DISEC
DISARMAMENT AND
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
COMMITTEE
AGENDA 1: PREVENTING PROXY WAR IN
MIDDLE EAST
AGENDA 2: MILITARIZATION OF THE ARCTIC
Chaired by:
RISAAL SHAAN SABBIR
SANSKAR AGARWALLA
MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD
“Disarmament with mutual honour and confidence is a containing imperative. Together
we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent
purpose.” - Dwight d Eisenhower
As the Executive Board of The Disarmament and International Security Committee, it gives
us great pleasure in welcoming all of you to third edition of the Intra Marias Model United
Nations 2016.
Let us tell you a little bit about the committee in general. The Disarmament and
International Security Committee is The First Committee of the United Nations General
Assembly. It deals with disarmament; global challenges and a threat to peace that affects
the international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international
security regime. This committee will give you insights into the world of violence, destruction,
devastation and economic turmoil and make you aware of the dangerous and
unpredictable world that surrounds us.
This time, the agendas that will be discussed in DISEC are:
∑
∑
Preventing Proxy war in middle east
Militarization of the Arctic
I would like to hand you a few basic tips to make sure our discussion takes place in a
structured and coherent fashion and that we arrive at the best possible outcome. First off,
do try and structure the debate in an orderly manner; this applies to the entire cabinet as
well as individual speeches. Always remember that good in-depth research will be your
best and only friend in this committee, when backed with substantiveness and practicality
in your points. Thirdly, never shy away from critically analyzing the material that you
gather. Lastly, do read about the mandate of this committee so you understand the
powers that you, as delegates of your country, hold.
To conclude, I would like you to know that you are always welcome to address any doubts,
clarifications or queries you may require to be answered through the course of your
preparation to us, and expect prompt answers.
Brace yourselves for two days of enriching debate, diplomacy and forging relationships
that shall last with you forever.
Best of luck...
Risaal Shaan Sabbir
Sanskar Agarwalla
Please contact us at: [email protected]
Or post it in the whatsapp group.
AGENDA 1: PREVENTING PROXY WAR IN
MIDDLE EAST
INTRODUCTION TO PROXY WAR
A proxy war is a conflict between two states or non-state actors where neither entity directly engages
the other. While this can encompass a breadth of armed confrontation, its core definition hinges on two
separate powers utilizing external strife to somehow attack the interests or territorial holdings of the
other. This frequently involves both countries fighting their opponent's allies, or assisting their allies in
fighting their opponent.
Proxy wars have been especially common since the close of World War II and the rise of the Cold War,
and were a defining aspect of global conflict during the latter half of the 20th century. Much of this was
motivated by fears that direct conflict between the United States and Soviet Union would result
in nuclear holocaust, rendering proxy wars a safer way of exercising hostilities. There were also more
immediate reasons for the emergence of proxy war on the global stage. During its later years, the USSR
often found it less expensive to arm or otherwise prop up NATO-antagonistic parties in lieu of direct
engagement. In addition, the proliferation of televised media and its impact on public perception made
the U.S. public especially susceptible to war-weariness and skeptical of risking American life abroad. This
led to the practice of arming insurgent forces, such as the funneling of supplies to the Mujahideen during
the Soviet-Afghan War.
Proxy wars in the Middle East often involve fighting the opposition’s allies, or providing ammunition
and support to rebels within the opposition country, or helping rebels operating in the opposition
country’s allies etc. In the Middle East, the major proxy wars exist at several fronts. In the Israel –
Palestine conflict, the Hamas which has shared close links and received funding from Iran has been
used as a non – state actor to facilitate Iran’s proxy war against Israel. Hamas grew in Gaza after
Israel pulled out in 2005 and there have been several conflicts between Israel and the Hamas,
facilitating the larger proxy war between Iran and Israel, as Iran accuses the latter of human right
offences against Palestinians. Within Syria, the larger fissures in the region between Iran and Saudi
Arabia also play into this conflict at hand. With Saudi Arabia being the leader of the Sunni Muslim
faith and Iran being the leader of the Shia Muslim faith, a proxy war between these two countries
weaves itself into existing conflicts within the Middle East. As for the Syrian Civil War, the Shiite
Assad regime is currently funded by Iran and is supported by Iran’s proxy Hezbollah. The Sunni Free
Syrian Army receives varying levels of support from Saudi Arabia. Other insurgents in the region
belonging to the Sunni faith have also been receiving aid from Saudi Arabia which is a strong
supporter for Islamic factions, including the Islamic Front1, Jaysh – al – Fath, Ahrar – al – Sham, as
well as the Jaysh – al – Islam rebel alliances. As defined before, countries can fund opposition
groups within the opposing country or its allies in a proxy war. On the Iraqi front, there have been
speculations that members of the Saudi Arabian government have provided financial support to
the Sunni opposition groups 1 within Iraq to directly attack the Shiite Iraqi government backed by
Iran.
Introduction to DISEC’s mandate with respect to the agenda
Quoting Article 11 Clause 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, “The General Assembly may
consider the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and
security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments”. With
the specific reference to the maintenance of “international peace and security”, it is imperative that
the DISEC is used as a multilateral forum for the prevention of proxy wars since the use of opposing
powers and mercenaries used to spark such proxy wars poses a direct threat to the security and
geopolitical balance in the Middle East. When dealing with proxy wars in the Middle East, DISEC’s
role, as defined in Chapter 4 of the UN Charter, shall extend to the regulation of increased
ammunition provided to non – state actors (proxies) to execute proxy wars which have led to an
increase in the length, intensity and scale of armed conflicts. Under Article 13 of the UN Charter, the
DISEC is tasked with addressing issues that “endanger international peace”, which is important to
address the possible infringement of territorial interests of nations which is normally achieved
through the utilization of external strife by nations in a proxy war. DISEC, under its mandate, can
use its existing partnerships with the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters and the UN
Disarmament Commission to SUGGEST/ RECOMMEND improvements to the Disarmament,
Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) strategy used by the UNPKF to sustainably establish
peace in conflict zones.
Definition of Key Terms
Middle East
The Middle East is a transcontinental region centered on Western Asia that includes the countries of
Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and Yemen5.
Proxy war
A proxy war is a conflict between two nations where neither nation directly engages in combat with
the other. It relies on the two nations using external strife to attack the territorial holdings or other
interests of the opposing country6.
Proxies
A proxy is an agent or organization ordered to act for another person or body. In proxy wars, a
proxy refers to the organization used by a country to conduct or execute the war against the
opposing country.
Operation Decisive Storm
Operation Decisive Storm refers to the military intervention conducted by Saudi Arabia along with
a coalition of 9 countries to attack the Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are allied to Iran. It was a
military intervention that lasted 3 weeks and 6 days, from 26 March to 21 April 20157.
Hezbollah
Hezbollah is a Shi’a Islamist militant group operating from Lebanon8 that has been funded and
armed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. This organization has served as Iran’s proxy in the iran –
Saudi Arabia proxy war.
Islamic Front
The Islamic Front is a Sunni Islamist rebel group involved in the Syrian Civil War. It was formed by
the merger of seven separate groups on 22 November 201310, and this group is widely seen as
backed and armed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia11. It has served as Saudi Arabia’s proxy in the
Iran – Saudi Arabia proxy war.
Jaysh – Al – Islam Rebel Alliances
Jaysh – Al – Islam is a coalition of Islamist and Salafist units involved in the Syrian Civil War. It has
been armed and backed by Saudi Arabia12 and has played a major role in the Iran – Saudi Arabia
proxy war.
Hamas
Hamas is a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization that has a military wing and has had
increased and growing presence in the Gaza Strip. It has been funded by Iran, of over $30 million13
in the start of the 21st century, and has been an important proxy for Iran in the Iran – Israel proxy
war.
Background Information
Proxy wars in the Middle East have continually threatened the territorial sovereignty of several
nations and has questioned the regional governmental policies and institutions. The two major
proxy wars that shall be explored in detail in this section are the Iran – Israel proxy war and the
Iran – Saudi Arabia proxy war.
IRAN ISRAEL PROXY WAR
The Israel–Iran proxy conflict or Israeli-Iranian proxy war is the ongoing indirect conflict
between Israel and Iran. The conflict is bound in the political struggle between Iranian leadership and
Israel, with the counter aim of Israel to prevent alleged nuclear weapons from the Iranian government
and downgrading its allies and proxies such as Hezbollahparty in Lebanon. Iranian forces are operating
in Syria in support of Bashar al-Assad's government. Israel has provided medical treatment for Syrian
civilians and rebels, including some members of al-Nusra Front, which has caused strife amongst the
Israeli Druze community.
Israel and Syria have observed a truce since Israel reaffirmed its control over most of the Golan
Heights in the 1973 war, but the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, has led to several incidents of fire
exchange across the once-peaceful borders. The Israeli military is reportedly preparing itself for potential
threats should there be a power vacuum in Syria. "After Assad and after establishing or strengthening
their foothold in Syria they are going to move and deflect their effort and attack Israel," an Israeli
official told The Associated Press in January 2014. Some experts say that while the encroaching militant
forces on Israel's border will heighten security measures, the advancements are not likely to create
significant changes to Israel’s policy disengagement in the Syria crisis.
Iran, in contact with the U.S. over the fight against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has said that Israel
would be at risk if the U.S. and its coalition sought to topple Assad. Hezbollah’s October 7, 2014 attack
on Israeli forces, its first declared such operation since 2006, proved the seriousness of the threat. Though
the Islamic Republic of Iran has been known for its anti-Israeli stance from the very beginning, its
continuous support for Hezbollah evolved into almost a direct confrontation with Israel, as
Revolutionary Guards have allegedly infiltrated Lebanon and directly supported Hezbollah during the
past decade. The Hamas-dominated Gaza had also been considered a proxy of Iran.
Iran declares its foreign policy is based on aiding the oppressed vulnerables around the world- not for
material gains, but as a humanitarian religious positive action. In Iran's foreign policy Israel is
conceptualized as a Zionist regime that threatens vulnerable people and Islamic religion itself.[41] It is
known as ideological enemy for Iran.
BACKGROUND
Iranian–Israeli relations have shifted from close ties between Israel and Iran during the era of
the Pahlavi dynasty to hostility since the Islamic Revolution. Iran has severed all diplomatic and
commercial ties with Israel, and its government has not recognized Israel as a state, referring to its
government as the "Zionist regime".
The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon resulted in the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) departure
from Lebanon. The following creation of Security Zone in South Lebanon has benefited Israeli allies in
Lebanon and civilian Israeli population, as Galilee suffered less violent attacks by Hezbollah, than
previously by PLO in the 1970s (hundreds of Israeli civilian casualties). Despite this Israeli success in
eradicating PLO bases and partial withdraw in 1985, the Israeli invasion had actually increased the
severity of conflict with local Lebanese militias and resulted in the consolidation of several local Shia
Muslim movements in Lebanon, including Hezbollah and Amal, from a previously unorganized guerrilla
movement in the south. Over the years, military casualties of both sides grew higher, as both parties
used more modern weaponry, and Hezbollah progressed in its tactics.
Iran supplied the militant organization Hezbollah with substantial amounts of financial, training,
weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid while persuading Hezbollah to take
an action against Israel. Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto listed its four main goals as "Israel's final departure
from Lebanon as a prelude to its final obliteration" According to reports released in February 2010,
Hezbollah received $400 million from Iran. By the early 1990s, Hezbollah, with support from Syria and
Iran, emerged as the leading group and military power, monopolizing the directorship of the guerrilla
activity in South Lebanon.
In one of the region's oddest pairings, Israel and the Gulf Arab states led by Saudi Arabia increasingly
are finding common ground — and a common political language — on their mutual dismay over the
prospect of a nuclear deal in Geneva that could curb Tehran's atomic program but leave the main
elements intact, such as uranium enrichment. In January 2014 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu warned that Iran's nuclear program would only be set back six weeks as a result of its
interim agreement with the international community.
Iran’s funding to the Hamas and the subsequent Hamas – Israel conflicts
Iran has provided multitudes of funding and ammunition to the Hamas operating in Palestine. In
the Israel – Palestine conflict, the Hamas which has shared close links and received funding from
Iran has been used as a non - state actor to facilitate Iran’s proxy war against Israel. Hamas grew in
Gaza after Israel pulled out in 2005 and there have been several conflicts between Israel and the
Hamas, facilitating the larger proxy war between Iran and Israel as Iran accuses the latter of
human right offences against Palestinians. In the words of Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the
Palestinian National Authority, “Hamas is funded by Iran. Iran provides the Hamas with military
weaponry14. Technologies provided include the Fajr – 5, M – 75 and M – 302 rockets15, as well as
drone technologies”. After the Gaza War, the Israeli Air Force retaliated against the Hamas by
carrying out air strikes against the ammunition convoy travelling through Sudan that was
supplying armaments from Iran to Hamas 16. Israel also sunk a ship carrying ammunition in the Red
Sea, hence aiming to reduce ammunition supply to the Hamas. On 15 March 2011, Israel seized a
ship from Syria that was bringing Iranian weapons to Gaza 17. Hence, Israel has continuously
managed to successfully intercept Hamas’s ammunition channels, which has slowed down the
growth of Hamas.
Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian Civil War
Hezbollah involvement in the Syrian Civil War has been substantial almost since the beginning of
armed insurgency in late 2011, and turned into active support and troops deployment since 2012. By
2014, Hezbollah involvement was steady and staunch in support of the Ba'athist government forces
across Syria. Hezbollah deployed several thousand fighters in Syria and by 2015 lost up to 1500 fighters
killed in support to the Syrian government. Hezbollah has also been very active to prevent rebel
penetration from Syria to Lebanon, being one of the most active forces in the Syrian Civil War spillover
in Lebanon.
In addition, Hezbollah has served a strategic arm of Iran in Syria and Lebanon, allegedly playing a key
role in the Iran-Israel proxy conflict in the region. In a number of occasions, Hezbollah weapon convoys
in Syria were attacked, with Israel being the main suspected party behind most such attacks, though
Israel has never claimed responsibility. Hezbollah convoys have also been attacked by Syrian rebels,
most notably the Al-Nusra Front.
Israel’s concerns about Iran’s Nuclear Program
Israel feels threatened by Iran’s nuclear program and hence, as part of the ongoing proxy war, has
conducted several operations to hinder and adversely affect Iran’s ongoing nuclear program.
Officials from the United States government confirmed that the Israeli government provided
training and support to a proxy – the People’s Mujahedin of Iran18, to assassinate Iranian nuclear
scientists involved in Iran’s nuclear program. This was means to slow down and hamper the
efficiency of Iran’s nuclear activity. These attacks included killing of particle physicists as well as
nuclear scientists by the use of gunmen as well as explosive devices. On 29 November 2010, Majid
Shahriari, a senior Iranian nuclear scientist was killed when a bomb strapped to his car was
remotely detonated. Explosions were also reported at nuclear facilities in Isfahan. Mostafa Ahmadi
Roshan, a chemistry expert and a director at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant in Central Iran
was killed by two gunmen on motorcycles who attached magnetic bombs to his car 19. Apart from
the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, Israel has taken several other steps in order to slow
down and hamper Iran’s nuclear program as part of the proxy war. One of these measures in the
Stuxnet virus developed by Israel to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, in particular the Natanz
facility. According to a study conducted by the Institute of Science and International Security, the
Stuxnet virus is expected to have affected around 1000 centrifuges20, which constitute 10% of the
centrifuges installed at the Natanz enrichment plant.
IRAN- SAUDI ARABIA PROXY WAR
The Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict is the ongoing struggle for regional influence between the Islamic
Republic of Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The countries have provided varying degrees of
support to opposing sides in nearby conflicts, including the civil wars
in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Iraq, as well as in Central Asia and Pakistan.
In what has been described as a cold war, the conflict is waged on multiple levels related to geopolitical,
economic, and sectarian influence. American support for Saudi Arabia and its allies along with growing
Russian support for Iran have drawn comparisons to the Cold War era, and the proxy conflict has been
characterized as a front in what Prime MinisterDmitry Medvedev has referred to as the "New Cold
War".
BACKGROUND
The proxy conflict can be traced back to the Iranian Revolution, where Iran became an Islamic Republic.
The revolutionaries called specifically for the overthrow of monarchies and their replacement with
Islamic republics, much to the alarm of its smaller Sunni-run Arab neighbors Iraq (then under
the Ba'athists), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the other Persian Gulf States – most of whom were
monarchies and all of whom had sizable Shia populations. Islamist insurgents rose in Saudi Arabia
(1979), Egypt (1981), Syria (1982), and Lebanon (1983).
Prior to the Iranian Revolution, the two countries constituted the Nixon Doctrine's "twin pillar" policy in
the Middle East. The monarchies, particularly Iran, were allied with the US to ensure stability in the Gulf
region and act as a bulwark against Soviet influence during the Arab Cold War. The alliance acted as a
moderating influence on the Saudi-Iranian rivalry. Saudi Arabia sponsored an international Islamic
conference in Mecca in 1962. It created the Muslim World League, dedicated to spreading Islam and
fostering Islamic solidarity. The League was "extremely effective" in promoting Islam, particularly
conservative Wahhabi Islam in the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia also spearheaded the creation of
the Organisation of Islamic Cooperationin 1969.
In 1980, Saddam Hussein attempted to take advantage of revolutionary unrest in Iran and quell the
revolution in its infancy. Fearing a potential revolutionary wave that could threaten Iraq's stability,
Hussein launched an invasion on 20 September, triggering the Iran–Iraq War which lasted for eight
years and killed hundreds of thousands. During the war, Iraq received financial or military support from
neighboring countries including Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab
Emirates, in part to hedge Iranian power and prevent the spread of its revolution. Apart from the Iran–
Iraq War, Iran and Saudi Arabia have engaged in tense rivalry, supporting different armed groups in
the Lebanese Civil War, the Soviet–Afghan War and other conflicts. After the Cold War, Iran and Saudi
Arabia continued to support different groups and organizations along sectarian lines such as in Iraq and
Yemen.
In the wake of the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia called for the formation of a Gulf Union to deepen ties
among the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The proposal reflected the Saudi
government's preoccupation with preventing potential uprisings by disenfranchised minorities in the Gulf
monarchies as well as its regional rivalry with Iran. The union would have centralized Saudi influence in
the region by giving it greater control over military, economic, and political matters affecting member
states. With the exception of Bahrain, other members rejected the proposed federation, with Oman,
Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates wary that it would lead to Saudi dominance. However,
due to the decreasing importance of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict as a wedge issue and mutual
tensions with Iran, GCC states have sought strengthened economic and security cooperation with Israel,
who is involved in its own proxy conflict with Iran.
Saudi Arabia has also become increasingly concerned about the United States' commitment as an ally
and security guarantor. The American foreign policy pivot to Asia, its lessening reliance on Saudi oil, and
the potential of rapprochement with Iran have all contributed to a more assertive Saudi foreign
policy. The onset of the Arab Winter exacerbated Saudi concerns about Iran as well as its own internal
stability. The surrounding revolutions and civil wars prompted Riyadh to take greater action to
maintain the status quo, particularly within Bahrain and other bordering states, with its new foreign
policy being described as a "21st century version of the Brezhnev Doctrine."
The complex nature of economic and security concerns, ideological division, and intertwined alliances
has drawn comparisons to pre-World War I Europe.
Nuclear programs of Iran and Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has taken the “strategic decision” to acquire “off-the-shelf” atomic weapons from
Pakistan, risking a new arms race in the Middle East, according to senior American officials. In 2003,
public policy think tank GlobalSecurity.org reported that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had entered a
secret agreement on nuclear cooperation to provide the Saudis with nuclear-weapons technology in
return for access to cheap oil for Pakistan. Iran has had a nuclear program since the 1950s and after the
rise of the fundamentalist regime in 1979, the new government continued to pursue a nuclear program.
Both governments claim that their programs are for peaceful purposes but foreign governments and
organizations have accused both countries of taking steps in order to obtain nuclear weapons
capabilities.
Involvement in regional conflicts
In Syria
Syria has been a major theater in the proxy conflict throughout the civil war, which began in 2011. Iran
and the GCC states have provided varying degrees of military and financial support to opposing sides,
with Iran backing the government and Saudi Arabia supporting rebel militants.
Syria is an important part of Iran's sphere of influence, and the Bashar al-Assad regime has long been a
strong ally. During the early stages of the Arab Spring, Supreme LeaderKhamenei initially expressed
support for the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, characterizing them as an "Islamic awakening" akin to
its own revolution in 1979. When protestsbroke out in Syria, Iran changed its position and condemned
them, comparing the uprising to its own presidential election protests in 2009 and accusing the United
States and Israel of being behind the unrest.
The war threatens Iran's position, and Saudi Arabia and its allies have sided with Sunni rebels in part to
weaken Iran. For years Iranian forces have been involved on the ground, with soldiers in Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corps facing heavy casualties. In 2014, with no end in sight to the conflict, Iran
increased its ground support for the Syrian Army, providing elite forces, intelligence gathering, and
training. Iran also backs pro-Assad Hezbollah fighters.
Russia intervened in September 2015 to provide support for the Assad government and target rebel
groups, working together with Iran and utilizing Iranian air bases to stage air strikes. Saudi Arabia
countered by increasing its support for the rebels and supplying American made anti-tank TOW missiles,
a move which slowed initial progress made by Russian and Syrian forces.
In 2015 Iran and Saudi Arabia agreed to participate in peace talks in Vienna in participation with
United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, but the talks
ultimately failed.
In Yemen
Yemen has been called one of the major fronts in the conflict as a result of the revolution and
subsequent civil war. Yemen had for years been within the Saudi sphere of influence. The decadelong Houthi insurgency in Yemen stoked tensions with Iran, with accusations of covert support for the
rebels. A 2015 UN report alleged that Iran provided the Houthi rebels with money, training, and arms
shipments beginning in 2009. However, the degree of support has been subject to debate, and
accusations of greater involvement have been denied by Iran. The 2014–2015 coup d'état was viewed
by Saudi leadership as an immediate threat, and as an opportunity for Iran to gain a foothold in the
region. In March 2015, a Saudi-led coalition of Arab states intervened and launched airstrikes in the
country, declaring the entire Saada Governorate a military target and imposing a naval blockade.
The United States intervened in October 2016 after missiles were fired at a US warship, which was in
place to protect oil shipments along the sea lane passing through the Mandeb Strait. The US blamed the
rebels and responded by targeting radar sites with missile strikes along the Red Sea coast. In response,
rebels called the strikes evidence of American support for the Saudi campaign.
In Iraq
Iraq under Saddam Hussein had been hostile to both Iran and Saudi Arabia. The invasion of Iraq in
2003 and the Iraq War led to a power vacuum in the region. Iran supported Shiite opposition groups
and the subsequent Iran-friendly regime as part of an effort to undermine the American-led coalition,
which Iran feared would install a government hostile to their interests. The instability that resulted from
the Iraqi Civil War and the rise of ISIL led to an Iranian intervention in Iraq in 2014. Iran sought to
protect the existing regime and its own interests by mobilizing Shiite militia groups to halt the advancing
insurgency.
In Afghanistan
The rivalry has contributed to the ongoing instability in Afghanistan. Afghanistan shares historical ties
with Iran, and is strategically important to Saudi Arabia. After the Cold War, Saudi policy shifted from
fighting the spread of communism to containing Iranian influence in South and Central Asia. Saudi
Arabia was one of three countries to officially recognize the Sunni Taliban government in 1996 along
with its allies Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. In 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan and the
removal of the Taliban in the wake of the September 11 attacks benefited Iran, who had previously
been on the brink of war with the group. The regime change removed its primary threat along its
eastern borders, and the removal of Saddam Hussein two years later further bolstered its position,
allowing it to refocus its efforts on other areas of the Middle East like Syria and Yemen.
In Pakistan
Since 1989 Pakistan has been dealing with sectarian conflict. The country's diverse population is divided
not only among various sects of Islam, but also along various ideologies. It has adherents from Shi'a,
Sunni, and Ahmadi designations of Islam as well as a minority of Hindus, Christians, and Sikhs. The
population is predominantly Sunni and has about 20-25% of Shi'a adherents, making it the second
largest nation in the world after Iran with such a significant Shi'a population. About 2.3% of Muslims in
Pakistan identify as Ahmadiyya. Roughly 1.6% of the population are Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Jain, Baha'i
Faith, and Buddhist. Typically the adherents of Buddhism and Jainism are comparatively very low.
Militants targets in Pakistan include the Sunni, Shia, and the minority Ahmadi, Hindu, and Christian
religious groups. As many as 4,000 people are estimated to have been killed in Shia-Sunni sectarian
fighting in Pakistan between 1987–2007. Since 2008 "thousands of Shia" have been killed by Sunni
extremists according to the human rights group Human Rights Watch. One significant aspect of the
attacks on Shi'a in Pakistan is that militants often target Shi'a worshiping places (Imambargah) during
prayers in order to maximize fatalities and to "emphasize the religious dimensions of their
attack." Human Rights Watch also states that in 2011 and 2012 Pakistan minority groups Hindus,
Ahmadi, and Christians "faced unprecedented insecurity and persecution in the country." Attacks
on Sufi shrines by Salafi have also been reported.
In 2015 Pakistan declared its neutrality in the conflict in Yemen after Saudi solicitations for military
support. However, due to its heavy economic dependence on the country, Pakistan provided some
degree of covert support, joining Somalia in sending proxy forces to aid the Saudi-led campaign against
Houthi rebels. In 2016 Saudi Arabia sought closer ties with Pakistan as part of its "look east" policy of
expanding its reach to East and South Asia.
Recent events
The 2015 Mina stampede in Mecca during the annual Hajj pilgrimage further inflamed tensions. Tehran
blamed the Saudi government for the tragedy and accused them of incompetence, which Riyadh
rejected. In May 2016 Iran suspended participation in the upcoming Hajj. In September, Saudi Arabia
launched a 24-hour Persian language satellite channel to broadcast the Hajj proceedings from 10 to 15
September. Ayatollah Khamenei accused Riyadh of politicizing the Hajj tragedy and argued that Saudi
Arabia should not be running the pilgrimage.
On 2 January 2016, 47 people were put to death in several Saudi cities, including prominent Shiite
cleric Nimr al-Nimr. Protesters of the executions responded by demonstrating in Iran’s capital, Tehran.
That same day a few protesters would eventually ransack the Saudi Embassy in Tehran and later set it
ablaze. Police donned riot gear and arrested 40 people during the incident. In response, Saudi Arabia,
along with its allies, Bahrain, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, and the Comoros cut diplomatic ties with Iran.
Iran's foreign ministry responded by saying the Saudis were using the incident as a pretext for fueling
tensions.
The rule of King Salman has brought about a more assertive Saudi foreign policy, particularly reflected
in the country's intervention in Yemen. He made significant changes in domestic policy to address
growing unemployment and economic uncertainty. Such economic pressures further affected the
regional dynamic in 2016. Russia, who has long maintained ties with Iran, has sought closer ties to Saudi
Arabia. In September 2016, the two nations conducted informal talks about cooperating on oil
production. Both have been heavily affected by the collapse of oil prices and considered the possibility of
an OPEC freeze on oil output. As part of the talks, Russian President Vladimir Putinrecommended an
exemption for Iran, whose oil output has steadily increased following the lifting of international
sanctions in January 2016. He stated that Iran deserves the opportunity to reach its pre-sanction levels of
output. In what was seen as a significant compromise, Saudi Arabia offered to reduce its oil production
if Iran capped its own output by the end of 2016.
Extremist movements throughout the Middle East have also become a major division between Iran and
Saudi Arabia. During the Cold War, Saudi Arabia funded extremist militants in part to bolster resistance
to the Soviet Union at the behest of the United States, and later to combat Shiite movements supported
by Iran. The support had the unintended effect of metastasizing extremism throughout the region. The
Saudi government now considers extremist groups like ISIL and the Al-Nusra Front to be one of the two
op-ed, Iranian Foreign
major threats to the kingdom, the other being Iran. In a
Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif agreed that terrorism was an international threat and called on
the United Nations to block funding of extremist ideologies using Iran's WAVE initiative as a framework.
However, he placed the blame on Saudi Arabia and its sponsorship of Wahhabism for instability in the
Middle East. He argued that Wahhabism was the fundamental ideology shared among terrorist groups
in the Middle East, and that it has been "devastating in its impact." He went so far as to proclaim "Let us
rid the world of Wahhabism" and asserted that, despite arguments otherwise, Wahhabism was the true
cause of the Iran–Saudi Arabia rivalry.
ROLES OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND COUNTRIES
United States of America
The United States of America has been extensively involved with Saudi Arabia to conduct air
strikes and other operations against the Syrian government of Assad as well as against the ISIS. USA
has provided varied levels of support to the Free Syrian Army and hence has supported Saudi
Arabia in the conflict. The United States was also involved in the provision of non – lethal aid to
Syrian government’s opposition groups in Syria46, hence intensifying the fight against the Bashar Al
Assad regime. It has provided training and other form of support to ‘moderate’ opposition groups
in the country in order to fight the Assad forces47. The United States was also involved in Operation
Decisive Storm by providing intelligence and logistical support for the Saudi Arabia led campaign
in Yemen. It was involved in the extensive military and intelligence cooperation aimed at
destroying Houthi strongholds in the Yemen Civil War. Hence, the involvement of the United States
of America has intensified the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, by supporting Saudi
Arabia’s military campaigns and propositions in the region.
Gulf Cooperation Council
All Gulf Cooperation Council members except Oman have collaborated together to plan and
execute Operation Decisive Storm. Hence, the GCC has played an integral role in organizing
military activity against the Houthi rebels in the Yemeni Civil War and hence have worked
supporting Saudi Arabia in the Iran – Saudi Arabia proxy war. All GCC members (except Oman)
have contributed military support to Operation Decisive Storm and Operation Restoring Hope,
with countries like Jordan and Kuwait contributing 6 and 15 military jets for air strikes respectively.
The Gulf Cooperation Council, in the context of the Syrian Civil War, had formally recognized the
National Coalition of the Syrian Opposition48 and hence recognized opposition rebels in 2012 that
were protesting and acting against the Bashar Al Assad regime in Syria. So, the GCC has supported
Saudi Arabia extensively in the ongoing proxy war, hence making the conflicts with Iran more
intense and costlier on political and humanitarian grounds.
Hezbollah
Hezbollah is one of the most important organizations when it comes to proxy wars in the Middle
East. Hezbollah has served as a proxy for Iran in all of Iran’s proxy wars. Hezbollah is aiding the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in training and helping troops of the Assad government in
fighting the Syrian opposition rebels. Hezbollah is also involved in the proxy war between Iran and
Israel, by engaging in military encounters with the Israeli Defence Forces. One of the most massive
military encounters between the Hezbollah and the IDF was the 2006 Lebanese War. After the
same, both parties have upgraded their military infrastructure and weapons systems, engaging in
several crossfires, like when the IDF destroyed Hezbollah camps and warehouses and in retaliation,
Hezbollah destroyed an IDF military convoy.
Hamas
Hamas has also served as one of Iran’s proxies and has involved itself in the Iran – Israel proxy war.
Hamas came to power in the Gaza Strip, and has received ammunition and funding from Iran for
engaging in military activity against the State of Israel. Hamas has received technologies like the M
– 302 and M – 75 rockets from Iran, according to the President of the Palestinian National
Authority.
Timeline of Events
Iran – Saudi Arabia Proxy War in the context of the Syrian Civil War:
Date
Description of event
Iran provided the Assad government with riot control equipment and intelligence
May 2011
monitoring techniques to be able to curb riots following the Arab Spring in Syria
The deputy head of Iran’s elite Quds Force mentioned that Iran was providing
May 2012
logistical help and also training Assad’s troops in Syria. Iran also provided
Hezbollah’s fighters to Assad to help in the civil war
The United Nations noted with concern that Iran was providing weapons and
ammunition to the Assad government in spite of an arms ban, as Turkish authorities
May 2012
captured crates filled with machine guns, explosives and detonators en route from
Iran to Syria
The Iranian government sent senior members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
September 2012
Corps (IRGC) to help the Assad government in fighting rebels and opposition
Saudi Arabia provided large amounts of ammunition and weapons to rebel factions
December 2012
in Syria, like the Islamic Front by channeling it through sources in Jordan
Iran provided contingent fighters to the Assad regime to support troops of the
Syrian government. Members of the elite Quds Force were also used in order to
June 2013
coordinate attacks, train fighters and set up elaborate systems to monitor the
movement and communication of the opposing rebels
Saudi Arabia appointed Bandar Bin Sultan as the person – in - charge of leading
August 2013
Saudi Arabian efforts to topple the Assad government
Hezbollah camps and warehouses began to grow in Syria, and Hezbollah started to
June 2014
serve as an intelligence and strategic support proxy for Iran in helping the Assad
regime49
Iran used support from the Russian government to enhance the military equipment
24 July 2015
available to the Assad government and hence strengthened the offensives against
the Saudi Arabia – backed Syrian rebels.
Saudi Arabia provided new anti – tank missiles and recoilless guns to rebels in Syria
November 2015
in order to combat new government offences that were supported by Iran
Iran – Saudi Arabia Proxy War in the context of the Yemen Civil War:
Date
Description of event
Weapons were seized from a ship off the coast of Yemen. These weapons, believed
January 2013
to be destined for the Houthi rebels, included surface – to – air missiles and
explosives with Iranian markings on them.
The Houthi rebels, aided by Iran’s supply of weaponry and funding, were able to
January 2015
make significant advancements against the opposition, by capturing the Al –
Dalyami air base and the presidential complex in Yemen.
Saudi Arabia started Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen, aimed at conducting air
strikes to destroy Houthi strongholds in the region. This operation started with
26 March 2015
Saudi Arabia leading a coalition of several states part of the Gulf Cooperation
Council, against the Iran backed Houthis.
Saudi Arabia continued its offensive against the Houthis rebels supported by Iran.
Saudi Arabia conducted large scale air strikes against the Houthi strongholds in the
28 March 2015
Ma’hib Governorate and the Abyan Governorate. The air strikes also attacked air
bases under Houthi control near Sana’a.
Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt, used its navy to support Operation Decisive Storm.
30 March 2015
The navies bombarded Houthi positions during the Houthi advance towards Aden.
21 April 2015
Operation Decisive Storm ended.
22 April 2015
Saudi Arabia announced the start of Operation Restoring Hope in Yemen, which
tried to continue a naval blockade against Houthi regions, eliminate the Houthis and
reinstate the Hadi government
Saudi Arabia is believed to have air dropped ammunition and arms to anti Houthi
30 April 2015
fighters near Taiz, to strengthen its combat against the Iran – backed Houthis
The United Nations declared the Yemen Civil War as a “level three” emergency, the
highest level of emergency assigned to a conflict. This declaration of the level of
1 July 2015
emergency can be said to be because the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia
in Yemen intensified the Yemen Civil War and led to higher humanitarian and
political costs in Yemen.
According to sources of the coalition, Saudi Arabia managed to capture an Iranian
26 September 2015
fishing boat off the coast of Yemen that allegedly contained weapons destined by
the Houthis. Saudi Arabia claims that it found anti – tank shells and launchers.
Key Issues
Lack of monitoring of the sources of obtaining ammunition used by proxies like Hezbollah and
Hamas, including obtaining ammunition from the nations involved
As mentioned earlier, most of these proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas are able to obtain weapons
and ammunition from sources of weaponry that are usually not monitored by the international
community. For example, there was an alleged Iranian fishing vessel off the coast of Yemen that
was carrying weapons including missiles and explosives for the Houthis to use. Even though such
instances may not be confirmed, they hint towards a large network of an international illegal trade
in small arms and light weapons that is exploited by these proxies. Hence, one of the key issues that
leads to the development of these proxy wars is the fact that UN bodies like the United Nations
Office on Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) have been unable to track and monitor all possible
sources of conventional weaponry available. This lack of control by the UN allows proxies to exploit
the same and strengthen themselves by obtaining weaponry from illegal sources. Many proxies also
obtain weaponry from the nations involved in the proxy war itself. For example, Saudi Arabia was
found to be supplying weaponry including anti tank missiles and recoilless guns to opposition rebels
in Syria, like the Islamic Front. Hence, the availability of ammunition to these proxies can also be
attributed to the inability and inefficiency of the Counter Terrorism Committee and the Counter
Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF) to crack down on any instances of state – sponsored
terrorism, considering that many proxies used in the Middle East are recognized as terrorist
organizations by the UN.
Lack of order or any sort of law enforcement in conflict regions, and poor border
security
In conflicts like the Syrian Civil War, with the Assad government losing control of over half of the
country to opposition rebels, or in the Yemen Civil War, where the Hadi government is losing
control of large portions of the country to the Houthis, the lack of government presence in certain
regions of the country allows proxies to exercise their will. This lack of government presence leads to
a lack of order or any sort of law enforcement in the regions, allowing the proxies to act freely,
without consequence. This means that proxies are able to use conventional weaponry freely in these
regions, and face no punishment for their actions, even though they may be in violation of
A/RES/70/71. Hence, one of the major reasons for the growth and strengthening of the proxies is the
lack of law enforcement in conflict regions. Poor border security in many areas such as the Syrian
border, the Iraqi border, or even the Yemeni border for instance has also contributed to the growth
of proxies. Poor border security make sit easier for proxies to easily infiltrate across nations, like
opposition rebels supported by Saudi Arabia have found it easy to infiltrate the Syrian border
between Syria and Iraq. Poor border security also allows the nations involved, like Saudi Arabia, to
easily provide weaponry and funding to the proxies as lack of surveillance at the borders means
that weapons convoys can easily cross the border to reach the proxies supported by a nation in the
country. For example, poor border security on the Syria – Jordan border allowed Saudi Arabia to
transport weapons to the Islamic Front through that border.
The possible disastrous effect of the Iranian nuclear program on the proxy wars
Israel allegedly orchestrated the assassinations of several senior Iranian nuclear scientists, all in the
fear that Iran’s nuclear program could have a disastrous impact on the Iran – Israel proxy war and
pose a threat to Israel’s national security. Israel was in the fear that Iran’s nuclear program could
possibly be used to develop weapons of mass destruction (nuclear weapons) that could be used by
Iran’s proxies like Hezbollah, against Israel. Even though the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) has certified and reviewed Iran’s nuclear program, the international community yet fears
the slightest possibility that this phenomenon about WMD may be true, considering Iran’s
reluctance to provide information to the IAEA in the past58. Although Iran eliminated its stockpile of
20% enriched uranium under the request of IAEA59, Iran still possesses over 5000 centrifuges across
the country, including those in its Natanz enrichment plant. Although Iran has agreed to ensure
that uranium at its nuclear facilities is not enriched beyond 3.7%, the international community
notes with concern that should Iran wish to do so, Iran’s nuclear facilities can enrich weapons grade
uranium within a time period of 1 year. Saudi Arabia and Israel both consider this nuclear program
to be a threat to their national integrity and regional interests. If weapons grade uranium is ever
used to make WMDs used by Hezbollah and Hamas, the proxy war could intensify disastrously, and
lead to chaos as well as lengthened and more severe conflicts in the Middle East. Hence, one of the
key issues of the current proxy war is to keep in mind the possible disastrous effects of weapons
grade uranium, and take precautionary measures to prevent the occurrence of that phenomenon.
The lack of sustainability in the solutions incorporated by the previous attempts to
solve the issue
Sustainability refers to the ability of a solution to help solve the crisis on a long – term and viable
basis. Most of the past actions to solve the past actions to address the issue have merely been short
term solutions, that have instead aggravated and worsened the conflict in the long term. For
example, the European Union decided to send non – lethal supplies to Syrian rebels to topple the
Assad government and in effect end the Iran – Saudi Arabia proxy war in Syria. Instead, in the long
term, these supplies strengthened the rebels and made the Syrian Civil War more intense. Many
countries also supported the Free Syrian Army in order to eliminate Assad (Iran’s ally) and end the
Iran – Saudi Arabia proxy war. Several countries donated ammunition and funding to the FSA.
However, in the long term, many FSA fighters themselves separated from the FSA, leading to the
formation of a more radical organization, the Islamic State (IS) that has worsened the political
scenario in the Middle East. Hence, one of the most important reasons that the proxy war has
heightened is unsustainable solutions that were unable to achieve the desired effect. The lack of
sustainability in past actions is a key issue to be addressed, as it has lead to higher humanitarian
and political costs due to existing conflicts becoming more intense.
Possible Solutions
It is important to realize that the core reason that these proxies like the Hezbollah and Hamas are
able to effectively execute proxy wars like those against Saudi Arabia and Israel is because these
proxies have large sources and channels of obtaining ammunition that are not monitored, allowing
them to obtain large amounts of weaponry for the proxy war. Hence, one of the most important
solutions is to disarm these proxies.
Another solution could involve the DISEC collaborating with the Security Council to take actions
with regards to Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Under Chapter 6, the United Nations
could possibly try to achieve pacific settlement of disputes, by trying to establish bilateral talks and
diplomatic negotiations between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
One of the other solutions would be to strengthen the Disarmament, Demobilization and
Reintegration (DDR) principles that are used by the UN during negotiations and peace building
through the duration of the conflict.
AGENDA 2: MILITARIZATION OF THE ARCTIC
The Arctic is the northern most area on earth, covering approximately 8% of the globe’s surface and
is centered on the North Pole. This region is delimited by the Arctic Circle and includes the icecovered Arctic Ocean and surrounds lands and seas. These surrounding lands are parts of the eight
arctic bordering countries: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and The
United States. Its appearance in the geopolitics arena, it has been very difficult to determine its
borders, and its territory has been, for a while now, an issue of controversy among several nations.
Resources in the Arctic
The Arctic contains a wealth of petroleum and mineral resources. Currently, the region produces
about one tenth of the world’s oil and a quarter of its natural gas. The Russian Arctic is the source
for about 80 percent of this oil and virtually all of the natural gas; Arctic Canada, Alaska, and
Norway are the other leading producers. Recent appraisals suggest that a considerable fraction of
the world’s undiscovered petroleum reserves lie within the Arctic.
The most developed sector of the region, the Russian Arctic also holds abundant deposits of nickel,
copper, coal, gold, uranium, tungsten, and diamonds. As well, the North American Arctic contains
pockets of uranium, copper, nickel, iron, natural gas, and oil. However, many known mineral
reserves have not been exploited because of their inaccessibility and the steep development costs.
Biological resources are similarly bountiful in the Far North. An estimated one-fifth of freshwater
and several of the world’s largest rivers are found there. The region encompasses one of the last and
most extensive, continuous wilderness areas on Earth, and it is home to hundreds of endemic species
of plants and animals. Millions of migratory birds from around the globe breed and live seasonally
in the Arctic and a variety of marine mammals inhabit the regional ocean waters. Fish such as
salmon, cod, and Pollock abound in Arctic and sub-Arctic waters, supporting valuable commercial
fisheries. Some two dozen major herds of reindeer and caribou, important resources for indigenous
peoples, migrate across high northern landscapes. In sum, humans gain much from the Arctic’s living
resources, and the region is uniquely important to global biodiversity.
Climate change in the Far North is expected to transform the outlook on natural resources there. As
rising temperatures accelerate the melting of ice on land and at sea, the prospects for expanding
transportation corridors, mineral resource development, and tourism will grow. At the same time
living resources will face new pressures. Future developments could well bring considerable new
wealth to Arctic state economies, but also significant consequences for northern peoples and
environments.
The Arctic during the Cold war (1945-1991)
At the end of World War 2 and during the following years down the 1940s, the Arctic region
experienced a near total transformation in strategic and political significance. While the Norwegian
Sea and the Barents Sea were hot zones in the confrontation between Nazi Germany and the
Soviet Union during the war, the areas above the Arctic Circle were largely unexplored in a military
point of view.
A main factor that accounts for this surge in strategic importance of the Arctic was the feature of
presenting the shortest distance between the two superpowers at that point of time, USA and the
USSR.
From the 1950s on, the Arctic region became a stage for tight military escalation between the USA
and the Soviet Union. Through ICBM development and placement, production of nuclear powered
attack submarines and the threat of cruise missiles carried by bomber planes, the two countries
poured resources into building up their capabilities in the area vis-à-vis one another. Most
prominently, preventive radar systems were built and installed across the region by both the
Americans and their allies, and by the Soviets.
Military activity since the 1990s
With the dismantlement of the Soviet Union in 1991 into its successor republics and the consequent
end of the Cold War confrontation, military activity in the Arctic region underwent significant
changes. Many of the (Now Russian) Northern Fleet submarines were decommissioned; the DEW
line sites were handed back to Canada by the United States in 1990, and in 1993 a formal
deactivation ceremony was held in Tuktoyaktuk, North-western Territories, Canada. Throughout
the 1990s and 2000s, cooperation initiatives in diverse fields related to the Arctic mushroomed in
the international scene. The most prominent was the foundation of the Arctic Council in 1996.
Canada has taken some of the stiffest actions toward regional assertion in the Arctic. Under the
“Use it or lose it” motto, the Canadian government has restructured its foreign policy to focus in its
northern territories, a vast landmass facing the Arctic Ocean9. A Canadian Forces Arctic Training
Centre is planned to be built in Resolute Bay, well into the Arctic Circle In addition, the numerical
expansion of the Canadian Rangers and the building of a $100 million-worth deep water docking
port has also been announced (Smith, 2011).
As the heir state of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation maintained most of the Soviet fi
repower capabilities under its belt, but lost naval unanimity in the Caspian, Black and Baltic seas
with the birth of smaller republics. Therefore, Russia is even more a “northern country” than the
Soviet Union was, highlighting Arctic’s historical importance for its political calculations (Åtland
2008). Moscow has created a Federal Security Service Coastal Border Guard and is investing on
new double-acting tankers and cargo vessels, while still operating the largest icebreaker fleet in the
world (Smith 2011). In 2007, Russia also restarted patrolling the Arctic (BBC 2007). Russia has
military links with Norway (a NATO member), holding their Pomor joint naval exercises every year
since 2010 (Zapaday 2010). Th e two countries settled a 40-year dispute over the border of the
Barents Sea in April 27 of the same year, thus beginning to cooperate toward a common goal
(Fjaertoft 2011). Oslo moved the headquarters of the Norwegian Armed Forces from Jåttå in the
south to Reitan, near Bodø, just north of the Arctic Circle, in August 2009. In 2010 the coastguard’s
headquarters were also moved north (Wezeman 2012). Another Arctic player, Denmark, has
created a unified Arctic Command and an Arctic Response Force, besides investing $117 million in
military upgrades (Smith 2011).
Presently, the United States seems to be the only Arctic country whose defensive goals do not
include a manifested priority toward the protection of national interests in the High North.
Nevertheless, in April 2011, two US nuclear attack submarines participated in the Ice Exercise (ICEX)
2011, operating in the Arctic, and a camp was established 150 nautical miles (278 kilometres) north
of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska (Wezeman 2012).
In sum, the recent military developments in the region shed some light on the importance f its
underlying causes. In other words, issues such as political prominence and territorial sovereignty in
the Arctic have become in dissociable from the economic prospects to which global warming and
the progressive melting ice cap signal, both in terms of resource exploitation and of commercial
routes.
Important terms
Territorial Sea – is the part over which a coastal State’s sovereignty is fully extended. The country
enjoys full rights of navigation, conduction of economic activities and occupation over this area. A
country’s territorial sea shall be defined by the same country to which it belongs through an official
document. However, the extension of a territorial sea shall not exceed 12 nautical miles10,
measured from baselines determined in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea, and cannot interfere in the right of other coastal States to their own territorial sea and to their
access to higher seas
Contiguous Zone – is the zone that is contiguous to a coastal State’s territorial sea. The coastal
State has the right to control this area in order to prevent and/or punish activities that may infringe
its customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial
sea. Th e country does not possess the right of ownership over this area, which shall not extend 24
nautical miles12 from the baselines used to define the country’s territorial sea
High seas- – All parts of the sea which do not correspond to a coastal State’s internal waters,
archipelagic waters (applicable only to archipelagic States), territorial sea or Exclusive Economic
Zone shall remain free to all States, whether coastal or landlocked. This part of the seas and oceans
is called high seas, where a special set of rights and duties is applicable to all state aiming to ensure
the maintenance of the area’s freedom and its conservation (UNCLOS 1982, Article VII).
Territorial disputes that the delegates are advised to look into
The Lomonosov Ridge
The Bering Strait and the Beaufort Sea disputes
The Northwest passage and the Northern Sea Route.
The Svalbard archipelago and the Hans island disputes
Recent militarisation and its consequences to regional cooperation:
The military presence in the Arctic has been increasing since the Russian
Polar Expedition in 2007, when a Russian flag was planted in the Arctic seabed. This event alarmed
the Arctic countries and also other States with economic and energetic interests in the region. This
circumstance has been defined as the Russian Factor by Katarzyna Zysk, in reference to the
militarisation process in the Arctic as a result of stronger actions taken by Russia. The dynamics in
the Arctic can also be associated with the Russian-Georgian conflict of August 2008, which clearly
showed a return to a posture of strength by the Russian Federation in the international system.
After the Georgian War, it is possible to say that Russia changed its policy towards questions of
threats and border security. The Russian commitment with defence policy and military power
(leaving the questions of International Law to a second plan) are increasing worries among Arctic
States, due to the Russian increasing military presence in the region and its military developments,
especially those related with the Northern Fleet.
In theory, relations among states are relations of power, surrounded by the shadow of war. Since
the International System is anarchic and States are not subordinate to any legal structure, “because
some states can at any time use the force, all states have to be prepared to do it – or otherwise live
at the mercy of its neighbours militarily stronger” . In This sense, the States can never be certain of
the others’ intentions, as the causes of an aggression are plenty and could change rapidly. The
primary objective of a state is survival, thus it seeks security and maintenance of its territorial
integrity and political autonomy. Therefore, when States are threatened, they have great
incentives to use military power and pursue their interests through violence.
Following the 2007 events, the increased military presence in the Arctic is remarkable, in order to
guarantee each country their lawful sovereignty in their respective Exclusive Economic Zones and
internal waters, especially. Despite this higher degree of militarisation is noticeable, countries have
also invested in cooperation and perspectives of a real conflict are smaller by now. The preference
given to the Arctic Council and to the UNCLOS legal framework exemplifies this trend. Until now,
the disputes have been resolved under pacific means and the NATO overlapping seems to dilute
the possibilities of military confrontation. The question, however, is that “the militarisation implies a
greater risk of incidents”, since any upgrade in military capabilities or in the development of
exercises can be understood as an attempt to emulate the others’ forces.
The Arctic Five Actions regarding Militarisation
Even though any military conflict is currently noticeable in the Arctic, the tensions concerning
territorial disputes and economic gains may create friction among the Arctic Five – Norway,
Denmark, Russia, Canada and the United States. Such a conflict may even have foreign
interferences, since benefits from the Arctic may transcend the region borders and reach other
countries, in Asia and Europe, especially. Bearing in mind that the international system is anarchic
and all States are sovereign, with any power over them, the recent actions that have been taken
by the Arctic countries may be seen as possibly provoking “risks of incidents”, which, as already
noted, can lead to military confrontation.
The Russian Federation is seen as “the most determined and assertive player in the region” and
“plays an important role in the strategies
And policies of all the other Arctic actors much of the interest in the Arctic has been generated by
Russia’s increased military activity in the region”. Following the 2007 Polar Expedition, Russia has
sought to establish a physical sea, ground and air presence in the Arctic. Arctic strategic importance
for this country has two great aspects, besides the economic one:
i) it is through the Arctic that Russia has access to the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean and ii) it is from
the Arctic that Russia can commission the submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) Bulava,
through the Borei-class submarine, at least for now, the only means by which Russia may
undermine the challenge posed by the U.S. National Missile Defense34.
In August 2007, Vladimir Putin ordered the resumption of regular air patrols over the Arctic Ocean:
this action involved the utilisation of strategic bombers such as Tu- 95 (Bear), supersonic Tu-160
(Blackjack) and Tu-22M3 (Backfire) and the long- range anti-submarine warfare patrol aircraft
Tu-142. In 2007, Russia has launched more flights of its Long Range Aviation (LRA) than in the
entire period after the end of the Cold War; this pattern increased in 2008 and since then has
continued at the same level. Also in 2007, “Russian bombers penetrated the North American
Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) 12-mile air defence identification zone surrounding Alaska
18 time.
In respect to the strategic level, Russia has been developing its Navy capabilities for the first time
since the end of the Cold War35. The Northern
Fleet, based in the Kola Peninsula, is the most important component of its military presence in the
Arctic, and its capabilities have been improved mainly through upgrades in its submarine fleet,
which is the basis of Russian naval nuclear deterrence. On July 14, 2008, the Russian Navy
announced that its fleet had resumed a warship presence in the Arctic, and during 2008 and 2009
its icebreakers were constantly patrolling the region. Such naval patrols include the area of the
Spitsbergen archipelago, which is a territorial area claimed by Norway, but in dispute.
Russia has even deployed to this area an anti-submarine warfare (ASW) destroyer followed by a
guided-missile cruiser armed with 16 long-range anti- ship cruise missiles designed to destroy aircraft
carriers.
To protect important lines of transportation and communication, the most important being the
Northern Sea Route, Russia is going to improve its military capabilities in the Arctic. Currently,
Russia has the largest icebreakers fleet in the world, counting with eighteen operational
icebreakers.
Among these, is the largest icebreaker in the world, the 50 Years of Victory and the seven nuclear
ones. The country has sought to build new nuclear-powered icebreakers starting in 2015, but
budget restraints are a great challenge in fulfilling this objective. Since 2008, the Russian Navy has
been patrolling near Norwegian and Danish defence zones. The stakes are important since the
Russian fleet cannot enter the Atlantic except by passing through specific choke points, such as the
junction of Greenland, Iceland, and Norway (GIN Gap) and the junction of Greenland, Iceland and
the United Kingdom (GIUK Gap) (Global Security 2013). In September 2008, the Russian Security
Council adopted “the Fundamentals of Russian State Policy in the Arctic up to 2020 and beyond”,
the national strategy for The Arctic, including the deployment of military, border and coastal units.
In this context, also, the Russian National Security Strategy of May 2009 recognizes the Arctic as
Russia’s most important arena for international and military security in relations with other
countries. The Strategy also establishes plans to constitute the Arctic Special Forces, through the
creation of a coast guard unit of the Federal Security Service (FSB), and the establishment of an
intelligence network to provide security to the region. Recently, the FSB press announced plans to
deploy four new warships by 2020, and also the construction of eleven new border protection
facilities and deployment of automated surveillance systems in order to protect
Russian Arctic zone. These plans have been in accordance with the project to regroup the military
districts of Leningrad, Siberia and the Far East into an Arctic district. In response to Russian
increased military presence in the Arctic, other States, especially the other four countries in the
Arctic region (Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States) have also looked for
strengthening their presence, through “infrastructure improvements, fleet expansion and increased
military presence”. All these states have sovereignty rights over the Arctic, Denmark via Greenland
and Norway via the Svalbard archipelago. Alongside Russia, Canada has certainly emerged as one
of the most active players in the Arctic. The country has made investments in order to turn its deepwater docking port into a naval base on Baffin Island at Nanisivik and has sought to improve its
defence capabilities.
Currently, Canada has twelve icebreakers, which included the acquisition of a new one in 2010
costing $675 million, and it is seeking to establish a Canadian Forces winter fighting school in
Resolute Bay, near the Northwest Passage, and has also perspectives of building six to eight ice
hardened off shore patrols vessels, the first to be delivered in 2014. Canada has also been
cooperating in matters of defence, enhancing its military presence in the region through three
annual exercises, such as the joint and combined Operation Nanook, which includes air, land and
maritime forces and the participation of the United States and Denmark. As a result of its internal
matters concerning Greenland, since this territory is seeking for more autonomy over the Danish
government, Denmark is adapting its military forces.
When analysing Norwegian military upgrades, it is noticeable the transference of part of its forces
to the north, such as its modern frigate fleet, its jet fighter forces and the army staff. Norway had
the initiative to buy forty-eight F-35 fighter aircraft s
– “designed to be the next-generation, radar-evading fighter for U.S. forces and their allies” – and
has been negotiating the acquisition of advanced air-to-sea missiles to be commissioned in those
aircraft s. The country government has posed an important role to the region: in 2005, the High
North was designated as a strategic priority and, in 2006, a comprehensive strategy was created
for the region. In accordance to this strategy Norway seeks to maintain a low level of tension in the
region, foster cooperation with the other, and benefit from a sustainable development of the
region. Norway has made recent claims regarding its sovereignty over the Gakkel Ridge, as an
extension of its continental shelf, through Svalbard Island, and, in response, Russia has made naval
manoeuvres in the region, which have disrupted Norwegian air traffic in off shore areas. Even
though the United States has made advances with the approval of its Arctic roadmap, it has many
challenges to overcome in order to provide for its interests. Apart from not having ratified the
UNCLOS, which prevents its desire to establish the outer limit of its continental shelf, the United
States was called by Rob Huebert – political scientist at The University of Calgary – as the
“reluctant power” in the Arctic, since the necessary upgrades of its military forces were not
achieved. Currently the U.S.
Coast Guard has only three icebreakers, two of which are out of service. Bearing in mind that it
takes eight to ten years to get an icebreaker into service, even though the U.S. Congress would
approve the funding allocations, it would not be interesting to the United States to enter a war in
which its capabilities are smaller. However, it is important to stress that the United States have
interest at stake in the Arctic, such as the developments of the Russian Borei-class ballistic missile
nuclear submarine, to be commissioned with the Bulava missile, in the High North – which may
undermine the U.S. missile shield in Europe –, the perspectives of natural resources in the Beaufort
Sea and the choke points disputes arising in the region. Although cooperation seems to be the
pattern in the relations involving the Arctic-Five, the levels of potential conflict are high and, as
previously noted, the government decisions can change rapidly, and sometimes a spark is enough
to light the fire. In February 2009, for instance, “Canadian fighter jets scrambled to intercept an
approaching Russian bomber less than 24 hours before U.S. President Barack
Obama’s visit to Ottawa”. The Cold Response – a 15-country exercise held in northern Norway and
Sweden in March 2012, which involved 16.300 troops, was understood by Russia as a threat, and in
this view, it “reacted with an exercise involving its 200th motor rifle brigade from Murmansk,
including T-80 tanks with gas-turbine engines suited for the Arctic climate”. Another potential
conflict event occurred in August 2009, when two Russian attack submarines of Project 971
Schuka-B were sent to patrol near Canadian sovereign areas.
Despite the territorial claims among NATO states, they have showed commitment to cooperation,
instead of conflict. One may see cooperation in the U.S. Air Force base in Thule, Greenland, under
bilateral agreements between the United States and Denmark. The United States and Canadian
Coast Guard also resupply in Thule Air Base, which is fundamental in case of conflict. Although
there are some divergences regarding territorial delimitation, U.S. and Canada have made
advances on military cooperation through the North American Aerospace Defence Command
(NORAD), region with higher relevance since Russia resumed its bombers incursions. Another
important evidence of regional cooperation is the agreement between Russia and Norway under
the delimitation of the resource-rich Barents Sea, in March 2010. The nature of the international
system may define some patterns in the relations among States. Since its framework is not
hierarchic, in other words, is characterised by the absence of a sovereign power ruling the countries,
it is said that this system is one of self-help, in which the States must seek for their security and
interests by themselves.
Therefore, analysing the dynamics involving the Arctic, it is possible to see cooperation efforts and
some tensions that may lead to military confrontation. Even though, relations have, until now, been
cantered in cooperation, any disruption in the interests of any Arctic State – or even of an extraregional State – can change the perceptions of decision-makers concerning the great prospects
involving the region, be in the economic, commercial or strategic domain. Thereby, it is necessary to
comprehend this intricate dynamic by the bias of power and relative gains, besides the existence of
an International Law framework regarding the States concerns. A conflict potential may be lesser
by now, but any miscalculation can generate a new cat and mouse game in the region. The Arctic
region is quickly becoming strategically important. The possibility of decreased ice coverage during
the summer months and advances in technology mean that shipping, natural resource exploration,
and tourism will increase economic activity.
Vladimir Putin has made it clear that Russia must maintain a strategic advantage in the region.
Earlier this year he told his Security Council:
More often the interests of the Arctic powers, and not only them, cross here— countries that are far
away from this region are also expressing interest [in the Arctic]. In these conditions we must take
additional measures not to fall behind our partners, to keep our influence in the region and in some
aspects be ahead of our partners.
Although the current security challenges of the Arctic are not yet military in nature, military
capability in the region can be used to support civilian authorities. Both civilian search and rescue
(SAR) and natural disaster response in such an unforgiving environment as the Arctic can be
augmented by the military. However, Russia has taken steps to militarize the Arctic for what can
be only for non-civilian purposes.
It is Russia’s prerogative to place military assets inside its national territory as it wishes. However,
these actions concern the U.S. because Moscow has shown its willingness to use its military force to
achieve its national objectives outside its national borders. One must assume the Arctic region
would be no different. The ultimate goal is for Russia to deploy a combined arms force in the Arctic
by 2020, and it appears they are on track. Some of Russia’s recent actions in the Arctic include:
Russia’s Northern Fleet, which makes up for two-thirds of the Russian Navy, has been based in the
region.
A new Arctic command was established in December 2014 to coordinate all Russian military
activities in the Arctic region.
Russia is increasing the number of marines assigned to the Northern Fleet by one- third. The force
will eventually be equal to the size of another brigade and will be located near Pechenga, Russia—
less than 10 miles from the border to Norway.
Two new so-called Arctic brigades will be permanently based in the Arctic region over the next few
years. Soviet-era military facilities in the Arctic region are being reopened after nearly 30 years. The
U.S. has significant geopolitical and economic interests in the high north and have released a new
national strategy which seeks to advance their Arctic ambitions. While the region has thus far been
peaceful, stable and free of conflict, there is a danger of the militarisation of the Arctic.
THE ARCTIC COUNCIL
The Arctic Council is a high-level intergovernmental forum that addresses issues faced by the Arctic
governments and the indigenous people of the Arctic.
It has eight member countries: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and
the United States.
Past International Actions and Proposed Solutions
The UN has been relatively quiet on militarization of the Arctic, preferring instead to relegate the
issue to regional bodies and other multilateral organizations independent of the UN itself. However,
the UN is responsible for the UNCLOS, which remains to this day the only formal international
treaty governing the (partial) division of Arctic territory. The treaty has a grand total of 320
articles, which add up to regulate every aspect of marine areas. Most pertinent to the Arctic is
Article 234, which specifically addresses the question of how UNCLOS should apply to ice-covered
areas:
Article 234: Ice-covered areas. Coastal States have the right to adopt and enforce nondiscriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution
from vessels in ice-covered areas within the limits of the exclusive economic zone, where particularly
severe climatic conditions and the presence of ice covering such areas for most of the year create
obstructions or exceptional hazards to navigation, and pollution of the marine environment could
cause major harm to or irreversible disturbance of the ecological balance. Such laws and
regulations shall have due regard to navigation and the protection and preservation of the marine
environment based on the best available scientific evidence.
The article goes on to establish borders and sovereignty for ice-covered regions:
Coastal States exercise sovereignty over their territorial sea which they have the right to establish
its breadth up to a limit not to exceed 12 nautical miles; foreign vessels are allowed “innocent
passage” through those waters.
…
Coastal States have sovereign rights in a 200-nuatical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with
respect to natural resources and certain economic activities, and exercise jurisdiction over marine
science research and environmental protection. All other States have freedom of navigation and
overflight in the EEZ, as well as freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines.
Coastal States have sovereign rights over the continental shelf (the national area of the seabed) for
exploring and exploiting it; the shelf can extend at least 200 nautical miles from the shore, and
more under specified circumstances. Coastal States share with the international community part of
the revenue derived from exploiting resources from any part of their shelf beyond 200 miles.
All States enjoy the traditional freedoms of navigation, overflight, scientific research and fishing on
the high seas; they are obliged to adopt, or cooperate with other States in adopting, measures to
manage and conserve resources. States Parties are obliged to settle by peaceful means their
disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention.
Beyond the above guidelines, which are now over thirty years old, the UN has made no official
document concerning the militarization of the Arctic. While the Arctic Council has reached many
agreements in formal meetings, its members continue to convene on a case-by-case basis without
any clear framework or regulation beyond UNCLOS that is dedicated exclusively to handling Arctic
policy.
SAMPLE RESOLUTION
Resolution: 1.0
COMMITTEE: UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
SPONSORS: UNITED STATES OF AMERICS, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND
NORTHERN IRELAND, ETHIOPIA
SIGNATORIES: COLOMBIA, FINLAND, YEMEN, SAUDI ARABIA, CHINA,
AGENDA: THE SITUATION OF IRAQ AND KUWAIT
THE SECURITY COUNCIL
Affirming the beginning of the fifth month of this crisis, [each preambs ends with a comma]
Deeply convinced about the effects of post war situation,
Believing in the idea and slogan of ‘Peace for all’,
Recalling resolution 660, 661, 662, 663, 665, 666, 667, 670, 677 passed by UNSC in the last 4 months,
which condemns Iraq’s invasion and imposes several kinds of sanctions,
Viewing its appreciation towards the step of Iraq for peaceful negotiations,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Endorses the removal of NATO and foreign troops from Saudi Arabia by the 10/12/1990;
[each operatives end with a semicolon]
Further endorses the removal of Iraqi troops from the Kuwaiti region by the 10/12/1990;
Calls for the reinstating of the legitimate Government of Kuwait by 10/12/1990:
a. Hopes that Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah be the head of a transitional
government of Kuwait;
b. Further hopes a fully functioning government be set up in Kuwait as soon as
possible;
c. Further calls for the removal of the Provisional Government of Free Kuwait by
10/12/1990;
Further endorses the Joint Communiqué by Kuwait and Iraq, hoping diplomatic talks and
border demarcation is decided as per the States' decisions:
a. Further endorses that the border demarcation decision be put in front of the United
Nations Secretary General for approval;
Further hopes multilateral diplomatic relations be taken up by the affected nations so as to
improve the relations between the States;
Requests the Food and Agricultural Organisation(FAO) and World Food Programme
(WFP)to start campaigns and programmes in Iraq and Kuwait;
Decides to recall all sanctions and embargoes imposed on Iraq as soon as the legitimate
government of Kuwait is restored;
Commends the State of Iraq in its decisions to withdraw troops and initiate talks with the
State of Kuwait;
that Iraq take no action that would jeopardise the safety of the nationals;
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to discuss
environmental issues caused due to the conflict in this region. [resolution ends with a full
stop]
Sample Perambulatory Phrases
Affirming
Alarmed by
Approving
Bearing in mind
Believing
Confident
Contemplating
Convinced
Declaring
Deeply concerned
Deeply conscious
Deeply convinced
Deeply Disturbed
Deeply
Regretting
Desiring
Emphasizing
Expecting
Emphasizing
Expecting
Expressing it’s
appreciation
Fulfilling
Fully aware
Emphasizing
Expecting
Expressing it’s
appreciation
Fulfilling
Fully aware
Further deploring
Further recalling
Guided by
Having adopted
Having considered
Having examined
Having received
Keeping in mind
Noting with deep
concern
Nothing with satisfaction
Noting further
Observing
Reaffirming
Realizing
Recalling
Recognizing
Referring
Seeking
Taking into
consideration
Taking note
Viewing with
appreciation
Welcoming
Sample Operative Phrases
Accepts
Affirms
Approves
Authorizes
Calls
Calls upon
Condemns
Confirms
Congratulates
Considers
Declares accordingly
Deplores
Designates
Draws the attention
Emphasizes
Encourages
Endorses
Expresses its appreciation
Expresses its hope
Further invites
Deplores
Designates
Draws the attention
Emphasizes
Encourages
Endorses
Expresses its appreciation
Expresses its hope
Further invites
Further proclaims
Further reminds
Further recommends
Further requests
Further resolves
Has resolved
Notes
Proclaims
Reaffirms
Recommends
Regrets
Reminds
Requests
Solemnly affirms
Strongly condemns
Supports
Takes note of
Transmits
Trusts
SAMPLE POSITION PAPER
COMMITTEE: United Nations Special Committee on Palestine
COUNTRY: Kingdom of Belgium
AGENDA: Rehabilitation of Minorities
DELEGATE: XYZ
Belgium, officially the Kingdom of Belgium, is a sovereign state in Western Europe. It is a small,
densely populated country which covers an area of 30,528 square kilometers (11,787 sq mi) and has
a population of about 11 million people. Straddling the cultural boundary
between Germanic and Latin Europe, Belgium is home to two main linguistic groups: the Dutchspeaking, mostly Flemish
community, which constitutes about 59% of the population, and
the French-speaking, mostly Walloon population, which comprises 41% of all Belgians. Additionally,
there is a small group of German-speakers who live in the East Cantons located around the High
Fens area, and bordering Germany.
Rehabilitation of Minorities in the Palestine region has become very determining now.
Complications in this region are increasing day by day, due to riots and protests, and there is a
intense humanitarian crisis, since killings are increasing with no count. Looking back into the past,
the main cause for this conflict or crisis can be the immigration of Jews into Palestine or the Zionist
Movement. There can be many aspects to this conflict. Firstly, the Zionist movement which started
back in 19th century alarmed the Arabs to take actions against this immigration since the Jews
present in this land started purchasing lands which became a reason for discussion among the
Arabs. Again the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, which gave the mandate for Palestine to
UK, again escalated the crisis since the UK government promised to create a Jewish national
homeland in Palestine through Balfour declaration. Then again in 1936, when there were casualties
in this region, they set up a Peel Commission which proposed long term solution such as partition of
Palestine into two states, which was strongly opposed by Arabs. Then in 1939, they presented the
White Paper which proposed solutions such as immigration quotas and restriction in land purchase
by Jews in Palestine. This angered the Jews as this contradicted their own Balfour Declaration. Then
World War 2 was a reason for this conflict. During World War 1, UK had an agreement with Arabs
that if they helped UK to overthrow Ottomans, Arabs lands under Ottoman will be returned back
to Arabs to form a sovereign state. But with the Balfour declaration they contradicted their
promise. And then again with White Paper, they contradicted their Balfour Declaration. So this
continuous change of UK’s decision was the main and major reason for the conflict. Now in 1947, just
after the World War 2, whole world is in crisis and on top of this problem, can mislead the whole
world and so all the countries need to come up with strong solution to curb this crisis. There are
some questions which need to be discussed in the committee. Firstly, why did UK handed over the
issue to UN, despite the fact that this may take the Palestine mandate from UK? Secondly, Why is
US so concerned for the creation of Israel? Thirdly, what did UK did to protect the rights of Arabs, as
mentioned in the Balfour Declaration? Why UK did continuously changed its support from Arabs to
Jews and vice versa in course of time? Why isn’t UN opposing partition plan as this is violating UN
charter which states about the ‘The Right to Self Determination’? Since the main cause of the crisis is
the Arabs unwillingness to compromise and negotiate, what does the non-Arab supporters plan to
do?
Belgium is also a important player in this conflict. When France and the UK divided the Middle East
upon the implosion of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War, the Belgian state expressed
an interest in exercising the mandate over Jerusalem. Other than that, Belgium’s interest in historic
Palestine was mainly driven by the hope of finding new markets. Another factor was the influence
of the pro-Arab lobby that had been active since Belgium’s economic investments in Egypt in the
19th century. The Belgian state has opened a consulate in Jerusalem in the middle of the 19th
century, mainly to offer protection to Christian pilgrims. Since that time, Belgium is assigned with
the protection of the Christian holy places in Jerusalem, together with France, Italy and Spain.
When the UK took control over historic Palestine in 1917 and started its official mandate in 1920, it
effectively curtailed Belgium’s aspirations. Upon the UK’s announcement that it would return its
mandate over historic Palestine to the League of Nations, Belgium favored the establishment of a
unitary state, rather than a partition of the land into a Jewish and an Arab state.
This conflict is very complicated. The committee needs a realistic solution to this agenda. The
possible solution which the delegate of Kingdom of Belgium presents is as follows:
∑
∑
∑
Organizing a private talk between UN and Arabian nations, explaining them the
consequences of not compromising, and convincing them to negotiate.
Creating a unitary state rather than two different states, like Belgium did in its own state,
to protect the right to self determination of the Arabs, as they wish to do so.
Imposing strict security in this region to stop or prevent further casualties.
As of now, the delegate is presenting only this solution, but will be presenting more viable solution
in the committee and expect from the committee to come to a peaceful consensus.