Welcome Letter
My name is Hamza Hussain Shah, and I am a student of History and
Political Science at St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto. My Model UN
experience began in high school. Initially, it was my love for public speaking combined
with the camaraderie that being part of a delegation brings and the chance to travel the
world that brought me into it. Soon, I discovered, Model UN was a great synonym for life.
Working with people, lobbying, trying to convince them that your opinion mattered, and
producing concrete resolutions to real world conflicts brought out the best in me. I
participated in six conferences as a delegate during my high school career in Pakistan,
where the MUN circuit is competitive and taken very seriously! My high points would have
to be winning Best Delegate in the UN Security Council at the most prestigious conference
in Pakistan, and leading my high school team to the Best Delegation award at a university
level conference in Turkey. As a chair, I value most diplomacy that seeks, first and
foremost, to provide a viable solution to the conflict at hand, and to engage with as much
of the committee as possible. Because both my first and last Best Delegate awards came
in DISEC, this committee holds special meaning for me. I hope this committee will create
special memories for you too, and, most importantly, help you in the crucial life skills of
argumentation and cooperation that Model UN imparts.
Introduction
The impact of the September 11 attacks in New York City extended far beyond
the United States. Within months, the US and its NATO allies had invoked Article 5 of the
NATO Charter, and a new age of warfare had begun. The consequences of participation
in such a war have brought new security threats to Europe. The recent Paris and Brussels
attacks have exacerbated the debate on a Unified European Army that can fight against
common threats and for common interests for European countries. Russia’s actions in Eastern
Europe have also caused concern. A Unified European Army extends beyond just the
principles of collective security enshrined in the NATO Charter. Instead, they suggest a
military union not too dissimilar to the currency union of the Eurozone. The departure of the
United Kingdom and the election of Donald Trump to Presidency in the United States has
significantly altered the security paradigm for countries on the European continent.
Definitions
European Union
Headquartered in Brussels, the European Union (EU) is an international organisation
comprising of 28 European states, governing common economic, social and political
issues. Since 1993, it has sought to enhance integration by creating a unified security
and foreign policy, a single common market with free movement of factors of
production, and advocating for common citizens’ rights and cooperation in immigration
and judicial affairs.
Collective Security
Collective security is a security arrangement, regional or global, in which each
state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to
join in a collective response to breaches of the peace. Collective security seeks to
encompass the totality of states within a region or indeed globally, and to address a
wide range of possible threats.
NATO
Formed in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a military and political
alliance of 28 member states, 25 of which are European countries. It was founded to
create a counterweight to Soviet Union armies stationed in Eastern and Central Europe
after the Second World War. The defined essential purpose of NATO is “to
safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military
means.” Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty upholds the principle of collective
security, whereby an attack on one member is an attack on all.
Global War on Terror
The Global War on Terror is a term sued to describe the US-led counter-terrorism
campaign launched in response to the September 11 World Trade Centre attacks of
2001. It is a multi-dimension war, involving campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen
among others. It also marks the only time that Article 5 of the NATO Charter has been
invoked.
Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP)
Established in 2000, CSDP is a key instrument of external action for the EU. It
consolidates the security and defence policies of the EU through the planning of
capabilities, structures and procedures. Its modus operandi is partnering with other
international organisations, such as NATO and the UN.
Historical Background
New Security Challenges to Europe
Threats to European security intensified after NATO member states became part
of the War in Afghanistan, invoking Article 5 for the first time in the history of the
organization. These threats were furthered after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. After the
2004 Madrid bombings that took 191 lives, who’s responsibility was claimed by an AlQaeda inspired terrorist cell in response to Spanish involvement in the Iraq war, Spain
declared a quick pullout of Iraq. Since then, many major terrorist attacks have been
carried out on European soil by terrorist organisation inspired by non-state actors fighting
NATO in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The idea of a Unified European Army is often
viewed from the prism of post-Afghanistan and Iraq security challenges.
In 2014, Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and the annexation of Crimea sent
shockwaves through Europe. For the first time in the post-Cold War era, Russian
expansionism became a primary source of concern for European defence strategists. In
November 2016, Russia moved more nuclear missiles in its western region of Kaliningrad,
which borders Poland, in response to what it called NATO expansionism.
Origins of the idea of a military union
The birth of the idea for more unity in the European Union militaries is a relatively
recent one. It was only in February 2015 that the Centre for European Policy Studies, an
independent think tank, floated the idea for more unity in defence. Since then, many major
figures in European politics have stated the need for such a union. In June 2015, the
former EU High Representative for the CDSP Javier Solana argued that the economic
problems of the late 2000s had distracted many countries in Europe from defence
strategy, and that though the aggregate defence expenditure of all the states was large,
the overall productivity of defence strategy was low, and this low productivity could be
countered by greater integration.
In March of the same year, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker argued
in favour of a unified army, claiming that “a joint EU army would show the world that
there would never again be a war between EU countries,” and “would convey a clear
message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values.” Increasing
hostility between Russia and Europe has been at the forefront of security policy making in
Brussels.
Solana has argued that an army formatted to a national army’s structure beneath a
common flag is not the way forward, but Juncker’s position gives us the strongest evidence
of such an army being debated at the highest levels of European security strategy making.
EU Global Strategy Report
When the idea for greater military unity between the members of the European Union
as a new security policy was floated in the EU Global Strategy Report in the summer of
2016, many analysts concluded that this was the laying of the foundations for a unified
European Army. The report states that European Global Strategy “begins at home,” and
that “the EU will step up its commitment to Europe’s collective security.” It argues for a
more unified strategy, and that Europeans must be able to protect Europe and respond to
external crises. It acknowledges that NATO remains the primary defense framework for
most states, but also extends collective security to non-NATO European countries. The
report also encouraged greater information sharing regarding counter terrorism, and that
the EU lives up to its “values both internally and externally.” The Global Strategy Report
also does not recognize the Russian claims on Crimea, but also acknowledges that the EU
and Russia are interdependent. Nonetheless, policy towards Russia forms a cornerstone of
EU security policy. Perhaps most significantly, while the report sees member states as
sovereign in their defense decisions, it believes that they will need to move towards
defense cooperation as the norm if their capabilities are to be significantly enhanced.
Because of the hybrid nature of threats, the report stresses that member states become
“more joined up” in their defense policies.
Current collective security in the EU
The EU has Battle Groups under CSDP that are manned on a rotational basis and
meant to function as a rapid reaction force, but have never been deployed. At least 25
members of the EU, as well as neighbouring Turkey, are members of NATO, under the
collective security ambit of which those nations are protected. France, the biggest military
power in the bloc, has been reluctant in giving a bigger military role to the EU in fear of
undermining NATO. CSDP has faced challenges in the form of force generation, as well as
financing, intelligence and logistics, which limit the scope and strategic depth of its
missions. The European economic crisis of the late 2000s produced uneven cuts in EU
members’ defence expenditures.
Collective security post-Brexit and US Presidential election
The United States and United Kingdom have strenuously opposed the formation of
a unified European army. The UK had opposed any such army, but following their decision
to leave membership of the EU in June 2016 (also called Brexit), the landscape has been
significantly altered. Now that the most powerful military force in the bloc is set to leave,
many have claimed that the EU is moving to pave the way for a unified army. Not only
has a force of opposition been removed, but Brexit has also created limitations in
European military capability as a whole. It is argued that a military union would help
make up for these limitations.
The election of Donald Trump as President of the United States has also affected
collective security for NATO’s European members. The US has contributed a
disproportionately large share of NATO’s expenditure in the past, and the new President
has said that the US would “reconsider” its role in NATO if members did not start paying
more towards its expenditure. This has created uncertainty with regards to the
dependability of American participation in NATO, which has been the backbone of the
military alliance since 1949. With rising tensions with Russia in the aftermath of their
annexation of Crimea, many in Eastern Europe fear that without US support of NATO, little
would stand in the way of further Russian expansion in Eastern Europe. American support
for the Baltic States bordering Russia has also been questioned under the new Presidency.
Together, these two developments have had a huge impact on debates on European
security policy in the last six months alone.
Issues
Today, threats to the European Union stem from external as well as internal
sources. While the prospect of Russian aggression looms large for Eastern European
members of the EU, terrorism has also affected states across the continent. The attacks by
the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) in November 2015 in Paris and March 2016 in Brussels
have fundamentally changed the way the EU perceives internal security. Security threats
can now emerge from within the Union, and intelligence agencies are now more important
to public security than ever before. The actions of ISIS in Syria have created debate on
the prospects of another military intervention by NATO in the region. Whether its
European members would support such an intervention remains to be seen. Some of the
main challenges facing a Unified European Army include opposition from Britain and the
United States, and whether such a union would create more threats than counter them.
Some have argued that a unified military would escalate tensions with Russia, and thus
prove counter-productive. Russia has already claimed that its deployment of nuclearcapable missiles in Kaliningrad is in response to NATO expansionism in the Baltic region.
Not only might it antagonise Russia, it may also damage the credibility of the EU in the
Middle East, and be viewed as an aggressive and expansionist move by terrorist
organisations, thus helping their recruitment operations.
United Nations Activity
In 2001, UN Resolution 1386 authorized the establishment of the International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in response to the September 11 attacks on the USA. ISAF
fielded forces from eighteen different countries under the command of the United
Kingdom in Afghanistan, in the war against the Taliban. NATO eventually assumed
command of ISAF in 2003, and it expanded its operations across Afghanistan. ISAF
operated as a kind of integrated international army consisting of NATO and non-NATO
members against the Taliban up till December 2013, when it was disbanded. ISAF offers
the most recent example of a multi-state army operating under a common command
sanctioned by the United Nations, although his force was created solely for the purposes
of a particular conflict.
Procedural Mechanics
Agenda
The Agenda is the first matter of the committee and determines the flow of topics
being discussed once a motion is brought forward to do so. Then, the Primary
Speakers List is opened to debate the proposed agenda and remains in the
background of the conference, in case the Secondary Speakers List and/or agenda
topics are exhausted. Once the agenda is voted upon, the Secondary Speakers List is
opened and debate begins on the first topic. A motion to proceed to the second topic
on the agenda later on is in order only after the committee has rejected or adopted a
draft resolution on the first topic and passes with a majority vote.
Voting
Procedural Voting refers to voting on all matters other than draft resolutions and
amendments. If a motion requires a minimum number of speakers in favour and cannot
garner them, it will automatically fail. If a motion requires speakers against and
cannot garner them, it will automatically pass.
Substantive Voting refers to voting on draft resolutions and unfriendly
amendments. Upon closing debate, the committee moves into Substantive Voting
procedure. If the committee passes an unfriendly amendment, Substantive Voting
procedure automatically ends and the committee returns to the Secondary Speakers
List. If a committee passes a draft resolution, all other draft resolutions on the floor are
cancelled and the committee leaves Substantive Voting procedure to move
automatically to the next Topic Area. If a committee rejects all draft resolutions on the
floor during the Substantive Voting procedure, debate on the topic is reopened and
the committee returns to the Secondary Speakers List.
If at least one member of the committee objects to Voting by Acclamation on any
motion, unfriendly amendment or draft resolution, the vote will be conducted by
placard. When Voting by Placard, delegates signal their votes — “Yes,” “No,” or for
substantive votes, “Abstain” — by a show of placards.
During Substantive Voting procedure, any delegate may move for a Roll Call Vote
on a specific draft resolution or unfriendly amendment. This action may be out of order
should the process of a roll call vote take up too much of the committee’s time without
sufficient justification. During a Roll Call Vote, delegates will be called upon in
alphabetical order, in which they may vote “Yes,” “No,” “Abstain,” or “Pass.”
Additionally, delegates who intend to vote against the normal policies of their
governments or in a highly unexpected manner may request to vote “with Rights”.
Delegates who vote “Pass” will be returned to and required to vote.
Debate and Caucus
A motion for an unmoderated caucus may be voted upon and passed at any time
when the floor is open, when a specific time limit and intended topic of/purpose for
discussion is provided. During an unmoderated caucus, delegates may leave their seats
and engage in a more informal setting with other delegates.
A motion for a moderated caucus may be voted upon and passed at any time when
the floor is open, when a specific time limit for the caucus and individual speeches and
intended topic of/purpose for discussion is provided. No motions or yields are in order
between delegates’ speeches during a moderated caucus. If there are no delegates
wishing to speak during the moderated caucus, the caucus immediately ends.
Delegates’ speeches must address the predetermined topic of the moderated caucus.
Closure of Debate
A motion to close debate on the current topic under discussion may be voted upon
and passed at any time when the floor is open. Should the motion to close debate
pass, the committee will move immediately into voting procedure on the current topic
i.e. procedural matter, draft resolution or amendment.
Sources
a. Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe – A Global Strategy for the
European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy.
https://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf
b. More Union in European Defence, by Centre for European Policy Studies.
https://www.ceps.eu/publications/more-union-european-defence
c. Cooperation between United Nations and regional and other organizations –
Report of the Secretary-General. https://documents-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N16/221/69/PDF/N1622169.pdf?OpenElement
d. The North Atlantic Treaty (1949).
http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/stock_publications/20120822_nato_t
reaty_en_light_2009.pdf
e. Charter of the Collective Security Treaty Organization.
http://www.ieee.es/Galerias/fichero/Varios/2002_Carta_de_la_OTSC.pdf
f. Common Security and Defense Policy, European Parliament.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_6.1.2.pdf
g. The European Union: Foreign and Security Policy.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41959.pdf
Bibliography
Aukolov, Andrei. “US and UK Vigrously Reject the Concept of European Army.”
Strategic Culture Foundation. Last updated 17th June, 2016. http://www.strategicculture.org/news/2016/06/17/british-speakers-vigorously-reject-the-concept-ofeuropean-army.html
“Brexif Aftermath: EU’s New Strategy ‘Paving Way’ for United European
Army.” Sputnik International. Last updated 30th June, 2016.
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201606301042212825-eu-army-defense-security
“Collective Security.” Date accessed 16th November, 2016.
http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/knowledge/Collective_security.html
“Countering terrorism.” North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Last updated 5th
September, 2016. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_77646.htm
Gore, D’Angelo. “What’s Trump’s Position on NATO?” FactCheck.org. Last
updated May 11, 2016. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/whats-trumps-positionon-nato
Haglund, David G. “North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).”
Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last updated 20th June, 2012.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/North-Atlantic-Treaty-Organization
Jackson, Richardson. “War on terrorism.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last
updated 8th September, 2016. https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-terrorism
“Juncker: NATO is not enough, EU needs an army.” EurActiv.com. Last updated
June 15, 2016. http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/juncker-natois-not-enough-eu-needs-an-army/
“More Union in European Defence.” Council for European Policy Studies. Date
accessed 14th October, 2016. https://www.ceps.eu/publications/more-unioneuropean-defence
Rankin, Jennifer. “Is there a secret plan to create an EU army?” The Guardian.
Last updated 27th May, 2016.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/is-there-a-secret-plan-tocreate-an-eu-army
Rothwell, James. “Russia moves nuclear capable missiles closer to Europe as
Vladmir Putin claims NATO expansion is threat.” The Telegraph. Last updated 21st
November 2016. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/putin-movesnuclear-capable-missiles-closer-europe-claims-nato/
“Shared Vision, Common Action: A Stronger Europe – A Global Strategy for
the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy.” European Union Global Strategy.
Date accessed 14th October, 2016.
https://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf
“Security & Defense.” European Union. Date accessed 14th October, 2016.
https://europa.eu/globalstrategy/en/security-defence
Tost, Daniel. “A wake up call for the European Defence Union.” EurActiv.com.
Last updated June 19, 2015.
http://www.euractiv.com/section/security/interview/solana-a-wake-up-call-for-aeuropean-defence-union/
Witte, Griff. “Afghanistan War.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last updated
th
14 October 2016. https://www.britannica.com/event/Afghanistan-War