Dear Delegates,
My name is Andrew Tsai and it is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the Special Political and
Decolonization Committee at Vancouver Model United Nations 2015. I will be serving as your director for the
duration of the conference. From all of my MUN experiences, the committees that I've enjoyed the most were
politically orientated. I hope that all the delegates, no matter if you are a first-timer or an experienced veteran,
will find SPECPOL 2015 an enjoyable and unforgettable experience!
The two topics that I've selected for this committee are both complicated and controversial. I encourage you all
to thoroughly familiarize yourself with the topics in order for you to be properly equipped to tackle some of the
most difficult issues the world faces today.
The first topic, the United Nation's Role in Election Monitoring, is an issue that is growing in importance in the
world. As election monitoring has become more widespread, the effectiveness of election observation and the
UN's role within it are questions at the very core of the issue. It will be up to the international community to
redefine the role of election monitoring as we move forward into the coming years.
The second topic is focused on the Instability of Foreign Military Bases. In the complex geopolitical setting of
today, foreign military bases are instrumental in tipping the balance of power between states. Not only do
foreign military bases affect a country's external policies, they also have a destabilizing effect on domestic
politics. Delegates will have to balance international concerns with internal needs when they're negotiating for a
solution– a challenging task indeed!
The amount of information might seem daunting, so please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any
questions! I look forward to meeting all of the delegates in January, and observing what is for sure to be an
exciting and rewarding weekend of debate.
Best regards,
Andrew Tsai
Director: Special Political and Decolonization Committee
Topic A: The UN's Role in Election Monitoring
Overview
Electoral assistance can be defined as the legal, technical, logistical support provided to electoral laws, processes
and institutions. 1 Often, electoral assistance is given in times of political and social instability, or in postconflict and decolonization processes, hence building trust and restoring legitimacy to the democratic endeavor.
As the period of decolonization comes to a close, the United Nations today is more focused on taking a
supportive role in assisting the implementation of elections. 2
The UN provides assistance to election processes in three different ways. Ranking from least intrusive to most
intrusive, the UN is capable of providing technical assistance to elections, observation of the election and other
assessments, as well as the direct organization of elections in a member state. The level of intervention often
depends on the individual circumstances of the state requesting electoral assistance. To what degree should the
UN intervene? And how is this decision made? These two pressing questions are at the core of the issue.
The UN is but one of many international organs dedicated to monitoring and observing elections, and any
potential framework concerning the UN’s role will inevitably take into account these International Government
Organizations (IGOs) and other national bodies. The degree of influence these organizations have on the
electoral process varies from case to case. For any organization deciding whether or not to assist in an election,
the attitude of the receiving government and any other actors will be an important consideration. Furthermore,
the validity and efficacy of election observers must be taken into account, as organizations must utilize limited
resources to its maximum efficiency.
While international monitoring can add legitimacy to an election and promote stability in young democracies,
there are also shortfalls that must be addressed or else they may hinder, or reverse, the intent of the original
mission. Issues regarding foreign political interests and a lack of cultural sensitivity have arisen, with fears that
election monitoring is simply a tool for more powerful countries to dominate the ones in need. For example,
“pseudo” monitors, championed by states such as Russia and China, monitors and supports any elections that
further their own needs. 3 Even established and credible organizations are often susceptible to political pressure
from powerful entities and their own affiliations, particularly when foreign interests are at stake. Given its
increasing relevance and importance in our modern world, it is up to the international community to decide
the place and purpose of election monitoring for the coming years.
Timeline
1857 – First recorded case in history of election observation. An international European commission oversees
general elections in the disputed territories of Moldova and Wallachia.
1948 – Shortly after the independence of Korea, the UN oversees the country’s first democratic elections in the
1
http://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/focus-on-effective-electoral-assistance/eea_links
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/electoralassistance.shtml
3
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67968/susan-d-hyde-and-judith-g-kelley/the-limits-of-election-monitoring
2
South.
1950 – The Korean War breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, signaling the failure of the UN mission to observe
and conduct elections in the North.
1989 – The United Nations Transition Assistance Group deployed in Namibia marks one successful mission
where a UN mission supervised and oversaw free and fair elections.
1991 – The General Assembly passes A/RES/46/137 on “Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Principle of
Periodic and Genuine Elections.” 4
1991 – The Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (then known as the Office for Free Elections)
is founded as a principle institution of the OSCE. Since then, it has observed over 150 elections all around the
world.
1992 – In the resolution stated above, the GA recommends the establishment of an office to support election
operations. The United Nations Electoral Assistance Division (UNEAD) is created to fill this role.
1992-1993 – United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia marks the first instance when the United
Nations took over the administration of a country at the state level. 5 It manages to organize and directly run an
election, although it did not succeed in completely quell domestic violence and instability.
1998 – The General Assembly approves A/RES/52/119 declaring “Respect for the principles of national
sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral processes.” 6
2001 – United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor is the latter of two cases where the UN took
over the jurisdiction and responsibility to administer new elections. This time, it conducts East Timor’s first
democratic elections after they gained independence two years before.
2004 – An UN-backed independent panel assesses and judges the legitimacy of the 2004 Afghan Presidential
Elections. In addition, other international organizations such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) send in support teams to assist in the
electoral processes. 7
2005 – UN endorses the “Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and Code of
Conduct for International Elections Observers.” 8
2006 – The UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo supports the
national electoral commission through technical and logistical support. This marks one of the largest
undertakings in terms of personnel and mission size.
4
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/resolutions%20
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/untacbackgr1.html
6
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/resolutions%20
7
http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/afghanistan/111351
8
http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/2231.pdf
5
2011 – South Sudan holds its independence referendum with the assistance of United Nations Mission in Sudan
authorities and the UN Development Programme’s (UNDP) electoral assistance division. Furthermore, the
United Nations Secretary-General’s Panel on the Referenda in the Sudan, is established at the request of the
South Sudanese authorities, highlighting the flexibility of such missions. 9
2012 – The United Nations Support Mission in Libya provides technical support, helps with registration and
verifies the legitimacy for the historical 2012 Libyan general elections.
Historical Analysis
The history of the United Nations is
interwoven with elections. Since its
inception, the UN has played a part in
monitoring, assisting, and overseeing
various elections, plebiscites and
referenda in its member states
worldwide. 10 Fair elections are a
distinct landmark in a country’s
progress towards democracy, and
reflect on the principles enshrined in
the UN charter. It is then no surprise
that the rise in popularity of election monitoring coincided with the proliferation of democracy that happened
near the end of the Cold War. Following the breakup of many authoritarian regimes and the creation of many
new countries, assistance with the creation of a democratic process began to take shape in a more tangible form.
It also highlighted a trend that election monitoring typically took place in non-established democracies. The
figure below shows the number and percentage of elections that were monitored in non-established
democracies between 1975 and 2005. 11 A huge spike in the prevalence of election monitoring occurred around
the 1990s, and this only highlights the growing importance of this today. As the Soviet Union, and thus
democracy’s biggest ideological enemy, fell, the ideals of democracy proliferated like never before; this might be
a contributing reason to election monitoring’s dramatic growth in the 1990s. 12 Today, up to 80-85% of elections
in non-established democracies are monitored by some international organization. 13 Refusal to invite foreign
observers can even be seen that the regime has something to hide, although some defend their claim based on
sovereignty. 14
Figure 1: Number and percentage of monitoring missions in non-established democracies between 1975-2005 15
9
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sgsm13123.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections%20
11
http://sites.duke.edu/kelley/files/2012/03/assess.pdf
12
Ibid.
13
http://sites.duke.edu/kelley/files/2012/03/assess.pdf
14
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67968/susan-d-hyde-and-judith-g-kelley/the-limits-of-election-monitoring
15
Ibid.
10
The UN’s involvement with electoral activities began in earnest in the 1960s and 1970s, when the UN
Trusteeship Council, a now obsolete institution that dealt with decolonization affairs, assisted with the
observation or supervision of some 30 plebiscites, referenda or elections in various regions of the world. 16 Yet,
the UN didn’t conduct any major electoral missions until the late 1980s. These missions ranged from the direct
organization and administration of a member state as seen in Cambodia through the United Nations
Transitional Authority in Cambodia in 1993, one of only two instances of this happening in UN history; the
observation of elections and other assessments, like when the United Nations Transitional Authority in Eastern
Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium was asked to supervise the local elections in 1996; and anything
ranging between simple and complex technical assistance regarding the administration of elections, which were
requested by over 100 member states over the past 20 years.
While there is no universal model, as UN electoral assistance constantly changes to adapt to the needs of each
member state, it continues to be based on the principle enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights – "that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in
periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by
equivalent free voting procedures." 17 Given the United Nations’ wide-spread reach and perceived impartiality,
many states often invite the UN to assist with internal elections. While previously considered to be a strictly
domestic affair, the rise in popularity of election monitoring shows that maturing democracies are working
through the practical issues of implementation, and are actively seeking the help of the international
community.
Beginning with the 1989 Namibia elections, assistance and the monitoring of foundational elections is now
often incorporated into the mandate of UN peacekeeping missions. As the implementations of free and fair
elections are now often included in any tentative ceasefire agreements, elections in recent years in conflictstricken nations have taken on an important role in creating lasting stability. Post-conflict societies are often
plagued by the same instability characteristic of a combat zone, and are poorly equipped to conduct elections.
The presence of UN peacekeepers can often help ease the transition between the instability and democracy. As
shown recently in the independence referendum of South Sudan, where the United Nations Mission in Sudan
assisted with the security and stability of the elections, other international NGOs independently monitored the
situation on the group and a special panel of experts appointed by the Secretary-General verified the legitimacy
of the results. 18 This scenario was an effective example of how different organizations cooperated on a single
case to promote stability and solidify the democratic process in a post-conflict state.
Monitoring is important as it enhances the credibility of elections, which in turns reduces electoral violence, as
well as establishes international legitimacy. These monitoring organizations are also valuable tools for
governments seeking to better their election systems, providing professional recommendations for nations who
are either inexperienced or lacking adequate knowledge or resources for reform. Furthermore, the presence of
an independent third party reduces the chance of electoral fraud, vote tampering, or other protests, hence
increasing voter confidence. 19 Research on election monitoring worldwide from 1980 to 2004 shows that in
multiparty states that were not yet fully established democracies, monitored elections were 10 to 20 percent
16
http://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/focus-on-effective-electoral-assistance/conclusions
Ibid.
18
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sgsm13123.doc.htm
19
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67968/susan-d-hyde-and-judith-g-kelley/the-limits-of-election-monitoring
17
more likely to be seen as representative.20 Furthermore, incumbents in governments lost power more often than
in non-monitored elections. While this statistic does not prove that the election monitors caused this change, as
election monitors would have to be invited by the host nation, nations with no intention to cheat are more
willing to invite foreign observers to legitimatize their actions. Monitoring missions are typically most effective
in countries where conditions for reform are already in place and governments are receptive to progress.
The Declaration of Principles for International Election Observation and Code of Conduct for International
Elections Observers passed in 2005 was an attempt by the UN to create a framework in which other
international election monitoring bodies and itself could work within to propagate effective electoral assistance
and uphold the ideals of democracy and sovereignty. Since its signing, over 25 independent IGOs have
endorsed the declaration, and seek to respect the principles of the document.21 This article brings some
semblance of cooperation between organizations with vastly different modi operandi, and could act as a pioneer
for future international cooperation in this field.
Current Situation
In the past, the United Nations has provided electoral assistance in three different ways, as briefly mentioned in
the overview:
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance is the most common form of electoral assistance provided by the UN and requested by its
member states. This form of assistance is typically requested by democracies that do not have full control or
understanding of their electoral processes, or have specific problems they are trying to target. Issues such as a
lack of technical knowledge to conduct elections, problems with the electoral administration, deficiencies in
electoral law, and logistical concerns can all be ameliorated with foreign assistance. Assistance covers a wide
range of short and long term issues, such as planning of elections, review of electoral laws, registration of
voters/ballots, logistical components, training of election staff, use of technology, spread of public information,
and voter security. 22 As the UN is trying to take a more passive role on this issue, reducing the instances of
direct observation or intervention, cooperation with local authorities through technical assistance remains the
most prevalent form of electoral assistance today.
Election Observation and Other Assessments
Direct observation of elections, as well as any other assessments that might otherwise validate/invalidate
election results is another way the UN assists with the electoral process of its member states. As this action
requires the explicit request of a member state, in addition to its inherently political nature, the risks and
responsibilities of such missions are far greater than simple technical assistance. These operations are especially
effective in quelling election disputes, upholding the integrity of the election against fraud, and promoting
democratization.
Organization and Supervision of Elections
Ibid.
http://www.cartercenter.org/documents/2231.pdf
22
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/types_of_assistance%20
20
21
The direct organization and administration is the final and most intrusive way that the UN has intervened in
the past, and is typically reserved for extremely rare and unique cases. In these complex operations, the UN
takes over the administration of a country, and fills roles normally fulfilled by national electoral authorities.
This type of intervention has occurred only twice, in Cambodia (1992-1993) and Timor-Leste (2002), and is
typically accompanied by a corresponding UN peacekeeping operation. 2324 In other unique cases, another less
intrusive form of election intervention, where UN personnel directly interact with election administrators of
the host country, may be used to help direct election in the right direction. Two recent examples were
Afghanistan (2004) and Iraq (2005), where both scenarios were characterized by internal instability.
Today, the UN has internalized a norm of taking a passive role in elections worldwide. With the direct
observation and/or the organization of elections, two of the more interventionist actions, becoming less and less
common, delegates would have to question whether this supportive stance is more or less effective in the
political climate of the world today. Furthermore, as the UN does not have an established framework in
determining the level of electoral intervention in its member states, each scenario would have to be assessed
individually. The current flexibility has proven to be a strength in the past, as nations could highlight areas in
need of assistance, but it is debatable whether or not this method would remain effective in the future.
The effectiveness of election monitors of
upholding the integrity of democracy, varies
based on the internal situation of each case. In
countries
with
favourable
domestic
circumstances for change, the presence of
observers helps accelerate the processes of
reform, increase the chance of their advice
being heeded, make political turnover more
likely and can make a real impact to the
electoral process. 25 For example, in the newly
created democracies of Eastern Europe after the
1
Cold War, the countries themselves embraced
Figure 2: Quality of monitored elections 1975-2005
the ideas of democracy, allowed observers
unfettered access and were welcoming towards international assistance. On the contrary, countries with poor
domestic conditions plagued by violence or instability, or are susceptible to flawed electoral systems, react very
poorly to the presence of observers. Within countries that have no desire to change, the recommendations and
criticism of foreign monitors are routinely ignored. Figure 2 shows the assessment of the monitoring
organizations in the elections they have monitored between 1975-2005. 26 Over half of the elections monitored
had problems that were of a “moderate” or “high” severity, and almost a fifth of elections were deemed
“unacceptable” representations of the democratic rights of the people. Research has found that even when
monitors are present, politicians cheat in obvious ways nearly 17 percent of the time. 27 This only goes to show
23
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/untac.htm
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/etimor/UntaetB.htm
25
http://www.idea.int/democracydialog/upload/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-rethinking-election-monitoring.pdf
26
Ibid
27
Judith G. Kelley, Monitoring Democracy: When International Election Observation Works, and Why It Often
24
that the presence of election monitors does not necessary deter cheating, nor does it guarantee their
effectiveness; rather, the circumstances in which these monitors are intervening in directly affect the
effectiveness of election monitoring operations.
Election monitoring operations are not limited to just voting day. For a truly comprehensive observation
mission, organizations must look at entire pre-election and post-election process. As some governments and
parties conduct their fraudulent activities prior to the election, more action will be needed to ensure
legitimacy. 28 Yet, as these operations are always constrained by funding, resources, personnel and time, such allinclusive missions are not always possible. Even operations designed to focus on a specific aspect of the election,
such as voter representation, are limited by these constraints. In addition, the UN and other organizations must
take into account the attitudes of the host government and other governmental and non-governmental actors,
for it will also affect the impact of foreign observers. Not only do these organizations have to take into account
the domestic situation of the country they are planning to assist with, they also have to consider how effective
their mission will be in propagating change. They are faced with the unfortunate dilemma of whether to
concentrate their resources to a select few elections or countries, or to reach out to as many as they can, hence
compromising effectiveness. The irony of the situation is that countries which are the most receptive to change
often need international monitoring the least, while countries without any domestic pressure for change often
need international aid the most.29 In these difficult scenarios, monitors are often helpless to bring about change.
This is one reason why the establishment of a clear framework regarding which situations warrants intervention
might prove to be effective method in determining the allocation of resources to their maximum effect.
Even once a decision is reached on whether or not to intervene and assist in an election, there are many
practical issues to consider before deciding whether and how to observe an election:






Does the election law make provision for observers? Will they be allowed into polling stations and
counting centers?
Do observers have clear rights under the law to receive copies of official documents and election result
protocols, and to collect other information?
Will the election management body or another authority provide accreditation?
Are sufficient personnel available for the observation? Do they have the necessary expertise, or can
they be trained in time?
Is enough funding available to complete the observation?
Is the security situation sufficiently stable to en sure the safety of observers? 30
If one or more of the answers to these questions is no, then the body might need to reconsider its initial
decision.
Past UN Involvement
Case Study: UNTAC (United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, 1992-3)
Fails (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).
28
http://www.cfr.org/elections/election-monitoring-power-limits-risks/p27772
29
http://www.idea.int/democracydialog/upload/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-rethinking-election-monitoring.pdf
30
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/publication/Chapter7.htm
The period after Cambodia’s independence in 1953 was marked by regional instability and external ideological
pressure. Following a military coup by the communist Khmer Rouge in 1970, Cambodia was wrought by a
devastating civil war, eventually drawing in its eastern neighbor Vietnam and its allies, hence becoming an
extension of the Cold War proxy war paradigm. The end of the Cold War brought with it new hope for the warstricken nation, and the Paris Agreement was signed in October of 1991, ousting the Communist government
and placing the administration of Cambodia under a UN protectorate and UN peacekeeping mission. UNTAC’s
mandate was to administer the country until a “neutral political environment” could be sought in order to
conduct “free and fair elections”. 31 As the country was still reeling from the decades-long turmoil and the
presence of Communist guerillas, the situation was far from ideal to hold democratic elections. Yet, even under
difficult circumstances, over 4 million Cambodians, which amounted to around 90% of the electoral base,
participated in the country’s first successful elections. 32 Although generally considered by the international
community as a success, the operation was subjected to two major controversies: allegations of fraud, and
political violence. The Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), the ruling party before the UN took over, accused
UNTAC of committing electoral fraud due to irregularities in balloting and broken seals on ballot boxes. While
there might have been some irregularities concerning how the election was conducted, these allegations were
never proven true and were instead seen a refusal of the CCP to admit defeat. As the CCP would eventually lose
the election to its opposition, this scenario highlights the problem of power transfer and perceived fairness in
newer democracies. The political climate in Cambodia prior to the election was also subject to scrutiny. While
UNTAC attempted to prevent any political organization from illegally influencing voters prior to the vote, the
general instability of the country made this task extremely difficult. It should be noted that even though the
communist Khmer Rouge insurgents threatened and barred some people from participating, the actual turnout
was still largely unaffected. UNTAC’s operation in Cambodia demonstrates one example of how the UN
successfully assisted with a country’s electoral process and steered the country on a path towards democracy.
On a different note concerning the UNTAC operation itself, the presence of foreign troops lead to a rise in
prostitution and AIDS among the native population, and was considered to be one of the shortfalls of this
operation. 33
Possible Solutions and Controversies
Controversies
The question of the allocation of funds also brings up another important issue regarding the affiliations of these
supposedly neutral and impartial electoral monitoring organizations. The funding for election monitoring
organizations must come from a source which almost always has its own political agenda to worry about. 34
Monitors often have to keep in mind the interests of their donors as well as the objectives of their mission.
Ironically, the organizations with the greatest resources and leverage to conduct impartial and professional
election monitoring are also those with the greatest political affiliations. 35 Sometimes, there are also other
complicating factors that can affect an organization’s ability to deliver an unbiased report. Fear of the
repercussions for criticizing elections persists, because this could damage interstate relationships or perhaps
31
http://www.seasite.niu.edu/khmer/ledgerwood/free_and_fair.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Transitional_Authority_in_Cambodia
33
http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1996vol06no04/219
34
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67968/susan-d-hyde-and-judith-g-kelley/the-limits-of-election-monitoring
35
http://www.idea.int/democracydialog/upload/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-rethinking-election-monitoring.pdf
32
destabilize a regime; governments sometimes pressure monitors to act a certain way for ulterior geopolitical
goals. Due to the inherently political nature of their activities, election monitors are never truly free from
political pressure, and must seek to balance it with impartiality in order to fulfill their mandates.
As well as external pressure faced by observer groups, they also sometimes have to deal with uncooperative host
governments, who invite monitors but then explicitly ignore their reports and concerns. 36 The governments in
countries such as Belarus, Russia, Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia, are often reluctant to relinquish power, or do not
have to face significant domestic pressure. The UN is than faced with a predicament: to respond to these
nation’s invitations for electoral assistance but realize that it is unlikely that they will bring about real change, or
leave the field open to other, biased monitoring organizations that will condone these fraudulent elections? This
problem directly relates to the recent rise of biased, not credible election monitors, such as those from the
Commonwealth of Independent States or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. 37 These monitoring bodies
judge the legitimacy of an election based off of the interests of their sponsors, and represent a worst case
example of an election monitoring organization being used to further a political agenda.
Possible Solutions
While much of the framework for election monitoring and observation around the globe has been set, its role in
the modern world must be constantly reevaluated to ensure its continued relevance and effectiveness. The UN
has relegated itself to taking a more passive role by primarily providing electoral assistance in the form of
technical assistance and logistical support in recent years, but whether this role is adequate remains a topic for
debate.
The question of political meddling in elections is an ever-present concern for both the organizations themselves
and the countries they are involved in. For monitoring to change on the ground, monitoring missions will need
to gain greater independence so that they do not have to worry about funding, pleasing important parties, not
stoking violence, and wonder about their own long-term survival. 38 The paradox is that such decisions rest with
their sponsors, who are guarding their own interests. If election monitoring is more centralized, such as in an
UN-like setting, monitoring might become more neutral, but then it would come at the cost of resources.
Perhaps an effective balance can be struck in order to retain the advantages of both cases, while minimizing the
obvious risks.
Election monitoring organizations, the UN and regional organizations in particular, might benefit from taking
a more transparent stance in their day to day operations. Instead of trying to hide their political affiliations or
hidden interests, they could incorporate these into their post-election reports in a conflict of interest
statement. 39 Even in situations where this does not apply, actions that increase transparency and neutrality can
go a long way in suppressing accusations about bias or hidden motives.
It is recommended to the delegates of SPECPOL to take into account all the complicating factors of this issue in
order to create an effective resolution.
36
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67968/susan-d-hyde-and-judith-g-kelley/the-limits-of-election-monitoring
Ibid.
38
http://www.cfr.org/elections/election-monitoring-power-limits-risks/p27772
39
http://www.idea.int/democracydialog/upload/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-rethinking-election-monitoring.pdf
37
Bloc Positions
Western Bloc and the EU
These countries, primarily made up of the United States, Canada, the European Union and its allies, have the
most resources and willpower to pursue complex and prolonged election monitoring missions. Being
experienced and mature democracies, they hold democracy building as an important foreign policy goal. They
also host and fund many election monitoring organizations such as the NDI and the OSCE.
Africa
Democracy on this continent is in varied stages. These nations are typically lacking in electoral infrastructure
and expertise, and this leaves the system open to the corruption and exploitation that often plagues these
countries. Due to an imperialist past, many states are suspicious of foreign actors meddling in internal affairs
such as elections. Generally, these nations welcome foreign assistance in technical and logistical affairs, but are
very vary of perceived bias and foreign influence.
The Middle East
Having recently experienced a mass upheaval of society, the Arab Spring has altered the political landscape of
the Middle East. Transitioning states that are leaning towards democracy, such as Tunisia and Egypt, seek to
balance foreign input with self-rule. While some states are moving towards openness, some states in the region
such as Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have no short-term prospects of democratization. While these states
do not necessarily welcome election monitors with open arms, they are perceived to be most in need of them. A
common issue across the entire region is the perceived lack of cultural sensitivity by foreign observers, and this
is hindering progress.
Asia
Asia remains a hard area to categorize and dissect politically due to the vast differences in political systems
present in the region. With regimes like China (discussed below) on one side, mature democracies like Japan
and South Korea on the other, and transitioning developing nations such as Thailand and Vietnam in the
middle, it is impossible to come up with a singular policy that would be agreeable to all states. However, history
and politics run deep in this region, and countries should look at these defining regional (geography, neighbors,
history, etc.) and political (allies, enemies, trends, etc.) factors to come up with their individual stances.
Russia and China
Russia, China, and their regional allies constitute a bloc that is both cautious and suspect of the spread of
election monitoring. They do not see democracy as the ultimate form of governance, and value individual
sovereignty. These nations acknowledge the usefulness of electoral assistance, but see its spread as rapid and
alarming. They have no qualms about funding less than credible election monitors, such as the ones under the
CIS and SCO, if it means furthering their own political ends. 40 These nations are generally against
40
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67968/susan-d-hyde-and-judith-g-kelley/the-limits-of-election-monitoring
interventionist election monitoring operations.
Discussion Questions
1. What constitutes a democratic election? What elements must be present for an election to be
considered legitimate by the international community?
2. How can election monitoring organizations preserve neutrality and resist pressure and influence from
external bodies (countries, governments, parties, sponsors etc.)?
3. What is the most effective way the UN and other election monitoring organizations can distribute their
resources to have a maximum impact?
4. Should a framework be established by the UN or any other body to dictate which situations warrant
electoral assistance?
5. How closely should monitoring missions work with UN peacekeeping operations? How much
influence does the UN have on a country’s post conflict process after a cease-fire is brokered?
6. Should the UN and other organizations intervene in countries where there appears to be no short term
prospect for democratization?
7. Has UN assistance benefited or hindered the development of democracy in the past? Was the
involvement of the UN always warranted?
8. In overseeing and sometimes intervening in elections, is the UN doing enough to respect cultural
boundaries and minimizing bias?
Additional Resources
A list of many prominent and relevant election monitoring organizations.
http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/dop/partners
A comprehensive report by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
http://www.idea.int/democracydialog/upload/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-rethinking-electionmonitoring.pdf
The United Nations Department of Political website on Electoral Assistance.
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections
A list of past resolutions passed by the GA concerning electoral assistance.
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/resolutions%20
The UN Peacekeeping website on electoral assistance.
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/electoralassistance.shtml
References
Chapter 7. (n.d.). UN News Center. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/osagi/wps/publication/Chapter7.htm
Electoral Assistance. United Nations Peacekeeping. (n.d.). UN News Center. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/electoralassistance.shtml
Electoral Assistance: General Assembly Resolutions. (n.d.). Department of Political Affairs. Retrieved August 19,
2014, from http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/resolutions%20
Endorsing Organisations”. (n.d.). Endorsing Organisations —. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://aceproject.org/electoral-advice/dop/partners
Kelley, J. (n.d.). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Rethinking Election Monitoring. Idea.int. Retrieved August
19, 2014, from http://www.idea.int/democracydialog/upload/the-good-the-bad-and-the-uglyrethinking-election-monitoring.pdf
Kelley, J. (n.d.). Assessing the Complex Evolution of Norms: The Rise of International Election Monitoring.
Duke University . Retrieved August 19, 2014, from http://sites.duke.edu/kelley/files/2012/03/assess.pdf
Kelley, J. (n.d.). Election Monitoring: Power, Limits, and Risks. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved August
19, 2014, from http://www.cfr.org/elections/election-monitoring-power-limits-risks/p27772
Kelley, J., & Hyde, S. (2011, June 28). The Limits of Election Monitoring. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved August 19,
2014, from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67968/susan-d-hyde-and-judith-g-kelley/thelimits-of-election-monitoring
Referendum in Southern Sudan. UNMIS - United Nations Mission in the Sudan. (n.d.). UN News Center.
Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unmis/referendum.shtml
Secretary-General Appoints Panel to Monitor Self-Determination Referenda in Sudan. (2010, September 21).
UN News Center. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/sgsm13123.doc.htm
The Electoral Cycle Approach —. (n.d.). The Electoral Cycle Approach —. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/focus-on-effective-electoral-assistance/the-electoral-cycleapproach
The UN Sponsored Elections of 1993: Were They ‘Free and Fair’?. (n.d.). The UN Sponsored Elections of 1993:
Were They ‘Free and Fair’?. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.seasite.niu.edu/khmer/ledgerwood/free_and_fair.htm
Types of Assistance. (n.d.). Department of Political Affairs. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/types_of_assistance%2
UNITED NATIONS TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITY IN CAMBODIA (UNTAC) - Background (Summary).
(n.d.). UN News Center. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/untacbackgr1.html
UNTAET. (n.d.). UN News Center. Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/etimor/UntaetB.htm
United Nations Department of Political Affairs - United Nations Electoral Roster. (n.d.). UN News Center.
Retrieved August 19, 2014, from
http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/un_electoral_roster
Topic B: Instability of Foreign Military Bases
Overview
Foreign military bases (also known as overseas military bases) are not an unfamiliar concept to the stratagems
of war. Since the times of the Peloponnesian War, bases established in locations that are not of one's own have
dramatically and significantly altered the face of combat and war. Overseas military bases, intended to add a
new dimension the security of both the host and foreign nation, are typically established by a treaty between the
two parties. These arrangements are made for a variety of reasons. Typically, they provide the foreign power,
which traditionally has a stronger military, another base to conduct operations from, while bolstering security
and guaranteeing an alliance with the host nation.
A military base is defined as an installation owned and operated by the military from which a military initiates
operations. Therefore, a foreign military base is specifically defined as a military base geographically located
outside of the territory of the country whose armed forces own and operate said base. As these military bases
are not bounded by national borders, they act as projectors of a military’s influence and power. The implications
of these bases are vast, and will need to be discussed at length before any conclusion can be sought.
Since the two world wars, foreign
deployment of troops on another
country’s sovereign soil has steadily
increased. Today, foreign military
bases can be found in over 100
countries worldwide.41 Notably, the
United States currently maintains
over 1000 installations worldwide in
Other
over 50 countries. 42
countries with significant overseas
presence include the United
Kingdom, Russia, and France.
While these three countries
typically have bases and agreements
Figure 1: Locations of notable foreign military bases of the UK, the US, Russia and
with their former colonial holdings
France1
(or the territories of the former
Soviet Republic), the United States has the biggest presence in countries where it has fought a major war, such
as Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Attitudes towards these bases vary, and serve as the basis for the
contentious debate of the necessity of foreign military bases. Proponents of these installations, such as the
owners of these bases and some hosts, argue that these bases help promote security and stability worldwide.43
On the contrary, critics of these bases believe that, not only do these bases violate national sovereignty, they also
41
http://www.tni.org/primer/foreign-military-bases-and-global-campaign-close-them
Ibid.
43
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564
42
foster regional instability and contribute to arms races. 44 The local impact of these bases should not be
understated, as they present a significant burden to the local area's resources. Regardless of a country’s position
on the topic, there is no denying that foreign military bases significantly affect the strategic balance of power
around the world. Therefore, it is in the interests of the entire international community to discuss the status of
foreign military bases in order to reach a diplomatic resolution.
Timeline
1917 – The US and the rest of the Allies use bases in the UK as staging grounds for operations in France.
1940 – The United States and The United Kingdom sign the "Destroyers for Bases Agreement" when the US was
still neutral.
1942 – Eighth Bomber Command relocates to the British Isles. This marks the origins of the presence of the
United States Air Force in the United Kingdom, which has been maintained until current times.
1944 – Prior to the D-Day invasion, American, Canadian and other Allied forces amass in bases in the UK. By
the end of the war, over 3 million US troops have passed through Britain on their way to the European
Theatre.45
1950 – The Korean War breaks out on the Korean Peninsula. A UN task force, chiefly backed by the US
intervenes to defend South Korea against North Korean aggression. This is the starting point of a long-time
alliance between the Republic of Korea and the US.
1951 –The United States and Japan sign a "Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security" which also provided the
US territorial rights to establish bases in Japan and maintain a permanent military presence in the Far East.
1967 – The General Assembly passes Resolution A/RES/2344 titled the "Elimination of foreign military bases in
the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America."
1971 – The Soviet Union and Syria sign an agreement to host a naval maintenance and supply facility in Tartus,
Syria. This base is the only Russian base outside of the borders of the former Soviet Union.
1982 – Argentina invades the Falklands Islands, starting the Falklands War between itself and the United
Kingdom.
1997 – Russia and Ukraine sign a treaty titled the "Partition Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black
Sea Fleet", which divided up the Black Sea fleet between the two nations and granted Russia rights to use the
Port of Sevastopol and establish a military base.
2002 – Two teenage girls are struck and killed by a US army vehicle on a training exercise in South Korea.
While the South Korean government requests that the two soldiers be prosecuted in South Korean quotes, the
44
45
http://www.tni.org/primer/foreign-military-bases-and-global-campaign-close-them
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20160819
US Army declines in accordance the US-ROK Status of Forces agreement, the jurisdiction falls under U.S.
military courts. The two soldiers were later found not guilty of negligent homicide.46
2002 – The Guantanamo Bay detention camp is established within a US naval base in Cuba.
2003 – A Western coalition of primarily American and British forces invades Iraq, using advance bases in
Turkey, Germany, Saudi Arabia etc., to topple Saddam Hussein and his Ba'athist Iraq. The Coalition forces
would maintain a force and bases in Iraq until 2011.
2005 – A proposed relocation of a US military installation on Okinawa is met with widespread resistance and
protests from the locals.
2007 – Activists hold an International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases in Ecuador. They
produced a declaration that denounces foreign military bases as instruments of war.
2009 – The Ukrainian Government announces that the lease on its naval base in the Crimea will not be
extended past 2017, its intended expiry date.47 This may have been a contributing factor to the subsequent 2014
Crimea crisis.
2014 – President Obama announces that all troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2016,
marking the end of the international presence in Afghanistan. After 2014, only a token force of 9,800 personnel
will be left in Afghanistan, concentrated around several US air force bases.
Historical Analysis
While militaries have used foreign soil as staging grounds to launch campaigns since the beginning of warfare,
it was not until much later that permanent bases were constructed and utilized on foreign territory.
The rise of permanent foreign military bases and the vast network of overseas troops deployments originates
from the two world wars. It was the end of the Second World War that defined the complex bipolar system of
Cold War international relations. 48, 49 It was also during World War II that significant overseas military
deployments established in order to accommodate with the global nature of the war. For example, before they
officially entered the war, the US signed an agreement with the UK that would then be known as the
"Destroyers for Bases Agreement." This deal facilitated the transfer of 50 obsolete destroyers from a neutral US
to a besieged UK in exchange for a 99-year lease to British naval bases in Canada and the Caribbean.50
Furthermore, as the British Isles were used as a staging ground by the US, Canada and the rest of the Allies in
anticipation of the Invasion of Normandy, this lead to the establishment of permanent bases that were used well
into the Cold War.
While they might have been allies during the war, the United States and the Soviet Union soon became
46
http://rokdrop.com/2008/06/13/gi-myths-the-2002-armored-vehicle-accident/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7833544.stm
48
http://www.colorado.edu/honorsjournal/content/world-war-i-america-makes-world-safe-imperialism
49
http://college.cqpress.com/sites/challenge/Home/chapter12.aspx
50
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a1138420.shtml
47
competitors on the new international stage. Both sought to protect and advance their interests after the war,
and this led to, what was supposed to be, temporary foreign military presences. Instead of withdrawing back to
its own borders, the Soviet Union, using its significant military presence in Eastern Europe, began to annex and
install satellite states in the countries of Eastern Europe in the initial formation of the Eastern Bloc. The USSR
was able to primarily maintain its iron grip on these regimes with a permanent garrison of Red Army troops in
these satellite nations.51 On the contrary, the United States did not use its foreign military forces as instruments
of political coercion, but mainly as security reassurances to its allies. As Germany became the primary potential
battleground of the Cold War, over 250,000 US personnel operated within Germany between 1950-2003. 52 It
was during this time that foreign military bases, and their accompanying military presence, emerged as an
implement of political influence and control.
After its capitulation in the Second World War, Japan was subjected to a military occupation by the Allied
powers, chiefly the United States. The occupation's main goal was to render a future Japan incapable of waging
offensive war. Over 350,000 US personnel were stationed there throughout the occupation period to provide
security for Japan. This highlighted a trend in this time period, where the highest concentrations of US troops
often reflected the location of the last conflict they were involved, such as Germany and Japan after WWII, and
South Korea after the Korean War, 53 perhaps to prevent their remilitarization by alleviating security concerns.
Today, around 50,000 US troops
are stationed in Japan, with 65%
of their bases are concentrated on
the island of Okinawa, and are
stationed there by invitation of
the Japanese government through
the 1960 mutual security treaty. 54
Another
reason
for
the
deployment of US forces in Asia
was to act as a counterbalance to
the growing communist threat in
East Asia. On June 25th, 1950,
North Korean troops crossed the
38th parallel in a surprise
invasion of South Korea. The
United Nations Security Council
passed Resolution 84 on July 7th, 1950, and authorized UN forces to intervene on behalf of the Republic of
Korea.55 Forward bases in Japan were used as logistical centers, and over 350,000 UN personnel, most
American troops, were deployed to Korea under a United Nations command. Today, the US stations around
28,500 personnel in South Korea. Japan and Korea have seen the second and third largest overseas deployments
of US troops respectively, currently hosts permanent US installations, and serve as a demonstration of
America's lasting commitment to this region. Other long-standing regional alliances, such as those with the
51
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/WarPact.html
Ibid.
53
http://afs.sagepub.com/content/39/1/102.full.pdf+html
54
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_Japan
55
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/84(1950)
52
Philippines and Taiwan, have also evolved from post-war US troop and base deployments in the region.56
While the aforementioned military operations reflect political posturing and its lingering effects, the following
conflicts focus on the strategic and tactical implications of foreign military bases. The Vietnam War started off
as a small-scale insurgency campaign in South Vietnam by Northern Communist guerillas known as the Viet
Cong, but soon escalated into a full blown conflict between the Communist North and the US-backed South.
Although the American forces should have had overwhelming force and resources to eradicate the insurgents,
they were initially ineffective against the Viet Cong's guerrilla tactics, who were supplied from bases in Laos
and Cambodia. Nevertheless, the US Air Force (USAF) deployed many air wings to participate in combat
operations over Vietnam, and 80% of operations originated from USAF bases in Thailand. 57 Other air
operations, crucial to the war effort in Vietnam, originated from USAF bases in the Philippines, Taiwan, and
Okinawa. USAF missions in the Vietnam War were a prolific example of how foreign military bases were used
to facilitate military operations on a tactical level that otherwise would not have been possible.
Figure 3: Five Largest Overseas Deployments of US troops: 1950-2003. 58
From the strategic scale of things, overseas military installations are crucial for projecting power in
expeditionary conflicts. Bases serve a wide variety of logistical and preparatory functions for military
operations including: command and control, training ground, staging point, storage of arms and munitions,
repair and maintenance facilities, home bases for air or naval assets and so on. For example, without the foreign
bases in Germany, Turkey, Diego Garcia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf Nations, coalition forces would not
have been able to able invade Iraq in 2003. 59 The primary bases for the ground force invasion was in Kuwait,
but all the support apparatus for the invasion, including air, intelligence and command assets were dispersed
throughout the bases in the region. Similar mechanisms were in place for the War in Afghanistan and the
Balkan conflicts, where offensive operations were conducted by NATO far away from the borders of its member
states. While these bases are seen as critical for upholding security and defense by some, others see them as a
threat to the national security of any country not siding with the US or NATO. Russia, China and many other
countries have therefore felt threatened and obliged to respond, which contributes to the arms race.60Warfare
today is increasingly asymmetrical, relying on intelligence as much as it relies on firepower, and increasingly
global. This highlights the importance of military bases as both projectors of military might and political
influence.
Current Situation
Foreign military bases in the contemporary era have risen to an issue of global prominence. Today, the United
States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, India, Turkey, and Japan own at least one foreign military base each.
Over 100 countries host foreign military bases and their accompanying military presence. 61 While Japan, India
and Turkey only have one official overseas military base, the other 4 nations have significant overseas presence
across hundreds of bases. Based on statistics, and taking into account the substantial effects of these bases, it is
56
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/global-us-troop-deployment-1950-2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force_in_Thailand
58
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/global-us-troop-deployment-1950-2003
59
http://www.tni.org/primer/foreign-military-bases-and-global-campaign-close-them
60
Ibid.
61
Ibid.
57
easy to see the scope of the issue.
A country's military is a force multiplier, amplifying a country's political sway and position on the world stage;
foreign military bases always carry with them significant political commitments and complications. Examples
of the domestic effects a foreign military bases can have range from being a "[strong] indicator of commitment
to a particular region," 62 to influencing domestic politics and to acting as a source of friction between locals and
authorities. In the past, foreign military bases had the primary role of projecting power, while this objective is
still there, they have taken on new tasks such as counter-terrorism operations, preventing intra-state conflicts
and insurgencies, and countering crimes such as piracy. 63 These new foci also emphasize cooperation between
the host nation's forces and the visiting forces, prompting an increased operational integration and cooperation
between the two parties. While the government of a host nation might welcome the existence of foreign troops,
this sentiment is not always shared by the civilians of the region. America's continued presence in its East Asian
allies of Japan and South Korea is seen as a vital counterbalance to North Korea and China, yet because of the
sheer number of troops stationed there, it has led to notable incidents in the past. (mentioned later) The
welcoming stance by the government, based on geopolitical and security concerns, is contrasted with the views
of the people, who see the military bases as liabilities. This has influenced domestic politics and the outcome of
elections more than once.
Sovereignty is defined as the authority of a state to govern its own affairs without outside interference within
the international system. 64 Its ideals are supported in the UN charter, which states in Article 2 that "The
Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." 65 Countries that are
supportive of these bases argue that these bases are established off of consensual agreements, and do not
constitute as a violation. On the contrary, countries that oppose foreign military bases believe that these bases
serve only to propagate war, and do not serve the host country's interest at all. These opinions range and differ
from case to case. For example, some believe that a foreign military presence is inadequate for deterrence, but
instead exposes the country to previously unwarranted terrorist attacks. 66 Often, the mere location of a foreign
military base can have a noteworthy impact on the relations of the host.
The potential location of foreign military bases are often determined by two factors: their intended objective
and how their location facilitates this, as well as the receptiveness of the host government. When agreements to
establish foreign military bases, known as basing agreements, are between long standing allies, such as those
between the UK and Canada, agreements are often mutually beneficial and focused on accomplishing the
objective of this deployment. Yet, problems arise when political interests fail to line up with basing interests.
When the US reached out to the Uzbek government for basing rights in Central Asia to fulfill a geopolitical role,
it came into conflict with their policy goal of basing security cooperation on democratic legitimacy. 67 In
another case, while engaging with a gradually democratizing Ukraine, Russia failed to secure a renewed lease
for their Sevastopol naval base. Both cases, among others, demonstrate the importance of foreign military bases
in their inherent political value and effect on sovereignty.
62
http://afs.sagepub.com/content/39/1/102.full.pdf+html
http://books.sipri.org/files/PP/SIPRIPP18.pdf
64
http://www.towson.edu/polsci/irencyc/sovreign.htm
65
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
66
http://books.sipri.org/files/PP/SIPRIPP18.pdf
67
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61202/alexander-cooley/base-politics
63
Military bases are ultimately instruments of war designed to fulfill the security concerns of a country. Simply by
existing, they project a strong message of force to all the surrounding countries in the region, making them
strong players on the geopolitical stage. Proponents of these bases state that they are crucial for ensuring
international security, for providing defense for their allies to countering terrorist operations, or for responding
in times of crisis. There is little doubt that these foreign military bases influence the international and
geopolitical policies of other nations. After the fall of the Soviet Union, a relegated Russia tried to retain its grip
of power around the former Soviet Republics. Instead of confronting NATO's influence into its sphere of
influence head on, Russia sought to put pressure on its former satellites to reject US influence. 68
A basing agreement is often concluded hand in hand with a treaty of mutual cooperation and security, yet, this
can also a fundamentally shift the host's defense policies. Sometimes, more powerful nations are hesitant to
commit formally because they are afraid that it will embolden the host nation, causing it to take actions that it
would not normally. Another argument states that those who are protected by a foreign military force, spend
less on defense, hence placing the overwhelming share of the burden on the visiting power. This phenomenon is
best shown by America's relationship with the European powers of NATO, where the US represents a
disproportionate 73% of the operation budget for NATO. 69
Besides redefining power mechanics, foreign military bases also have a tangible impact on arms proliferation.
Critics assert that these establishments serve to undermine international peace and security as well as
proliferate weapons and increase violence,70 They also increase the chances of future wars escalating, due to
their perceived threatening posture against certain states. Special controversy has risen regarding the overseas
deployment of nuclear weapons on other nations' sovereign soil. In many ways, the US first-strike nuclear
policy is made possible by the forward deployment of nuclear weapons in Belgium, Britain, Greece, Germany,
Holland, and Turkey through the US nuclear sharing program. 71 Through the NATO nuclear sharing program,
the US is able to provide a nuclear umbrella for its allies by stationing nuclear weapons in strategic locations
around the world.
Besides the complex political implications of foreign military bases, like any other forms of infrastructure, these
bases have a tangible environmental impact around the area they occupy. Military bases of all kinds are
notorious for their significant, and often destructive environmental impact including waste, dumping of toxins,
residue from military equipment and noise and light pollution. 72 Any military installation is expected to have
corresponding environmental impacts, but foreign bases are especially vulnerable as they are often not subject
to the same environmental regulations that domestic bases might face.73 Furthermore, as many agreements
were signed before many modern the environmental problems were publicized, they may not include the
necessary provisions in maintaining the base in a sustainable way and post-closure cleanup agreements. As the
US army presence of Okinawa demonstrates, the disproportionate environmental burden that the locals must
face (the island is home to 65% of US bases in Japan) is not adequately covered in the agreement between the
two governments. 74
68
http://books.sipri.org/files/PP/SIPRIPP18.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303802104579449571957045910
70
http://www.tni.org/primer/foreign-military-bases-and-global-campaign-close-them
71
http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/ten-reasons-withdraw-all-us-foreign-military-bases
72
http://fpif.org/overseas_military_bases_and_environment/
73
Ibid.
74
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Ui-Jun/2082
69
Past UN Involvement
As this is primarily a bilateral issue, the UN has not directly intervened in the issue in the past. However, many
important Security Council and General Assembly meetings and resolutions were affected by the presence of
foreign military bases in some way. The United Nations General Assembly has passed Resolutions A/RES/2164
and A/RES/2344 at its 21st and 22nd sessions respectively. Although the resolutions did not prompt direct
action, they did note that "this question is of paramount importance and therefore necessitates serious
discussion because of its implications for international peace and security." 75
Resistance to foreign military bases from locals has grown in the last few years. Since 2004, the International
Network for the Abolition of US Military Bases NO BASES Network have been established with the objective
of pursuing the disarmament and demilitarization of military bases in foreign countries. Activists held an
International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases in Ecuador during which they produce a
declaration which denounces foreign military bases as instruments of war. In addition, a number of places
around the world such as Diego Garcia, Okinawa, Japan and Puerto Rico have established popular grass root
movements in opposition to the activities of foreign military bases and are constantly adding social pressure to
terminate the agreements and negotiations between the foreign militaries and the host countries.
Possible Solutions and Controversies
Controversies: Status of Forces Agreements
A status of forces agreement (SOFAs) is an agreement between the owner of a foreign military base and the host
nation regarding the rights and privileges of military forces stationed in the host country. Similarly, a visiting
forces act is an act that governs the status of foreign military personnel attached or serving with the host
country's military, not necessarily ones that are permanently based overseas. While the status of force
agreements ranges over a variety of issues, they primarily deal with the legal jurisdiction over the foreign
military forces.76 Often, the host nation and foreign nation operate by a different set of laws for on-duty and
off-duty military personnel, whether that is in civil or military law. This is to ensure that military personnel
understand their rights and boundaries in which they can act in, and are punished accordingly for laws that
they do infringe. For instance, the US, who has the most SOFAs with other nations, typically reserves the right
to try defendants in US courts, in order to "protect United States personnel who may be subject to criminal trial
by foreign courts and imprisonment in foreign prisons." 77 While these agreements are meant to defend both the
soldiers and the civilians of the nation, these SOFAs often come under heavy controversy and scrutiny when
service members commit crimes.
On June 13th, 2002, a US military vehicle returning from an exercise struck and killed two South Korean
schoolgirls in a high profile incident. In accordance with the US-ROK status of forces agreement, these men
were charged under US courts for negligent homicide. Although South Korean authorities requested that these
men be tried under the South Korean legal system, this request was denied by the US military. Eventually, these
men were found not guilty. Such an incident demonstrates several controversies regarding SOFAs. Firstly, this
75
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/004/68/IMG/NR000468.pdf?OpenElement
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448
77
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/552501p.pdf
76
incident and the subsequent justice process sparked significant Anti-American sentiments and protests among
the South Korean populace. These protests called into question continuing US forces presence in South Korea,
and reflects a common trend where foreign forces are not welcome by the host civilians, yet are present due to a
geopolitical necessity. Similar incidents have occurred which involved violent crime and the judicial processes
of SOFAs, such as the 1995 Okinawa rape incident. As this was a violent and perpetrated crime, the guilty party
was handed over to local authorities, but only after they were formally indicted of the crime as per the US-Japan
agreement. This incident was also marked by high profile public protests, as well as highlighted the differences
between the judicial systems of the two countries. SOFAs are a key component of any longstanding foreign
military presence, yet they remain controversial as they often reveal a discrepancy between sentiments towards
foreign military bases and official policy.
Possible Solutions
Foreign military bases are a reality of the modern geopolitical world, therefore, finding a solution that would
promote international security and minimize security is a priority for all nations, not just the ones that own or
host these bases. As they are typically established under bilateral agreements, these foreign bases should be
serving the interests of both parties. However, once these bases start infringing on domestic politics and
sovereignty, such as affecting the host government's ability to reform or influencing politics, appropriate steps
should be taken by the host to minimize its affects.
Historically, large permanent bases were stationed in a few strategic locations around the globe. Recently,
initiatives calling for the supplementing of these Cold War era installations with smaller, more flexible forward
operations sites (FOSs) and cooperative security locations (CSLs). 78 These would ease the burden of manpower
on both the local population and on the operating nation, having the added benefit of transferring more of the
security responsibility to the host nation. The planned FOSs and CSLs will have a lighter footprint compared to
large, resource-draining bases, but will have a greater political impact because they have to spread out to be
effective.
The Use of “Status of Forces Agreements” (SOFAs)
While status of forces agreements (SOFAs) are necessary provisions for overseas military deployments, several
aspects of it are still subject to improvement. Militaries have the inherent interest of looking out for their own
personnel, but this can come into conflict with the interests of the host nation. Specific clauses in the agreement
should detail whose jurisdiction do the military personnel belong to under what circumstances. Measures to
also be taken to ensure that military personnel follow the law of the land, and any violators should be punished
accordingly. A balance must be struck in protecting the rights of the soldiers and protecting the rights of the
civilians.
Social, economic and environmental factors are of determining the current status and future location of bases.
Host governments must seek domestic approval of bases to ensure that these arrangements do not hinder
bilateral ties, and could also ameliorate relations by funding for public work projects, as well as compensating
for the base's deficiencies (noise, pollution, crime, etc.). To minimize the lasting environmental impact of a
foreign military base on the local populace, it is advisable for nations to take into account the lasting
environmental impact these bases might have, as well as who is responsible for the cleanup.
78
http://www.tni.org/primer/foreign-military-bases-and-global-campaign-close-them
The geopolitical, whether it is on a global, regional or local scale, reasons that define basing operations and
their necessity is more complex than ever before.79 For any of the reasons that a country might request a
foreign military presence, or a militarily strong power might seek to establish new outposts, their decision will
have both intended and unintended consequences on domestic, regional and national policy of others.
Delegates must be very cautious in their analysis of the current situation before creating potential solutions.
Bloc Positions
Western Bloc
The Western bloc compromised of the US, the UK, France and their allies own and operate most of the foreign
military bases of today. They view these installations as critical to upholding commitment for their allies,
providing security in their treaty obligations and defending their foreign interests. Recently, they've tried to
minimize the impact of individual bases by spreading out their operations over smaller, more numerous
installations. The affects of Western bases play into the foreign policies of many countries worldwide.
Russia
After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the number of foreign military bases
operated by Russia has seen a notable decline. However, it continues to maintain a presence in countries that
were former Soviet Republics, such as Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. It also has signed agreements
with other countries such as Vietnam and the Seychelles to expand its presence.
Central Asia and Middle East
The US has a heavy military presence in the Middle East and Central Asia, and this is opposed by states such as
China, Russia and Iran. There are opposing viewpoints as to whether these foreign bases bring about stability or
instigate instability, as past conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrates. With the rise of the extremism
including groups like the Islamic State, the role of foreign military bases in the region is being questioned again.
In Central Asia, the US is facing increased pressure to withdraw its bases from the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization.
Asia
Foreign military bases in Asia are characterized by the large, permanent deployments of American troops in the
territories of long standing allies South Korea and Japan. These bases, along with others, heavily affect regional
dynamics of countries such as China. They also have a significant impact on the local populace, and have been
a source of internal debate in these countries. India also owns a foreign military base in nearby Tajikistan.
Africa
While no African countries operate bases outside of their territories, many countries host foreign military bases.
Traditionally, there has been a greater British and French military presence in Africa due to their colonial ties;
79
http://books.sipri.org/files/PP/SIPRIPP18.pdf%20
recently, the US has expanded their military installations in Africa, although not in the quantities like some of
their other bases. China also has expressed interest in setting up a base in Africa given its diplomatic reach in
the region.
Latin America
Both Central and South America have hosted foreign military bases, but the focus in this region is not
personnel but infrastructure. The US maintains several cooperative security locations, and other early warning
sites, which are spread out over many countries. A notable controversy is the Guantanamo Bay Naval Centre.
This camp is controversial as the Cuban government claims it is a violation of their sovereignty, and it's also
infamous for alleged torture accusations. Russia also has ties with the region, a relationship originating from the
Cold War, and has expressed interest and will to construct military bases in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. 80
Discussion Questions
1. Do foreign military bases ultimately contribute or take away from global security?
2. How does a foreign military presence affect domestic sovereignty? How can national sovereignty be
balanced with various foreign agreements?
3. What steps can nations take to reduce the negative impact of foreign military bases on its host
country’s domestic and foreign policies?
4. Should status of forces agreements (SOFAs) have a universal framework? Or should countries have the
right to alter them from case to case?
5. What is the primary role of a foreign military base and its detachment of troops in modern society? Do
they even have a necessary role?
6. What should be done regarding the environmental footprint of these foreign military bases?
Additional Resources
A short news report with brief overviews on important overseas military bases.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10173740/Where-are-the-worlds-major-military-bases.html
A report on foreign military bases in Eurasia that outlines multiple country positions.
http://books.sipri.org/files/PP/SIPRIPP18.pdf%20
Some examples and counterarguments to the establishment of military bases.
http://www.tni.org/primer/foreign-military-bases-and-global-campaign-close-them
Statistics on overseas US troop deployments between 1950-2003
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/global-us-troop-deployment-1950-2003
80
http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/russia-says-its-building-naval-bases-in-asia-latin-america/
References
Bruno, G. (2008, December 23). U.S. Security Agreements and Iraq. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved
September 3, 2014, from http://www.cfr.org/iraq/us-security-agreements-iraq/p16448
Chapter 12. International Politics and the Global Community. (n.d.). International Politics and the Global
Community. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from
http://college.cqpress.com/sites/challenge/Home/chapter12.aspx
Cooley, A. (n.d.). Base Politics. Global. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61202/alexander-cooley/base-politics
Dufour, J. (2007, January 7). The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases. Global Research. Retrieved
September 3, 2014, from http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-militarybases/5564
Ecuador: International Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases. (n.d.). Ecuador: International
Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/ecuador-archives-49/664-ecuador-international-conference-forthe-abolition-of-foreign-military-bases
Gerson, J. (n.d.). Ten Reasons to Withdraw all US Foreign Military Bases. Issue 396. Retrieved September 3,
2014, from http://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/ten-reasons-withdraw-all-us-foreign-military-bases
Jun, U. (n.d.). U.S. Military Bases and Environmental Problems :: JapanFocus. U.S. Military Bases and
Environmental Problems :: JapanFocus. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Ui-Jun/2082
Kane, T. (2004, October 27). Global U.S. Troop Deployment, 1950-2003. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved
September 3, 2014, from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/global-us-troopdeployment-1950-2003
Lachowski, Z. (n.d.). Foreign Military Bases in Eurasia. SIPRI Policy Paper No. 18. Retrieved September 2, 2014,
from http://books.sipri.org/files/PP/SIPRIPP18.pdf
Morgan, N., & Lindsay-Poland, J. (1998, June 1). Overseas Military Bases and Environment - FPIF. Foreign
Policy In Focus. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from
http://fpif.org/overseas_military_bases_and_environment/
The Warsaw Pact. (n.d.). The Warsaw Pact. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/WarPact.html
United Nations Official Document. (n.d.). UN News Center. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/84(1950)
Vaknin, S. (n.d.). The Economics of Military Bases. The Economics of Military Bases. Retrieved September 3,
2014, from http://samvak.tripod.com/pp145.html
Where are the world's major military bases?. (2013, July 11). The Telegraph. Retrieved September 3, 2014, from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10173740/Where-are-the-worlds-major-militarybases.html
der Zeijden, W. v. (n.d.). Foreign Military Bases and the Global Campaign to close them. Transnational Institute.
Retrieved September 3, 2014, from http://www.tni.org/primer/foreign-military-bases-and-globalcampaign-close-them