disec background guide

DISEC

CLASSIFIED

2011

[email protected] www.marimun.org 2

Welcome to DISECWords of Wisdom from the Chair

Dear Delegates,

My name is Sabrina Ostrowski and I have the pleasure of being

your Chair for the Disarmament and International Security Committee of

MariMUN 2011. Before talking business, let me introduce myself. I am a

second year Commerce student at Marianopolis College, and also

completing the International Studies Certificate. I am originally from

Poland, however I am a born and raised Canadian, eh. It is fair to say that

Model UN, and international politics overall, take up a big part of my life as

I am this year’s President and Head Delegate of the Marianopolis Model

United Nations Club. My Model UN experience is thorough although short-

lived: in 2 years I will have participated in 8 conferences, including that of

WorldMUN, held in Taiwan and Singapore in 2010 and 2011, respectively.

Besides ModelUN, I spend most of my time either playing soccer, watching

hockey, or pointlessly spending money shopping.

This year’s DISEC General Assembly will be, in my clearly unbiased

opinion, the best committee at MariMUN 2011, and I hope you’re all

excited for it. My Vice-Chair, Paul Kalash, and I are greatly looking forward

to witnessing the intricacies related to our two topics: Landmines and Small

Arms Trade. Both subjects were carefully selected due to their complete and

utter relevance to today’s society, as all nations of the world are affected by

them. Composed of over fourty nations, our committee and time together

will surely challenge your cerebral activity and fuel your innovation, but also

satisfy your need of excitement. If you have any unanswered questions, feel

free to contact me through e-mail.

Great things have been planned for you, Ladies and Gentleman.

Prepare to experience a GA like never before!

Sincerely,

Sabrina Ostrowski

Chair, DISEC

THE DAIS

SABRINA OSTROWSKIHEAD CHAIRMarianopolis CollegeCommerce, Honors

PAUL KALASHVICE-CHAIRUniversité de MontréalDroit

SUGANYA KANDASAMYG.A. STAFFMarianopolis CollegeHealth Sciences

MARIMUN 2011 26 FEBRUARY 2011


The purpose ofThe Background Guide

This document was put together to guide you in the right

direction. Delegates should not solely rely on the content of this

background guide for their research process. As the following

document is fairly complete, all are encourage - but not obliged

to - follow through with additional research. Searching

alternative solutions to those proposed in the guide is strongly

encouraged, and delegates are advised to be informed of their

respective national policies relating to the topics. Note: foreign

relations with other states are a key component to delegate

research as cooperation and resolution drafting should be based

on realistic international bonds.

How will it work?Structure of DISEC

DISEC will be held in a traditional General Assembly (GA)

manner. The point of a GA is to write and pass resolutions.

However, due to the time constraints and the complexity of the

issues at hand, the Dais will encourage delegates to create

multiple short resolutions regarding specific aspects of the topic

areas. The first session will start with the setting of the agenda,

and will be followed by debate on the selected topic area, and so

on and so forth. Delegates should be expected to commence draft

resolutions during the second committee session, at the latest.

THE MAKING OFTHE BACKGROUND GUIDE

Written bySabrina OstrowskiPaul Kalash

Reviewed byRachel GibianSabrina Ostrowski

Layout & Editing bySabrina Ostrowski

INVESTOR NEWSLETTER ISSUE N°3 FALL 2009MARIMUN 2011 26 FEBRUARY 2011


I present you withDISEC

The Disarmament and International Committee, the first General Assembly of the United

Nations, is one of the most important bodies of the United Nations as a whole. Concerned with issues

emerging from security and international law, the committee addresses conflicts that are of the utmost

importance to the global community.

The two topics chosen for MariMUN 2011 reflect the critical role of the DISEC committee in

the world. The question of Landmines deals with one of the most important issues related to worldwide

security today. Although it is nearly impossible to rid the world of all landmines, as it is something that is

more or less visible to the general population, there is much room for progress. The topic area of Small

Arms Trade is also of great concern as although it is concentrated in specific areas of the world, all

member states contribute to its growing presence. In spite of the fact that this concern is more visible, its

proliferation seems to be unstoppable.

The fate of the civilians concerned by both these important issues rests in your hands, Delegates.

As members of the Disarmament and International Security Committee, you have been attributed the

responsibility of discussing the challenges posed by these realities, as well as the grand task of finding

realistic and effective solutions that would secure, or at the least improve, the wellbeing and security of

the citizens of our world.

THE AGENDA

Topic Area ALANDMINES

Topic Area BSMALL ARMS TRADE



LandminesTopic Area A

Introduction to the Issue

As known by most, landmines are explosive devices placed under or on the ground that are

triggered by contact or movement in the surroundings. Landmines have always been a great challenge to

the security of individuals, whether it be during or post-warfare. They have been intensively used in

most wars of our times, and have therefore affected, and still continue to do so, many regions of the

world. The biggest problem with these devices is that they remain in place even after battles and conflicts

have been settled, posing a great danger to the civilians in the affected regions. Thus, tackling the issue is

of fundamental importance to assuring the protection of humans worldwide.

Anti-personnel mines are those designed for use against people, and anti-tank mines are

conceived for vehicles. Whatever the purpose, both pose a great danger to the lives of many citizens.

Although designed to injure or inflict dammage, the magnitude of the explosions is often great enough

to kill. In this committee, we will differentiate anti-personnel mines and anti-tank mines, however no

sub-distinctions within each type of landmines will be made.

Throughout the various conflicts our world has experienced, landmines have been used for

strategic purposes, notably for limiting access to a certain territory, or for simply halting a pursuit.

Nonetheless, combatants are not the only ones who fall victim to the peril of these mines; as mentioned

previously, so do civilians. It is estimated that each month, over 2000 people are involved in landmine

accidents, of which 800 perish. Although there are efforts directed towards the eradication of landmines,

simultaneously more are being placed - notably in conflict areas. The New Internationalist Magazine

stated that more or less 100 000 mines are annually removed, as two million are additionally planted.

Future generations are therefore even more vulnerable than today’s.

The obvious advantage of landmines for military purposes is the cost. Instead of posting

combattants that require hourly pay and benefits, many “armies” opt for the placement of landmines,

which usually cost below $10. The expenditure is very advantageous, as the mine stays put until it “does

its job”. The main challenge is that the removal of landmines is way more costly than its positioning.

Removing a landmine can cost up to 100 times the amount it required to plant it in the first place.



INVESTOR NEWSLETTER ISSUE N°3 FALL 2009

Additionally, landmines generate social and medical costs.

Obviously restricting movements in certain regions, the mines may

cause severe damage to the economies of the areas. As landmines

are most common in rural regions, the agricultural industry of the

locations is often destabilized, due to the previously mentioned

restriction in travel. In regions like Afghanistan and Cambodia, the

agricultural production would be double its current size if

landmines were to be removed. Moreover, in the country of Libya,

The New Internationalist Magazine estimates that 27% of arable

land is unserviceable due to disclaimed landmines from the Second World War. These are only few

examples of the current state of affairs caused by this alarming issue.

The casualties caused by these conventional weapons also generate extra spending in the medical

departments of the nations affected by them. As most mines are located in rural areas - where economic

prosperity is lesser than that of urban areas - families of victims are faced with huge expenses in order to

cover for not only the medical requirements, most commonly resulting in amputation, but also necessite

aid in rehabilitating the individuals to a new altered lifestyle.

Kashmir and Jammu

It is no secret that the regions of Kashmir and Jammu have been the object of territorial disputes

between the nations of India and Pakistan, and to a lesser extent China. A barrier called the Line of

Control (LoC) was created in order to separate the areas, and its establishment was greatly disputed by

Pakistan. The LoC is not internationally recognized, however; it remains a de facto border. Although

technically under Indian administration, the region of Kashmir and Jammu has been the subject of

many claims of territorial possession by Pakistan in regards to the overall possession of the Kashmir

territory. To protect any trespassing by the opposite rival nation, anti-personnel mines have been heavily

put in place, and abused. Although the situation has progressively become peaceful, the mines still

remain. Neither India, Pakistan nor China has signed the Ottawa Treaty, an international ban on

landmines (discussed further in this guide). It is no longer uncommon for citizens of the conflicted region

to have missing limbs. Moreover experts claim the awareness and education regarding the dangers of

landmines and the precautions to take are nowhere near adequate. Even if both nations eventually found

common ground regarding the territorial possessions of Kashmir and Jammu, the landmines would still




remain. In addition, the fact that the administrations of the states have many alternative priorities to

focus their capital on, the removal of landmines would not be in their economic benefit.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan is currently the region probably most affected by the issue of landmines: its capital

Khabul is the most intensively mined capital city in the entire world. The United Nations Office for the

Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan estimates that the 647,500 km2 territory holds

over 10 million landmines; this means that there are more than 15 landmines per square kilometer. Clear

Path International, an organization working towards the eradication of landmines, estimates that each

month 60 people are hospitalized due to mine-related incidents. Adding to that, it was said that over

20% of the territory affected by landmines is agricultural; therefore destroying food stocks, and

consequently greatly decreasing food supply. Not only is the physical safety of the citizens deeply

threatened, but so is their survival. This partly contributes to the frightening Human Development Index

statistic indicating Afghanistan as the second least developed country on Earth. Paired with its lack of

health infrastructure, the continually conflicted nation holds more than 1 million habitants living with a

physical disability. Needless to say, these disabilities tremendously decrease individuals’ possibilities to be

succesful breadwinners, and moreover deteriorate their integration into society as the country lacks of

much needed support systems. Infiltrated by the Taliban, the Afghan territory is now considered the

insurgent organization’s playground as the “invaders” have been deliberately laying landmines across its

vast territory.

Cambodia

Yet another nation plagued by ongoing conflict throughout the ages, Cambodia’s population

suffers from one of the highest rates of disability in the world. Laid notably by the Khmer Rouge, as well

as the many other inflitrators of the disputed Cambodian territory, the placement of landmines was

never recorded - a similarity Cambodia shares with all the featured nations. What unfortunately


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_E11_m%C2%B2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_E11_m%C2%B2


distinguishes the situation in Cambodia from most of the other nations subject to landmines is the fact

that the mines were initially placed, by the Khmer Rouge, for civilian purposes, blatantly disregarding

any long-term consequences the “booby-traps” might have on the future of all Cambodians. The

Cambodian Mine Action Center (CMAC) estimates there to be from 4 to 6 million unexploded mines in

Cambodia. The overwhelming presence of landmines has now however cast a shadow on the citizens of

the nation: some individuals purposefuly make use of landmines to protect property or to settle disputes.

The United Nations has estimated that it would require over 100 years to clear all mines present in

Cambodia, should the slow rate of removal persist.

Myanmar

The ex-Burmese nation’s situation is interestingly enough different from the previously

mentioned states. The Myanmar Defense Product Industries, a state enterprise of the nation, openly

produces antipersonnel mines. Although the government claims that their production of landmines

should not be used against them as they have a so-far-informal policy against exports, the national army

is the biggest user of the devices. The unstability of Myanmar, caused by a long-running civil war, only

promotes the use of such landmines, as more than 30 opposing ethnic and rebel organizations choose to

solve territorial disputes through the placement of landmines. Additionally, the UN Commission on

Human Rights reported that the landmines were notably used in a discriminatory manner against

specific ethnic minorities. Although the presence of landmines within the territory is known to all

habitants of the country, no specific marking nor fencing techniques are used to prevent trespassing,

therefore increasing the vulnerability of all civilians to the dangers associated to said landmines. The last

significant demining initiative took place in 2004; no recent projects have been reported, thus increasing

casualties related to mine incidents in the past 6 years. Myanmar has yet to sign the Mine Ban Treaty,

and further abstained to vote on the universalization of said document (General Assembly Resolution

59/84).


Injured elephant



Mine Ban Treaty / Ottawa TreatyFormerly, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer

of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction

Many organizations have taken it upon themselves to

halt the proliferation and support the eradication of

landmines worldwide. Of these, the most prominent initiative

is the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize worthy International

Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). The organization is

established in over 90 countries worldwide and works towards a world free of landmines and cluster

munitions. Thus far, 156 of the 195 recognized nations of the world have signed onto its Mine Ban

Treaty, established in 1997. The international agreement discriminates the use of antipersonnel mines,

encourages the destruction of stockpiles within set deadlines, suggests the clearing of placed mines on

national territories, and much more. The campaign has proven to be relatively succesful in discouraging

the novel use of the explosive devices, as it was reported that Myanmar (2009) was the only nation to

have used landmines since the “birth” of the treaty. It was also noted that over 4 million antipersonnel

mines have been removed from international arsenals for good.

The ICBL is constantly creating awareness about the problems posed by landmines and has

established a list of arguments supporting the fundamental importance of an internationally acclaimed

mine ban:

1. Human Costs: death as a result of explosive devices;

2. Civilians, not combattants, represent the majority of victims;

3. Humanitarian Law: landmines violate international humanitarian law, notably due to the fact that they

are set off by their victims;

4. Long-term Effects: landmines do not disappear until they are cleared away;

5. Lethal obstacles to economic growth: landmines slow the placement of refugees and displaced people,

deprive communities of productive land, strip families of their breadwinners, etc.

6. Children are victimised;

7. Military arguments used are flawed: landmines are not indispensable weapons;

8. The Ban actually works;

9. Peace and security: the Mine Ban Treaty acts as a peace-building tool;

10. Border protection alternatives: mines are ineffective in protecting territorial borders;

11. Duty of all nations: whether affected by mines, or not.




Adopt-A-Minefield

Established in the 1990s and patroned by Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, this United

Kingdom-based (supported by the United States, Canada, and Sweden) charity raises awareness about

the danger of landmines. As its name suggests, its mission is to clear minefields, and further aid victims of

mine-related incidents. So far it has raised over $22 million, helping the clearing processes of minefields

in Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Iraq, Laos, Mozambique, and

Vietnam.

Suggestions for further research

Alternative international initiatives;

Various national organizations;

Documents of the mentioned treaties;

Landmine Monitor;

CARE International.

Sources

“Adopt-A-Minefield.” The Canadian Landmine Foundation, 2000. Web. 23 Dec. 2010.

<www.clearlandmines.com/AdoptMinefield.cfm>

“Afghanistan.” Clear Path Internatinal, 2008. Web. 24 Dec. 2010. <www.cpi.org/regions/

afghanistan.php>

“Afghanistan: Landmine Fact Sheet.” Afghan-Network.net, 1997. Web. 24 Dec. 2010.

<www.afghan-network.net/Landmines/>

“Afghanistan: People living with disabilities call for integration.” IRIN News, 2 Dec. 2004. Web.

24 Dec. 2010. <http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=26520>

“Arguments for a Ban.” International Campaign to Ban Landmines, 2009. Web. 23 Dec. 2010.

<www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Problem/Landmines/Arguments-for-a-Ban>

Bagchi, Suvojit. “Landmines are Kashmir’s Nightmare.” OneWorld South Asia, 11 Dec. 2008. Web.

22 Dec. 2010. <http://southasia.oneworld.net/todaysheadlines/landmines-are-kashmirs-nightmare>

“Burma (Myanmar).” The-Monitor.org, May 2004. Web. 23 Dec. 2010. <www.the-monitor.org/

index.php/publications/display?url=lm/2005/burma.html>

“Issues On Landmines.” New Internationalist, Sept. 1997. Web. 23 Dec. 2010. <www.newint.org/

issues/1997/09/01/>




“Land mines: Hidden Killers.” Unicef.org , 15 Oct. 1995. Web. 23 Dec. 2010. <www.unicef.org/

sowc96pk/hidekill.htm>

“Landmines in Cambodia.” Mekong.net, 2000. Web. 23 Dec. 2010. <www.mekong.net/cambodia/

mines.htm>

Shah, Anup. “Landmines.” Global Issues, 27 Nov. 2009. Web. 21 Dec. 2010.

<www.globalissues.org/article/79/landmines>

“Treaty Basics.” International Campaign to Ban Landmines, 2009. Web. 23 Dec. 2010. <www.icbl.org/

index.php/icbl/Treaties/MBT/Treaty-Basics>

United Nations. United Nations Development Program. Human Development Report 2009. New

York: UN 2009. Web. <http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf>


http://www.globalissues.org/article/79/landmines

http://www.globalissues.org/article/79/landmines


Small Arms TradeTopic Area B

Introduction to the Issue

Throughout history, wars have been mainly fought by men on foot, equipped with weapons.

From the wars in the Middle Ages characterized by swordsman, to World War I's rifle-armed soldiers,

small arms have continuously dominated the battlefield. One might think that in our modern days, a few

men equipped with automatic weapons are less dangerous than a war plane or a tank. Yet, this

perception is wrong: infantry troops armed with small arms and light weapons continue to be the most

effective method of killing. The genocide in Rwanda, for example, killed millions in just a few days,

predominantly with machetes as the perpetrators’ weapons of choice. The fact of the matter is that these

weapons are much more affordable than high-tech missile launchers or any other technologically

developed weapons, and therefore are available to a wider range of individuals. Against defenceless

populations, they tend to be even more effective than large weapons, and this for only a fraction of the

cost.

Since the days of World War II, hundreds of thousands of small arms have been delivered to and

traded with developing countries. These trades have mainly originated from economically developed

nations, due to their desire of maintaining a strong influence in specific regions. In essence, this largely

contributed to commencing the Cold War in the 20th century – an arms race between the world’s

superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Since then, 90% of all wars have been categorized

as civil, dominated by small conflicts and consequently fought by large numbers of infantries with small

arms. There is no reason to believe that this trend is going to change anytime soon, nor in any extent

through any part of the Twenty First Century. The small arms trade is an international problem of

fundamental importance as it contributes to the devastation of wars and directly violates the global quest

for world peace and stability. Ranging from small crimes to terrorists attacks, small arms and light

weapons are continuously used worldwide, and that at an alarming rate. DISEC has been called upon to

intervene.




Why it’s a problem

By definition, small arms trade refers to the international or regional exchange or selling of Small

Arms and Light Weapons (SALWs). Such weapons normally include machine guns, rifles, pistols,

grenades, but also landmines (thoroughly discussed previously) and rocket launchers and so on and so

forth... This issue is nowadays a primary focus of the DISEC committee as it unfortunately provides

weapons to many terrorist organisations, as well as often opposing political parties in countries ruled by

tyrannies or simply in unstable situations. SALWs are the main weapons used in civil wars that can - and

clearly do - lead to utmost devastating effects and a

sky high number of casualties. SALWs are said to

account for around 60 to 90% of the 100,000+

conflict deaths each year. Furthermore, from the

175 terrorist attacks identified by last year's US

State Department reports almost half of said

attacks were committed with small arms. It was

estimated in 2003 that there are over 629 millions

SALWs in circulation around the world (the

number has risen since then); this means roughly

one citizen on ten possesses a small arm. Obviously this comparison is not literal, as many organizations

or individuals are in possession of multiple weapons, and this is what is alarming about the situation.

There are over 1135 companies in 98 different countries that still manufacture weapons worldwide and

sell them internationally. It should be duly noted that the five permanent state members (P5) of the

United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are surprisingly, or not, part of the biggest suppliers of

weapons in the world.

Small weapons are sold almost blindly and often result in falling into the wrong hands; those of

individuals with ill purposes. This problem arises from the fact that the big suppliers of weapons are not

in military conflicts, and therefore do not need arms. They therefore search for new markets and clients

demonstrating a need for such weaponry: conflicted nations.

It is very hard to regulate the small arms trade as the smaller nations who buy the weapons often

return favours to their suppliers by letting them establish military bases on their grounds, or by simply

supporting them in any potential military conflicts. The big nations consequently make money, gain

military and political support, as well as acquire tactical advantages, while developing countries lose

capital through purchasing these small weapons, and further engage in civil wars and other violent




conflicts.

Small arms trade is however not the root problem of conflicts, it is simply a catalyst of existent

geopolitical conflicts. When political regimes choose to oppress their local people and violate their

human rights, they often have to face violent resistance from other political parties, also desiring small

arms. Consequently, an arms race ensues as oppressors try to maintain the lead through an increase in

weaponry; the scale of conflicts then increases, resulting in higher casualties.

Solutions proposed thus far

Of course, the proposition of monitoring the market of small arms trade is a very logical and

self-explanatory one. By prohibiting big nations of selling their weapons to developing countries who are

at risk of violent conflicts, many casualties would be avoided. The problem lies in the conflict of the

interests of all those nations. Whether it is the economical and military perks that empowered selling

nations gain from the trades, or the military enforcement gained by governments and political parties of

receiving nations, the agents in these transactions all gain something from these trades. This is done

regardless of the violence and violation of human rights that may result from them. Although both sides

garner advantages, a dependency is created.

Furthermore, even if the small arms trade was hypothetically regulated and that countries subject

to potential violent conflicts did not receive weapons, they would still possess thousands of them due to

current stocks. Considering that, the small arms trade not only needs to be regulated, but tyrannical

governments who use their SALWs as an oppressing tool also need to be disarmed, as it is vital step to

diminishing violence and casualties generated by this trafficking. States have a right attributed to them by

the UN charter to defend themselves and acquire weapons from where they want in order to do so. Yet,

the small arms trade goes further beyond this and causes a problem that has grown to serious and urgent

concerns which need to be dealt with through the disarmament of unstable human right violating states.

This goal seems unrealistic as no developing countries political parties would accept to simply

disarm. This is why the goal of this DISEC meeting is to agree on small and progressive resolutions that



will benefit all and gradually change the behaviours of international small arms trade agents. Progress

has been achieved lately through a potential Arms Trade Treaty that is supported by a large number of

countries. However more incentives need to be brought to the table if the international community

wishes to attain a significant advance in the area of light weapon traffic.

On a national and regional level, countries could implement task forces and legislations in order

to monitor and prevent small arms trade. The problem needs to be stopped at the source, which means

halting the transfer of arms instead of disarming those already in circulation. Once this is done,

countries should be able, and more willing, to gradually reduce their small arms arsenals and remove

more arms from worldwide circulation without having to worry about a new incoming flow of weapons.

The Arms Trade Treaty

The so-called potential Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that was voted in 2006 is now being developed

more and more. The United States has now changed its stance and seems to support to be more inclined

to support the clauses promoted by the ATT. The goal of the ATT is to “establish a group of

governmental experts [GGE]” to study the feasibility, the scope, and to draft parameters for a

comprehensive and legally binding tool that would establish collective international standards regarding

the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms. Resolution 61/89 passed with 153 votes while 24

countries abstained: Bahrain, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Laos, Libya,

Marshall Islands, Nepal, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Venezuela,

Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

The treaty is still being drafted as it addresses at lot of sensible aspects nations need to consider

seriously. A few countries are rather reticent in regards to certain aspects of procedures and logistics, but

all states aim to establish the highest possible standards of arms control without neglecting the support of


Injured elephant



all states aim to establish the highest possible standards

of arms control without neglecting the support of any

other nation. With efforts and negotiations, this draft can

become a comprehensive internationally binding

instrument that will set norms on arms trade and will

hopefully prevent the distribution of small arms to

groups that would otherwise use such weaponry for

destructive reasons.


Q&A A Few Questions to Consider

How can the U.N. help further regulate the small arms trade?

The actual power of the DISEC Committee is limited, but not inexistent. Although it has no executive power and cannot impose anything on other nations, it can still create norms and pass resolutions that can later be approved by the United Nations Security Council. DISEC basically acts as an mentor; it suggests courses of action. The arms trade treaty is probably the most concrete and important step to achieve a concrete regulations of small arms. What other solutions are available? How can they solve the problem while being unanimously adopted?

What are the consequences of the illicit trade of SALWs in humanitarian,

developmental, and economic terms?

The small arms trade is detrimental to global peace. It fuels wars by arming irresponsible governments or separate political organizations and by inevitably contributing to an increase in violence worldwide. Who does it benefit economically? To what extent do the developing countries benefit from it? Who is profit extracted from? What impact does it have on humanitarian development? How much does it contribute to the detriment of the environment?

What is the best way to create import and export controls while protecting

the rights of buyers and respecting the legitimate transfer of SALW?

Regulations and resolutions approved by the DISEC committee cannot take away rights of countries to buy small arms, as this would mean a breach in sovereignty rights. A control of small arms trade must therefore not be too intrusive, but strict so that all states can agree to it, through free will. A resolution must however still “stick to its guns”. Sponsor countries need to set a limit as too how much can be done in order to garner support from other nations.

What is the Military-industrial Complex, and how does it concern

SALW trade?

The MIC describes the relationship between parties the parties that manage wars (governments, rebel organizations, etc.) and companies that produce arms and equipment for said wars. It is developped between defense contractors and government forces, where both sides gain what they are looking for: a successful military engagement on one side, and financial profit for those supplying the weapons on the other. The United States political situation has been often characterized by the Military-Industrial Complex.



Suggestions for further research

"Shattered Lives, the Case for Tough International Arms Control” by Oxfam [PDF]

The Small Arms Trade: a Beginner's Guide. [Book]

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs [Website]

"Small Arms: Dominating conflict in the Early Twenty-Frist Century" [PDF]

Lord of War, with Nicholas Cage [Film]

Sources

“Ban Ki-Moon urges ‘incremental’ progress in deadlocked disarmament arena.” UN News Centre, 7 Apr.

2008. Web. 2 Jan. 2011. <www.un.org/news>

“Ban applauds progress on control of small arms trade but sees challenges ahead,” UN News Centre, 14

July 2008. Web. 2 Jan. 2011. <www.un.org/news>

“The Illicit Arms Trade - Issue Brief No. 3.” Federation of American Scientists. Web. 4 Jan. 2011.

<www.fas.org>

“Small Arms Agenda at U.N. Biennial Meeting of States.” UN.org, 15 July 2005. Web. 4 Jan. 2011.

<www.un.org/events/smallarms2005/>

“More action needed to curb illegal small arms trade, head of UN conferences says.” UN News Centre, 21

June 2006. Web. 3 Jan. 2011. <www.un.org/news >

“Preventing armed conflicts requires broad based effort says UN official.” UN News Centre, 6 Sept. 2006.

Web. 2 Jan. 2011. <www.un.org/news>

“Proliferation of illicit small arms leads to culture of violence and impunity,” UN News Centre, 26 June

2006. Web. 3 Jan. 2011. <www.un.org/news>

Boutwell, Jeffrey. "Small Arms and Light Weapons: Controlling the Real Instruments of War." Arms

Control Association, 4 Dec. 2009. Web. 3 Jan. 2011. <www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_08-09/mkas98>




“Secretary-General ‘disappointed’ by lack of agreement at conference on illicit arms trade” UN News

Centre, 10 July 2006. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. <www.un.org/news>

“Small arms thwart stability and development, security council told.” UN News Centre, 30 April 2008. Web.

4 Jan. 2011. <www.un.org/news>

“Threat posed to international peace by uncontrolled trade in small arms cannot be overemphasized,

Security Council told as it holds day-long debate on issue.” UN News Centre, 30 Apr. 2008. Web. 4 Jan. 2011.

<www.un.org/news>

“UN Arms Talks Meltdown: Conference Allows Global Gun Crisis to Continue.” International Action

Network on Small Arms, July 2006. Web. 2 Jan. 2011. <www.iansa.org/un>

“The United Nations Disarmament Yearbook 2008.” United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs. Web. 4

Jan. 2011. <www.un.org>

“UN group on illicit arms offers recommendations on national laws.” UN News Centre, 12 June 2007. Web.

2 Jan. 2011. <www.un.org/news>

Other UN Documents:

A/RES/63/72

A/RES/62/22

A/RES/61/89

A/RES/61/71

A/RES/61/66

A/RES/56/24

A/RES/50/70

A/60/519

A/60/88

A/60/68

A/58/207

A/CONF.192/BMS/2008/3

S/PRST/2004/1



WHAT YOU SHOULD PREPAREA POSITION PAPER

You are required to submit a position paper before Sunday February 20th

Your document should be sent to [email protected] in a Word document.

Please title the e-mail as DISEC - [Your Country]

A position paper is basically the stance of your nation on both topics. Your text should consist of 200-250 words per topic. Your position papers should address the following:

i. The current state of the issue at hand in the world Ii. Your country’s position towards said issue Iii. How your country has dealt with the issue Iv. Solutions to the problem, both nationally and internationally

Do not forget that you are a representative of your country. Your country is the best. Should your nation’s current situation not be ideal, you must find a way to focus on the positive aspects, and not bring its reputation down.

You are further encouraged to bring your position paper with you to MariMUN. It is a great tool to have in your possession as it sets the tone for what approach you should take on the topics at hand.

Good Luck!
