Special Political and Decolonization Committee
(SPECPOL)
Topic A: Buildup of Nuclear Arsenals in
Turbulent Areas
Chair: Meghana Puri
Moderator: Samuel Young
Vice Chairs: Emily Trokey, Alain Sherman,
Edward Huddart
April 10 – 13, 2014
Puri 1
Buildup of Nuclear Arsenals in Turbulent Areas
Introduction
Estimates suggest that there are more than 17,000 nuclear warheads held by nine nations:
United States, Russia, France, Great Britain, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea
(Wittner). More than 90% of these weapons belong to Russia and the US (Wittner). In recent years,
the supplies of the United States, Russia, France, and Great Britain have fallen while the remaining 5
nations have increased their supplies (Fact Sheet). These nations have the ability to destroy their
own region as well as surrounding regions with grave consequences, raising significant concern
regarding these arsenals. Historically the numbers of warheads inventoried by each nation has been
kept excessively private. However, the US, Russia, Britain, and France have all tried to provide
transparency in the past and present arsenals (Sage Journals). In contrast, Iran, China, India,
Pakistan, and North Korea have all refused to provide any details, forcing other nations to estimate
their nuclear force. This secrecy concerns many nations because, in addition to not knowing the
extent of nuclear capabilities these nations have, they also lack understanding of how or with what
force these nations can use the weapons.
Internationally, the latest nations that talks have been held with are North Korea and Iran.
In November 2013, the United States reached a secret deal with Iran to limit their enriched uranium
capabilities in exchange for 4 billion dollars of Iranian oil sales revenues to be unfrozen from their
account (The Guardian). In East Asia, South Korea is meeting in China to discuss concerns about
North Korea’s inventory (Global Post). Furthermore, in October 2013, the United States met with
North Korea to discuss a disarmament pact, which North Korea rejected.
SPECPOL is here to address the potential political concerns regarding nuclear proliferation
within unstable regions. The political systems of Iran, as well as the Middle East in general, remain
Puri 2
volatile. Weaponry of a nuclear caliber falling into the hands of dangerous groups like the Taliban is
a concern for both the world and the surrounding region, and thus must be addressed immediately.
North Korea’s excitability with the concept of war is concerning even her allies. This adds another
layer to the concern of North Korea retaliating with nuclear force. SPECPOL’s interest is to
evaluate the current political environment in which nuclear arms are being created and to assess the
potential negative outcomes as a result of non-action. They are to then report their findings to the
Security Council for further review, as is commonplace for these matters of SPECPOL.
This committee hopes to reach a resolution that outlines their thoughts on who should
harbor nuclear capability and where. The focus should be on the political side of nuclear power, and
not specifically on disarmament. This committee expects there to be challenges to the resolution
from nations who have increasing nuclear arsenals. The Dais encourages members to come to a
conclusion that all nations are willing to pass.
Puri 3
Background and Current Situation
The most relevant issue regarding nuclear arsenals at this time is the recent nuclear deal
passed regarding the Iranians, and pushing back on their nuclear program. This deal was passed on
November 24th, 2013, specifically between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States,
France, Germany, Russia, China and Britain. This dispute is almost years old, and this agreement is
seen as being a step in the right direction when it comes to nuclear safety for the world. Essentially,
the deal calls for Iran to halt the progress it has been making on its nuclear program. It sets several
different limits on certain enrichment programs and bars Iran from constructing further uranium
plants (Reuters 11/29/13). In exchange for limiting some of its nuclear activity, damaging sanctions
have been eased on Iran. The deal is expected to start early in 2014, and allows room for further
negotiation in search of an overarching deal.
At this time, however, there are several concerns with the deal. Israel, the only other nation
in the region that is as far along in its nuclear program, has come out definitively opposed to the
deal. Israel doesn’t believe that the deal fully ceases the enrichment of uranium in Iran. The deal only
limits the enrichment, but does not fully dismantle it. Therefore, in the near future, Iran could still
pose a nuclear threat to the surrounding countries. Additionally, while the deal indicates hopeful
progress for the region, it also leaves much to be desired. There is still much that is relatively
unknown about Iran’s nuclear program, which makes it more difficult for the United States and the
other involved nations to come to an agreement about a comprehensive deal that makes progress
towards nuclear safety in the world. In the final deal, many steps will need to be taken in order to
more efficiently address nuclear safety issues.
However, other countries outside of Iran have been subjects of concern for countries
searching for nuclear peace. Although most of the Middle Eastern countries came out in favor of
Puri 4
the Geneva Deal, Saudi Arabia seems to be the outlier. They were by far the slowest country to
come out in favor of the deal, and in the months previous to the passing of the deal, they made their
discontent clear (Time 11/26/13). They even expressed their desire to research and build up their
own nuclear arsenal, refusing to stand by idly as the nuclear power of Iran is not sufficiently curbed.
They have also shown support for Pakistan’s nuclear program, expressing their willingness to
purchase a nuclear weapon from the Pakistanis. Going forward, Saudi Arabia remains a valid
concern for the top world powers.
In addition, North Korea and its nuclear potential have worried the international
community. In the midst of the upbeat discussion regarding Iran, North Korea has been all but
abandoned. Several South Korean nuclear experts have stated that North Korea is extremely
unlikely to dismantle their nuclear program any time soon even with the steadfast encouragement
from the international community that searches for nuclear peace. In fact, talks between the major
powers that were involved in the Geneva deal and North Korea have been dormant since 2008
(Global Post 11/13/13). Although the United States and South Korea have repeatedly demanded
for North Korea to cease their nuclear program, they have not yet shown any desire to do so.
Therefore, going forward, North Korea must be addressed in a final deal regarding nuclear arsenals.
Another concern of many in the international committee is the arsenal of those top world
powers with existing nuclear stockpiles. Although several pacts between the major superpowers call
for disarmament, there has been very little initiative to do so. Pursuant to the nuclear NonProliferation Treaty in 1970, those with nuclear weapons should disarm them, and those without,
should not begin to acquire them. It seems simple enough on the surface, but clearly this deal leaves
much to be desired, as there is still a substantial number of weapons under the jurisdiction and
control of several countries (Guardian 11/25/13). These signatories like Britain, the US, Russia,
Puri 5
China, and France, all show an eagerness to police states who aspire for weapons, but show
hesitation in disarming their own. Going forward, this must be a topic of consideration for
negotiations regarding the safety from nuclear weapons in the international community.
Puri 6
Bloc Positions:
The countries who currently possess nuclear weapons are Russia, the United States, France,
China, UK, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea, although the latter four do not have any
operational or strategic weapons in their arsenal. However, these are all countries to consider for
SPECPOL going forward, as they all have nuclear potential.
Russia
In the past, Russia and the United States have signed a series of arms control accords that
limit their nuclear arsenals. However, evidence suggests that Russia has not strictly adhered to these
agreements. In 1987, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was passed, which prohibits
development, testing, or deployment of any nuclear arms with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers
(Daily Beast 11/26/13). Although the exact information is classified, reports have been released that
detail Russia testing several different missiles that violated this treaty. The fact that these violations
have not been brought to the forefront of the international stage indicate that similar foul-play could
occur with the most recent Geneva Pact. Additionally, Russia has supported Iran’s demand that it
has a right to continue with its nuclear program; therefore, the previously stated scenario is even
more likely.
United States
The United States has remained steadily in favor of reducing the nuclear program in Iran,
and cheered the passing of the recent deal in Geneva. As an ally of Israel, they hope that this deal
will reduce the chance of a conflict in the Middle East, with Iran less likely to make a strike on Israel.
Although many in the international committee don’t believe that this is the case, President Obama
has assured that the United States will continue to closely consult with Israel in its negotiations with
Iran to keep the peace (CNN 11/23/13). However, some countries were concerned with the
Puri 7
sanction relief that the U.S. will provide. Compared with the actual value of the sanctions from the
past several years, the relief makes only a small dent. The United States has continuously made
strides towards reducing the threat of a nuclear conflict. In fact, many believe that the Iranian deal
was an indication of progress for the Americans, as it was an important first step in addressing the
world’s concerns with the Iranian nuclear potential.
Israel
Due to its proximity to Iran, Israel has been heavily involved in the talks that occurred in
Geneva. It also has been central to practically all of the talks regarding nuclear arms due to the
volatility of the Middle East region. However, Prime Minster Netanyahu expressed discontent with
the deal. He has stated that he does not believe that it has improved the issue, and compared the
deal with the agreement with North Korea in 2005. He points out that instead of calling for Iran to
cease all uranium enrichment, the deal calls for Iran to simply reduce the uranium enrichment, but
not completely eliminate. This still poses a threat to Israel. Additionally, it could be easily reversed
within the next couple of years, and Iran could be back to the same threat level that they are at
presently (CNN 11/24/13). Essentially, Israel has been most steadfast about being careful about
negotiations; they are the most distrustful of Tehran, and believe that they are still a threat,
regardless of the pact that has been passed.
Iran
As the subject of the recent nuclear talks in Geneva, Iran certainly has a lot to say about this
topic. Their nuclear potential has been stunted because of the deal. Their uranium enrichment has
been critically slowed, specifically to halt enrichment levels above 5%. Additionally, they must not
construct any additionally enrichment facilities. Additionally, the deal also calls for Iran to open up
their facilities to intrusive monitoring, as the deal puts it (CNN 11/23/13). Although many of the
Puri 8
sanctions have been lifted, some still remain on several sectors of the economy like shipping and
shipbuilding, as well as on Iran’s military program. Going forward, Iran’s interests remain unclear,
although to the international committee, it can now be assumed that they are willing to be somewhat
compliant.
Other Countries
Although recent talks have focused solely around Iran and its nuclear potential, many other
countries remain closely involved with this issue across the world. One example is North Korea.
Although South Korea came out in favor of the Geneva accord in hopes that it would inspire North
Korea to reduce their nuclear potential, experts actually make the opposite conclusion (WSJ
11/25/13). Essentially, because Iran was able to keep its uranium enrichment programs and were
just required to reduce it, North Korea can interpret this notion as not being a restriction on their
own program. So far, North Korea has said nothing publicly about the Geneva agreement. As many
of the countries in SPECPOL are near these nations, or are allies with countries or are in the same
region, practically everyone has something at stake in these discussions.
Puri 9
Questions to Consider:
•
What is the current state of your country’s nuclear arsenal, if it exists?
•
How advanced is your nuclear research program?
•
What is your country’s position on the recent treaty in Geneva Pact?
•
Does your country wish to reduce the levels of nuclear weapons in the world?
•
What are the positions of your country’s allies?
•
What steps has your nation taken to reduce/increase nuclear arsenals in the world?
•
Which treaties has your country been involved in with respect to nuclear arms?
•
How involved was your nation in the Geneva Pact?
•
Has your nation ever deceived the world about its nuclear arsenal?
•
Does your country actively seek treaties to reduce nuclear arsenals?
Puri 10
Recommended Sources
•
CNN.com
•
Wall Street Journal
•
New York Times
•
BBC
•
Christian Science Monitor
•
Any reputable domestic or international news source can be used to find information regarding
recent nuclear talks.
Puri 11
Bibliography
Baker, Aryn. "World." Saudi Arabia Considers Nuclear Weapons After Irans Geneva Deal Comments. Time
Magazine, 26 Nov. 2013. Web.
Boghani, Priyanka. “China, Russia, and France concerned about North Korea.” Global Post.
November 11, 2013. Web
Borger, Julian and Dehghan, Saeed Kamali. “Secret talks helped forge Iran nuclear deal.” The
Guardian. November 25, 2013. Web.
Dahl, Fredrik. "Iran Sees Nuclear Deal Implementation Starting by Early January."Reuters. Thomson
Reuters, 29 Nov. 2013. Web.
Finnegan, Conor, Jim Acosta, Jim Sciutto, and Chelsea J. Carter. "Iran Nuclear Deal: President
Barack Obama's Legacy Moment on Iran." CNN. Cable News Network, 24 Nov. 2013.
Web.
Hudson, Kate. "After the Iran Deal, Who next for Nuclear Disarmament?"Theguardian.com. Guardian
News and Media, 25 Nov. 2013. Web.
Kristensen, Hans M, and Norris, Robert S. “Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories 1945-2013.” Sage
Journals. November 11, 2013. Web.
Kwaak, Jeyup S. "How Does North Korea View the Iran Nuclear Deal?" Korea Real Time RSS. N.p.,
25 Nov. 2013. Web.
McNiesh, Lesley. “Fact Sheet: Global Nuclear Weapons Inventories in 2013.” The Center for Arms
Control and Non-Proliferation. November 11, 2013. Web.
Rogin, Josh. The Daily Beast. Newsweek/Daily Beast, 26 Nov. 2013. Web.
Puri 12
Simpson, David, Dan Merica, Michael Schwartz, Joe Sterling, and Yousuf Basil. "Israeli PM
Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal 'historic Mistake'" CNN. Cable News Network, 24 Nov.
2013. Web.
Staff, CNN. "Breaking down the Iran Nuclear Deal." CNN. Cable News Network, 24 Nov. 2013.
Web.
Yonhap News Agency. "Chance of N. Korea Abandoning Nuclear Weapons 'near Zero':
Expert." GlobalPost. N.p., 13 Nov. 2013. Web.
Wittner, Lawrence. “Eliminating Nuclear Weapons is Just as Important as Eliminating Chemical
Weapons.” AntiWar. November 11, 2013. Web.
Puri 13