University of Reading International Model United Nations Conference 2015

United Nations Security Council

Topic A: Protecting civilians in the context of the Syrian Civil War.

Topic B: Containment of nuclear proliferation in the light of the US-Iran deal.

Study Guide

Arvin Khanchandani and Piotr Sitnik

Head Chair

Introducing Arvin Khanchandani 

Arvin is currently doing his Master’s in EU Politics at the London School of Economics

and Political Science (LSE).

Although he was born in Singapore and has lived in five different countries, he always looks forward to returning to Poland where

he spent most of his childhood.

At university he joined debating and MUN societies to improve his public speaking skills, and attending various conferences

soon became one of his favourite pastimes.

Apart from being interesting in all MUN related things and international relations, he

is also enthusiastic about political philosophy, entrepreneurship, ideas of liberty, sports and learning languages.

His university dissertation concerned the effects of the decriminalisation of drugs in

Portugal.

He is thrilled to welcome all delegates to this year’s ReadiMUN and is looking forward to hear an amazing debate!

Co-Chair

Introducing Piotr Sitnik Piotr is a student of law at University

College London, having previously studied law at the Warsaw University (2012-14).

He has been MUNing since 2012 and has chaired close to a dozen MUN committees in Europe and beyond, including SOFIMUN (Sofia, Bulgaria), HolylandMUN (Tel Aviv, Israel) and MUNIST (Istanbul, Turkey).

He takes particular interest in international law and international politics, with

predominant focus on Eastern European affairs and influence thereof on the Western

World.

Also, he is involved in the student debating circuit in the UK, specializing in team

debating.

Piotr is looking forward to leaving a positive and constructive mark on the conference.

He is open to any questions regarding the MUN format, especially first-timers – the bigger the MUN family grows the more

motivation and enthusiasm there is to keep holding conferences and cultivating the

culture of MUN.

Outside MUN and academia, he is a long-standing Wikipedia administrator as well as a published poet.

1

Topic A: Protecting civilians in the context of the Syrian Civil War Introduction

The Syrian Civil War is arguably the worst humanitarian crisis since the Second World War, with over a quarter million killed, roughly the same number wounded or missing, and half of Syria’s 22 million population displaced from their homes. But more than that, Syria today is the largest battlefield and generator of Sunni-Shia sectarianism the world has ever seen, with deep implications for the future boundaries of the Middle East and the spread of terrorism. It has devolved from peaceful protests against the government in 2011 in the wake of the Arab Spring to a violent insurgency that has drawn in numerous other countries. It’s partly a civil war of government against people; partly a religious war pitting Assad’s minority Alawite sect, aligned with Shiite fighters from Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, against Sunni rebel groups; and increasingly a proxy war featuring Russia and Iran against the United States and its allies.

2

Andrew Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, summarised the conflict as follows: ‘What started as an attempt by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad to shoot Syria’s largest uprising into submission has devolved into a regionalized civil war that has partitioned the country into three general areas in which U.S.-designated terrorist organizations are dominant. In Syria’s more diverse west, the Alawite and minority-dominated Assad regime, and a mosaic of Shia militias trained and funded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), hold sway. In the center, Sunni moderate, Islamist, and jihadist groups, such as ISIS and the al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, share control. And in the northeast, the Kurdish-based People’s Protection Units (YPG) have united two of three cantons in a bid to expand “Rojava”—Western Kurdistan. As the country has haemorrhaged people, neighbouring states have carved out spheres of influence often based on sectarian agendas that tear at the fabric of Syrian society, with Iran (and now Russia) propping up the Assad regime; Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the U.A.E. supporting the Sunni-dominated opposition; and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) supporting the YPG’.

According to the UN, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other NGOs and observers, this conflict has seen both the Government and rebel forces commit a wide range of war crimes on both adults and children, which violated human rights on a large scale. These include: unlawful killing, torture, sexual and psychological torture, using civilians as human shields, kidnapping and hostage-taking, arbitrary arrest on a large scale, deployment of tanks and helicopter gunships in densely populated areas, heavy and indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas, collective punishment, enforced disappearances, widescale and systematic destruction and looting of property, the systematic denial of food and water, the prevention of medical treatment.

Overview and timeline of key events

Nationwide uprising

2011 March - Security forces shoot dead protestors in southern city of Deraa demanding release of political prisoners, triggering violent unrest that steadily spread nationwide over the following months. President Assad announces conciliatory measures, releasing dozens of political prisoners, dismissing government, lifting 48-year-old state of emergency.

2011 May - Army tanks enter Deraa, Banyas, Homs and suburbs of Damascus in an effort to crush anti-regime protests. US and European Union tighten sanctions. President Assad announces amnesty for political prisoners.

2011 June - The government says that 120 members of the security forces have been killed by "armed gangs" in the north-western town of Jisr al-Shughour. Troops besiege the town and more than 10,000 people flee to Turkey. President Assad pledges to start a "national dialogue" on reform.

2011 June - The IAEA nuclear watchdog decides to report Syria to the UN Security Council over its alleged covert nuclear programme reactor programme. The structure housing the alleged reactor was destroyed in an Israeli air raid in 2007.

3

Opposition organises

2011 July - President Assad sacks the governor of the northern province of Hama after mass demonstration there, eventually sending in troops to restore order at the cost of scores of lives.

2011 October - New Syrian National Council says it has forged a common front of internal and exiled opposition activists.

2011 November - Arab League votes to suspend Syria, accusing it of failing to implement an Arab peace plan, and imposes sanctions.

2011 December - Twin suicide bombs outside security buildings in Damascus kill 44, the first in a series of large blasts in the capital that continue into the following summer.

2012 February - Government steps up the bombardment of Homs and other cities.

International pressure

2012 March - UN Security Council endorses non-binding peace plan drafted by UN envoy Kofi Annan. China and Russia agree to support the plan after an earlier, tougher draft is modified.

2012 May - France, UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada and Australia expel senior Syrian diplomats in protest at killing of more than a hundred civilians in Houla, near Homs.

2012 June - Turkey changes rules of engagement after Syria shoots down a Turkish plane, declaring that if Syrian troops approach Turkey's borders they will be seen as a military threat.

2012 July - Free Syria Army blows up three security chiefs in Damascus and seizes Aleppo in the north. 2012 August - Prime Minister Riad Hijab defects, US President Obama warns that use of chemical weapons would tilt the US towards intervention.

2012 October - Syria-Turkish tension rises when Syrian mortar fire on a Turkish border town kills five civilians. Turkey returns fire and intercepts a Syrian plane allegedly carrying arms from Russia. Fire in Aleppo destroys much of the historic market as fighting and bomb attacks continue in various cities.

2012 November - National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces formed in Qatar, excludes Islamist militias. Arab League stops short of full recognition. Israeli military fire on Syrian artillery units after several months of occasional shelling from Syrian positions across the Golan Heights, the first such return of fire since the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

2012 December - US, Britain, France, Turkey and Gulf states formally recognise opposition National Coalition as "legitimate representative" of Syrian people.

2013 January - Syria accuses Israeli jets of attacking a military research centre near Damascus, but denies reports that lorries carrying weapons bound for Lebanon were hit. Unverified reports say Israel had targeted an Iranian commander charged with moving weapons of mass destruction to Lebanon. International donors pledge more than $1.5bn (£950m) to help civilians affected by the conflict in Syria.

2013 March - Syrian warplanes bomb the northern city of Raqqa after rebels seize control. US and Britain pledge non-military aid to rebels.

4

Rise of Islamists

2013 June - Government and allied Lebanese Hezbollah forces recapture strategically-important town of Qusair between Homs and Lebanese border. Rebel commanders complain that arms supplies taper off over international concerns about Islamists in the opposition camp.

2013 July - Saudi-backed Ahmed Jarba becomes leader of opposition National Coalition, defeating Qatar-backed rival. 2013 September - UN weapons inspectors conclude that chemical weapons were used in an attack on the Ghouta area of Damascus in August that killed about 300 people, but do not explicitly allocate responsibility for the attack.

2013 October - President Assad allows international inspectors to begin destroying Syria's chemical weapons on the basis of a US-Russian agreement.

2013 December - US and Britain suspend "non-lethal" support for rebels in northern Syria after reports Islamist rebels seize some bases of Western-backed Free Syrian Army.

2014 January-February - UN-brokered peace talks in Geneva fail, largely because Syrian authorities refuse to discuss a transitional government.

2014 March - Syrian Army and Hezbollah forces recapture Yabroud, the last rebel stronghold near the Lebanese border.

2014 May - Hundreds of rebels are evacuated from their last stronghold in the central city of Homs. The withdrawal marks the end of three years of resistance in the city.

2014 June - UN announces removal of Syria's chemical weapons material complete.

'Caliphate' in east

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria militants declare "caliphate" in territory from Aleppo to eastern Iraqiprovince of Diyala.

2014 August - Tabqa airbase, near the northern city of Raqqa, falls to Islamic State militants, who now control entire Raqqa province.

2014 September - United States and five Arab countries launch air strikes against Islamic State around Aleppo and Raqqa.

2015 January - Kurdish forces push Islamic State out of Kobane on Turkish border after four months of fighting.

2015 March -Opposition offensives push back government forces. New Jaish al-Fatah (Army of Conquest) Islamist rebel alliance, backed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, captures provincial capital of Idlib. Southern Front alliance of secular and Islamist groups take Jordanian border crossing at Nassib.

2015 May - Islamic State fighters seize the ancient city of Palmyra in central Syria, raising concerns that they might destroy the pre-Islamic World Heritage site. They also capture last border crossing to Iraq. Jaish al-Fatah takes control of Idlib Province, putting pressure on government's coastal stronghold of Latakia.

5

2015 June - Islamic State and Kurdish fighters intensify fighting between Raqqa and Turkish border. Kurds take Ain Issa and border town of Tal Abyad, Islamic State attacks Kobane and seizes part of Hassakeh, the main city in north-eastern Syria.

2015 September - Russia carries out first air strikes in Syria, saying it targets the Islamic State group. But West and Syrian opposition say it overwhelmingly targets anti-Assad rebels instead.

Situation of civilians

The real victims of this conflicts are civilians who have suffered unimaginable atrocities and for whom, in words of Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, chairman of the United Nations panel investigating human rights abuses in Syria, ‘everyday decisions – whether to visit a neighbour, to go out to buy bread – have become, potentially, decisions about life and death’. In this light, and taking into account that the conclusion of the conflict seems unlikely

6

in the near future as currently both the US and Russia are conducting air-strikes in Syria, the international community has the responsibility to protect civilians in this conflict.

Most disgracefully, children aren’t exempt from these atrocities. The UN reports asserted that armed opposition groups have also executed children, often by shooting at close range. Both government and insurgent forces have used ‘weapons that are guaranteed to cause civilian damage’ said Geoffrey Mock, a Middle East specialist at Amnesty International. Children account for about 20 percent of deaths from such attacks. The Syrian government has repeatedly fired imprecise rockets and unguided bombs, according to the UN and other monitoring groups. Insurgent groups have used so-called “hell cannons” – improvised artillery devices fitted with explosive gas canisters that cause widespread damage. Syrian warplanes and helicopters have blasted civilian targets like mosques, schools and shopping markets in insurgent-controlled areas with barrel bombs – large containers filled with explosives and projectiles – and other weapons.

As the government lost control of the country, said Mr. Ahmad of the Violations Documentation Center, ‘they began using new tactics by dropping air bombs.’ More than a quarter of the dead are children. The UN and others have documented rampant use of torture by both government and opposition forces, including crimes against children targeted for appearing to be pro-government. In March, thousands of photos surfaced showing detainees who were said to have died in Syrian prisons. The photos were smuggled out of Syria by a former Syrian military photographer. Secretary of State John Kerry said that the photos showed evidence of torture. The Syrian government has been accused of using chlorine-filled barrel bombs. An attack in 2013 killed hundreds of people (some estimates were upward of 1,500) in Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus controlled by the opposition, when the area was struck by several rockets containing sarin, a nerve agent known to be part of the Syrian military’s stockpile. There are also reports that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has used mustard gas in northern Syria.

The United Nations has accused the Syrian government of using attacks on hospitals as a “weapon of war.” Physicians for Human Rights documented nearly 300 attacks on hospitals through July, most of them carried out by pro-Assad forces in opposition-controlled areas. The death toll, documented by the Syrian American Medical Society through January 2015, does not capture the many people — estimates range from 200,000 to more than 600,000 — who have been under siege for more than a year and are at risk of starving to death or dying from other preventable causes. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has estimated that 181 civilians have been killed in the coalition airstrike campaign against the Islamic State, as of mid-August and that 370 people have been killed by Russian warplanes since September 30. The sheer numbers are as follows: more than 4.5 million of Syrians were forced to flee to neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and

7

Egypt which together have taken in more than 4 million of registered Syrian refugees, and to Europe, which received ca. 700,000 asylum applications from Syrians since 2011. While the number of civilian deaths is difficult to verify due lack of access in areas controlled by the Islamic State, data from different reports indicates that least 28,000 civilians have died in shootings and mass killings; at least 27,000 were killed in mortar, artillery and rocket attacks; at least 19,000 were killed in Syrian government air attacks; At least 9,000 were killed after being kidnapped, detained and/or tortured; at least 1,000 were killed by exposure to chemical or toxic substances; at least 650 medical workers were killed in attacks on hospitals; at least 550 civilians died from starvation, dehydration or lack of basic medical care; and many more died from American and Russian air campaigns against ISIS and rebels. Finally, as of March 2015, the total economic loss since the start of the conflict for Syria has been estimated to be over $200bn and four in every five Syrians to now live in poverty - 30% of them in abject poverty. Syria's education, health and social welfare systems are also in a state of collapse.

8

Previous UN action

Various UN agencies such as the Security and Human Rights Councils, released reports on the Syrian Civil War, highlighting issues such as human rights violations. For instance, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, investigating alleged human rights violations since March 2011, reported that those on both sides of the conflict have committed war crimes - including murder, torture, rape and enforced disappearances. Government and rebel forces have also been accused by investigators of using civilian suffering - such as blocking access to food, water and health services - as a method of war - http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session30/Documents/A_HRC_30_48_ENG.doc.

A detailed overview of the conflict has also been provided by the UNDP - http://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/alienation_and_violence_impact_of_the_syria_crisis_in_2014_eng.pdf.

The latest findings of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic can be found here: http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/iicisyria/pages/independentinternationalcommission.aspx.

The UNSC released its own report in January 2014 on ‘children and armed conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic’ (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2014/31&referer=/english/&Lang=E), focussing particularly on crimes against children in the context of the Syrian Civil War. A month later, the UN Security Council resolution demanded all parties end the ‘indiscriminate employment of weapons in populated areas’. Since then, however, more than 6,000 civilians have been killed by barrel bombs dropped by government aircraft on rebel-held areas. The UN says in some instances, civilian gatherings have been deliberately targeted, constituting massacres. The resolution can be found here: http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2014/02/22/full-text-un-security-council-resolution-2139/

Islamic State has also been accused by the UN of waging a campaign of terror in northern and eastern Syria. It has inflicted severe punishments on those who transgress or refuse to accept its rule, including hundreds of public executions and amputations. Its fighters have also carried out mass killings of rival armed groups, members of the security forces and religious minorities, and beheaded hostages, including several Westerners.

The Secretary-General of the UN also established several investigative bodies to assess whether certain human rights violations took place. For instance, the UN mission to Investigate Allegations of the Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria concluded the following: ‘Based on the basis of the evidence obtained during the investigation of the Ghouta incident, the conclusion of the UN Mission is that, on 21 August 31, chemical weapons have been used on the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic on a relatively large scale. In particular, the environmental, chemical and medical samples collected by the Mission provided clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used in the Ghouta area of Damascus.’

9

The UNHCR has been very active in distributing humanitarian aid and relief to Syrian refugees both in Syria and in its neighbouring countries.

Finally, in 2012, the UNSC attempted to threaten Syrian authorities with sanctions if they did not halt violence and human rights violations against rebels and civilians, but this initiative was blocked by Russia and China. The same two countries also blocked a more recent attempt on part of the UNSC to refer the situation in the Syria to the International Criminal Court.

Block reactions

European Union

The EU member states have been criticised for their passivity in the face of the Syrian Civil War. They only began to wake up to the magnitude of the crisis after they realised they have a large-scale refugee problem on their hands, despite Syria being one of EU’s close partners under the European Neighbourhood Policy framework. The crisis certainly exposed political divisions among European governments, which haven’t been able to reconcile their positions on how to tackle the conflict. This, in turn, has precluded the launching of peacemaking and crisis management missions under the framework of the Common Security and Defence Policy and the use of European battle groups. Having said that, the EU has provided the most humanitarian aid to Syrian citizens: so far more than €4.2billion for relief and recovery assistance to Syrians in their country and to refugees and their host communities in neighbouring Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt. It is in the EU’s best interest to resolve the Syrian conflict as soon as possible.

Arab League

The Arab League played the role of the mediator between the Syrian government and the opposition at the beginning of the conflict and was close to securing a peace deal. However, the deal never went through and Arab League members decided to suspend Syria’s membership in the regional organisation. The Arab League has also imposed economic sanctions on Syria, including an asset freeze and an embargo on investments.

Russia

Russia is one of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's most important international backers and the survival of the regime is critical to maintaining Russian interests in the country. It has blocked resolutions critical of President Assad at the UN Security Council and has continued to supply weapons to the Syrian military despite international criticism. Moscow wants to protect a key naval facility which it leases at the Syrian port of Tartous, which serves as Russia's sole Mediterranean base for its Black Sea fleet, and has forces at an air base in Latakia, President Assad's Shia Alawite heartland. In September 2015 Russia began launching air strikes against rebels, saying the so-called Islamic State (IS) and "all terrorists" were targets. However, Western-backed groups were reported to have been hit. President Vladimir Putin has though said that only a political solution can end the conflict.

10

USA

The US has accused President Assad of responsibility for widespread atrocities and says he must go. But it agrees on the need for a negotiated settlement to end the war and the formation of a transitional administration. The US supports Syria's main opposition alliance, the National Coalition, and provides limited military assistance to "moderate" rebels. Since September 2014, the US has been conducting air strikes on IS and other jihadist groups in Syria as part of an international coalition against the jihadist group. But it has avoided attacks that might benefit Mr Assad's forces or intervening in battles between them and the rebels. A programme to train and arm 5,000 Syrian rebels to take the fight to IS on the ground has suffered embarrassing setbacks, with few having even reached the frontline.

Turkey

The Turkish government has been a staunch critic of Mr Assad since the start of the uprising in Syria. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said it was impossible for Syrians to "accept a dictator who has led to the deaths of up to 350,000 people". Turkey is a key supporter of the Syrian opposition and has faced the burden of hosting almost two million refugees. But its policy of allowing rebel fighters, arms shipments and refugees to pass through its territory has been exploited by foreign jihadists wanting to join IS. Turkey agreed to let the US-led coalition against IS to use its air bases for strikes on Syria after an IS bomb attack in July 2015. They have though been critical of coalition support for the Syrian Kurdish Popular Protection Units (YPG) - an affiliate of the banned Turkish Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) deemed a terrorist group by Turkey, the EU and the US.

Saudi Arabia

The Sunni-ruled Gulf kingdom says President Assad cannot be part of a solution to the conflict and must hand over power to a transitional administration or be removed by force. Riyadh is a major provider of military and financial assistance to several rebel groups, including those with Islamist ideologies, and has called for a no-fly zone to be imposed to protect civilians from bombardment by Syrian government forces. Saudi leaders were angered by the Obama administration's decision not to intervene militarily in Syria after a 2013 chemical attack blamed on Mr Assad's forces. They later agreed to take part in the US-led coalition air campaign against IS, concerned by the group's advances and its popularity among a minority of Saudis.

Iran

Regional Shia power Iran is believed to be spending billions of dollars a year to prop up President Assad and his Alawite-dominated government, providing military advisers and subsidised weapons, as well as lines of credit and oil transfers. Mr Assad is Iran's closest Arab ally and Syria is the main transit point for Iranian weapons shipments to the Lebanese Shia Islamist movement, Hezbollah. Iran is also believed to have been influential in Hezbollah's decision to send fighters to western Syria to assist pro-Assad forces. Militiamen

11

from Iran and Iraq who say they are protecting Shia holy sites are also fighting alongside Syrian troops. Iran has proposed a peaceful transition in Syria that would culminate in free, multi-party elections. It was involved in peace talks over Syria's future for the first time when world powers met in Vienna.

Potential path to conflict resolution

Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, called for the following measures to chart a principled and integrated way forward in the Syrian Civil War:

First, ending the violence. It is irresponsible for foreign powers to give continued military support to parties in Syria that are committing atrocities and flagrantly violating fundamental principles of human rights and international law. I have urged the Security Council to impose an arms embargo. The sides will have to sit across from each other again at the negotiating table. How many more people must die before they get there?

Second, protecting people. The United Nations continues to manage a huge humanitarian relief effort. But the government continues to impose unconscionable access restrictions; it has removed medical supplies from aid convoys and deliberately starved and collectively punished communities it regards as sympathetic to the opposition. Some rebel groups have acted similarly. Moreover, the international community has provided barely a third of the funding needed for the relief effort. I continue to appeal for an end to the sieges and for unfettered humanitarian access across internal front lines and international borders.

Third, starting a serious political pro cess. The warring parties systematically blocked the relentless initiatives of two of the world's leading diplomats, Kofi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi. The presidential election earlier this month was a further blow, and failed to meet even minimal standards for credible voting. I will soon name a new Special Envoy to pursue a political solution and a transition to a new Syria. Regional countries have a special responsibility to help end this war. I welcome recent contacts between Iran and Saudi Arabia and hope that they will build confidence and reverse a destructive competition in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere. Syrian civil society groups are making courageous efforts to maintain the fabric of society and keep open channels of solidarity and communication.

Fourth, ensuring accountability for serious crimes. Last month, a resolution that aimed to refer the conflict to the International Criminal Court failed to pass the Security Council. I ask those Member States that say no to the ICC, but say they support accountability in Syria, to come forward with credible alternatives. The Syrian people have a right to justice and action against impunity.

Fifth, finishing the destruction of chemical weapons in Syria. The United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have worked together to destroy or remove from the country all of the declared materials in a once-large arsenal. Many Member States have provided critical resources and support for this challenging task, which was undertaken in an active war zone, and which will now be completed at various destruction

12

facilities outside Syria. While almost all of the killing in Syria is being done with conventional weapons, it has been essential to reinforce the global norm banishing the production and use of chemical weapons.

Sixth, addressing the regional dimensions of the conflict, including the extremist threat. Foreign fighters are in action on both sides, increasing the level of violence and exacerbating sectarian hatreds. While we should not blindly accept the Syrian Government demonization of all the opposition as terrorists, neither should we be blinded to the real threat of terrorists in Syria. The world must come together to eliminate funding and other support for Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. The ISIS is also a threat to all communities in Iraq; it is crucial for the region's leaders -- political and religious -- to call for restraint and avoid a spiral of attack and reprisal.

Questions to be addressed by delegates

• In the shorter term: how to protect human rights of civilians currently living in Syria

• In the longer term: how to improve access to basic provisions and welfare for Syrian civilians, including food, aid, water, sanitation and hygiene, health, and shelter

• In the longer term: how to rebuild civil society in Syria and lift its citizens from poverty – one in five Syrians now live in poverty - 30% of them in abject poverty

• How to enable access to education to Syrian children (both those who stayed in and refugees) so as not to put an entire generation at a disadvantage?

• How to best help refugees wanting to get to Europe; should there be legal ways for them to do so; as it is much cheaper to run refugee camps in the countries neighbouring Syria – some of which have already taken in a great number of refugees than in Europe, should humanitarian aid from countries around the world be allocated to funding refugee camps in Syria’s close vicinity rather than on the European refugee camps?

• In what ways can the countries who have accepted a lot of refugees be helped in managing them?

• How can the problem of smugglers profiteering from human trafficking Syrian citizens to Europe be addressed?

Sources and further reading

http://www.unrwa.org/sites/default/files/alienation_and_violence_impact_of_the_syria_crisis_in_2014_eng.pdf

http://www.un.org/sg/articles/articleFull.asp?TID=140&Type=Op-Ed&h=0

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47860

http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2014/31

http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

13

http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/iicisyria/pages/independentinternationalcommission.aspx

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/syria_en.pdf

http://www.iss.europa.eu/publications/detail/article/the-eu-and-syria-everything-but-force/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14703995

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26116868

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15901360

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23849587

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/20/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE86I0UD20120720

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-syria-crisis-barrelbombs-idUSKBN0NQ17F20150505

https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_syria_map/web/index.html

https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Fact_Sheet_SG_CW_Report.pdf

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/MDE2413702015ENGLISH.PDF

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-airstrikes-syria-civilians-us/411478/

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/syrian-civil-war-guide-isis/410746/

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/09/14/world/middleeast/syria-war-deaths.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/world/middleeast/arab-league-votes-to-suspend-syria-over-its-crackdown-on-protesters.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/meast/syria-civil-war-fast-facts/

http://www.vox.com/2015/9/5/9265437/syria-war-timeline

https://next.ft.com/content/b7884824-6723-11e5-a57f-21b88f7d973f#axzz3nLLwmEWx

http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/0cc55880-8d63-4b46-96e3-8a37655c7c10

http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/0cc55880-8d63-4b46-96e3-8a37655c7c10

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/11/201111381935847935.html

http://syriaundersiege.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/For-web-_REPORT.pdf

14

Topic B: Containment of nuclear proliferation in the light of the US-Iran deal.

Introduction

Nuclear proliferation is understood as he spread of nuclear weapons, fissionable material, and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information. Since World War II, especially in 1950s and 60s, a number of nuclear tests were conducted, and until the end of 1960s, five major nuclear states emerged: the United States, France, United Kingdom, China and Russia (Soviet Union at the time).

Alongside those developments, other countries have pursued the objective of obtaining nuclear capacity: India, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Israel and later North Korea. At the time the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was signed (1970) it was estimated that 20-30 states will be in possession of nuclear weapons by the year 2000. Thanks to the NPT and further international legal instruments, including the UN Security Council resolutions, nowadays nine states are believed to be capable of launching a nuclear weapon.

Various studies examined which countries would acquire nuclear weapons, when this would happen, how many weapons the two superpowers as well as other countries would assemble, and the impact these developments might have on world peace. Concerns ramped up after the September 11 attacks, when a possibility of nuclear weapons being acquired by “rogue states” or terrorist groups brought added urgency to the task of monitoring and containing nuclear proliferation.

The last decade was highlighted by talks with two major states: India and Iran. India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear weapon programmes and limit the latter programme in 2008 in exchange for entering into full civil nuclear cooperation with the United States. Iran, which was alleged to be in the process of developing a nuclear weapon, buckled under international pressure and UN-mandated sanctions in 2015 and entered into a ground-breaking agreement with the permanent members of the Security Council, Germany and the European Union.

Against this background, governments and experts have tried to predict what the future of nuclear proliferation is. Although there appears to be universal agreement as to the need for containing the spread of nuclear technology save for civil purposes and research, a phenomenon of “rogue states” (North Korea being the prime example in recent years) threatens this goal. Key strategies to prevent proliferation of nuclear arms include limiting the number of operating uranium enrichment plants and controlling the export of nuclear technology and fissile material.

15

Timeline

July 1945 – Operation Trinity, the first successful nuclear test conducted by the United States Army

August 1945 – bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, marking the first time in history that nuclear weapons were used in combat.

1946 – a resolution by the General Assembly established a Commission to deal with problems related to the discovery of, inter alia, atomic energy.

1957 – establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency with an objective to help nations develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. After the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was adopted, the Agency assumed the role of monitoring and providing assurances to the international community of the level of compliance with the Treaty of the parties thereto.

1970 – the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons comes into force.

1974 – Smiling Buddha, the inaugural nuclear test undertaken by India. It was the first confirmed nuclear weapons test by a nation outside the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, as recognised by the NPT.

1975 – the first meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a body tasked with reducing nuclear proliferation by regulating export and transfers of fissile material and other material capable of being used in nuclear weapon development, as well as with improving safeguards and protection on existing materials.

1992 – agreement between Iran and Pakistan on nuclear technology cooperation

1995 – parties to the NPT decided that the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely.

1998 – nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan. In response, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1172 condemning the tests and urging both countries to stop testing immediately as well as asking all countries at large to no longer carry out nuclear weapons tests. India and Pakistan were called upon to ease developing ballistic missiles and fissile material.

2006 – North Korea conducted its first nuclear test. An underground detonation on the same site followed in 2009. An alleged third detonation took place in 2013, in response to which Japan summoned an emergency United Nations meeting and South Korea raised its military alert status.

2008 – India-United States nuclear deal.

2010 – a Review Conference of the parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in New York.

2015 – Iran nuclear deal.

16

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Mission of Non-Proliferation

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (known as NPT) was opened for signature in 1968 and went into force two years later.

The treaty recognizes five states as nuclear-weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council). NPT is based on the premise that non-nuclear states “agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals” . More countries have adhered to the NPT 1

than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement.

NPT obliged nuclear weapon states not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). Non-nuclear weapon states promised not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). Article VI voices a commitment in the area of nuclear disarmament, saying that: “each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.” Finally, NPT advocates peaceful use of nuclear energy; Article IV allows for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in countries interested therein, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons . 2

As of 2015, five members of the United Nations have not become a party to NPT: India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and South Sudan. All of them bar South Sudan are deemed to be in possession of nuclear weapons. In 2008 a deal between the United States and India was reached, pursuant to which India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and to place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight. In exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India. For some years there were controversies over who would be held liable in case of a nuclear accident; this was settled in early 2015 when an additional agreement between USA and India transferred the financial risk to insurers in the case of an accident . 3

Pakistan conducted two nuclear tests in 1998, although according to the main architect of the country’s nuclear programme, A.Q. Khan, it had reached nuclear capacity in 1984. Originally perceived as a matter of national survival as a means of protection against developments in nuclear engineering in neighbouring India, Pakistan now regards its nuclear arsenal as a sign of regional strength. It was revealed in 2007 that from the end of 2001 the United States had provided material assistance to aid Pakistan in guarding its nuclear

Arms Control Association, '' (Avoiding the Tipping Point, 2004) <http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1

2004_11/BookReview> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations, (NPT Treaty) <http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html> accessed 30 2

October 2015

Soutik Biswas, BBC, '' (Will the India-US nuclear deal work?, ) <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/3

world-asia-india-30978152> accessed 30 October 2015

17

material, warheads and laboratories . In 2010 a report floated that due to a danger of 4

seizure of nuclear materials by militants, United States had sent an elite unit to Pakistan to guard their nuclear stockpile . 5

Israel practices a so-called policy of deliberate ambiguity with regard to nuclear weapons and is currently the only country in the world actively denying possession of nuclear capacity. It is widely believed that Israel conducted a nuclear test in 1966. At the same time, the state pursues military actions and policies aimed at preventing Arab countries in the region from acquiring nuclear weapons, an example being Operation orchard in 2007 when the Israeli Defence Force launched an airstrike on a suspected nuclear reactor in the Deir ez-Zor region of Syria . 6

North Korea has conducted 3 nuclear tests, in 2006, 2009 and 2013. The country is no longer a party to NPT.

In April 2014 the Republic of Marshall Islands sued the nine nuclear-armed States (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea) to the International Court of Justice, claiming they are in violation of their nuclear disarmament obligations. Residents of the island, which was the site of 67 nuclear tests from 1946 to 1958 asserted they had been suffering serious health and environmental effects ever since. Marshall Islands argue that the nuclear states’ “long delay in fulfilling the obligations enshrined in article VI of the NPT constitutes a flagrant denial of human justice” . 7

Iran nuclear deal

Development of nuclear technology in Iran began in early 1970s, through backing of the United States. Iran signed the NPT in 1968 as a non-nuclear weapons state and ratified it in 1970. After the Revolution in 1979 the nuclear programme was brought to a halt due to Ayatollah Khomeini’s rejection of nuclear power. However, in late 1980s, with assistance from Pakistan, the programme was restarted. In 2002 the existence of a heavy-water production facility in Arak as well as an enrichment facility in Natanz were revealed to the public. In November 2004 Iran entered into a so-called Paris Agreement with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, whereby Iran pledged to temporarily suspend enrichment and conversion activities, and specifically “the manufacture and import of gas centrifuges and their components; the assembly, installation, testing or operation of gas centrifuges; work to undertake any plutonium separation, or to construct or operate any

David E. Sanger, William J. Broad, '' (US Secretly Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms, 2007) 4

<http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/washington/18nuke.html?ref=us> accessed 29 October 2015

Christina Lamb, '' (Elite US Troops Ready to Combat Pakistani Nuclear Hijacks, 2010) <http://5

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24414.htm> accessed 29 October 2015

Spiegel Online, Hamburg, Germany, '' (The Story of 'Operation Orchard': How Israel Destroyed 6

Syria's Al Kibar Nuclear Reactor, ) <http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-story-of-operation-orchard-how-israel-destroyed-syria-s-al-kibar-nuclear-reactor-a-658663.html> accessed 30 October 2015

Peter Weiss, '' (The Marshall Islands Versus the World’s Nuclear Weapons States, 2015) <https://7

www.thenation.com/article/marshall-islands-versus-worlds-nuclear-weapons-states/> accessed 29 October 2015

18

plutonium separation installation; and all tests or production at any uranium conversion installation” . 8

After Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became President of Iran, the talks were abruptly ended and Iran unilaterally broke the Paris Agreement by resuming enrichment at Natanz. This prompted the IAEA to refer Iran to the UN Security Council (see below the section “Previous UN Security Council action”). In July 2006 the country reopened the Arak heavy water production plant.

A series of bilateral talks between Iran and the United States commenced in Oman in March 2013. In November 2013 the P5+1 countries (permanent members of the Security Council and Germany) and Iran agreed to a Joint Plan of Action, an interim agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, which consisted of a short-term freeze of portions of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for decreased economic sanctions on Iran. The parties pledged to continue talks and work towards a long-term agreement. IAEA intensified its inspections in Iran, concluding in a January 2014 report that Iran was adhering to the terms of the interim agreement, including stopping enrichment of uranium to 20%, reducing the stockpile of 20% uranium and halting work on the Arak heavy-water reactor . 9

On 2nd April 2015 Iran and the P5+1 countries reached a provisional framework agreement. The underlying assumption of the document was that most of the sanctions imposed on Iran would be lifted in exchange for limits on Iran's nuclear programs extending for at least ten years . 10

The final version of the deal was adopted on 14 July 2015 in Vienna between Iran, the P5+1, and the European Union. The main provisions of the deal are listed below : 11

• Iran agreed to cut its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 98% and eliminate its stockpile of medium-enriched uranium

• The number of active centrifuges shall be limited by 2/3 over a period of 15 years

• Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium at its Fordow facility for at least 15 years

• Iran is only allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67% and only at the facility in Natanz for at least 15 years

• In the same period, Iran also agreed not to build any new uranium-enriching or heavy-water facilities

• Whilst at the time the deal was signed, the estimated timeline for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon was 2-3 months, now this period has been extended to a year, for a at least 10 years

• The IAEA will have regular access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities; inspectors will also have access to the supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program

International Atomic Energy Agency, '' (Paris Agreement, 2004) <https://www.iaea.org/sites/8

default/files/publications/documents/infcircs/2004/infcirc637.pdf> accessed 30 October 2015

International Atomic Energy Agency, '' (Monitoring and Verification in the Islamic Republic of Iran in 9

relation to the Joint Plan of Action, 2014) <https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gov2014-2.pdf> accessed 30 October 2015

US Department of State, '' (Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Regarding the 10

Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Program, 2015) <http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/04/240170.htm> accessed 30 October 2015

Kenneth Katzman and PK Kerr, Iran Nuclear Agreement (Congressional Research Service 2015)11

19

• The Arak reactor will be rebuilt, based on a design that is agreed to by the P5+1, so as to promote the peaceful use of nuclear technology

• Iran will not build any new heavy water reactors for at least 15 years

• U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be lifted after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps; the same applies to UN Security Council resolutions

The deal met with almost unanimously positive reactions around the world, also from the Arab states from the Persian Gulf (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Qatar) and from other countries in the Muslim world. A known nuclear-weapon state, Pakistan, welcomed the agreement, saying that “reciprocal confidence-building measures ... augur well for peace and security in our region”.

A notable exception was Israel. Prime Minister B. Netanyahu was quoted: “When you are willing to make an agreement at any cost, this is the result. From the initial reports, we can already conclude that this agreement is a historic mistake for the world” . 12

North Korea stated that it had no interest in a nuclear disarmament agreement.

Future of (non-)proliferation

A variety of opinions has been expressed with regard to the future of nuclear weapons. Sceptics doubt whether unequal distribution of nuclear arsenal (majority of which is concentrated in P5 countries) coupled with increasing capabilities of states considered politically unstable or unpredictable (e.g. North Korea) are conducive to maintaining the non-proliferation movement. On the other hand, however, some commentators point to the implausibility of a potential nuclear attack and believe that nuclear capabilities have a role to play in preserving the balance of powers internationally. Wide-reaching disarmament proposals have come from a wide variety of sources, including nuclear weapon states, coalitions of heavily industrialized and developing states, and regional entities as well as a growing number of diverse nongovernmental organizations.

Global Zero, a think-tank devoted to the phased elimination of nuclear weapons has stated that nuclear weapons are not well-suited to address current international security threats: “Nuclear weapons cannot be used [to] tackle threats posed by rogue states, failed states, proliferation, regional conflicts, terrorism, cyber warfare” . On the contrary, the World Future 13

Council has cautioned that nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to humanity: “Nuclear weapons are a crime against future generations because they have the power to obliterate life on earth as we know it and cause unimaginable damage spanning many generations to come” . An expert from the Peace research institute Frankfurt, quoted by the Deustche 14

Rachel Rodriguez, CNN, '' (World reacts to historic Iran nuclear deal) <http://edition.cnn.com/12

2015/07/14/middleeast/iran-deal-social-reaction/> accessed 30 October 2015

Debatingeurope.eu, '' (What will be the future role of nuclear weapons?, 2015) <http://13

www.debatingeurope.eu/2015/05/15/will-future-role-nuclear-weapons/> accessed 29 October 2015

Worldfuturecouncil.org, '' (Nuclear Weapons “Hanging by the slenderest of threads”, 2015) 14

<http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/nuclear_weapons0.html> accessed 29 October 2015

20

Welle, argued that in the last years the world has seen many nuclear “success stories that are often overlooked. In the past, there were many more worrisome countries” . 15

A report by the Brookings Institution highlights the importance of short-sighted geopolitical calculations. It suggests that “if threshold states perceive the United States either as antagonistic power or as an unreliable ally, they are more likely to pursue independent nuclear weapons programs”. In the light of those assumptions, states such as North Korea, Israel and Pakistan may predicate their nuclear behaviour on their relationship with global superpowers, particularly the United States. An alternative source of nuclear turmoil is suspected in the activity of terrorist and militant groups, with the Brookings analysis stressing that the menace of nuclear terrorism will become increasingly important over the next decade. This refers all the more strongly to countries like Pakistan, which face the challenge of protecting their nuclear arsenal from terrorist activity in the region . 16

F. J. Dyson, writing for the Foreign Affairs in 1960, predicted that nuclear technology would prove important in shaping the political landscape of the future and posited that it is not the nuclear weapons that pose an existential threat to humanity but lack thereof: “during the period of international anarchy, we have a moral choice, either to strive to the utmost to remain in the forefront of nuclear weapons technology or to let the leadership pass into the hands of others. These are the only two alternatives before us. We do not have the power to change the laws of nature so that the possibilities for developing new weapons will disappear. Our moral choice is, either to possess the new weapons ourselves, or to leave it to chance to decide who shall possess them” . 17

The vision of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs is that “potential effects from the use of weapons of mass destruction - especially nuclear weapons - demand their elimination”. They also believe that “the very possession of such weapons necessarily entails risks of use” . 18

Andy Rydell, writing for the Arms Control Association, lists a number of viable proposals with a view to bolstering non-proliferation which have been put forward since the beginning of the 21st century : 19

• Reductions of the largest nuclear arsenals

• Scaling back of the nuclear-weapon delivery systems

• Protection of fissile material recovered from non-deployed weapons

• Entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty; adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996, it obliges parties thereto “not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control”, as well as to

Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com), '' (The future of nuclear weapons) <http://www.dw.com/en/the-15

future-of-nuclear-weapons/a-16611159> accessed 30 October 2015

Moeed Yusuf, '' (Predicting Proliferation: The History of the Future of Nuclear Weapons) <http://16

www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2009/1/nuclear-proliferation-yusuf/01_nuclear_proliferation_yusuf.PDF> accessed 30 October 2015

F. J. Dyson, '' (The Future Development of Nuclear Weapons, ) <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/17

articles/1960-04-01/future-development-nuclear-weapons> accessed 30 October 2015

UN Dffice for Disarmament Affairs, '' (Vision) <http://www.un.org/disarmament/about/vision/> 18

accessed 30 October 2015

A. Rydell, '' (The Future of Nuclear Arms: A World United and Divided by Zero, 2009) <https://19

www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_04/Rydell> accessed 30 October 2015

21

“refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion”; as of 2015 the Treaty is yet to come into force since 8 states have not ratified it (China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, United States, India, North Korea and Pakistan) 20

• The no-first-use doctrine, according to which offensive use of nuclear weapons is banned

• Security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon states

• Adherence by the nuclear-weapon states to the protocols of nuclear weapon free-zone treaties; zones were defined by the General Assembly Resolution 3472 B as “any zone recognized as such by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which any group of States, in the free exercises of their sovereignty, has established by virtue of a treaty or convention whereby: (a) The statute of total absence of nuclear weapons to which the zone shall be subject, including the procedure for the delimitation of the zone, is defined; (b) An international system of verification and control is established to guarantee compliance with the obligations deriving from that statute” 21

• De-alerting – physical interference with nuclear warheads mounted on ballistic missiles which remain on high-alert, launch-ready status, so that the likelihood of using them accidentally or capriciously is reduced.

Previous UN Security Council action

Resolution 255 (1968) was a reaction to a significant number of states joining the NPT. The Resolution recognised that aggression with nuclear weapons or the threat of it against a non-nuclear-weapon state would create a situation in which the Security Council, and above all its nuclear-weapon State members, would have to act immediately in accordance with their obligations under the UN Charter . 22

In 1990s the UNSC passed a number of resolutions concerning the monitoring of alleged Iraq’s nuclear programme (687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991), 1060 (1996), 1115 (1997), 1205 (1998)).

A Presidential Statement from January 1992 (S/23500) stressed the importance of the decision of many countries to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and emphasized the integral role in the implementation of that Treaty of fully effective IAEA safeguards. The

Mission of the United States to Switzerland, '' (History of Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty – 20

A fact sheet) <https://geneva.usmission.gov/2012/04/12/history-of-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-a-fact-sheet/> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, '' (Nuclear weapon free-zones) <http://21

www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NWFZ.shtml> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations Security Council, '' (Resolution 255 (1968)) <http://22

www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/{65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9}/Disarm SRES255.pdf> accessed 30 October 2015

22

members of the Council promised to take appropriate measures in the case of any violations notified to them by the IAEA . 23

Resolution 825 (1993) appealed to North Korea to reconsider its decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allow weapons inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into the country . 24

In Resolution 984 (1995) the Council stated that every effort should be made to avoid the danger of nuclear war, and gave security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states. The nuclear weapon states (the permanent members of the Council) promised that in the event that a country is threatened or attacked with nuclear weapons they will act according to relevant provisions in the Charter of the United Nations. Technical, medical, scientific or humanitarian assistance shall be tendered to non-nuclear weapon states should such a need arise . 25

Resolution 1373 (2001) expressed concern over the connection between international terrorism and the illegal movement of nuclear materials. The resolution underscores the need to enhance coordination of national, regional and international efforts in order to formulate a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security . 26

Resolution 1718 (October 2006) called upon North Korea to refrain from conducting further nuclear tests, to suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme, and to abandon all its nuclear programmes in a transparent and verifiable manner. North Korea was obliged to return to six-party talks (DPRK, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, USA) without a precondition . 27

Altogether, from 2006 to 2010, the Security Council subsequently adopted six resolutions concerning Iran's nuclear program: 1696 (July 2006), 1737 (December 2006), 1747 (March 2007), 1803 (March 2008), 1835 (September 2008), and 1929 (June 2010). Resolution 1737, in retaliation for Iran’s failure to stop its uranium enrichment program following Resolution 1696, imposed sanctions, particularly froze assets supporting Iran’s nuclear activities. International trade in gas, oil and petrochemicals with Iran was severely restricted, as were business dealings with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps . Resolution 1929 28

tightened the arms embargo and recommended that states inspect Iranian cargo and prevent the provision of financial services used for sensitive nuclear activities. Moreover,

United Nations Security Council, '' (Statement of the President of the Security Council S/23500) 23

<http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/{65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9}/PKO S 23500.pdf> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations Security Council, '' (Resolution 825 (1993)) <http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/24

UNDOC/GEN/N93/280/49/IMG/N9328049.pdf?OpenElement> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations Security Council, '' (Resolution 984 (1995)) <http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/25

naruhodo/data/pdf/data2-2.pdf> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations Security Council, '' (Resolution 1373 (2001)) <http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/26

specialmeetings/2012/docs/United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001).pdf> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations Security Council, '' (Resolution 1718 (2006)) <http://www.treasury.gov/resource-27

center/sanctions/Documents/1718.pdf> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations Security Council, '' (Resolution 1696 (2006)) <http://www.un.org/press/en/2006/28

sc8792.doc.htm> accessed 30 October 2015

23

states were authorized to prohibit financial institutions operating on their territory from conducting business in Iran as well as with Iranian companies . 29

Resolution 1887 reaffirmed its commitment to “to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in accordance with the goals of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)” and urged the Parties to the NPT to undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear arms reduction and disarmament . 30

In response to the Iran nuclear deal, the Council adopted Resolution 2231 on 20 July 2015 in which the Council unanimously supported the deal and laid out a plan for lifting the sanctions on Iran . 31

Questions a resolution should answer

• Is the Iran nuclear deal conducive to maintain peace and stability in the Middle East?

• What is the future role of nuclear weapons?

• Is it possible to conceive of an international security threat that would prompt he international community (or indeed one of its members) to detonate a nuclear weapon?

• Is it tenable to say that one beneficial side effect of nuclear proliferation has been an advancement in chemical and biological research and therefore nuclear proliferation shall be continued?

• What are the main motivations for developing nuclear weapons? May these objectives be accommodated in some other way by the international community?

• What safeguards may be envisaged with a view to ensuring that the NPT is complied with?

• How may the international community incentivise major countries (notably India, Pakistan and Israel), all of whom are deemed to be in possession of nuclear weapons, to ratify the Treaty or open themselves to any significant form of international nuclear oversight?

• What peaceful uses of nuclear weapons may and shall be cultivated in the future?

United Nations Security Council, '' (Resolution 1929 (2010)) <http://www.un.org/press/en/2010/29

sc9948.doc.htm> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations Security Council, '' (Resolution 1887 (2009)) <http://30

www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/{65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9}/NKorea SRES 1887.pdf> accessed 30 October 2015

United Nations Security Council, '' (Resolution 2231 (2015)) <http://www.un.org/en/sc/inc/31

pages/pdf/pow/RES2231E.pdf> accessed 30 October 2015

24