Greetings delegates of the 2014 DISEC Committee, My name is Nathaniel Lim, and I will be serving the chairman of the Disarmament and International Security Committee for SHSMUN 2014. This will be my first year serving as the chairman of a committee and my third year at the SHSMUN conference. I have been a delegate in the General Committee for both my other years at SHSMUN, so it is exciting for me to be able to be part of another committee at SHSMUN. 5 Fun Facts about me:

1. I love politics, and watching C­Span is one of my favorite pastimes (especially the Senate and House floors).

2. I have also done public forum debate and mock trial in addition to doing Model UN with our glorious Director General, Nathan Liu.

3. I enjoy spending time with my family (my parents and my younger sister). I have lived in Georgia my entire life. Also, I have a pet fish whom I named Thomas Jefferson.

4. I have been to the Philippines six times as most of my extended family lives there. 5. I have decided to claim my fifth amendment rights under the United States Constitution and

refuse to give any more information about myself. :) Now that you know enough about me to get along with me in committee, I would like to cover a few important issues. If you understand this information, you will be setting yourself up to do well in committee. First, the three topics that I chose for this year's DISEC Committee stem from past experiences and recent happenings across the world. The issue dealing with weapons in the Sahel region of Africa comes from work that I did for public forum debate. The Sahel region is in a deep crisis, and violence runs through the streets. This region is a key focus of this year's United Nations, so I believe it is fitting that we debate the struggles of these African nations as well. The Fairness of Disarmament deals with the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty and the never ending debate in the international community concerning its fairness. The Overthrow of Governments is connected to the difficulties in Ukraine, Syria, Venezuela, and the other countries throughout the world that deal with this threat daily. Of major concern in all these debates is how to ensure that weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, which would deeply threaten the safety of all citizens throughout the world. The Disarmament and International Security Committee is called upon to deal with issues concerning weapons and the security of the global society. The United Nations Charter states in Article I that one of the main missions of the United Nations is, "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful

means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." Seeing as this is the first goal listed in the United Nations Charter, it is fitting that this committee is also known as the 1st Committee. I am happy to put this pressure on you because I know you are up to the task. To close, I leave you with the following quote: "“If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.” ­­­Mother Teresa I wish you the best of luck. Enjoy the topic guide, writing your position papers and resolutions, and I look forward to your awesome debates! Sincerely, Nathaniel Lim Chairman of the Disarmament and International Security Committee E­mail: disec@shsmun.org Cell Phone: 423­400­5037

Topic I: Sahel Region of Africa Introduction: The Sahel region of Africa is one of the most volatile regions of the world because governments in the region are continuously rising and falling. The African Center for Strategic Studies defines the Sahel region as “stretching from Mauritania to Eritrea, including Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, the Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and the Sudan, a belt dividing the Sahara desert and the savannahs to the south.” (1). Terrorists gain power as these governments rise and fall, leading to the possibility of weapons falling into the wrong hands. However, the majority of governments in the Sahel region are unable to properly combat criminals and terrorists due to corruption and instability, which is largely due to the conflicting tribes.

A recent case of corruption led to the overthrow of Mali’s President Amadou Toumani Touré. Though hailed internationally as a democrat, reformer, and ally in the American “war on terror”, he oversaw a system tainted by corruption at all levels leading to dissatisfied soldiers staging a coup, which the majority of Malians supported. As Dr. Bruce Whitehouse writes, “The putschists (those attempting to overthrow the government) capitalised on the popular disappointment with bogus democracy and weak government, using it to justify their actions.” (16).

Disputes between local tribal groups has also increased the instability in the region. In Mali, tribal fighting is largely over control of criminal enterprises such as cocaine smuggling. For example, in January 2010, the Berabiche and the Imghad (an Arab and a Tuareg tribe, respectively) kidnapped the chief of the Kounta tribe (another Arab tribe) in a joint operation. The Malian government attempted to have the Tuaregs back down from causing tribal conflict by offering concessions. They offered the Tuaregs the ability to be integrated into the government, but the Tuaregs demanded control of the Kidal region, which valuable smuggling routes pass through. Negotiations broke down, and the Tuaregs succeeded in gaining control of the Malian government, although they were eventually overthrown by the Malian military. (17). But such conflicts increases the likelihood that the governments will be unable to take care of their people, leading to more uprisings. As a result, weapons will definitely fall into the wrong hands.

In 2012, Niger experienced extreme flooding, with 500,000 people suffering. Corrupt officials were lining their pockets with the international aid that was supposed to be used to help the flood victims. On September 8, 2012, Interior Minister Abdou Labo announced that some aid had been stolen. A 2011 report on corruption in the world ranked 182 countries with one being the least corrupt and 182 being the most corrupt. Of the Sahelian countries, Burkina Faso was 100th, Sengal was 112th, Mali was 118th, Eritrea and Niger were tied at 134th, Mauritania and Niger were 143rd, Chad was 168th, and Sudan was 177th. The high level of corruption has devastated efforts to bring stability and to secure the weapons in the Sahel region. (16).

Background:

Colonial Rule

Between the mid­1800s to the early 1900s, the Sahel region (along with the vast majority of Africa) was controlled by European nations. France and the United Kingdom controlled the most. The

partitions of Africa were a result of the Berlin Conference of 1884–1885, in which European nations agreed to divide Africa among the imperial powers. (2). During this time, the Europeans largely took it upon themselves to govern Africa as they pleased. Colonial governments were formed, Europeans were encouraged to move to Africa to help “civilize” the people, and the local people were treated as second­class citizens. As Europe entered the 1900s, two world wars decreased Europe’s ability to maintain a secured presence in Africa. Through revolutions and peaceful treaties, Africa, including the Sahel region, finally gained their autonomy from Europe by the late mid­1900s. (4). The borders that were created by the Europeans remain largely intact today, causing problems among local tribes, and making it more difficult for proper cooperation to occur for the preservation of national security.

Post­Colonial Rule

Unfortunately, the local people had only united to free themselves from European rule. Besides that, they agreed on very little due to ethnic divisions and communication difficulties. Dr. Richard Robbins, a professor of anthropology at the State University of New York, stated, “We must remember that the European agreements that had carved up Africa into states paid little attention to cultural and ethnic boundaries and ethnic groups had little opportunity or need to form political alliances or accommodations under repressive colonial rule... Think of countries such as Canada, which has been trying for hundreds of years with mixed success to accommodate only two linguistic groups — English and French — and you get an idea of the problems of African states with far greater cultural and linguistic divisions.” (4). The people were reluctant to cooperate due to tribal enmity and also lacked the knowledge of how to form proper governments. The Sahel region has spent decades trying to develop, but it lacks the means and the ability to do so.

Weapons In Africa

According to the World Policy Institute, the United States has delivered over $1.5 billion worth of weapons to Africa. Recipients such as Liberia, Somalia, the Sudan, and Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo or DRC) turned turned out to be the top problem areas of the 1990s in terms of violence, instability, and economic collapse. The Soviet Union performed similar actions to compete with the United States as the two nations competed during the Cold War. (5).

While many of these countries are not part of the Sahel region, the danger of such weapons cannot be overstated. The situation between Libya and Mali points out the danger of such weapons in the wrong hands in the Sahel region. In April 2013, The Small Arms Survey and Conflict Armament Research reported that they found that Mali rebels had used Libyan weapons to overthrow their government. “This,” the report notes, “has been attributed to an outpouring of weapons, ammunition and related material from the 2011 Libyan civil war.” (6). The Mali rebels, largely known as the Tuareg rebels, successfully overthrew their governments on March 22, 2012. It was reported that they were largely backed by former Libyan soldiers who had been loyal to Moammar Kadafi, giving them better weapons than those of the legitimate government. (7).

The United Nations Arrives at the Sahel Region

The Sahel region first became a large concern to the United Nations in 1973, when the region along with the rest of Africa suffered from the West African Sahel drought of 1968­1973. As a result, the United Nations established the United Nations Sahelian Office (UNSO) to address the problems

concerning the drought. Poverty and agricultural problems continue in the Sahel region today. (9).

Although violence and instability in the Sahel region has been ongoing since 1963, when the first post­independence African coup occurred in Togo, the level of violence and overthrowing of governments has reached an all time high. Since then, revolutions have largely taken place not only because of corrupt governments but also because of poverty and agricultural problems. The most recent government overthrow occurred in Mali, where the rebel group, the Tuareg National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, captured the capital Bamako in 2012. By 2013, the Tuaregs were overthrown by radical Islamic groups including Al­Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). AQIM took control of the Northern parts of Mali while the former government of Mali was able to rebuild under the leadership of President Dioncounda Traoré. (10). The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution on April 25, 2013, condemning the overthrow of the Tuaregs by the terrorists and supporting the new government of Mali which allied itself with France to defend itself against the terrorists. The United Nations pledged assistance to the cause of defending and helping Mali from AQIM and other radical Islamic groups. (11).

In 1971, the United Nations Volunteer Programme was formed to be sent in as peacekeepers in the Sahel region. Volunteers were supposed to be drawn from both the developing and the industrialized countries, but the proportion of volunteers from the industrialized countries declined to less than 25 percent. The United Nations' emphasis in the 1970s was on the least­developed countries, and over 50 percent of the volunteers are found in the 31 least­developed countries, including Mali, Chad, and Senegal. (18).

Current Status:

Today, terrorist groups like AQIM and Boko Haram are gaining control of certain areas in Mali, Nigeria, and the Sahel region. While the majority of these groups are localized, they do have ties to terrorist organizations such as Al­Qaeda. With the death of Osama Bin Laden, AQIM and Boko Haram have decreased their ties with Al­Qaeda according to intelligence sources, but the international community should not let its guard down. According to the Potomac Institute, in 2012, there were 144 terrorist attacks, and in 2013, this number sparked to 230 terrorist attacks in the Sahel region. (12).

A huge problem leading to the rise of these terrorist organizations, as well as the collapse of several governments, is the continued poverty in the Sahel region. With arid land and climate change being reported in the Sahel, adequate food supplies are nearly non­existent. And as Mali’s Director of Forestry Kouloutan Coulibaly stated, “Poverty is never far away and this makes it a breeding ground for extremism. When you have no money and no job and the terrorists come and pay, people say yes.” (13).

The rise of terrorist organizations and violent governments has led to such great instability that food and aid cannot get to the needy civilians. In March 2014, a report was released concerning the problems of getting the food to these civilians in which Jose Graziano da Silva, director­general of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) stated, “The main problem we have is that food is not reaching conflict areas such as Central African Republic (CAR) because of insecurity. Until now, there has not been enough of a response from the international community, especially given the proportion of the disaster foreseen.” (15). When weapons are in the right hands, more food can get to the people which will likely help reduce terrorism and rebellion. When weapons are in the wrong hands,

the food cannot get to the people as shown through the report by the FAO, leading to more government overthrows and more instability.

Many observers are especially concerned about Nigeria and Senegal. John Abuya, head of Action Aid’s international humanitarian action and resilience team, told IPS: “Disaster preparedness structures at regional and community levels are still weak and need to be strengthened so as to provide the necessary response and resilience in case of an emergency. Based on early warning signs, it is likely that the Nigerian and Senegalese governments will be overwhelmed if their food crisis escalates. Although Nigeria has a National Emergency Management Authority, its response at the state level has been weak and resources have been allocated inadequately by the central government.” (15). In 2011, both the Tunisian and Egyptian governments were overthrown for their inability to provide for their people’s needs. The same could happen to Nigeria and Senegal and the dangers of terrorism and weapons rise if this occurs.

In June 2013, the United Nations reported that the western­backed Nigerian government and military had committed several human rights abuses including raping women and killing children. In addition, U.S.­trained Congolese troops were recently found guilty of mass rape and other atrocities. While it is important to ensure that weapons do not fall into terrorist hands, there must be a balance maintained to ensure that the weapons do not fall into the hands of perceived legitimate governments.

Committee Directive:

The Disarmament and International Security committee’s main role is to deal with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community and to seek out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime as prescribed by the United Nations Charter. (14).

The First Committee’s role will be to debate resolutions focused on the weapons in the Sahel region, as well as to analyze the root causes of the instability in the Sahel region, and to provide suggestions on how better cooperation can be built to improve the national security of those living in this region within the confines of the United Nations Charter.

The committee should take into consideration that the Sahel region is a special case as many nations are affected by the ongoing violence, so solutions should be focused solely on the region. The focus of debate should be on how to best provide security to the people of the Sahel region, many of whom are in poverty, as well as how to prevent weapons from falling to terrorist organizations. Resolutions should focus on the current state of the weapons and how to ensure that additional weapons do not cross into volatile areas of the Sahel region.

While the committee is called upon to focus on the Sahel region, members must also recognize that all of Africa is interconnected, so working to strengthen the national security of the Sahel region will likely include finding ways to also secure countries surrounding the Sahel region. However, the committee should remain completely focused on the Sahel region during debate on this topic. (8).

Questions to Consider:

1. What is the responsibility of the United Nations in ensuring that weapons in the Sahel region remain in the right hands?

2. What should be the guidelines in determining a corrupt government in the Sahel region from a government that may be unstable, but is on the right track?

3. What should the United Nations do to help improve cooperation between the various nations within Africa and the Sahel region?

4. When should the United Nations intervene in a particular country in the Sahel region to ensure stability? At what point would intervening be considered an offense against national sovereignty?

5. How should the United Nations deal with terrorist organizations such as AQIM and Boko Haram? What are the root causes that lead to the formation of terrorist groups? How can the United Nations prevent new terrorist groups?

6. In what ways can the United Nations assist nations in the Sahel region to secure weapons?

1­http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45279&Cr=sahel&Cr1=$escape.getHash().Uc3NTTuceP9#.Ux9ox_ldXTo

2­http://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/hip/us/hip_us_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/0205208606.pdf

3­http://goblackcentral.com/2013/05/the­scramble­for­africa­berlin­conference­1884­1885­video/

4­http://www.globalissues.org/article/84/conflicts­in­africa­introduction#RootCausesofProblems

5­http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/congo.htm

6­http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30210:mali­rebels­used­libyan­weapons­report&catid=49:National+Security&Itemid=115

7­http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/03/mali­soldiers­claim­to­have­overthrown­government.html

8­http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world­report/2013/06/19/how­american­military­assistance­goes­wrong­in­africa

9­http://web.undp.org/drylands/history.html

10­http://www.irinnews.org/report/98012/understanding­the­causes­of­violent­extremism­in­west­africa

11­http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B­6D27­4E9C­8CD3­CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2100.pdf

12­http://www.potomacinstitute.org/attachments/article/2621/Terrorism%20in%20N%20Africa%20and%20Sahel%2024Jan2014.pdf

13­http://www.bbc.com/news/science­environment­22368945

14­http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/index.shtml

15­http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/03/sahel­food­crisis­overshadowed­regional­conflict/

16­http://theglobalobservatory.org/analysis/357­for­corruption­few­places­worse­than­the­sahel.html

17­http://www.swp­berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2011C01_lac_ks.pdf

18­http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80422e/80422E09.htm

Topic II: The Overthrowing of Governments and Weapon Security Introduction: The United Nations was formed in 1945 with one of its primary goals being to preserve world peace. A key problem that causes both international security and disarmament problems is the issue of unstable governments. Throughout the world, governments are overthrown for a wide range of reasons from attacks by terrorist organizations, disapproval from their citizens, or corruption from high levels. When governments are overthrown, major problems arise including what happens to the weapons held by the former government. Terrorists gain the opportunity to use these weapons to their advantage which puts all nations throughout the world at risk. With countries from Venezuela in South America to Syria in Asia to Ukraine in Europe to numerous nations in Africa all suffering from government overthrows or the possibility of them, it is imperative that standards be developed to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue organizations.

While there are many concerns during the overthrow of governments such as the safety of the people, the resulting economic problems, and the possible negative effects on the environment, a critical problem is the possibility of weapons falling into the wrong hands. For example, Syria is known to possess chemical weapons and the world has already seen the dangers of these weapons being held by the current government. Through a deal arranged between the United States and Syria, the weapons would be gradually surrendered. But even with a recent agreement made to reduce their stockpiles, the danger of these weapons falling into the wrong hands remains. With the possibility of Syrian rebels possibly taking over and the full transfer of chemical weapons not being accomplished, questions needs to be answered on how far the international community needs to go in ensuring the security of these weapons. (1).

Also, when a country becomes unstable or wants to secure itself, the country sometimes may turn to one of its neighbors. Twenty years ago, Ukraine was one of the top three nuclear weapons states, following only Russia and the United States. Then, it signed a treaty handing over its weapons to Russia in exchange for Russia’s agreement to respect its borders. Russia’s entering of Ukraine and taking of Crimea raises questions of how closely a nation with a troubled government should work with stronger nations in efforts to properly handle dangerous weapons. (2).

Background: In June 2004, Jeremy Weinstein, the Director for Development and Democracy on the National Security Council staff at the White House between 2009 and 2011, published “On the Brink: Weak States and U.S. National Security.” A primary concern for the international community are the nations in Central Asia due to their poor borders and under trained law enforcement. These problems have made Central Asia into the central of the global market in illicit small arms and light weapons. The report goes on to note, “U.S. military and civilian anti­terrorism officials struggle to keep up as terrorists plot to attack the United States from bases in Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Somalia; steal weapons from ill­guarded caches in the Sahara Desert or buy them from Central Asian middlemen.” (3). When a nation is unstable, the ramifications of the instability affect other nations as well.

The Soviet Union: Then and Now Before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Soviet government had 27,000 nuclear weapons and enough weapons­grade plutonium and uranium to triple that number. But since the collapse, the security of these nuclear weapons became a concern of the international community. There is evidence that there was a black market which sold several of these weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported more than 100 nuclear smuggling incidents since 1993, 18 of which involved highly enriched uranium, the key ingredient in an atomic bomb and the most dangerous product on the nuclear black market. Even more concerning were reports in the 1990s that U.S. authorities discovered several al­Qaeda plots to obtain nuclear materials, and former CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that Osama bin Laden had sought to “acquire or develop a nuclear device.” (6). But through cooperation with the United States, Russia and the other nations that formerly made up the Soviet Union were able to safely secure the majority of weapons. According to top officials who dealt with the security of these weapons, the United States spent billions of dollars to ensure a nuclear war did not occur. The Associated Press reported, “A quick U.S.­sponsored deal had Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan handing all their nukes over to Russia, and American cash helped safeguard the weapons at a time when the new governments couldn't even afford to pay military wages on time. Additional U.S. incentives offered jobs to disgruntled nuclear scientists from the former Soviet Union, many of whom were courted by nations like Iran.” While the U.S.­sponsored deal which had countries with weaker governments turn over their weapons to Russia ensured safekeeping of the weapons, the recent takeover of Crimea by Russia has led to increasing questions on whether the deal was right. Much of the international community is concerned that this deal may have left Ukraine powerless in the face of a hostile Russia. (7). The situation in Ukraine is particularly concerning because of the close alliance that Ukraine and Russia had before Russia’s entering into Crimea. Many smaller nations that need help from more powerful and stable nations will fear that handing over their weapons to larger nations will result in them being in the same situation that Ukraine is in today. Speaking before an audience in Ottawa, Canada, the foreign minister from Netherlands, Frans Timmermans spoke about how the situation in Ukraine is affecting Iran. Timmermans stated, “Just imagine what a message this is to Iran: “Hey, if you give up nuclear weapons, you're at the mercy of those who still have them.’” He went on to address how Russia’s actions also affected North Korea stating, “It's a horrible message. Just imagine. You have seen the actions of North Korea since.” Since Russia entered Ukraine, U.S. researchers have found signs of increased activity at a North Korean nuclear test site. (11). The 2011 Situation in Libya In August 2011, two months before the fall of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, international officials expressed concern about the weapons held by Gaddafi’s government and what would happen to them if Gaddafi was overthrown. The Huffington Post noted, “No one can be sure who controls the Libyan government's weapons stockpiles, a stew of deadly chemicals, raw nuclear material and some 30,000 shoulder­fired rockets that officials fear could fall into terrorists' hands in the chaos of Moammar Gadhafi's downfall or afterward.The main stockpile of mustard gas and other chemicals, stored in corroding drums, is at a site southeast of Tripoli. Mustard gas can cause severe blistering and death. A

cache of hundreds of tons of raw uranium yellowcake is stored at a small nuclear facility east of the capital.” (4).

United States Department of State officials were extremely concerned and sent experts to work with Libyan rebels who were gaining the upper hand at that point and Libya’s neighboring countries to ensure that the weapons would be secured. But even as reports went out that both the government and rebels understood the importance of ensuring the protection of the weapons, international officials remained concerned. British Embassy spokesman Hetty Crist stated that officials continued to be concerned about the 500 to 900 metric tons of raw uranium. The international community was not as concerned about the use of the chemicals since Libya was forced to surrender the hardware for the nuclear program to the United States. They were more fearful that these weapons could be sold to an even more rogue nation that could use these chemicals to build a dangerous nuclear weapon. (4). In December 2013, the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency sent officials to Libya to inspect the uranium and ensure their safe storage. As rebel groups continue to fight for control of the country, the government is still unable to defend the weapon supplies. Human Rights Watch Peter Bouckaert called for the defense of Libya’s arsenals stating, “The proliferation of weapons from the Libyan conflict was of a scale much greater than any other modern conflict. We already see the impact of these weapons in places like the Sinai, Gaza, and Mali, and we’ll still be talking about the consequences of this a decade from now.” Earlier in 2013, Egyptian officials intercepted Libyan weapons heading for rebels and jihadists in Syria, Palestine, and the Gaza Strip. Arms trafficking from Libya to Mali assisted Malian terrorists and rebels in committing violence and almost overthrowing the government until France intervened. But great damage has been done just because one country, in this case Libya, was unstable. (5).

The Changing Egyptian Governments: In February 2011, Egyptian President Mubarak, who had been supported by many in the international community, was overthrown. The new government led by President Morsi had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist organizations. Questions quickly arose as to whether President Morsi would continue his predecessor’s commitment to not attempt the development of nuclear weapons in Egypt. Muslim Brotherhood leader, Dr. Hamdi Hassan had previously stated, “We Egyptians are ready to starve in order to own a nuclear weapon that will represent a real deterrent and will be decisive in the Arab­Israeli conflict.” On August 21, 2011, retired Egyptian army general, Abdul­Hamid Umran said that it was "absolutely necessary" for the nation's security to have "a nuclear program." He said that Egypt should declare the program's peaceful purposes, and then systematically fool the international inspectors to achieve the needed levels of uranium enrichment to manufacture bombs, citing Iran as an example of how this can be done, and providing detailed steps to accomplish it. In his trip to Beijing in 2012, President Morsi requested $3 billion for "power plants" from the Chinese, according to the geostrategic analysis firm Stratfor. On August 30, 2012, Morsi told a group of Egyptians living in China that he was considering the revival of Egypt's nuclear power program. (12). The international community, which had largely recognized the Morsi government as legitimate, soon found out that the Egyptian people refused to accept him as their leader. In July 2013, President Morsi was overthrown by the Egyptian people and the military is currently in control of the country. Nevertheless, Egypt has continued to build their nuclear program, with current Egyptian President Adly

Mansour stating, “Being that 90% of Egyptian energy relies on fossil fuels, there is no alternative but to renew the Egyptian nuclear energy program so that nuclear energy will become the primary source of energy and electricity production in Egypt.” The new Egyptian government’s recent actions are particularly concerning because Egypt is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and has made efforts in international circles to disarm the entire Middle East of weapons of mass destruction. (13). Current Status: The international community has stepped in to stop the spread of weapons in nations where the government is incapable of doing so or has already been overthrown. A notable example is in the recent overthrow of the Ukraine government. In April 2014, the Geneva Convention announced an agreement calling for all illegal armed groups to surrender their weapons. With Russia entering Ukraine, reports have been released showing that the majority of Ukraine’s storehouses contain ammunition and weapons produced in the United States. (8)

Harvard University published a report entitled “Project on Managing the Atom” discussing possible ways to properly secure weapons, which include more stable nations taking weapons from unstable nations to properly secure them as well as a reduction of uranium worldwide. The report also details the importance of securing the weapons. “With enough nuclear material in hand, it would likely be within the reach of a sophisticated and well­organized terrorist group to build at least a crude nuclear explosive. The amounts required are small. Four kilograms of plutonium – an amount smaller than a soda can – or about three times that amount of highly enriched uranium is potentially enough for a nuclear bomb.” (9).

The fall of the Libyan government, the instability in Ukraine and the potential overthrows of the governments in Syria and Venezuela, makes it important for the international community to develop a consistent plan on how to secure the weapons. As seen in Libya, slowness and disputes by the international community in responding to the overthrow will cause a domino effect as other countries’ rebels and terrorists capture the weapons from the unstable country and uses it to overthrow their governments leading to similar problems.

Committee Directive: The Disarmament and International Security committee’s main role is to deal with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime as prescribed by the United Nations Charter. (10).

The First Committee’s role in dealing with the issue of the overthrow of the governments will focus solely on how to ensure the weapons in countries where the governments are unstable or overthrown. While the committee may debate other problems with the overthrow of governments, resolutions must be drafted with a specific focus on how to deal with loose weapons or materials that produce these weapons during a government overthrow. Furthermore, resolutions should be drafted in a manner that would allow them to become a standard for the international community when governments are in a troubled state.The committee will focus on the

potential for neighboring countries to take advantage of such situations, the exact timing of when to declare a government as overthrown, and the responsibility of other nations during such a crisis. Questions to Answer: 1. To what extent should the international community go in supporting either a rebel group or a government with the concern of securing the weapons? And what are the ramifications of supporting either group? 2.Should the international community seek to put pressure on nations with unstable governments to give up their weapons? 3. Should nations surrounding an unstable nation hold the main responsibility for assisting in the security of the weapons? What is the opinion of your nation on third parties participating? 4. What type of aid should nations provide in securing the weapons: troops, monetary aid, location? 5. At what point should the international community step in to aid a nation who is struggling with securing the weapons? Should we be aggressive or passive? 6. Should the weapons be given back to a nation when a new government takes over? How should the international community determine when the new government is ready for this responsibility? 1­http://www.dw.de/opcw­warns­that­syria­must­speed­up­handover­of­chemical­weapons/a­17566900 2­http://mag.newsweek.com/2014/04/25/ukraine­countries­border­russia­start­thinking­nuclear.html 3­http://www.cgdev.org/doc/books/weakstates/Full_Report.pdf 4­http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/libya­weapons­stockpiles­wrong­hands_n_934767.html 5­http://www.voanews.com/content/concerns­grow­over­libyan­uranium­stockpiles/1807497.html\ 6­http://www.cfr.org/weapons­of­mass­destruction/loose­nukes/p9549 7­https://news.yahoo.com/threat­loose­soviet­nukes­avoided­132845563.html 8­http://www.telegram.com/article/20140426/NEWS/304269896/1052/rss01&source=rss 9­ http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/sevensteps.pdf 10­http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/index.shtml 11­http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ukraine+crisis+sending+message+Iran+must+have+nukes/9800565/story.html 12­http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3333/egypt­muslim­brotherhood­bomb#_ftn3 13­http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/7458.htm Extra: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/23/libya­weapons­stockpiles­wrong­hands_n_934767.html http://www.cgdev.org/doc/books/weakstates/Full_Report.pdf http://www.cgdev.org/publication/brink­weak­states­and­us­national­security http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/reports­of­us­made­weapons­used­by­ukraine­have­to­be­investigated­says­lavrov­344814.html

Topic III: The Fairness of Disarmament

Introduction: In 1968, the Non­Proliferation Treaty was opened for signing, and since that time, 189 countries have become signatories of the treaty. However, questions on the fairness of the treaty have arisen over the past years. Nations such as North Korea and Iran have received heat for alleged failure to cease any type of nuclear proliferation. But powerful nations such as the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, and China have also been questioned about their commitment to abide by the treaty and reduce their nuclear stockpiles. Background: North Korea Withdraws From Treaty In January 2003, North Korea announced their decision to withdraw from the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty after being a member since December 12, 1985. The government of North Korea stated, “The United States recklessly violated its international legal obligations as a nuclear weapons possessing country, brought all kinds of nuclear weapons to South Korea on a massive scale, and escalated the joint exercise "Team Spirit," a nuclear­test war exercise, against us.” (1). “Team Spirit” was a joint military exercise from 1976 to 1993 by the United States and South Korea. It was cancelled by the United States in the hopes that North Korea would return to the negotiation table. The United States and South Korea have continued their joint military cooperation, although not under the name “Team Spirit” (10). China and Russia both announced their support for North Korea’s decision as well as their opposition to any intervention from the United Nations. Attempted resolutions to place repercussions against North Korea failed with the vetoes of China and Russia. In some respects, North Korea’s withdrawal from the treaty should not have come as a surprise. North Korea only signed onto the treaty after being encouraged by Russia, then the Soviet Union, as a necessary condition for the provision of coveted nuclear research assistance. North Korea stated as it withdrew from the treaty that it "has no intention of making nuclear weapons" and that its nuclear activities "will be confined only to power production and other peaceful purposes." The letter also states that North Korea's withdrawal from the treaty is in reaction to its inclusion in the "axis of evil" and being targeted by the United States' preemptive strike policy. (3). The Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty’s success will only come with trust between all members of the treaty. Without this trust, members continue to view each other with suspicion and violate the treaty on the grounds of national security. Or in the case of North Korea, members may decide to completely withdraw from the treaty, leaving the treaty without any teeth.

India’s Refusal to Join NPT India is another nation that is not a member of the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty. The Indian government has stated, “Nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security and will remain so, pending non­discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament.” The Indian government has criticized the Non­Proliferation Treaty for failing to be enforced. India’s representative to the United Nations in 2009, Singh Puri stated, “it is clear that the international community would look to the

countries with substantial nuclear arsenals represented on the Council for meaningful steps towards nuclear disarmament.” He went on to state that India would be more willing to sign the treaty if the Security Council was more balanced, expressing concern that all five permanent members had nuclear weapons. Puri also stated that India has called for the inclusion of a reaffirmation of the unequivocal commitment by all nuclear­weapon states to the goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons. India refuses to sign on until they see a full commitment by all nations to full disarmament. (2).

Pakistan’s Refusal to Join NPT Like India, Pakistan has continuously refused to sign the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty. Since 1967, the government of Pakistan has stated that they would sign the treaty if India, their longtime foe, agreed to sign it. But in 2010, Pakistan announced they were withdrawing their offer to sign the treaty based on India. Instead, Pakistan stated that they would solely sign on as a recognized Nuclear Weapons state. Pakistan Foreign Minister Basit blamed the United States and other countries for destabilizing the security environment in South Asia, thus forcing Pakistan to increase its dependence on nuclear weapons. Pakistan opposed the agenda at the United Nation’s Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, especially due to their opposition to the clauses that only banned future production of nuclear fissile materials. Pakistan, like many of its Islamic counterparts, has criticized Israel for refusing to sign the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty. (4). In the cases of India and Pakistan, regional conflicts and distrust between neighbors has caused two nations to refuse to sign the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty. And many Islamic nations will not abide by the treaty until Israel becomes a member. This enmity between certain countries has weakened the effectiveness of the NPT. Also seen in India and Pakistan’s refusals is the call for fairness within the treaty. Many countries that are developing nuclear weapons, are not comfortable giving up their developments in the face of “weak promises of reduction” from nations that already have nuclear weapons. The treaty needs to be developed in such a way that all countries would feel comfortable with the promises from each other. Israel Opposes the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty Israel has come under fire for refusing to sign the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty especially due to the recent agreement Iran has made to decrease its nuclear proliferation. In bilateral negotiations that Iran President Rouhani held with the leaders of France, Japan, and Turkey, he stated that worldwide disarmament needed to be made “our highest priority”. At a United Nations forum in 2013, President Rouhani reiterated their demands that Israel sign the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty and cease their nuclear proliferation. Other Middle East nations such as Syria, Libya, and Iraq have also criticized Israel who is the only Middle Eastern nation to have refused to sign the treaty. However, Israel argues that its refusal to sign the treaty is due to the violations committed by neighboring states. Intelligence and International Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz stated, "Iran's new president is playing an old and familiar game by trying to deflect attention from Iran's nuclear weapons program. The problem of the NPT in the Middle East is not with those countries which have not signed the NPT, but countries like Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria which have signed the treaty and brazenly violated it. Unlike Iran, Israel has never threatened the destruction of another country.” (11).

Current Status: A Review of the NPT at the United Nations At the 69th Session of the United Nations in October 2014, the United Nations will be holding a conference to review the progress being made with respect to the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty. Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Ulyanov, who will lead the Russian delegation to this conference noted that hot debates over nuclear disarmament have arisen. A number of states that have no nuclear weapons of their own have criticized the slowness of nuclear disarmament in many of the world powers. Ulyanov admitted in an interview that Russia was not ready to give up nuclear weapons because at the present stage, it is a legitimate means of deterrence and protection of national interests. (5). Marshall Islands Files the Lawsuit On May 6, 2010, Ambassador from the Marshall Islands to the United Nations Phillip Muller spoke on the importance of nuclear disarmament in a speech before the 2010 Review Conference on the NPT. In his speech, he stated, “We are alarmed that, although almost all NPT members are achieving obligations, there are a small few who appear to be determined to violate the rules which bind them, and whose actions thus far appear evasive, particularly in testing or assembling nuclear weapons. We have no tolerance for anything less than strict adherence by Parties to their legal obligations under the NPT ­ we urge, and we expect, an appropriate international response. But most importantly, we seek the resolution of these issues through a means which ensures a more safe and secure world, and ensures compliance with the NPT. This is not an issue of bloc politics; it is an issue of collective international security.” He went on to state that the Marshall Islands had fulfilled its obligations to not seek any nuclear weapons and that it was time for nations with nuclear weapons to fulfill their side of the agreement. (6). In April 2014, the Marshall Islands had enough and announced that they were filing a lawsuit against nine countries that they alleged still had nuclear weapons and were failing to reduce their stockpiles in an appropriate manner. The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea were all included in the Islands’ lawsuit as being in violation of the treaty. Laurie Ashton, a lawyer for the Marshall Islands stated, “The United States is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to modernize its nuclear weapons, which is the opposite of disarmament. Partial reductions to nuclear stockpiles don't matter if we're designing and building new weapons to take their place.” The Marshall Islands has a personal animosity toward the United States, as 67 nuclear tests were conducted from 1946 to 1958 on the islands by the United States. Reports are that islanders are still suffering from the health and environmental effects caused by the tests. (7). Many islanders suffered from tissue destructive effects, such as burns, and subsequently from latent radiation­induced diseases. Furthermore, a large amount of the food eaten by the people in the Marshall Islands had a high amount of radiation doses. In 2005, the National Cancer Institute reported that more than every one in three people in the Islands were at risk of contracting cancer. (12). The United States Department of State responded to the lawsuit, “The U.S. is dedicated to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, consistent with our obligations under the (NPT).” A key problem with the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty continues to be the vagueness of the treaty. Article VI of the Treaty states, “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue

negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” (8). While all countries accept that the treaty calls for the reduction of nuclear weapons, each has their own interpretation of what “good faith” looks like. The United States has attacked North Korea for being in violation while North Korea has attacked the United States in the same manner. And the Marshall Islands does not believe that any of the nations are working in good faith to abide by the treaty and reduce nuclear weapons. Committee Directive: The Disarmament and International Security committee’s main role is to deal with disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community and seeks out solutions to the challenges in the international security regime as prescribed by the United Nations Charter. (9). The role of the First Committee in dealing with the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty shall focus solely on how to best improve the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty to make it more effective and clear for the security of the international community. An effective resolution to this issue will discuss and define what is a “good faith” effort with respect to nuclear disarmament. In addition, delegates should take into consideration why certain nations refuse to sign the treaty, and how to make the treaty enforceable while acceptable to countries irrespective of their status in the world. Questions to Answer: 1. What is the status of your country with respect to the Nuclear Non­Proliferation Treaty? 2. Has your country come into conflict with other nations over violations of the treaty? 3. What is the history of your nation in terms of dealing with the reduction of nuclear weapons? If your country does not have nuclear weapons, explain why. 4. What types of standards should be set to improve the effectiveness of the NPT? 5. How does your country view nations that believe in a slower reduction of nuclear weapons compared to the fastened pace that some advocate for? 6. Does your nation agree or disagree with the lawsuit filed by the Marshall Islands? Explain why or why not. 1­http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/dprk012203.html 2­http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/india­says­wont­sign­npt/521152/ 3­http://cns.miis.edu/stories/030409.htm 4­http://www.nation.com.pk/national/14­Apr­2014/pakistan­and­india­refused­to­sign­the­nuclear­non­proliferation­treaty 5­http://en.itar­tass.com/world/731075 6­http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2010/statements/pdf/marshalislands_en.pdf 7­http://news.yahoo.com/u­examining­marshall­islands­nuclear­lawsuits­defends­record­222848891.html;_ylt=A0LEVx96n4JT50sAkjRXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBzZTdrbmk3BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTQEY29sbwNiZjEEdnRpZAM­ 8­http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf 9­http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/index.shtml

10­http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/team­spirit.htm 11­http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/rouhani­israel­nuclear­treaty_n_3996036.html 12­http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert­alvarez/the­legacy­of­us­nuclear_b_586524.html