Committee guide Specpol

Munic 2011
City School Model United Nations 2011

Letter from the Dias

Dear Delegates, My name is Omer Imran Malik, I am currently studying my A levels Final year at Froebels International School, I will use this space not to tell you about my expansive MUN-ing career or anything about myself, rather I will tell you what is expected from you as MUN-ers and debaters by me. My promise to you is that the level of debate will be high; the topics have been so chosen to maximize the level of participation for all delegates, but remember to research well because I do mind ill researched delegates. If this is your first MUN, do not worry, Shy debaters do not annoy me as much as stupid ones do. For all of you out there who come to this MUN for fun and frolic, let me warn you, I expect all of you to debate and participate, leave the fun for me at the fun sessions, I will not disappoint you, UNLESS you disappoint me. I expect your Position papers/Stance papers handed in as early as possible. I will not accept any after the first day; drop me an email at omerimrants@gmail.com for a few extra points. Do not forget to research and do not be afraid to debate. And yes, we will have an amazing crisis session. See you at MUNIC 2011.

History of the Fourth Committee:

When the United Nations was initially founded in 1945, there remained a large number of regions under colonial possession, primarily by European powers. In this context, the Fourth Committee of GA on Special Political and Decolonization (SPECPOL) was established initially as an ad hoc organ to resolve problems of decolonization and self-determination, as well as to alleviate the work load of and resolve political issues not discussed by First Committee of GA, DISEC. While there now remain comparatively few official colonies, SPECPOL is no less important, as the sovereignty of various areas is still controversial. In 1978, the committee became a permanent one, undertaking the task of handling international politics. Today, delegates to SPECPOL debate issues that may range from international cooperation in the peaceful use of outer space, to the long term effects of atomic radiation and topics of modern colonialism, such as Western Sahara, Cyprus and Afghanistan.

Topic Area A: Self-Determination Rights for Non-Sovereign Regions including questions regarding the issue of Kashmir . Introduction:
All UN member states, when granted membership, make a commitment to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace [as well as] achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion according to Chapter 1, Article 1 of the UN Charter. Despite this, country policies all too often supersede the aforementioned commitment to maintaining humanitarian aid and international peace. The UN charter guarantees the right of self-determination to the people of the world in its first article. Even after sixty years of the United Nations era, many questions regarding selfdetermination still exist. It is a dispute as to whether the right to self determination is absolute or with reasonable restrictions? If it has reasonable restrictions, then what are these restrictions and who defines them? The question of self-determination of non-sovereign regions like Tibet, Kashmir, Gibraltar and very recently Kosovo has been widely discussed by the international community at levels ranging from the General Assembly to the Security Council and the ICJ. While the hyper-realists consider territorial integrity paramount to peoples right to selfdetermination, the humanists care more about every persons individual and collective right to self-determination. For some of the superpowers like the USA and China, secession is not even on the cards. Despite the commitment shown towards the right of self-determination, the citizens of an alarmingly large number of countries across the world find themselves devoid of this right. The existence of dictatorship and fraudulent Governments erodes the very foundation of this basic human right, causing anarchy and absence of the consent of the governed. Moreover, under such circumstances, particularly in the developing parts of the world, the general public is banned from engaging in any form of protests or demonstrations. The developing countries, particularly those with poor democratic structures, have often been inconsistent with regard to the protection and tolerance of any form of protests. In most cases, developing countries have baton charged, illegally and indefinitely detained protesters and denied them the basic rights accorded to other prisoners. While the countries of the world have collectively agreed to, and made repeated statements pertaining to the provision and safeguarding of the right of self-determination, many have failed to comply with and fully implement such policies. The atrocities committed against those

seeking to obtain the right of self-determination, especially in recent months in various countries of the world, must not only be condemned but also curbed. Additionally, the United Nations Human Rights Council must seek to ensure the preservation and continuation of the principles of self-determination in all countries of the world, without any exceptions and prejudices whatsoever.

The Issue of Kashmir

The partition of the sub-continent in 1947 led to the birth of India and Pakistan who contested territorial rights to the Princely State of Kashmir and Jammu. Indeed, there has been tremendous rivalry between these two states since then. There have been attempts to pacify conflict through cease fires and potential plebiscites; however, they have always failed. The situation has become serious with the risk of a potential nuclear arms race and with the looming civil conflict within Pakistan, situation in Kashmir needs to be resolved in order to prevent any further conflict. India and Pakistan made an agreement in 1988 that they would not attack each others nuclear facilities but there is enough reason and evidence to believe the arms race between the two countries has escalated. Both countries have significant nuclear capacities and neither is a partisan to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This means that there is no international verification of these systems by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The use of nuclear weapons by either of these states could have a disastrous impact on the Southeast Asian region. Security Council Resolution 47 has still not been upheld which is of deep concern to the international community. SPECPOL stresses the importance of self-determination for people of decolonized territories. Pakistan strongly supports a plebiscite in order to garner the opinion of the inhabitants (which are predominantly Muslim), India asserts that the Instrument of Accession legally makes Kashmir part of India. Several disagreements between India & Pakistan still exist as to whether or not Indian troops were in Kashmir before or after the Instrument of Accession was signed by the Maharaja. That being said, the Security Council had intended for a plebiscite to occur shortly after it passed its resolution in 1948 and this should be respected. Pakistan and India view Kashmir as important to nationalist sentimentPakistan for Muslim Unity, and India for the secularist movement.

Role of United Nations

The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 38 which called upon both the Governments of India and Pakistan to take immediately all measures within their power (including public appeals to their people) calculated to improve the situation, and to refrain from making any statements and from doing or causing to be done or permitting any acts which might aggravate the situation. The President of the Security Council proposed mediating immediate dialogue between both heads of state. In Resolution 39, passed on January 20, 1948, the Security Council proposed the creation of a commission of three representatives, one

selected by India, one by Pakistan, and the third member a common person chosen by the two governments. This commission would engage the two countries to find common ground, investigate the conflict, and implement future resolutions passed by the Security Council. Resolution 47 passed in April 1948 noted with satisfaction that both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite. Resolution calling for a plebiscite to be held as Kashmir was aligned with the political orientation of its inhabitants, the resolution called for the withdrawal of Pakistani nationals not normally resident therein who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such elements and any furnishing of material aid to those fighting in the state. India was called upon to reduce its military presence in the area to a minimum and follow certain provisions in order to allow for a peaceful plebiscite to occur. In addition, citizens who had been forced to leave their homes due to violence in the area would be invited back to vote in the plebiscite. In essence, Resolution 47 set the guidelines for a plebiscite that was supposed to be supervised by the UN. The first ever Indo-Pakistani War escalated in May 1948, when the regular Pakistani army was called upon to protect Pakistan's borders. Fighting continued throughout the year between Pakistani irregular troops and the Indian army. Nehru used this fighting as an excuse to not have a plebiscite: Pakistani presence in Kashmir violated the terms of the UN Security Council Resolution and therefore there could not be such a vote. On January 1, 1949, the UN finally brokered a deal between the two countries and a cease-fire line was drawn where the fighting had stopped. The resolution passed included the presence of a peacekeeping force in the area (United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan). However, a referendum never happened. The second Indo-Pakistani war saw Pakistan launch an attack across the cease-fire line and India responding by invading Lahore. The UN established another cease-fire and through the Tashkent agreements, both countries stressed the importance of having a peaceful solution to the dispute. Tensions would escalate again in 1971 when India assisted Bangladesh or East Pakistan in its secession from Pakistan, which was plagued by civil war. Again, the UN Security Council intervened and passed Resolution 307 calling for another cease fire in the province. Throughout the late 1980s and 1990s, a military Islamic movement began in Kashmir. In 1989 armed resistance to Indian rule began in the Kashmir valley. Muslim political parties complained that the 1987 elections to the state's legislative assembly were rigged against them, and they formed militant wings. India claimed that these groups were sponsored (supplied and trained) by Pakistan and demanded that it stop sponsoring cross-border terrorism. That being said, regardless of whether or not Pakistan was to blame for this growing movement, Kashmir has yet to conduct a legally binding plebiscite to take into account the views of its inhabitants.

Bloc Positions:
The United States has and should act cautiously due to the cordial ties with both India and Pakistan. Nonetheless, it has a very unique relationship with Pakistan due to the War on Terror and the USA should consider supporting efforts that aim to have a plebiscite within Kashmir to determine whether the territory goes to India, Pakistan, or becomes independent. Most of the North and South American countries do not have a vested interest in this topic but would favor a plebiscite nonetheless. Most Asian countries are worried about the destabilizing effect that the current situation between India and Pakistan is bringing to the area. China gains the most from a conflict in Kashmir as their rival India is drawn into a protracted conflict which diverts Indias attention and potentially weakens them. Other countries in this region fear the possibility of nuclear war, for the fallout may be over their nations. These countries favor solutions that address the nuclear arms race between the two. Some countries even consider the impact of instability within Pakistan on neighboring areas if the situation escalates beyond what it currently is. Europe is well-aware of the potential dangers looming because of the nuclear proliferation risk. It has pushed for agreements to be made between the two states to ensure that neither India nor Pakistan attacks each other with nuclear weapons. Europe pushes for greater cooperation between the two and the rest of the international community with regard to their nuclear programs given the presence of UN Peacekeepers along the Cease Fire Line in Kashmir. Many European countries favor a plebiscite The United Kingdom needs to be in line with European Policy but it should be cautious on the issue of the plebiscite since it supported the initial Instrument of Accession. African Countries would support a plebiscite and/or be in favor of ways that address the aspirations of self-determination for the Kashmiri people.

Questions A Resolution Must Answer (QARMA):

How should the UN, and more specifically, SPECPOL, ensure that the relevant parties work towards a viable solution and address the aspirations of self-determination of people around the world? How can decolonization be supported without jeopardizing other tenets enshrined in the UN Charter? While talks continue, how can the UN and the international community at large ensure that human rights are not abused where people demand their right of self-determination? How can claims of national self-determination be appropriately address by the committee?

Topic Area B: Privatization of War: Legal, Ethical and Economical Aspects History of the Problem
Challenging with the phenomenon of traditional conscripted armies, private military corporations (PMCS) became a popular debate of international agenda, especially with the 2003 Iraqi War. Although PMCs are known as a newly-emerged notion, its primitive traces can be found even in the ancient times, as mercenaries. The commoditization phenomenon establishes a new sense of mercenary at last decades. Escalation of public awareness regarding to the war casualties forced elected-governments touse paid-soldiers (contractors) instead of conscripted ones. This rendered a new sector of business in which army become an influential trading good. With the emergence of the modern Private Military Corporations (PMCs), however, the private security and military industry have taken a drastic turn; one where consequences of privatizing war by such companies result in the problems tripartite division: legal, ethical and economic.

Legal
Since the 1990s, functions that were traditionally performed by official state security or military forces have been sub-contracted to PMCs whose activities comprise security tasks, logistical and technical support, and training and close protection. However, these private contractors are increasingly being hired for intelligence gathering and analysis, custody and interrogation of prisoners and participation on combats, bringing them to the front line of war. The foregoing activities bring those who are protected under international humanitarian law into direct contact with private companies together with governments and one must bear in mind that delegation of such duties to a contractor does not relieve a State from its responsibilities nor does it justify grounds for contractors to take part in combat operations. Besides the biggest legal problem concerning the PMCs is that according to the Genoa Convention, if the contractor engages in combat, he/she can be classified as a mercenary by the captors (under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) Article 47.c), unless falling under an exemption to this clause in Article 47. If captured contractors are found to be mercenaries, they are unlawful combatants and lose the right to prisoner of war status. Hence, it becomes necessary to look into the legal standards that have been embedded in each States political perspective with regard to the interference of private companies in a matter (i.e. war/conflict/combat operations) that touches upon international public law.

Ethical
The implications of the public/private division run through international ethics, especially when the use of force is under the limelight. An activity in the private sphere has far greater effect on the application of ethical norms in the public sphere. PMCs, by occupying a nebulous position vis vis international law, may skew the application of principles such as proportionality and the repercussion as seen on the division between private and public periphery. Further, the role of private actors, while theorizing this division through their

involvement in warfare, challenges the traditional notions of justice and war, thereby creating new moral complexities. Commentators especially note that ethical norms of the international arena, including human rights standards and laws pertaining to armed conflict, evolved in an era of great power threat.

Economical
The economic incentive for peace and stability can be hindered through economic aggression brought by private companies during warfare. The question of peace and stability amidst the conflict soon morph into economic conquest when PMCs aim to profit from war. Privatization programs that have been instituted especially in Iran during the government of Mohammed Khatami in the late 1990s attracted greater foreign investment than the countrys own economic liberalization program; investment in oil refinery, the petrochemical industry as well as oil and gas infrastructure is the incentive of a number of countries including China, Russia and Italy to utilize war as serving their economic interests in the region. Apart from them, contractors are financed by citizens taxes. So there is also a tax dimension in PMC issue. Whether the tax-payers always show consent to it, should be discussed carefully. B. Past International Actions Means of waging war without accountability have long been seeked after by respective actors. UN has increasingly grown critical of private security firms who engage in new forms of mercenary activity and concedes that States which employ these firms could be held liable for human rights violations committed by the personnel. An international convention against the use of mercenaries has been ratified by 30 of the 192 Member States and among the Western countries that ratified this convention are only Belgium, New Zealand and Italy. A resolution criticizing new forms of mercenary activities was adopted by the UN in November 2007, stating that mercenary activities not only represent violations of human rights but also impede the exercise of the right to self-determination. Supporters of the resolution were mostly from developing nations, while most Western states, including the 27member-ed EUn, voted against the resolution. Meanwhile, the UN report on mercenaries has urged member states to prevent the recruitment of mercenaries or to establish regulatory systems of registration and licensing in order to regulate private military and private security companies and the individuals who work for them. Further, the study called upon States to impose a specific ban to prevent private military and private security companies from intervening in internal or international armed conflicts or actions aiming at destabilizing constitutional regimes. While there is currently a debate in US Congress about how to hold these private forces accountable, the political will to act remains absent. Given the vast size of this private force, it is not at all clear how effective oversight would work; auditors cannot visit many reconstruction sites because of security concerns, journalists are locked in the Green Zone, the army is stretched. The question of what entity is supposed to have the capacity or ability to oversee the men who have been brought to war zones to go where no one else will remains unanswered. Delegates are also expected to have a look at related article of the Genoa Convention and UN Mercenary Convention.

Current Situation
Investigations made with respect to the war in Iraq have demonstrated that private corporations have indeed penetrated western warfare, becoming the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the Pentagon. The private sector which takes so much of an intertwined role in combat has left militaries no choice for waging war without them. The Bush administration has further molded the conduct of war so as to be understood to mean as propagating greed. The companies who have the wherewithal to lobby the Congress have aimed to pursue their interests in the outbreak of a war diminishing it down to a means with which one can profit from. The armys role of deploying, redeploying, and sustaining itself has diminished, enabling the ground for private firms to establish control at great lengths. The question then arises: what will happen once these firms accomplish their objectives in the region where they have profited from and, establishing ventures in other parts of the world?

Proposed Solutions
One of the solutions one might instigate is regulating warfare and controlling democracy by means of authorizing the use of force. Secondly, the principle of legitimate authority must be understood to comprise those who authorize force as well as those undertaking and assisting in its use. Thirdly, developing a new category of jus in bello can help a State in determining and pursuing principles in connection with its external as well as internal relations.

Bloc Positions:
Rhodesia/South Africa In 1980, after the Rhodesian Bush War, Robert Mugabe and the newly-elected black majority government came to power in Zimbabwe Rhodesia. Numerous white soldiers, who fought a 16-year war with the ZANU forces led by Robert Mugabe, moved to South Africa to find a new home. White soldiers joined the South African Defense Force while the black government ruled South Africa; they set up private security companies among which included EO. Such companies soon exported their services to other African nations. The Balkans In August 1995, the Croatian military launched a major offensive into the Krajina region, in violation of the UN cease-fire, named Operation Storm. Using NATO-style tactics, including combined arms and maneuver techniques, Operation Storm defeated the Serbian resistance in less than 36 hours; the influence of the Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI) required that the military be professionalized, and was done so without delay. Afghanistan/Iraq

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have created the most prolific and certainly the most public use of private contractors in recent history. Firms from across the spectrum of private military services are all present in Iraq, concluding contracts from providing food and housing for the US forces (KBR), to training the new Iraqi military and police (DynCorp), to fulfilling security contracts for personal protection (Blackwater). Contracts and job opportunities in Iraq are so widespread that it has been described as the Wild West for contracting both by civilian analysts and contractors themselves. EU The European Union has developed its security competence since 1992, putting pressure on its Member States to provide troops for the increasing number of EU peace operations being deployed to different areas of the globe. However, with national militaries being rationalized and contracted, the EU is presumed to follow the lead of the US and the UK and start using PMCs to undertake some of the functions of peace operations.

Questions A Resolution Must Answer (QARMA):

1. What are the responsibilities of States with respect to PMCs they hire? On what authority do States decide in whose territory PMCs are incorporated and operate in? 2. Are States relieved of their responsibilities once PMCs take role in war? Should governments let contractors take part in combat operations? 3. What steps can PMCs take to ensure that their staff abides by international humanitarian law when undertaking military operations? 4. What bans can be used to prevent private military and private security companies from intervening in internal or international armed conflicts or actions? 5. To what extent is the use of PMCs beneficial or detrimental for lasting peace? 6. How would contractors engaged in warfare be funded?

Citations and Credits: FROMUN 2011 SPECPOL Research Guide by Palvasha Shahab and Minaal Tariq MUNTR 2009 SPECPOL Research Guide