RBSMUN 2019rbsmun.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NATO-1.pdfmembers, Canada, and Turkey. NATO is an...

STUDY GUIDE

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

1

RBSMUN 2019

NORTH ATLANTIC TREATYORGANIZATION

STUDY GUIDE


2

Table of Contents

1. Message from the Dais

2. Introduction to the Committee

3. Topic 1: Militarization of the Arctic

• Statement of the Problem• History of the Problem• Current Situation• Bloc Positions• Relevant UN Actions & Proposed Solutions• Questions a Resolution Must Answer• Citations

4. Topic 2: Situation in the Strait Hormuz

• Statement of the Problem• History of the Problem• Current Situation• Bloc Positions• Relevant UN Actions & Proposed Solutions• Citations

STUDY GUIDE


3

Message from the DaisHonorable delegates,

I warmly welcome you all to RBS MUN 2019. Within the upcoming three days under the NATO committee, you will be discussing and debating back and forth, devising a comprehensive resolution, and will be building up confidence for public speaking and diplomacy. RBS MUN is not all about sitting in a com-mittee and debating, it is a place where you can inculcate valuable life lessons while socializing simultaneously. And with such responsibility, comes mutual cooperation and integrity- to work with everyone around respectfully. Before you go in to the committee, you must be familiar with the mandate of NATO, its history, the conflict and all its fragments, which are - to the best of our abil-ity - presented here in this guide. I bet each and every one of you are ecstatic in attending this event and I hope all of you are as excited as us to be a part of such a platform. Come prepared, carry a positive attitude and most important-ly, enjoy what you’re doing. Since one of our topics revolve around the Arctic, don’t forget to dress up warmly before you get lost in these three cold winter days filled with unexpected twists. When many would say best of luck, I say do your best.

Sincerely,Samyak ShresthaChair, NATO

STUDY GUIDE


4


Namaste and welcome to RBS MUN 2019 !

It is my distinct honour to be welcoming you to the NATO Committee of RB-SMUN 2019. I expect the best effort out of each one of you and have full faith that none of you will fall short to deliver. Come what may, it is my pleasure and honor to be your vice-chairperson in this year’s UN simulation at Rato Banga-la School. The topics that have been chosen for this committee will require of you: knowledge, ability to compromise, productivity and negotiation skills. All your research, your debating, diplomacy, critical thinking, lobbying, and prob-lem solving skills will be put to test. We hope that you make the best out of this platform – one that has the potential to not only hone your debating and diplomacy skills but also to provide a start to new friendships. I cannot wait to meet all of you in person and be awed by your skills. Give your best and work to be the best. Your executive board is always at hand to help you along the way

Sincerely,Raunak B. ShresthaVice Chair, NATO

STUDY GUIDE


5


It is my immense pleasure to be a part of RBS MUN 2019, and I am honored to welcome you to the RBS MUN NATO family. MUN gave me the opportunity to be a part of something bigger than myself. I hope this MUN will prove to be an opportunity for you to prepare yourselves to make important decisions and choices in your life, ensuring that you are competent enough to make a difference in this world, as you comprehend valuable knowledge from the life around you.

But all the while, MUN is not only about debating. It’s about maturing and growing into a better version of yourself, and sometimes that can mean lend-ing your charger to a delegate in need, carrying a girl’s heels or supporting a shy delegate’s motion. It is about you, your personal growth, and the memories that you make along the way. I hope you will enjoy your time at RBS MUN 2019 and have a memorable experience.along the way

Sincerely,Amuka Shrestha, Moderator, NATO

STUDY GUIDE


6

Introduction to the CommitteeNATO is an alliance of 28 countries from Europe and North America, bordering the North Atlantic Ocean. It includes the United States, most European Union members, Canada, and Turkey. NATO is an acronym for the North Atlantic Trea-ty Organization. It provides a crucial link between Europe and North America, enabling them to consult and cooperate in the field of defence and security, as they conduct multinational crisis-management operations together. NATO is committed to the principle that an attack against one or several of its mem-bers, is considered as an attack against all. This is the principle of collective defence, which is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. So far, Article 5 has been invoked once - in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001.

NATO’s purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means;

Political - NATO promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate on defence and security-related issues to solve problems, build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.

Military - NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplo-matic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under the collective defence clause of NATO’s founding treaty - Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, or under a United Nations mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international or-ganisations.

In 2019, as the alliance turns seventy, it faces a new set of challenges. Some analysts warn of a Cold War redux, pointing to Russia’s military incursions into Georgia and Ukraine, as well as its efforts to sow political discord in NATO coun-tries. The alliance has responded by reinforcing defenses in Europe, but polit-ical rifts between members have thrown NATO’s unity into question. Consid-ering that five of its member nations (Canada, Denmark, Iceland , Norway , United States ) are Arctic countries, the committee currently rules in favor of the Arctic Council. It’s major goal is to ensure the security and safety of all its members as well as to promote peaceful collaboration among these nations. The neighboring countries take positions that are equivalent with their recent efforts to ensure their position in the Arctic. Depending on the country their ar-guments are either economically, politically, militarily or territorially based and might well include a combination of those arguments. It is hence important to address all these issues in the discussion.

STUDY GUIDE


7

Topic 1: Militarization of the Arctic

STUDY GUIDE


8

Statement of the ProblemThe Arctic has always been an area of geopolitical conflict, facing numerous claims from coastal countries of Russia to Norway. The reason for such a dis-pute accounts for the magnitude of resources present: oil and natural gas. Increasing rates of ice melting due to climate change have diminished land, while paving a path to the lush resources underneath. These Arctic lands are believed to hold more than $22 trillion worth of resources hidden beneath the ice, including 90 billion barrels of oil and 47 trillion cubic meters of natural gas (Gorka, Alex, Oct 2018). Additionally, creating shipping routes have also been a major aim for many developed countries in promoting their trade. As gradual tensions between Russia and the West increase, a physical war with negative spillovers will soon be inevitable.

NATO fears Russia’s military build-up in the Arctic, under way since 2008 that has already involved the creation and reopening of six military bases, could reduce the alliance’s freedom of navigation. Moreover, many countries such as Norway feel threatened by the rising expansion of Russian territory. As of recent, the Norwegian military and government officials have increasing-ly voiced their concerns regarding Russia’s annexation of Crimea, their (Rus-sia’s) adoption of quieter submarines, and Russians simulating bombing raids on Norwegian targets. (Fouche Gwladys, Solsvik Terje, Oct 2018)

Norway is also worried that Russia would be able to block NATO troop move-ments, and even reinforcements by taking control of the so-called GIUK gap: an area in the northern Atlantic Ocean between Greenland, Iceland and Britain. In contrast to Norway’s concerns, the U.S. military has also attached increasing importance to the Arctic, especially as global warming opens up new sea lanes, oil and mineral reserves. “Certainly America’s got to up its game in the Arctic. There’s no doubt about that,” U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, October 2018. (Stewart, Phil, June 26, 2018)

The GUIK Gap

STUDY GUIDE


9

The NATO alliance helps defend the Arctic. Thule Air Base is a good example of cooperation in the Arctic, as it is home to approximately 400 Danes, 50 Green-landers, 3 Canadians, and 140 Americans. Locked in ice nine months of the year, sea lanes are opened by a Canadian icebreaker. While extreme in location, being found 700 miles above the Arctic Circle, it is a good example of inter-al-liance cooperation on top of the world. Activity in the Arctic is predicted to increase and could bring about similar bases in the future. (Cross Tyler, 2019-07-19)

In conclusion, the effects of climate change continue to influence the dynamics in the Arctic region. Advances in technology will perpetuate territorial claims to sovereignty, while rising water levels will transform coastal boundaries. Al-though under the current status quo Arctic states are able to resolve disputes peacefully, these changes will most definitely bring instability as unanimous decisions are challenged, resource competition increases, and the strategic significance of the Arctic gains attention. Further, as Russia escalates their mil-itary presence and as the interest of foreign actors increases, further regional security concerns will arise. The ability of Arctic states to deter aggression and protect their interests through peaceful means requires the military backing provided by NATO. Therefore, in order to ensure stability in the region, NATO must pursue a détente and defense strategy utilizing diplomatic approaches backed with military strength to deter Russian Arctic hegemony and ensure enduring security. (T. R. Deja Cathyrine, May 2016)

The melting Arctic ice-cap makes the Northern Sea Route a viable and attractive way to ship goods between Asia and Europe © RTD

STUDY GUIDE


10

NATO’s current activities related to the natural environment include:

• addressing the impact of climate change;• protecting the environment from the damaging effects of military opera-

tions;• promoting environmentally friendly management practices in training

areas and during operations;• adapting military assets to a hostile physical environment;• preparing for and responding to natural and man-made disasters;• educating NATO’s officers on all aspects of environmental challenges;• supporting partner countries in building local capabilities related to pre-

serving the environment;• enhancing energy efficiency and fossil fuel independence; and• building environmentally friendly infrastructures.

STUDY GUIDE


11

History of the ProblemThe Arctic is the northernmost area on earth, covering approximately 8% of the globe’s surface, and is centered on the north pole. This region is delimit-ed by the Arctic Circle and includes the Arctic Ocean and the eight bordering countries: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the global economy went through a period of changes, which modified the in-ternational scenario. Technologies developed during the Industrial Revolution have enabled the increase of the production, and, in this sense, the seeking of new markets and new raw material sources had become essential. These needs resulted in an imperialist race - marked by the competition among the capitalist countries - that would lead to World War. Under these circumstanc-es, the Arctic exploration was even more important to control new routes and, thus, reach other markets (Mello 1994).

During World War 2, the Arctic emerged as a key strategic area because it con-stituted an Allies’ supply route. For example, the USSR, allied power that ac-tively participated in the war, received many resource convoys from the Unit-ed States program called “Lend-Lease” and the Arctic route was the shortest and most direct way to it (Herring 1973). At the end of World War 2 and during the following years down the 1940s, the Arctic region experienced a near total transformation in strategic and political significance. From the 1950s on, the Arctic region became a stage for tight military escalation between the US and the Soviet Union (Atland 2008).

With the dismantlement of the Soviet Union in 1991 into its successor repub-lics, and the consequent end of the cold war confrontation, military activity in the Arctic region underwent significant changes. Many of the (now Russian) Northern Fleet submarines were decommissioned; the DEW line sites were handed back to Canada by the US in 1990, and in 1993, a formal deactivation ceremony was held in Tuktoyaktuk, Northwestern Territories, Canada (DEW Line History 2011). Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, cooperation initiatives in diverse fields related to the Arctic, mushroomed in the international scene. The most prominent was the foundation of the Arctic Council in 1996.

Russia has military links with Norway, a NATO member, holding their Pomor joint naval exercises every year since 2010. The two countries settled a 40-year dispute over the border of the Barents Sea in April 27 of the same year, thus beginning to cooperate toward a common goal (Fjaertoft 2011). Another Arc-tic player, Denmark, has created a unified Arctic Command and an Arctic Re-sponse Force, besides investing 4117 million in military upgrades (Smith 2011).

In sum, the recent military developments in the region shed some light on the importance of its underlying causes. In other words, issues such as political prominence and territorial sovereignty in the Arctic have become indissociable from the economic prospects, to which global warming and the progressive melting ice cap signal, both in terms of resource exploitation and of commer-cial routes.

STUDY GUIDE


12

Current Situation Until the start of the new millennium, both the North Pole and much of the Arctic Ocean were considered neutral territory. However, as climate change has caused ice to recede and opened up new economic opportunities in this region, a number of countries have made claims to territory in the north. The Arctic Nations are currently planning to conduct scientific surveys in the Arctic , to make potential claims on the seabed, as well as to gain more con-crete knowledge on the possibility of deriving wealth from Arctic resource de-velopment. Following the research and surveys, countries have been racing to submit territorial claims to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, a commission created to supervise the implementation of UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).

So far, Norway, Denmark, Canada, and Russia have worked on Arctic continen-tal shelf claims and have extended claims to the arctic seabed that encompass-es large portions of the Arctic ,including the geographic North Pole. Denmark was the last one due to submit their claim earlier in 2015 following its ratification of the convention in 2005. The claim contradicted both Russian and Canadian claims which were handed in earlier and extends widely outside Denmark’s Arctic sector. The claim made by Denmark is based on the assumption of “Lo-monosov Ridge”, an area of shallow waters in the Arctic, a part of the continen-tal shelf of Greenland. If this is the case, that would strongly support Denmark’s claim. However, this is highly controversial as the Lomonosov Ridge connects Greenland’s continental shelf with Russia’s continental shelf. (Byers, Micheal, Jun 2016 ). Denmark claims to define this extension of its continental shelf in accordance to Article 76 of UNCLOS, which states that under certain geological conditions, the coastal states can extend their juridical continental shelf and thus gain marine sovereignty rights beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit of the EEZ (Curiel, Raul , 2010). In addition to that, the strategically important North Pole would fall into the area defined by the Lomonosov Ridge as well. Hence the current understanding is that whoever is able to proof the ridge is part of their continental shelf will own the North Pole. With the ratification of UNCLOS each signatory state had the opportunity to hand in their claim of continental shelf outside their EEZ. This needed to be done within a time frame of ten years after the respective country’s ratification of the convention. All Arctic neighbouring countries except the U.S. have rati-fied the convention and have handed in their claims. The U.S. is not allowed to hand in their claims under the umbrella of UNCLOS, as they haven’t ratified the convention so far. They have, however, submitted an informal claim not contra-dicting any other official claims of the other neighbouring countries (Persand, Sherveen, 2005) . China too, although not an arctic nation, has set its sights on a broader role in the Arctic affairs. While the U.S. has not yet extended any broad territorial claims to the Arctic seabed, the U.S. Navy is gearing up to deal with the challenge of naval surface warfare in an ice-free Arctic.

STUDY GUIDE


13

Bloc Position

Canada:

With owning over 40% of the landmass within the Arctic, Canada plays a signif-icant role in the debate. Therefore, it focuses much of its efforts into militarizing the Arctic and protecting its national interests. The prime minister of Canada announced the creation of two military bases in the Canadian Arctic. Large training operations are being held and new patrol vessels are being produced. New warning systems are under development and are being put in place. (Bur-net, Louis,Feb 2016)

Heavily concerned with its border disputes, Canada asserts its right to the Northwest Passage, as well as many other territorial disputes including, but not limited to, the Hans Island dispute and the Beaufort Sea dispute. Canada still maintains a positive relationship with most other Arctic states and plays a larg-er role in the Arctic Council. It is not as concerned about petroleum exploration projects as the other Arctic nations but they still remain active in Arctic affairs. They also care about environmental protection and the indigenous people of the area, as Canada is the home to almost 2 million Inuit people.

Moreover, Canada considers the attempts of the US and the EU, that support freedom of navigation in the Arctic, as a question to Canadian jurisdiction, especially regarding navigation safety in the Northwest Passage. Canada believes that the passages is a part of its internal water, and thus should be

STUDY GUIDE


14

regulated by Canadian national law. (Barestin, Kristen, Jun 2019) Denmark:

Being the only Nordic country that is a member of both the EU and NATO, Denmark is not generally supportive of cooperation in the Arctic and the idea of freedom of passage. Not as focused on developing their military as other nations, Denmark is still making heavy improvements to the Arctic, especially in terms of demilitarizing Arctic areas and strengthening its military in other ways. They are also involved in numerous Arctic disputes including the infa-mous Lomonosov Ridge dispute and are also engaged in a territorial dispute with Canada over the status of Hans Island . Denmark published a Strategy Pol-icy for the Arctic in 2011 stating that Denmark aims for “a peaceful, secure and safe Arctic” with self-sustaining growth and development, with respect for the Arctic’s fragile environment, in close cooperation with their internal partners. Denmark, however, are only tied to the Arctic because of its special relation with Greenland and the Faroe Islands. (Clemmensen, Jon Rahbek, 2011)

Norway:

The Kingdom of Norway is the only Scandanavian country to have direct ac-cess to the Arctic region . Due to this , they consider the Arctic as their num-ber one priority in foreign policy. Norway’s Arctic focus is devoted principally to issues such as resource management, the environment, and maritime trans-port, which is uncommon for other European countries. In 2010, the disput-ed area between Russia and Norway was successfully resolved. Norway seeks to maintain good relations with the Russian Federation as its main ally in the region . However, on the issue of militarization, Norway is aware of Russia’s in-creased military presence in the Arctic region and observes with concern Rus-sian bomber flying near the Norwegian coast. (Allport, Rowan , 2017) Russia:

Among all the Nations involved in the Arctic debate, Russia has undoubtedly taken the most aggressive stance on Arctic militarization with its military pres-ence. It sees the Arctic of huge importance to its economy as the Arctic pro-duces around 11% of the nation’s GDP. On the other hand, the Arctic provides Russia with access to three oceans and military bases which grants numerous advantages in terms of geographical positions (Nurlan , Aliyev , 2019).Therefore, Russia strongly opposes the internationalization of the Arctic, and also plans to arrange special military forces in the region. Russia’s closest partner is Norway, as they share common interests in the resource business, executing joint mil-itary exercises on a regular basis. And with the Barents Sea dispute, the rela-tions between the two countries continue to strengthen.

STUDY GUIDE


15

USA:

The United States has reinforced the UNCLOS, but remains as the only state that has not signed and ratified it. Under the Bush presidency, a United States Arctic Policy was issued outlining the strategic significance of the Arctic in terms of early warning systems and missile defense. The US asserts that its ves-sels should have the right of international navigation through the Northwest Passage and straits along the Northern Sea Route. The US has not militarized the Arctic in Alaska as much as other nations, but instead focuses on using the resources along the Alaskan coast. This resulted in tensions in the Beaufort Sea with Canada.The US implied that it is also entering the scientific and military race for sovereignty over the Arctic.Nevertheless, the US has always supported the need for freedom of navigation in the Arctic Ocean, focusing on the fact that its vessels have the right of international navigation both through North-west Passage and straights along Northern Sea Route. (Bennett, Mia ,May 2019)

Iceland:

Iceland sustains that it should be recognized as a major player in the matter of the Arctic, and all political parties of the country have agreed that the region is a priority for Iceland in terms of their foregin policy. However, the Arctic Council does not consider this country as a coastal state and in formal meeting, Iceland is not recognized as such . Iceland approved a parliamentary solution on its controversial Arctic policy in March 2011. The strategy can be boiled down to 12 points:

1. Promoting and strengthening the Arctic Council as the most important consultative forum on Arctic issues

2. Securing Iceland’s position as a coastal State within the Arctic region.3. Promoting understanding of the fact that the Arctic region extends both

to the North Pole area proper and the part of the North Atlantic Ocean, which is closely connected

4. Resolving differences that relate to the Arctic on the basis of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

5. Strengthening and increasing cooperation with the Faroe Islands and Greenland with the aim of promoting the interests and political position of the three countries.

6. Supporting the rights of indigenous people in the Arctic.7. Building on agreements and promoting cooperation with other States and

stakeholders on issues relating to Icelandic interests in the Arctic region.8. Using all available means to prevent human-induced climate change and

its effects in order to improve the well-being of Arctic residents and their communities.

9. Safeguarding broadly defined security interests in the Arctic region through civilian means and working against any kind of militarization of the Arctic.

10. Developing further trade relations between States in the Arctic.11. Advancing Icelanders’ knowledge of Arctic issues and promoting Iceland

STUDY GUIDE


16

abroad as a venue for meetings, conferences and discussions on the Arctic region.

12. Increasing consultations and cooperation at a domestic level on Arctic issues.” Iceland’s solution and strategy should be considered.

Asia:

Many Asian countries are observer states within the Arctic Council and others have also expressed interest in the resources present there. These countries include China, South Korea, Japan, India, and Singapore.

In China, although no authoritative statements or actions have been taken in regards to the Arctic, statements have been made that the Arctic should be-long to everyone and no nation should claim sovereignty to it. To reinforce this claim, Chinese Rear Admiral, Yin Zhuo, said, “China must plan an indispens-able role in Arctic exploration as we have one-fifth of the world’s population.” Although South Korea and China are both situated outside of the Arctic, both countries spend more on Arctic research than the United States. The Northeast Passage is valuable to both countries as it can shorten shipping times from 24 days to 10 days on a typical journey to Europe in the summer. In general, ob-server states exercise caution in Arctic policies so as to not provoke any of the Arctic states.(Voorhoeve, J.J.C. , Sept 2014)

South America and Africa:

Because many of the countries within these two continents have little influ-ence over the affairs of Arctic disputes, they tend to have weaker stances on the topic. In general, mostJ countries desire peace, and seek a peaceful reso-lution. Delegates may also wish to ally with relevant western and eastern pow-ers so long as it falls under the scope of their foreign policy. Serving as media-tors will also greatly aid the committee in pushing this topic forward.

STUDY GUIDE


17

Relevant UN actions & Possible Solutions:Though the measures taken by the Arctic nations have been important since they have prevented armed conflict in the Arctic; problems and tensions, how-ever, still persist. The existing measures have been successful to a certain ex-tent, but durable peace can only be ensured if the changes that occur on a regular basis can be incorporated in the undertaken solution.Solutions such as increasing the presence and involvement of UN, amending the Arctic council’s agendas to include the discussion of security issues or even creating a common ground for all nations can be counted as basic solutions .

The most controversial part of the Arctic region is its enormous wealth in terms of mineral resources. The Arctic has an enormous supply of natural resources, which, if used for military, can mean tremendous danger for international se-curity. All the members of a solution should agree to these terms, but there is a problem that awaits these countries. In the future, there will be a major lack of natural resources, their demand being greater than their supply. In the future, therefore, when all the other resources are almost depleted, the Arctic will hold a massive supply. An incentive to use the resources in the Arctic is therefore potentially larger than the agreements made with other countries, especially if they are not binding and are not out of free will. (Hince Bernadette, 2013)

Delegates may also consider that it is wise for the states that have already un-dertaken measures regarding the issue of the Arctic, to come up with a joint Treaty that replaces all the existing treaties. If they do so, it is to be recommend-ed that they consider who is going to sign the treaties, if countries are going to sign the treaties, and who becomes responsible for them. The delegates must also consider if creating a completely new treaty will make things more effec-tive, or less effective. (Martina-Pérez Simón, 2014)

STUDY GUIDE


18

Questions a Resolution Must Answer (QARMA):1. How will countries demilitarize the area and what can NATO

do to help?2. What international regime shall be employed to define the

countries’ right to use Arctic resources and routes?3. What opportunities and challenges will rise with the cre-

ation of Arctic routes? How should this process be conduct-ed in order to promote the most beneficial results to hu-mankind?

4. What role can non-Arctic countries play in the Arctic issue and how can their actions interfere in the Arctic countries’ sovereignty? Consider the International Law and territorial controversies among Arctic countries, what sort of collec-tive actions should be taken to avoid increasing militariza-tion?

5. What actions could be taken to improve governance within the Arctic Council and/or to eventually lead to the constitution of an “international regime” for the Arctic?

STUDY GUIDE


19

CitationsNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization, “Environment – NATO’s Sake,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 9 December 2014, http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_91048.htm

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “The Harmel Report,” 11 November 2014,http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67927.htm

The Maritime Executive, “The NATO Alliance’s Role in Arctic Security” https://www.maritime-executive.com/editorials/the-nato-alliance-s-role-in-arctic-se-curity

Reuters, “Russian buildup worries Norway before big NATO military” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-arctic-nato-russia/russian-buildup-wor-ries-norway-before-big-nato-military-exercise-idUSKCN1MC123

Reuters, “‘America’s got to up its game in the Arctic’: Mattis”https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-arctic/americas-got-to-up-its-game-in-the-arctic-mattis-idUSKBN1JL2W4

Strategic Culture Foundation “Militarization of Arctic: Issue of Incredible Im-portance Not Given Due Attention to”https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/10/24/militarization-arctic-is-sue-incredible-importance-not-given-due-attention-to/

Google Books, “The Antarctic Dictionary:” July 2013.http://books.google.nl/books?id=lJd8_owUxFEC MUNISH ‘14, “Establishing protocols concerning the militarizationof the Arctic”, http://www.munish.nl/pages/downloader?code=ga101&com-code=ga1&year=2014

National Post,“Canadian Forces to expand Nunavut training centre as Russia plans more bases in the Arctic”, https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cana-dian-forces-to-expand-nunavut-training-centre-as-russias-plans-more-bases-in-the-arctic

Taylor and Francis, “Between the Polar Code and Article 234: The Balance in Canada’s Arctic Shipping Safety and Pollution Prevention Regulations” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00908320.2019.1617932?af=R&journal-Code=uodl20

Althingi 139th legislative session March 28 2011, “A Parliamentary Resolu-tion on Iceland’s Arctic Policy” https://www.government.is/media/utanrik-israduneyti-media/media/nordurlandaskrifstofa/A-Parliamentary-Resolu-tion-on-ICE-Arctic-Policy-approved-by-Althingi.pdf

STUDY GUIDE


20

UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), “The definition of the continental shelf and criteria for the establishment of its outer limits” https://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/continental_shelf_description.htm

STUDY GUIDE


21

Topic 2: Situation in the Strait of

Hormuz

STUDY GUIDE


22

Statement of the ProblemThe Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterway that forms the entrance to the Per-sian Gulf from the Gulf of Oman and then ultimately to the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point it is 22 nautical miles wide, and falls within Iranian and Omani territorial waters. There are two shipping lanes through the Strait, one in each direction. Each is two miles wide, and they are separated by a two-mile buffer.

The exchange of threats between the members of the governments of Iran and the United States, and their respective presidents, has again caused the interruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a key waterway for the transit of oil and natural gas to world markets. In the first half of 2018, approx-imately 18 million barrels per day(bpd) of crude oil and condensate, almost 4 million bpd of petroleum products, and over 300million cubic meters per day in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exited the Strait. Iran accounted for about 10% of oil and 0% of the natural gas through the Strait (Berlinger, Joshua, July 2018). In a speech on July 22, Iranian President Rouhani stated, “We are the…guarantor of security of the waterway of the region throughout history. Don’t play with the lion’s tail; you will regret it.” To which President Trump tweeted, “Never, ever, threaten the United States again or you will suffer the consequences which few throughout history have ever suffered before”. Earlier, on July 3, President Rou-hani stated, “The Americans have claimed they want to completely stop Iran’s oil exports. They don’t understand the meaning of this statement, because it has no meaning for Iranian oil not to be exported, while the region’s oil is ex-ported.” (Berlinger, Joshua, July 2018)

This is not the first time Iran’s leaders have threatened to close or hinder ship-ping through the Strait of Hormuz. Prior to sanctions targeting Iran’s oil ex-ports in 2011/12, Iranian leaders threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. Press reports that Iran is about to begin a large naval exercise in and around the Strait in early August 2018 is likely to inflame tensions further.

The United States and Sanctions:

On May 8, 2018, President Trump announced that the United States would no longer participate in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and that all U.S. secondary sanctions suspended to implement the JCPOA would be re-instated after a maximum “wind-down period” of 180 days (November 4, 2018). The U.S. sanctions that are going back into effect target all of Iran’s core eco-nomic sectors. (Silke Koltrowitz, July 2018) The Administration has indicated that it will not look favorably on requests by foreign governments or compa-nies for exemptions, to allow them to avoid penalties for continuing to do busi-ness with Iran after that time.

STUDY GUIDE


23

It remains uncertain whether reinstated U.S. sanctions based on the U.S. unilat-eral exit from the JCPOA, will damage Iran’s economy to the extent sanctions did during 2012-2015, when the global community was aligned in pressuring Iran. During that time, Iran’s economy shrank by 9% per year, crude oil exports fell from about 2.5 million bpd to about 1.1 million bpd, and Iran could not re-patriate more than $120 billion in Iranian reserves held in banks abroad. JCPOA sanctions’ relief enabled Iran to increase its oil exports to nearly pre-sanctions levels, regain access to foreign exchange reserve funds, reintegrate into the international financial system, achieve about 7% yearly economic growth, at-tract foreign investments in key sectors, and buy new passenger aircraft. The sanctions relief reportedly contributed to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s reelection in the May 19, 2017, vote. Yet, perceived economic grievances still sparked protests in Iran from December 2017 to January 2018. (Silke Koltrowitz, July 2018)

The announced resumption of U.S. secondary sanctions has begun to harm Iran’s economy, because numerous major companies have announced deci-sions to exit the Iranian market, rather than risk being penalized by the Unit-ed States. As an indicator of the effects, the value of Iran’s currency sharply declined in June 2018, and some economic-based domestic unrest flared inconcert. Smaller demonstrations and unrest have simmered since. If the Eu-ropean Union and other countries are unwilling, or unable to keep at least the bulk of the economic benefits of the JCPOA flowing to Iran, there is substan-tial potential for Iranian leaders to decide to cease participating in the JCPOA. (Kenneth Katzman, 2018)

STUDY GUIDE


24

History of the Problem1980-1988 - Iran-Iraq war: the two sides seek to disrupt each other’s oil exports in what is known as the Tanker War.

In the 1980s ,during the Iran-Iraq War, Iran threatened to close the strait after Iraq disrupted shipping in the strait. The war lasted for most of the 1980s and was one of the bloodiest conflicts of the late 20th century. The targeting of each other’s merchant shipping, and in particular oil tankers, became known as the Tanker War, which resulted in over 400 civilian seaman killed, hundreds of merchant ships damaged and substantial economic losses. Ultimately, the Tanker War did not lead to the closing of the Straits of Hormuz, nor did it sig-nificantly impact oil exports from the Gulf or result in sustained increases in the price of oil. Reports suggest the combined anti-shipping campaigns of both Iran and Iraq never disrupted more than two per cent of ships in the Gulf. (J. David Goodman, Jan 2012)

July 1988 - U.S. warship Vincennes shoot down an Ira-nian airliner, killing all 290 aboard, in what Washington says is an accident and Tehran says is a deliberate at-tack.

On July 3, 1988, the Iranian airliner, an Airbus A300, departed at approximately 10:47 AM, and was headed to Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Crewmen aboard the Vincennes immediately began tracking Iran Air flight 655, which had tak-en off from an airport used by both military and commercial aircraft. There was confusion aboard the U.S cruiser over the identity of the aircraft, which was eventually determined to be a much smaller F-14 fighter jet. After several warning calls went unheeded, the Vincennes fired two surface-to-air missiles, destroying the plane and killing all those on board. For what was explained to be an accident by the Washington, Iran widely considered the U.S. attack had been deliberate.

Early 2008 - The United States says Iranian vessels threaten three U.S. Navy ships in the Strait.

A series of naval stand-offs between Iranian speedboats and U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz occurred in December 2007 and January 2008. U.S. offi-cials said Iran was harassing and provoking their naval vessels. Iranian officials said this was not true.

STUDY GUIDE


25

July 2010 - Japanese oil tanker M Star is attacked in the Strait - a group called Abdullah Azzam Brigades linked to al Qaeda claims responsibility.

A man claimed to be a spokesman of the brigade made a video statement that the Brigades were involved in the attack on the Japanese oil tanker M. Star in the Strait of Hormuz in July 2010. But many analysts are skeptical about the claim that it was the Abdullah Azzam Brigades. A BBC correspondent asserted that the perpetrators were using the name as a “name of convenience”

January 2012 - Iran threatens to block the Strait in retal-iation for U.S. and European sanctions aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program.

In January 2012, Iran threatened to block the strait in retaliation for US and Eu-ropean sanctions aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program. A similar threat was made in July 2018, when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said his navy could disrupt oil trade through the strait in response to US calls to reduce Iran’s oil exports to zero.

May 2015 - Iranian ships seize a container ship in the Strait and fire shots at a Singapore-flagged tanker which Iran says damaged an oil platform

July 2018 - President Hassan Rouhani hints Iran could disrupt oil trade through the Strait, in response to U.S. calling to Iran to drop their oil exports to zero.

In July 2018, President Hassan Rouhani hinted Iran could disrupt oil flows through the Strait in response to U.S. calls to reduce Iran’s oil exports to zero. A Revolutionary Guards commander also said Iran would block all exports through the Strait if Iranian exports were stopped.

May 2019 - Four ships, including two Saudi oil tankers, are attacked in the Gulf just outside the Strait. U.S. offi-cials blame Iran, Tehran denies charges.

On 12 May, four commercial ships, including two Saudi Aramco oil tankers, were damaged near the port of Fujairah in the Gulf of Oman. The United Arab Emirates claimed the incident was a “sabotage attack”, while a United States assessment reportedly blamed Iran or Iranian “proxy” elements for the attack

June 2019 - Two tankers are attacked south of the Strait which Washington blames on Iran, and Tehran denies.

STUDY GUIDE


26

On 17 June, the U.S. announced the deployment of 1,000 more soldiers to the Middle East after a second incident in the Gulf of Oman, that saw two oil tank-ers catch fire after being allegedly attacked by limpet mines or flying objects. As in the May incident, the U.S. blamed Iranian forces for the attacks.

June 2019 - Iran shoots down a U.S. drone.

On 20th June, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down a U.S. surveil-lance drone, saying that the drone violated Iranian airspace. IRGC commander Hossein Salami called the shoot-down a “clear message” to the U.S, while also warning that though they were not seeking war, Iran was “completely ready” for it. U.S. Central Command later confirmed that the drone was shot down by Iranian surface-to-air missiles, but denied that it violated Iranian airspace, calling it an “unprovoked attack” in the international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran and the United States provided conflicting GPS coordinates for the drone’s location, making it unclear whether or not the drone was within Iran’s 12-mile territorial boundary .

July 2019 - The USS Boxer destroys an Iranian drone in the Strait after it threatens the U.S. Navy ship, but Iran denies it has lost a drone

On July 18, USS Boxer took defensive action against an Iranian drone that had closed with a ship in the Persian Gulf by approximately 1,000 yards (910 m), as they jammed the drone and caused it to crash. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Abass Araghchi, denied any of the country’s drones had been brought down. General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., commander of the U.S. Central Command, subsequently claimed that USS Boxer may have downed a second Iranian drone.

July 2019 - Iran seizes British-operated oil tanker Stena Impero in the Strait

Iran seized a British tanker in the Strait of Hormuz for alleged marine violations and allowed a second one to proceed after issuing a warning. The actions were seen as a dramatic intensification of the already weak relations between the U.S. and Iran, and now Britain, which seized an Iranian tanker suspected of car-rying oil to Syria.

STUDY GUIDE


27

Current SituationThe latest conflicts in the Strait of Hormuz arose after Trump administration’s decision to leave the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018. When Iran struck that ac-cord in 2015 with the U.S., U.K., Russia, France, China, Germany and the Europe-an Union, it agreed to restrict its nuclear development in exchange for lifting economic sanctions against it. By July 2018, Iran had threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz to retaliate against the ratcheting up of U.S. sanctions against it (Ghaddar, Ahmad, July 2019). By engaging in hybrid warfare, Iran appears to have already begun to disrupt trade flows through the strait and raise the dip-lomatic stakes.

Notably, the June 2019 attacks on Japanese and Norwegian-owned oil tankers coincided with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to Tehran. Iran de-nies any involvement in those attacks, but in the U.S. released video footage, it showed Iranian special forces removing an unexploded mine from one of the tanker’s hulls, and allegedly, it was most likely doing so to remove evidence. Modern cargo vessels are massive and difficult to disable. Unlike in the 1980s, most oil tankers now have double hulls, making them harder to sink. Further-more, the U.S. is building a multinational coalition to protect commercial ship-ping transiting the Strait of Hormuz as well as waters around Yemen. The fact that both the U.S. and Iran say that they want to find a diplomatic solution sug-gests that neither side wants to see the conflict escalate into a full-blown war. Global oil and natural gas prices declined in the first six months of 2019 despite tensions in the Gulf due to a growth in supply. (Ghaddar, Ahmad July 2019)

STUDY GUIDE


28

Bloc PositionsIran

Upon signing the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, Iran submitted an interpretative declaration, which clarified its legal understanding of certain provisions concerning straits. Two parts of the declaration are relevant to the current case: first, from the Iranian perspective, the right of transit passage through international straits is only a right “quid pro quo.” Only states that have signed UNCLOS are entitled to benefit from the contractual rights it created. Second, Iran perceives, that the right of a coastal state to adopt laws and reg-ulations for safeguarding its security interests, can also include the require-ments of prior authorization for warships.Iran has been particularly sensitive about threats to its sovereignty and territorial integrity, after being partitioned and occupied by Britain and Russia during the Second World War. The moti-vation behind Iran’s quid pro quo declaration is based on the understanding of the Convention as a package deal, whereby universal liberal freedom rights of navigation are balanced in UNCLOS with preferential access of the coastal states to seabed resources. (In picture: Iranian smugglers in the strait in 2012. Reuters/Ahmed Jadallah)

USA

The United States rejects any restrictions to maritime navigation rights. As U.S. legal scholar Michael Reisman made clear in 1980, in the perception of the United States, maritime straits are international waterways, which cannot be impeded or suspended. In the beginning of 2012, the U.S. State Department reemphasized this position. In previous diplomatic notes, the United States protested Iran’s marine legislation, which regulates transit passage rights.The United States argued that no coastal state may require prior permission from

STUDY GUIDE


29

foreign ships to exercise the right of innocent passage.From the U.S. perspec-tive, the right of transit passage has to be unrestricted in order to minimize conflict.

France

France have emphasized their commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, so- long as Iran respects its obligations — describing the deal as a cornerstone of Middle East stability. Calling on all parties to refrain from words and actions that could weaken it and provoke an escalation of tensions, it echoes expressions of concern about the United States withdrawal, Iran’s an-nouncement of non-compliance and its ballistic-missile activities. Appealing for pragmatism and clear-headedness, the delegate of France declared: “Let us not sleepwalk into a military confrontation.”

United Kingdom

United Kingdom also urges Iran not to follow through on threats to surpass the enriched uranium limits specified in the Plan of Action and have underlined their full support for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Regarding that country’s ballistic-missile launches, UK said that — contrary to Tehran’s denials — such launches are, in fact, capable of delivering a nuclear weapon. “Stated intent is irrelevant.” United Kingdom emphasized that Iran’s pattern of desta-bilizing behaviour poses a threat to the region, noting with near certainty that the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was responsible for the recent attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.

China

China said the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action endorsed by the Council, “has the effect of international law”. Noting that the action plan is crucial to maintaining international peace and stability, they added that its future is now at a critical juncture. Expressing hope that Tehran will maintain its compli-ance and that the other parties will continue to respect the agreement, China voiced regret over the United States decision to withdraw from it, as well as that country’s imposition of unilateral sanctions, warning all parties to remain calm against the backdrop of recent escalations in the Middle East. They said they should exercise restraint, engage in dialogue and refrain from any actions that could further raise tensions.

Russia

The Russian Federation, however, said the United States is trying to shift the

STUDY GUIDE


30

blame and punish those who implement Council resolutions. Noting that as-sertions that no one is planning regime change are followed by threats of oblit-eration and increased military presence, said that such signals — incompre-hensible even to an experienced cryptologist — can only bring the situation to a point of no return. Constantly raising the stakes, it stressed, will only provoke extreme sentiments.

STUDY GUIDE


31

Relevant UN actions & Possible Solutions:Since the U.S. withdrew from the 2015 nuclear agreement and unilaterally slapped sanctions on Iran, US-Iran relations have been in free fall. Both the U.S. and the U.K. have proposed multinational efforts to address the situation. But implementation will be politically difficult.

The U.S. has asked some 60 countries, including its allies, the U.K., France, Ger-many, Norway, Australia, Japan and South Korea, to participate in its “Opera-tion Sentinel”. Although South Korea and France have agreed, Germany and Japan have declined. Operation Sentinel is the U.S. Central Command’s effort to promote maritime stability, ensure safe passage, and de-escalate tensions in international waters throughout the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb strait and the Gulf of Oman. The point of Operation Sentinel is to “de-escalate by deterring an escalation — any unnecessary provocation that leads to an unnecessary conflict,” Esper said. “[We’re] trying to de-escalate and at the same time message [Iran] very clearly, that without precondition, any time, any place, we’re willing to meet with them to talk about how we get back on into a negotiation.” For now the secretary states that the United States will work to make sure U.S. flagged ships have safe passage over the waterways in the Middle East. (Esper,2019)

An outright closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran, a major artery of the glob-al oil market, would be an unprecedented disruption of global oil supply and would likely contribute to higher global oil prices. Iranian officials could con-tinue to make threatening statements without taking action. Alternately, Iran could conduct naval exercises in the waterway that raise tensions, whether or not any offensive action is planned. (Wintour,2018) UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an independent investiga-tion into apparent actions on tankers transiting through the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman. “We believe it is very important to avoid, at all costs, a major confrontation in the Gulf,” said Guterres in New York. “At the present moment, we don’t see a mechanism of dialogue possible to be in place.” The US and UK have accused Tehran of attacking tankers transiting through the waterways that separate the Arabian Peninsula and Iran, allega-tions which Iranian officials have denied.(Deutsche Welle, 2019)

STUDY GUIDE


32

CitationsOffice of the President of Iran, press release, July 22, 2018, http://www.presi-dent.ir/en/105359. Joshua Berlinger, “Trump Tweets Explosive Threat to Iran,” CNN, July 23, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/23/ Ahmad Ghaddar, “Strait of Hormuz: the world’s most important oil artery” July 21, 2019https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-tanker-factbox/strait-of-hor-muz-the-worlds-most-important-oil-artery-idUSKCN1UG0FI See, for example, Brian Hook, “Briefing with an Iran Diplomacy Up-date,” Department of State, July 2, 2018, https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2018/07/283669.htm.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica ,Jun 26 2019 “https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Air-flight-655”

Ben Hancock , July 30 ,2010 https://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-se-curity/2010/0730/Did-Iran-attack-Japanese-oil-tanker-in-Strait-of-Hormuz

Silke Koltrowitz, “Iran’s Rouhani Hints at Threat to Neighbors’ Exports if Oil Sales Halted,” Reuters, July 3, 2018, online edition. J. David Goodman. “Iran Warns U.S. Aircraft Carrier Not to Return to Gulf and a Strategic Strait.” The New York Times, January 4, 2012 CRS analyst Kenneth Katzman. For additional information on Iran sanctions and the U.S. withdrawal, see CRS Report RS20871, Iran Sanctions, by Kenneth Katzman, or CRS Report R43333, Iran Nuclear Agreement and U.S. Exit, by Paul K. Kerr and Kenneth Katzman. For additional information, see CRS In Focus IF10916, Efforts to Preserve Eco-nomic Benefits of the Iran Nuclear Deal, by Cathleen D. Cimino-Isaacs, Ken-neth Katzman, and Derek E. Mix.

RBSMUN 2019rbsmun.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NATO-1.pdfmembers, Canada, and Turkey. NATO is an...

Documents

Transcript of RBSMUN 2019rbsmun.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NATO-1.pdfmembers, Canada, and Turkey. NATO is an...