washington state model united nations 2007students.washington.edu/wasmun/07synopses/spd.pdfmaulana...

Washington State Model United Nations 2007

Copyright © Washington State Model United Nations 2006-2007 of 14

Dear Delegates, Welcome to the fourth GA committee, Special Political and Decolonization. My name is Kristina Mader and I will be your chair. I am junior majoring in Political Science at Western Washington University. My concentration is on the barriers to participation by women in politics, especially in societies that are rebuilding or developing. This is my 7th year participating in MUN conferences, and my third as staff at WASMUN. I’m looking forward to meeting you all and chairing a committee that has so much depth and scope in its topics! The following background guide is meant to serve as a general guide to the issues on our agenda. Your research should not only involve reading the background guide, but should also focus on an in-depth analysis of the history and debates which concern the regions in question. If delegates have any questions concerning the committee, topics or background guides, feel free to contact me at [email protected]. I look forward to seeing you in March! Sincerely, Kristina Mader Chair, Special Political & Decolonization WASMUN 2007



History of the Committee At the advent of the United Nations, a system of committees was set up to deal with the many diverse issues before the General Assembly. The First Committee, Disarmament and International Security, was formed to deal with the regulation of armaments and the admission, suspension and expulsion of United Nations members, as well as other political and security issues. With the number of problems rising though, the burden for DISC grew too great, leading the committee to rethink its focus and capabilities. Out of this effort a new committee was created. In 1965 the Fourth Committee, Special Political and Decolonization (SPD) was established with the specific purpose of dealing with world’s current political issues of decolonization. Many of the issues pertinent to the SPD committee were similar to those dealt with in the Security Council. However, it was felt that a General Assembly committee was needed in order to engage all members of the UN in debate, since participation in the Security Council is limited. The Fourth Committee currently works with issues of decolonization, and deals with issues pertaining to residents of parts of the world that made up former colonial possessions. It also works to emphasize the right of self-determination as expressed in the UN Charter. Recently, the Fourth Committee has dealt with civil disputes in the Former Yugoslavia, the rights of the Kurdish people in Iraq and Turkey, and the Palestinian people under the rule of Israel.

Topic One: India-Pakistan Dispute over Kashmir Statement of the Issue The state of Kashmir, located between India & Pakistan, is one of the most volatile and controversial regions in the world. A bitter territorial dispute, between India and Pakistan, has plagued this region for 60 years. Pakistan views the entire region as disputed territory, while India claims the region is part of its holdings. This is only one of the many complex issues surrounding this exotic region, requiring any solution to the problem to be comprehensive and all encompassing.

History of the Issue & UN Involvement Approximately 60 years ago, Kashmir was offered a choice of becoming part of India, part of Pakistan, or becoming independent. This choice was a result of the end of British control over the territory, and gave the decision to each of the 565 Indian princely states. Jammu & Kashmir was the largest of these autonomous states, bordering on India and Pakistan, and was ruled by the Maharaja Hari Singh1. The Maharaja preferred to remain independent, but as a result of Pakistan’s invasion of Kashmir in 1947, the Maharaja agreed to place Kashmir under Indian rule, ensuring protection against invasion.

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 prompted Prime Minister Nehru of India to appear in front of the UN Security Council, asking for help in solving the conflict. A ceasefire line was created, giving Pakistan control of about one third of Kashmir, and India the remaining territory. Kashmir's special status within the Indian constitution was confirmed in 1950, allowing it more autonomy than other Indian states2. Under the Indian constitution, Jammu and Kashmir is a state, and went to the polls as a state.

The Sino-Indian War of 1962 was fought between China, India and Pakistan, but led to the eventual ceasefire by China. During this time, India first began building its own nuclear weapons, after China began nuclear tests.

1 BBC Kashmir Flashpoint: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2739993.stm 2 Ibid.



In 1971, India and Pakistan fought again over Bangladeshi independence, and during this time there was also some conflict between the two sides in Kashmir. The Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 ultimately led to the Simla Agreement, signed in 1972, cementing the Line of Control as a tenuous border between the two nations3.

Delhi says that under the terms of the Simla Agreement of 1972 both countries have agreed to solve the Kashmir question through bilateral negotiations, and not through international forums such as the UN. It also says a plebiscite should not be held in Kashmir because elections have been held which demonstrate that people living there want to remain part of the Indian union4.

In 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test - the so-called "Smiling Buddha" detonations in the Rajasthan Desert. A few years later, Pakistan began to develop its own program of nuclear weapons, and both countries continued developing and testing both short-range and intermediate-range missiles5.

In 1989, an insurgency started in Indian-Administered Kashmir made up of supporters of Pakistan’s claim to the region. The insurgents are claimed by Pakistan to be part of the independence movement within Kashmir, while India states that they are Islamic terrorists. Since then India has constantly maintained that Pakistan has been training and supplying weapons to militant separatists, although Pakistan insists it only offers them moral support6.

In April 1998, Pakistan finally tested its new Ghauri intermediate-range nuclear missile, named after a 12th century Muslim warrior who conquered part of India7. This test is thought to have prompted India's nuclear tests the following month.

In the summer of 1999, the two countries came to brink of another war after Pakistani-backed forces infiltrated Indian-controlled Kashmir. This led to a bitter two-month conflict along the Line of Control only ended when Pakistani forces withdrew8.

Militant Extremists

The disputed majority Muslim region has its own local terrorist groups, but most of the recent terrorism there has been conducted by Islamist outsiders who seek to claim Kashmir for Pakistan. A spate of Islamist cross-border attacks into Indian-held territory and the December 2001 storming of the Indian parliament in New Delhi have reinforced Kashmir’s standing as the key bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Both states have nuclear weapons, making Kashmir one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints.

Many terrorists active in Kashmir received training in the same madrasas, or Muslim seminaries, where Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters studied, and some received military training at camps in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Moreover, the Kashmiri terrorists’ leadership has al-Qaeda connections. The leader of the Harakat-ul-Mujahedeen group, Farooq Kashmiri Khalil, signed al-Qaeda’s 1998 declaration of holy war, which called on Muslims to attack all Americans and their allies. Maulana Masood Azhar, who founded the Jaish-e-Muhammad organization, traveled to Afghanistan several times to meet Osama bin Laden. Azhar's group is suspected of receiving funding from al-Qaeda9.

After September 11, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf promised to crack down on terrorist groups active in Kashmir. In response, members of these extremist groups have gone underground, taken other names, and formed

3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4302144.stm 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9135/



new, ad hoc configurations. Experts say some of these militants have branched out into attacks on Shiite and Christian minorities, American facilities, and other Western targets in Pakistan.

After Delhi and Islamabad agreed to launch a landmark bus service in February 2005 across the ceasefire line dividing Kashmir, militants vowed to target the service. In April of the same year, one bus survived a grenade attack10.

There are three Islamic groups recognized as active within Kashmir. All three groups have attracted Pakistani members as well as Afghan and Arab veterans who fought the 1980s Soviet occupation of nearby Afghanistan.

Harakat ul-Mujahedeen (“Islamic Freedom Fighters’ Group”) was established in the mid-1980s. Based first in Pakistan and then in Afghanistan, it has several thousand armed supporters in Pakistan and Kashmir. Harakat members have participated in insurgent and terrorist operations in Burma, Tajikistan, and Bosnia11.

Jaish-e-Muhammad (“Army of Muhammad”) was established in 2000 by Maulana Masood Azhar, a Pakistani cleric. Jaish, which attracted Harakat members, has several hundred armed supporters in Kashmir and Pakistan12.

Lashkar-e-Taiba (“Army of the Pure”), active since 1993, is the military wing of the well-funded Pakistani Islamist organization Markaz-ad-Dawa-wal-Irshad, which recruited volunteers to fight alongside the Taliban. India says that over the last several years, the group has split into two factions, al-Mansurin and al-Nasirin. There is wide speculation that Lashkar-e-Taiba was responsible for the July 11, 2006 string of bombings on Mumbai's commuter railroad, though a spokesman for the group denied any involvement13.

Since Pakistan outlawed these groups, attacks in Kashmir and Pakistan have been carried out under other guises. One group calling itself al-Qanoon or Lashkar-e-Omar is thought to be a coalition of members of Jaish-e-Muhammad, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and other Pakistan-based Islamist groups, including the anti-Shiite Lashkar-e-Jhangvi organization. Another new militant group reported to have emerged is the Save Kashmir Movement (SKM)14.

Proposed Solutions

One solution is that Kashmir joins Pakistan. Pakistan has consistently favored this as the best solution to the dispute. In view of the state's majority Muslim population, Pakistan believes that the Kashmiri people would vote to become part of Pakistan. However a single plebiscite held in a region which comprises peoples that are culturally, religiously and ethnically diverse, would create disaffected minorities. The Hindus of Jammu, and the Buddhists of Ladakh have never shown any desire to join Pakistan and would protest at the outcome.

A plebiscite offering the choice of union with Pakistan or India also does not take into account the movement for independence which has been supported by political and militant activists since 1989. India has long since rejected the idea of a plebiscite as a means of settling the Kashmir issue. Instead the government argues that the people have exercised their right of self-determination by participating in elections within the state.

However the demand for a plebiscite to be held, as recommended by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten in 1947, and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, is still considered by some as a way of letting Kashmiris exercise their right of self-determination.

10 BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4302144.stm 11 Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9135/ 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid.



Another solution is that Kashmir joins India. Such a solution would be unlikely to bring stability to the region as the Muslim inhabitants of Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir, including the Northern Areas, have never shown any desire to become part of India.

A fourth option is to allow Kashmir to become independent. The difficulty of adopting this as a potential solution is that it requires India and Pakistan to give up territory, which they are not willing to do. Any plebiscite or referendum likely to result in a majority vote for independence would therefore probably be opposed by both India and Pakistan. It would also be rejected by the inhabitants of the state who are content with their status as part of the countries to which they already owe allegiance.

An independent Jammu and Kashmir might also set in motion the demand for independence by other states in both India and Pakistan and lead to a "Balkanisation" of the region. The movement for independence of the entire state is mainly supported by Kashmiris who inhabit the more populous Kashmir Valley and who would like both India and Pakistan to vacate the areas they are occupying. They base their claim on the fact that the state was formerly an independent princely state, is geographically larger than at least 68 countries of the United Nations, and more populous than 90.

An alternative to an entirely free Kashmir is a smaller independent state created from the Kashmir valley. This would leave the strategically important regions of the Northern Areas and Ladakh, bordering China, under the control of Pakistan and India respectively. However both India and Pakistan would be unlikely to enter into discussions which would have this scenario as a possible outcome.

Current Situation

India now holds about two-thirds of the disputed territory, which it calls Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan controls about one-third, which it calls Azad (meaning “free”) Kashmir. China also controls two small sections of northern Kashmir. Since 1947, over 35,000 people have died in the conflict.

On Monday May 11, 2005, India announced it had conducted three underground tests at Pokhran in the northern state of Rajasthan. Two days later it announced that another two explosions had taken place. India's actions were widely condemned by the international community and Pakistan was urged not to retaliate, but on May 28, 2005, Pakistan announced that it had conducted five nuclear tests of its own in south-western Baluchistan.

The tests were widely criticized throughout the world, and led to the imposition by some countries of sanctions. In October, 2005, the US lifted economic and military sanctions, but despite strong American pressure, neither side has so far signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

Now that relationship is under strain again as Pakistan's President, General Pervez Musharraf, faces strong domestic criticism for his backing of the strikes. Prime Minister Aziz of Pakistan is now calling for a peaceful solution to the Kashmir issue. They are asking for flexibility on India’s side, reciprocating the flexibility they are prepared to show15.

A hopeful sign for the peace process is the 2005 reinstatement of bus service between Muzzafarabad and Srinagar across the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. Despite the security challenges it faces, the bus service is a powerful gesture of peace and an opportunity to reunite families divided for nearly sixty years16.

15 BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4302144.stm 16UN News Service: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sgsm9810.doc.htm



Bloc Positions Pakistan Supporters Pakistani supporters base a large portion of their claim on the fact that the majority of Kashmir’s population is Muslim and, if given the option, most Kashmiris would vote to join Pakistan or seek independence. Since 1951, Pakistan has been demanding India to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir as agreed by both nations in 1951. Pakistan claims that Kashmiris took a violent path to independence only when they became hopeless and disillusioned about their future. Pakistan claims that India is now using excessive state forces to suppress the freedom struggle of Kashmiris and in doing so, is causing severe human rights violations17. India Supporters The Indian claim, which is commonly held by the United Nations and its member countries, centers on the agreement between the Dogra Maharaja Hari Singh, Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru and Lord Mountbatten according to which the erstwhile Kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir became an integral part of the Union of India through the Instrument of Accession. It also focuses on India's claim of secular ideology, an ideology that is not meant to factor religion into governance of major policy and thus considers it irrelevant in a boundary dispute. However, Indian translation of 'secularism' is radically different from the definition as understood in the Western context. While secularism as a western notion means separation of Church and the State, in Indian context it simply means equality of all religions18. Another argument by India is that, it says minorities are very well integrated, with some members of the minority communities holding positions of power and influence in India. In addition, this viewpoint believes that any UN Resolution subscribing Plebiscite must be monitored by any third neutral party, but Pakistan should first vacate its part of Kashmir. Attempted Solutions The 9/11 attacks on the US, resulted in the US government wanting to restrain militancy in the world, including religious militancy in Pakistan. Due to Indian persuasion on US Congress Members, the US urged Islamabad to cease infiltrations, if they were occurring, by Islamic fighters into Indian-held Kashmir. In early 2002, India tried to take advantage of US's strategic shift by escalating its response to the attempted attack on the Indian Parliament, resulting in war threats, massive deployment and international fears of nuclear war in the subcontinent19. After intensive diplomatic efforts by other countries, India and Pakistan began to withdraw troops from the international border June 10, 2002, and negotiations began again. Effective November 26, 2003, India and Pakistan have agreed to maintain a ceasefire along the undisputed International Border, the disputed Line of Control, and the Siachen glacier. This is the first such "total ceasefire" declared by both nuclear powers in nearly 15 years. In February 2004, Pakistan further increased pressure on Pakistanis fighting in Indian held Kashmir to adhere to the ceasefire. The nuclear-armed neighbors also launched several other mutual confidence building measures. Restarting the bus service between the Indian- and Pakistani- administered Kashmir has helped defuse the tensions between the countries. Both India and Pakistan have also decided to cooperate on economic fronts.

17 Government of Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http://www.mofa.gov.pk/ 18 Government of India Ministry of External Affairs: http://meaindia.nic.in/ 19 BBC Kashmir Flashpoint: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/default.stm



Currently a boundary - the Line of Control - divides the region in two, with one part administered by India and one by Pakistan. India would like to formalize this status quo and make it the accepted international boundary20.

Under the terms of the 1972 Simla agreement, the ceasefire line was renamed the Line of Control. Although India claims that the entire state is part of India, it has been prepared to accept the Line of Control as the international border, with some possible modifications. Both the US and the UK have also favored turning the Line of Control into an internationally-recognized frontier21.

But Pakistan has consistently refused to accept the Line of Control as the border since the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley would remain as part of India. Formalizing the status quo also does not take account of the aspirations of those Kashmiris who have been fighting since 1989 for independence for the whole or part of the state22.

Concluding Remarks The Kashmir situation is at a standstill until one or both sides agree to do what is best for the Kashmiri people. Addressing the humanitarian situation is paramount in ensuring that human lives are valued most in the region. In addition, the terrorist groups require considerable attention, more specifically definition and analysis needs to be made before any action can be taken to stop their violent acts. As the Fourth Committee you cannot take any military action against these groups, but you can examine their motives, their goals, and attempt to develop a comprehensive plan to help the people of the region. Questions to ask:

• How has the humanitarian issue been addressed in the past? What is still needed to assist the people of Kashmir? Are there long term plans or programs that can be implemented?

• Is terrorism in Kashmir different than in other parts of the world? How have the groups changed within the region in recent years, and how do we have to compensate for that?

• Water rights are always a source of discontent in regions where water is scarce. Is this another issue in this complicated conflict? What plans can be developed that will not punish the habitants who need access to water?

Topic Specific Links The Official Website of Jammu-Kashmir Govt. (India): http://jammukashmir.nic.in/welcome.html BBC Kashmir Background Guide: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/south_asia/2002/kashmir_flashpoint/ Kashmir Virtual Library: http://www.southasianist.info/kashmir/index.html CNN Report on India & Pakistan: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/India97/index.html INCORE Country Guide: India & Pakistan: http://www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/services/cds/countries/Kashmir-India&Pakistan.html

20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.



Topic #2: Enforcement of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Peoples Statement of the Issue In 1946, when the nations of the world came together to create the United Nations, one of the key motivations was the protection of fundamental human rights through the rule of law. In the mid-twentieth century, the continued existence of colonialism seemed to threaten the foundation on which the organization was built. Decolonization was increasingly discussed as the process by which a former colony could break free of its colonial ruler and gain independence as a State, but in reality, exercising self-determination is the core process behind decolonization. Self-determination became the main focus of the decolonization movement, and the need to protect and ensure this process resulted in the passage of General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960)23, which contains the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples24. This declaration has been reexamined in the years since, and the United Nations declared the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism in 2001 through General Assembly Resolution 146 (2001)25. To aid in the implementation of the original declaration during the Decade, the Plan of Action for the Implementation on the Declaration (2006)26 was developed. The Plan summarizes the specific responsibilities of all parties necessary to ensure the success of the Declaration, but noticeably lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. Enforcement is critical to ensure that progress is made for the two million people living in the 16 remaining non-self governing territories today, but there is a diversity of situations between each non-self governing territory, which makes the development of any enforcement program difficult. Background In 1960, when the Declaration was created it was a revolutionary proclamation by the Member States on the necessity of bringing colonialism to a speedy end. It became the key instrument in the fight for self-determination for the 750 million people living in territories dependent on Colonial powers. The first and most essential goal of the Declaration is to help uphold the protection of human rights enshrined within the Charter of the United Nations (1945)27 by extending the protection to those people still living under colonial rule. The Declaration recognized that colonialism not only seriously hindered world peace, but also decreased international economic cooperation, and the progress of developing communities. The transfer of power was sought instead, within the remaining non-self governing territories (NSGTs) “to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire.” In General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960)28 the three paths to self government are outlined: free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence. This quick transfer of power was not easy to effect, and immediately failed. This failure was recognized in General Assembly Resolution 1654 (1961)29, and a solution was proposed with the creation of the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration. This 24-member committee was charged with ensuring the proper application of the Declaration and continues to assist in decolonization efforts by sending out visitor missions to assist individual territories in the decolonization process30. The Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism was declared in General Assembly Resolution 4731 in recognition of the thirtieth anniversary of the Declaration. The General Assembly declared the period 1990 – 2000 as the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism on November 22, 1988. During this decade, the Security

23 General Assembly Resolution (A/15/1514) Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonized Countries & People 24 Ibid. 25 General Assembly Resolution (A/55/146) Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism 26 General Assembly (A/60/853) Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate 2006 - 2007 27 Charter of the United Nations 28 General Assembly Resolution (A/15/1514) Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonized Countries & People 29 General Assembly Resolution (A/16/1654) Establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization 30 General Assembly Fourth Committee: History of Decolonization 31 General Assembly Resolution (A/43/47) International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism



Council terminated the Trusteeship Agreement for the Federated State of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands and Palau. They had become self-governing entities and no longer needed the assistance of the Trusteeship Council32. As a result, the Trusteeship Council completed its task, with the last of its trusts having been Palau, and in 1994 the council suspended operations indefinitely. The end of the first decade unfortunately did not coincide with the end of colonialism, so in 2001, the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism was declared in General Assembly Resolution 14633, to be the period 2001-2010 . The Assembly called upon the Administering Powers to cooperate fully with the Special Committee to develop a constructive program of work for the NSGT’s to facilitate the implementation of the Declaration.34The Plan of Action35 that was reissued and submitted, in a Letter from the Permanent Representative of Saint Lucia, was intended to ensure the full implementation of the Declaration by 2010. Additionally, it lists the responsibilities of the administering powers of a territory, such as assisting in and allowing the overall development of the people and territory; not interfering in progress toward self-determination, and facilitating the involvement of the territorial powers in the decolonization process. These mandates obligate the administering powers to take such actions as ensuring that immigration does not change the course of self-determination by altering the demographics of the territory and assisting the government in the territory in its participation in UN and regional bodies related to decolonization36. The role of the United Nations is outlined in the Plan of Action as first and foremost an educator to ensure that the people within NSGT’s are informed about their possible political status as a territory by “unbiased campaigns of political education.”37 Furthermore, the UN is able to assist the administering powers in reviewing the political situation in the territory to properly plan self-determination referendums, and the Secretary-General is specifically asked to visit all territories during the Second Decade and submit a report on the progress of each territory.38 In 2005, at the midpoint of the decade, the General Assembly reiterated that the sustained and determined efforts of everyone concerned are required to eradicate colonialism and that territorial size, geographical isolation, or limited resources should not affect the “inalienable rights of Territories to self-determination.”39 In addition, plans were made to develop a solid framework for speeding up the process of decolonization in order to end the decade with full decolonization. Dissemination of Information This is an absolutely essential aspect of decolonization as it facilitates efforts to provide non-self-governing territories with the opportunity for well informed self determination.40 The UN Department of Public Information (DPI) is the most active body in this area. DPI is requested to direct, in conjunction with administering powers, the campaign to disseminate all relevant information in an unbiased manner to all people residing within NSGTs,41 to develop a list of public and government media outlets and services through which they can disseminate information,42 and also to work with regional organizations to publicize seminars and expert meetings and their results.43 Finally, in order to help the governing bodies of NSGTs, DPI is to help UN Information Centers become available to NSGTs and to create an information leaflet detailing the various UN assistance programs available.44 32 Secretary General (A/55/497) Report on the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism 33 General Assembly Resolution (A/55/146) Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism 34 Secretary General (A/60/71) Report on the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism 35 General Assembly (A/60/853) Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate 2006 - 2007 36 Secretary General (A/60/71) Report on the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 General Assembly (A/60/853) Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate 2006 - 2007 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid.



Environmental & Economic Considerations When considering the implementation and enforcement of the Declaration, there are several related issues that warrant special consideration, including the economic and environmental challenges faced by NSGTs, especially those resulting from the geographical conditions of the NSGT. Economic problems, stemming out of dependency on economic ties to former colonial powers is common. More specifically, it is the inability of NSGTs to gain economic independence, even after political independence that is frequently cited as a reason to deter self-determination and the implementation of the Declaration. Environmental problems can cause huge setbacks for NSGTs, especially when taking into account their potentially significant economic impact. Natural disasters are just one example of an event which can prevent the timely implementation of the Declaration. The Mount Soufriere volcano eruption in 1995 did just this on the island of Montserrat, causing the evacuation of almost two-thirds of the population, as well as enormous economic destruction. Challenges due to geography are also obstacles, especially considering that fourteen of the sixteen territories listed as non-self governing territories are Small Island Developing States (SIDS). SIDS face serious difficulties concerning sustainable development, including population shortages, size and location, transportation and communication problems, environmental issues, natural disasters, dependence on imports, emigration, water availability, natural resources, access to world markets, and overall foreign dependency. Current Situation There are currently 16 non-self governing territories defined by the United Nations: Western Sahara, Anguilla , Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands (Malvinas), Montserrat, St. Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, American Samoa, Guam, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, and Tokelau. The populations range from 46 to over 100,000 and are located in the Pacific, Indian, Caribbean, and Atlantic oceans. The Administering Powers are The United Kingdom, holding ten; the United States claims three; France administers New Caledonia; and New Zealand administers Tokelau. In 2006, the Special Committee issued the Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate 2006-200745. Within the Plan of Implementation (POI), specific directives are laid out for various UN bodies connecting the goal with that of major human rights conventions, and in furtherance of “the accelerated implementation of self-determination and decolonization mandate of the United Nations.”46 Eight areas of implementation are identified: Information Regarding NSGTs; Participation of NSGTs in the UN Review Process on Decolonization; Analysis of existing political and constitutional arrangements in the NSGTs; Visiting Missions; Protection, Conservation, Ownership and Control of Natural Resources; Educational Advancement; Development of Self-Government; and Support to NSGTs from the UN System.47 In February 2006, Tokelau held a referendum on its independence from New Zealand. The vote failed to reach the two-thirds majority self-imposed by the citizens of the tiny colony. Recently, the General Assembly recognized that there has been substantial progress made on the island towards handing over more power to the island’s three village councils, but the need for continued support towards self-rule was still a necessity.48 45 Ibid. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid. 48 22 June 2006: United Nations Press Release (GA/COL/3142) Decolonization Committee Approves Texts on New Tokelau, New Caledonia



Bloc Positions Administering Powers The United States, United Kingdom, and France are the administering powers who repeatedly question the need or viability of draft resolutions that come before the council. The usual position is that the move to independence will occur naturally when the people want it to, and that the mechanisms are available. Small Islands Developing States As the colonized people do not have a voice, smaller states, in particular island nations, usually support development of programs that will assist in self-determination. Support cuts across regions as the issues faced by groups in the Atlantic Ocean are similar to those faced by people in the Pacific. Solutions Proposed & Attempted in the Past Self-Determination Options It is increasingly obvious that there is a need for alternatives to immediate independence, especially for those countries that wish to have some form of self-determination, but cannot sustain without the support of the Administering Power. New Caledonia, for example, opted to transfer powers slowly over 15 to 20 years through a negotiated solution and progressive autonomy from France. The political and legislative process has been under way since 2000 and is their alternative to an immediate referendum.49 The British Virgin Islands is also an example of the need for another perspective on self-determination. The United Kingdom provides assistance to the Islands in areas such as education and health, rather than direct financial support. The gains of a move to independence are questionable, and would not change much within the Islands.50 Dissemination of Information A March 2006 Report of the Secretary-General highlights the immense amount of work accomplished by DPI from June 2005 to March 2006.51 DPI issued numerous press releases on the decolonization related meetings of various UN bodies, broadcast many radio programs related to decolonization, and published several reports and articles that addressed decolonization, both in print in the UN Chronicle and the Yearbook of the United Nations, and on the internet.52 Other organizations, such as the Decolonization Unit of the Department of Political Affairs, are also working very closely with DPI to maintain and improve a Web site devoted to decolonization.53 In a recent example of successful efforts to disseminate information, DPI promoted the February 2006 referendum in Tokelau by issuing press releases, which were carried by major news services and then spread further via the internet and radio.54 It also covered the results of the referendum for the outside media.55

49 Special Committee (A/AC.109/2006/14) The Situation in New Caledonia 50 1 December 2006: United Nations Press Release (GA/COL/3150) Self-Determination Options, Role of UN System Discussed 51General Assembly (A/AC.109/2006/18) Dissemination of Information on Colonization 52 Ibid. 53 5 June 2006: United Nation Press Release (GA/COL/3134) DPI Brief Special Committee on Work to Support UN Decolonization Mandate 54 General Assembly (A/60/853) Plan of Implementation of the Decolonization Mandate 2006 - 2007 55 Ibid.



Environmental & Economic Considerations A working paper drafted for the General Assembly lists the economic impact of the volcanic eruption as the main motivating factor behind the Government of Montserrat’s decision to sign Sustainable Development and Country Policy Plans with the United Kingdom, the contemporary colonial administering power.56 The Plan of Implementation is attempting to further mitigate the negative affects geography can have on NSGTs by including a request for the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to include Small Island Developing Territories in any of its programs concerning Small Island Developing States.57 Currently, very few NSGTs participate in the works of SIDS-related organizations.58 Conclusion Forty-six years after the passage of the Declaration, sixteen colonial territories still officially exist despite strong efforts on the part of the General Assembly Fourth Committee and the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.59 As delegates to the General Assembly Fourth Committee, it is your duty to consider how to best facilitate the process of decolonization, and how to enforce compliance. In doing this, it may be helpful to consider some of the following issues.

1. Observing that independence of many former colonies has resulted in conflict, consider further the extent of self-determination as the goal of decolonization.

2. Where does self-determination end and who decides which people can exercise it? You might take into consideration the overall political nature of the UN’s list of NSGTs. As some territories named on the list have requested to be taken off and are still listed, should the list include territories in which a referendum has indicated the will of the people and only third parties disagree over the outcome?

3. What alternatives or options to self-determination are acceptable? If the United Nations pursues alternatives, is that still in line with the Declaration?

4. How can compliance be enforced without infringing on the sovereignty of the involved countries? Is compliance even necessary? Is this a self-enforcing initiative?

5. Because of the varying degrees of independence within the colonies, is enforcement feasible? How many different plans will need to be developed? How can current enforcement framework be utilized? How can the administering countries contribute?

Topic Specific Resources

- Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries & Peoples (1960): http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/c_coloni.htm

- Resolution on the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries & Peoples (1960):

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/docs_historical%20resolutions.htm

- Resolution Establishing the Special Committee on Decolonization (1961): http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/docs_historical%20resolutions.htm

56 28 June 1999: United Nations Press Release (GA/COL/3012) Special Committee on Decolonization Begins Consideration of Small Islands 57 Report of the Main Committee of the General Assembly 58 Small Island Developing State Network 59 16 June 2006: United Nations Information Service Press Release (GA/COL/3140) Special Committee On Decolonization Adopts Draft Resolution



- Resolution on the First International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (1988):

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/docs_international%20decade.htm

- Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2001): http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/docs_second%20international%20decade.htm

- Letter from the Permanent Representative of Saint Lucia containing the Plan of Action (2006):

http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/documents.asp?id=1155

- Report of the Secretary-General on the First International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism (2000): http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/55/a55497.pdf

- Report of the Secretary-General on the Second International Decade on Colonization (2006):

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/docs_second%20international%20decade.htm

- Plan of Action 2006 – 2007 (2006): http://www.un.org/docs/ecosoc/jump2ods.asp?symbol=A/60/853

- The United Nations & Decolonization: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/main.htm

- UN Decolonization Documents: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/docs_new.htm

- Special Committee of 24: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/special_committee_main.htm General Research Links

- CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

- International Conflict Research: http://www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/

- UN Press Releases & News Coverage: http://www.un.org/apps/pressreleases/

- UN News Center: http://www.un.org/news/

- Permanent Missions to the United Nations: http://www.un.int/

- UN Bibliographic & Speech Information System: http://unbisnet.un.org/

- BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/

- New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/

- Charter of the United Nations (1945): http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

- Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948): http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/



Bibliography

BBC. (2006, December 10). Kashmir Flashpoint. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2739993.stm

Council on Foreign Relations. (2006, July 12). Kashmir Militant Extremists. Retrieved from Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/publication/9135/

Government of India. (2006, December 1). Retrieved from Ministry of External Affairs: http://meaindia.nic.in/

Government of Pakistan. (2006, December 20). Retrieved from Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http://www.mofa.gov.pk/

Small Island Developing State Network. (2006, December 1). Small Island Developing State Network. Retrieved from http://www.sidsnet.org/2.html

United Nations. (2005). Retrieved from UN News Service: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sgsm9810.doc.htm

United Nations. (2006, December 1). Retrieved from United Nastions & Decolonization: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/