tbsb mun 2016, security councilchairs: julia reuter, maria
antonia sendas, and joão felipe demôroTopic a: question of kurdish
people’s right to self-determination
The current Middle-Eastern territory presents the United
Nations, in particular the Security Council, with multiple
dilemmas. While the UN system promises to respect the territorial
integrity of its member states, it is also strongly committed to
allow for the self-determination of people. Whereas the violence
between Sunni and Shia Muslims, the oldest and greatest divide in
the history of Islam, monopolizes the media outlets, no successful
and inclusive understanding can be reached without addressing the
third regional ethnic group: The Kurds. United States Ambassador
Samantha Power writes that “the Kurds are a stateless people
scattered over Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq. Some 25 million Kurds
cover an estimated 200,000 square miles. The Kurds are divided by
two forms of Islam, five borders, and three Kurdish languages and
alphabets. The major powers promised them a state of their own in
1922, but when Turkey refused to ratify the Treaty of Sevres…, the
idea was dropped.” Furthermore, Kurdish resistance movements have
inflexibly opposed the established governments for the past
decades. With the ever-increasing violence and bloodshed in Iraq
and Turkey, it is vital that the Middle East, and undeniably all
United Nations member states, strive in unity to resolve the
question of Kurdish People’s self-determination in order to avoid
advanced atrocities.
Topic background:
In the early 7th century, the Kurds were conquered by the Muslim
Arabs, officially marking the first of the list of invaders
(successful or not) of the region, followed by Seljuk Turks in the
11th century, the Mongols in the 13th, medieval Persians and the
Ottoman Turks in the 16th and, most recently, the United States of
America in its 2003 invasion of Iraqi territory.
The self-claimed “Kurdish regions” of Iran, Iraq, Turkey and
Syria sit in the north central area of the Middle East. These are
populated by the Kurds, one of the indigenous people of the
Mesopotamian plains, who have politically and violently strived and
fought for a secure and stable homeland, one which was officially
acknowledged as their own. Due to its hotspot location, in the
border between conflictant Middle Eastern nations, they have been
home both to ethnic battle grounds as well as diplomatic
coexistance.
The beginning of recent conflict arose with the turn of the 19th
century, when nations theoretically owning a share of the region
decided to advocate and protest for their national homelands after
being subjugated by the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. After
the end of World War I, with the imput of Woorow Wilson, former
President of the United States of America, the 1920 Treaty of
Sèvres was introduced to manage the territory after the Ottoman
Empire’s collapse. In this treaty, a proposed autonomous state was
to be assigned, the Kurdistan. Nonetheless, this treaty was
rejected and replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, in 1923, leading
to the international recognition of the new Republic of Turkey as
the successor state of the defunct Ottoman Empire. It did not
oblige Turkey to grant Kurdish autonomy. It further caused the
splitting of the territory between Turkey, Syria and Iraq, forcing
the Kurdish to disperse themselves amongst neighbouring countries,
becoming minorities and being supressed by the strict leaders of
their nations.
Before two years had passed, in 1925 Turkey, a Kurdish uprising
against their governmental authority was heavily suppressed and
disregarded, followed by a similar situation in 1946 Iran,where the
Mahabah Republic was set up with the support of the Soviets, but
was quickly and promptly crushed by the sovereign government.
Northern Iraqi Kurd Mustafa Barzani, frustrated by the prohibition
of their languages and traditional costumes, founded the Kurdistan
Democratic Party (KDP), dedicated to the resurfacing of a creation
of an autonomous Kurdistan. After strengthening their party, the
KDP revolted against the government of Abdul Kaim Kassem. Abd
al-Karim Qasim, the military leader at the time, iniciated an
intensive military campaign against Kurdish forces, the Peshmerga,
currently responsible for retaining the Islamic State and their
infringements on human rights.
Although the Iraqi government achieved the suppression of the
1946 riot, tension between the two groups would continue for years
until 1970, when a peace agreement was signed between the Iraqi
government and the Kurds from the same region granting them a slice
of self-rule in the independent state of Iraqi Kurdistan. This
passive interaction, however, was short-lived, as the KDP began
their search for profitable lands in order to enrichen their nation
and people, seeing the opportunity of seizing Kirkuk, an oil-rich
providence, traditionally Kurdish. Backed by the United States and
their ally, Iran, the KDP attacked Iraqi troops but soon were
impeded by the Baghdad government’s agreeance to increase Iranian
control of the Shatt al-Arab river, thus ending western support and
further demolizing their rebellion by starving them of necessities.
Moreover, in 1975, Jalal Talabani, then leader of the KDP, leaves
to form the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). This was the
beginning of decades of conflict between the two parties.
The year of 1978 was when struggle started to arise in Turkey.
The Turkish government continued mistreatment and carelessness
regarding their Kurdish population amounted to the creation of the
Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) by Abdullah Ocalan, seeking Kurdish
independence. The leftist party has Marxist-Lenist roots and armed
conflict with the Turkish government began in 1984, focused on
civilian as well as governmental targets, but ultimately gave up on
this quest.
From 1980 to 1988, the Iran-Iraq war caused friction between the
Iraqi government and the KDP and PUK, as they refused to support
Saddam Hussein and the local government. This agreeance with
Iranian forces, as Hussein deemed it, was met with the start of the
Al-Anfal campaign. Refugees from this demoralizing and harsh
campaign, consistent of chemical weapons and decimation of
thousands of villages, fled to Turkey, where the PKK remained
popular.
Iraqian forces were dangerously weakened after the Persian Gulf
War in 1990, instigating Kurdish revolt, which was fundamentally
encouraged by the United States of America. Nevertheless, Iraq
crushed this rebellion, which did not receive any sort of aid from
the United Nations forces. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed
Resolution 688, which pathed a way to a No Fly Zone in northern
Iraq however also included clauses demanding the end of Iraqi
repression and ensuring humanitarian aid for both refugees and
civilians in northern Iraq; these were later attacked in the Iraqi
government in 1992 and 1995. Soon after, Iraqi Kurdistan found
themselves at peace, ruled independently, governed by the PUK and
the PKK. The internal tension between the parties, including their
fighting during the 1990s for autonomous control, is still used as
an argument against Kurdish independence.
In 2003, the famous US-led invasion of Iraq benefited the Kurds
in several sides, as they were provided with a more leniant
government as well as political representation in the Iraq
Governing Council (IGC).
Iran and Turkey both initiate offensive attacks against northern
Iraq in 2007, targeting the rebel Iraqi Kurdistans, which were
increasing in number. Turkey focuses on air strikes and ground
attacks, as the Iranian government begins shelling their rebel
bases.
During elective procedures in independent Kurdistan, Massoud
Barzani is reelected president for his last permitted term (due to
accusations of avoiding any changes in the constitution), and
parliament confirms a temporary alliance of political parties
forming a government, effectively joining the PKK and the PUK. Yet,
25 of 111 seats are won by a newly-formed opposition party, the
Gorran Movement for Change. Taking into consideration the fragility
of the government, mainly caused by the friction between the two
governing parties, the introduction of a third group promised to
cause even more controversy.
Iraqi Kurdistan was further subjected to air strikes by Turkey
in 2011, who later proceeded to pursuit Kurdish groups in Syria,
particularly the People’s Protection Union (YPG), a military branch
of the Democratic Union Party (PYD). Syria has contacted and sent
letters to the UN Secretary General and the Security Council
chairman, as these are considered by their government as attacks
against its sovereignty.
The alliance between the United States and the YPG has caused
considerable distress between the country and Turkey, who deems the
group as dangerous considering their ties to the PKK. This
animosity created between allies further complicates the fight
against terrorism in the region.
The Kurdistan region was hit by an economic crisis in 2015.
Despite an increase in overall production, oil revenues have
decreased significantly since 2014 due to lower oil prices,
disputes with the central government and the rapid expansion of the
Islamic State. In June 2015, Exxon Mobil, the largest exporter by
volume, evacuated its staff and left its facilities in the care of
peshmerga. In early December 2015, peshmerga reportedly repelled an
IS attack on those facilities, though the prospect of such attacks
poses a deterrent to foreign investment. 17% of the central
government’s budget is earmarked for distribution to the KRG, but
no funds have been disbursed since February 2014. A US-mediated
agreement in 2014 would have resolved the conflict between the oil
ministries of the KRG and the GOI, but this too collapsed over
allegations of under payment. Erbil’s independent contracts sold
for less than market price due to its poor quality.
According to some estimates, the debt of the Kurdish government
reached USD$18 billion by January 2016. Many government workers
(including teachers, soldiers and other employees) have not been
paid for 3 months from as of October 2015. The President of the
Kurdistan region Barzani however announced that increased oil sales
are about to balance the Kurdish budget. In October 2015,
large-scale riots by government employees broke across the
Kurdistan region, with several fatalities.
sources for further research:
(The material presented below does not necessarily reflect
neutral points of view. The chairs expect delegates to analyze
sources critically, keeping in mind the possible presence of
bias.)
· http://www.infoplease.com/spot/kurds3.html
·
http://thekurdishproject.org/history-and-culture/kurdish-history/
· http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29702440
·
http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2014/10/a-short-history-of-the-kurds/
·
https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/24/IMG/NR059624.pdf?OpenElement
·
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/opinion/iraq-and-the-kurds-are-going-broke.html
· http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32220764
·
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/feb99/kurdprofile.htm
Topic b: question of iranian nuclear proliferationtopic
background
After hiding a clandestine uranium enrichment programme for 18
years and thus breaching the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT), a lot of attention is focused on Iran and its rights to
nuclear powers are questioned. This has generated an atmosphere of
distrust and skepticism amongst the international community, which
now worries about pending questions regarding Iran’s nuclear
programme. Iran insists on its right to run a “peaceful nuclear
industry”, but Iran’s intentions are misbelieved by many countries,
fearing the possibility of a nuclear arms race in one of the
world’s most ambiguous and volatile regions. The Security Council
holds a major responsibility in settling this issue to reach the
most amicable solution possible.
What is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and how does
it affect the countries involved?
The NPT has the objective of preventing the spread of nuclear
weapons or nuclear technology and encourages the cooperation of
nations towards the peaceful uses of nuclear forces. In a broader
perspective, one of its main aims is to promote nuclear
disarmament. The treaty recognizes the following states as
nuclear-weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United
Kingdom, France and China (also the P5 members of the United
Nations Security Council). India, Pakistan and North Korea are
believed to possess nuclear weapons, and Israel is ambiguous and
dubious in relation to its ownership of nuclear weapons. The NPT
non-nuclear weapon states agree to never obtain nuclear weapons and
the NPT nuclear weapon states agree, in exchange, to share the
benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and try their best to seek
nuclear disarmament. The NPT is reviewed every 5 years in Review
Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons.
The NPT consists of 3 pillars:
First pillar: non-proliferation
Article I of the NPT addresses that nuclear weapon states do not
transfer weapons or devices to any other nation, or in any way
encourage any non-nuclear weapon state to acquire or manufacture
them. Article II pledges that non-nuclear weapon states to not
acquire nuclear weapons or accept assistance in the manufacture of
such devices. Under Article III, the non-nuclear weapon states
accept IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) safeguards to
ensure that their activity regarding nuclear weapons serve only
peaceful intentions.
Second pillar: disarmament
The second part of the NPT consists of nations acting in
goodwill to pursue negotiations on compelling measures to cease the
nuclear arms race and towards nuclear disarmament. This second
pillar is representative of the collaboration that must occur
amongst countries so that the goals of disarmament are
achieved.
Third pillar: peaceful use of nuclear energy
The NPT also consists of a third part, which encompasses the
rights of all Parties involved to develop nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes and to benefit internationally from this area.
This, however, must abide with their non-proliferation obligations
stated in previous sections of the NPT. The third pillar allows the
transfer of nuclear technology/materials to NPT signatory
countries, if interests reside within the intentions of development
of civilian nuclear energy programs in such countries. This is
allowed as long as countries demonstrate that nuclear energy is not
being used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Since very few
countries are willing to end their use of nuclear energy, the third
pillar creates space for controlled flexibility of its use while
still making conditions difficult for the development of nuclear
weapons.
United States-NATO weapons sharing
During the period of treaty negotiation, NATO had a secret
nuclear weapons dealing with the United States. This dealing
consisted of the US providing nuclear weapons to be stored in other
NATO states. It is argued that this is a violation of Articles I
and II of the NPT. The US has defended itself by claiming that the
nuclear weapons were controlled while in storage in the NATO
states, and that they underwent no transfer or any control over
them was intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to
war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling", so there
is no breach of the NPT. It is estimated that the US still provides
around 180 tactical B1 nuclear bombs to be used by Germany,
Belgium, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey under this agreement with
NATO states.
Countries not involved
India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan have never signed the
treaty. Israel is internationally ambiguous upon the matter of its
possession of nuclear weapons (policy of deliberate ambiguity),
whilst India and Pakistan have publicly revealed their nuclear
weapon programs. India is estimated to have enough fissile material
for more than 150 warheads. India had a “no first use” policy,
meaning it could only use its nuclear weapons in the case that it
was first attacked by an opponent using them too. However, India’s
former NSA Shivshankar Menon shifted this policy from “no first
use” to “no first use against non-nuclear weapon states” in 2010.
India claims that the NPT creates a group of “nuclear haves”. Like
India, Pakistani officials argue that the NPT is
discriminatory.
“NPT Nuclear Map”
Source: Lessons – TES Teach
“Time to Look Beyond the NPT: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Map”
Source: Pressenza; International Press Agency
Iran & weapons of mass destruction
Iran is not acknowledged to currently possess any weapons of
mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons. It has signed treaties
which disavow these, including the Biological Weapons Convention
(BWC), the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran is aware of the threats
imposed by weapons of mass destruction, since over 100,000 Iranian
troops and civilians were victims of the effects of chemical
weapons during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War. Public and religious decree
(fatwa) was made against the development of nuclear weapons in
Iran. Later versions of this fatwa forbid only the use of these
weapons but does not address their production. Iran’s program for
uranium enrichment has been claimed to be for peaceful purposes
only. The IAEA has declared that the nuclear material in Iran has
not been diverged or transported, but feels like it “must have
confidence in the absence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s
nuclear program”.
Iranian involvement with the NPT
Iran is part and has signed the NPT, but was found in
nonconformity with it after breaching a series of its articles. It
contravened and infringed the NPT through its safeguard agreements,
while the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. IAEA
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei noted that Iran had, over an
extended period of time, failed to meet its obligations in
compliance to the NPT. This was done by Iran failing to disclose
its uranium enrichment program. After international efforts were
made to suspend Iran’s procedure, the matter was then taken to the
United Nations Security Council in 2006, which passed a resolution
addressing this suspension. Despite this, Iran continued its
enrichment program with no regards to international agreements
made. The agreement would be that Iran stopped its nuclear program
in return for the lifting of Western sanctions upon it.
Iran has claimed that its program is for energy-production
purposes only, which is permitted under the NPT. However, the US
and European powers have questioned Iran’s intentions, stating it
has sought to develop nuclear weapons, and is, therefore, breaching
the NPT, making it subject to full-scale international punishments.
There has been debate going on regarding the political and economic
impacts of the deal, since it would affect oil prices, regional
stability, global stability, etc. Iran holds the second-largest
proved crude oil reserves in the Middle East. Nonetheless, the
country’s abilities to market these reserves internationally has
been restricted due to the sanctions imposed by the EU and USA to
curtail its nuclear program. Iran’s crude oil exports, which
contribute to around 80% of its total export income and almost 60%
of all government revenue has almost halved since 2011, and the
decline in oil prices means the decrease in revenue could be much
worse. The form of imposed by the US and the EU could have a
significant implication for Iran’s economy and the global crude oil
market, which is already currently oversupplied. Even though oil
production has increased significantly in Iran, demands for it have
not increased as much. The Iran nuclear deal could mean even more
oil is supplied to the market without such an increase for demand.
This might perhaps increase the competition for market share in
global crude oil markets, which might cause Saudi Arabia to follow
a more aggressive approach on oil pricing (it is hugely involved
with the commodity), as it is not favourable of the US and other
powers to ease sanctions on Iran.
The right to nuclear weapons
Despite all economic and political debate on the issue, the
central discussion revolves around the question of a right of a
country possessing nuclear powers. It is argued that, no matter
what the Iranian nuclear program is aimed at, it should have the
right to have nuclear weapons just as much as the US or Britain do,
both in terms of the principles of NPT and the fairness of the
international order that created it. Iran’s nuclear program was
initiated with the help of the US under the “Atoms for Peace”
program. However, international opposition to this grew and the US
began to block deals on nuclear technology between Iran and other
countries, fearing the threats of its nuclear expansion.
The current deal indicates that after close monitoring and
reduction of Iranian nuclear activity, when the sanctions on Iran
are finally lifted, billions of dollars’ worth of Iranian assets
overseas will be unfrozen.
It is claimed that the NPT has lost its moral authority in being
a political treaty in which the great powers get to choose who has
the right to some things and not to others. Moreover, 5 official
nuclear powers have previously breached primary aim of the NPT,
which is to limit nuclear proliferation. It is also argued that
while Iran has been subject to collective amounts of punishments
imposed upon them, India, Israel and Pakistan, which are not NPT
members, have “received the blessings of the Security Council”.
Iran’s nuclear weapons program as a threat to the United States
of America and its interests
A nuclear-armed Iran would allow for it to invigorate its
aggressive foreign policy, which would lead to greater friction
with the international community. Iran already holds enough nuclear
power to hit US and allied troops stationed in the Middle East and
parts of Europe, therefore its possible expansion of nuclear
weapons could aggravate this threat.
Iran is seen as “one of the world’s leading state sponsors of
terrorism”. If Iran could potentially share its nuclear powers with
such groups, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and others, this would pose a
terribly hostile atmosphere to the United States and the West.
A nuclear armed Iran poses a threat to the United States of
America’s closest allies in the Middle East.
Iranian military posture has led to increase in arms purchase by
its neighbours. A nuclear-armed Iran could spark an arms race which
would further destabilize this volatile region.
Measures Iran has agreed on:
1. Reduce the number of its installed centrifuges;
2. Limit uranium enrichment to 3.67% for 15 years;
3. Reduce its current stockpile of uranium;
4. Cease enrichment of uranium for 15 years;
5. Allow the IAEA to regularly access all nuclear facilities and
suspected sites;
6. Allow inspectors to access uranium mines and perform
surveillance in uranium mills for 25 years.
Measures the P5 have agreed on:
1. Suspend US and EU sanctions against Iran once the IAEA has
checked Iran has successfully fulfilled its commitment;
2. Lifting all past UN Security Council sanctions on the Iranian
nuclear issue;
3. The creation of a new UNSC resolution urging full
implementation and retaining some provisions that are
weapons-related;
4. The UNSC has unanimously adopted 4 resolutions imposing
sanctions on Iran for its nuclear proliferation activities;
5. Since July 2012, the EU has banned all imports of Iranian
oil;
6. US Treasury has “blacklisted” Iranian companies involved in
proliferation or terrorist activity to make banking transactions
more difficult for them on a global scale.
Reflection questions for delegates
· How will different deals regarding the Iranian nuclear issue
with different approaches help bring a peaceful solution to the
issue?
· How harshly should Iranian violations of the treaty be dealt
with?
· Should nations cooperate in favour of sanctions against Iran
or should a consensus regarding the right of nuclear weapons
possession be reached?
Bibliography & sources for further research
(The material presented below does not necessarily reflect
neutral points of view. The chairs expect delegates to analyze
sources critically, keeping in mind the possible presence of
bias)
·
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2015/06/19/how-would-the-iran-nuclear-deal-impact-oil-prices/#3ef9a4e730fc
·
http://debatewise.org/debates/3037-iran-s-right-to-possess-nuclear-weapons/
·
http://www.adl.org/israel-international/iran/c/the-iranian-nuclear-threat-why-it-matters.html
·
http://www.mintpressnews.com/why-can-israel-have-a-nuke-but-not-iran-ask-the-us/210401/
·
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/iran-has-a-right-to-have-nuclear-weapons/17216#.WEi7v2WTV-U
1
