United Nations
Security Council
Hello delegates!
Welcome to the Security Council at UMMUN 2006. My name is Nauzad Dustoor
and I am privileged to be this year’s committee director. This is my 4th year
running a committee for UMMUN. I am currently a senior studying economics
and political science, with plans for a job and eventually graduate school for
business, law, and/or international relations. Please feel free to talk to me about
my experiences here at the University of Michigan.
I am extremely excited to be working with this year's assistant director, Dan
Jenkins. Dan worked with Security Council last year, so his familiarity with the
committee will be a great resource for all of us. Please use the knowledge and
experience of our staff as much as possible, and feel free to ask us any questions
you may have about Ann Arbor and the University. I hope you are as excited
about participating in UMMUN this year as we are.
For this year’s topics, we have chosen two extremely important issues: 1) the
current situation with North Korea 2) the expansion/modification of the Security
Council. North Korea is a rapidly changing situation that is on the minds of
leaders across the globe, so please pay attention to recent developments. This
promises to be an exciting topic, and I expect a vigorous debate. Meanwhile,
Security Council reform is an issue that has also gained steam recently as
countries like India and Japan press for permanent seats on the council. Our
committee’s decision on reform of the Security Council will determine the future
relevance of the UN as a world body promoting international peace and wellbeing.
In preparation for the conference, each delegate should read the background
guides we have provided, as well as gather as much secondary research on the
issues as he/she can. Pre-prepared resolutions are not allowed at UMMUN, but
delegates must come to the conference with specific ideas for how they hope to
approach this year's topics. We look forward to welcoming this year's delegates
to the greatest university in the world, the University of Michigan! We hope you
will take this opportunity to explore all that UMMUN, the University, and the
city of Ann Arbor have to offer. We are here to make your experience at UofM as
worthwhile as we can. Go Blue and see you in January!
Sincerely,
Nauzad M. Dustoor
Security Council
2
DAIS STAFF
•
Director - Nauzad Dustoor
•
Assistant Director - Daniel Jenkins
COMMITTEE MISSION
The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security. It is the central and most important body of the
UN. The functions of the council include:
•
to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the
principles and purposes of the United Nations
•
to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to
international friction
•
to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate
armaments
•
to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression
and to recommend what action should be taken
•
to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures
not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression
•
to take military action against an aggressor
•
to recommend the admission of new Members
TOPICS
Topic A: The North Korean Situation
Topic B: Reform in the Security Council
Security Council
3
TOPIC A
The North Korean Situation
INTRODUCTION
The situation in North Korea is currently the last and longest-running
conflict of the Cold War. Following World War II, Korea was split in two, with
the northern half coming under Soviet-backed Communist control. After failing
in the Korean War (1950-1953) to defeat the US-sponsored republic in the
southern half by military force, North Korea and its founder Kim Il Sung
adopted a policy of diplomatic and economic "self-reliance" as a check against
excessive Communist Soviet or Chinese influence. Kim's son, the current
President Kim Jong Il, officially took control after Il Sung’s death in 1994.
Kim Jong Il now rules over what is considered to be one of the world’s
most oppressive regimes. Decades of an unyielding, state-controlled system have
led to economic stagnation and a cult of personality surrounding the “Great
Leader.” International aid agencies have estimated that up to two million people
have died since the mid-1990s as a result of massive food shortages caused by
natural disasters, economic mismanagement, and widespread corruption on the
part of party cadres. North Korea’s totalitarian state also stands accused of
systematic human rights abuses, including reports of torture, public executions,
slave labor, forced abortions, and infanticides. A US-based human rights group
has estimated that there are up to 200,000 political prisoners in what amount to
modern day concentration camps.
Since the mid-1990’s, North Korea has relied heavily on international food
aid to feed its population while continuing to expend state resources to maintain
an army of about one million, one of the world’s largest. North Korea's longrange missile development and research into nuclear, chemical, and biological
weapons and massive conventional armed forces are of major concern to the
international community. Experts agree that North Korea has warheads capable
Security Council
4
of striking Japan or the Western coast of the United States. In the short run,
ending the DPRK’s weapons program may be the best option, but most experts
agree that any long-term solution will involve political and economic reform in
Pyongyang, and then the reunification of the Korean Peninsula.
HISTORY
The UN Security Council on 11 May 1993 passed a resolution urging the
DPRK to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and to
implement the 1991 North-South de-nuclearization agreement. It also urged all
member states to push the DPRK to respond positively to this resolution and to
make possible a solution.
The US responded by holding single-party talks with the DPRK in June
1993. This led to a joint statement outlining the basic principles for continued USDPRK dialogue and North Korea's "suspending" its withdrawal from the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. A second round of talks was held July 1993. These talks
set the guidelines for resolving the nuclear issue, improving U.S.-North Korean
relations, and restarting inter-Korean talks, but further negotiations deadlocked.
Following the DPRK's spring 1994 unloading of fuel from its nuclear
reactor and the resulting US push for UN sanctions, Jimmy Carter’s visit to
Pyongyang in June 1994 helped to defuse tensions and resulted in renewed
South-North talks. A third round of talks between the US and the DPRK began in
July 1994. Nevertheless, the unexpected death of North Korean leader Kim Il
Sung on July 8, 1994 halted plans for a first ever South-North presidential
summit and led to another period of animosity between North and South.
However, the talks resumed in August and concluded with the Agreed
Framework.
In return, Pyongyang would be provided with alternative energy, initially
in the form of heavy oil, and eventually two proliferation-resistant light water
reactors for energy production. These light-water nuclear reactors would be safer
and produce much less plutonium. The agreement also included gradual
Security Council
5
improvement of relations between the US and the DPRK, and committed North
Korea to engage in continued South-North dialogue.
The Agreed Framework signed by the United States and North Korea on
October 21, 1994 in Geneva agreed that:
•
North Korea would freeze its existing nuclear program (including the
50 megawatt and 200 megawatt reactors under construction, as well as
its existing 5 megawatt reactor and uranium reprocessing facility) and
agree to enhanced International Atomic Energy Agency inspections
•
The two sides would cooperate to replace the DPRK's graphitemoderated reactors for similar facilities with light-water (LWR) power
plants.
•
Both countries would move toward normalization of political and
economic relations
•
Both sides will work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free
Korean peninsula
•
And that both sides would work to strengthen the international
nuclear non-proliferation regime
In return, the DPRK would be provided with alternative energy, initially
in the form of heavy oil, and eventually two proliferation-resistant light water
reactors for energy production. These light-water nuclear reactors would be safer
and produce much less plutonium. The agreement also included gradual
improvement of relations between the US and the DPRK, and committed North
Korea to engage in continued South-North dialogue.
RECENT EVENTS
In December 2002, following reports it was pursuing a weapons program
based on enriched uranium in violation of the 1994 agreement with the United
States, the DPRK expelled monitors from the International Atomic Energy, and
in January 2003 declared its withdrawal from the international Non-Proliferation
Treaty. In mid-2003, Pyongyang announced it had completed the reprocessing of
spent nuclear fuel rods and was actively developing nuclear warheads. From
August 2003 to June 2004 North Korea participated in six-party talks with the
Security Council
6
China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States to resolve the stalemate
over its nuclear programs. Unlike past efforts, the United States has opposed
North Korea's demands that it hold one-to-one nuclear talks, saying a
multilateral diplomatic approach is required.
Most recently, 6-party talks resumed this past summer between North
Korea and China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. In
September 2005, a tentative agreement was reached during the round of talks in
Beijing, largely as a result of China exerting considerable pressure on the North
Koreans. The key points of the agreement are as follows:
•
North Korea will give up nuclear weapons and nuclear programs,
return at an early date to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
submit to International Atomic Energy Agency safety measures
•
U.S. declares it has no nuclear arms on the Korean peninsula and no
intention of attacking or invading the DPRK
•
South Korea reaffirms is has no nuclear weapons on its territory and
will not deploy any
•
China, Russia, South Korea, the U.S. and Japan agree to discuss "at an
appropriate time" giving the DPRK a light-water nuclear reactor for
electricity generation
•
North Korea and the U.S. pledge to respect each other's sovereignty,
coexist peacefully, and work to normalize relations
•
North Korea, Japan agree to work to normalize relations
•
China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and the U.S. to give North Korea
comprehensive energy assistance
Nevertheless, within days of signing the agreement, talks broke down as
the DPRK demanded that the U.S. immediately provide light-water reactors as
evidence of its commitment to the agreement. Speaking in the U.N. General
Assembly, North Korea’s deputy foreign minister Choe Su Hon said, "What is
most essential at this stage is for the United States to provide light-water nuclear
reactors to the DPRK as soon as possible as evidence proving the former's
substantial recognition of the latter's right to peaceful nuclear activities.”
Security Council
7
American officials countered that the DPRK must first cease its nuclear weaponsmaking activities and adhere to IAEA regulations; then, at “an appropriate
time,” light water reactors would be considered.
Christopher Hill, the US nuclear negotiator, is exploring the possibility of
visiting North Korea before a new round of six-party talks in early November
designed to de-nuclearize North Korea. If Hill’s visit takes place, it would mark a
major change in American policy, which has thus far stayed away from bilateral
negotiations with the DPRK. Even in this case, it is clear the influence China,
Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the rest of the UN would carry significant
weight in Pyongyang. In the past, China has offered muted economic and
political support for the DPRK, but recognizes that a nuclearized Korean
Peninsula is not in China’s interest, although the Chinese are careful not to too
closely align themselves with American security interests.
Security Council
8
TOPIC B
Reform in the Security Council
INTRODUCTION
As the world changes and evolves, new problems arise and the relative
power of nations wax and wane. In order to maintain legitimacy and efficacy,
the Security Council must also change and evolve. One of the most important
topics concerning reform in the Security Council is the structure of the members.
Currently, five nations in the Security Council hold permanent seats (United
States of America, Russian Federation, Great Britain, France, and China), and ten
seats are held by non-permanent members on a rotating basis.
Many nations are now rising in power and influence and some of them
have called for changes to the current structure. This structure is based upon the
global power structures of 1945, which appears extremely dated to many
countries. This issue has been brought up many times in the past decade, but no
agreements have been reached. Once again, the most contentious issue is the
make-up of the permanent member seats. Nations such as Germany, Japan,
Brazil, India, South Africa, and Nigeria have already asked for consideration and
have received varying degrees of support.
HISTORY
The biggest reform to the Security Council happened in 1965. Under the
pressure of growing membership, the Security Council added four new, nonpermanent seats. This brought the Security Council to its present day size of
fifteen.
In January 1996, one of the first major Security Council internal reforms
since 1965 reached the Council floor. This “Japan-Germany proposal” would
mean the permanent member inclusion of Germany and Japan. Then Security
Council President Freitas do Amaral said that this proposal was “unacceptable”
to a majority of the member nations. One of the most divisive issues involved is
Security Council
9
the geographic and demographic imbalance in the Security Council. Many Third
World and developing nations feel underrepresented in the Security Council and
a proposal such as this would presumably make them unhappy.
Feelings about SC reform have often been swayed by outside
considerations and events. Just a few years ago, for instance, debate over India’s
bid to become a permanent member heated up as tensions between India and
Pakistan once again flared up. This showed that international events and crises
were going to play a role in any decision involving reform in the Security
Council.
Another important issue of debate was brought up in 2000. A few of the
nations vying for a permanent seat expressed feelings that their significant
financial contributions to the UN should make them eligible for permanent
status. In response to this, Italian Ambassador Sergio Vento said that permanent
seats are “not for sale” and that “it rejects any abusive linkage between
contributions and attribution of permanent seats.” This issue is vital especially to
developing nations. Some poorer nations that cannot contribute the hundreds of
millions or even billions of dollars given by nations like the US deserve
representation as much as the wealthier nations. At the very least, this appears
to be the ideal laid forth in the UN Charter.
In September 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for the expansion
of the UN. Kofi Annan specifically wants the Security Council to be more
representative of 21st century “geopolitical realities.” These statements came
after the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, an issue that caused repeated
clashes in the Security Council. The Iraq War brought to light some of the
deficiencies of the Security Council. The US and its allies accused the Security
Council of indecision and an inability to enforce previous resolutions.
Opponents of the Iraq War (including France, Germany, and Russia) accused the
Security Council of being unable to reign in the United States and Iraq.
Security Council
10
ANALYSIS
In 2005, Brazil, Germany, India, Japan, Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa all
make bids for permanent status on the Security Council. One particular bid by
the “Group of 4” (i.e. Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) was (and is being)
blocked by the United States and China. Two other proposals from the African
Union and a group by the name of Uniting for Consensus (i.e. Argentina,
Colombia, Mexico, Kenya, Algeria, Italy, Spain, Pakistan and the Republic of
Korea) are also being developed. All of these plans involve the addition of
permanent seats and non-permanent seats, but they vary in the power that
would be given to new seats, as well as the actual number of seats to be added.
Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya said that China’s and the US’ objective was
not to deny any reform, but rather to expand the Security Council by less
divisive means.
One of the more interesting developments of the past two years is the
consolidation of the European position on UN reform. Many nations feel that the
two permanent seats held by France and Great Britain give an unfair
representation of the European Union, which has become very diverse with the
addition of new states in Central and Eastern Europe (e.g. Slovakia, Poland, etc.)
A possible solution to this is to give the EU one permanent seat, which would be
rotated among EU member nations. However, permanent seat holders Great
Britain and France will have to be prepared to share their power with Germany
(historically denied a permanent seat since World War II). This would also raise
questions of sovereignty and issues regarding the EU’s status as an international
body itself.
The financial contributions given by nations will certainly become a point
of contention as nations who contribute large sums of money will believe that
they deserve some sort of added representation. An interesting event in the
financial history of the UN occurred in the period from 1995 to 1996. The US
began lowering its contribution percentage to the UN as the UN faced a financial
Security Council
11
crisis of sorts. UN officials began to play around with the idea of creating a
“global tax” to help with budget problems. The US Congress then passed a bill
declaring that the US would cut its financial support if any sort of global tax was
even debated in the UN. Some US politicians also began to question the motives
of the UN and felt that US withdrawal from the UN would be prudent.
In order to counteract the intransigence of other nations, the groups that
are actively seeking reform (i.e. Group of 4, African Union and Uniting for
Consensus) are attempting to band together to form a consensus on reforms that
are presumably agreeable to each group. But international tensions continue to
mar any progress. For instance, Pakistan opposes India, Argentina and Mexico
oppose Brazil, South Korea and China oppose Japan, and Italy opposes
Germany. If these nations could find a mutually agreeable solution, then they
could apply significant pressure to China and the US.
As always, American opinion on this topic will play a crucial role in
deciding whether or not a resolution passes. On January 5, 2000 the US Bureau
of International Organization Affairs (branch of the State Department) released a
statement purportedly revealing the US position on the reform topics. The US
supports permanent seats for Japan and Germany and also supports three
additional permanent seat for developing nations in Asia, South American and
Africa. As far as non-permanent seats, the US wants to limit the total size of the
Security Council to 20 or 21, citing “efficiency” as the reason. Lastly, the US has
no position on the veto power of new seats, but strongly opposes any changes to
the current veto power of the current five permanent seat holders.
Balance of power issues will come into play with any reform decision. As
the Security Council is structured now, industrialized nations and wealthy
nations hold most of the power. The addition of regional seats will give
developing nations more representation. When discussion over the addition of
permanent seats for established nations happens, political and economic tensions
will come into play. For example, if Germany and Italy are given permanent
Security Council
12
seats then there will be five permanent seat holders for European countries. The
US and Europe could use this to their advantage when dealing with China. But
China might see this as a threat to their well being and would move to strike
down any resolution that drastically swings the balance of power away from
them.
SOURCES
Security Council Reform- Global Policy Forum,
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/reform/
The UN website, http://www.un.org/
International Rankings, http://www.photius.com/rankings/
Security Council
13