disec the sixteenth annual william & mary middle school model united nations conference xvi...

I

DISEC

DISARMAMENT AND

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

Position Paper Guidelines

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

XVI


What’s it all about?

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

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

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

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

Section One: Background Information

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

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

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

Remaining Sections: Topics

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

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

page (double spaced) in length and should include:

1. Background information on the topic

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

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

4. Policies or actions your position/nation has supported

5. Proposed solutions to each of your topics

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

Guide



XVI

Formatting

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

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

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

paper should include the following pieces of information:

1. Your Full Name

2. Full School Name

3. Committee (World Health Organization, United Nations Development

Program, etc.)

4. Country/Position

Letter from the Director


XVI

Dear Delegates,

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

Nations Conference, and to the Disarmament and International Security Committee. My

name is Rory Oates, and I am so excited to hear your perspectives on geopolitics and see you

explore how the United Nations operates as you tackle the pressing security issues of 1985.

I am a freshman at the College. My academic interests are philosophy and political

science, and I am considering majoring in Government and History. Since high school, I

have participated in Model UN, which has rewarded me in many ways. Model UN has

helped me develop public speaking and leadership skills, and allowed me to meet some of my

best friends in both high school and at William & Mary. Outside of Model UN, I enjoy

watching sports, running, and playing street hockey. I love fantasy novels and will gladly

discuss them with you. Also, I am interested in alternative and Irish music, which may or

may not be played in committee...

As your director, I expect rigorous debate that takes advantage of the unique setting of the

committee. As you form coalitions in committee, I want to see cooperation and leadership

from you. Because this is the United Nations, diplomatic and respectful behavior is

mandated. Finally, your positions should reflect those of the country you

represent. Following these guidelines will provide a healthy environment for intellectual

investigation. Finally, I hope you come ready to have fun!

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns, and I encourage

you to do so. I look forward to DISEC 1985 and wish you the best of luck!

Best wishes,

Rory Oates

DISEC, Director

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

DISEC


XVI

Background

History of DISEC

DISEC, or the Disarmament and

International Security Committee, is the

First Committee of the United Nations

General Assembly. DISEC focuses on

threats to global peace and works to find

international security solutions by

reducing the threat of war.

Since DISEC is a forum of the General

Assembly, the resolutions the committee

passes are international standards. The

Charter, however, ensures that these

measures are not legally binding, and the

United Nations strives to respect the rights

of nations.

Nonetheless, DISEC serves as a theater

for countries to reach consensus on

military issues and resolve border

disputes. To accomplish this, DISEC

works with the United Nations

Disarmament Commission and the

Conference on Disarmament.

The First Committee has passed several

landmark resolutions. Resolution 1, for

instance, is a set of nuclear

recommendations, passed in 1946. Other

resolutions focus on reforming military

practices and working to dampen the

humanitarian consequences of war. It is

January 1, 1985, and growing conflicts

threaten the credibility of DISEC. What

can the First Committee of the General

Assembly do to achieve disarmament? A

critique of DISEC is that gridlock and

partisanship in the General Assembly has

negatively affected the performance of the

committee. When debate stagnates, the

United Nations loses influence in setting

the global policy agenda. Therefore,

delegates, it is important to coordinate and

compromise to create resolutions that

provide effective and realistic guidelines

for international security.

Topic 1: Iran-Iraq War

Introduction

The Iran-Iraq War was a border

dispute that exploded economic, political,

and religious tensions in the Middle East.

The conflict lasted from 22 September

1980 to 20 August 1988. Given the

timeframe of this session of DISEC,

however, no information about the war

beyond 1985 is relevant or allowed in

committee.

First, consider what factors might

have led to Iraq seizing Iranian territory in

1980. More broadly, how could any

country defend an invasion of its

neighbor? Why did Iraq not respect the

existing border between it and Iran? If

Iraq’s action was so unfair, then why did

DISEC


XVI

members of the international community,

including the United States and France,

support Iraq, while Iran essentially had no

allies? Overall, what makes border

disputes like that between Iran and Iraq in

1985 so contentious?

Origins

The Iran-Iraq War had old roots.

During the Ottoman-Persian Wars of the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, for

instance, the Ottoman Empire and Persia

(now Iran) fought for control of

Mesopotamia (now Iraq). Specifically,

these nations hoped to control access to the

Shatt al-Arab, an important river. In 1937,

Iran and Iraq tried to settle their historic

dispute over their mutual border at the

Shatt al-Arab. The two countries signed

the Treaty of Saadabad, giving Iraq

ownership of the waterway. In 1955, Iran

and Iraq joined the Baghdad Pact, a

military alliance that tried to stabilize the

region by promoting common security

between the Middle East with the West.

Moreover, this partnership improved ties

between the two nations, but Iraq suddenly

left the agreement in 1959 after

revolutionaries overthrew the Iraqi

monarchy. In a major reversal, Iraq

rejected the Saadabad consensus for its

border with Iran. Iraq supported separatist

efforts in Khuzestan Province, Iran. When

Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, it captured both

the Shatt al-Arab and Khuzestan Province.

Politics and religion help explain why

this happened. The 1970’s in Iraq saw the

rise of the Socialist Ba’ath Party in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein, who became president of

Iraq in 1979, led this party. The Baathist

politicians that controlled Iraq were

nationalist, meaning that they valued

intense patriotism and believed that Iraq

had an important role in the world.

Saddam and his Baathist Party rejected the

Saadabad and Baghdad contracts because

they argued that Iraq should be the

strongest nation in the Middle East.

Saddam’s worldview did not allow for a

powerful Iran. Iraq, therefore, reignited its

border dispute with Iran to assert itself in

the region. Iraq sent troops into Iran,

starting a series of border wars that ended

in 1975 with the Algiers Agreement. In

this treaty, Iraq gave its control of the

Shatt al-Arab to Iran, and they resumed

normal relations. There was a temporary

peace between the two countries, but

Saddam’s nationalism moved him to

renew the conflict in 1980.

Iran also experienced political

turmoil. The Iranian Revolution replaced

the monarchy with a theocratic republic in

1979. The head of this new government

was Supreme Leader Ruholla Khomeini.

DISEC


XVI

He was an important cleric in the Shi’ite

school of Islam, one of two major Muslim

sects, with the other sect being Sunni

Islam. Iran was and still is the most

important Shi’ite power in the Middle

East. Iraq, a majority Shi’ite country, was

led by Saddam’s nationalist, secular

government. Khomeini and Saddam were

both prepared to end the peace to settle the

rivalry between Iraq and Iran, which

would decide the most powerful country in

the region. As tensions heightened,

Khomeini tried to convince Shi’ites in Iraq

to rebel. Saddam feared that a similar

revolt to the one in Iran could happen in

Iraq because of the Shi’ite majority. He

also disliked the Algiers Agreement, and

thus aimed for Iraq to become the

strongest country in the Middle East by

taking over Khuzestan. Saddam believed

that Khuzestan, a majority Arab province,

should be part of Iraq, an Arab country.

Iran, on the other hand, is majority Persian.

The Iranian government rejected Iraq’s

idea that ethnicity should dictate who

controlled Khuzestan. This ethnic tension,

however, coincided with political and

economic factors. The region was a hub of

trade and allowed easy access to the

Persian Gulf. Control of Khuzestan could

grant a regional economic advantage, and

both Iraq and Iran were desperate to annex

it. Saddam and Khomeini rejected

diplomacy as a solution. After Khomeini’s

attempt to start an Islamic rebellion in Iraq,

Saddam formally ended Iraq’s diplomatic

relationship with Iran, dissolving the

Algiers Agreement. Both sides readied for

armed conflict.

War

On 22 September 1980, Iraq invaded

Iran. Saddam’s armies focused on taking

Khuzestan and the Shatt al-Arab. Iraq

wanted to regain control of these disputed

territories after losing them as a result of

the Algiers Agreement. At first, Iraq was

successful in its attack. The war, however,

stagnated and ultimately ended in a

stalemate. Tactics like house-to-house

fighting and trench warfare slowed down

the pace of battles and left no clear winner.

By 1982, Iran launched a counterattack,

forcing Iraq out of areas of Iran including

Khuzestan in a major victory. Meanwhile,

Iraq received military and financial aid

from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and

several European countries. After

recapturing land from Iraq, Iran invaded its

neighbor. Their attack, however, was

unsuccessful in its goal of taking Baghdad.

From 1983-1984, the stalemate returned,

and ground attacks were not fruitful for

both sides. Air warfare dominated, and

DISEC


XVI

other nations took a more active role in

helping Iraq.

1985

So far, Iran has lost at least 300,000

soldiers, while Iraq’s losses are about

150,000. In addition to the human cost,

the economies of both Iran and Iraq are

devastated by the conflict. With no

apparent winner, this war seems like it

could go on for years. What can DISEC

do to resolve this border dispute?

Regarding Possible Solutions

DISEC must address both Iraq’s border

dispute, in terms of a political conflict, and

the human consequences of a devastating

war. A strong solution should achieve

consensus among delegates on a

mechanism to settle border disputes and on

a path to disarmament for Iraq and Iran.

Finally, any solution must keep in mind

humanitarian, economic, and social

concerns.

Questions to consider:

1. How can DISEC and the

international community offer aid

to Iran and Iraq?

2. With decades of conflict over

Khuzestan and Shatt al-Arab, to

which country do these territories

belong?

3. What can DISEC do to prevent

border disputes from becoming

wars?

Topic 2: Nuclear Security

Introduction

Nuclear weapons forever changed the

world in 1945, when the United States

launched atomic bombs on the Japanese

cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending

World War II. For the first time, a single

weapon had the potential to devastate an

entire city, altering the course of a

war. Both non-governmental

organizations (NGOs) and countries

reacted against the destruction of

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Groups like the

Federation of Atomic Scientists sought to

limit the development of nuclear weapons

and disarm existing arsenals. The

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament,

founded in Britain, protested the creation

of atomic bombs and called for the

international regulation of nuclear

power. Likewise, the United Nations

opposed the spread of nuclear weapons,

and from its first meeting in 1946, the

organization worked to eliminate them.

The General Assembly’s resolution

starting a commission to analyze the threat

of atomic energy was the first international

DISEC


XVI

effort to limit the danger of nuclear

weapons. It established a long-term

theme: The United Nations’ opposition to

the development and spread of nuclear

weapons. The General Assembly used a

two-prong approach over the next decade,

attacking both the use of atomic energy

with strict regulations and trying to limit

the production of nuclear weapons

themselves.

The International Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA), founded in 1957, is an

international organization separate,

although tied, to the United Nations. Its

goal is to protect the peaceful use of

nuclear energy and to prevent it from

being used for military purposes. The

IAEA is most known for its nuclear safety

policies, which member states contribute

to and implement. Additionally, the

agency monitors the use of nuclear energy,

and the IAEA often sends scientists to

review a nation’s practices or aid in the

clean-up after a nuclear disaster.

Along with NGOs and the IAEA,

multilateral treaties have had an important

role in nuclear disarmament. These

include the Treaty on the Non-

Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

and the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT),

which banned test

detonations. Recognizing that the United

States, Russia, the United Kingdom,

France, and China already had nuclear

weapons, the international community

sought to limit their spread. The result

was the NPT, enacted in 1970. The treaty

defined states with existing weapons as

nuclear powers, with the hope that these

nations would eventually dismantle their

nuclear arsenals. The central agreement of

this treaty is that no nation would pursue

nuclear weapons, while nuclear-weapon

states would share their peaceful nuclear

technologies with non-nuclear

countries. Almost all of the international

community signed this agreement, while

India, Israel, and Pakistan did not (North

Korea ultimately left the treaty in 2003,

but since this committee is set in 1985, the

DPRK remains a signatory of the

NPT). The countries that did not join the

NPT are suspected of possessing nuclear

weapons, threatening international

security.

1985

The main obstacle to disarmament is the

superpower politics that dominate

international relations. After World War II

and the demise of Britain as a superpower,

the United States and the Soviet Union are

the most powerful countries in the world,

economically and militarily. When the

United States displayed its nuclear power

DISEC


XVI

at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviet

Union aggressively pursued the creation of

an atomic bomb. The largest challenge for

the USSR’s nuclear capability was an

initial lack of uranium ore, a key

ingredient to the construction of nuclear

weapons. However, the Soviet Union’s

expansion in neighboring Socialist

Republics allowed it access to vast

amounts of uranium in countries like

Tajikistan. The fight over global uranium

stockpiles was a pivotal part of the Cold

War, and the United States and Soviet

Union engaged in a secret clash to control

the most uranium. Given uranium’s

significance and its potential threat to

international security, management of this

resource is necessary to the process of

disarmament.

The two superpowers, both desiring to

be the most powerful country in the world,

became adversarial for many reasons. The

capitalist United States and Communist

Soviet Union are ideologically

opposed. Both economic systems are so

different that coexistence will be

impossible. This rivalry realizes in the

military and diplomatic opposition

between the United States and the Soviet

Union. When the USSR acquired the

atomic bomb, it formally began an arms

race between the superpowers. Both

countries launched numerous nuclear tests,

with environmental

consequences. Nuclear arsenals slowly

grew into the thousands, and the weapons

themselves became more sophisticated. In

the later 1950’s, both countries achieved

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles

(ICBMS), which increased the ability of

nuclear weapons to reach their targets

essentially anywhere on the

globe. Moreover, nuclear weapons

themselves have expanded far beyond the

power of the atomic bomb, and nuclear

war between the superpowers guarantees

global destruction. In 1972, the United

States and the Soviet Union signed the

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to limit anti-

ballistic systems. This might seem

counterproductive, but the notion of

mutually assured destruction, in which a

missile launch by one country would be

met by the other’s nuclear weapons,

actually restrained the superpowers from

using their nuclear stockpiles. Clearly,

this impacted international

diplomacy. Western capitalist countries

sided with the United States, while nations

alienated by Western influence might aid

the Soviet Union. A large group of

developing states, however, created the

Group of 77, a non-aligned bloc, to focus

on their economic and social improvement

DISEC


XVI

outside of the sphere of superpower

politics. They dislike the arms race,

believe mutually assured destruction is a

hollow agreement, and are eager to pursue

disarmament.

Currently, America has as many as

25,000 nuclear weapons, while the Soviet

Union has about 40,000. Clearly, the

nuclear arms race between the United

States and the Soviet Union has

endangered the entire world. Despite

promises of disarmament, both Cold War

superpowers have ramped up their nuclear

arsenals. Moreover, both countries seem

to disregard the PTBT, still testing their

weapons. Can the prospect of mutually

assured destruction safeguard the

international community, or can DISEC

discover other means to disarm nuclear

weapons owning countries?

Regarding Possible Solutions

In 1985, nuclear states are the United

States, Russia, the United Kingdom,

France, China, India, and Israel. Nuclear

non-proliferation, the dismantling of

nuclear weapons, requires agreement by

nuclear weapons owning nations. Any

strong resolution must compromise with

nuclear powers so that its

recommendations have the best chance of

success. Finally, NGOs, given their

independent nature, are integral to any

nuclear disarmament solution.

Questions to consider:

1. What can DISEC do to limit the

threat posed by nuclear weapons?

2. Has disarmament failed, and if so,

what new strategies could the

international community employ?

3. Does the General Assembly need

the superpowers to provide

effective reform?

References


XVI

References

i "Disarmament and International Security (First Committee)." United Nations. Accessed

January 2018. http://www.un.org/.

ii MacFarlane, S. Neil, and Yuen Foong Khong. Human security and the UN: A critical

history. Indiana University Press, 2006. Harvard.

iii Karsh, Efraim. The Iran-Iraq War. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2009. Harvard .

iv Hiro, Dilip. The longest war: the Iran-Iraq military conflict. Psychology Press, 1989.

v Cordesman, A. H. "The Iran-Iraq War and Western Security 1984-1987. Strategic

Implications and Policy Options." Sea Power 30 (1987): 55. Harvard.

vi Karsh, Efraim. The Iran-Iraq War.

vi Pelletiere, Stephen C. The Iran-Iraq war: chaos in a vacuum. ABC-CLIO, 1992. Harvard.

i Lodgaard, Sverre, and Bremer Maerli, eds. Nuclear proliferation and international security.

Routledge, 2007.

ii Murray, Raymond L. "Nuclear Non-Proliferation." In Physics and Contemporary Needs,

pp. 271-284. Springer, Boston, MA, 1979.

iii Gaddis, John Lewis. We now know: rethinking Cold War history. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1997. Harvard.

iv Fleming, Denna Frank. The Cold War and Its Origins: 1917-1960: 1950-1960. Vol. 2.

Doubleday, 1961. Harvard.

v Glasstone, Samuel, and Philip J. Dolan. Effects of nuclear weapons. No. TID-28061.

Department of Defense, Washington, DC (USA); Department of Energy, Washington, DC

(USA), 1977. Harvard .

disec the sixteenth annual william & mary middle school model united nations conference xvi...

Documents