sg final security council

Rato Bangala School Model

United Nations 2014

Study Guide Security Council

RBSMUN2014 Study Guide: Security Council

Table of Contents

Message from the Chair Introduction to the committee History of the committee

Topic A: Indo-‐China-‐Pakistan Conflict in the Kashmir Region

• History of the topic • Statement of the problem • Current situation • Relevant UN actions • Proposed solutions • Questions a resolution must answer • Bloc positions • Suggestions for further research

Topic B: The Legality and Effectiveness of Combat Drones

• History of the topic • Statement of the problem • Current situation • Relevant UN actions • Proposed solutions • Questions a resolution must answer • Bloc positions • Suggestions for further research

Closing remarks

Bibliography

3

Message from the Chair

Delegates,

As much as it bothers me to realize that we will spend only three days in committee, I promise you that this short time duration will be no barrier for you to take home a memorable triad of debate, enjoyment, and experience. As delegates of the Security Council – UN’s most powerful and all-‐important organ – you should expect no less.

The SC makes decisions that penetrate world politics right to their roots. The responsibilities – and powers – vested in this council are matched by no other committee: SC has the power to veto decisions made by any other organ of the United Nations, even those of the International Court of Justice, wherever it deems appropriate.

It is for these reasons that I say that your responsibilities are both crucial and challenging. Remember that you are going to shape the lives of billions connected with the issues of the SC; naturally, you must be at once thoughtful, articulate, and cautious. The world will stand to lose much if you choose to be timorous, so feel free to speak out and argue for your point of view. Above all, leave your fears by the wayside: we are here, after all, not only to solve world issues but also to learn and grow as individuals.

And we, your dais, are here to take you in the right direction. I feel proud in presenting SC’s Vice-‐President, Neha Rajhbhandary, an avid debater who will work zealously to make sure that this committee is successful. The moderator, Sumin Bajracharya, will also do a meticulous job at monitoring and conducting our committee’s proceedings.

At the Security Council, your diplomacy, patience, diligence, and perseverance will be tested to their limits. Those of you who manage to excel in your demonstration of these qualities will also be judged worthy of the coveted prizes that this council offers.

Challenging the SC may be, but unmanageable it is not as long as you are forthright about your questions and complaints. We are here to serve you. We will always be ready, accessible, approachable – all to ensure that you make the most out of your three days with us.

Raghav Poddar Deputy Secretary General Chair, Security Council Rato Bangala Model United Nations-‐2014


Introduction to the Committee

The Security Council is an intrinsic part of the United Nations. It has been bestowed with a significant responsibility, that of maintaining peace and security throughout the world by arriving at on decisions that must be accepted by all member nations as binding resolutions. The Council investigates any incident that threatens international security, recommends ways of solving such incidents, formulates plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments, calls on members to apply sanctions and other methods of force, recommends to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-‐General and, together with the Assembly, elects the judges of the International Court of Justice.

This year, we will tackle two intricate issues, neither of which has been brought to a satisfying conclusion. The first is the old and enduring conflict between China, India and Pakistan over control of various regions of Kashmir. The issue has stretched for more than six decades and is nowhere close to being solved. The concerned countries have shown interest in and given a glimmer of hope for peace but in reality they have failed to maintain peace and stability in the region. Superpowers of the twenty-‐first century India and China, along with Pakistan, have a nuclear arsenal at their disposal, which explains the gravity of this territorial dispute. As citizens of Earth, we cannot afford to allow these countries to come to a nuclear war over territory, for such a war will be trans-‐boundary and will cause irreparable and irreversible environmental and economic damage.

The second issue is the recent development and rapidly increasing use of drones. The unprecedented military use of unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAV), popularly known as (combat) drones, is greatly controversial owing to their use in reconnaissance and combat. Their affordability and efficiency arising from the redundancy of equipment necessary to support human pilots has resulted in their widespread usage and the attendant breaches of privacy and collection of unwarranted intelligence. Drones have the advantage of causing, in theory at least, fewer civilian casualties than traditional weapon of war and limiting the scale of military action.

5

History of the Committee The birth of both the United Nations and its Security Council started with the Declaration of St. James Palace, which emerged from a June 1941 meeting between the representatives of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, and the exiled governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and General de Gaulle representing France. At this time Europe was on the brink of falling to the Axis powers, yet these governments were engaged in the discussion and signing of a declaration of intent that would set the stage for a change that would henceforth affect the way governments resolved international issues. Part of the Declaration read as follows:

“The only true basis of enduring peace is the willing cooperation of peace: peoples in a world which, relived of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security. It is our intention to work together, and with other free peoples, both in war and peace, to this end.”

On January 1, 1942, the United Nations Declaration was signed by President Roosevelt of the USA, Prime Minister Churchill of Great Britain, Ambassador Maxim Litvinov of the USSR, and Foreign Minister T. V. Soong of China. A day later the Declaration was signed by twenty-‐two other nations. Then, as World War II was drawing to a close, China, Great Britain, the USSR, and the United States met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington D.C. to develop organizational plans for the UN. The Dumbarton Oaks draft focused mostly on the Security Council. In its original form the Security Council had eleven members, of whom five (Soviet Union, USA, UK, France and China) were permanent members and six held seats for two years. The Security Council was given the responsibility of preventing future wars and for making decisions about what actions the United Nations needed to take. Another important feature of the Dumbarton Oaks plan was that member states were to place armed forces at the disposal of the Security Council in its task of preventing war and suppressing acts of aggression. One problem with the Dumbarton Oaks plan was the lack of a voting procedure in the Security Council. This was resolved at the Yalta Conference in February of 1945 by UK Prime Minister Churchill, US President Roosevelt, and Soviet President Stalin. After Yalta, the San Francisco Conference was set for April 25, 1945. After many heated debates and at the insistence of the major powers, the veto power was made official in Article 30 and was extended to the five countries commonly referred to as the “Permanent 5”, which now include France, the United Kingdom, the United States, the People’s Republic of China, and the Russian Federation. These permanent members hold veto power, which allows to them to directly fail any draft resolution during voting and hence stop discussion of that resolution. The Security Council held its first historic meeting on January 17, 1946, and has been taking actions for peace ever since. Beginning in the late 1980s, a new spirit of cooperation among the great powers permitted unified action to deal with crises in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, Cambodia, and other troubled areas. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the Council was able to act with unanimity in condemning Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait and authorizing collective military action to expel the aggressor.

Diplomatic pressure in 1965 resulted in an increase in the number of members in the Security Council to 15, but the number and composition of permanent positions remained the same. There has been much discussion about changing the veto positions, especially after the fall of USSR and its permanent position being given to the Russian Federation. This action has opened the door to the possibility of changing the veto power in the Security Council.


Topic A: Indo-‐China-‐Pakistan Conflict in the Kashmir Region

History of the Topic

Disputed borders are not only the causes of the past and current issues but are also a breeding ground for future strains in relationships. There are many who believe that resolving the India-‐China-‐Pakistan border conflict will lead to overall peace in South Asia. To tackle this problem and to find a viable solution we must go to the issue’s roots. With portions under the administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir) and Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas), the territorial dispute over Kashmir is one of the longest-‐standing disputes yet to find a solution. The prime concerns regarding this trilateral border conflict are the hostilities between the three nationalities, cross border troubles, water disputes, issues of mutual recognition, security and a resolution to the refugee problem.

The controversial partition of the British Indian Empire, which established the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India on 14 August 1947, remains one of the chief reasons of disorder in the Indian subcontinent. The partition was made after the declaration of independence of both states and the responsibility for keeping order in the land and safeguarding the lives of minorities on both sides was given to the two new independent states.

Partition

When the British created the line of partition between land that would be India and Pakistan, Pakistan was given the Muslim-‐dominated areas in the far north. The most controversial condition of all was that the rulers of some disputed areas, particularly Kashmir, were given a choice between joining India or Pakistan. Since Kashmir had a majority Muslim population Pakistan expected Kashmir to be a part of Pakistan but this did not happen.

Indo-‐Pakistani War of 1947

After word spread that the Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh of Kashmir would decide to give Kashmir to India, Pakistani tribes and Muslim militants started making armed advances in the Baramulla sector of Kashmir. Even though Pakistani tribes had started getting involved, there is no evidence that Pakistan itself was involved. The Maharaja had asked for India's help in this conflict, but since both Pakistan and India had a non-‐intervention treaty, India couldn't intervene unless there was proper proof that Pakistan was involved. The only way that the Maharaja could possibly get India's military support was by the official annexation of Jammu and Kashmir by India. After the Pakistani tribes reached the outskirts of Srinagar, the Maharaja ceded Jammu and Kashmir to India in return for military aid. This was made

7

official in the Instrument of Accession. The accession of Kashmir to India was documented as officially authorized by the UN.

Upholding the clauses of the Instrument of Accession, the Indian army was stationed in Kashmir. Thier attempt to drive out the Pakistan came to be known as the first Kashmir war. This war took place until India moved the issue to the United Nations Security Council. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) was set up to monitor the conflict in Kashmir. On 21 April, 1958, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 47, which enforced an immediate ceasefire, called on Pakistan to secure the withdrawal of tribesmen from Jammu and Kashmir and asked India to reduce its troops to a minimum, after which the conditions for holding a plebiscite on 'the question of the succession of Kashmir to India or Pakistan’ were to have been immediately put into action.

The plebiscite was not held, however, as both states failed to agree.

In November 1948, both India and Pakistan agreed to hold the plebiscite but the conditions were violated, as Pakistan was unwilling to withdraw its army from Kashmir. India then set a precondition to the plebiscite that Pakistan should withdraw the Pakistani Army from Kashmir first; however Pakistan rejected it saying that the Kashmiris wouldn't be able to vote freely under the presence of the Indian army. Pakistan proposed the synchronized withdrawal of all troops with the plebiscite looked over by the international community but India rejected this proposal. In the span of several years, four resolutions were passed which called upon both states to withdraw all troops simultaneously. However, they were non-‐binding and had no mandatory obligations. UN arbitrators also put forth 11 proposals for the demilitarization of Kashmir, all of which were accepted by Pakistan but rejected by India.

Sino-‐Indian War

China, too, is involved in the conflict as it claims about 20% of the land in Jammu and Kashmir known as Aksai Chin. In 1962, troops from China and India clashed in territory claimed by both. China won a swift victory and took over Aksai Chin. This war is known as the Sino-‐Indian War. Another area, the Trans-‐Karakoram, was demarcated as the Line of Control (LOC) between China and Pakistan, although India claims part of the land on the Chinese side. Chinese troops overran Indian military positions in Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh before a ceasefire. China withdrew behind the McMahon Line dividing the two countries along Arunachal Pradesh. The ceasefire line between India and China became known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

The Sino-‐Pakistan Agreement

The Sino-‐Pakistan Agreement was a document signed in 1963 by the governments of Pakistan and China that established the border between them. The agreement is highly controversial and is not recognized by India, which also claims part of the land.

Indo-‐Pakistani War of 1965 and Indo-‐Pakistani War of 1971

Heavy combat took place between India and Pakistan in both 1965 and 1971. The war of 1971 led to the defeat of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh. In 1972, the Agreement of Simla was signed by India


and Pakistan. In it, both countries agreed to resolve all issues by peaceful means using mutual dialogue in accordance with the UN Charter and also stated that both parties would respect the Line of Control, the border between the two countries and China.

Militancy and Insurgency in Kashmir

Owing to the largely ineffective enforcement of the Simla Agreement of 1972, around 1987, animosity towards the Indian administration and possibly rigged state elections prompted the formation of militant wings by select state legislative assemblies, further fuelling the Mujahedeen insurgency prevalent even today. The major militant groups in Kashmir include Hizbul Mujahedeen, Lashkar-‐e-‐Taiba, Harkat-‐ul-‐Mujahedeen and Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front.

Kargil War

Pakistani Kashmiri insurgents and soldiers infiltrated Jammu and Kashmir in mid-‐1999. Owing to the severe climatic conditions in the winter, Indian forces usually move to lower altitudes, leaving the high grounds near the Line of Control (LOC unprotected. Taking advantage of the Indian forces’ absence, rebels took over unoccupied mountain peaks of the Kargil range that overlooked the highway in Indian Kashmir that connects Leh and Srinagar. The insurgents wanted to cut off the Kashmir Valley and Ladakh, so they broke the only link, the highway. This obstruction ended up in a major conflict between the Pakistani Army and the Indian Army.

As both India and Pakistan were nuclear powers at this point in time, the fear that the Kargil War would resulting in a nuclear war pushed the United States of America's then President Bill Clinton into putting pressure on Pakistan to withdraw. The Pakistani Army retreated, putting an end to the conflict. India got back the control for all of the mountain ranges and peaks, which they monitor and patrol throughout the year.

Brief Timeline:

1947-‐ The controversial partition of the British Indian Empire, which established the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India, was carried out. It resulted in the Indo-‐Pakistan war of 1947.

1962-‐ Troops from China and India clashed in territory claimed by both. China won a swift victory and took over Aksai Chin. This war is known as the Sino-‐Indian War.

1963-‐ The Sino-‐Pakistan Agreement was a document signed by the governments of Pakistan and China that established the border between them.

1987 -‐ Dubious state elections in Indian-‐administrated Jammu and Kashmir gave momentum to a pro-‐independence insurgency led by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). India blamed Pakistan for stimulating the insurgency by sending out fighters over the Line of Control, an accusation which Pakistan strongly denied.

9

1990 -‐ The Indian Army killed around a 100 protestors at the Gawakadal Bridge, thereby escalating the insurgency. Attacks and threats lead to the flight of most Hindus from the Kashmir Valley. India enforced the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in Kashmir, which made the Indian forces face a lot of conflict in Jammu and Kashmir

1990s -‐ The insurgency continued, with Kashmiri militants training in Pakistan and India deploying hundreds of thousands of troops in Jammu and Kashmir. Hostility against civilians by both sides became very widespread.

1999 -‐ India and Pakistan went to war again after militants crossed from Pakistani Kashmir into the Indian Kargil District. India held off the attack, accused Pakistan of being behind it, and cut off relations.

2001-‐2004 -‐ Efforts to better the relations between the two nations were interrupted by on going violence, particularly the2001 attack on the parliament of Indian-‐administered Jammu and Kashmir in Srinagar.

2010 -‐ Violent clashes erupted in the Indian-‐administered Jammu and Kashmir during the summer after a protester was killed by the Indian army. Only after the government announced measures to ease the tension in September did the protests finally decline.

2011 August -‐ 1,200 men who attacked security forces with stones during the anti-‐government protests in the Kashmir Valley in 2010 were granted amnesty by Chief Minister Omar Abdullah. The Indian State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) stated that there were more than 2,000 nameless bodies in mass unmarked graves near the LoC.

2011 September -‐ Three Pakistani soldiers were killed by Indian forces across the LoC. India accused Pakistan of opening fire first.

2012 August -‐ Omar Abdullah, the Chief Minister of Indian-‐administered Jammu and Kashmir stated, "the security situation here is not yet conducive to the revoking of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in the state".

2012 September -‐ Indian President Pranab Mukherjee visited Indian-‐administered Jammu and Kashmir only two months after being made president. In spite of the many threats from separatists, the visit went off without any serious or violent incidents.

2013 March -‐ Curfew imposed in Indian-‐administered Kashmir following a day of violence in which at least eight people were killed.

2013 June-‐ A Junior Commissioned Officer of the Indian Army was killed in cross-‐border firing with Pakistani troops in the Mandi sector along the Line of Control (LoC).

2013 July-‐ Indian troops working on the LoC kidnapped four Pakistani Kashmiri men on 30 July, 2013, at night. India claimed the men were trespassers. This was refuted by Pakistan, who stated the men were nothing but local civilians and had unknowingly strayed close to the Line of Control when the Indians


took them. Though, an Indian police official did say that it would be "unusual for an infiltrating group of four terrorists to possess only one assault rifle, and no grenades or communication equipment"

2013 August-‐ Several border scuffles take place on both sides of the border.

2013 September -‐ The prime minister of India and his Pakistani counterpart meet and agree to try to reduce the violence at their Kashmiri disputed border.

2013 October-‐ Different cases of cross-‐border bombings took place by both parties involved.

11

Current Situation

India-‐Pakistan

The Siachen War, a military conflict between India and Pakistan over the Siachen glacier region in Kashmir began in 1984. It is known as the highest battleground on Earth. Both countries have permanent military troops at the height of over 20,000 ft. Two thousand soldiers have died in the terrain, with 97% of casualties due to hazardous weather conditions rather than fighting. The conflict began in the unfinished demarcated territory on the map beyond the coordinate NJ9842. The main cause of the war was due to the lack of clarity of the 1972 Simla Agreement, which failed to mention who controlled the glacier, and the false assumption that no one would fight over such a cold and infertile region.

A recent watershed in the relationship between India and Pakistan is the agreement made on June 10, 2002, between both the countries to withdraw troops from the border. Negotiations began in 26 November, 2003, when India and Pakistan agreed to maintain a ceasefire along the undisputed international border, disputed line of control and actual ground position line. This was the first accounted ceasefire declared by both nations in 15 years. The restoration of bus service between India-‐Pakistan showed signs of defused tension between both countries. They were even willing to cooperate on economic terms.

In 2008, US president Barack Obama strived to carry out his first foreign policy objective, which was to resolve the India and Pakistan Border crisis but before Obama’s government could intervene, the policy was heavily criticized as many critics suggested it would be best if India and Pakistan bilaterally sorted out their problems and so the USA stayed away from the issue. India's former national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra, was quoted as saying, "No matter what government is in place, India is not going to relinquish control of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Cross-‐border fire has also caused havoc along the LOC in the disputed Kashmir region. Border shooting took place between August-‐September 2011, resulting in two or three casualties. Rather than taking the blame, both countries started accusing each other of having initiated hostilities. Each side gave different accounts of the incident, Pakistan claiming Indian border security forced an open fire whereas India claiming their border posts were fired on first by Pakistani troops.

In 2013 India-‐Pakistan border skirmishes began. They were the worst period of intense fighting in Kashmir in nearly 10 years. Despite peace efforts made by both countries the skirmishes kept escalating, resulting in the deaths of many soldiers and civilians.

Although peace seemed to close, it was driven further away when Pakistan admitted that the Mumbai attacks of 2008 had been planned inside Pakistan by Lashkar-‐e-‐Taiba, which inevitably led to an outburst of violence. Newly elected Pakistani Prime minister, Nawaz Sharif has promised a new era of Indo-‐Pakistani relationship but India has yet to reach the grounds for agreement as it claims that Pakistani militants are still violating the ceasefire on the borders.


India-‐China

The Sino-‐Indian War was fought in 1962 and an agreement to resolve the dispute was concluded in 1996. Aksai Chin (the westernmost part) is claimed by India as the part of the state Jammu and Kashmir in the Ladakh region but is governed and controlled as a part of China’s Xinjiang region. Another disputed territory is Arunachal Pradesh (the easternmost part), which lies south of the McMahon Line, a proposed boundary between India (Eastern region) and Tibet.

On October 23, 2013, Beijing successfully convinced India to sign the BDCA (Border Defense Cooperation Agreement). Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi agreed to settle issues regarding border disputes between India and China. China is prepared to finalize a boundary agreement as the meeting between newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi ended in a positive perspective. According to reporters, the two leaders wanted to improve their countries’ economies and the only thing that has prevented them from broadening their trade has been territorial disputes. China is India's largest trading partner and both countries seem keen to prevent border dispute and invest more in each other’s countries if trade provisions are eased. “China-‐India Corporation is like a massive buried treasure waiting to be discovered, the potential is massive”, Wang said. The two countries signed nine agreements in total, including a deal to bolster co-‐operation on Trans-‐border Rivers and transport.

China-‐Pakistan

In 1963, the governments of Pakistan and China established a document known as the Sino-‐Pakistan Agreement, which led to a conclusion regarding border disputes between the two nations. Since then the relationship between Pakistan and China has remained cordial. India considers this agreement both controversial and illegal.

During the Sino-‐India war, Pakistan had aligned with China to jointly counter the Indian border encroachment. China began to provide military assistance to Pakistan in 1962. Since then China has become Pakistan's largest supplier of arms (nearly 47% of the total) and its third largest trading partner. The military alliance between the two nations was primarily aimed to repel the regional influences of India, the USA and the Soviet Union.

Chinese economic cooperation with Pakistan has reached its peak. There have been many Chinese investments in Pakistani infrastructural expansion such as the Pakistani water port at Gwadar. Recently they signed a free trade agreement. Pakistan also helped China close the communication gap between it and the West by acting as a bridge and facilitating the 1972 Nixon visit to China (which helped normalize the relationship between the U.S. and China). Both nations have been keen to enhance their economic relationship and have promised to encourage cross-‐border trade.

Recently Pakistan announced that it would build a nuclear complex in Karachi with two Chinese-‐built nuclear reactors in order to relieve the power crisis that has disturbed daily life and the national economy. The total cost of the reactors will be $9.6 million. The nuclear power relationship between China and Pakistan is seen to be a response to the India-‐U.S. nuclear deal. It seems as if a competitive two-‐bloc formation has taken shape in South Asia.

13

Water Wars

One of the major reasons for discord in the Kashmir region is that water in Kashmir is the origin of the Indus River and many of its rivers and tributaries. About 60% of the catchment area of the river basin is in Pakistan, 20% in India, 5% in Afghanistan and 15% in China. Both India and Pakistan have heavily dammed the Indus River for hydro-‐electricity systems and for the irrigation of their crops; the Indus River system sustains livelihoods in both countries.

The territories were demarcated in 1947 by Sir Cyril Radcliffe, who was unable to give sole control of the river to either nation, as it was a major economic resource for both. The Line of Control was accepted as an international border and it as understood that India would have control over the upper rivers and Pakistan over the lower rivers of the Indus. In spite of seeming to be separate issues, the Kashmir conflict and conflict over the water are related and the struggle over water recourses has stymied efforts to establish good relationships between the neighbours.

In September 1960 the Indus Water Treaty was signed by both countries to put an end to this water war. The treaty gave select rights over the eastern rivers (Ravi, Sutlej and Beas) to India and the western rivers (Chenab, Jhelum and Indus) to Pakistan. The treaty and various water storage projects that benefitted Pakistan and India meant that there was minimal tension and much of the water dispute was forgotten for a long time.

As populations of both the countries increased at unprecedented rates, the water resources came under escalating stress. Damming the rivers in India would lead to flooding of crops and communities in Pakistan and vice versa. With India and Pakistan both coming up with more irrigation and hydro projects, the water conflict in Kashmir had again become a serious issue by the 1990s.


Statement of the Problem

The territorial dispute over Kashmir is one of the most protracted conflicts in the world and even more than half a century of negotiation has failed to find a peaceful solution satisfying all the involved states. The Kashmir conflict has been stretched for almost a century now and its long history is strewn with the blood and sweat of all factions involved. Lack of compromise has been a major contributor to its prolonged history.

Diplomatic efforts have failed in the past with no country willing to compromise on its stance, a fact which has brought these countries to war numerous times. Sources suggest that some Kashmiris want independence but India and Pakistan are not willing to agree.

A variety of steps can be taken to stop violence in this area. If Jammu and Kashmir gain independence, the currently strained relations between India, Pakistan and China may improve drastically and the overall peace and development of the area may be achieved. However, an independent Kashmir may not work out very well due to its lack of its own resources. Furthermore, countries such as China, Pakistan and India may be unwilling to help due to their own loss.

This conflict has hampered the overall development of this particular area. Clashes have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians as well as of military members and militants. The wars have killed thousands and destroyed property worth billions. If there were a nuclear war, it could wipe out civilization itself in the area. All three countries, India, China and Pakistan, have nuclear weapons, which emphasizes the need to solve the dispute diplomatically rather than opt for war. The rising tensions at the border and the the threat of a nuclear war looming overhead forced the US was made to respond to the crisis by making suggestions to resolve the issue.

15

Relevant UN actions

Referring to the UN Security Council resolution on Kashmir Conflict, the first resolution, which was passed in 1948, called upon India and Pakistan to practice restraint. Though there have been several attempts to pass numerous resolutions, many of the crucial ones have failed to be implemented.

Resolution 39

Resolution 39, adopted on January 20, 1948, offered peaceful resolution regarding the Kashmir conflict by setting up a committee of three members; one member each was chosen by India and Pakistan and these two chosen members together chose the third member. This committee was to give joint letters to the council suggesting further steps to help maintain prosperity in Kashmir. This resolution also created the Commission for India and Pakistan (UNIP) to investigate the conflict and mediate the disputes between the two nations.

Resolution 47

Resolution 47 tried to put an end to the hostility around the border by withdrawing the troops of both nations (except people to maintain law and order) and providing for the return of refugees and the release of political prisoners. It held a plebiscite in the state of Jammu and Kashmir to discover the aspirations of the people.

On December 11, 1948 the UNCIP set new proposals elaborating more on the plebiscite. The question of the accession of Jammu adn Kashmir was to be decided by a democratic method of plebiscite if thre were a ceasefire and both countries maintained the truce.

Resolution 307

The last resolution (307) UNSC written was proposed after the war of 1971 but the unforeseen Soviet veto ended UNSC's hope of passing the resolution.


Proposed Solution

Withdrawal of military forces from the region and a plebiscite

Ignoring UN SC resolution 47 (1948), Pakistan hasn’t withdrawn its military personnel from the region. India has also deployed militants in the Kashmir region. Before further action can be taken all Indian, Pakistani and Chinese forces should be made to withdraw from Kashmir and should instead be replaced with UN peacekeepers. Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) called for a plebiscite as well as the withdrawal of Pakistani troops from Kashmir. Pakistan never withdrew its forces from Kashmir and the plebiscite was never conducted. A solution to the conflict would be to organize a plebiscite and act according to the results of the referendum.

Independent Jammu and Kashmir

The state of Jammu and Kashmir could be entitled to independent governance. With the consent of Pakistan, China and India, disputed areas such as Aksai Chin, Shaksam Valley, Jammu, Kashmir Valley, Siachen Glacier, Azad Kashmir, Gilgit, and Baltistan could collectively form the autonomous nation of Jammu and Kashmir.

Partition of Jammu and Kashmir

The state of Jammu and Kashmir could be divided into three parts each of which would be annexed by China, India or Pakistan. The manner of the partition could be a major topic of discussion in the committee. Making the Line of Control a permanent border is another possibility.

Trilateral Talks

Under the mediation of the UN trilateral talks between representatives from China, India and Pakistan could be organized with the participation of United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) representatives to collectively come to a solution to ensure lasting peace in the region of Kashmir.

17

Questions a Resolution Must Answer

1. What are some solutions the committee can come up with in an attempt to stop the influx of insurgent groups?

2. What is the sentiment regarding UNSC Resolution 47? Are the measures proposed therein still feasible under the current circumstances? Why or why not?

3. What can be done regarding the Line of Control? 4. Is the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh a legitimate document? Why

or why not? 5. How can the Aksai Chin dispute be settled? 6. How can the Human Rights violations arising out of military presence in the region be

mitigated? 7. Should the territory of Kashmir be divided amongst the three powers or should Kashmir

become independent? 8. What will be done about the water-‐sharing dispute? 9. What kind of government must be established in Kashmir? 10. How can human right abuses on both sides be stopped? 11. What should be done about the presence of terrorist organizations in Kashmir? 12. How should infiltrations on both sides of Kashmir be stopped? 13. What can be done to address the issue of refugees? 14. How can the issue of Indian settlements in Pakistani territories and vice versa be resolved? 15. What should the role of the UN be in resolving the Kashmir Conflict? 16. Would a UN peacekeeping force be required to ensure peaceful negotiations? 17. How dangerous are the conflicts to innocent citizens who are not actively engaged with the

problem but live near the border? 18. Are there grounds to hope that the cessation of Kashmir conflict can be made possible? 19. What can be done to address the issue of refugees from India-‐Pakistan? 20. How can the issue of Indian citizens living in Pakistani territory be resolved? 21. Why might the UN have continuously failed to control the border dispute? 22. What further steps must the UN take to enhance peace and prosperity at the border in the

near future? 23. The Two-‐State Agreement does not seem to be reliable. What solutions must be presented

to satisfy the people and government of both sides? 24. How can the boundaries be set in order to satisfy all three nations?


Bloc Positions

African Bloc -‐ Most African union countries choose to remain neutral on this issue. The African Union is seeking solutions that will be swift and will end this prolonged conflict. Their first priority is that the methods for solving the issue be quick and non-‐violent.

Latin American Bloc -‐ Various Latin American sponsors of resolutions concerning this conflict have suggested working according to the Simla agreement of 1972. Most of these countries agree that the conflict would be solved best on a bilateral level, which is what the Simla Agreement suggests.

Middle-‐Eastern Bloc -‐ Middle Eaastern countries take this issue very seriously as they believe that peace in a region such as Kashmir where violence and conflict have existed for almost a century might set an example for solving the territorial and religious disputes of Israel and Palestine.

European Union -‐ Most EU nations play a major role in the conflict, and some have contributed various kinds of aid to the cause. These countries are looking toward a long -‐erm solution that will be sustainable. Concerns from these countries are primarily human rights violations and how to best maintain harmony between the three nations. Since the EU nations are mostly democratic nations, many of them favor the plebiscite and if required would support Jammu/Kashmir to become an independent nation.

USA and allies -‐ Barack Obama expressed his intention to try to work with all nations involved to resolve the crisis. As all three of the nations involved are nuclear powers, it became vital for the US to see that the conflict did not lead to a nuclear war. In July 2009, US Assistant Secretary of State Robert O. Blake, Jr. stated that the United States had no plans to appoint any special envoy to settle the dispute, calling it an issue, which needs to be sorted out bilaterally by India and Pakistan. However the USA has expressed its support towards India. Osama Bin Laden had claimed that one of the Al Qaeda's main reason for fighting America and its allies was because of its support for India in the Kashmir Conflict.

China and Pakistan -‐ Neither country acknowledges India's claims on Kashmir. China’s views on Kashmir were conflicted with those of India so China began to help Pakistan on the Kashmir issue for the first time during the 1960s-‐ 70s by providing it with military support. The Sino-‐Pakistan agreement in 1963, which established a border between the two nations, strengthened their support for each other. They settled their border dispute through agreements with the provision that the settlement was subject to the final solution of the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan has increased the extent of Chinese influence and support by agreeing to several military projects, extensive economic support and investment from China. This is a determined effort by Pakistan to prevent America's influence in the region from becoming too strong. In return, the Chinese hope to use Pakistan to counter Indo-‐American influence.

19

Suggestions for Further Research

This study guide is in no way a definitive or an exhaustive resource material. While researching for statistics and figures regarding events we advise delegates to use only trusted websites and sources. The U.N. recognizes Reuter’s news reports and UN Reports as official data, so we suggest that delegates base their facts on these sources. While searching for your national policies delegates are recommended to look at the official government and foreign ministry websites of the nations they represent.

Regarding the topic of the India-‐Pakistan-‐China Border conflict, we advise delegates to research further into the complicated links between nations in the conflict. For instance, delegates should understand possible reactions from the USA if Kashmir were to be invaded and military besieged by China and the reactions from China should Indian militants abduct and torture Kashmiri citizens. Many nations are intricately involved in the issue and it is important to understand their stances as well. Also while making peace proposals, delegates should ponder upon the diplomatic and economic circumstances of their nations. For instance, a nation like Libya at the moment is in no position to grant vast amounts of aid to alleviate poverty among Kashmiri refugees, and for the matter even many European nations are currently under economic pressure and cannot afford to make such propositions of aid. So it is highly recommended delegates research further into their nation’s financial and political positions as well.


Topic B: The Legality and Effectiveness of Combat Drones

History of the Problem

Wars have a long history that date back to the beginning of human civilization, but armies have moved far from sticks and swords and bows and spears to automated technological scourges. Advances in technology for modern warfare have led to the development of faster and stealthier aircrafts, laser-‐guided weapons, and unmanned military vehicles.

A drone, also referred to as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), is an aircraft, which as its name suggests, does not have a human on board. It can be controlled either independently by computers or by using a 'joystick' managed by a human guide/pilot.

Most victims of drone strikes do not get any warning at all. Undetectable drones used for surveillance may spy on targeted individuals or groups for days or weeks before an armed drone is made to fire its missiles. These drones have a heavy payload delivery and can wipe a standing structure off the face of the earth in seconds.

The Austrians were the first to record and attempt to make a drone in the year 1849. They launched about 200 unmanned balloons, fitted with ready bombs on the city of Venice. The US military later fitted a camera on a kite to produce the first aerial reconnaissance photos, some 40 years after the attempt by the Austrians. The drones used in modern warfare now can be traced back to the target and surveillance drones that were used in the earlier 20th century.

A predator drone of the USA was used to fire a missile at a vehicle in Yemen on 3 November, 2001, by the CIA to kill a very important member of the Al-‐Qaeda. This incident marked the beginning of extensive drone usage in the war against terrorism. One of the main target areas for drone operations by the American administration became Pakistan's northern areas, where approximately 260 attacks have been carried out.

Drones were not taken seriously when they first started becoming mainstream and were mostly used to train and test was pilots and anti aircraft gunners. During the Vietnam War, fom 1965 to 1973, , the USA tested new and advanced American technologies, which consisted of UAVs fitted with sensors and cameras. Till then these drones had only been used for surveillance purposes, but by the year 2001, drones were being used as an attacking instrument with missiles being fired to kill high-‐profile terrorists on foreign soil.

Ever since their inception, drones used for both surveillance and attacks have been responsible for a large number of civilian and military personnel deaths. The American military records insists that the drone attacks are carried out only on terrorists and that they have successfully killed Taliban and Al-‐Qaeda members on a rapid and huge scale; however, such attacks have also claimed the lives of innocent civilians. These losses of innocent civilian lives that the US calls "collateral damage" have caused political tension and resentment in Pakistan and around the world.

21

The government of the USA has tried to garner support for its drone program in Pakistan by giving the government of Pakistan some control regarding the selection of the target; however, it has failed to receive the support it expected to get. These drone strikes by the US are often said to be violations of Pakistan's national integrity and sovereignty.

ARTICLE 51 of the UN Charter-‐ "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-‐defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-‐defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."

According to this article, member states are banned from using military force in the province of another member state unless the target member state has agreed, or the attacking member state is acting in terms of genuine self-‐defence.


Statement of the Problem

The use of drones marks the beginning of a technological revolution; however, the prospects for drone technology in modern warfare are a relatively new issue in the world, one yet to find a satisfactory closure that ensures peace and cooperation among the concerned parties. The gravity of the problem is demonstrated by the continued violence that has plagued regions in which the target attacks are carried out by various nations.

The socio-‐economic impacts on countries where drone operations have been carried out are significant: they have slowed down economic growth and development. The threat of violence has inhibited tourism in regions such as Pakistan, which, in a time of peace, would otherwise have attracted a large number of visitors from around the world with its abundance of historic and religious sites.

At first UAVs seemed to be the perfect weapon and the solutions to problems such as terrorism and insurgencies. However, time and experience soon suggested otherwise. Drone technology has caused chaos with international laws and the ethics of war.

The morality of the use of drones in warfare must be considered. The use of machines to take human lives devalues human lives, makes soldiers feel helpless and reflects overdependence on technology. Armed drones, like every other weapon, can be used irresponsibly or on the foundation of faulty intelligence. Innocents will die if an operator marks the wrong structure. The harrowing stories of families being wiped out accidentally and children being taken as collateral damage in the war against terrorism, or specifically in America's war against the Al-‐ Qaeda, have been documented.

The use of drones on the battlefield had led to deaths of innocent lives. 48 Palestinians were killed in the Gaza Strip by Israeli drones as of March 2009. Pakistani authorities have reported the loss of about 700 innocent lives including 160 children due to drone airstrikes that also led to the deaths of 8 high ranking Al Qaeda officials. Whether the American Administration had understated the number of civilian deaths has seriously been questioned too.

23

Current situation

The issue regarding drones has proved to be a sensitive issue in the United Nations, straining ties among governments around the globe. Human rights agencies across the globe have objected to the use of drones, mainly because of the unwanted and unwarranted civilian deaths caused by drone strikes.

The regular use of drones has become a crucial reason for dispute. The United States began manipulating drones in early 2000, using them over Afghanistan. The CIA developed a predator drone precisely to target Osama Bin Laden. This drone strike on Afghanistan drew much criticism, as innocent lives were lost rather than sustaining peace. Many humanitarian groups and nations were outraged by the destruction. The US explained that the target was a legitimate threat but later it was found that it was just group of innocent people searching for scrap metal. Since then the US has bombarded Algeria, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia using drones. Chinese drone surveillance of Diaoyu Island has also generated tension between China and Japan.

Mary Dobbing, co-‐author of a report at Global Research Centre for Research on Globalization says “Our research shows about 50 of the 76 countries known to have some form of military UAV capability have received drones or drone technology from Israel. Scratch any drone you’ll likely find Israeli technology underneath.” Israel was the first to use attack drones in war, when it invaded Lebanon in 1982. These Israeli drones were later sold to the USA which used them in the First Gulf War. Reports suggest that Israeli drones have also played an important role in its assassination programs over Palestine. During Operation Cast Lead, the 2008-‐2009 Gaza war, drones were widely used in marking and attacking targets.

Many drones are now armed with small sensitive cameras. UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) come in many varieties, shapes, and sizes and serve many purposes. They are also available in DIY (Do it Yourself) kits, which are commercially found at inexpensive prices. Drones have been used in weather forecasting by meteorologists, search-‐and-‐rescue mission by emergency crews, crime control by police, beach patrol by lifeguards, reconnaissance by militants. They are also asset in scientific research, oil/gas exploration and other activities.

These unmanned vehicles have undergone many vast developments, some controversial. Many experts believe drones are an asset to the military as they are less expensive then military aircraft (more then $1 million) and can assist on battlefields. They can remain in flight for long durations and target objects quite precisely. However, major shortcomings, are still to be found. The U.S. policy on drone usage is quite vague.

Currently the U.S.A. has by far the most types of drones, 12 categories of killer drones and 178 non-‐lethal drones. Germany is still in the process of developing killer drones but it does have have 39-‐51 different types of non-‐lethal drones. India has two types of killer drones in development but they have bought several killer drones from Israel. It also has 12 types of non-‐lethal drones. Israel is one of the world’s most prolific drone producers; it has at least four types of killer drones and 45 non-‐lethal drones, some of which have been exported to other countries. Russia has one active and one developing killer drones along with 44 non-‐lethal drones. It is thought that China is currently working on seven types of


killer drones and between 21-‐59 types of non-‐lethal drones. Other nations, too, have a similar variety of drone types.

The use of drones around the world has resulted in questions about their place in international law and has caused nations to declare violations of their sovereignty. Obama's policy of "signature strike" allows the CIA to target anyone who engages in terrorist behaviour or fits a terrorist profile regardless of whether or not he or she is identified as an enemy. Half of the drone strikes in Pakistan were signature strikes. Drone controllers are not always certain who they are attacking even though they guarantee their accuracy. It has been reported that 114 drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan between 2010-‐2011 attacked “other militants,” meaning the CIA could not conclude the affiliation of those killed. As there have been numerous signs of drones backfiring rather than bolstering safety and security, the world has been left in great turmoil regarding the extensive use of drones for counter terrorism. People around the globe might be creating more terrorists than they kill as drones kills large number of innocent civilians, violate international laws and sovereignty of other nations and make wars more horrific.

Yemen

Yemen has been one of the main targets of a series of US drone strikes. Yemen has been under surveillance of US drones since 2002, as al Qaeda has engaged in suspicious activities there. The death toll due to the strikes has risen over the years. Sources say that most attacks have hit military camps and vehicles carrying civilians. The US does not routinely acknowledge these strikes but there have been reports of the deaths of important militants working for al Qaeda as a result of them.

Pakistan

Since 2004 there have been hundreds of attacks in Northwest Pakistan (around the Pakistan-‐Afghanistan border) using US killer drones. An estimated 286-‐890 civilians have been killed. Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif requested an end to the strikes, stating, "The use of drone is not only a continual violation of our territory integrity but also detrimental to our resolve and efforts at eliminating terrorism from our country". The Obama administration disagrees. White House Jay Carney stated, "U.S. counterterrorism operations are precise, they are lawful, and they are effective, and the United States does not take lethal strikes when we or our partners have the ability to capture individual terrorists states that the aerial strikes do not violate international law and the procedure of strike is very precise and effective.” The majority of victims are innocent citizens, so drone attacks have contributed to a negative perception of the US. Attack are seen as a violation of Pakistan sovereignty and are considered to be war crime.

25

The map shows the possession of drones by various countries. Countries in red have drones that are capable of becoming lethal; those in purple use only non-‐lethal drones.


Relevant UN action

General Assembly

On the 25th of October 2013, the mortal use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, came under scrutiny in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) of the GA, as a UN human rights expert argued that the internationally recognized rule against random killing also applied to extraterritorial attacks by such a weapons system. The 28-‐paragraph resolution called for regulating the use of UAVs against suspected terrorists. The assembly emphasized the urgent need for an agreement among members on legal questions regarding the drone operation.

The GA adopted a resolution on December 19, 2013, urging the United States to comply with international laws in its use of unmanned aerial vehicles for taking out ‘high-‐value targets’ in countries. This was the first time that the issue of drones was raised in a UN resolution, but not the last.

On March 28, 2014, the UN Human Rights Council voted to approve a Pakistan-‐sponsored resolution (A/HRC/25/L.32) entitled, “Ensuring use of remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones in counter-‐terrorism and military operations in accordance with international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law.” It passed with a majority of 27 in favor, 6 against, and 14 abstentions (see the breakdown of state votes below).

The most important statement in the Resolution was a clause on transparency and investigations: “calls upon States to ensure transparency in their records on the use of remotely piloted aircraft or armed drones and to conduct prompt, independent and impartial investigations whenever there are indications of a violation to international law caused by their use”.

Security Council

Over the years, there has been a heated debate regarding drone strikes. Managing drones is a crucial to the United Security Council's goal to sustain global peace and safety. Though drones have come under considerable scrutiny in the General Assembly, a binding consensus regarding drone technology in modern warfare has not been reached in the Security Council. However, multiple resolutions that are related to the use of drones in warfare have been passed. They include Resolution 2157, which stated that the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Mali can effectively sustain the northern part of the country and protect citizens from attack by Islamist extremists and armed groups. But the mission lacks critical enablers like drones which can easily access to remote areas and ensure safety. The UN peacekeeping head informed the Security Council that they would protect the civilians and troops of Mali. He has ordered 8,000 troops to help balance the northern desert region since the expulsion of Islamic militants from major cities by the French and African troops. The foreign minister Abdoulaye Diop said the government would like drones to be in service "as soon as possible".

European Parliament

The Parliament of the European Union passed Resolution RC-‐B7-‐0201/2014, which termed the usage of drones illegal and proposed a ban on UAVs. MEPs voted 534 against 49, reflecting the fact that

27

European countries do not support the idea of the infringement which targeted killings cosnitute nor facilitate such killing operations by other nations. Kat Kreig, legal director explained, "This should be a wake up call to the countries like Germany and UK, they need to clean up their act not only by ensuring that they stop cooperating with extrajudicial killing, but also pressuring the US for greater transparency and accountability.”


Proposed Solutions

1. Restrictions on the Use of UCAVs

A ban or moratorium can be put and enforced on the use of all unmanned combat aerial vehicles since drone warfare has led to unwanted human casualties. The use of UAVs can be limited to search and rescue. Many countries support restrictions on the use of drones; organizations have also strongly opposed the use of drones in modern warfare due to the inhumane killings that result. Many nations and activists have dubbed UAVs "murder machines".

2. Conditional Prohibition of UCAVs

Remotely piloted aircrafts such as the Predator can be replaced by fully autonomous drones such as the Global Hawk to reduce human error, improve drone accuracy and efficiency and thus prevent endangering the lives of innocent population. This solution is highly controversial as nations that already have drones like the Predator will have to dispose of them. The use of heavily armed drones can also be forbidden.

3. Establishment of Geographical Boundaries for Operating Drones

Unmanned combat aerial vehicles can also be kept away from densely populated areas and operated locally within the operating country only if permission is granted. Forbidding the use of foreign drones in other countries could be a viable solution. The attacking state can give more control over targets to the nation where the targets are.

4. Proper Monitoring of Drones by the United Nations

A committee could be formed to gather information about the number of operational and non-‐operational drones in various countries. The committee could even tag the drones and the drone strikes could be directly linked back to their respective countries, which could be held responsible for their actions and be subject to impartial investigation. This committee will ensure that the lost of homes or land resulting from drone operations will be compensated for by the country responsible for the attack.

29

Questions a Resolution Must Answer

1. How can drones be used without infringing on human rights and international law, especially the principles of distinction and proportionality? 2. Is it right for a country to violate another country’s sovereignty? 3. How involved should the United Nations be in drafting a prospective drone protocol? 4. Should international standards be set? If yes, then what sort of standards? 5. What happens, for example, when other nations follow the American example and begin to use drones to ‘take out’ their enemies? 6. What happens when terrorists and deranged individuals use DIY drones to attack or threaten anyone they wish, including the United States? 7. How can drones be controlled without encroaching on human right laws? 8. How can the United Nations be involved in maintaining an approved drone protocol? 9. In what ways should lethal drones be regulated differently than non-‐lethal drones? 10. What conditions should be dealt with in order to legalize drones? 11. In what ways can the usage of drones be an asset to a nation? 12. What kind of rules should be set? Should countries leading in UAV production be the ones with the most influence on the standards set? 13. Are drones necessary in modern warfare to improve the accuracy and efficiency of sting operations and other attacks that may pose a threat to or save lives?


Bloc Positions

USA and allies:

To date, only three countries – the USA, the UK and Israel – are known to have used armed drones, but they have all made their intentions to expand their military drone fleets further clear. The USA has the leading fleet, anticipated to be around 7,500, and intends to spend $32 billion on drones over the next eight years. The USA has deployed drones in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya. At the UK-‐French summit in Paris on 2012, David Cameron and President Sarkozy agreed on a new Declaration on Security and Defense, which stated that drones were very important weapons for modern warfare.

Pakistan and Bloc:

Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia do not support drone attacks. They have repeatedly voiced their concern about these attacks. Recently Pakistan and Yemen sponsored a resolution against drone attacks by the US which received a lot of support from member states. Countries that vote against drones are those countries in which these drone attacks take place and which have seen the number of innocent civilians that die for each terrorist. Human rights support groups, led by New York-‐based Human Rights Watch, put up a strong movement to acquire support for the motion against drones. “We call for the immediate cessation of drone attacks inside the territorial borders of Pakistan,” Pakistan's UN ambassador Masood Khan told a UN General Assembly rights committee debate.

European Union (EU):

The European Union has been mostly passive towards the rise of drones in modern warfare. It has not reacted openly to the US campaign of drone strikes or tried to develop a different standard for the use of lethal force. EU states seek to acquire drones themselves for both surveillance and military purposes. Some EU member states like Ireland and Switzerland have chosen to remain neutral on the issue of drones. There is growing political opposition to the use of armed drones from the EU members even though they do not have a common position on their use. For example Sweden, which was a neutral country, is now completely against the use of drones in warfare according to Agneta Norberg, Vice Chair of the Swedish Peace Council. Many EU countries are not completely go against the use of armed drones: they support the use of drones for surveillance but do not support them for targeted killings.

Africa:

American drones are being used for patrols in Niger, Libya and Mali in coordination with French forces. Countries in Africa have started buying drones and will continue to do so. Using drones as a surveillance tool to keep a lookout for pirates for countries depending on overseas trade is a very tempting solution to a considerable problem. South Africa has recently completely banned the use of aerial drones within its borders. The use of drones to track insurgencies and strike terrorist groups seems to have a lot of potential in Africa. However, most African nations fear the various kinds of criticism of drone usage currently being voiced in the Middle East.

31

Asia: The US air force recently deployed two of its most superior long-‐distance surveillance drones to a base in Japan in 2014. Meanwhile, it is alleged that China hacked American defense contractors for data to maintain its drone program though there is no valid evidence. China has used and is using drones to monitor disputed territories. The major concern here is the significant possibility that China will start selling drones to other countries in the near future. Middle East: Drone strikes have been carried out in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. As previously stated, drone strikes by the U.S. first commenced with unofficial approval from government authorities, and have encountered significant popular criticism.


Suggestions for Further Research Much of the advice regarding further research provided for the previous topic is applicable to the issue of drones as well. Again, delegates should stick to trusted websites and other sources, such as Reuter’s news reports and UN reports, for obtaining statistical information and to official government/foreign ministry websites for national policies. We believe that we don't need to restate how unacceptable Wikipedia facts and figures are.

Delegates should start their research on their country with the CIA World Factbook as it offers a wide range of information and relevant statistics and figures. For more information on your country's stance on the topic via their foreign office homepage of UN mission page. It is highly recommended that delegates read and carry out research on all of the previous UNSC Resolutions that are relevant to the topic.

Delegates must inform themselves about potential allies and opposing member states in the SC by researching other nations’ opinions and policies on drone warfare.

Delegates should be able to recognize the possible routes of events. While making peace proposals, delegates should think over the diplomatic and economic circumstances of their own nations and not resort to personal opinion.

Delegates can get information on their countries as well as the topic from the following websites:

1. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-‐world-‐factbook/ 2. http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm 3. http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/Search%20Results.aspx?keywords=drones 4. http://www.hrw.org/search/apachesolr_search/drones 5. http://unbisnet.un.org/ 6. http://www.livingunderdrones.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2013/10/Stanford-‐NYU-‐Living-‐

Under-‐Drones.pdf 7. http://drones.procon.org 8. http://www.cfr.org

33

Closing Remarks

We hope this study guide will help you in your quest for answers and solutions regarding two critical issues of the world. However, it is meant only to guide you; do not let it circumscribe your curiosity about and interest in finding more knowledge. We have chosen this year’s topics based on the political impasse and problems they have created in the world in the hope that you, delegates, will perform feats that our world leaders could not.

Delegates are recommended to research extensively not only on the given topics but also on their country’s involvement in other issues around the world so they can address this issue without contradicting their country’s foreign policy. Do not pursue awards at the cost of learning, friendship and sportsmanship; awards will be given out to delegates who show commitment and resilience from the very beginning. Do not make winning the sole purpose of being in the committee.

We hope that this study guide will be sufficient to help you tread on an independent path of researching, negotiating, and debating. Delegates, feel free to come to any member of the dais with any kind of hiccup or question you have; we will be glad to help. See you in committee. Best of luck.


Sources:

Topic A

1. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/ 2. http://hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/Kashmir-‐Paradise-‐Lost.htm 3. http://www.kashmir-‐information.com/KashmirStory 4. http://www.jammu-‐kashmir.com/documents/jkunresolution.html 5. http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/PARTXXI.pdf 6. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/india-‐china_conflicts.htm 7. http://web.archive.org/web/20070106084737/http://meaindia.nic.in/jk/19jk01.pdf 8. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1989.stm 9. http://in.reuters.com/article/2008/11/21/idINIndia-‐36624520081121 10. http://economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/05 11. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-‐06-‐09/china-‐ready-‐for-‐india-‐border-‐dispute-‐final-‐settlement 12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolutions_1_to_100 13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-‐Pakistan_Agreement 14. http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/kashmir/conflict-‐profile/ 15. http://www.scribd.com/doc/204567578/UNSC-‐Study-‐Guide-‐S-‐P-‐I-‐T-‐MUN 16. http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Jul/20/ 17. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/On-‐poll-‐eve-‐in-‐Arunachal-‐Pradesh-‐China-‐says-‐stand-‐clear-‐on-‐dispute/articleshow/33458497.cms? 18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siachen_conflict 19. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/ 20. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/2011/08/201183142552641841.html 21. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2013/01/20131298459859281.html 22. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-‐south-‐asia-‐11693674 23. http://world.time.com/2013/12/02/how-‐pakistan-‐and-‐china-‐are-‐strengthening-‐nuclear-‐ties/

TOPIC B

24. http://tribune.com.pk/story/647672/un-‐passes-‐resolution-‐against-‐drone-‐strikes-‐unanimously/ 25. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/17/us-‐mali-‐crisis-‐un-‐idUSBRE99F14520131017 26. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-‐africa-‐27919711 27. http://www.australianreview.net/digest/2013/07/phillips.html 28. http://www.livescience.com/44161-‐killer-‐robot-‐drones-‐debate.html 29. http://www.governing.com/gov-‐data/safety-‐justice/drones-‐state-‐local-‐law-‐enforcement-‐agencies-‐license-‐list.html 30. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

35

31. http://www.ibtimes.com/drones-‐which-‐countries-‐have-‐them-‐surveillance-‐military-‐operations-‐map-‐1264271 32. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/04/21/civilians-‐die-‐in-‐yemen-‐drone-‐strike-‐as-‐weekend-‐of-‐attacks-‐kills-‐at-‐least-‐35/ 33. http://numun.org/blog/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/02/Security-‐Council-‐Topic-‐C-‐International-‐Protocol-‐on-‐Unmanned-‐Aerial-‐Vehicles 34. http://cardiffmun.co.uk/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/02/study-‐guide-‐GA1-‐DISEC 35. http://edition.cnn.come/2012/10/01/opinion/bergen-‐world-‐of-‐drones/index.html 36. http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/Search%20Results.aspx?keywords=drones 37. http://www.hrw.org/search/apachesolr_search/drones 38. http://www.un.org/documents/scres.htm 39. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/26/us-‐drone-‐strategy-‐risk-‐escalating-‐conflicts-‐report 40. http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-‐and-‐the-‐drone-‐wars/5364446 41. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2014/04/201442911431250545.html 42. http://www.voanews.com/content/us-‐accused-‐of-‐unlawful-‐killings-‐pakistan-‐drone-‐strikes/1774276.html 43. History of the committee: Security Council Study Guide of Montana Model United Nations, 2005

sg final security council

Documents