disec - imuna | education through simulation and international security committee disec national...

Disarmament and International Security Committee

DISEC

National High School Model United Nations

New York City | March 04-07, 2015

IMUNA International Model United Nations Association

Background Guide

NHSMUN

Shirley Wu Secretary-General

Princeton University

Lily O’Connell Director-General

University of Pennsylvania

Brody Duncan Conference Director

McGill University

Alec Guertin Director of Security

University of California, Berkeley

Jason Toney Chief of External Relations

Bard College

Laura Beltran-Rubio Chief of Staff

Parsons The New School for Design

Jinny Jung Under-Secretary General of

Administrative Affairs University of Michigan

Helen Robertson Under-Secretary General

University of Virginia

Joe Sherlock Under-Secretary General

Bowdoin College

Erin Corcoran Under-Secretary General

Harvard University

Costanza Cicero Under-Secretary General

University of Bologna

Alyssa Greenhouse Under-Secretary General

Duke University

Paula Kates Under-Secretary General

Tufts University

NHSMUN is a project of the International Model United Nations Association, Incorporated (IMUNA). IMUNA, a not-for-profit, all volunteer organization, is dedicated to furthering global issues education at the secondary school level.

NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MODEL UNITED NATIONS T h e 4 1 s t A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e • M a r c h 4 – M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 5

November 2014

Dear Delegates, Welcome to NHSMUN 2015! My name is Helen Robertson, and I am the Under-Secretary General for the General Assembly Main Committees. I write this letter with much enthusiasm for the upcoming conference. But first, a little bit about myself--I am a third-year at the University of Virginia studying at the Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy. This is my third year on staff, and last year I was Director of the Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian Committee. In high school, I attended NSHMUN and was a delegate on the SOCHUM Committee for three consecutive years. As Under-Secretary General, I have had the pleasure of working closely with the five Mains Directors and Assistant Directors. After months of preparation for this conference, I am extremely confident in their preparedness and knowledge on these topics. The issues for these committees are extremely diverse, ranging from International Terrorism and Law to the Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East. I hope that the creativity and thoroughness of these topics will stimulate your research and encourage innovative debate during your committees. Please read through these two topics scrupulously, as your Dais has dedicated a tremendous amount of time and research in compiling the following pages. Furthermore, I implore you all to continue your research beyond this guide in order to craft successful and innovative solutions. Remember that the key to success is acknowledging how these solutions will be executed, rather than just stating the solutions themselves. Beyond this background guide, there are a number of resources available through NHSMUN that I encourage you to explore, such as the Country Profiles and your committee’s Twitter page. Finally, do not hesitate to contact your Director or myself with any questions via email. See you in March! Best, Helen Robertson Under-Secretary General, General Assembly Main Committees [email protected]

Shirley Wu Secretary-General

Princeton University

Lily O’Connell Director-General

University of Pennsylvania

Brody Duncan Conference Director

McGill University

Alec Guertin Director of Security

University of California, Berkeley

Jason Toney Chief of External Relations

Bard College

Laura Beltran-Rubio Chief of Staff

Parsons The New School for Design

Jinny Jung Under-Secretary General of

Administrative Affairs University of Michigan

Helen Robertson Under-Secretary General

University of Virginia

Joe Sherlock Under-Secretary General

Bowdoin College

Erin Corcoran Under-Secretary General

Harvard University

Costanza Cicero Under-Secretary General

University of Bologna

Alyssa Greenhouse Under-Secretary General

Duke University

Paula Kates Under-Secretary General

Tufts University

NHSMUN is a project of the International Model United Nations Association, Incorporated (IMUNA). IMUNA, a not-for-profit, all volunteer organization, is dedicated to furthering global issues education at the secondary school level.

NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MODEL UNITED NATIONS T h e 4 1 s t A n n u a l C o n f e r e n c e • M a r c h 4 – M a r c h 7 , 2 0 1 5

November 2014

Dear Delegates, Welcome to NHSMUN 2015! My name is Jessica Arthurs and I will be your Director for the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC). I am currently a sophomore at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. I am pursuing a double major in international relations and political science, with an emphasis on Middle Eastern Studies. I am learning Arabic and plan to travel to Jordan in the summer. Outside of school, I intern for Salt Lake County’s Mayor, Ben McAdams, and work to improve the county’s international relations. I have been involved with Model United Nations since 2010, and participated as a delegate in many local conferences and at both RHSMUN and NHSMUN. This will be my second year working for NHSMUN and I am very excited to be back. The topics this year address contentious issues that are currently affecting international security. The two topics we will discuss are the Concerns of the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Establishing a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East. These topics are new to DISEC and while other committees have discussed them, the international community has solved neither. Resolutions for these topics should focus on disarmament measures. The first topic is relatively recent and calls for international dialogue among member states, while the second topic is a region-specific issue, implying that resolutions should be created regionally. These two topics are relevant, controversial issues and I look forward to seeing you all address and solve these difficult subjects. Reading the background guide is pertinent to your understanding of the topic because the history of these issues is crucial to addressing them. When writing your Position Papers I urge you to move beyond the background guide and conduct additional research in order to gain a deeper understanding of the topics. This can be achieved by both keeping up to date with the DISEC Twitter account, @NHSMUN_DISEC, and utilizing the Delegate Resource Center, which is available online for you to access. The compilation of sources is an extremely viable tool for delegates and can be accessed at http://imuna.org/research-archive. If you have any research questions please do not hesitate to contact me, as I have spent countless hours over the past six months researching these topics. I cannot wait to meet all of you and hear what you have to say! Best, Jessica Arthurs Director, Disarmament and International Security Committee @NHSMUN_DISEC [email protected]

National High School Model United Nations 2015 DISEC

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Note on the NHSMUN Difference .................................................................................................... 1!

A Note on Research and Preparation ..................................................................................................... 3!

Committee History ................................................................................................................................. 4!

Simulation ............................................................................................................................................... 6!

Topic A: Concerns of the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ................................................................ 8!

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 8!

History and Description of the Issue .......................................................................................................................... 9!

Early Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Warfare ............................................................................................ 9!

A History of Israel’s UAV Military Program ....................................................................................................... 10!

The Predator ............................................................................................................................................................. 12!

Technological Flaws ................................................................................................................................................ 14!

Legality of UAV Targeted Strikes ......................................................................................................................... 15!

Non-Military Uses of UAVs .................................................................................................................................. 17!

Current Status ............................................................................................................................................................... 18!

Recent Developments with International UAV Programs ............................................................................... 18!

Current Strife Pertaining to the Use of UAVs .................................................................................................... 20!

Bloc Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 21!

Countries with UAV Programs ............................................................................................................................. 21!

Countries Developing UAV Programs ................................................................................................................ 22!

Countries without UAV Programs ....................................................................................................................... 23!

Committee Mission ...................................................................................................................................................... 23!

Topic B: Establishing a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East .......................................... 25!

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 25!

History and Description of the Issue ........................................................................................................................ 26!

History of Nuclear Technology ............................................................................................................................. 26!

Five Nuclear Weapon States .................................................................................................................................. 27!

Unofficial Nuclear Programs ................................................................................................................................. 28!

Early Non-Proliferation Efforts ............................................................................................................................ 29!

The Non-Proliferation Treaty ................................................................................................................................ 30!

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty ................................................................................................... 32!


!

Established Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones ........................................................................................................... 32!

Past Conflict in the Middle East ............................................................................................................................ 34!

Current Status ............................................................................................................................................................... 36!

Current UN Action in the Middle East ................................................................................................................ 36!

Israel and Egypt ....................................................................................................................................................... 37!

Bloc Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................. 38!

Nuclear-Weapon States ........................................................................................................................................... 38!

Countries Developing Nuclear Technology Capabilities .................................................................................. 39!

Countries with Established NWFZs .................................................................................................................... 40!

Committee Mission ...................................................................................................................................................... 41!

Research and Preparation Questions ................................................................................................... 43!

Topic A .......................................................................................................................................................................... 43!

Topic B .......................................................................................................................................................................... 43!

Important Documents .......................................................................................................................... 44!

Topic A .......................................................................................................................................................................... 44!

Topic B .......................................................................................................................................................................... 44!

Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................... 46!

Committee History and Simulation ........................................................................................................................... 46!

Topic A .......................................................................................................................................................................... 46!

Topic B .......................................................................................................................................................................... 50!


- 1 -

A NOTE ON THE NHSMUN DIFFERENCE

Esteemed Faculty and Delegates, Hello and welcome to NHSMUN 2015! My name is Lily O’Connell, and I am this year’s Director-General. I hope you are as excited as I am to experience the conference. Our staff has been working all year to ensure that you have an engaging, educational, and rewarding experience in committee. NHSMUN strives to assure that the quality of our debate and in-committee interaction is unmatched. NHSMUN focuses on the educational value of Model UN. We believe that the experiences in our committee rooms extend skills originally developed in the classroom, and prepare students to become future leaders. NHSMUN thrives on well-researched, realistic, and diplomatic debate. We are thrilled with the substantive program for NHSMUN 2015 and look forward to vibrant discussion and cooperation. NHSMUN Practices In order to fulfill our mission, our conference has adopted practices that are key to the continued tradition of excellence in our committees and the NHSMUN difference. NHSMUN prohibits the usage of personal electronics during committee in order to ensure that delegates do not gain an unfair advantage in debate. We feel strongly that the interpersonal connections made during debate are enhanced by face-to-face communication. Enforcing a strict no laptops policy also helps us to ensure that all our delegates have an equal opportunity to succeed in committee. The Dais is permitted a laptop for the purposes of communicating with respective Under-Secretary-Generals and other Senior Staff Members as well as attending to administrative needs. The Dais will only be limited to using their laptops for NHSMUN purposes, and the majority of their focus will be on the needs of the committee. In addition, we staff a dedicated team in our office to assist in typing and formatting draft resolutions and working papers so that committee time can be focused on discussion and compromise. An additional difference that delegates may notice about NHSMUN is the committee pacing. While each BG contains two topic selections, NHSMUN committees will strive to have a fruitful discussion on and produce resolutions on a single topic; prioritizing the quality of discussion over quantity of topics addressed. In order to respect the gravity of the issues being discussed at our conference as well as the intellect of our delegates, NHSMUN committees will focus on addressing one topic in-depth. BGs contain two topics in order to allow delegates to decide what problem ought to be prioritized, a valuable discussion in and of itself, and to safeguard against the possibility that an issue will be independently resolved before conference. NHSMUN uses a set of the Rules of Procedure that is standardized across all IMUNA-brand conferences. These rules provide a standardized system of operation that is easily translated across committee or conference lines. While the general structure and flow of committee will be familiar to any delegate who has previously participated in Model UN, there may be slight procedural differences from other conferences. All delegates are encouraged to review the Rules of Procedure


- 2 -

before attending the conference in the Delegate Preparation Guide and are welcome to direct questions to any member of NHSMUN Staff. While NHSMUN does distribute awards, we feel that it is crucial to de-emphasize their importance in comparison to the educational value of Model UN as an activity. NHSMUN seeks to reward delegations that excel in the arts of compromise and diplomacy. We always prioritize a dedication to teamwork over solitary achievement. Directors will judge delegates on their ability and willingness to cooperate with their peers while always maintaining an accurate representation of country policy. At the core of the NHSMUN philosophy is an emphasis on education and compromise. As such, we do not distribute awards to individual delegates, with the exception of committees where students represent their own separate delegation (ICJ and UNSC, for example). Instead, awards will be distributed to delegations that exhibit excellence across all committees. The awards system is standardized so as to give equal weight to delegations of all sizes. Awards will also be offered for schools that demonstrate excellence in research and preparation based on the position papers submitted by their delegates. Detailed information on the determination of awards at NHSMUN will be available in the Faculty Preparation Guide and online in November. As always, I welcome any questions or concerns about the substantive program at NHSMUN 2015 and would be happy to discuss NHSMUN pedagogy with faculty or delegates. It is my sincerest hope that your experience at NHSMUN 2015 will be challenging and thought provoking. Best, Lily O’Connell Director-General, NHSMUN 2015 [email protected]


- 3 -

A NOTE ON RESEARCH AND PREPARATION

Delegate preparation is paramount to a successful and exciting National High School Model United Nations 2015 Conference. We have provided this Background Guide to introduce the topics that will be discussed in your committee. These papers are designed to give you a description of the topics and the committee. This Guide is not intended to represent exhaustive research on every facet of the topics. We encourage and expect each delegate to fully explore the topics and be able to identify and analyze the intricacies of the issues. Delegates must be prepared to intelligently utilize their knowledge and apply it to their own country’s policy. You will find that your state has a unique position on the topics that cannot be substituted by the opinions of another state. The task of preparing and researching for the conference is challenging, but it can be interesting and rewarding. We have provided each school with a copy of the Delegation Preparation Guide. The Guide contains detailed instructions on how to write a position paper and how to effectively participate in committee sessions. The Guide also gives a synopsis of the types of research materials and resources available to you and where they can be found. An essential part of representing a state in an international body is the ability to articulate that state’s views in writing. Accordingly, it is the policy of NHSMUN to require each delegate (or double-delegation team) to write position papers. The position papers should clearly outline the country’s policies on the topic areas to be discussed and what factors contribute to these policies. In addition, each paper must address the Research and Preparation questions at the end of the committee Background Guide. Most importantly, the paper must be written from the point of view of the country you are representing at NHSMUN 2015 and should articulate the policies you will espouse at the conference. All papers should be typed and double-spaced. The papers will be read by the director of each committee and returned at the start of the conference with brief comments and constructive advice. Each delegation is responsible for sending a copy of their papers to the Director-General via email on or before January 22, 2015. Please email the entire delegation’s papers at one time to [email protected]. Complete instructions for online submissions may be found in the Delegate Preparation Guide and the Faculty Preparation Guide. If delegations are unable to submit an online version of their position papers, they should contact the Director-General ([email protected]) as soon as possible to find an alternative form of submission.

Delegat ions that do not submit pos i t ion papers to direc tors or summary s tatements to the Direc tor-General wi l l be ine l ig ib le for awards.

!


- 4 -

COMMITTEE HISTORY

The United Nations (UN) Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC) was created as the first of the Main Committees in the General Assembly when the charter of the United Nations was signed in 1945. Thus, DISEC is often referred to as the First Committee.1 The birth of DISEC responded to the perceived need for an international forum to discuss issues of peace and security among members of the international community. According to the UN Charter, the purpose of DISEC in the General Assembly is to establish “general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments” and also to give “recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council.”2 Although DISEC cannot directly advise the decision-making process of the Security Council, the fourth chapter of the UN Charter explains that DISEC can suggest specific topics for Security Council consideration.3 Aside from its role in the General Assembly, DISEC is also an institution of the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), formally named in January 1998 after the Secretary-General’s second special session on disarmament in 1982.4 The UNODA is concerned with disarmament at all levels—nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and conventional weapons—and assists DISEC through its work conducted in the General Assembly for substantive norm-setting support in order to further its disarmament initiatives.5 Membership in DISEC is extended to all 193 members of the UN, in accordance with its purpose to foster discussion and cooperation between all parties. Each member of DISEC, as with the other committees in the General Assembly, has one vote in decisions made by the committee. Often times, discussions in DISEC focus on making recommendations for peace and security, and as such, they are deemed “important questions.”6 This then requires that a two-thirds majority of voters decide in favor of such a decision.7 Once decisions are made in DISEC, they, along with decisions made by the other five main committees, are presented before the General Assembly as draft resolutions for consideration in a special plenary session.8 The specific mandate of DISEC is different from the other committees of the General Assembly in that it places its focus on the “disarmament and related international security questions” faced by the international community.9 In this way, many of the United Nations conventions on disarmament and on the use of weapons have originated in DISEC. For example, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ratified in 1968, as well as the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), followed the suggestion of United States President Eisenhower to the General Assembly to facilitate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 "Main Committees," General Assembly of the United Nations, accessed 16 May 2011, http://www.un.org/en/ga/maincommittees/index.shtml. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 "UNODA: Overview," United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Strengthening Peace and Security Through Disarmament, accessed 17 May 2011, http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/GA.shtml. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 “Main Committees.” 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid.


- 5 -

the safe development of nuclear technology. Another such document is the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which is the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning an entire category of weapons by prohibiting the “development, production, acquisition, transfer, retention, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons.”10 Also included in this list are the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which prohibits ratifying states from conducting nuclear tests or explosions of any kind and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) that shares many functions of the BWC but is aimed at chemical weapons of mass destruction. Lastly, in addition to discussing issues of international peace and security, DISEC and the General Assembly communicate with other organs of the UN, especially the Security Council, by receiving and considering their reports.11 Currently, DISEC faces many challenges including the impact of increased technology and weapon development on the security of the international community. In 2005, for example, the DISEC agenda items of the 60th session of the General Assembly included discussions on reduction of military budgets, telecommunications and information in relation to international security, radiological terrorism, nuclear weapon-free zones in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Middle East, the roles of science and technology in international security, and the protection of non-nuclear weapon states against nuclear weapons.12 In the past year, DISEC has mainly focused on determining the future of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and of nuclear proliferation worldwide.13 On 26 October 2010, the General Assembly held its 65th session and the 19th meeting of DISEC. In this meeting, Chair Milos Koterec of Slovakia introduced the two agenda items at hand: nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.14 Draft resolution A/C.1/65/L.1, entitled “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East,” was adopted without a formal vote or objections. Additionally, draft resolution A/C.1/65/L.3 on “The Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East” was adopted by DISEC.15 DISEC has adopted a number of notable treaties, including the Arms Trade Treaty, which recently received signatures from over half of all member states. An important part of DISEC’s work has also focused on the influence of the Non-Aligned Movement, a group of member states not formally aligned with any major power bloc that takes a firm position on peace and disarmament. Many of these states, as members of DISEC, have been instrumental in the introduction and adoption of the aforementioned treaties and other agreements. Moving forward, DISEC will continue to face complex issues in which the security of the international community is at stake. DISEC will continue to make recommendations to both the General Assembly and the Security Council as it pursues disarmament, peace, and security initiatives to the fullest extent of its mandate.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!10 "Disarmament: The Biological Weapons Convention," United Nations Office at Geneva, accessed 17 May 2011, http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/04FBBDD6315AC720C1257180004B1B2F?OpenDocument. 11 “Main Committees.” 12 A/C.1/60/INF/1, “Documents of the First Committee: Sixtieth Session,” United Nations General Assembly, 21 September 2005. 13 Ibid. 14 A/C.1/65/PV.19, "First Committee: 19th Meeting," United Nations General Assembly, 26 October 2010. 15 Ibid.


- 6 -

SIMULATION

As members of the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC), delegates will represent the views of their respective countries throughout the duration of debate on both Concerns of the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Establishing a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East. Delegates will be responsible for collaborating to develop resolutions for these two issues while remaining within the mandate of DISEC. While these topics are new to DISEC, all resolutions created will need to bear in mind that the goal of DISEC is to promote international peace and security. The beauty of the NHSMUN conference is its ability to offer delegates a hands-on global education and to allow them to experience a real work environment they would be unable to experience elsewhere. Upon arriving in committee, delegates will be introduced to the members of the Dais–the Director and two Assistant Directors. After spending the past year writing the background guide and update papers, both the Director and Assistant Directors are substantive experts on all matters concerning DISEC, and delegates should use them as knowledgeable resources throughout the conference. As experts on UN procedure, the Dais will also ensure that delegates observe parliamentary procedure. Should delegates have any questions on either procedural or substantive matters, they should not hesitate to approach any member of the Dais for assistance. After delegates have been introduced to the Dais, they will first debate the setting of the agenda and then progress to substantive debate, which will deepen and progress throughout the following sessions. In a committee of this size, collaboration and decorum are essential for each and every session. Formal debate consists of delegates adding themselves to the Speaker’s List to be formally recognized before the rest of the committee for a specified length of time. When delegates appear before the committee, it is their opportunity to give an overview of their country’s position as well as accept questions from other delegates for clarification on policy or solutions. It is imperative that delegates remain respectful of others during this time and observe all procedural rules in order for delegates to be heard and for the Speaker’s List to flow smoothly. While formal debate is a key portion of our simulation, the majority of debate in DISEC will take place in caucus format. Caucusing can be done in one of two ways: moderated or unmoderated. Moderated caucuses flow similarly to formal debate. Delegates' speaking times are often shorter, and each caucus has a specific topic delegates must discuss in their comments. Unmoderated caucuses suspend formal rules of debate for a designated period of time during which delegates are free to move around the room and informally discuss policy and potential solutions directly with other delegates. The majority of writing for working papers and resolutions will occur during these unmoderated caucuses. Another feature of DISEC as a committee of the General Assembly is the process by which its working papers and resolutions are created. Solutions start out as a set of ideas, are formatted into a working paper, then voted upon as draft resolutions, and finally presented as resolutions in plenary if passed in committee. Delegates will be given more details about the resolution process as the conference progresses, but they should keep in mind that there is this specific structure they must follow.


- 7 -

The two most important things for delegates to keep in mind throughout debate are decorum and country policy. As a committee of the General Assembly, DISEC includes delegates from each member state of the United Nations; hence, it is one of the largest committees. Each delegate will be given equal opportunity to speak before the committee and granted each member’s undivided attention. Parliamentary procedure and decorum will be respected at all times, without exception. The alteration or suspension of rules may occur at the discretion of the Dais in order to maintain control of the committee and to preserve decorum and respect for all delegates. Additionally, delegates are to keep in mind that country policy should be the anchor for all proposals both presented and supported by the delegate. Although collaboration is the goal, it is always secondary to the integrity of a delegate’s country policy. The desire to compromise should never supersede one’s ability to uphold his or her country’s stance on the issue. With this in mind, apt preparation for committee on policy, background, and potential solutions is imperative in order for all delegates to maintain quality debate and to remain on task at all times. Debate in DISEC will culminate in a plenary meeting at the final session during which time DISEC delegates will meet with their counterparts in the other committees of the General Assembly to vote. Only draft resolutions that have passed in each individual committee will be presented as resolutions in plenary and voted upon by the entire body. This plenary session simulates the workings of the real UN in that delegates see how DISEC is able to make recommendations that unite the entire membership of the UN when resolutions are adopted. Like in the UN, the quality of resolutions presented before the plenary body is a direct reflection of the delegates’ work inside and outside of the committee. These resolutions rely heavily upon the delegates’ ability to work diligently and to collaborate respectfully on proposals for the topics at hand, and will help to make NHSMUN 2015 a great year for DISEC and NHSMUN as a whole.


- 8 -

TOPIC A: CONCERNS OF THE USE OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES

INTRODUCTION

Recently, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become a popular tool in modern warfare. UAVs, also commonly referred to as drones, are revolutionizing conventional military tactics. These autonomously operated aircraft are equipped with computers and sensors, thus eliminating the need for a human pilot, and they have become common in militaries around the world over the last few decades.16 UAVs have the advantage of being able to fly through hazardous climates and low altitudes without any risk to human life. Their surveillance and targeting capabilities also make them militarily effective. The low risk and high rewards they provide have made UAVs a central fixture in current military tactics.17 Militaries use these aircraft primarily for two types of missions: surveillance work, or lethal attacks. UAVs are used in surveillance missions to provide continuous coverage of a certain area. On the other hand, UAVs used for lethal missions are programmed to attack specific targets. They are also often designed to look like a conventional aircraft or missile, depending on their use and mission purpose. The First Committee focuses on creating solutions to international challenges that affect peace and security. This consequently results in a heavy focus on disarmament, specifically on the international regulation of armaments. UAVs are still relatively new technology in the armament spectrum. Regulating and discussing the legality of UAV attacks falls under the scope of the First Committee because of the lethal nature of UAV strikes. Furthermore, lethal UAV strikes are currently occurring mainly on international soil, outside of the initiating country. As such, there is much debate over whether UAVs are an encroachment upon a state’s territory and sovereignty. If they are considered an encroachment, the question arises of whether or not a UAV strike is legal without the receiving country’s consent. The nature of these attacks is currently ambiguous, because there is no precedent for weapons of this type. However, UAVs are now commonly being used for non-military purposes as well. In Africa and Latin America, surveillance UAVs are used to combat issues such as drug trafficking and deforestation.18 States have also utilized UAVs in humanitarian missions, thus positively contributing to international society. Thus, the versatility of UAVs presents the international community with a tool that can greatly contribute to military and non-military uses. However, this calls for the international community to collaborate together to regulate their use to ensure they do not become a threat to the very security and stability this committee was built to

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!16 Lindsey Harriman and Joseph Muhlhausen, “A New Eye in the Sky: Eco-drones,” United Nations Environment Programme, Last modified May 2013, accessed 22 May 2014, http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=100. 17 Ibid. 18 “The UN’s Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: U.S. Support and Potential Foreign Policy Advantages,” Better World Campaign, last modified May 2013, accessed 22 May 2014, http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/assets/pdf/bwc-white-paper-the-uns-use-of-uavs-in-th-drc-may-2013.pdf.


- 9 -

protect. Regardless of the purpose for which UAVs are used, the First Committee needs to tackle issues such as a lack of transparency and a lack of specific legislation on this topic in order to ensure that the use of UAVs does not create international contention.

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE

Early Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Warfare

The use of UAVs in warfare began over a century ago.19 In 1849, Austria launched nearly 200 pilotless balloons equipped with bombs in order to subdue the city of Venice.20 This aerial attack was the one of the first documented example of UAV use in warfare.21 The development of UAVs continued throughout the next two decades. In 1898, a reemergence of UAVs was seen in the Spanish-American War.22 The United States military developed an early prototype of a reconnaissance UAV by attaching a camera to a kite, producing the first successful aerial-reconnaissance photos.23 These early examples, despite being rudimentary, were the first trials to show the benefits that UAVs could potentially provide in warfare. The mass production of UAVs began in the early 1900s. At this time the technology advanced from a primitive concept to fully functioning machinery. Charles Kettering developed the first functioning UAV prototype during World War I, in 1918.24 This pilotless biplane was designed to carry bombs into enemy territory. At a set time, the wings would detach, sending the plane to the ground to explode. The United States Army built 50 planes with this design, known as the “Kettering Bugs.”25 They were never used in actual combat; however, these first effective prototypes sparked international interest in the use of UAVs. UAV technology continued to develop after World War I, and World War II saw the first mass production of UAVs. It was then that the United States military found a way to efficiently utilize them in tactical military bombings. During the war, the German military also began to develop radio-controlled aircraft to be used in combat. The German military’s “Fritz X” carried destructive bombs intended to attack Allied ships. Their Fritz X damaged two Italian battleships in 1943.26 The German military also employed the first operational cruise missile during this time.27 Cruise missiles are UAVs programmed with a set location at the time of their launch. After launch, the cruise missiles continue toward the intended target with a high-explosive warhead attached. The German cruise missile “V-1” was intended for use specifically against Great Britain, and other Allied targets.28 While the original design met with very little success because it was not able to travel significant

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!19 Ian G.R. Shaw, “The Rise of the Predator Empire: Tracing the History of U.S. Drones,” Understanding Empire, 2013, accessed 28 June 2014, http://understandingempire.wordpress.com/2-0-a-brief-history-of-u-s-drones/. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Thomas J. Billiterri, “Drone Warfare,” CQ Researcher 20, No. 28 (August 2010): 663. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid.


- 10 -

distances, the “V-2” was later developed with distance capabilities of up to 200 miles as compared to the V-1’s limited 150-mile capability.29 This was because of the improved design of the “V-2’s” engine. Overall, in World War II, UAVs were mainly used in missions intended to harm a specific target, as opposed to surveillance. Despite the fact that the majority of these missions failed, the development of UAVs continued. After World War II, UAV development was inconsistent because of wavering interest and intermittent success. During the Vietnam War, the United States developed an unmanned reconnaissance plane used for intelligence-gathering missions in the region. This plane design was called “The Fire Fly” and flew 3,400 missions during the war, but nearly 16% of the planes crashed.30 The shortcomings of these early reconnaissance UAVs eventually led to a decline in interest. After the Vietnam War, UAV development began to slow in the United States military because of consistent failures within the program. In the late 1970s, the military cancelled the project after spending over a billion dollars on only a few prototypes.31 Since then, however, UAVs have transformed to match modern military strategies. The versatility of these UAVs enable them to be developed in a way that has helped compliment the evolution of warfare throughout the years. The continued evolution of UAVs throughout history shows how they can be developed and manipulated to best-fit military needs.

A History of Israel’s UAV Military Program

While the United States is generally viewed as the leader in UAV technology, it is less commonly known that Israel’s program has also been one of the largest in the world for decades. Israel was the first country to develop and effectively use UAVs in battle. Development of its UAV military program began in the 1970s.32 Alvin Ellis, an engineer born in the United States, moved to Israel in 1967 and began to create his prototype “Mastiff.”33 It flew in 1973, and was later acquired by the Israeli Defense Ministry.34 Mastiff became a central focus of Israel’s UAV program along with the Israel Aircraft Industries’ (IAI’s) model “Scout.” Since the creation of the program, Israel has always produced its own UAVs, not relying on exports from other countries. Its internal UAV manufacturing capacity has helped establish Israel as a leader in the unmanned vehicles industry.35 In order to completely understand this topic, it is crucial to examine the history of Israel’s UAV program and its implications for the Middle East in particular. Israel continued to develop its UAV program throughout the 1980s. During this time, Israel began using the Mastiff for reconnaissance during the Lebanon War. In 1982, Mastiff drones were flown over the Syrian-occupied area of Lebanon, Bekaa, to destroy Syrian missiles.36 On 6 June 1982 the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) executed Operation Peace for Galilee.37 Using UAVs with “sophisticated jamming technology and precision bombing,” Israel successfully destroyed nearly all !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ralph Sanders, “An Israeli Military Innovation: UAVs,” Joint Force Quarterly, No.33 (2003): 115. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid.


- 11 -

of Syria’s air defense program.38 The attack resulted in no loss of life for Israel, and 22 Syrian casualties.39 This attack was significant because Israel was capable of executing a lethal attack on Syria without sending a single soldier into Syrian territory. This type of military tactic was revolutionary; the overwhelming success of the attack consequentially encouraged Israel to continue UAV development. Israel’s superior UAV program began attracting international interest in the 1980s. The United States’ interest in UAVs rose again after seeing the overwhelming success of the IDF’s aerial attack in Operation Peace for Galilee. In 1982, the U.S. Navy under the Reagan Administration purchased several of Israel’s UAVs.40 The Mastiff and Scout models continued to be used through the early 1990s. Israel’s IAI specifically created a subdivision within their program known as “Malat,” which was tasked to design and further develop IAI’s UAV program. In 1998, the “Malat Searcher” was deployed by IAI.41 The Searcher was twice the size of the Scout, could reach heights of 20,000 feet, and was capable of flying for over 14 hours.42 This highly innovative design is still in commission today. Recently, Israel’s continually growing UAV program has yielded improvements, and has allowed for new surveillance models to stay in the air longer, capture better photographs, and gather data more efficiently. The program has also yielded more accurate UAVs for targeted missions. Malat still works to create better UAVs, by increasing their success rate and endurance. IDF has increased the use of UAVs, making them a primary tool in recent Israeli military campaigns. The continued fighting and heightened tension between Israel and Palestine has led to increased use of Israeli UAVs in the country. The beginnings of the current conflict in Gaza can be traced back to after World War II with the migration of many Jewish immigrants to Palestine and the eventual UN intervention in 1947.43 In 1947, the UN recommended giving over 50% of Palestinian land to a Jewish State.44 The UN recognized this territory as Israel, and throughout the 1960’s the new state acquired more land in the region.45 As a consequence, there has been much armed conflict in this region for decades because of the ensuing land dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Following numerous attacks by extremists against Israel, the campaign against extremists in Gaza began in 2004. UAV trikes were made on 24 October and 7 December 2004 that successfully targeted and killed Islamic Jihadist militants.46 As a result, the majority of recent Israel UAV strikes have taken place in Gaza. Between 28 June and November 2006, the IDF launched an offensive campaign against Gaza in response to the death and capture of three Israeli militants.47 UAVs were used in airstrikes which killed 400 Palestinians and debilitated Gaza’s infrastructure.48

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Billitteri, “Drone Warfare,” 665. 41 Sanders, “An Israeli Military Innovation: UAVs,” 116. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid. 46 Mary Dobbing and Chris Cole, “Israel and the Drone Wars: Examining Israel’s Production, Use and Proliferation of UAVs,” Drone Wars UK 10, last modified January 2014, accessed 6 July 2014, http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/israel-and-the-drone-wars.pdf. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid.


- 12 -

The largest recent incident was seen in 2012, when the IDF launched a coordinated UAV system attack against Gaza.49 After escalating violence from both sides, Israel launched bombs in Gaza using UAVs, beginning 14 November 2012, and lasting through 21 November 2012.50 This coordinated attack resulted in the death of 165 Palestinians.51 99 of the total casualties were civilians, among them thirteen children according to the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.52 Israel suffered five human casualties, three civilian.53 When examining these numbers, the amount of civilian casualties in the attacks suggests a lack of accuracy in UAV technology. Israel’s campaigns are a prime example of continuous use of UAVS, and the escalation of these attacks has attracted international attention. The main contention of the issue is surrounding the lethal nature of UAV attacks and the collateral damage resulting from them. This is an important case to examine, as the main issue will be regulating the lethal use of UAVs. In order for Israel to subsidize its military program, the state has begun to export UAVs to other countries.54 The versatility of unmanned vehicles makes them a highly desired product internationally. Their surveillance and lethal capabilities paired with their relatively low cost in human life makes UAVs a chief component of Israel’s foreign military sales. International customers include China, India, Singapore, Chile, and the United States.55 In 2000, the Indian Army deployed 25 UAVs purchased from the IDF in the highly disputed area of Kashmir. It is reported that India acquired 100 UAVs from Israel for USD 750 million. As of 2001, Malat had produced over 600 UAVs for exports to countries like India, a sign of how popular and demanded these aircraft are.56 Israel has well established itself as a leader in the field of UAV development. In the last few years, Israel has surpassed the U.S. and become the largest exporter of UAVs.57 It is estimated that international sales totaled USD 4.6 billion between 2005 and 2012.58 However, the negative side to this robust trade is that the export of UAVs provides dangerous technology to countries easily. Some rogue states that may not be capable of developing this technology on their own are now capable of purchasing it at a relatively inexpensive price. Israel continues to be a leader in the UAV field, selling and employing them in counter-terrorism, surveillance, and lethal missions, but the accessibility of this advanced technology could have detrimental consequences.

The Predator

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!49 Ibid, 3. 50 Ibid. 51 Ibid, 5. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid, 118. 56 Ibid, 116. 57 Associated Press, “Israel Scoops Up Military Drone Sales,” Herald Net, Last modified 14 February 2014, accessed 5 July 2014, http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140214/BIZ/140219543. 58 Ibid.


- 13 -

The Predator is one of the best-known armed UAVs currently being used in lethal target missions.59 It is a deadly, remote-controlled UAV most often used in United States’ military operations. Before the Predator’s creation, the United States UAV program remained relatively dormant. However, in 1992 an early prototype of “The Predator” was introduced and reignited American interest in, and deployment of, UAVs.60 This prototype was first used during the Balkan Wars between 1992 and 1995, when the United States employed Predators in a NATO air campaign over the former Yugoslavia in order to gather accurate, real-time surveillance.61 However, because of weather conditions a majority of the missions failed.62 Later on, key adjustments were added to the design of the original prototype such as a de-icing system, reinforced wings, and a laser guided target system.63 These changes were essential for developing the Predator into the lethal UAV it is today. Despite the Predator’s failure in the Balkan Wars, the U.S. Air Force established its first UAV squad in 1995.64 The Predator remained at this time a crucial military tool. Technological advancements in UAVs allowed the Predator to develop from a surveillance UAV to one designed for lethal targeted missions. In the late 1990s, the CIA began to use the Predator in counter-terrorism operations because of its endurance and lethal capability, specifically against Al-Qaeda. In 1998, Osama bin Laden, the former Al Qaeda leader, was found responsible for bombing two American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.65 Former United States President Bill Clinton had recently relaxed the strict ban on American assassinations of enemy combatants, which allowed for some legal measures of lethal force against bin Laden and those responsible for these acts of terror.66 American officials immediately turned to the Predator. In 2000, The CIA began weaponizing the Predator by equipping it with a missile called the “Hellfire,” effectively turning it into a hybrid for both surveillance and attack.67 The first deployment of the Predator as a counter-terrorism weapon was on 7 September 2000. Together, the CIA and U.S. Air Force deployed the Predator over Afghanistan on a surveillance mission meant to monitor bin Laden’s activity.68 Later in February 2001, they successfully tested a Hellfire laser guided missile from a Predator drone.69 There was no human target in the attack, as it was only a test to prove that the missiles could fire accurately. The success of the strike later led to the regular implementation of Hellfire missiles in Predator UAVs. The Predator currently uses these laser-guided missiles to execute targeted strikes.70 The success of the Predator led to the evolution of the UAV into a popular counter-terrorism tool. The study of the United States’ use of Predator UAVs in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrates the powerful capabilities of these machines. The use of Predators in these conflict-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!59 Shaw, “The Rise of the Predator Empire: Tracing the History of U.S. Drones.” 60 Ibid. 61 Billitteri, “Drone Warfare,” 665; Shaw, “The Rise of the Predator Empire: Tracing the History of U.S. Drones.” 62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Billitteri, “Drone Warfare,” 665. 70 Ibid.


- 14 -

ridden states revolutionized current warfare methods. On 11 September 2001, Osama Bin Laden and his terrorist group Al Qaeda carried out multiple attacks against the United States, targeting the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.71 After this attack, the United States sent troops to Afghanistan, and began integrating the use of weaponized UAVs into its warfare tactics. Within the first year of invading Afghanistan, Predators destroyed 115 targets, both human and non-human.72 This was the largest use of UAVs seen since Israel’s Operation Peace for Galilee. In 2002, the United States successfully targeted and killed Salim Sinan al-Harethi, a leader of Al-Qaeda, in Yemen with one of its Predator drones.73 This was the first successful UAV strike made against a specific human target. These attacks against a non-state actor attracted little international attention, partly because of a lack of transparency regarding the event. The United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was in charge of UAV assassinations. There is much debate over the legality of such lethal UAV strikes, and the case of the Predator has become a central point in this conversation. The Predator has significantly changed warfare techniques by maximizing UAV technology and creating a less intrusive form of warfare. This is because UAVs allow the country using them to enter into another state’s territory without any actual troops, providing a significant advantage to the state controlling the UAVs. Some surveillance UAVs have the ability to conduct high-altitude surveillance for over 20 hours, and lethal target UAVs now employ their laser-guided missiles to administer lethal attacks upon specific targets.74 The long endurance and lethal capability have set an international standard, and the Predator has paved the way for the development of UAV technology. The success of Predator has led to the creation of popular UAVs like the U.S.’ Reaper and Shadow. Currently, the United States has nearly 200 Predator models.75 Other European countries such as Italy and the United Kingdom have purchased a few models of the Reaper and Predator from the United States.76 The Predator has become internationally known for its lethal strikes because of its continuing targeted success. Despite the concerns regarding the legality of UAV use and production, it is important to note the benefits of Predator and other UAVs. With sophisticated technology, UAVs usually allow governments to conduct acts of war with minor civilian casualties. As the attacks are aerial, they keep troops off of a country's soil. This creates a less intrusive form of warfare, and the likelihood of a full-scale invasion diminishes. Additionally, UAVs are smaller, expendable planes that have been developed so they are relatively easy to produce and economically feasible. As UAVs do not cost as much as the large planes used in previous wars, they are economically beneficial for governments.

Technological Flaws

In the early 2000s, lethal target missions began to be used more frequently. In 2002, the first major mishap occurred and attracted international attention. Daraz Khan and two other Afghan men were killed in a targeted UAV strike.77 The men were all innocent civilians, but because of Khan’s height !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!71 Shaw, “The Rise of the Predator Empire: Tracing the History of U.S. Drones.” 72 Billitteri, “Drone Warfare,” 665. 73 Ibid, 666. 74 Ibid. 75 Simon Rogers, “Drones by Country: Who Has All the UAVs?,” The Guardian, 2012, accessed 22 May 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/aug/03/drone-stocks-by-country. 76 Ibid. 77 Billiterri, “Drone Warfare,” 667.


- 15 -

and the interactions between the men, the UAV surveying them registered them as potentially being bin Laden.78 This was the first known incident of innocent civilians dying from an American UAV strike, and this failure brought to light the potentially fatal inaccuracy of UAV technology. The death of Khan and the other innocent civilians happened because of tactical mistakes and inadequate technology. Overall, the international community began to pay attention to the negative implications that UAVs could have on a civilian populace. The issues with UAV technology became increasingly evident in following years. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and began to heavily deploy UAVs.79 By 2004 the CIA began utilizing UAVs in their tactical missions. Between 2003 and 2009, the United States began to heavily increase their use of UAVs in the “Afghan Theatre.” 2004-2007 saw only nine UAV strikes, while in 2009 there were over 53 strikes.80 In 2009, it was reported that the United States had 38 drones in the airspace over Afghanistan and Iraq at all times.81 This was triple the number of flights seen in 2006, and an indicator of increasing dependency upon UAVs.82 However, during the first few years that the United States had UAVs in these countries there were several reported mechanical failures. UAVs were crashing because of software malfunctions and inadequate technology. These incidents have been attributed to the United States military’s hasty use of UAVs at the beginning of the invasions, without having first developed and tested the proper technology. However, after years of analyzing the causes of these crashes, the military was able to improve the drones significantly.83 The program saw major success when the number of mechanical failures and crashes dramatically decreased by 2009. Countries should take this as evidence of the dangerous and wasteful consequences resulting from preemptive use of untested technology, particularly UAVs. UAVs, like other military weaponry, have vulnerabilities that have recently been exposed in the Predator. In 2009, Iraqi militants hacked into live video feeds from the United States’ Predator.84 By using a rudimentary software program, these militants were able to breach security systems and access potentially important information such as the Predator’s collected surveillance or programmed mission. This compromised the security of the United States by drawing attention to flaws in its UAV program. The incident was the first modern example that showed the vulnerabilities in UAV technology. The breach in security did not have any long-lasting consequences, but it showed that as technology advances so do methods of breaking in and manipulating these technologies, which presents a major security concern for all those who look to utilize remote-controlled technologies. This committee should consider the technological inadequacies in UAVs, and the implications these have in both a physical and legal sense.

Legality of UAV Targeted Strikes

The main source of contention surrounding the use of UAVs is whether they violate international law. Delegates of DISEC should look to create solutions that establish standards for the legal and !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Sarah Kreps and John Kaag, “The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A Legal and Ethical Analysis,” Polity 44, No.2 (2012): 260–285. 81 Billiterri, “Drone Warfare,” 667. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid, 668.


- 16 -

illegal use of UAVs by a state. Whether they are on surveillance or targeted missions, UAVs almost always invade a sovereign state's airspace. When UAVs are in a country’s airspace without consent it is considered a direct violation of the principle of sovereignty, because according to international law the airspace above a national territory belongs to the government controlling that territory.85 The major legislation defining states’ rights regarding sovereignty was outlined in December 1933 at the International Conference of American States, known commonly as the Montevideo Convention.86 The purpose of the Montevideo Convention was to define what qualifications a state needs to meet to be recognized politically.87 The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States was produced and ratified by 16 countries in the Americas, among them the United States.88 While the treaty was never signed or ratified by the international community, the United Nations has recognized the treaty as a body of customary international law.89 Article 5 of the treaty states that the fundamental rights of states, such as sovereignty, are not to be violated whatsoever.90 Article 8 of the treaty states that “no state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”91 While the Convention was created in 1933 before the mainstream use of UAVs, it is still in effect today.92 Unwanted UAVs are in violation of the treaty, as UAVs almost always invade a country’s airspace in order to carry out their mission. UAVs have evaded mainstream persecution because the technology has, until now, remained an unprecedented, ambiguous form of warfare. The issue of the legality of UAV strikes is most obviously unpacked when exploring the United States’ recent use of these weapons. Recently, the UN has launched an investigation into the United States’ UAV strikes in Pakistan. UAV strikes in this country are targeted at terrorist groups operating out of tribal areas. Ben Emmerson, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter terrorism, met with Pakistani government officials in March 2013 and released a statement clarifying the fact that the government of Pakistan openly opposes these UAV strikes.93 Furthermore, in 2013 the Pakistani government called upon the United States to immediately end their entire UAV campaign.94 The United States justifies their UAV strikes in this country as an operation for counter-terrorism, since the purpose is to dismantle groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban by targeted assassinations of key leaders. President Barack Obama states that the U.S. is not at war with Pakistan, but instead at “war with terror.”95

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!85 Ibid. 86 "Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States," Council on Foreign Relations, last modified 26 December 1933, accessed 10 August 2014, http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897. 87 Ibid. 88 Ibid. 89 Ibid. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid. 93 Ben Emmerson, “Pakistan: Statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism,” United Nations Human Rights, last modified 14 March 2013, accessed 22 May 2014. http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13148&LangID=E. 94 Ibid. 95 Barack Obama, “Obama’s Speech on Drone Policy,” New York Times, last modified 23 May 2013, accessed 22 May 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html.


- 17 -

The new democratically elected civilian government of Pakistan has stated its commitment to ending terrorism in the country. The Pakistani government believes that the most effective way of achieving long-term peace in the country is by addressing terrorism internally, meaning that the United States should remove its counter-terrorism efforts within its territory.96 Pakistan has the right to request that the United States end its operations in the country. To recall the Convention on the Right and Duties of States, Article 8 of the treaty states that no state has the right to intervene in the “internal affairs of another.”97 The United States’ continued campaign in Pakistani territory is in direct violation of this treaty. The Pakistani government has stated that the UAV strikes are counter-productive because they claim civilian lives and negatively affect the stability of areas attacked. Furthermore, the government believes that these strikes violate Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity.98 The legal debate arises from the fact that the United States and Pakistan are not at war with each other, and the United States’ UAV presence does not have the Pakistani government’s consent. Pakistan’s opposition makes the United States’ use of violent force in their country a direct violation of the country’s sovereignty. This specific case has become important in the discussion of the legality of UAVs because the Pakistani government has been the most open about its opposition of the strikes. In general, this committee should consider how any unwanted UAV presence affects the sovereignty of a country. The legality of military UAV use is the most contentious part of the issue, and delegates should focus on how the committee should consider what regulation measures, if any, need to be taken to avoid international conflict. In understanding the legal nature behind this issue, delegates can formulate solutions that can effectively monitor UAV use for international safety and security.

Non-Military Uses of UAVs

Despite the use of UAVs in lethal strikes, they are also used for peaceful purposes. In May 2013, the Security Council enabled the peaceful use of UAVs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).99 The UN chose to implement the use of unarmed UAVs in the country to combat specific social and economic issues. Specifically, the country’s long history of armed conflict has led to the emergence of terrorists groups like the M23, which have caused the displacement of thousands of civilians.100 The UAVs in the DRC help observe situational ground movement in order to protect civilians and peacekeeping troops as well as detect terrorist acts before they take place.101 It helps that UAVs are able to survey terrain that is too dangerous for humans to traverse. Another use for the unarmed UAVs in the country is monitoring the movement of displaced refugees. This allows the UN and the government of the DRC to help understand the situation of these refugees.102 Consequently, this surveillance helps them identify their situational needs and address them more effectively. Having UAVs monitoring movement frees helicopters and smaller, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!96 Emmerson, “Pakistan: Statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism.” 97 "Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.” 98 Emmerson, “Pakistan: Statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism.” 99 “The UN’s Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: U.S. Support and Potential Foreign Policy Advantages.” 100 Ibid. 101 Ibid. 102 Ibid.


- 18 -

manned aircrafts from this task. This allows these more expensive aircrafts to be used for critical missions, saving money and time. The peaceful use of UAVs in the DRC is an example of how this technology can positively impact a country socially and economically. This committee should consider this example when exploring solutions for the regulated use of UAVs throughout the world. UAVs can also monitor certain illegal activities such as logging and poaching. For example, Brazil has recently purchased UAVs from the United States in order to help combat deforestation and illegal mining.103 Unlike the UAV campaign in the DRC in which the UN asked for UAVs to be used, this instance was strictly a bilateral agreement between the two countries, without UN oversight. It will be important for delegates to analyze UAV use at both the national level and the international level when discussing regulations, as each introduces new concerns and risks. The Environmental Police of São Paulo, the largest city in Brazil, was the country’s first agency to regularly use unarmed UAVs in 2011.104 The Environmental Police of São Paulo are employing them in remote areas to help combat deforestation and illegal fishing. However, Brazil has also previously used unarmed UAVs to combat drug trafficking, and to monitor other crime.105 UAV programs have been successful in this country, and similar to the DRC’s program, have helped to free more expensive resources. The use of unarmed UAVs in both Brazil and the DRC is a precedent of how the technology can be implemented in countries with similar social issues. UAVs used in these missions are different from those used for lethal strikes because they are unarmed and focus specifically on information-gathering missions. The UAV programs in these countries operate in a transparent manner, meaning that the country’s citizens and other states are aware of the ongoing surveillance. UAVs are also used for specific missions in the countries, which increases their efficacy. These programs have already been successful, and there is quite a bit of potential for future growth. This innovative technology could be used in other countries to help combat social issues similar to those in the DRC and Brazil. This committee should not look to completely end the use of UAVs, but instead look for solutions that provide security in those countries implementing the technology.

CURRENT STATUS

Recent Developments with International UAV Programs

As UAV technology becomes more accessible and economically feasible, it is now much more common for smaller countries to have UAV programs. For example, on 6 April 2014, a third UAV from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was found in the territory of the Republic of Korea (also known as South Korea).106 The UAV was sent on reconnaissance missions regarding important facilities in South Korea, in order to collect information to threaten South !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!103 Ibid. 104 Michael J Coren, “Brazilian Eyes in the Sky Focus on the Disappearing Rainforest,” Fast Company, last modified 26 October 2011, accessed 29 July 2014, http://www.fastcompany.com/1790901/brazilian-eyes-sky-focus-disappearing-rainforest. 105 Ibid. 106 Tae-gyu Kim, “3rd North Korean Drone Found,” Korea Times, last modified 6 April 2014, accessed 29 June 2014, http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic.


- 19 -

Korea’s security.107 The DPRK and the Republic of Korea have been at war since 1950, when the latter declared its independence.108 After over two million causalities, the two countries reached a ceasefire on 27 July 1953.109 While the two remain at a ceasefire, the DPRK’s use of drones shows an escalation of tension between the two countries with serious future implications. In response to DPRK’s use of drones, South Korea announced on 11 April 2014 that it is developing a joint UAV program with Israel.110 Paired with Israel’s superior UAV program, South Korea plans on investing USD two million into the project.111 South Korea’s expansion of its UAV program indicates a growing concern for security within the country. UAV use is also expanding in Russia. On 24 June 2014, it was reported that Russia also plans to deploy UAVs in its country.112 This purpose is to ensure that the UAVs are ready for combat, as ordered by the President and Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in Russia, Vladimir Putin.113 While Putin continues to remain vague about the specific intended use of these drones, it is important to keep in mind the political tension in the country. Delegates in DISEC should consider the implications of expanding UAV development in countries that are involved in regional conflicts. Such implications affect the internal security of that state, as well as global security. Additionally, the international community’s ability to regulate a state’s UAV use should be analyzed to ensure that these recent expansions do not pose a threat to the world as a whole. There have been other developments internationally. The UAV global market is expected to increase to over USD eight billion by 2018.114 While the United States and Israel continue be the top leaders in UAV manufacturing and revenue, UAV programs are expanding internationally and will continue to do so as they become the new standard for conventional warfare. Iran announced in April 2014 that it will use UAVs in military exercises for the first time in its history.115 Iran has claimed that the state has made great progress in its UAV capacity. While Iran currently plans on only testing the technology within its own airspace, an increasing presence of UAVs in the Middle East could create contention among countries and inevitably lead to a point of conflict in the region. The U.S. reliance on drones has also increased in recent years: while the United States’ former President George W. Bush oversaw fewer than 50 drone strikes during his time in office, President Obama has signed off on over 400 drone strikes in the last four years.116 This dramatic increase in !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!107 Ibid. 108 “North Korea Profile,” BBC, last modified 26 March 2014, accessed 29 July 2014, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612. 109 Ibid. 110 “South Korea, Israel to Jointly Develop Aerial Vehicles to Counter North's Drones,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, last modified 11 April 2014, accessed 29 June 2014, http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic. 111 Ibid. 112 “Russia Plans to Deploy Drones to Evaluate Warfare Readiness,” Progressive Media, last modified 24 June 2014, accessed 28 June 2014, http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic. 113 Ibid. 114 “Research and Markets: The Global Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Market Expected to Grow to $8,351.11 million by 2018,” Reuters, 28 February 2014, accessed 24 September 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/research-and-markets-idUSnBw285690a+100+BSW20140228. 115 Umid Niayesh, “Iran to Hold its First UAV Military Exercises,” Trend News Agency, last modified 12 April 2014, accessed 29 July 2014, http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/. 116 “The Trouble With Drones,” The New York Times, Last modified 7 April 2013, Accessed 29 July 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/the-trouble-with-drones.html?_r=0.


- 20 -

the program indicates that UAVs are becoming the centerpiece of the United States’ counter-terrorism strategy and therefore a central part of all current and future operations in the Middle East. It has reported on 2 January 2014 that there were only 27 UAV strikes in 2013, a drastic decrease from previous years.117 These 27 strikes killed 181 people compared to the overall total of 3,306 deaths since 2004.118 The amount of civilian casualties is a testimony towards the damage that UAVs are capable of. A continuing UAV military presence contributes to conflict in the Middle East. Pakistan is openly opposed to the continuing use of UAVs within their territory, and despite opposition, the United States and other countries continue to expand their UAV program in the region. In April 2014, the Defense Department of the United States proposed a budget of over USD 2 billion for the 2015 American UAV program.119 With hostility arising in the Middle East, it is important to consider the implications of the growth of the American program. Overall, it is quite evident that UAV use is expanding, both in developed countries like the United States and developing ones like South Korea and Iran. Expanded UAV use, whether for surveillance or strikes, is a major concern for this committee and international security. DISEC should use these current examples to understand the speed at which UAV use is growing, and act quickly, with collaboration as a priority, when considering the regulation of these weapons.

Current Strife Pertaining to the Use of UAVs

The majority of contention over the use in UAVs is concentrated in the Middle East. High amounts of terrorist activity in the region have led to the use of military UAVs. As mentioned, the United States uses UAVs in the Middle East for both surveillance and air strikes. Its campaign in the Middle targets terrorist groups, with the aim of eventually disbanding these groups. The United States has most recently expanded its UAV military campaign against terrorism to Libya, in 2011. The expansion of United States UAV strikes to now six countries has created fear both in the Middle East and North Africa. Countries like Mali are worried that it might be the next target of UAV strikes.120 With one of the largest UAV programs in the world, Israel is continuously using this technology in the Middle East. Israel continues the use of UAVs mainly in Gaza for reconnaissance and targeted lethal strikes. On 7 July 2014, Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in Gaza. This IDF operation first consisted of ground troops, and then moved to UAV airstrikes.121 By 23 July 2014, it was estimated that 350 Palestinians were dead from the ground operation.122 However, after airstrikes began, this number grew to nearly 700 deaths with over 4,000 wounded.123 The airstrikes

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!117 “Pakistan Based Think Tank Says 27 US Drones Kill 181 in 2013,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, Last modified 2 January 2014, accessed 28 June 2014 http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/. 118 Ibid. 119 “Pentagon to Make Huge Investments,” Geospatial Today, Last modified 23 April 2014, accessed 29 July 2014, http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic. 120 Eric Schmitt, “Drones in Niger Reflect New U.S. Tack on Terrorism,” The New York Times, last modified 10 July 2013, accessed 29 July 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/world/africa/drones-in-niger-reflect-new-us-approach-in-terror-fight.html?pagewanted=all. 121 “Live Updates: Operation Protective Edge, Day 16,” Haaretz, last modified 23 July 2014, accessed 29 July 2014, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.606735. 122 Ibid. 123 Ibid.


- 21 -

continue to cause severe damage as seen in the past. As conflict in the region continues to escalate, it is important to analyze the security benefits versus the damage that Israel’s UAV program has already had on civilian life and infrastructure within the region. Current internal strife in China has led to the ongoing use of UAVs in the country as well. The Western region of Xinjiang has recently experienced an eruption of violence resulting in the death of nearly 100 people.124 Ethnic divisions between the Uyghurs and the Han, China’s dominant ethnic group, have led to unrest in the region. As a result of escalated violence in early August 2014, Chinese UAVs were deployed on surveillance missions over East Turkestan under the pretense of tracking Uyghur terrorists.125 Civilians in the area have opposed the use of UAVs, expressing the opinion that they are causing further instability in the country.126 Citizens feel that the UAV presence affects their quality of life and contributes to a negative, fearful living environment. Nonetheless, the government has responded to this disapproval and stated that it is using the UAVs to gather intelligence to track and arrest terrorists. The use of UAVs has heightened tension among civilians and the government in the area. When considering UAV regulation, whether in international or local territory, it is important to consider how this technology affects civilian life.

BLOC ANALYSIS

These bloc positions are broken up by countries who have UAV programs and those who do not. Countries with UAV programs will have a strong opinion toward the regulation of this technology. Countries experiencing the use of military UAVs in their country, whether for surveillance or strikes, will have stronger opinions against the use of UAVs. Additionally, developing countries are in an interesting position to help regulate the use of UAV technology for military and non-military purposes. Delegates must ultimately research their country’s policy, as there are exceptions to the general divisions. In general, researching each country's policy on the use of UAVs is the only way to fully understand each state’s position. With knowledge on state policies, delegates should then draft appropriate solutions for this issue that affect all countries of this committee and address the major concerns of UAV use.

Countries with UAV Programs

Countries with the largest UAV programs are generally in North America and the European Union. With stronger economies and resources, these states can invest in this technology and build up their programs. If countries in this region do have UAVs they should examine how they are being used and determine whether they are being used for military or non-military programs. Countries with military programs should also determine whether they are for surveillance or lethal missions. While all military UAV use is currently contentious, the lethal use of these weapons has particularly attracted international concern. It is important for countries to recognize their stance on the use of lethal UAVs for debate, as these countries are also actively involved in creating international legislation on the issue.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!124 Didi Kirsten Tatlow, “China Said to Deploy Drones After Unrest in Xinjiang,” New York Times, last modified 19 August 2014, accessed 21 August 2014, http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/sinosphere/2014/08/19/china-said-to-deploy-drones-after-unrest-in-xinjiang/. 125 Ibid. 126 Ibid.


- 22 -

Countries in these regions maintain multilateral or bilateral treaties with one another, which other countries could look to as a model when discussing regulation on the use of military UAVs. Seven European Union countries, among them France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, have recently entered into a pack to expand UAV programs in each country.127 These countries intend to implement the use of UAVs for surveillance missions or lethal strikes. All countries involved in the pact agreed upon at the European Defense Agency in 2013 are collaborating to build UAV military programs in the region.128 Countries in these regions should focus on what can be done to help create an environment where the use of UAVs is done without affecting another state’s sovereignty. As leaders in the UAV field, these countries should help to facilitate the peaceful use of the technology for military and non-military purposes, through regulation measures and transparency efforts. Israel, on the other hand, has one of the most superior UAV programs internationally. They are the current global leader in the foreign sales of UAVs and have recently expanded their drone program to South Korea.129 As a major leader in this field, Israel should consider how its use of UAVs affects national sovereignty and work closely with the United States and other leaders in the UAV field to collaborate on regulation measures. Other countries such as Russia and Iran, who are in the beginning stages of establishing a UAV program, should be transparent about their intended use of the technology. They should work with North American and European countries to create an environment that promotes the peaceful use of UAVs. Delegates in this bloc should consider that the peaceful use of UAVs does not necessarily mean halting the use of lethal UAVs entirely. Instead, the committee’s mission is to create an environment where lethal strikes are regulated and comply with international law.

Countries Developing UAV Programs

Many countries have made recent developments in their military UAV programs. Delegates in these countries should begin assessing the capability of their technology. Furthermore, countries in these regions should consider how their country views the use of UAVs in their state and others. Countries in Eastern Europe and Asia such as South Korea and Turkey have been developing their UAV programs alongside Northern America and Western Europe. While these countries have not implemented the use of UAVs in mainstream military techniques, they have begun to develop their programs. Countries should consider how they plan on eventually using and developing their UAV programs, whether it is for military or non-military uses, or both. Other regions like Africa are benefiting from the use of UAVs within their country. As aforementioned, the Security Council legalized the use of unmanned UAVs in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2013.130 Unmanned UAVs were implemented to help monitor armed

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!127 Andrew Rettman,“Seven EU States Create Military Drone ‘Club’,” EU Observer, last modified 20 November 2013, accessed 3 September 2014, http://euobserver.com/defence/122167. 128 Ibid. 129 “South Korea, Israel to Jointly Develop Aerial Vehicles to Counter North's Drones,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring 130 “The UN’s Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: U.S. Support and Potential Foreign Policy Advantages.”


- 23 -

groups, refugee movement, and to survey the environmental challenges in the country.131 While the DRC does not have its own UAV program, it is benefiting from the provisions from the UN. Countries in this region should consider if a similar program could benefit them.

Countries without UAV Programs

The majority of contention arising from the use of UAVs is within the Middle East because this region is the recipient of the majority of UAV strikes. Strikes have been specifically focused in Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan, but all countries in this region need to consider how these strikes are affecting their national sovereignty and the stability of their country as well. These countries will generally be against the use of military UAVs within their country. A general concern among these states is how the use of unconsented military UAVs affects the stability of their country. For example, the death of civilians and destruction of property negatively affects this bloc’s economic, political, and institutional infrastructure. Countries in regions affected by military UAV use should consider their policy on the military versus non-military use of UAVs. On the other hand, they should also consider how they could benefit from the use of UAVs. This is important as the committee’s mission is not to end the use of UAVs, but that delegates should work to create a resolution that allows for the peaceful use of UAVs.

COMMITTEE MISSION

As UAV technology becomes more common internationally, it is the responsibility of the First Committee to address what this means for member states. The nature of UAV technology affects every country across the global community. UAV strikes create social instability by harming citizens and the infrastructure of the country. UAV strikes also affects political stability by creating international conflict amongst countries. It is important for delegates to consider what needs to be done between states in order to keep UAVs from infringing upon national sovereignty. Furthermore, many governments remain very confidential about their UAV programs; in order to properly address the issue, it is important that member states consider the lack of transparency that many countries maintain when using UAVs both internally and in other states’ regions. It is imperative that delegates consider the future of conventional warfare as seen through UAV use. The root of this issue is mainly in defining what constitutes the legal use of UAVs. There is no current legal framework established concerning the use of UAVs. Establishing international legal framework specifically clarifying this is pertinent in order to prevent further international conflict. Delegates should consider what legislative measures should be taken to ensure UAV use is transparent and non-invasive while abiding by international legal standards of warfare. Currently, the use of UAV technology is inevitable. When discussing the issue, delegates should keep in mind that there are peaceful uses of UAVs. Resolutions should not try to eradicate the use of UAVs altogether, but instead seek to regulate their use depending on the context of various military, social, and political situations. Communication among nations is important in order to continue the positive results this technology can yield. As the use of UAVs grows increasingly more popular over time, delegates should be focused on creating long-term solutions.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!131 Ibid.


- 24 -

Furthermore, delegates should also consider what this new autonomous technology means for their foreign policy. Current foreign policy will need to be reviewed and edited to adjust to this advancement in warfare. While countries that are the recipients of drone attacks wish to completely eradicate the use of UAVs, countries using UAVs wish to continue their use because of previous successes. Thus, political discussion among member states is necessary in order to maintain international peace. It is important to keep in mind the effects this technology will have on the future of warfare and everyday life.


- 25 -

TOPIC B: ESTABLISHING A NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

INTRODUCTION

Nuclear weapons are currently one of the biggest threats to the international community. The dangerous nature of these Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) poses an immediate threat to long-term international security. WMDs affect millions of people, the environment, not to mention the future generations who could suffer the long-term effects of these disastrous weapons. The detrimental effects of nuclear weapons were first revealed on 6 August 1945 when the United States of America dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, followed later by the attack on Nagasaki.132 These are the only two times nuclear weapons have been used in warfare to date. After this attack, however, international interest in nuclear weapons grew, peaking in the 1960s.133 It was at this time that the first five nuclear weapon states were established: the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China. After them came an expansion of nuclear technology across the world, with India, Pakistan, and Iran among many countries that began developing nuclear programs. The potential use of these weapons threatened both civilians and militaries alike for decades during the Cold War, proving that even the mere possession of nuclear weapons can have detrimental effects on international security. Decades of uncertainty and fear eventually led to non-proliferation efforts by the United Nations and member states. Yet despite reduction efforts, there are still over 22,000 nuclear weapons in existence.134 Since the development of nuclear weapons, the UN has taken steps to halt the production of this weaponry. The UN began creating Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs) in the 1960s, as a way of curbing the threat of nuclear technology. NWFZs designate specific regions as free from the weaponization of nuclear technology, meaning that these areas cannot house or create such weapons. Many regions have already expressed support for Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones, beginning with the establishment of a NWFZ in the Antarctic Treaty in 1959.135 This treaty sought to regulate the use and ownership of Antarctica in the Cold War, and declared the zone demilitarized and weapon-free to minimize of any chance of conflict.136 Since then, the First Committee has been in charge of facilitating the creation of these zones. The Middle East has seen an escalation of conflict within the past few decades. The region has experienced social unrest like the Arab Spring and political issues such as the conflict between Israel and Gaza. Establishing a NWFZ in this region has become an urgent matter due to the escalation of violence among Middle Eastern countries. However, many countries in the area, like Iran and Israel, have expressed opposition to such a proposal. Other countries also oppose the establishment of a

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!132 “Nuclear Testing 1945-Today,” Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO Preparatory Commission), 2013, accessed 16 July 2014, http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/history-of-nuclear-testing/nuclear-testing-1945-today/. 133 Ibid. 134 “Nuclear Weapons,” UNODA, 2013, accessed 20 May 2014, http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/. 135 “Antarctic Treaty,” UNODA, 2013, accessed 18 July 2014, http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/antarctic. 136 Ibid.


- 26 -

NWFZ, the distrust among countries in the region spurring potential proliferation. Israel’s ambiguous stance on nuclear technology and Iran’s nuclear program are both indications that a NWFZ in the region could curb the threat of nuclear warfare. The establishment of a NWFZ would bring security to this region, as far as nuclear technology is concerned. Member states in the First Committee will examine the damage that nuclear use has had on society and work together to curb this threat through the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East.

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE

History of Nuclear Technology

Nuclear weapons first emerged in the 1940s when the United States started researching the military applications of nuclear technology for use in World War II.137 Nuclear technology was appealing to the military because of the mass amounts of damage the weapons could cause with just one explosion. Under the alias of the “Manhattan Project,” the United States government began testing this nuclear technology. The first bomb, “Trinity,” was tested on 16 July 1945 in Alamogordo, Mexico.138 These tests were intended to simulate the effects that this technology would have in combat. They provided scientists with examples of the actual detonation size and capability that these bombs could contain. The tests gave clear examples of the collateral damage any bomb would have on civilian life. However, they could not predict the effects that nuclear radiation would have on civilians for many generations to come. On 6 August 1945 the United States dropped their atomic bomb “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, Japan.139 The bombing resulted in the deaths of over 140,000 civilians, nearly half of the city’s population at the time.140 These deaths were caused by heat, force, or extreme radiation exposure. Radiation exposure from the bomb proceeded to affect the next several generations and caused an increased rate of leukemia among the exposed population.141 Radioactive fallout, which is radioactive particles in the atmosphere following a nuclear explosion, has such negative consequences for humans. This unprecedented event highlights the dangerous effects of the recklessness of nuclear technology. Three days later, on 9 August 1945, the United States dropped a second nuclear bomb, known as “Fat Boy”, on Nagasaki, Japan.142 These bombings combined resulted in over 200,000 Japanese civilian causalities.143 The two bombings represent the first and only example to date of the damage nuclear weaponry can cause. However, even after the bombings, generations of Japanese citizens continued to suffer from cancer and other diseases caused by radiation exposure. The United States government did not anticipate the long-term effect of radioactive nuclear fallout. These bombings showed the incredibly dangerous potential the threat of nuclear weaponry poses against society.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!137 “Nuclear Testing 1945-Today.” 138 Ibid. 139 Ibid. 140 Ibid. 141 Ibid. 142 Ibid. 143 Ibid.


- 27 -

After World War II ended, the development of nuclear weaponry continued. The attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated the powerful implications of nuclear warfare, which quickly sparked a race to develop these weapons. Acquiring this dangerous technology became a priority for many countries, because of their destructive capabilities. As the two main super powers at the time, the United States and the Soviet Union were the largest manufacturers of nuclear weapons. In 1949, the Soviet Union tested their first nuclear bomb.144 After this test, a nuclear arms race began between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the two superpowers worked to increase their nuclear weapons programs exponentially over the next decade. The United States established a nuclear testing site early in 1951, and conducted the first of more than 900 nuclear tests at their Nevada test site.145 At the same time, the Soviet Union began nuclear testing in Kazakhstan at the Semipalatinsk test site.146 These tests were intended to develop new military weapons and understand their effects. Nuclear technology continued to advance, eventually leading to the invention of the hydrogen bomb by the United States. The hydrogen bomb was a significant development in the history of nuclear technologies, since it is 1,400 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.147 The United States was the first country to test this type of bomb.148 In 1954, the United States detonated a hydrogen bomb on the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands.149 This was the largest nuclear weapon to ever be detonated and had large detrimental consequences.150 The bomb affected islands over 300 miles from the site of detonation.151 This test became the most serious incident of nuclear fallout to date, effecting 88 inhabited islands in the Pacific Ocean.152 Similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear fallout impacted the long-term health of civilians inhabiting these islands, as evidenced by the many cases of radiation sickness. This incident attracted international concern over the use of nuclear weaponry as many civilians were unintentionally affected. The history of nuclear weapons has shown the disastrous affects upon civilian life, the environment, and international security. It is important to understand the negative repercussions the testing and use of nuclear weapons have on international security, as these are the key reasons for the establishment of a NWFZ.

Five Nuclear Weapon States

Despite the effects from the detonation of the hydrogen bomb, the drive to expand governments’ nuclear technology capabilities continued at a heightened scale, peaking between the 1950s and early 1960s and continuing through the 1980s.153 The United Kingdom was the third country to develop nuclear weaponry, working closely with the United States to develop its program at the time. The peaceful nature of the relationship between the two countries allowed for the United Kingdom’s program to expand without conflict. On 13 February 1960, France conducted its first nuclear test

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!144 Ibid. 145 Ibid. 146 Ibid. 147 Ibid. 148 Ibid. 149 Ibid. 150 Ibid. 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid. 153 Ibid.


- 28 -

and became the fourth nuclear weapon state.154 France developed its nuclear weapons program multilaterally with the other super powers. In 1962, a record number of nuclear tests were carried out across the world.155 178 nuclear tests were detonated in the United States and the Soviet Union alone.156 The rapid proliferation showed an increasing global interest in nuclear technology. These dangerous weapons were becoming more popular, threatening the safety of more people and countries in modern warfare. On 16 October 1964, the People’s Republic of China conducted its first nuclear test, making it the fifth nuclear weapon state.157 Nuclear weapon states are defined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as states that detonated a nuclear device before 1 January 1967.158 These five states to this day are the only ones allowed to legally to possess nuclear weapons, but have agreed under the Treaty to work with non-nuclear weapon states in sharing the benefits of peaceful nuclear development. These states are also heavily involved in all non-proliferation efforts. The NPT is the most successful non-proliferation treaty passed by the United Nations General Assembly.159 It has been the most successful treaty because of the nearly unanimous support it received from the international community (the NPT will be discussed more extensively later in this paper). These five states were designated as nuclear weapon states to create as a step toward non-proliferation and have consequently created a legitimate legal force behind non-proliferation efforts, as they are capable of applying economic and trade sanctions against rogue member states that choose to develop nuclear weapons.

Unofficial Nuclear Programs

Despite the 1967 Treaty justifying only five nuclear weapon states, countries across the globe began studying the technology of these weapons. India became the sixth country to develop nuclear weapons, a sign of continued interest in nuclear technology internationally. The country tested its first nuclear weapon on 18 May 1974, with India declaring this to be a “peaceful” explosion. This meant that India did not intend to develop nuclear technology for weapons at the time of detonation. While India remained unclear about exactly what they intended to do with nuclear technology, they continued testing the bomb to further their nuclear capabilities. Then in 1982, South Africa acquired nuclear weapons as well.160 However, it is widely thought that South Africa never detonated any of their weapons. This expansion of nuclear weapons among smaller states signaled that the lack of regulation was leading to rapid proliferation of these weapons. Most recently, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) conducted nuclear tests in 2013. This country has hostile relations with many members of the international community. International pressure has been put upon states like DPRK and India to ratify the NPT and peacefully comply with the treaty. However, DPRK has announced its intentions to withdraw from the NPT. The continued use of nuclear technology by rogue states poses an international threat. As more and more !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!154 Ibid. 155 Ibid. 156 Ibid. 157 Ibid. 158 Ibid. 159“Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” UNODA, 2011, accessed 20 May 2014, http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml?lang=en. 160 Ibid.


- 29 -

countries consider developing similar programs, this committee should consider how continued expansion of nuclear technology creates an international security issue. It is currently speculated that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.161 Some think that Israel completed research and development during the 1960s, and in 1966 tested its first nuclear weapon.162 However, Israel has yet to confirm or deny this allegation. Instead the state has adopted a “nuclear ambiguity policy” and remains non-specific on its nuclear program. The lack of transparency surrounding nuclear technology in the country has been detrimental to its relations with other states in the region. Israel has not ratified major non-proliferation legislation like the NPT, meaning they are under no legal obligations to comply with non-proliferation efforts. Israel’s nuclear capabilities are still a contentious issue and it is pertinent that the committee addresses this when creating a NWFZ in the Middle East. It is this committee’s duty to take the measures to try and curb proliferation efforts in order to maintain international security. This committee will focus on non-proliferation efforts in the Middle East, and it is important to consider which countries possess nuclear technology in the region. Non-proliferation efforts will put further pressure on rogue states to limit and eventually dismantle nuclear programs in the country.

Early Non-Proliferation Efforts

After World War II, a time of hostile relations between the Soviet Union and the United States called the Cold War occupied international relations. The two nuclear weapon states, constantly trying to maintain power over the other, engaged in an arms race throughout the Cold War. In 1986, the total number of nuclear weapons peaked at approximately 70,000 internationally.163 At this time, former United States President, Ronald Reagan, and the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, met at the Reykjavik Summit and agreed to try to reduce the number of weapons.164 This agreement was made because both leaders agreed that nuclear disarmament could contribute positively to both countries and recognized the social and political dangers posed by nuclear proliferation. Despite this diplomatic effort, the Soviet Union and United States still posed massive threats to one another because of their own nuclear stockpiles, and continued disagreements about non-proliferation efforts led to distrust between the two countries. A thaw in relations between the Soviet Union and the United States throughout the late 1980s led to peaceful dialogue among the countries concerning nuclear disarmament. The two remained dedicated to curbing the threat of nuclear weapons and as the end of the Cold War approached in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall five nuclear weapon states began making serious non-proliferation efforts.165 The Soviet Union and the United States were the main facilitators of these efforts, mainly because they had the two largest programs.166 In 1990 the Soviet Union proposed a moratorium, or a suspension, on nuclear testing, to which the United States and the United !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!161 Ibid. 162 Ibid. 163 Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon, “Self-Assured Destruction: The Climate Impacts of Nuclear War,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 68, No. 5 (September 2012): 66. 164 Nikolai Sokov, “Reykjavik Summit: The Legacy and a Lesson for the Future,” The Nuclear Threat Initiative, 1 December 2007, accessed 25 September 2014, http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/reykjavik-summit-legacy/. 165 “Nuclear Testing 1945-Today.” 166 Ibid.


- 30 -

Kingdom both agreed.167 By 1996, the five nuclear-weapon states had ended all nuclear testing, and France had nearly dismantled its entire nuclear program by the end of the 1990s, though it remains the only country of the original five nuclear weapon states to do so.168 At the same time, South Africa willingly dismantled its nuclear weapon program and voluntarily relinquished all weapons under their control.169 Yet the trend of suspending nuclear activity was disrupted in 1998 when Pakistan and India broke the moratorium and conducted nuclear tests.170 Not only was this was a disruption of non-proliferation efforts, but the tests alarmed the international community because of the history of war between the two countries. India conducted tests on 11 and 13 May 1998, and two weeks later Pakistan conducted tests in reaction.171 The international community responded by suspending all foreign military and economic assistance to these countries.172 The sanctions led to a global decrease in nuclear testing and convinced both countries to unilaterally and immediately suspend their nuclear programs. Since 1998, neither India nor Pakistan have conducted any tests.173 Delegates should consider the value of sanctions, as demonstrated by this example. Although the use of sanctions is not supported by all states or even possible under some circumstances in the Middle East, delegates should still keep this example in mind. These early non-proliferation efforts were incredibly significant, representing the first time that countries universally agreed to halt the study and testing of nuclear technology. However, this also showed that countries could easily disregard disarmament efforts. The example of India and Pakistan shows the need for more unified and stronger efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Although states without official nuclear programs have refrained from nuclear activity, it is important to realize that many countries still have significant stockpiles of weapons that are capable of causing severe damage.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty

A major landmark created by the United Nations to promote nuclear non-proliferation was the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT was created to help limit the expansion of nuclear weapons. It was opened for signing in 1968 and was meant to promote international cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology.174 Today, it is considered a long-term treaty used to further the goal of eventual total nuclear disarmament. This treaty is significant because it is the only legally binding commitment to non-proliferation, having been ratified by all five nuclear weapon states.175 Currently, 190 parties have ratified the NPT, making it the most successful international non-

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!167 Ibid. 168 Ibid. 169 Ibid. 170 Ibid. 171 Ibid. 172 Marvin Miller and Lawrence Scheinman, “Israel, India, and Pakistan: Engaging the Non-NPT States in the Nonproliferation Regime,” Arms Control Association, December 2003, accessed 4 August 2014, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/MillerandScheinman. 173 Ibid. 174 “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.” 175 Ibid.


- 31 -

proliferation treaty to date.176 India, Pakistan, and Israel are the only states that have yet to sign the NPT. Despite their apparent lack of nuclear development since 1998, India and Pakistan’s hostility towards non-proliferation poses a threat to international security because they are not legally bound to limit expansion in nuclear technology. The treaty works in tandem with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is responsible for safeguarding articles of the NPT. States declare their nuclear capabilities to the IAEA and work cohesively with the agency to verify that their declaration is true.177 The IAEA inspects countries’ nuclear sites and helps to verify states’ continuing compliance of the NPT. For example, the IAEA monitors uranium levels to ensure that continued nuclear development is only for peaceful purposes. These safeguards were created specifically to help enforce the treaty and are an example of true effectiveness when making sure that countries are actually undergoing non-proliferation efforts.178 The NPT is reviewed every five years to ensure that its standards are relevant to the current global environment.179 In one of the review conferences, the treaty was updated with the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East.180 This resolution encouraged the creation of a NWFZ in the region of the Middle East. It called upon states that have ratified the NPT and states in the Middle East to cooperate together to facilitate the creation of a NWFZ in this region.181 The specific concern for the creation of a NWFZ in the region is because of unguarded nuclear facilities there. In the 1990s, concern was raised during IAEA safety checks at Iraq’s nuclear facilities.182 Safety inspections in 1991 found that Iraq was weaponizing nuclear technology.183 These inspections led to the destruction of facilities manufacturing nuclear weapons.184 The IAEA safeguards have helped to curb the threat of nuclear weapons, particularly in the Middle East. Currently Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center, commonly known as “Dimona”, is not under IAEA safeguards.185 This raises a major concern among the international community and states in the Middle East. Without IAEA safeguards, there is no way of knowing whether or not Israel is developing nuclear weaponry. Unguarded facilities in Israel have contributed to ongoing hostile relations with regional states like Iran. This committee should consider the security implications of unguarded nuclear facilities in this region and what work can be done to enact change while respecting national sovereignty. The NPT has become an acclaimed treaty. All states in the Middle East region besides Israel are parties to the NPT, meaning that regional support for the establishment of a NWFZ does exist.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!176 Ibid. 177 Ibid. 178 Ibid. 179 Ibid. 180 NPT/CONF.1995/32 (Part I), Annex, “Resolution on the Middle East,” 17 April - 12 May 1995, accessed 18 July 2014, http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/1995-NPT/pdf/Resolution_MiddleEast.pdf. 181 Ibid. 182 “Nuclear Capabilities of Iraq,” International Atomic Energy Agency, 1992, accessed 5 September 2014, https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/event.html. 183 Ibid. 184 Ibid. 185 Chen Kane and Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, “Middle East Issues,” James Martin Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, 2013, accessed 5 September 2014, http://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/130911_cns_iaea_factsheet_middle_east.pdf.


- 32 -

Israel remains ambiguous about its nuclear weapon status, and the country continues to refuse to sign and abide by the treaty. To the Middle East region and international community, Israel’s indirectness is certainly a concern. As the most prolific treaty on non-proliferation, the NPT’s implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East is a testament toward the growing focus on working towards the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

The second major non-proliferation effort was the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). As hostilities were beginning to thaw after the Cold War, the UN founded the Conference on Disarmament (CD), a committee that works closely with DISEC, and began discussing the CTBT in 1992.186 The CD began addressing nuclear non-proliferation efforts to begin regulating all Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). The international treaty prohibits nuclear explosions on Earth and established a global monitoring system to track any nuclear explosion whether in air, land, water, or underground.187 Passing the CTBT was a positive sign that the international community could work peacefully towards stemming nuclear-proliferation. Negotiations on this treaty continued from 1994-1996, and it was finally submitted to the General Assembly and opened for signing on 24 September 1996.188 Currently the United States, Iran, DPRK, Pakistan, and China are among 34 states that have yet to ratify the treaty.189 This is significant, as all of these countries have nuclear weapon programs. In particular, Iran has a history of hostility towards non-proliferation measures, and the country’s resistance to ratifying the CTBT is cause for concern for the UN and for this committee. The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) was established in November 1996 as a part of the treaty.190 Its objective is to ensure that the initiatives in the CTBT are achieved. With help from the international community, the CTBTO has conducted on-site inspections and created an International Monitoring System (IMS) to effectively monitor nuclear explosions.191 Together, these resolutions have helped effectively curb the threat of nuclear technology, working to ensure international peace and security.

Established Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones

For this topic, the ultimate goal of this committee is to establish a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East. Thus, it is important that delegates understand the nature of these zones and the history of their establishment in other regions. By understanding this, DISEC can effectively consider how an NWFZ could be established in the Middle East. An NWFZ is an area recognized by the General Assembly in which any group of states, in the “free exercises of their sovereignty,” establishes a zone completely absent of nuclear weapons.192 NWFZs are established to gradually “delegitimize” the use of nuclear weapons, beginning at a regional level. These zones are

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!186 “The Treaty” CTBTO, accessed 13 October 2014, http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/. 187 Ibid. 188 Ibid. 189 Ibid. 190 Ibid. 191 Ibid. 192 “Nuclear Weapon Free Zones,” UNODA, 2013, accessed 20 May 2014, http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/.


- 33 -

intended to help complement and reinforce previous resolutions such as the NPT and CTBT. NWFZs are under an international verification system that guarantees that states are complying with the obligations of the established NWFZ. On 30 April 1999, the UN Disarmament Commission created a series of guidelines to help efficiently create NWFZs.193 These guidelines state that NWFZs should be created regionally by a group of states exercising their national sovereignty, and that NWFZs should be created with distinct regional issues in mind. They also mandate that the nuclear-weapon states be consulted when the NWFZ is being created in order to facilitate the ratification process.194 Lastly, it states that NWFZs should not prevent the exploration of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.195 The UN regulates NWFZs by working closely with the IAEA to help monitor a state’s nuclear capabilities.196 States must declare all nuclear activity to the IAEA and then work cohesively to establish a system of verification through on-site inspections conducted by the IAEA. These inspections help to create trust among states and further aid the UN in keeping nuclear development peaceful. To this day there are five established NWFZs, which include 113 states.197 These are meant to not only prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in these countries but also prevent the use of nuclear weapons against them, guaranteed by the five nuclear weapon states. The concept of establishing NWFZs has existed since the creation of nuclear technology. In 1956, the Soviet Union attempted to create a NWFZ in Central Europe with the help of the General Assembly. This was the first attempt in history to create a NFWZ.198 A similar proposal was brought forward by Poland, called the Rapacki Plan.199 This proposal included a ban on possessing, creating, or stockpiling nuclear weapons and prohibited any nuclear attack against states in the region.200 While both of these proposals failed, the first successful NWFZ was established in the uninhabited Antarctic on 1 December 1959.201 The region was established as a peaceful zone under the Antarctic Treaty and was one of the beginning efforts towards curbing nuclear growth. Despite the simultaneous expansion of nuclear technology, this treaty signified an eventual movement toward nuclear non-proliferation. In 1967, The Treaty of Tlatelolco created a denuclearized region in Latin America and the Caribbean.202 The Treaty of Tlatelolco was mainly facilitated by Brazil and Argentina.203 This is

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!193 Ibid. 194 Ibid. 195 Ibid. 196 Ibid. 197 Randy Rydell, “Towards a Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone,” UNODA, Last modified 22 March 2011, accessed 25 August 2014, http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/speeches/oda-ny/rydell/2011-03-22_RR_Peace_Boat_Toward_a_Middle_East_Nuclear.pdf?version=1. 198 Gawdat Bahgat, “A WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East?” Middle East Policy 20, No. 1 (Spring 2013): 30, accessed 18 July 2014, http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/wmd-free-zone-middle-east?. 199 Ibid. 200 Ibid. 201 “Antarctic Treaty.” 202 N.A.J Taylor, Joseph A. Camilleri and Michael Hamel-Green, "Dialogue on Middle East Biological, Nuclear, and Chemical Weapons Disarmament: Constraints and Opportunities," Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38, no. 1 (February 2013): 78.


- 34 -

significant because both countries were in a position to potentially develop nuclear technology. Despite the allure of nuclear technology, the two worked together to help move towards a more peaceful future. As a regional treaty, it was only signed and ratified by states in the area.204 However, it was still met with opposition because some were hesitant to ratify the treaty and implement it within their country. For many countries in this region, the appeal of nuclear technology was still strong, and this affected their willingness to ratify the treaty. In order to address some states’ hesitation with the NWFZ, the governments of each country were allowed to decide when they would implement the treaty in their legislature.205 This means that although the treaty was regional, each country entered it into force individually. This implementation method was an effective way of helping deal with tension within the region and inevitably led to the complete ratification of the treaty within the region, making it the first of its kind toward non-proliferation. Delegates should consider the success of this treaty as a means for establishing a similar one in the Middle East. The next NWFZ to be established was in the South Pacific region. The South Pacific states have experienced the most nuclear activity with the majority of nuclear testing taking place in this region. The close proximity to nuclear testing and the negative effects of radioactive contamination in the oceans led to New Zealand’s proposal of a NWFZ in the South Pacific in 1975.206 The proposal was endorsed by the General Assembly that same year. A lack of interest halted serious progression, until Australia’s renewed interest in 1983 led to the creation of a draft treaty for the establishment of this NWFZ.207 Member states in the region worked with the United Kingdom and the United States to facilitate the creation of the NWFZ.208 They used past treaties like the Treaty of Tlatelco to create a NWFZ best suited to their region. On 6 August 1985, the Treaty of Rarotonga was signed by 13 states in the South Pacific and established the second NWFZ in the world.209 Each state ratified this treaty separately within the next two years. The political situation and general consensus among states in this region allowed the treaty to be created efficiently and peacefully. The relationship among states contributed toward another major step in non-proliferation. The success these two regions had in establishing a NWFZ led to the creation of five total regional NWFZs. The first committee should consider how such success was achieved, fostering a productive environment for the creation of a NWFZ, and how this can be applied to the Middle East.

Past Conflict in the Middle East

For this topic, it is crucial to understand past conflict in the region of the Middle East before considering the creation of a NFWZ. The Middle East encompasses the countries and territories of Turkey, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Israel, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Jordan, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Countries in this region have experienced more conflict than any other geographical region since

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!203 “Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean,” UNODA, 2013, accessed 18 July 2014, http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/tlatelolco. 204 Ibid. 205 Taylor, Camilleri and Hamel-Green, "Dialogue on Middle East Biological, Nuclear, and Chemical Weapons Disarmament: Constraints and Opportunities," 78. 206 “South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty of Rarotonga,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, 2014, accessed 16 August 2014, http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/south-pacific-nuclear-free-zone-spnfz-treaty-rarotonga/. 207 Ibid. 208 Ibid. 209 Ibid.


- 35 -

1945.210 In fact, nearly half of the world’s armed conflicts have taken place in this region.211 As a result, these states remain extremely militarized in preparation for strikes and for defense. This militarization has led these countries to mass-produce weapons and stockpile them. For years, this trend has concerned the international community, and discussions for creating a NFWZ soared after the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Historically, the first proposal of a NWFZ in the Middle East occurred in 1974.212 In this year the General Assembly approved the resolution “Establishment of a Nuclear-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East,” which endorsed the goal of establishing a NWFZ.213 This was the first major resolution the UN produced on the subject and was originally proposed by Iran and later co-sponsored by Egypt.214 It calls upon states to move towards the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East.215 This resolution inevitably became a permanent part of the General Assembly's agenda, and shows a general consensus toward the support of a NWFZ in the Middle East from the UN. 216 However, a lack of interest and regional political strife among states has halted serious efforts to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East. Steps toward peacefully establishing a NWFZ in the region include inviting all states in the region to sign the NPT, place their nuclear activities under IAEA safeguards, and refrain from developing and testing nuclear weapons. The Resolution on the Middle East reaffirms the general consensus that establishing a NWFZ in the region continues to be of the utmost importance for non-proliferation efforts. However, disagreements among countries in the region continue to disrupt serious measures toward establishing the zone. In particular, one significant obstacle in establishing a NWFZ is Iran’s discontinued support. Originally, Iran’s support for an NWFZ in the 1970s was largely encouraged by the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi; he had a good relationship with the United States and hoped to enhance Iran’s leadership role in the region.217 By supporting this zone, he hoped that his country's role in the Middle East would increase. However, in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran, under Ayatollah Khomeini’s leadership, replaced the monarchy of Iran. After this Iranian Revolution, not only did the leadership of Iran’s government change, but also its administration's position on nuclear technology.218 Iran had already begun building the Bushehr nuclear reactor in the 1970s, but production was halted because of the Iranian Revolution.219 Building resumed in 1984 under Khomeini's instruction.220 Iran partnered with Russia during the construction, and much of the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!210 Ibid. 211 Ibid. 212 Alireza Nader, “Iran and a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Middle East,” Arms Control Association, September 2011, accessed 4 August 2014, https://www.armscontrol.org/2011_09/Iran_and_a_Nuclear-Weapon-Free_Middle_East%20%20%20%20. 213 A/9693, “Establishment of a Nuclear-Free-Zone in the Region of the Middle East,” 15 July 1974, accessed 17 August 2014, https://disarmament-library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/66fc845450c9fa3b85257775005b01e1/76555912b65c9f3a85257832005d1b0e/$FILE/A-9693%20and%20Add.1-3.pdf. 214 Nader, “Iran and a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Middle East.” 215 A/9693, “Establishment of a Nuclear-Free-Zone in the Region of the Middle East.” 216 Ibid. 217 Nader, “Iran and a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Middle East.” 218 Ibid. 219 Ibid. 220 Ibid.


- 36 -

nuclear plant’s design is Russian-made.221 In 2012, Bushehr became a fully operating nuclear power plant. It is clear that these developments halted Iran’s original support for the 1974 UN Resolution. Suspicious nuclear activities in the Middle East seem to be the main point of contention surrounding the establishment of these regions. It is speculated that Iran has uranium enrichment and potential plutonium production. In 2002, the IAEA discovered undeclared nuclear facilities in the country that were in potential violation of the established safeguards.222 Throughout the next decade, Iran was vague about its nuclear weapon capability. Such ambiguity led to a contentious relationship between Iran and the international community. Iran’s failure to comply with IAEA standards led to the United States enforcing extreme economic sanctions upon the country until recently, which will be discussed below.223

CURRENT STATUS

Current UN Action in the Middle East

On 8 July 2013, during its sixty-eighth session, the General Assembly reached the conclusion that establishing a NWFZ in the Middle East would contribute positively to international peace.224 Despite these sentiments, nuclear weapons in the Middle East remain unregulated by the IAEA and NWFZs. The Secretary-General is still pursuing a NWFZ in the Middle East and has called upon all concerned parties to help facilitate eventual peace in this region.225 Despite a history of hostile relations between Iran and the international community, Iran’s position on the proliferation of nuclear weapons has begun to thaw within the past years. Iran has worked on developing a nuclear technology program since the 1980’s, but the government has always stated it is only intended for peaceful purposes.226 Despite conflict in the past over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, on 24 November 2013, in what has become known as the Geneva Agreement, Iran cooperated with all five nuclear-weapon states in an agreement to curb their nuclear progression.227 On 23 May 2014, the IAEA reported that Iran had not progressed their nuclear technology at any of their facilities.228 This effort has facilitated growing trust between Iran and the nuclear weapon states, which have lessened sanctions against Iran. However, Iran’s contentious relationship with countries like the United States persists. The First Committee should continue to support monitoring efforts in Iran. However, it should also be noted that Iran’s compliance with IAEA efforts is a significant step in the right direction.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!221 “Nuclear Power in Iran,” World Nuclear Association, last modified 24 May 2014, accessed 19 July 2014, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Iran/. 222 Ibid. 223 Ibid. 224 A/RES/68/124 (Part 1), “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East Report of the Secretary General,” last modified 8 July 2013, accessed 20 May 2014, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/124%20(Part%20I). 225 Ibid. 226 “Nuclear Power in Iran.” 227 Ibid. 228 Ibid.


- 37 -

The IAEA, Iran, and the five nuclear weapon states have worked together recently to try and reach comprehensive agreements pertaining to the non-proliferation of Iran’s nuclear program. In August 2014, Director-General of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, and Iranian officials met to discuss curbing Iran’s nuclear activities.229 This meeting was successful as Iran agreed to comply with UN inspections during the investigation of suspected nuclear weapon activity in the country. While the IAEA and Iran’s meeting was successful, the nuclear weapon states and Germany, or the P5+1, failed to come to a comprehensive agreement with Iran intending to curb its nuclear activities by the 20 July 2014 deadline.230 The countries failed to agree upon non-proliferation efforts and this has led to an agreed upon extension until 24 November 2014.231 If Iran works with the P5+1, the six major powers agree to ease economic sanctions that have debilitated the country's economy.232 These talks and agreements are major steps toward the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East. Currently Iran’s changing attitude is evidence that creating a NWFZ in the Middle East is not as unattainable a goal as previously thought. Pressure from the international community continues to push major non-proliferation efforts in the region forward and it will be the responsibility of this committee to work towards finally achieving this goal.

Israel and Egypt

As mentioned, the country of Israel has been heavily involved in international conflict since its establishment in 1948.233 Territorial disputes between native Palestinians and Israelis have led to decades of instability and violence in the area, most recently in August 2014. After 2,100 Palestinian casualties and nearly 70 Israeli deaths, negotiations finally ended the weeks of fighting.234 Additional conflict between Syria and Israel over the past decade has contributed to tension in the area as well. While Israel has been hesitant to enter into another war with Syria, violence between the two countries continues. Furthermore, the continued Arab-Israeli conflict has instilled insecurities in Israeli political and social life. This has led to Israel having a highly innovative and capable military. Israel remains a leader in the world’s military exports, and is widely known to have extensive WMD capabilities.235 As a leading military power in the world, they are capable of developing nuclear weaponry and maintain policies that would support the idea that nuclear weapons could positively contribute to their national safety. Continuous instability in the region is the primary reason for Israel to potentially have developed nuclear weapons. Whether this claim is true or not, it has certainly created distrust among other states in the region. On 3 October 2013, Israel officials released a statement reiterating

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!229 Fredrik Dahl and Mehrdad Balali, “U.N. Nuclear Chief Upbeat After 'Useful' Iran Visit,” Reuters, 17 August 2014, accessed 28 August 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/17/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0GH09N20140817. 230 Ibid. 231 Ibid. 232 Ibid. 233 Nidal Al-Mughrabi and Luke Baker, “What’s in the Gaza Peace Deal,” Reuters, 26 August 2014, accessed 25 August 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/26/us-mideast-gaza-ceasefire-details-idUSKBN0GQ1XQ20140826. 234 Ibid. 235 Associated Press, “Israel Scoops Up Military Drone Sales,” Herald Net, last modified 14 February 2014, accessed 5 July 2014. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140214/BIZ/140219543.


- 38 -

their consensus on an eventual NWFZ in the Middle East.236 However, they note that a lack of peace within the region is halting the process. Israel has avowed continued support for confidence building measures among states in the region. For this committee, it is important to understand that the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict is a major factor halting the establishment of a NWFZ. During what is now known as the Arab Spring, Egypt experienced a political revolution in early 2011, ending in late 2013. Despite the political turmoil within its territory, Egypt has remained a leader in the movement for the establishment of a NWFZ. An original supporter of the 1974 UN resolution, Egypt is also the largest sponsor of a NWFZ in the Middle East. Egypt recently participated in the 2013 Geneva Convention in hopes of nuclear talks with other member states. The Geneva Convention was held to prepare for the 2015 NPT review and the convention yielded some success, such as the Geneva Agreement with Iran.237 However, the delegation of Egypt was hoping to further negotiations over the implementation of a NWFZ in the region.238 The lack of serious discussion on this matter led Egypt to walk out of the global nuclear talks, as it felt that some member states were “obstructing” the goal.239 After 15 years of inaction, Egypt feels that it is time for member states to take serious measures in order to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East. All of these countries mentioned, namely Israel, Iran, and Egypt, are some of the most important countries in the region concerning the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East. The recent actions taken by these countries is important to consider as the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East will have to be a regional decision.

BLOC ANALYSIS

The following bloc positions are divided by current nuclear status: nuclear weapon states, countries developing nuclear technologies, and countries with established NFWZs. Delegates should keep in mind that proposed solutions should reflect their country’s policy toward the Middle East, not of their own country’s nuclear policy. Nuclear weapon states are obligated to help maintain non-proliferation measures and ensure international security surrounding these weapons. Countries in the Middle East are currently working towards establishing a NWFZ, but they have disagreed over issues such as transparency, conflicting ideology, and political strife. Countries with established NWFZs can offer unique perspectives toward the topic as they have already successfully been through the process. Countries must determine which bloc they belong to and how their policies reflect the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East.

Nuclear-Weapon States

The five nuclear weapon states, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France, have always contributed to non-proliferation efforts. In recent years China has played an active role in facilitating peace in the Middle East. China has done so by encouraging peaceful political dialogue

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!236 “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East: Report of the Secretary General. Response by the State of Israel,” UNODA, last modified 3 October 2013, accessed 20 May 2014, http://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Israel_Submission_Est_of_ME_NWFZ_3OCT2013.pdf. 237 “Egypt Walks Out of Nuclear Talks in Geneva,” Al Jazeera, 30 April 2013, accessed 28 August 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/04/201342922453324367.html. 238 Ibid. 239 Ibid.


- 39 -

among countries in the region to settle territorial and political disputes. While China is not a part of a NWFZ, the country fully believes that establishing NWFZs contribute positively toward non-proliferation efforts. Since 1974 the Chinese government has voted for all resolutions supporting the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East and feels strongly that the nuclear issue in the Islamic Republic of Iran should be solved peacefully through diplomatic negotiations.240 The country also encourages Israel to become a party to the NPT and place their nuclear facilities under the IAEA’s safeguards.241 China is dedicated to achieving long-term peace to the region and would like to work with the international community to further efforts to establish a NWFZ in the Middle East. Additionally, Russia has expressed continued support for regional dialogue among states in the Middle East.242 Similarly, France fully supports the plan to create a NWFZ in the Middle East. France believes in taking efforts to help facilitate peaceful discussions among countries in the region. Similar to China, France also feels that finding a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute greatly to the establishment of a NWFZ in the region.243 The United Kingdom and the United States express similar sentiments of support among continued dialogue among states in the Middle East region. Combined, all of these nuclear weapon states have a great responsibility of maintaining international security, and this involves facilitating non-proliferation movements. Since the beginning of the nuclear era, all five nuclear-weapon states have remained heavily involved in non-proliferation efforts and have supported resolutions for the facilitation of a NWFZ in the Middle East since the 1970s. Markedly, the states in these regions were involved in the creation of previous NWFZs, such as those in Asia and Latin America. Furthermore, these five will continue supporting countries in the region and consider what diplomatic measures can be taken to help facilitate the creation of a NWFZ in the Middle East.

Countries Developing Nuclear Technology Capabilities

Countries that maintain developing nuclear technology capabilities include all states that either have established nuclear power plants or are in the process of developing them. This includes states in the Middle East and European Union. The current contention stems from the Middle East. This conflicted region has states that express major support for a NWFZ, such as Egypt. On the other hand, other states in this region are against the establishment of a NWFZ. As aforementioned, Israel

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!240 NPT/CONF.2010/32, “Steps to Advance the Middle East Peace Process and to Promote the Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East,” United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine, last modified 4 May 2010, accessed 25 August 2014, http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1DA9D0801D0E6BE585257743004E35CA. 241 Ibid. 242 NPT/CONF/.2015/PC.III/17, “Statement by the Head of the Delegation of the Russian Federation, Director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, M.I. Uliyanov, at the Third Meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on Measures Taken by the Russian Federation as Regards Action 5,20 and 21 Contained in the Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference,” Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, last modified 25 April 2014, accessed 25 August 2014, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=NPT/CONF.2015/PC.III/17. 243 NPT/CONF/.2015/PC.III/14, “Report Submitted by France Under Actions 5,20 and 21 of the Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 25 April 2014, accessed 25 August 2014, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=NPT/CONF.2015/PC.III/14.


- 40 -

has yet to ratify the CTBT and created regional tension, prolonging the establishment of a NWFZ. In 2013 in a response to the Secretary-General, Israel noted their support for an eventual NWFZ in the Middle East and believes in the continuation of confidence building measures.244 The complexity of Israel’s situation as well as other states in the area must be considered in order to begin creating a NWFZ in the Middle East. While Arab-Israeli contention runs high, it is important for state delegations to remain committed to the goal at hand. Additionally, speculation surrounding Iran’s nuclear intentions has created a major point of conflict in the region. And countries like Iran should consider what measures they can take to help further the progression of a NWFZ in the region, such as complete transparency with the IAEA and a continuation of political dialogue with member states. Overall, the lack of security in these regions contributes to the hesitation among certain states to establish a NWFZ. Many of these states including Yemen are looking to develop their nuclear programs further. It will be crucial for these states to consider ratifying the CTBT and work with the IAEA to further build confidence in the region. For example, countries in the Middle East, such as Jordan and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have worked closely with nuclear power states in building their nuclear technology program.245 Others within this bloc will also consider ratifying the CTBT and should consider what measures they can take specifically towards establishing a NWFZ in the Middle East, as well as what they can contribute regionally to the resolution. Many states in the European Union either currently have nuclear technology capabilities or are developing them. Typically states that are either developing or possessing nuclear technology are moving towards non-proliferation efforts. This is because IAEA safeguards regulate the majority of these facilities. There is a consensus among states in the European Union (EU) against the proliferation of any nuclear weapons.246 All EU states, including the nuclear weapon states France and the United Kingdom, have ratified the NPT and CTBT and suggest any states that have not to do so, as this is seen as a confidence building measure especially in the Middle East.247 States in the EU recognize difficulties facing the establishment of a NWFZ, but they firmly believe that it will greatly contribute to regional and international security. The EU encourages states to attend peace talks and try to efficiently contribute to the process. Overall, countries developing nuclear capabilities should comply to the IAEA and ensure their nuclear programs are peaceful. These countries will continue to support a NWFZ in the Middle East and must consider how they can help facilitate peaceful relations among states in the Middle East region.

Countries with Established NWFZs

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!244 “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East: Report of the Secretary General. Response by the State of Israel.” 245 “Nuclear Power in the United Arab Emirates,” World Nuclear Association, last modified April 2014, accessed 25 August 2014, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Arab-Emirates/. 246 GA/DIS/3459, “Attempts to Further Mass Destruction Weapon-Free Zone in Middle East Falter Amid Seemingly Insoluble Disagreements, Speakers Tell First Committee,” General Assembly, last modified 16 October 2012, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gadis3459.doc.htm. 247 Ibid.


- 41 -

Five regions and 113 countries have seen the creation and peaceful facilitation of NWFZ.248 These zones were formed under several treaties, usually created regionally and with the help of other power states and the UN. The Treaty of Tlatelolco established the first NWFZ in the world in Latin America. While the treaty lacked support initially, member states in the region worked together to gain support leading to the eventual regional ratification. Similarly, the Treaty of Rarotonga that established a NWFZ in the South Pacific region lacked support initially. Others, including the Treaty of Bangkok, saw similar contention.249 Any country in a NWFZ should examine their own past NWFZ treaties as useful guidelines when establishing new zones. States within these regions are in a unique position because of the success they have had with the ratification and implementation of NWFZs. These states should consider what has positively attributed to the success of their NWFZs despite obstacles, such as regional dialogue and support campaigns. While keeping in mind that states without nuclear technology transfer into a NWFZ more easily, this bloc must analyze what efforts contributed to the treaties could benefit the current situation. As all countries in these regions have signed and ratified NWFZs, they feel as though the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East will contribute to international peace. Africa has recently established a NWFZ within their continent. 37 African States have signed the Treaty of Pelindaba, although not all states have ratified them.250 Member States in this region should consider how they have created a successful NWFZ in a region that suffers from a weaker social and economic situation. Egypt is among the states that have yet to ratify the treaty. Egypt continues to lead in denuclearization efforts in the Middle East, and if they chose to ratify the Pelindaba Treaty, it could be seen as a major confidence building measure. Other countries in this region, like Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, and other African states have not ratified the Treaty of Pelindaba, showing that the debate continues regarding denuclearization.251 Countries in this region face issues like unstable political systems, weak infrastructure, and armed conflict similar to the Middle East. Despite these issues, African states were able to successfully draft a treaty establishing a NWFZ that was applicable to the continent. African states could provide a beneficial perspective for Middle Eastern states as they have more in common politically and socially than other regions. Member states of the 2009 Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia (CANWFZ) will also play a significant role in this discussion.252 Countries in this region could help in facilitating peaceful dialogue among countries in the Middle East, as they offer a unique perspective due to their experience and geographical proximity to the region.

COMMITTEE MISSION

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!248 Rydell, “Towards a Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.” 249 “Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (SEANWFZ) Treaty (Bangkok Treaty),”NTI, 2014, accessed 25 August 2014, http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/southeast-asian-nuclear-weapon-free-zone-seanwfz-treaty-bangkok-treaty/. 250 “African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba),” UNODA, 2013, accessed 25 August, 2014, http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/pelindaba. 251 Ibid. 252 “Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia (CANWFZ).” UNODA, 2013, accessed 25 August, 2014, http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/canwfz.


- 42 -

As this issue is highly contentious in the Middle East, establishing a Nuclear-Free Zone must be done in a way that is peaceful and does not infringe upon any states’ sovereignty. All Member States of this committee must consider what actions need to be taken in order to peacefully create a NFWZ in the Middle East. A lack of dialogue in the past between states in the region has contributed to the contention surrounding the issue. This means that debate will have to be focused regionally, as seen in the past when previously establishing NWFZs. On 30 April 1999 the UN Disarmament Commission suggested a series of guidelines to help efficiently create NWFZs.253 This commission encourages Member States to work among other states freely within their region and pursue NWFZs in order to reach legally binding resolutions. The fragility of the situation makes it important for delegates to consider past efforts taken to previously disarm nuclear weapons. Delegates should also keep in mind that NWFZs are meant to eliminate the threat of nuclear warfare and that they should not prevent the pursuit of peaceful nuclear technology. The lack of transparency surrounding nuclear weapon programs in the Middle East will make it difficult to facilitate a successful NWFZ. Additionally, states approaching the topic with and ambiguous approach about their nuclear capability will need to be addressed in order to create a NWFZ in the region. Israel’s current stance illuminates an increasing need for dialogue between countries in the Middle East. However, Iran’s recent compliance with the IAEA suggests that a NWFZ could be easier to facilitate than was previously thought. Delegates should also keep in mind the current social status of the Middle East. This region has recently dealt with social uprisings and armed conflict. It is important to keep in mind a resolution will need to be regionally specific in order to best suit each country and ensure the conflict is not furthered. The first committee must work diligently towards the establishment of a NWFZ in the region done in a way that regards the fragility of the region.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!253 “Nuclear Weapon Free Zones.”


- 43 -

RESEARCH AND PREPARATION QUESTIONS

As mentioned in the Note on Research and Preparation, delegates must answer each of these questions in their position papers.

TOPIC A

1. Does your country have a UAV program? If not, is it looking to develop one? 2. In what ways has your country been affected by the use of UAVs? 3. Is there any specific legislation in your country regarding the use of UAVs? 4. What actions can Member States take to foster a peaceful environment for the use of

UAVs? 5. Does your country support the use of UAVs for military or non-military purposes? 6. How could your country benefit in any way from the use of non-military UAVs? 7. Do your country’s policies support or condemn the use of military UAVs?

TOPIC B

1. Is your country a signing party to the NPT, CTBT, or other non-proliferation resolutions? If no, why not?

2. Is your country currently producing nuclear technology, or has it historically done so? 3. Is your country in a NWFZ? If so what were the challenges when establishing the

NWFZ and how did your country work to overcome them? 4. What is your country’s policy toward non-proliferation efforts in the Middle East? 5. What does your country feel are the primary obstacles impeding the creation of this

zone? 6. What measures do you feel need to be taken to peacefully establish a NWFZ in the

Middle East? 7. Are there any preexisting standards or methods that the committee should utilize to

ensure the successful establishment of this NWFZ?


- 44 -

IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS

TOPIC A

Billiterri, Thomas J. “Drone Warfare.” CQ Researcher 20, No. 28 (6 August 2010): 653-676. This comprehensive journal article discusses general history, ethicality and future use of drone warfare. Dobbing, Mary and Chris Cole. “Israel and the Drone Wars: Examining Israel’s Production, Use

and Proliferation of UAVs.” Drone Wars UK. Last modified January 2014. Accessed 6 July 2014. http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/israel-and-the-drone-wars.pdf.

This article specifically analyzes Israel’s recent use of UAVs. "Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States." Council on Foreign Relations. Last

modified 26 December 1933. http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention- rights-duties-states/p15897.

This convention discusses the definition and rights of States. Sanders, Ralph. “An Israeli Military Innovation: UAVs.” Joint Force Quarterly. No.33 (2003): 114-118. This article specifically focuses on the history of Israel’s UAV program and their involvement in the international development of this technology.

TOPIC B

A/RES/67/28. “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East.” Last modified 3 December 2012. Accessed 20 May 2014. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/28.

This DISEC resolution discusses creating a NWFZ within the Middle East region. “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East: Report of the

Secretary General. Response by the State of Israel.” United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Last modified 3 October 2013. Accessed 20 May 2014. http://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Israel_Submission_Est_of_ME_NWFZ_3OCT2013.pdf.

Israel responds to the Report of the Secretary General and explains why they believe it is difficult establishing a NWFZ in the Middle East but express their support for it. GA/DIS/3459. “Attempts to Further Mass Destruction Weapon-Free Zone in Middle East Falter

Amid Seemingly Insoluble Disagreements, Speakers Tell First Committee.” General Assembly. 16 October 2012. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gadis3459.doc.htm.

This article summarizes statements of member states on the facilitation of peace and a NWFZ in the Middle East. NPT/CONF.1995/32 (Part I). “Resolution on the Middle East.” 17 April-12 May 1995. Accessed

18 July 2014. http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/1995-NPT/pdf/Resolution_MiddleEast.pdf.


- 45 -

This UN resolution is focused on creating a NWFZ in the Middle East in hopes of creating peace. NPT/CONF.2010/32. “Steps to Advance the Middle East Peace Process and to Promote the

Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East.” United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. Last modified 4 May 2010. Accessed 25 August 2014. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1DA9D0801D0E6BE585257743004E35CA.

This report summarizes the efforts China has taken to create peace in the Middle East.


- 46 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

COMMITTEE HISTORY AND SIMULATION

A/C.1/60/INF/1. “Documents of the First Committee: Sixtieth Session.” United Nations General Assembly. 21 September 2005.

This document is a quick resource for documents relevant to the work and mandate of DISEC, the First Committee. A/C.1/65/PV.19. "First Committee: 19th Meeting." United Nations General Assembly. 26 October

2010. This is an overview of the 19th meeting of DISEC, during which the question of nuclear proliferation was addressed. "Chapter IV: The General Assembly." Charter of the United Nations. Accessed 16 May 2011.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter4.shtml. This key document explains the structure of the General Assembly. "Disarmament: The Biological Weapons Convention." United Nations Office at Geneva. Accessed 17

May 2011. http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/04FBBDD6315AC720C1257180004B1B2F?OpenDocument.

This is a copy of the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention, which supplements the 1925 Geneva Protocol. "Main Committees." General Assembly of the United Nations. Accessed 16 May 2011.

http://www.un.org/en/ga/maincommittees/index.shtml. This website provides an overview of the General Assembly Main Committees, including DISEC. "UNODA: Overview." United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Strengthening Peace and Security

Through Disarmament. Accessed 17 May 2011. http://www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/GA.shtml.

The official website for the UN Office on Disarmament Affairs briefly explains their work and mandate.

TOPIC A

UN Sources

Emmerson, Ben. “Pakistan: Statement by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism.” United Nations Human Rights. Last modified 14 March 2013. Accessed 22 May 2014. http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13148&LangID=E.

Ben Emmerson releases a statement on his talks with Pakistan 11-13 March about the U.S. UAV strikes in their country.


- 47 -

Harriman, Lindsey, Joseph Muhlhausen. “A New Eye in the Sky: Eco-drones.” United Nations Environment Programme. Last modified May 2013. Accessed 22 May 2014. http://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=100.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in this article discusses the peaceful uses of drones. Other Sources

“A Brief History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.” New York Times, 2014. Accessed 29 July 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/studentactivity/20090109gazahistory.pdf.

This article gives a brief history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Associated Press. “Israel Scoops Up Military Drone Sales.” Herald Net. Last modified 14 February

2014. Accessed 5 July 2014. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140214/BIZ/140219543. This article discusses Israel’s foreign military sales of UAVs and how they had surpassed the United States in total of sales. Billiterri, Thomas J. “Drone Warfare.” CQ Researcher 20, No. 28 (6 August 2010): 653-676. This comprehensive journal article discusses general history, ethicality and future use of drone warfare. Byman, Daniel. “Why Drones Work: The Case for Washington's Weapon of Choice.” Brookings

Institution. July/August 2013. Accessed 29 July. http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/06/17-drones-obama-weapon-choice.

This article discusses the positive outcomes the United States’ UAV program yields. Coren, J. Michael. “Brazilian Eyes in the Sky Focus on the Disappearing Rainforest.” Fast Company.

26 October 2011. Accessed 29 July 2014. http://www.fastcompany.com/1790901/brazilian-eyes-sky-focus-disappearing-rainforest.

This article discusses Brazil’s use of unarmed UAVs in their country. Dobbing, Mary and Chris Cole. “Israel and the Drone Wars: Examining Israel’s Production, Use

and Proliferation of UAVs.” Drone Wars UK. Last modified January 2014. Accessed 6 July 2014. http://dronewarsuk.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/israel-and-the-drone-wars.pdf.

This article specifically analyzes Israel’s recent use of UAVs. Kim, Tae-gyu. “3rd North Korean Drone Found.” Korea Times. 6 April 2014. Accessed 29 June 2014.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic. This article discusses the discovery of a third North Korean UAV in South Korea’s airspace. Kreps, Sarah and John Kaag. “The Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Contemporary Conflict: A

Legal and Ethical Analysis.” Polity 44, No.2 (2012): 260–285. This journal article discusses the legal and ethical challenges to UAV usage internationally, and discusses statistics. “Live Updates: Operation Protective Edge, Day 16.” Haaretz. Last modified 23 July 2014. Accessed

29 July 2014. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.606735. This article discusses the conflict between Israel and Gaza in July 2014.


- 48 -

"Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States." Council on Foreign Relations. Last modified 26 December 1933. Accessed 10 August 2014. http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention- rights-duties-states/p15897.

This convention discusses the definition and rights of States. Niayesh, Umid. “Iran to Hold its First UAV Military Exercises.” Trend News Agency. 12 April 2014.

Accessed 29 July 2014. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/.

This article discusses Iran’s plans to expand their UAV program. “North Korea Profile.” BBC. Last modified 26 March 2014. Accessed 29 July 2014.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-15278612. This article discusses the history of conflict in the DPRK. Obama, Barack. “Obama’s Speech on Drone Policy.” New York Times. 23 May 2013. Accessed 22

May 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html.

In his speech, President Obama addresses the continuation of the U.S. drone campaign against terrorists and the successes and failures of this program. “Pakistan Based Think Tank Says 27 US Drones Kill 181 in 2013.” BBC Worldwide Monitoring. Last

modified 2 January 2014. Accessed 28 June 2014. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/.

This article discusses the impact the American government’s drone program has had on Pakistani civilians. “Pentagon to Make Huge Investments.” Geospatial Today. 23 April 2014. Accessed 29 July 2014.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic. This article discusses the United States’ UAV budget for 2015. “President Jonathan Unveils Nigeria's First Locally-Made Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.” BBC Worldwide

Monitoring. 18 December 2013. Accessed 29 June 2014. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic.

The Nigerian Air Force built its first UAV meant for military use and other beneficial applications in their country. “Research and Markets: The Global Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Market Expected to Grow to

$8,351.11 million by 2018.” Reuters. 28 February 2014. Accessed 24 September 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/research-and-markets-idUSnBw285690a+100+BSW20140228.

This article reports growth figures for the UAV market internationally, reported from an external source. Rettman, Andrew. “Seven EU States Create Military Drone ‘Club’.” EU Observer. 20 November

2013. Accessed 3 September 2014, http://euobserver.com/defence/122167. This article discusses the choice of seven EU states to multilaterally develop their UAV programs.


- 49 -

Rogers, Simon. “Drones by Country: Who Has All the UAVs?.” The Guardian. 3 August 2012. Accessed 22 May 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/aug/03/drone-stocks-by-country.

This blog contains data regarding ownership and usage of drones. “Russia Plans to Deploy Drones to Evaluate Warfare Readiness.” Progressive Media. 24 June 2014.

Accessed 28 June 2014. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic.

This article discusses Russia’s recent plans to test their UAV technology. Sanders, Ralph. “An Israeli Military Innovation: UAVs.” Joint Force Quarterly, No.33 (2003): 114-118. This article specifically focuses on the history of Israel’s UAV program and their involvement in the international development of this technology. Schmitt, Eric. “Drones in Niger Reflect New U.S. Tack on Terrorism.” The New York Times. 10 July

2013. Accessed 29 July 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/11/world/africa/drones-in-niger-reflect-new-us-approach-in-terror-fight.html?pagewanted=all.

This article explains the current drone situation abroad by the United States and where expansion may occur in Africa. Shaw, Ian G.R. “The Rise of the Predator Empire: Tracing the History of U.S. Drones.”

Understanding Empire. 2013. Accessed 28 June 2014. http://understandingempire.wordpress.com/2-0-a-brief-history-of-u-s-drones/.

This comprehensive article discusses the history of the international use of drones beginning in 1849 until present day. “South Korea, Israel to Jointly Develop Aerial Vehicles to Counter North's Drones.” BBC Worldwide

Monitoring. 11 April 2014. Accessed 29 June 2014. http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.lib.utah.edu/hottopics/lnacademic.

This article discusses the partnership between Israel and South Korea to launch a joint UAV program. Tatlow, Kirsten Didi. “China Said to Deploy Drones After Unrest in Xinjiang.” New York Times. 19

August 2014. Accessed 21 August 2014. http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/sinosphere/2014/08/19/china-said-to-deploy-drones-after-unrest-in-xinjiang/.

This article discusses China’s recent deployment of UAVs in their country. “The Trouble With Drones.” The New York Times. 7 April 2013. Accessed 29 July 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/the-trouble-with-drones.html?_r=0. Explains the Obama Administration’s use of drones compared to the past history of the United States. “The UN’s Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: U.S.

Support and Potential Foreign Policy Advantages.” Better World Campaign. Last modified May 2013. Accessed 22 May 2014. http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/assets/pdf/bwc-white-paper-the-uns-use-of-uavs-in-th-drc-may-2013.pdf.

This piece discusses the unmanned UAV program launched in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2013 and what they hope to achieve.


- 50 -

TOPIC B

UN Sources

A/9693. “Establishment of a Nuclear-Free-Zone in the Region of the Middle East.” Last modified 15 July 1974. Accessed 17 August 2014. https://disarmament-library.un.org/UNODA/Library.nsf/66fc845450c9fa3b85257775005b01e1/76555912b65c9f3a85257832005d1b0e/$FILE/A-9693%20and%20Add.1-3.pdf.

This resolution expresses Iran’s support for a NWFZ in the Middle East in 1974. A/RES/67/28. “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East.”

Last modified 3 December 2012. Accessed 20 May 2014. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/28.

This DISEC resolution discusses creating a NWFZ within the Middle East region. A/RES/68/124 (Part 1). “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the

Middle East Report of the Secretary General.” Last modified 8 July 2013. Accessed 20 May 2014, http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/124%20(Part%20I).

The Secretary General discusses grievances in the Middle East region including establishing a NWFZ within the region. The Secretary General also compiles some Member States position on the issue. “African Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba).” UNODA. 2013. Accessed 25

August 2014. http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/pelindaba. This UN treaty establishes a NWFZ in Africa. “Antarctic Treaty.” UNODA. 2013. Accessed 18 July 2014.

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/antarctic. This Treaty establishes Antarctica as a NWFZ. “The Treaty” CTBTO, accessed 13 October 2014, http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/. This site published by the Preperatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization describes the details and the history of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). “Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Region of the Middle East: Report of the

Secretary General. Response by the State of Israel.” Last modified 3 October 2013. Accessed 20 May 2014. http://unoda-web.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Israel_Submission_Est_of_ME_NWFZ_3OCT2013.pdf.

Israel responds to the Report of the Secretary General and explains why they believe it is difficult establishing a NWFZ in the Middle East but express their support for it. GA/DIS/3459. “Attempts to Further Mass Destruction Weapon-Free Zone in Middle East Falter

Amid Seemingly Insoluble Disagreements, Speakers Tell First Committee.” General Assembly. 16 October 2012. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gadis3459.doc.htm.


- 51 -

This article summarizes statements of member states on the facilitation of peace and a NWFZ in the Middle East. NPT/CONF.1995/32 (Part I), Annex. “Resolution on the Middle East.” 17 April - 12 May 1995.

Accessed 18 July 2014. http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/1995-NPT/pdf/Resolution_MiddleEast.pdf.

This UN resolution is focused on creating a NWFZ in the Middle East in hopes of creating peace. NPT/CONF.2010/32. “Steps to Advance the Middle East Peace Process and to Promote the

Establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East.” UNISPAL. 4 May 2010. Accessed 25 August 2014. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1DA9D0801D0E6BE585257743004E35CA.

This report summarizes the efforts China has taken to create peace in the Middle East. NPT/CONF/.2015/PC.III/14. “Report Submitted by France Under Actions 5, 20 and 21 of the

Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.” Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 25 April 2014. Accessed 25 August 2014. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=NPT/CONF.2015/PC.III/14.

This statement by France reiterates the country’s nuclear stance and what measures they feel need to be taken during the 2015 NPT review conference. NPT/CONF/.2015/PC.III/17. “Statement by the Head of the Delegation of the Russian

Federation, Director of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, M.I. Uliyanov, at the Third Meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on Measures Taken by the Russian Federation as Regards Action 5,20 and 21 Contained in the Final Document of the 2010 Review Conference.” Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 25 April 2014. Accessed 25 August 2014. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=NPT/CONF.2015/PC.III/17.

This statement by the Russian Federation reiterates the country’s nuclear stance and what measures they feel need to be taken during the 2015 NPT review conference. “Nuclear Testing 1945 - Today.” Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

Organization (CTBTO Preparatory Commission). 2013. Accessed 16 July 2014. http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/history-of-nuclear-testing/nuclear-testing-1945-today/.

This article details the history of nuclear technology since the beginning of its development. “Nuclear Weapon Free Zones.” UNODA. 2013. Accessed 20 May 2014.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NWFZ.shtml. UNODA discusses the current nuclear weapon free zones and the progress of creating other NWFZs. “Nuclear Weapons.” UNODA. 2013. Accessed 20 May 2014.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/.


- 52 -

UNODA specifically discusses the history of nuclear weapons and the current status. Rydell, Randy. “Towards a Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.” UNODA. 22 March 2011.

Accessed 25 August 2014. http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/speeches/oda-ny/rydell/2011-03-22_RR_Peace_Boat_Toward_a_Middle_East_Nuclear.pdf?version=1.

This article discusses the efforts that have been taken and need to be taken to create a NWFZ in the Middle East. “Status of Signature and Ratification,” CTBT. 2014. Accessed 25 August 2014,

http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/status-of-signature-and-ratification/. This treaty discusses the status of the ratification of the CTBT. “Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean.” UNODA.

2013. Accessed 18 July 2014. http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/tlatelolco. This Treaty establishes a NWFZ in Latin America and the Caribbean. “Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia (CANWFZ).” UNODA. 2013. Accessed

25 August 2014. http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/canwfz. This article discusses the creation of a NWFZ in Central Asia. “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.” UNODA. 2011. Accessed 20 May 2014.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml?lang=en. UNODA discusses the creation of the NPT and its current status. Other Sources

Al-Mughrabi, Nidal, and Luke Baker. “What’s in the Gaza Peace Deal.” Reuters. Last modified 26 August 2014. Accessed 25 August 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/26/us-mideast-gaza-ceasefire-details-idUSKBN0GQ1XQ20140826.

This article discusses the conflict between Gaza and Israel in August 2014 and the peace deal Associated Press. “Israel Scoops Up Military Drone Sales.” Herald Net. 14 February 2014. Accessed

5 July 2014. http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140214/BIZ/140219543. This article discusses Israel’s foreign military sales of UAVs and how they had surpassed the United States in total of sales. Bahgat, Gawdat, “A WMD-Free Zone in the Middle East?” Middle East Policy 20, No. 1 (Spring

2013): 30. Accessed 18 July 2014. http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/wmd-free-zone-middle-east?print.

This article discusses the difficulties facing the creation of a NWFZ in the Middle East. Dahl, Fredrik and Mehrdad Balali. “U.N. Nuclear Chief Upbeat After 'Useful' Iran Visit.” Reuters.

Last modified 17 August 2014. Accessed 28 August 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/17/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0GH09N20140817.

This article describes the visit between Iran and the IAEA nuclear chief.


- 53 -

Davenport, Kelsey. “WMD-Free Middle East Proposal at a Glance.” Arms Control Association. July 2013. Accessed 10 August 2014. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/mewmdfz.

This article discusses the history of the proposed NWFZ in the Middle East. “Egypt Walks Out of Nuclear Talks in Geneva.” Al Jazeera. 30 April 2013. Accessed 28 August

2014. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/04/201342922453324367.html. This article describes the Geneva Talks in 2013 and Egypt’s walk out at it. Kane, Chen, and Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova. “Middle East Issues.” James Martin Center for Non-

Proliferation Studies. 2013. Accessed 5 September 2014. http://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/130911_cns_iaea_factsheet_middle_east.pdf.

This article discusses what current issues affect the Middle East nuclearly. “Middle East” Encyclopedia Britannica. 14 August 2014. Accessed 5 September 2014.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/381192/Middle-East. This article defines what countries comprise the Middle East. Miller, Marvin and Lawrence Scheinman. “Israel, India, and Pakistan: Engaging the Non-NPT States

in the Nonproliferation Regime.” Arms Control Association. December 2003. Accessed 4 August 2014. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/MillerandScheinman.

This article discusses the nuclear history of the countries that haven’t signed the NPT. Nader, Alireza. “Iran and a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Middle East.” Arms Control Association. September

2011. Accessed 4 August 2014. https://www.armscontrol.org/2011_09/Iran_and_a_Nuclear-Weapon-Free_Middle_East%20%20%20%20.

This article discusses Iran’s nuclear history and involvement in a NWFZ in the Middle East. “Nuclear Capabilities of Iraq.” International Atomic Energy Agency. 1992. Accessed 5 September 2014.

https://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/event.html. This article discusses Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. “Nuclear Power in Iran.” World Nuclear Association. Last modified 24 May 2014. Accessed 19 July

2014. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Iran/. This article gives a history of Iran’s nuclear program. “Nuclear Power in the United Arab Emirates.” World Nuclear Association. Last modified April 2014.

Accessed 25 August 2014. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Arab-Emirates/.

This article discusses UAE’s nuclear capabilities. Robock, Alan, and Brian Owen Toon. "Self-assured destruction: The Climate Impacts of Nuclear

War." Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 68, no. 5 (September 2012): 66. This article discusses the use of nuclear technology and the impacts it has on climate and the stability of the country.


- 54 -

Sokov, Nikolai. “Reykjavik Summit: The Legacy and a Lesson for the Future.” The Nuclear Threat Initiative. 1 December 2007. Accessed 25 September 2014. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/reykjavik-summit-legacy/.

This gives a background on the Reykjavik Summit between President Reagan and Gorbachev. “South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty of Rarotonga.” Nuclear Threat Initiative. 2014.

Accessed 16 August 2014. http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/south-pacific-nuclear-free-zone-spnfz-treaty-rarotonga/.

This article discusses the history of the Treaty of Rarotonga. “Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (SEANWFZ) Treaty (Bangkok Treaty).”NTI. 2014.

Accessed 25 August 2014. http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/southeast-asian-nuclear-weapon-free-zone-seanwfz-treaty-bangkok-treaty/.

This article discusses the treaty that established a NWFZ in South East Asia. Taylor, N. A. J, Joseph A. Camilleri and Michael Hamel-Green. "Dialogue on Middle East

Biological, Nuclear, and Chemical Weapons Disarmament: Constraints and Opportunities." Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 38, no. 1 (February 2013): 78.

This article discusses the efforts taken in the past for non-proliferation of WMDs in the Middle East.