1

INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY

“The nuclear situation in DPRK”

“The safeguard applications in Iran”

“Nuclear applications in responding to viruses and confining pests”

2

Dear Delegates,

Welcome to Change the World Model United Nations NYC 2018, and to the

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) committee. My name is Pietro Visetti

and it is, this year, my great honour to be director of such a challenging committee,

given the present attitudes regarding the delicate topic of nuclear power management.

I am currently attending a BBA in Sustainability and Nature Conservation in Geneva

(Switzerland) aiming to hopefully be, one day, part of a positive impact on society.

This is my 1st year with UNMUN and I am thrilled, as probably you all are, to express

my full potentials in the best framework we could possibly wish for: The United

Nations headquarters.

As this is one of the most discussed committees at the moment, I expect the

conversation to be thought provoking and the delegates to be highly prepared.

Moreover, I am delighted by the opportunity to work and cooperate with the

international group of delegates of the New York conference, and to share my values

and experiences with individuals who have a completely different background and

mindset to me but with whom, we all be able to discuss and develop as persons. I in

fact believe that delegates like you are aligned with the UNMUN programme, and

especially along the respect and importance of diversity.

I have learned through personal experience that the integration and meeting of cultures,

ideas and ethical beliefs is of greater value, not only because it creates a stimulating

environment for delegates, but also because it leads the way towards the achievement

of greater community goals. Herewith, I expect that your diverse background and

studies will bring a valuable perspective and encourage intellectual curiosity within the

IAEA committee. Notwithstanding the background guide my team and I delivered, I

strongly encourage you to go beyond this in order to form more complete opinions on

your specific nation’s policies.

With all that being said; welcome on board! I look forward to meeting all of you at the

conference and wish you best of luck with the preparation towards what will certainly

be a complete learning experience for us all.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Pietro Visetti.

Email: pietroguella@gmail.com

3

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA

Table of contents:

● Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….3

● Statement of the issue…………………………………………………………………….3-4

● History of the committee…………………………………………………………………4

● The Nuclear Station in

DPRK…………………………………………………………………………………….5-8

● The Safeguard Applications in

Iran……………………………………………………………………….………………8-11

● Nuclear Applications in Responding to Viruses and Confining

Pests………………………………………………………………………………...........11-12

● Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….13

● Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………....13

● Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………..13-14

Director: Pietro Visetti

Chair: Mah Noor

Rapporteur: Maria Mancuso

4

Introduction

On the 29th of July 1957 the Statue of the International Atomic Energy Agency

(IAEA) was approved for the first time at the conference of 82 States at the United

Nations’ headquarter in New York. The IAEA is an international organisation that

focuses on promoting the utilisation of atomic energy for the better of world’s civil

society. In other words, it seeks the harmless usage of atomic power and tries to

prevent its employment for any military scope, especially atomic weapons. In spite of

the fact that is part of the UN family, thanks to its own global treaty - the IAEA Statute

- the IAEA reports to both the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

allowing the organisation the autonomous attribute of dealing with world’s nuclear

energy issues (IAEA, 1989). Informally known as the world’s “Atoms for Peace”

organisation, the IAEA accounts, as of February 2016 a total membership of 168

states, and it operates from its headquarter in Vienna (Austria) for cooperation in the

nuclear field (Peter, 2016).

Statement of the issue

Nuclear power is a highly controversial source of energy due to the possible

unintentional and international harm that can cause to life on planet and the inability of

victims to control their fate (Hollyday, 1991). Just to give you some numbers, 72

reactors are under construction worldwide, 174 are on order or planned, and another

299 reactors are in their proposed phase. If these forecasts are realised, the present

operable 387 reactors in the world will be joined by another 545 (WNA, 2014). It is

easily understandable that atomic power impose to policy makers and civil society a

reflection on democracy, risks and justice.

These are core aspects into a globalised world and the link between them will help us

better understand how the IAEA committee plays a vital role in the world’s

international relations. Nowadays the risks that should be allocated to nuclear energy

for the security and safety of all living beings and ecosystems around the world, are

indeed in the focus. To be more precise it is necessary to explain what is meant with

proliferation, deterrence and nuclear accidents (Taebi, 2015).

5

The risks to security are intended to explain the possible harms caused by countries

with nuclear weapons to other sovereign states whether or not those have similar

technologies to fight back the fire. In addition, nuclear weapons led to the high power

of deterrence since after the Second World War (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and ever

since there has been no state utilising any nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless we all know very well how the possession of atomic bombs and missiles

is forbidding countries to get into conflict thanks to the fear of a nuclear conflict. On

the other hand there are risks to be discussed even for the civil purposes (mainly

energy generation and research and development) since unintentional perverse

outcome can be generated by a nuclear plant accident caused by the most diverse

issues such human negligence, natural disasters, mismanaged safety protocols and

more. This being said, justice plays a role in this field when it comes to the

inclusiveness, accountability and publicity of atomic energy. There is the need of a

pluralist “bottom up” approach given the huge impact it exercise on economic

development and on all living things. The civil society needs to be informed and

construct a critical understanding of the topic because it will not affect only the present

but also the future, therefore an intergenerational understanding of justice is what will

make us conscience of the pros and cons the nuclear technology. To be precise, a

notion of the radioactive waste life cycle, nuclear plant’s overall carbon footprint,

uranium extraction included, is needed in terms of environmental sustainability and

commodity preservation to guarantee equal opportunities to future generations.

Moreover, democracy is intended to enhance people’s power with no regard to

national boundaries or racial discrimination, therefore another angle to the topic is the

thought provoking aspect of nuclear energy implementation for developing countries.

It goes without saying that a sustainable and safe development is required equally by

all nations and evaluate the risks and benefits of civil nuclear energy is crucial. Thus

the moral legitimacy of the pressure exerted by nuclear weapon possessing countries

on developing ones is to be discussed given the interplay between nuclear energy

production and nuclear weapons proliferation (Taebi, 2015). In a nutshell this are only

some of the considerations the IAEA and atomic energy force into the international

relations discussion and this guide is intended to inspire its readers to further personal

research on the topic in order to be fully prepared to face ethical dilemmas and being

open minded to all nations need of meeting their present and future people’s

expectations.

6

History

The very early roots of the IAEA are to be discovered in the 8th of December 1953

President Eisenhower’s speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations. He

envisioned an international organisation with the aim of worldwide atomic

disarmament in order to avoid any nuclear conflict and set a milestone for human

peaceful development.

“Experts would be mobilised to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture,

medicine, and other peaceful activities. A special purpose would be to provide

abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world. Thus the

contributing powers would be dedicating some of their strength to serve the needs

rather than the fears of mankind.”

- President Eisenhower at the UN 1953 -

It is on the 29th of July 1957, after several years of debates and bumpy negotiations,

that the IAEA was able to get ratified and signed its Statue by 82 States including the

U.S.A and U.S.S.R which at that time were living the Cold War crises more than ever

before (Fischer, 1997). The headquarter was voted to be in Vienna, Austria and the

first session of the IAEA’s General Conference took place in the magnificent halls of

the Konzerthaus from the 1st to the 23rd of October 1957. Ever since the organisation

it has helped mediating several conflicts across the globe and it accounts today for a

total membership of 168 nations.

● The Nuclear Station in DPRK

Background Information:

The Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is located in the northern part of

the Korean peninsula in East Asia. Notwithstanding years of international negotiations,

pressure, and diplomacy North Korea managed to ultimate it’s nuclear weapon

programme by achieving a full warhead portfolio including (intercontinental ballistic

missiles) nuclear missiles, which are the one enhancing the threats to non-bordering

countries given their tremendous ballistic range (8000 km). Before exploring the most

recent events, which at the time this background is written it is the yesterday (28th of

November 2017) launch-test of an intercontinental missile by DPRK till 600 miles east

into the Sea of Japan, a historical background is mostly needed.

7

After the end of World War II, in 1945, the peninsula was divided in two geographical

areas and ruled respectively at north by the USSR and by the US in the southern part.

Ever since the peninsula and its inhabitants has been separated, artefact that lead to an

event escalation which caused, in the early 50s, the so-called Korean War (1950–

1953). Despite The Korean Armistice Agreement only a ceasefire was achieved. No

peace treaty was ever signed and the Soviets together with the Americans didn't

manage to negotiate a reunification of the country. This being said, the two countries

have been developing under the influence of the two majors blocks of that time.

Consequently, in early 1950s, North Korea started building up the institutional

framework to prepare its nuclear program by training nuclear professional and by

setting up state governed apparatus such as the Atomic Energy Research Institute and

the Academy of Sciences. However, it is believed that the very first nuclear power

plant development only began when North Korea established cooperative agreements

with the USSR, which provided extensive assistance, sharing technologies, scientists

and building up a Soviet IRT-2000 nuclear research reactor.

During the following two decades slowly but surely the North Korea's atomic

aspiration translated into facts. At this point it's relevant to mention that during the

1970s, Pyongyang began to acquire plutonium reprocessing technology from the

URSS, a technology used to produce nuclear weapons. In the 80s was a time of

noteworthy indigenous expansion, during which DPRK developed technologies for

fuel bar fabrication, built uranium processing facilities, constructed a 5MW(e) nuclear

reactor and started to test high explosives needed for building the activating system of

an atomic bomb. Bolstered by the massive help from Moscow, by the mid-1980s,

Pyongyang was already able to start developing a 50MW(e) nuclear reactor in

Yongbyon, while likewise growing its uranium handling offices. Following the

growing international pressures, in December 1985 Pyongyang agreed to sign the

Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon

state.

Finally, on January 30, 1992, North Korea signed an IAEA safeguards agreement.

Under the agreement's terms, North Korea had to declare all its nuclear facilities and

materials, and had to provide access for IAEA inspectors in order to verify the

trustworthiness of the released information. Subsequently to the findings of

reprocessed plutonium, the organisation requested access to two suspect nuclear waste

sites, withal DPKN did not allowed further inspections on those sites, declaring them

as military sites thus off-limit. Afterwards the IAEA asked the United Nations Security

Council (UNSC) to authorize special ad hoc inspections, nevertheless, as response

DPRK threatened to withdraw from the NPT.

8

On the 16th of October 2002 the US announced that they had recently acquired

information which indicates that North Korea has a programme to enrich uranium for

nuclear weapons. Following no reply from DPRK on the requested information about

the alleged programme, the IAEA's Board stated that the programme "or any other

covert nuclear activities, would constitute a violation of the DPRK´s international

commitments: Agreed Framework, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the DPRK-IAEA

Safeguards Agreement and the North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization

of the Korean Peninsula. North Korea later argued that the "plan to produce nuclear

weapons," was part of its right to national security. The United States responded by

suspending, therefore imposing an embargo on heavy oil shipments. At this stage

DPRK reacted by cutting seals, disabling surveillance cameras, expelling IAEA

inspectors and announcing once again a possible withdrawal from the NPT.

The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) constitutes the largest international

security regime in today’s world (Booth and Wheeler 2008: 124). Originally

comprising 55 states, the NPT now includes every state in the world except India,

Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.4 Moreover, the NPT is the only international

security regime in which membership is two-tiered: Five states retain the legal right to

maintain nuclear arsenals (i.e. the de jure nuclear weapon states), and all other states

are proscribed from acquiring or developing them. The NPT’s two-tiered nature is the

product of two grand bargains, the outcomes of which involve considerable political,

legal, and moral concerns for member states.

The escalation of the international relations with The Democratic People´s Republic of

Korea led to the official withdrawal from the NPT on January 10, 2003. Ever since the

global community couldn’t access primary data information regarding what was

happening in the North Korean territory and the nuclear emergency kept deteriorating

throughout 2006, reaching its lowest point in October when DPRK conducted its first

official nuclear test. It was an immediate action by the UNSC, following the test,

(Resolution 1718) which imposed severe sanctions on North Korea. These major crises

seemed to find resolution in February 2007 when DPRK agreed on the: “Initial Actions

for the Implementation of the Joint Statement” whereby they agreed to dismiss all their

nuclear warhead and existing nuclear projects, and to get back to the NPT and the

IAEA safeguards program, in exchange for a benefit portfolio of incentives which

comprehended the provision of energy support to North Korea by the international

community.

9

After the historical February 2007 agreement, North Korea sent invitations to IAEA

officials, and opened the door to foster its relationship with the IAEA. North Korea,

therefore began end procedures and sealing its main nuclear plants at Yongbyon-kun

under IAEA close overlook. At this stage Bush was in office and the planned

comprehend to remove North Korea form the list of state sponsors of terrorism,

however delays with the removal procedure of North Korea didn’t help DPRK in

meeting its own commitments, and during August 2008 they announced restoration of

all the nuclear facilities in Yongbyon-kun, and banned all international inspectors from

further controls.

Current Status:

Ever since North Korea has been developing all its nuclear warhead without any

control by third party states and during 2017 eight missiles tests were conducted,

provoking an international crisis of diplomatic relations within the UN and globally. It

is very hard to find the real reasons that led Kim Jong-un to use fear in order to protect

its political power, however it is easily understandable that the threat of deterrence is

one of the best weapon North Korea possess right now.

10

What must be stated is the fact that US president Mr. Trump has not been diplomatic

when addressing the Korean crisis and this didn't help the situation in any way. A

possible way of resolution might be a strategy of containment, which accepts the

reality of North Korea’s new power and tries to communicate and cooperate at an

international level. Currently the situation can easily explode in a serious war with the

entire planet at stake, therefore a more sound and wise approach should be

experimented by the global diplomacy.

The assumption is that Kim Jong-un and the North Korean elite are very rational when

planning their strategies, as cruel as they want to maintain absolute power, but not

commit suicide. They use the calculated risk policy on nuclear power to keep control

on society, and the fear of an attack external contributes to nourishing nationalism and

to suppress dissent. As during the Cold War, the main danger stands in the risk that the

two countries will find themselves in a nuclear war because of one miscommunication,

in case one of the two parties erroneously interprets as a real threat a ritualistic one

brinkmanship. During the cold war was going to happen in different occasions,

especially during the crisis of missiles in Cuba.

It is worth analysing the reaction of three major players at a global level: US, China

and Russia. Firstly, China’s reactions to the relationship between Donald Trump and

Kim Jong-un are more than moderate and this says a lot about how Beijing interprets

the crisis in course and its calculations in the light of the national interests. It will be

necessary to see how much Beijing will take account of Washington’s opinions and

how it will try to contain Pyongyang’s aggressiveness, because it is on these measures

that the balance of powers between the first two world economies. From this also we

can understand the level of their strategic convergence over Asia. Beijing does not

push beyond visible cooperation with Washington and will continue to guarantee it

North Korea's survival. This is proven by the fact that China voted in favour of new

sanctions against Pyongyang. The vote, however has been read as a demonstration of

good will, as a positive gesture by Beijing sympathising for US, as Trump stated.

Nevertheless China, has also managed to keep that the provision of crude oil was

excluded from the embargo portfolio in order to protect North Korea. On the other side

Russia just sent its troops and military forces at the border to be ready for any

inconvenience which might suddenly escalate.

11

Currently tensions are at their highest level and no resolution is forecastable. IAEA

will play a vital role in this conflict given that the committee can be a leverage to foster

diplomatic discussions and finding a peaceful compromise seems to be the only sound

decision in this unpredictable scenario. It is in the global interest that peace wins this

battle. It must be a peace based on respect for dignity and rights of every member of

the planet, in respect of each ethnic group, biological entity, comprehending the

environment and its related services. Guaranteeing safe life on planet should the

ultimate mission of each country in spite of any economic interest.

12

Focus Questions:

1. What steps can IAEA take to help facilitate a diplomatic dialogue?

2. How should the UN contribute to foster peace and not escalate the the conflict?

3. Are sanctions needed to ensure compatibility of state to safeguards? Is the embargo

a useful tool?

4. Who can be the best facilitator for the dialogue?

5. Who can establish the right and wrong in terms of owning and utilising nuclear

energy?

6. Why nuclear super power should execute pressure on other states when they have

the same time of power?

13

● The Safeguard Applications in Iran

Background Information:

Iran’s Nuclear Program has been a long standing issue within the international

community for many years now. The history begins during the pre-Islamic regime in

Iran from the 1950s up until the revolution in 1979 with strong backup of technical

assistance under the U.S. Atoms for Peace program and other nations. They invested

billions of dollars into helping develop the then nuclear program, which aimed at

developing 23 plants by 2000. By the time of the 1979 revolution, Iran had developed

an impressive baseline capability in nuclear technologies. Under Shah Mohammad

Pahlavi, Iran signed the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty in 1968 and ratified it in 1970.

The NPT is aimed at preventing further proliferation of nuclear weapons while at the

same time allowing nuclear energy for strictly civilian purposes. Iran also signed the

Safeguards Agreement with IAEA (INFCIRC/214) which is the agreement between

Iran and the Agency for the application of safeguards in connection with the Nuclear

Proliferation Treaty.

During the revolution of 1979, the nuclear program was put on hold. Due to the fact

that much of Iran's nuclear talent fled the country in the wake of the Revolution it

resulted in the near disintegration of Iran's nuclear program post-1979. Work on

nuclear projects that had been ongoing under the Shah, such as construction of the

Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant was suspended. However, in 1984 Ayatollah Ruhollah

Khomeini expressed a renewed Iranian interest in nuclear power, seeking the

assistance of international partners to complete construction at Bushehr.

On 14 August 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) revealed the

existence of undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran and the names of various individuals

and front companies involved with the nuclear program that weren’t known before

especially by IAEA. Between September and October 2003, the IAEA carried out a

number of facilities inspections and met with Iranian officials to determine the history

of Iran's nuclear program. In November, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted a

resolution welcoming Iran's decision to sign the Additional Protocol and suspend

enrichment. However, Iran didn’t carry up with their part of the agreement and

continued to explore, produce and carry out small-scale conversion experiments. In

early 2004, the IAEA discovered that Iran had hidden blueprints for nuclear reactors.

14

The IAEA called on Iran to be more cooperative and to answer all of the Agency's

questions about the origins of its centrifuge technology. Iran admitted to some of their

rejections but also rejected the EU-3's Long Term Agreement, because they felt that

the proposal was heavy on demands, light on incentives, did not incorporate Iran's

proposals, and violated the Paris Agreement. Faced with sanctions threats, Iran

concluded the Paris Agreement with the EU-3.

The Board of Governors responded by adopting a resolution that found Iran in

noncompliance with its Safeguards Agreement. In February 2006, Iran ended its

voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and resumed enrichment. The

IAEA Board of Governors subsequently voted to report Iran's case to the UN Security

Council (UNSC). The UNSC released a Presidential Statement, calling on Iran to

cooperate with the IAEA. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded by

delivering a speech in which he discussed Iran's possession of new facilities. In

response the UNSC passed Resolution 1696 which demanded that Iran suspend

enrichment activities, banned the international transfer of nuclear and missile

technologies to Iran, and froze the foreign assets of twelve individuals and ten

organisations involved with the Iranian nuclear program. Iran refused to suspend

enrichment, declaring their right to nuclear power.

On 14 June 2008, the EU's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana brought a proposal to

Iran that offered economic incentives, access technology, and a guaranteed nuclear fuel

supply in exchange for the freezing of Iran's enrichment efforts. Iran's reply, Ayatollah

Ali Khamenei said Iran would "continue with its path" of nuclear development. The

UN Security Council responded by adopting Resolution 1835 reaffirming previous

resolutions demanding a halt to Iran's nuclear activities. Iran disclosed to the IAEA that

it was building a second pilot enrichment facility in September 2009. Finally, Iran

agreed to meet and during negotiations with the P5+1( China, France, Russia, the

United Kingdom, and the United States; plus Germany), Iran agreed to IAEA

inspections at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and to send LEU, fuel used for

nuclear reactor, to Russia for further enrichment and to France but rejected the

proposal later on. President Ahmadinejad later announced that Iran had produced 20%

enriched uranium and had the ability to enrich it further if it chose to do so.

15

Tensions with the international community further increased after President

Ahmadinejad announced that Iran intended to construct 10 additional uranium

enrichment facilities. In June 2010, the UN Security Council approved sanctions under

UNSCR 1929, primarily aimed at Iran's nuclear-related investments. The breakdown of

talks was followed by a new nuclear fuel swap proposal by Brazil and Turkey.

The deal, however, was not accepted by Western countries, who saw Iran's agreement

to the removal of only LEU from its territory as too little, too late. Russian foreign

minister Sergey Lavrov proposed a approach to addressing the nuclear dispute with

Iran. Iran initially welcomed the Russian plan, but the United States, the United

Kingdom and France did not accept the idea of lifting sanctions at an early stage.

On 8 November 2011, the IAEA released a highly anticipated safeguards report on

Iran. In an annex to the report, the Agency presented a lengthy, detailed account of

"possible military dimensions" to Iran's nuclear program. An IAEA team headed by the

Deputy Director General for Safeguards Herman Nackaerts visited Iran to discuss ways

to resolve outstanding issues. A follow-up visit took place in late February 2012, but

the two sides were unable to agree on a plan, and the IAEA expressed its

disappointment in the meeting due to Iran's refusal to grant access to the Parchin

military complex.

The refusal and not coming to an agreement prompted sanctions by Western states,

European Union and possibly UN sanctions. United States passed a law called the Iran

Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act, expanding sanctions against Iran. The

European Union also tightened its restrictions on trade with Iran, prohibiting the

import, financing, insurance, and brokering of Iranian natural gas, and banning the

supply of vessels to transport or store Iranian oil. On November 24th, 2013 an

agreement on a Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) was made, In addition to the agreement

the IAEA and Iran agreed on a Framework for Cooperation (FFC) binding both parties

to cooperate further "with respect to verification activities to be undertaken by the

IAEA to resolve all present and past issues."

16

Current Status:

On 14 July 2015 the P5+1 States and Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of

Action (JCPOA). The JCPOA is designed to limit Iran's "breakout time" to a nuclear

weapon from an estimated few months to one year or more. The agreement allows for

inspections of the entire fuel cycle; for up to 25 years at some facilities. This allows

IAEA inspectors to inspect Iran's uranium supplies from the mining stage through

waste disposal, and monitor all centrifuge production facilities.

17

Furthermore, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 2231 on July 20, 2015, it

comprises the current legal framework governing Iran’s nuclear program and

endorsing the JCPOA.

On 16 January 2016, the Director General of the IAEA issued a statement declaring

Iran to be in compliance with all of its obligations under the JCPOA with the help of

the newly implemented state level safeguards. This cleared the way for comprehensive

sanctions relief for Iran while allowing IAEA inspectors continued access to Iranian

nuclear facilities. Iran will not develop any new uranium enrichment or nuclear

reprocessing facilities. No fuel will be produced, tested, or transferred to the Arak

nuclear power plant. In addition, Iran will share design details of the reactor. Iran will

address IAEA questions related to possible military dimensions of the nuclear program

and provide data expected as part of an Additional Protocol. This will be looked over

by safeguards which play a pivotal role in verifying there is no diversion of declared

nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities and no indications of undeclared

nuclear material or activities in the State as a whole.

IAEA will rely less on routine accounting of nuclear material and activities declared by

states, and instead design safeguards activities in each state on the basis of risks

identified by an analysis of that state’s entire and unique nuclear profile. Between 2002

and 2004, while IAEA inspectors and analysts learned of Iran’s hitherto undisclosed

nuclear activities, the agency’s safeguards planning staff went through some changes

and adopted the label ‘state-level’ safeguards. They address the technical objectives,

specific safeguards measures that are identified in accordance with the scope of a

State's safeguards agreement while specific to the state they are set in.They have been

implemented in various locations of nuclear plants/workshops/labs in Iran to overlook

any violations. Given past events, regional conflicts and record of defiance of western

policies and decisions, any wrong turn can lead into a very dangerous global conflict.

18

Focus Questions:

1. Is there a violation of state sovereignty by implementing Safeguards in a state?

2. What other steps can IAEA take to verify a state's’ commitment and restriction to

Nuclear Power usage?

3. Do Safeguards play a role in the safety of the community?

4. Are necessary sanctions needed to ensure compatibility of state to safeguards?

● Nuclear Applications in Responding to Viruses and Confining Pests

Background information:

Nuclear energy will not ever stop to question humanity with ethical dilemmas for it’s

mutual positive and negative usage. At this stage of the background guide we explored

several risks and opportunities it offers us together with safety and security issues.

Nevertheless, there is a strong and relevant case for health applications of nuclear

energy. It is commonly accepted by the doctors society that the application of nuclear

instruments play a vital role when it comes to address needs related to the prevention,

diagnosis and treatment of health conditions, in specific diseases such as cancer and

cardiovascular diseases (Rosenblatt, 2017).

19

Furthermore, nuclear based tools can help detect and control beforehand, therefore

prevent the spread of infections such as Malaria, Ebola and Zika which are amongst the

world’s most problematic ones. Last but not least nuclear instruments techniques are

also proven to be of help monitoring and targeting malnutrition in all its forms, from

undernutrition to obesity.

The role of IAEA in this field is to support Member States’ infrastructures in

enhancing (where existing already) and establishing high-quality health care

worldwide. Since the IAEA began its work in human health over 50 years ago, the use

of nuclear techniques in medicine and nutrition has become one of the most

widespread peaceful applications of atomic energy. The IAEA assists Member States

with the coordination of research projects, expert guidance, equipment, the

development of internationally harmonised guidelines, training and knowledge

exchange. Its support ranges from nutrition interventions to cancer diagnosis and

treatment, to quality assurance for the use of radiation in medicine for safe and

accurate treatment of conditions such as cancer.

20

Current situation:

Today the main problem is the outbreaks of zoonotic diseases, such as Ebola, Zika and

Malaria which are devastating in low and middle income countries. New infectious

diseases and viruses are rapidly expanding and spreading all over the world. With

billions of people migrating around the planet, the outbreaks of zoonotic diseases and

epidemics in one part of the world are becoming an imminent threat in other states. It

may seem that epidemics of infectious diseases in developed countries indicate a

miscalculation in the healthcare system or sanitary and epidemiological control,

however, it is not the only reason. The problem also rests in the fact that infectious

diseases and viruses are changing today at unprecedented rates. According to WHO,

from 1940 to 2016, several hundred new infections were registered and it seems that

this process is accelerating. Today, medical societies deal with viruses that were hardly

noticeable before, and long-known diseases acquire completely new properties. The

cause of the growth of infectious diseases lies in the complex interaction of various

factors: rapid population growth with its simultaneous aging, an unprecedented

changes in ecosystems and earth’s environment, the spread of antibiotics and their

misuse. It is of primary relevance to tackle these issues quickly and effectively and

nuclear derive techniques help the early diagnosis, therefore can be imperative for

global health assurance. Moreover the IAEA partnered with the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and in collaboration with the World Health

Organization (WHO), brings aid to all Member States for the implementation of such

protocols.

21

Possible solutions:

The fight against infectious diseases is one of the main tasks of the world health care

system. Cessation of spread and reversal of morbidity are envisaged as one of the key

Millennium Development Goals. For decades, the United Nations system has been at

the forefront of the fight against infectious diseases through the development of

policies and systems that affect the social dimensions of health problems.

Currently, the world community considers mass vaccination and prevention as the

most economical and affordable means in the fight against infections and as means of

achieving active longevity for all social strata of developed and developing countries.

In recent years, active research work has been carried out to create new vaccines with

improved immunogenicity, which provides higher clinical efficacy. Preventive

measures affecting the transmission of the infectious disease also include disinfection,

which is carried out in the outbreaks of infectious diseases, as well as in public places.

For some infectious diseases, such as AIDS and hepatitis B, prevention is the main

way to fight. These diseases are hard or not at all possible to treat. It is extremely

important to timely diagnose infectious diseases to prevent their spread.

22

Proper nutrition and a healthy lifestyle are one of the main measures to prevent

infectious and related types of diseases.

Focus Questions:

1. What are the ways to devise a more equitable nuclear instruments distribution

within low and middle income countries in response to viruses and confining

pests?

2. On one hand, globalization can facilitate the rapid spread of zoonoses and

other diseases (border crossing, migration), on the other hand, globalization

brings required solutions and financial aid to fight disease outbreaks. How to

balance dual character of globalization? What effective tools should be used to

combat diseases globally?

3. If poverty promotes diseases recurring, how low and middle income countries

should balance budget allocations for infectious-disease prevention and

poverty reduction?

4. What steps should be taken to ensure that local health institutions are properly

equipped and knowledgeable to assist population affected by infectious

diseases?

5. What other solutions can be used to effectively fight against infectious

diseases?

6. How to address inequalities in access to health resources in developing

countries?

7. How to ensure a successful collaborative medical response to infectious

diseases?

Conclusions:

After carefully overview of the available material online this background guide tries to

put together reports, books and authors who address a broad spectrum of issues

strongly related to nuclear power, such as security, proliferation, and environmental

sustainability. Our aim is with to guide you in a path of critical thinking towards the

three topics which will be vastly discussed at the conference. It is close to our heart

that the different angles and approaches delegates are going to use will take into

consideration gender, radiological protection, intergenerational justice, and technology

as social tool to foster development. Most importantly it is vital that this background

guide is seen as a foundational tool to build on further knowledge, to provoke your

intellectuality and boost your curiosity within this committee. It is expected that all

participants including us as a team will be up to date with the press news regarding the

development of cases such as the DPKR on.

23

Furthermore despite the diversity of the three topics, what all the issues emphasise is

that the ethical valuation of nuclear energy is a moral dichotomy and complex

problematic to reflect on. It is indeed required a deep historical, geopolitical

understanding of multiple perspectives and governmental considerations. In conclusion

we wish that this simple analysis will be useful for your further learning process of

international safety, security, justice and democracy. Currently the world complexities

as well as the predicted conflicts escalating due to nuclear energy, impose a urgent

philosophical and diplomatic reflection to solve what could become a planetaria

disaster.

Acknowledgements:

This Background guide was undertaken as part of the CWMUN New York city

program, organized by the Association Diplomatici. The authors gratefully thank all

the staff members for their guidance and support in processing the information

gathered during the research. This work is aimed for the best possible outcome of such

a thought-provoking work, full of young minds and students eager to understand the

world and pursue their dreams in a safe and fair global environment. Thanks to all

collaborators and to the delegates for their future proactive participation.

Bibliography

Taebi, B., & Roeser, S. (Eds.). (2015). The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice,

and Democracy in the post-Fukushima Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

doi:10.1017/CBO9781107294905

Hollyday, J. 1991. “In The Valley of the Shadow of Three Miles Island.” In Nuclear

Energy and Ethics, edited by K.S. Shrader-Frechette, 136–60. Geneva: World Council

of Churches Publications.

International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. (1989) Statue (Emended Version).

Vienna: United Nations Press.

Peter, P. (2016) The Midlife Crisis of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. San Rafael

(USA) Morgan & Claypool Publishers.

24

World Nuclear Association website (WNA), which keeps track of the operational

nuclear energy reactors all around the world. See www.world-nuclear.org/info/Facts-

and-Figures/World-Nuclear-Power-Reactors-and-Uranium-Requirements/ (updated

August 1, 2014; accessed September 17, 2014)

Fischer, D. (1997) History of the International Atomic Energy Agency : the first forty

years. Vienna : The Agency press.

Eduardo, R., Eduardo, Z. (2017). Radiotherapy in cancer care: facing the global

challenge. International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna : International Atomic Energy

Agency Press.

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (1993) The Safety of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, 244 pp.

Paris: OECD.

OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (1998) Nuclear Energy Data, 45 pp. Paris: OECD.

Cunningham, Erin. “Iran adhering to nuclear deal with world powers, U.N. watchdog

says.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 31 Aug. 2017,

www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-adhering-to-nuclear-deal-with-world-powers-un-

watchdog-says/2017/08/31/cb408e7d-bc9a-4874-bbdf-

001f919a8c86_story.html?utm_term=.cb053c0932c3.

“Department of Safeguards.” IAEA, IAEA, 26 July 2016,

www.iaea.org/about/organizational-structure/department-of-safeguards.

Hibbs, Mark. “Iran and the Evolution of Safeguards.” Carnegie Endowment for

International Peace, carnegieendowment.org/2015/12/16/iran-and-evolution-of-

safeguards-pub-62333.

"IAEA Director General's Statement on Iran," IAEA, updated 16 January 2016,

www.iaea.org.

"Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran,”.

Report by the Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency, 15 November

2004.

"Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and Relevant Provisions of

Security Council Resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), and 1835

(2008), in the Islamic Republic of Iran," Resolution adopted by the Board of

Governors, (GOV/2009/82), 27 November 2009.

25

Nazila Fathi, "Iran's Leader Stands by Nuclear Plans; Military to Hold Exercises,” The

New York Times, 22 January 2007.

“Resolution 2231 (2015).” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/sc/2231/.

Ebola Virus Disease, Fact Sheet, World Health Organization (WHO), September 2014

Ebola Situation Report, WHO, 11 November 2015