) . 8 * ( and international security the fifteenth annual william & mary middle school model...

WMIDMUN XV

DISEC

Position Paper Guidelines

The Fifteenth Annual William & Mary Middle School Model United Nations Conferen

XV


What’s it all about?

The purpose of a position paper is to display your understanding of the committee topics as

well as your position’s stances on different issues. Writing a position paper will assist you in

your research and preparation for the conference. The position paper will be comprised of

three to four sections, depending on the number of topics your committee covers.

Section One: Background Information

• Introduce your country or position by providing basic information and background. This

section should start out broad, followed by any general information that is relevant to the

committee as a whole. This only needs to be done once—not for every topic.

Remaining Sections: Topics

• Write one section for each topic. The header of each section should be the topic name as

it is titled in your Background Guide. These sections should be roughly half a page to one

page (double spaced) in length and should include:

1. Background information on the topic

2. Your position/country’s stance on the issue at hand

3. Statistics and other relevant information with respect to your position

4. Policies or actions your position/nation has supported

5. Proposed solutions to each of your topics


The Fifteenth Annual William & Mary Middle School Model United Nations Conferen

XV

6. Responses to the ‘Questions to Consider’ provided throughout the Background

Guide

Formatting

A position paper should be formatted like a formal essay: use 12 pt Times New Roman font,

black ink, and 1” margins. All information that is not common knowledge should be cited

using your most comfortable format (ex. MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.). The header of your

paper should include the following pieces of information:

1. Your Full Name

2. Full School Name

3. Committee (World Health Organization, United Nations Development

Program, etc.)

4. Country/Position

Letter from the Director

Sponsors and Delegates,

Welcome to the fifteenth session of the William & Mary Middle School Model United

Nations Conference, and to the Disarmament and International Security Committee. I am so

excited to see three days of invigorating debate about topics that affect the geopolitical landscape

of the world as it stands. First, allow me introduce myself.

I’m a freshman here at the College. I’m currently considering a major in Computer

Science, and am taking courses in that same field. I’ve been doing Model UN since my freshmen

year of high school, and have grown to love it. Model UN has taught me much in the way of

effective public speaking and leadership. Outside of Model UN, my interests are quite varied. I’m

on the William & Mary Bhangra dance team and am a part of the South Asian Student

Association. I also volunteer through the College Partnership for Kids at local middle schools.

As your director, I expect effective speaking throughout the conference. Secondly, I want

to see leadership in your coalitions during committee. Third, I want to see diplomatic behavior,

as the United Nations works as a collaborative body. Most important, however, will be the quality

of your solutions to these two pressing issues in accordance with the perspectives of your

respective nations.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Good luck, delegates!

Sincerely,

Abhi Chadha

Director, Disarmament and International Security

[email protected]

Disarmament and International Security

The Fifteenth Annual William & Mary Middle School Model United Nations Conference

2

Background

DISEC, or the Disarmament and International

Security Committee, is the First Committee of the

General Assembly. The committee primarily deals

with threats to global peace in the form of

disarmament and security. It works in close

cooperation with the Conference on Disarmament

and the United Nations Disarmament Commission.

Being an organ of the General Assembly, the

resolutions passed by DISEC are standards

established to advance nonproliferation and security

- they are not legally binding.

DISEC provides a forum for nations to come to

some level of consensus regarding how to best deal

with disarmament. Nations will work to find

common ground with one another so as to ensure

that other committees, such as the Conference on

Disarmament, can use this material to further

advance their missions. However, many critics say

that member states are often disconnected in their

perceptions of global security and how significant

issues are, and how they should be dealt with.

Delegates are often too deeply entrenched in their

viewpoints to come to any sort of meaningful

resolution. Thus, these critics argue, the debate

stagnates due to a lack of compromise 8.

During our session, we will be discussing issues that

have, or will affect, every nation. Thus, compromise

and diplomacy will be integral to generate

meaningful solutions.

Topic 1: Biological Warfare

At their core, biological weapons are used by

a variety of actors to disseminate, or spread,

organisms or toxins that can cause disease. Some

broader definitions include the release of animals

into environments to spread infection or potential

disturbances to an ecosystem. For example, in 1347,

merchant ships docked in Genoa, having returned

from Crimean ports. On those merchant ships were

rats and fleas that spread one of the most serious

diseases known to man - the bubonic plague. The

plague resulted in a severe shortage of labor in

Europe, which caused serious economic depression

2.



3

This event, despite being accidental, was an

early example of the kind of damage that can be

caused by biological warfare. Biological warfare was

revolutionized with the discoveries of Louis Pasteur

and Robert Koch, who laid the foundations for

much of modern biology, and on a smaller scale,

microbiology. Their groundbreaking work allowed

for agents to be selectively chosen and designed.

Agents are biological organisms (and bacteria) that

can be used as weapons. Two declarations were

passed 1874 and 1899 to preempt the negative

effects of the discoveries made by Pasteur and Koch.

In particular, the Brussels Declaration of 1874

clearly states that “employment of poison or

poisonous weapons” is especially forbidden 1. These

documents did little to stop research on these

weapons.

The first use in modern history was during

World War I, when the German army used

biological weapons. They used anthrax and glanders

to infect animals and animal feed in enemy

countries. Despite this strategy being ineffective, the

use of the technology, in addition to global tensions

after World War I, led to individual nations

working fervently to also develop these weapons.

Japan, in particular, was adamant on

developing its biowarfare program, through

aggressive testing on prisoners. The imperialist

nation used this strategy to primarily conquer

China during World War II, by infecting Chinese

water wells with Cholera and dropping plague-

carrying flies across cities 4.

Anthrax as a biological weapon. Light (A) and electron (B) micrographs of anthrax bacilli, reproduced from the Centers of Disease Control Public Health Image Library. The map (C) shows six villages in which animals died after anthrax spores were released from a bioweapons factory in Sverdlovsk, USSR, in 1979. Settled areas are shown in grey, roads in white, lakes in blue and the calculated contours of constant dosage of anthrax spores in black. At least 66 people died after the accident. (Reprinted with permission from Meselson et al., 1994 © (1994) American Association for the Advancement of Science.)



4

A variety of postwar tests have since been

conducted, including those by the United States.

Many of these tests have put the health of individual

citizens at stake, not to mention an escalating

biological arms race.

As discussed earlier, a variety of conventions

were put into force after the development of

microbiology. The next major treaty to tackle this

issue was the Biological Weapons Convention. This

treaty effectively requested all nations to submit

annual reports regarding research, in addition to

formally banning use of any biological weapons.

However, the parties were never able to agree to a

viable verification system, which is a key issue 3.

Nations could choose not to divulge all the details of

their biological research programs, thus leading to

the impression that little to no development on

these weapons was occurring. Another issue is that

these treaties are not binding, which means that

nations could still continue development of these

weapons even after the various safeguards put in

place by the Biological Weapons Convention.

Additionally, there seems to be a divide

among members of the scientific community

regarding whether or not research should be

available to the public, exposing sensitive scientific

information that could be used to develop other

weapons. This information could make it easier for

bioterrorists to use such weapons. On the other

hand, some say that making the information public

could allow for researchers and politicians to

develop a more appropriate response to potential

crises.

Finally, this body must address overreaction

and mass hysteria, as occurred during the anthrax

letter incident, where members of the United States

Congress were sent letters laced with anthrax. This

resulted in a massive scare and speculation as to

whether all mail was safe. This kind of panic on a

larger scale could result in serious economic

downturn, not to mention a loss of confidence in

many staples of life.



5

Questions to Consider:

1. How free should the exchange of sensitive

biological research be?

2. How do we prevent the public from

overreacting to minor, isolated incidents of

biological warfare?

3. Should nations halt the production of

biological weapons, and if so, how should

they do so?

4. Are current regulations in place to stop the

development of weapons adequate, or do we

need more?

Topic 2: Weaponize Space

Space is a territory not clearly governed or

“owned,” by any one entity. Rather, it is occupied by

about 1,300 satellites used for a variety of purposes,

ranging from weather monitoring to disaster

preparedness to surveillance of troop and military

movement. Though much of space is used by

defense agencies, it is also used for scientific

research, such as weather patterns, climate change,

ice mass research, and more. Space, by nature, is

meant to be a peaceful region where state and non-

state actors (i.e, corporations) can use satellites and

other such technologies to glean valuable

information 7. Many countries, including the United

States, Russia, and China, have chosen to attempt

development of anti-satellite capabilities. Anti-

satellite capabilities range from simply disabling

lenses on satellites to completely knocking satellites

out of their given orbit. China has run multiple tests

of such technology. A test performed in March 2013

had a missile reach about 30,000 feet, which is close

to the altitude of many strategic geosynchronous

satellites (satellites that move with the earth). In

engaging in such behavior, nations threaten the

basic stability of the world at large by cutting off

vital sources of intelligence for a variety of

organizations 5.

The United Nations has attempted to

regulate such threatening behavior over the years.

The first such attempt was in the late 1960s, which

resulted in the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty



6

stated that space was meant for collaboration and

was to be kept peaceful in nature. It also stipulated

that no nation could place nuclear weapons or

weapons of mass destruction in space, and nations

would be liable for any spacecraft they destroyed.

The liability part of the treaty was originally unclear,

so the “Convention on International Liability for

Damage Caused by Space Objects” was issued.

Considering that this treaty was created during the

Cold War, it clearly neglected to address weapons

that did not fall within those two categories as

stipulated.

Anti-‐satellite missile tests, like this one conducted by the U.S. Navy in February 2008, are part of a worrisome march toward military conflict in outer space. Credit: U.S. Navy

Recently, a variety of treaties have been

proposed in the international community that work

to reduce the buildup of militarization equipment.

A proposal put forth by Russia and China wishes to

develop a legally binding United Nations treaty that

would put a stop to the development of all space

weapons. This treaty, however, has been repeatedly

opposed by the United States. Among other issues,

observers state that the treaty has no real way for

nations to track the development of these weapons6.

The European Union has proposed a set of

voluntary guidelines for space operation, known as

the International Code of Conduct for Outer Space.

This code would promote transparency, and the

need for nations to maintain the status of space as a

place for peaceful use and exploration. Both treaties,

however, fail to define what a space weapon is 6.

The most pressing issue is to develop a code

by which nations should operate in space to

maintain its peaceful status. This means that nations

must come together to come up with a unified

approach to what is acceptable in space. Without

any regulation, we could see serious warfare done in

space, which could result in serious issues here on

Earth. Another key issue is how to deal with space



7

debris, which is non-operational space equipment

that still remains in the orbit of the Earth. Such

debris could cause issues for those satellites that are

actually in use. Additionally, it could be difficult for

space flight when shuttles are forced to deal with

debris blocking sight.

Questions to Consider:

1. What is a viable code by which nations

should operate by while in space?

2. Should the development of such weapons be

stopped immediately, and if so, how?

3. How should the global community deal with

space debris?

Countries that signed and ratified Outer Space Treaty as of January 1, 2013, are indicated in green, countries that only signed in yellow, and those that did not sign in grey (“Defining and Regulating the Weaponization of Space”)



8

References

[1] "Brussels Declaration 1874." Brussels Declaration 1874. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2016. <http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Handouts/Brussels-‐1874.html>.

[2] "A History of Biological Warfare from 300 B.C.E. to the Present." A History of Biological Warfare from 300 B.C.E. to the Present. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2016.

[3] "Biological Weapons – UNODA." United Nations. United Nations, n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2016.

[4] Frischknecht, Friedrich. "The history of biological warfare." EMBO Reports. Nature Publishing Group, 2003. Web. 20 Dec. 2016. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326439/>.

[5] "The militarization and weaponization of space: Towards a European space deterrent." The militarization and weaponization of space: Towards a European space deterrent. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Dec. 2016.

[6] Billings, Lee. "War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever." Scientific American. N.p., 2015. Web. 20 Dec. 2016.

[7] DeFrieze , David C. "Defining and Regulating the Weaponization of Space." National Defense University Press. N.p., 2014. Web. 20 Dec. 2016.

[8] "UN General Assembly First Committee." First Committee of the UN General Assembly. Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2017.

) . 8 * ( and international security the fifteenth annual william & mary middle school model...

Documents