlines­the­battleground­issues/

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/the­iran­debate­moves­on/3997

13

THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

United Nations Security Council Topic III: Situation in the South China Sea

Topic Overview:

The conflict between China and its neighbors in Southeast Asia over the ownership of

islands in the South China Sea has been

simmering for decades, but in 2016, it has

strained relations between China and some

members of the international community. The

islands at the center of interest are the Spratly

Islands and the Paracel Islands, scattered across

the South China Sea, they consist of a variety

of small islands and rocky outcroppings.

Control of these islands would mean vast

fishing grounds, control of trade routes out of Asia worth trillions of dollars, and potentially

billions of dollars in natural gas and oil reserves. Although the resources at stake are massive, the

conflict is territorial at its core.

Ownership and occupation of these islands is a hotly debated issue for several

southeastern Asian nations including China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan.

These ownership conflicts, however, are not completely new; several of them have roots tracing

back to times as early as World War II and some trace back to even the Sino­Japanese wars at

the end of the 19th century. Geographically, the conflict is strictly regional. However, the issues

and consequences involved are diverse and they are significant on a global level. The maritime

laws and boundaries, the efficacy of international agreements, foreign trade, natural resources,

militarization of the sea, and the legitimacy of national boundaries are at the forefront of

international debate. Several institutions play a role in this debate, As the United Nations

Security Council, it is imperative to clarify the ambiguity in maritime law and address the

questions of how to maintain stability and rule of law in the interest in international peace and

security.

Historical Background:

While stories of contested claims over the South China Sea go back to several hundred years

ago, the conflict truly began in the mid­20th century. After the end of World War II, Japan

surrendered almost all of its claims in the South China Sea under the San Francisco Treaty in

1951 . In 1946, China claimed parts of the Spratly Islands and some of the Paracel Islands, 32

justifying the claims with the creation of the controversial nine­dash line, allegedly based on

pre­World War II map defining the islands as the rightful territory of the China. Up to this point,

however, there were no significant tensions in the South China Sea. By the 1950s, French 33

Indochina began to assert control of the area while China and Taiwan strengthened presences on

various smaller island formations.

In the 1970s, however, the situation began to change; China and Vietnam both began

investing resources to develop the Paracel Islands, looking to exploit the natural resources in the

region. The two nations inevitably came into conflict, and in 1973, a South Vietnamese patrol

ship ran into a Chinese fishing vessel and detained the crew. China claimed ownership of any

32 http://www.cfr.org/china/south­china­sea­tensions/p29790 33 https://news.usni.org/2012/06/20/south­china­sea­history­armed­conflict

natural resources in the area and deployed additional military resources to the island chain. This 34

dispute eventually devolved into a naval conflict between fleets of Chinese and Vietnamese

naval vessels. The South Vietnamese army temporarily took control of the Paracels, but was

overwhelmed by the Chinese counter­attack and defeated. After pushing Vietnam off the islands,

the Chinese controlled the entirety of the Paracels and had de facto control of its resources. After

the defeat, Vietnam protested Chinese actions with the Security Council. Expectedly, China

threated to veto and the issue was disregarded. This event forebodes that these islands are a

possible flashpoint, as China and its neighbors continue to militarize the area and conflicting

geographical and natural resource claims mount.

In the 1980s, China moved to expand to the Spratly Islands with the goal of continuing to

control the South China Sea and solidifying its naval power over the region. However, these 35

goals conflicted again with the now united Vietnam, who also sought to expand military control

of its sea resources. The Spratlys are larger and more numerous than the Paracels, so the

Vietnamese and Chinese navies were able to hop from island to island, operating in close

proximity for some time. After months of tension, the two powers inevitably engaged each other

again when violent altercation broke out in March of 1987. The Chinese defeated Vietnam again,

more than a hundred troops and an array of naval ships fought a short battle.

In the 1980s, International organizations began to concern themselves with keeping peace

between the two nations and clarifying ownership of the islands. By this point, it was apparent

that the South China Sea brought to light the difficulties in establishing and maintaining

34 http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/asia/china­philippines­south­china­sea/ 35 http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/asia/china­philippines­south­china­sea/

maritime rights and borders. In 1982, the international community took a significant step forward

in developing a legal framework for international maritime law in the UN Convention on the

Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This treaty was created as a framework to answer many legal

questions on maritime law such as conservation of resources and sovereignty. UNCLOS also 36

established the concept of the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which has played a significant

role in the debate over territorial rights, control over resources in the sea, and trade. 37

The South China Sea has also been a source of conflicts between China and the

Philippines, especially since the late 1990s. In the late 1990s, there was a naval conflict between

the two nations in a part of the Spratly Islands chain controlled by the Philippines. 38

In 2002, ASEAN and China signed the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South

China Sea, which, in principle, encouraged self­restraint, caution, and downscaling conflict in

the area. However, the document had several flaws. There was no way to enforce or monitor

compliance with the document; also, the document gave little to no guidance on implementing its

goals.7 While the parties to the declaration initially made efforts to implement the document

through policy­centered conferences, the attempts were fruitless. Since then, especially since

2012, militarization of the South China Sea escalated significantly; the situation in the sea

remains tense, leaving unanswered many important legal, economic, and political questions.

Current Situation:

36http://www.cfr.org/asia­and­pacific/chinas­maritime­disputes/p31345#!/?cid=otr­marketing_use­china_sea_InfoGuide

37 http://kyotoreview.org/issue­15/managing­security­in­the­south­china­sea­from­doc­to­coc/

38 http://www.cfr.org/china/south­china­sea­tensions/p29790

Tensions in the area have been running high since 2012 when the Chinese military ran

Philippine fishermen off the Scarborough shoal, a contested outcropping claimed by both China

and the Philippines. Once captured by the Chinese Navy, they began to build an artificial island

on the land to bolster their claim to the islands. After this incident, the Philippines submitted a

case to the United Nations tribunal in The Hague, asking them to judge the validity of Chinese

claims in the South China Sea under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). One

of the key legal questions in this particular dispute was whether the areas claimed by China could

actually be classified as islands; if it was found that the areas could not be classified as islands,

the areas could not be used to create an exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which gives a nation

control over sea resources within the zone. In July 2016, the tribunal ruled that China could not

claim holdings in the area as islands, signifying that they did not have the rights to use the waters

as an exclusive economic zone. China has defied the court’s ruling, and have continued to

militarize the area and artificially build up the islands despite the international community’s

disapproval. International political analysts warned China was risking ostracism in the world

community, but that has not materialized yet. While the ruling is legally binding, there are no

means to enforce it, making the outcome uncertain. 39

This dangerous situation is escalating as Japan, Vietnam, and other Southeast Asian

countries prepare for possible Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. It has become clear

that the Chinese consider the area their territory and will disregard international norms and

threaten relations with their neighbors. Vietnam in the past year has grown its military and

political links with United States in response to Chinese aggression.

39 https://pca­cpa.org/en/services/arbitration­services/unclos/

In May 2016, Barack Obama announced the end of the US arms embargo and an

agreement to begin selling US military equipment to Vietnam to bolster their self­defense

capabilities. This is a clear move by the United States to support an ally in the South China Sea

as a part of Barack Obama’s “Asian Pivot” and focus on containment of Chinese expansion. This

movement also has the potential to hasten further militarization of the South China Sea. The

Japanese defense forces have arranged a landmark deal to share naval and surveillance

technology with the Philippines, with the clear implication of creating a zone of influence around

China to discourage further expansion in the area. The Chinese Navy has also been active in

expanding their capabilities, the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning was unveiled in 2012 and will

become operational in the next two years, showing the clear intention of China to gain a capable

blue water navy and to increase their ability to project power in the Pacific.

Numerous joint military exercises between the US, Japan, and the Philippines in the past

two years has increased the stakes for China. China has also deployed missiles to some holdings

in the Paracel Islands. In response to these military exercises by the United States and Japan, 40

the Chinese and Russian navy have announced they will be holding joint military exercises in the

South China Sea in September of 2016.

These conflicting claims continue to sour relations in the South China Sea; although the recent

ruling on the Philippines vs. China case provides some clarity over the legitimacy of claims in

the sea, it by no means removes all doubt in the region. Enforcing it, furthermore, will prove to

be difficult. At stake for the parties to the dispute is control and access to the important resources

in the sea, such as oil, marine life, military and naval buildup, and trade; trade in particular is an

40 http://www.cfr.org/china/south­china­sea­tensions/p29790

important issue for Southeast Asian nations, Japan, the US, China, and the EU. It is apparent 41

that the situation in the South China Sea is consequential to future disputes over the enforcement

of exclusive economic zones and has the potential to destabilize a vital region of world trade. It

is clear that the militarization of the South China Sea is a serious threat to international peace and

security.

Bloc Positions:

United States: The United States is interested in free access to the waters of the South China

Sea, given its economic and military control over the seas of the world. Historically, the United

States has been a vocal opponent to Chinese expansion, development, and naval aggression in

the South China Sea; it has also supported other claimants such as the Philippines and Vietnam.

Based on this, the United States will be a strong critic against any restriction on movement and

trade in the South China Sea and will have little hesitation to put forth policy aimed at deterring

Chinese dominance in the region. 42 43 44

United Kingdom: The United Kingdom, in comparison to nations like the United States, France,

and Japan, holds a much less adversarial stance towards China in this issue. In particular,

according to a parliamentary briefing to the House of Commons, they are generally neutral over

the land claims made by the disputing parties. Furthermore, it is notable that the UK has

requested a neutral observer status in the Philippines­China legal dispute. This may suggest that

41 http://kyotoreview.org/issue­15/managing­security­in­the­south­china­sea­from­doc­to­coc/ 42https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/u­s­south­china­sea­policy­after­the­ruling­opportunities­and­challenges/ 43http://www.usnews.com/news/best­countries/articles/2016­06­10/why­you­need­to­care­about­the­south­china­sea

44http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/25/uk­requests­observer­status­spratly­islands­dispute

the overall goal of the UK is to maintain stability in the region and avoid provoking any

particular party in the conflict. 45 46

Russia: The relationship between Russia and China is notably warmer than that of Russia and

the United States. In particular, Russia and China have participated in a joint naval exercises in

the South China Sea in the past and will be holding another in September of 2016. This may

indicate further Russian support of the Chinese position in the conflict, but is one of several

indicators of a strong Russian­Chinese partnership in overall foreign policy.

China: China is one of the major parties to the South China dispute. Like Japan, they have made

their own claims to islands in the South China Sea and have used their veto power in the Security

Council to limit debate on the issue in the past.

Malaysia: Malaysia has claims in the South China Sea but also wishes to maintain strong

diplomatic relations with China. A paper by Prashanth Parameswaran of the Center for a New

American Security argues that since Malaysia’s claims are around the southern border of China’s

nine­dash line, China poses less of a threat to the nation. However, there have been recent,

controversial Chinese actions. According to a Reuters article, several Chinese fishing boats have

been spotted in a disputed fishing area. The same article also notes that Malaysia, like most of

the world, does not recognize China’s nine­dash line. With these goals, developments, and

policies in mind, Malaysia must maintain its control and adequate defense over its claims in the

region while avoiding conflict with the Chinese.19, 20

45 http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP­7481/CBP­7481.pdf 46http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016­06­05/france­to­push­for­coordinated­eu­patrols­in­south­china­sea

Discussion Questions:

1. The makeup of the Security Council is a very important dynamic to consider in this topic.

Four major parties are members of the Council: China, Japan, Malaysia, and the United

States. In what ways does this impact the debate in the Security Council?

2. How can the Security Council act to maintain and develop standards on maritime

boundaries? How can they work to strengthen or change previous standards such as

UNCLOS?

3. To what extent should the international community encourage open waters in relation to

foreign trade? What role do Exclusive Economic Zones play in foreign trade?

4. How can the Security Council act to enforce the rule of international law in the South

China Sea? What legal precedents are there to do so?

5. How does the recent ruling by The Hague on the Philippines vs. China case affect the

debate over the South China Sea?

6. What can the Security Council do to prevent militarization and island development from escalating into violence?

Key Terms:

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): The UNCLOS, signed

in 1982, defined the rights and responsibilities of member­states to control and manage

marine resources, preserve marine life, and provide a basis for resolving inter­state

conflicts over marine territory.

Exclusive Economic Zone: Defined by the UNCLOS, the EEZ is the zone of complete

and sovereign economic control that extends from the shore of a member­nation out 200

nautical miles into the sea.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): ASEAN’s purpose is to create

economic and social unity and mutual prosperity between nations in Southeast Asia.

ASEAN issued a statement on the South China Sea, but retracted it officially after

Chinese protests.

Nine­Dash Line: The Nine­Dash Line is the official territory line claimed by the

People’s Republic of China, it extends across the South China Sea and conflicts with

claims by Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines.

Senkaku Islands: The Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea are disputed by the

People’s Republic of China, Japan, and Taiwan. Japan was given control of the islands in

the 1970s. There are numerous oil and gas deposits around the island.

Paracel Islands: The Paracels are a chain of small and medium­sized islands in the

South China Sea, The People’s Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

fought two battles during the 20th century over control of the islands.

Spratly Islands: At the center of the South China sea, the Spratly islands are occupied by

the People’s Republic of China and possess numerous oil and gas deposits, fishing

resources, and access to vitally important international shipping lanes.

Resources:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/south­china­sea­dispute­brief­history

https://news.usni.org/2012/06/20/south­china­sea­history­armed­conflict

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/asia/china­philippines­south­china­sea/

https://pca­cpa.org/en/services/arbitration­services/unclos/

http://www.cfr.org/asia­and­pacific/chinas­maritime­disputes/p31345#!/?cid=otr­marketi

ng_use­china_sea_InfoGuide

http://www.cfr.org/china/south­china­sea­tensions/p29790

http://kyotoreview.org/issue­15/managing­security­in­the­south­china­sea­from­doc­to­c

oc/

https://www.swp­berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/projekt_papiere/BCAS2012_Tay

lor_Fravel_web_final_ks.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/u­s­south­china­sea­policy­after­the­ruling­opportun

ities­and­challenges/

http://www.usnews.com/news/best­countries/articles/2016­06­10/why­you­need­to­care­a

bout­the­south­china­sea

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/25/uk­requests­observer­status­spratly­isl

ands­dispute

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP­7481/CBP­7481.pdf

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016­06­05/france­to­push­for­coordinated­eu­

patrols­in­south­china­sea

http://english.chinamil.com.cn/news­channels/pla­daily­commentary/2016­06/14/content

_7100800.htm

http://www.angop.ao/angola/en_us/noticias/politica/2016/6/27/Angola­follows­South­Chi

na­Sea­situation,df5ccd42­c0e7­49fa­91db­c823647b0d04.html

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east­asia/china­must­explain­south­china­sea­plans­to­s

mall­nations­new­zealand­says

https://www.chapmantripp.com/publications/Pages/The­South­China­Sea­decision­a­plat

form­for­resolution­or­fuel­to­the­fire.aspx

http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications­pdf/CNAS%20Maritime%206_Param

eswaran_Final.pdf

http://www.reuters.com/article/us­southchinasea­malaysia­idUSKCN0YM2SV

http://globalnation.inquirer.net/111149/spain­expresses­heightened­concern

http://interaksyon.com/article/53834/spain­to­turn­over­some­70­historical­maps­to­stren

gthen­ph­claim­over­disputed­territories

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/chinabrief/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=442

43&cHash=dbc66ec1608ca6a399ee2788e9b889fe#.V5­OY7grKUk

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2016/04/02/two­years­after­crimea­are­japan­ukraine­ties­

weakening/

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/57675.pdf