disarmament and international security committee …€¦ · my name is olivia krivitsky and am a...

PAGE | DISEC TOPIC BULLETIN1

DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE TOPIC BULLETIN

ZHAOYUAN JIANG OLIVIA KRIVITSKY

CHAIRS

Contents: Letters from the Chairs …………………………………………….…..... 3 Topic A: Foreign Military Intervention in Civil Wars .….…….. 6 Introduction ………………………………..………………………… 4-5 Topic History ………………………………..…………….............. 5-6 Current Situation ……….….…..….……………..….................. 6-7 Country Policy ……………………………………………..…………. 7-9 Questions to Consider .………….…………….…..…………....... 9-10 Topic B: Latin American Arms Trade ………………………..……… 11 Introduction ……………….………………..………………………… 11-12 Topic History ……………………………….…………………….….. 12-13 Current Situation …………………….…….………..……………… 13-17 Country Policy ….…………………..…..………………………….. 18-20 Questions to Consider ………………….……………………….… 20 References …………….…………….…………….…..………..…………… 20-21



Academy Model United Nations - THE TWENTY-FIRST ANNUAL CONFERENCE -

Dear Delegates,

My name is Zhaoyuan Jiang, but you can call me Eric. I will be serving as your chair for the Disarmament and International Security Committee. It is both an honor and a pleasure to welcome you to our school and debate topics of a controversial nature. A bit about myself before you meet me, I am a senior in the Academy for Business and Finance. I am a volunteer firefighter, varsity fencing captain, and the President of the Investment Analysis Group. Given our topics of arms trade and foreign military intervention, it will be quite interesting to watch all of you come up with and debate resolutions with strong economic and macro-finance support. This is my third year participating in MUN and chairing. Please do not hesitate to contact me through my email, [email protected], if you have any comments, concerns, inquiries, or epiphanies. I wish the best of luck to all of you and sincerely wish for this conference to provide you with a delightful learning experience.

Good luck, Zhaoyuan Jiang, Co-Chair, DISEC [email protected]

Welcome Delegates to AMUN 2019!

My name is Olivia Krivitsky and am a senior at Bergen County Academies. I am extremely passionate about learning and discussing political events, foreign diplomacy, and international policies, which ultimately explains my passion for MUN. I began participating in MUN my freshman year of high school and have found so much pleasure in this activity. It is truly a great way to learn about the multilateral issues around us and further vocalize our opinions on those issues. MUN has enabled me to hone my speaking skills, build confidence, and grow into the strong leader that I am today. Aside from MUN, I participate in Diversity Alliance, Goal4theGoal, Cell and Medical Research, and Skills USA. Outside of school, I enjoy ballroom dancing, playing tennis, and spending time with my friends and family. Furthermore, MUN has taught me the importance of not only working cohesively with others during conferences but also carrying that attribute into every facet of life. As one of your chairs this year, I encourage you to work collaboratively with your peer delegates. I look forward to meeting all the delegates and chairing a great committee this year!

Yours sincerely, Olivia Krivitsky, Co-Chair, DISEC [email protected]

SECRETARIAT

SARAH MCILROY SECRETARY GENERAL

ARIEL BARNEA CHARGÉ D’ AFFAIRES

ZHIZHEN ZHANG DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

JUSTIN OH DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

RAEHASH SHAH DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

LUCAS KIM DIRECTOR OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

KRISHI DESAI DIRECTORS OF OPERATIONS

ANNETTE KIM DIRECTORS OF OPERATIONS

JASON PING CHIEF OF STAFF

MARK KRAMER FACULTY ADVISOR

SCOTT DEMETER FACULTY ADVISOR

ANDREA BUCCINO FACULTY ADVISOR

mailto:[email protected]




Topic A: Foreign Military Intervention in Civil Wars

Introduction The recent political discourse regarding the topic of foreign military intervention in civil wars ignited with the events in March 1 9 9 9 a n d M a y 2 0 0 0 w h e r e perspectively the United States led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) air strikes over Yugoslavia and 500 United Nations (UN) peacekeepers were taken hostage in Sierra Leone. Nonintervention is b a s e d u p o n t h e p o l i t i c a l independence, equal i ty , and sovereignty of the states in question, as defined by the verdict of Nicar. v. U.S. in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1986. UN Charter Article 2 Section 7 imposes a duty on existing, independent nations to refrain from intervention in the internal affairs of other existing, independent nations. Under current circumstances of the post-Cold War era, the UN is usually called upon to resolve internal domestic conflicts. Such actions raises the question of interventions undertaken by i n t e r n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s composing of numerous states as opposed to unilateral interventions


by states. With the United Nations being increasingly called upon to intervene in internal conflicts on issues of broader scale than currently justified precedents, this reflects changes in the perception of the concepts of domestic jurisdiction and a threat to the peace. Domestic jurisdiction is a concept based on the state of international relations and is therefore malleable by nature. Given recent precedents in Iraq, Somalia, and Haiti, perspectively Res. 688, 794 and 814, 841 of the UN Security Council, civil conflicts of any significance now may not fall s o l e l y w i t h i n t h e d o m e s t i c jurisdiction of UN Member States. While the UN Charter Article 2 Section 4 is generally prescribed to resolve international conflicts as contrary to domestic ones, the specific prohibition on intervention i n m a t t e r s w i t h i n t h e s o l e jurisdict ion of the domestic government grows to be more ambiguous with increased global interactions between nations. Even with the intervention of external forces, the primary condition relies on the argument of

the domestic conflict in relation to world peace or human rights. The result of which indicates aspects of conflicts that should only be dealt with by the domestic government and parties within the realm of question. It is solely at the discretion of domestic parties to choose social, economic, or political order. This leaves a difficult situation for external parties to intervene and resolve conflicts as jurisdiction is only granted on the basis of resolving the aspects of the conflicts which threaten world peace or human rights. Any measure which aids in the decision or coercion of the economic, social, or political system proves to be impermissible and in conflict with UN charters. Recent measures such as Res. 841 of the UN Security Council proves to be problematic to UN Charter Article 1 Section 1.

Topic History The UN Charters outline the responsibilities of the organization to conduct activities in an attempt to resolve conflicts and prevent disputes from escalation to stages where tranquility or human rights


are threatened. The primary function of the organization in relation to intervention has been to restore peace when armed conflict has broken out and to promote lasting peace in societies emerging from wars. Since the end of World War II, there have been 138 civil wars where external forces have interfered in over two-thirds. With a lack of a framework to handle internal conflicts due to the organization’s founding structure emphasizing on international conflicts; the only resolution has been from the Disarmament Committee and Security Council which provides and implements recommended measures in a significantly delayed manner due to the parties involved in the decision making process and procedures of the body. UN attempts to resolve conflicts in Congo, Indonesia, and S y r i a t h r o u g h i n t e r v e n t i o n indicates room for improvement in terms of the efficiency of the current process. In the past seven decades, the UN has conducted sixty-eight peacekeeping missions ranging from direct military intervention to monitoring electoral integrity. With

fifteen ongoing operations, the interventions into civil wars each require precise resolutions from the S e c u r i t y C o u n c i l . W i t h jur i sd ic t iona l concerns , UN peacekeeping troops have specific guidelines that determine the scope of the mission and act on specific and different types of charters. Charter VI of solely observation and Charter VII of peacekeeping in relation to the state being unable to maintain security and public order.

Current Situation The current situation involves several key pieces which will be discussed in committee session at the conference. Due to the timeline of the conference and the writing of this topic guide, the chairs expect changes to the various conflict that will be mentioned in this section. It is best advised to gather external sources before the time of the conference to ensure a well-rounded knowledge of the topic that could play a changing role in the policies of the nation being represented. Currently, the US military has sent over a thousand troops to the


Middle East in response to Iranian actions, which is claimed to be hostile behavior. Tensions have been on the rise due to the Iranian government’s announcement that it was set to breach a limit of stockpiled enriched uranium under the 2015 multi-party nuclear deal. The Trump administration has claimed troops were sent for defensive purposes. With the Defence Forces of the European Union on the rise with strong advocates of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, the EU is expected to conduct operations to maintain shared interests within other regions and to ensure peace, liberty, and prosperity. Opposition within the European Parliament has been led by the leader of the Brexit Party, Member of the European Parliament for South East England, Nigel Farage. The voiced opposition has been met with little support within the chamber. There also could be potential intervention by foreign powers or the UN in Venezuela, particularly the US and Russia. A senior

Russian diplomat has stated that the Kremlin is prepared to send additional forces to support President Nicolas Maduro in his faceoff with US-backed opposition trying to depose him.

Country Policy

Europe and the United States: The majority of historical records and current policies in re la t ion to fore ign mi l i tary intervention shows that European nations and the United States are in support of military diplomacy. there is a strong involvement with b o t h U N - l e d e f f o r t s a n d intervention by the independent nat ions. European and U.S. delegates to the General Assembly and the Security Council also do voice pro-intervention opinions. The United States in this matter is regarded by some to be a c r u c i a l c o m p o n e n t a s interventionist tendencies have been demonstrated for decades in other nations under claims of establishing peace and prosperity, or reinforce liberty and democracy. Recent operations in Afghanistan


and Iraq among others prove both the efficiency and effectiveness of the US in matching its military might to its political will. US is also playing a significant role in the budgeting of UN-led intervention as over one-fifth of the UN peacekeeping budget for the last decade has been provided solely by the US.

South America: D u e t o t h e v a r i o u s c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n d p o l i t i c a l atmosphere of the 20th century, numerous countries were occupied by foreign powers to a great extent. W i t h t h i s p r e c e d e n t , m a n y countries in South America are in opposition to intervention through militaristic means and perceive the actions as in violation of the sovereignty of the nation in question.

Middle East: With Syria being a precedent in close consideration, many Middle Eastern states support conflicts in the Middle East region to be resolved without foreign intervention of any kind, not l i m i t e d t o j u s t m i l i t a r y

intervention. While the aid received from the UN is of great importance to a significant portion of the states, various peacekeeping missions in the region has been met with vocal opposition or reservation in opinion.

Syria: With over two-thirds of the nation is back under the control of the Assad led government, military conflicts within the nation is coming to a conclusion. Since Russia’s intervention in September of 2015, the opposition parties have been unable to secure victories and lost the vast majority of their territorial holdings. Syria is a recent precedent that evoked international discourse due to the various benefits involved in foreign powers. Syria current has not made clear intentions of its s t a n c e o n f o r e i g n m i l i t a r y intervention but the government has shown clear intent to support interventions that are in its favor.

China: The People’s Republic of China currently announced to expand overseas military bases in


Djibouti following a military display in July of 2019. Asia’s preeminent power declares that it will no longer sit on the sidelines when ally countries are being threatened by opposition seeking to disrupt the peace and people of the nation. Current operations in the Horn of Africa are to establish peace while efforts in South Sudan has been to test, refine, and grow the People’s Liberation Army’s clout. China has always been a nation that does not provoke or threaten war but rather settles with negotiations over the table to ensure win-win scenarios. Policies of non-interference are clear and show an intent to not meddle with the internal affairs of other nations. Interference is at times chosen as a means to protect China’s national interest as well as the feelings of both its own citizens and other involved parties. Japan: With the signing of the Treaty of Peace with the Allied Powers and the Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan, it is not allowed to have military with potentials of declaring war on other nations but is limited to national

defense of currently existing territory. Japan in recent years, h o w e v e r , h a s a r m e d i t s e l f significantly and has conducted various drills on the edge of the South China Sea and other regions to display its military might. It has also been involved with several UN peacekeeping missions.

Republic of Korea: While usually against foreign m i l i t a r y i n t e r v e n t i o n b y independent nations, the Republic of Korea Armed Forces has contributed 618 uniformed UN peacekeepers with significant deployments in Afghanistan, the Gulf of Aden, and UAE.

Questions to Consider

To what extent is foreign military intervention justified?

How do the nation’s various interests play a role in the stance of its intervention policies?


What is the ethical dilemma within foreign military intervention if the claims are to reestablish peace?

What are the ways to deescalate the s i t u a t i o n s w i t h o u t m i l i t a r y involvement if following UN protocols?


Topic B: Latin American Arms Trade

Introduction T h e D i s a r m a m e n t a n d International Security Committee (DISEC), or the United Nations General Assembly First Committee, is one of six main committees at the General Assembly of the United Nations. DISEC is engaged in r e s o l v i n g i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g disarmament, global challenges, and threats to peace that affect the international community, working to address challenges around the maintenance of international safety and security. Today, one of the biggest issues DISEC must tackle is the issue of the Latin American arms trade. Gun violence caused by small, illegal arms poses the most imminent threat to public safety and prosperity in Latin America. Due to decades of both intentional and unintentional proliferation on the parts of governments within the region, between 45 million to 80 million small arms are circulating throughout Latin America. These types of arms kill between 73,000 and 90,000 people annually in the region and the World Health Organization estimates shootings to be the leading cause of death


among Latin Americans between 15 to 44 years of age.

Topic History S m a l l a r m s w e r e g r a d u a l l y introduced to the region during the Cold War, with sudden increases in d e m a n d d u r i n g t h e C e n t r a l American civil wars of the 1980s. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union supplied their allies in Latin America with mass amounts of weapons through proxy dealers, which could have destabilized areas surrounding the United States and led to proxy warfare if tensions rose further during the Cold War. The Soviet Union sent weapons to Cuba, s o m e o f w h i c h w e r e t h e n transferred to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. As a response to the rising threat from groups and nations opposing the United States, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s u p p l i e d Nicaraguan rebel groups, like the Nicaraguan Contras, with Soviet weapons, so that officially, the U n i t e d S t a t e s c o u l d d e n y involvement. A variety of Cold War-era weapons are still found to be

upholding the illegal weapons market of South America today. While most legal weapons in South America in the modern age comes from the United States and Europe, efforts to research and develop weapons within the region is also on the rise. Due to a lack of transparency in the arms trade market, it is unclear as to what kinds of weapons were sold. What is known is that Latin America legally imported at least $175 million (not adjusted for inflation) work of small arms, ammunition, and perspective spare parts in 2005. From the known data of that year, $29 million of US arms went to Colombia, and $10 million to Mexico. Venezuela spent $10 million on small arms as supplied by Belgium and purchased $4 million of assault weapons from Russia. Historically, Latin American countries’ demands for weapons has not been able to be satisfied with their domestic production capabilities. Heavy reliance on imported weapons is present to this day. The vast coastlines, densely forested mountains, relatively


unregulated borders, clandestine airstrips, widespread corruption, a n d a l a c k o f a b i l i t y f o r governments to address the issue all contribute to empower the illegal arms trade network. The smuggled weapons within the region are estimated to reach tens of billions of US dollars annually. T h e c o m p l i c a t e d a n d multidimensional nature of the issue, with its many economic, social, and political implications, has made multilateral agreements and domestic solutions relatively d i f f i c u l t . T h e U N F i r e a r m s Protocol, designed to “curb the illicit manufacturing and trade in small arms through more effective policing”, has only eight of a total of 49 ramifications from Latin American countries. In 2006, only two-thirds of Latin American countr ies had establ ished a national small-arms point of contact. This is a crucial first step in adhering to the UN Programme of Action (PoA), which outlines state responsibilities in managing the small arms trade. Nevertheless, the 21st century has seen noteworthy efforts in the movement to address the issue of

the Latin American arms trade. In January 2003, the nations of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela approved a plan to aggressively combat illicit arms trafficking in their respective countries. Argentina, Brazil , Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela have also worked to mitigate the role of small arms in urban violence and drug trafficking. The Brazilian government, in particular, has made significant progress in working with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to prevent urban crime. Furthermore, Latin American governments have shown support for a more recent UN initiative that would establish an international arms trade treaty that would set up s tandards for transferring conventional weapons.

Current Situation Latin America has long been plagued by conflict and political unrest, making the area a thriving marketplace for the arms trade. For example, the ongoing Colombian c i v i l w a r b e t w e e n r e b e l s , paramilitaries, and regular citizens has created one of the most


organized illicit arms-trafficking networks in the world. The trading relationships established during the Cold War have remained intact; U.S. and Russian sales remain consistent, with dozens of other exporters (e.g. Austria, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Italy, Spain, and Turkey) piling on. In the nation of El Salvador, which has the highest murder rate in the world, officials estimate that at least 50% of the weapons found to be used in crime scenes originated from the United States, as El Salvador was the single largest recipient of U.S.-issued military hardware in the Western Hemisphere during the 1980s. Recently, several Latin American states have begun to emerge as arms producers, exploiting the e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g d e m a n d f o r weapons. Criminal organizations, street gangs, private security firms, and vigilantes have easy access to a steady supply of weapons, making Latin American countries and cities the most vulnerable in the world in terms of gun-related violence. While Latin American residents only account for 8.5% of the world’s

population, they also account for m o r e t h a n a q u a r t e r o f i t s homicides. Just four countries -- Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and V e n e z u e l a - - a c c o u n t f o r approximately one-fifth of all gun-related deaths in the world every year. No country is a stranger to the everyday violence of the streets, but the excessive amount of firearms in Latin America makes this kind of violence much more likely to be lethal. A recent press release from the Foundation for Global Democracy and Development has highlighted that the small arms trade within Latin America is increasing, becoming a leading factor in the destabilization of the region and hindering the prosperity of Latin American citizens. With a lack of clear solutions, the laws of supply and demand bring together willing and able criminal groups into relationships with one another that easily increases v i o l e n c e r a t e s . T h e c u r r e n t situation piece will be broken down into major countries that are currently involved in the illicit arms trade network, whether being


s u p p l i e r s , c o n s u m e r s , o r functioning as intermediate points. For instance, the 9mm pistol has been most commonly confiscated by Guatemala’s National Police and seems to be the primary option of arms for gangsters in the country. Arms such as these are easily dismantled into five separate parts, which can then be swapped and utilized with other gun components interchangeably. The nature of this kind of weapon means that forensic ballistics is much more difficult as criminals have been known to exchange parts such as barrels to offset the forensics tests or sell the gun in parts outright. Similarly to avoid incriminating evidence, the .38-caliber revolver also has the additional advantage of not ejecting bullet casings at crime scenes. A legal pistol in the legal market costs approximately between $930 and $2,400; however, a used pistol only costs between $130 and $200 in the parallel market, sometimes even cheaper if the weapon or its components were used to commit a crime. Similarly, a .38-caliber revolver costs between $530 and $670, which is also found much cheaper on the black market;

however there does exist a lack of data on the exact price range of the revolver as compared to the pistols. Other nations within Latin America face similar challenges. The Dominican Republic has seen a significant increase in illicit arms shipments, and has seized weapons such as pistols and double-barreled rifles in recent shipments, but has also seen assault weapons such as the AR-15, M4, and M16, which were reportedly sent from various metropolitan areas within the United States. Costa Rica’s geographical location also makes it a prime location for i l l e g a l a r m s s h i p m e n t s a s Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay converge along Costa Rica’s borders. This location is referred to as the Triple Frontier area as illegal arms thrive there. Due to a lack of available resources for policing and prevention, arms trades in this area of Costa Rica is one of the most lucrative activities that criminal organizations in South America can engage in, other than drug and human trafficking. Paraguay is one of the primary suppliers of weapons for the region with the Ministry of the Interior of


Paraguay estimating that there are over 700,000 undocumented weapons within the country that will be sold at some point. Arms smugglers starting from Paraguay take advantage of poor radar coverage along Paraguay’s southern b o r d e r t o l a n d a i r c r a f t o n clandestine airstrips in remote areas of northeastern Argentina. The weapons are then smuggled across various channels ranging from land routes to boats on the Parana and Iguazu Rivers. Recent discoveries by Colombian authorities indicate that it is near impossible to crack down on different tiers of the organized crime ring without the cooperation of a multitude of countries, which may not be in the political or economical positions to focus more resources on the illegal arms trade. One exposed network consists of smuggling weapons from the U n i t e d S t a t e s , M e x i c o , a n d Panama, to hide in Colombia before selling them to bordering countries. Members of the Colombian security forces are suspected of helping develop and uphold the network by supplying weapons from the government’s stockpiles as sniper

rifles and grenades were also discovered during recent raids. Furthermore, the arms trade has a significant impact on the issue of drug trafficking in the Latin American region. Weapons act as both a form of currency and a commodity, fueling drug-related violence. With the ready availability of small arms exacerbating the chaos and conf l ic t in Lat in A m e r i c a n c o u n t r i e s , d r u g traffickers have been able to exploit this unrest and instability, creating armed gangs with strong ties to international drug dealers and almost normalizing addiction. In Costa Rica, civilians have been armed with AK-47s (which were common Soviet exports during the Cold War) to protect marijuana plantations. The issue also has heavy economic implications. The International American Development Bank (IADB) estimates that nearly a quarter of El Salvador’s national GDP is spent addressing the violence of its ongoing civil war. Gun violence burdens communities with higher health care costs, which consequently reduces productivity and discourages investment. A


study conducted by the Small Arms Survey in Rio de Janeiro found that the average medical cost of a single gunshot wound was around $4,500, almost three times the cost of a stab wound. Today, gun violence accounts for almost $90 million in healthcare costs in Brazil and $40 million in Colombia. Productivity losses for these two countries are estimated at $10 billion and $4 billion, respectively. The IADB estimated that the per capita GDP in Latin America would be 25% higher if crime rates decreased to global averages. According to the North American C o n g r e s s i n L a t i n A m e r i c a (NACLA), “the proliferation and misuse of firearms undermines growth, threatens human welfare, negatively impacts business, threatens investment, and hinders development throughout the region.” Overall, the Latin American region h a s a r e l a t i v e l y t h r i v i n g underground arms market when compared to other parts of the world despite certain countries in the region maintaining strict gun control legislation. Demands for weapons for the intent of self-

defense or killing by criminals lead to the prosperity of the Triple Frontier area and link many organizations together due to the l a c k o f r e t a l i a t i o n f r o m governments. High rates of gun violence and mortality in Central America’s Northern Triangle countries consisting of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, are all linked to the very same network that operates in South America and has severely destabilized the region. Especially in recent years, gangs are wishing for military-grade weapons to combat state security and police forces, which the law of supply in the underground market was happy to meet. A significant portion, to some estimates of 70%, of these weapons, come from the United States and flow into Mexico and the Central America region before being traded in South America. However, the issue also persists due to the corruption of military and police officials, as well as private security firms.


Country Policy

The United States: The United States is the world’s largest arms exporter and importer and continues to play a critical role in facilitating the supply of f i rearms to Lat in America. Experts have observed that close proximity to the U.S. is correlated with a greater influx of arms. Mexico, for example, has an estimated influx of at least 212,000 illegal firearms from the U.S. annually. On August 1, 1997, the Clinton administration announced that the U.S. would end a 20-year moratorium, or prohibition, on the s a l e o f a d v a n c e d m i l i t a r y equipment to Latin American states. The United States will take a similar approach to the European countries in protecting human rights and prosperity within the region. However, as a significant portion of the problem lies within the arms shipped to Central America from the United States, a domestic change would be required to help solve the issue. With the current government debt and

resource allocation, this would not be pushed for by the United States.

Europe: The majority of legal firearms within the region come from various European countries. It is very likely for Europe, given its stance on gun violence over the years, to first ensure the security of legal arms trade with Latin America while protecting human rights within the region. In terms of trading weapons, nothing will change as the European Security and Defense Policy and meetings specif ical ly related to Latin America’s circumstances indicate that the trades are fair and not harmful to civilians. There is no sponsorship of rogue states or selling of more advanced military-grade weapons capable of mass destruction. In terms of human rights protection, European countries lean more heavi ly on re ly ing on international bodies to resolve the issue. A push for anti-corruption campaigns would also be a stance that the European countries would favor.


Latin America: The main two factors in not addressing this issue already are the scale of the problem and political ties. With the problem dating back to the Cold War era, it is simply too much for governments of developing nations to tackle by themselves. In some instances, about one-third of the country’s annual GDP is spent addressing issues directly or indirectly caused by illegal arms trade within the region. Another constraint would be the widespread corruption that has allowed the illegal arms network to grow so large. A true resolution of this problem would consist of linking high ranking officials with illegal arms and cause significant public distrust, which would dampen foreign investments a n d c a u s e f u r t h e r p o l i t i c a l instability. Given the need to address the issue and the international pressure faced, Latin American countries would be supportive of addressing the issue to an extent.

Russia: According to former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, the

Russian Federation has continued to pursue “an increased presence in Latin America through propaganda, military arms, and equipment sales.” He further commented, “As part of its global strategy, Russia is using power projection in an attempt to erode U.S. leadership and challenge U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.” The Russian Federation has continued to pursue amicable multilateral relations and strategic partnership in Latin America, and one of the Putin administration's most important ways to build these stronger ties is arms sales. For example, by 2025, it is expected that Venezuela will become the second-largest recipient of Russian arms sales abroad, and President Vladimir Putin has made efforts to establish strategic military alliances with countries l i k e V e n e z u e l a , C u b a , a n d Nicaragua. Moscow is constantly seeking to forge relationships with countries that share an interest in c r e a t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d agreements that are not dominated by the Western Alliance.


Other Countries: The approach to this issue also concerns other countries as Latin American countries have not come forward by themselves to ask for help, in other words, a part of the debate will be when does the UN have a right to discuss and pass resolutions concerning countries when the issues can be considered to be domestic affairs not yet addressed. Various countries will have differing opinions on this issue.

Questions to Consider

To what extent is the United Nations intervention justified?

How can the success of resolutions be measured if the number of weapons sold cannot be accounted for due to their illegal nature?

What is the proper balance between letting an involved country take care of this as their internal affairs as opposed to this being a global issue?

To what extent should other countries be held accountable for their current exports of firearms into the already vulnerable Latin American region?

References

Topic A https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002200277401800304

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=38Ts2iDVQLEC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=foreign+military+intervention&ots=6pljpcQRqH&sig=pV6AVx0gjysmejpFG2cdRmwYJjI#v=onepage&q=foreign%20military%20intervention&f=false https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/106591290605900304

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912911417831

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600156?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents









Topic B https://gsdrc.org/document-library/the-small-arms-trade-in-latin-america/

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/south-america/2016-05-27/latin-americas-fatal-gun-addiction

https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2019/05/23/guns-from-the-united-states-are-flooding-latin-america

https://www.wola.org/2015/04/new-us-data-sheds-light-on-illegal-arms-trafficking-to-latin-america/

https://www.forumarmstrade.org/blog/a-worrisome-conundrum-latin-american-defense-and-security-forces-and-weapons-trafficking

https://www.sipri.org/news/2017/sipris-arms-trade-treaty-database-now-covers-latin-america-and-caribbean

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

322341037_Firearms_Trafficking_Central_America

https://www.un.org/en/ga/first/

https://nacla.org/article/small-arms-trade-latin-america

https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/05/03/russia-playing-geopolitical-game-in-latin-america-pub-76228


disarmament and international security committee …€¦ · my name is olivia krivitsky and am a...

Documents