SCSC 2014

Security Council Simulation at Churchill

SCSC 2014

UN Security Council

1

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

Membership in the Security Council (as of October 2013):

The United Nations Security Council: Founding, History, and Enduring Relevance Creation of the United Nations Security Council In response to the atrocities of World War II and the failure of the League of Nations to prevent international conflict, The United Nations was intended to be a “fresh approach to the world problems of peace and security.” One of the most fundamental differences between these two bodies, and indeed, an innovation that was believed to be the key to ensuring UN success where its predecessor had failed was the creation of the United Nations Security Council. Article 24 of Chapter Five of the United Nation’s Charter called for the establishment of a Security Council whose primary purpose would be to ensure “maintenance of international peace and security.” To this end, the Security Council was afforded powers and structured in a manner intended to ensure its ability to effectively monitor and respond to issues that threaten international well-being. In fact, Security Council members are required to keep representatives on hand at all times at the United Nations Headquarters in order to guarantee the ability of rapid response. Security Council Structure and Operations The Security Council includes five permanent members (also known as the P5 or the “Big Five”): China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. It also includes ten non-permanent members that are elected by their regional blocs to two-year terms. Countries currently serving in this role are: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, and South Africa. These non-permanent members are not allowed to serve consecutive terms. The number of non-permanent members increased from six to ten as the result of an amendment to the UN Charter passed in 1965. States that are not participating members of the Council but have a special interest in the issues under consideration are allowed to participate in deliberations but are not afforded the right to vote. Potential courses of action that the Security Council may take when addressing issues relating to threats to international peace include: assisting conflicting groups to reach a peaceful solution (the primary and preferred course of action), taking an active role in analysis and mediation of a problematic situation, issuing cease-fire directives, imposing economic sanctions, inserting peace-keeping forces into troubled areas, or even engaging in collective military action against rogue states or groups. The Security Council also has the option of using a Member State’s standing in the body of the United Nations as leverage against them; it has the power to recommend states found to be in serious and continued violation of the Charter for expulsion by the General Assembly.

Rwanda Saudi Arabia South Korea United Kingdom United States

France Lithuania Luxembourg Nigeria Russian Federation

Argentina Australia Chad Chile China

2

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

Simulation Overview Before coming into committee, delegates are expected to have a thorough understanding of the issues at hand, their country’s policy on the issues, and how their policy fits into the greater topic. Delegates should know what countries their country would normally work with, as well as ideas and solutions their country would propose on the topic. We highly encourage delegates to research and consider possible solutions for resolutions, however pre-writing resolutions is not allowed. Please keep in mind the scope and jurisdiction of the UN Security Council when considering possible solutions. You should also familiarize yourself with the concept of national sovereignty when preparing for committee. The United Nations respects the sovereignty of each nation, and as such can do very little within a country without the explicit permission of that country’s government. Your ideas should involve countries working together to address the issues on an international scale while staying within the boundaries of your country’s policy and the United Nations Security Council prerogative. When researching the topics, delegates should consider relevant documents and questions and issues posed in the background guide, as well as their country’s policy on the topics. At SCSC “crisis elements” will be introduced to the UN Security Council session, which potentially will be linked to the topics outlined in this background guide. The “Open Agenda” topic allows the Dais some flexibility at SCSC for it allows them to incorporate real-time or even real-world events to the committee session as they see fit. Be prepared! As part of this background guide we are including some information on how crisis committees generally function. In a crisis situation the importance of resolution writing is diminished and the importance of thinking and acting quickly through directives becomes far more important. What are Crisis Committees?

Crisis Committees are specialized groups at SCSC that spend most of their time dealing with real-time events that require immediate attention and action. These crises range from terrorist attacks to natural disasters to corruption within a certain organization. Common considerations of crisis committees include: understanding the crisis and its implications, informing (or not informing) the press and public, undertaking immediate damage control, reacting to the actions of other groups, and preventing future crises.

Simulation Overview Parliamentary Procedure Specific to Crisis Committees The same parliamentary procedures used for General Assemblies and Special Committees apply to Crisis Committees as well. However, Crisis Committees (such as the US National Security Council, NATO, and, at times, the UN Security Council) tend to be more informal than other committees, that is, they require a limited use of parliamentary procedure. They are often times more unstructured, and the flow of the committee is heavily dependent on the discretion of the chair. The chair will make his/her procedural preferences clear at the start of the first committee session. There may be a speaker’s list, yet most committees do without one. There is often no official setting of the agenda, as debate tends to flow between topics and is determined by the pertinent crisis at hand. In general, discussion occurs through moderated caucuses in which the chair calls upon delegates to speak. Delegates motion for moderated

3

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

caucuses of a specified length and speaking time and on a specified topic. Many issues may be discussed concurrently and crises introduced by the crisis staff may interrupt discussion. Occasionally, unmoderated caucuses (motioned for by a delegate) are held in which formal debate is suspended and delegates speak at will in groups of their choosing. In voting, a motion for an unmoderated caucus takes precedence over a motion for a moderated caucus. Often, motions are simply passed without voting if there are no competing motions. Action is taken through directives, and there are generally no working papers or resolutions, unless the chair so desires. Notes are used to communicate between delegates while the committee proceeds. They are often used to work with delegates of similar viewpoints to coordinate actions. Questions can also be sent to the chair (or crisis staff) in a note. Directives and Notes Directives

In order to carry out any action during committee, a directive must be sent by an individual, a group of individuals, or the committee as a whole. If it is not on behalf of the entire committee, then the delegate(s) can choose to make the directive private and it will not be revealed to the whole committee. If the chair deems necessary, the directive may need to be introduced by a requisite number of writers. To pass a directive on behalf of the whole committee, a simple majority vote is required. The chair will hold a vote as each directive is introduced. There are three types of directives – Action Orders, Communiqués, and Press Releases. Action orders are used to direct troops, agencies, individuals, etc. to take an action that is within the authority of the committee. An individual may only send an action order if it is within his powers. A communiqué is used to communicate with foreign governments, or individuals outside the committee. A press release is used to reveal information to the public. Examples of Directives Action Order Direct Allied forces to invade Normandy, France on June 6th. Paratroopers shall be dropped behind enemy lines on June 4th. Landings shall take place at Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches.

-The Allies Communiqué To the Emperor of Japan: We demand an immediate, unconditional surrender by all Japanese forces within 48 hours, or we shall be forced to unleash heretofore unimaginable devastation upon your cities. - The Allies

4

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

Press Release Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. - Franklin D. Roosevelt Examples of Notes- To a member of the same committee [Address Section on outside of Note] To: Franklin D. Roosevelt From: Winston Churchill [Message on inside of Note] We ask that you work with us to increase intelligence efforts directed against our so-called allies, the Soviets, so that we will not be surprised by any actions they take after the war. - Winston Churchill To a member of another committee [Address Section on outside of Note] To: Leaders of Romania, Axis From: Josef Stalin, Allies [Message on inside of Note] Seeing as the defeat of Nazi Germany is near, we would advise you to make a deal with the Soviet Union now or we will show no mercy when the time for your defeat arrives. - Josef Stalin To chair or crisis staff [Address Section on outside of Note] To: Chair/Crisis From: Winston Churchill [Message on inside of Note] What is the current disposition of British forces in the Middle East? - Winston Churchill

5

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

An Outline of Typical Crisis Committee Flow (please see Flow of Debate diagram on the next page)

A moderated caucus takes place with delegates outlining their position.

A delegate motions for a moderated caucus on a specified topic of a specified length with a specified speaking time.

Delegates discuss actions to take regarding that topic through the moderated caucus and through notes.

Delegates submit directives to the chair to take an action and motion to introduce the directive.

Discussion on the directives will proceed through the current moderated caucus and amendments may be proposed and voted on.

A delegate will motion to vote on a directive and the directive is either passed or rejected.

A crisis will occur, oftentimes in the middle of debate. The crisis staff will introduce new information or developments through news articles, videos, intelligence reports, etc.

Discussion will shift informally or through a new moderated caucus to discuss this development.

6

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

FLOW OF DEBATE: CRISIS COMMITTEES

Moderated caucus

takes place where

delegates outline their

positions

A delegate motions for a

moderated caucus with a

specified length on a

specified topic with a

speaking length

Delegates discuss

actions to take

regarding that topic

through speeches and

notes

Delegates submit

directives to the chair

to take an action and

motion to introduce

their directive

Discussion on

directives will proceed

through the current

moderated caucus

Amendments may be

proposed and voted

on

A delegate will motion

to vote on a directive,

which will either be

passed or rejected

A crisis will occur. The

crisis staff will introduce

new information or

developments through

news articles, videos,

intelligence reports, etc.

Discussion will shift

informally or through

a new moderated

caucus to discuss this

development

7

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

1. The Situation in Syria In Spring 2011, when the popular uprisings of the “Arab Spring” began across the Middle-East, protests began in a number of Syrian cities calling for President Bashar Assad to resign and for an end to authoritarian rule. In response, the Syrian government used military force against protesters and granted some symbolic concessions. In the two and a half years since the protests began, the protesters have armed and carried out attacks against the government and government supporters, and the situation has degenerated into a civil war. More than 100,000 Syrians, including both combatants and civilians, have died, and more than one-third of the population has been displaced, either internally in Syria or to neighboring countries. In addition, according to the UN Human Rights Council and other human rights organizations, both the Syrian government and rebel groups have committed human rights violations.1 The events in Syria have affected other UN member states. Shelling from Syria has occurred over the borders of both Turkey and Israel,2 and Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt have received large numbers of refugees. The Syrian civil war has also affected international relations beyond the Middle East. Tension worldwide was high in September, when the US threatened to strike Syrian military bases in retaliation for chemical weapons attacks on civilians. The US stepped down only when it and Russia came to an agreement, later endorsed by the Security Council, for international inspectors to identify and destroy all chemical weapons in Syria. If Syria fails to comply, the US has said it has the right to attack. But the Security Council resolution did not authorize enforcement measures.3 According to the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has the primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security.4 But until the Council passed the recent resolution authorizing chemical disarmament, it was unable to pass any significant resolution related to the conflict. Even then, the Council took no position on whether the government or the rebels are primarily at fault and, beyond calling for peace talks, said little about what can and should be done to bring the war to an end. What can the Security Council do to address these shortcomings in its position on Syria so Syrians can return to their homes and life in the region and in the international community can return to greater peace and security? History and Current Events To understand the current situation in Syria and determine how the Security Council should respond, it is important to understand the history of Syria, the origins of the civil war, and the way that human, regional, and international security have been affected by the war in general and by the use of chemical weapons in particular. A Short History of Syria The lands of modern Syria were part of the Mesopotamian “Fertile Crescent,” where the world’s earliest cities developed about 4000 BC. Until about 1850 BC, Mesopotamia was divided into two countries – Sumer in the southeast (in contemporary Iraq) and Akkad in the northwest (contemporary Syria). By 1900 BC, both were conquered by the Amorites, who governed the regions as Babylonia and developed science and law, including the Hammurabic Code.5

8

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

Assyria broke away from Babylon in about 1100 BC, establishing an empire of its own. From the 9th to the 7th centuries BC, the Assyrian empire flourished and at times stretched from Egypt through contemporary Israel, Lebanon, Syria, southern Turkey, and Iraq to the Persian Gulf, uniting most of the Middle East.6 Syria’s ancient roots have been traced through excavations at sites throughout the country, including the Tall Mardīkh palace near the city of Aleppo, where archeologists found “more than 17,000 inscribed clay tablets, dated to about 2600–2500.”7 Aleppo is contemporary Syria’s largest city and has been the site of much rebel resistance. Since 2011, it has been repeatedly bombed by the Syrian government, reducing “entire areas to rubble.”8 After the fall of Assyria, Syria was ruled by various empires, including the Persian, Macedonian, Greek, Armenian, Roman, and Byzantine. In the 7th century AD, the Syrian city of Damascus surrendered to Arab Muslim forces extending Islam and a centralized Islamic state known as the Caliphate.9 As time went on, the system fragmented into competing caliphs, sultans, and other rulers with different territories, ideologies, and governments. Christians and Jews continued to live in the area and, over time and in different places, were treated with varying degrees of hostility and tolerance.10 During the Crusades (1095-1291), Western Europeans invaded parts of Syria and its neighbors and established a series of small Christian states. After their defeat by local rulers who united Syria and Egypt, the area flourished until 1491, when it was sacked by the Mongols.11 Later Syria was incorporated into the Ottoman Empire based in contemporary Turkey. When Ottoman power began to wane and Egypt invaded and occupied Damascus, Europeans once again became involved, with the British supporting the Ottomans and the French siding with the Egyptians.12 At the end of World War I, control of Syria passed from the Ottoman Empire to France. From 1920 to 1946, France administered Syria as a League of Nations mandate (essentially a colony).13 After independence, the Syrian government was plagued by instability until Hafez al-Assad established the current government during a 1971 military coup. When Hafez died in 2000, the presidency passed to his son, Bashar, the current president. Although the majority (74%) of the country’s population is Sunni Muslim, Bashar al-Assad has continued his father’s policy of filling Syria’s top government and military positions with family members and people from the minority Alawite (Shiite Muslim) religious community.14 As a result, much of the opposition to the government is from Sunni Muslims and their Saudi and Gulf supporters. By contrast, much of the support for the government is from Shiite Alawites and their Iranian supporters. In addition, Russia has been a longtime supporter of the regime. Origins of the Civil War Inspired by 2011 anti-government protests in Tunisia and Egypt, Syrian protests first began in the city of Deraa and quickly spread to other cities. Protesters called for Bashar al-Assad to step down after four decades of family rule and for civil rights, such as freedom of speech.15 By June 2011, as many as 100,000 Syrians had participated in protests, and 1,500 had been killed by government forces.16 In response to the regime’s crackdown, numerous opposition groups, including defectors from the Syrian military, gradually took up arms against the regime. Most of the military, however, continued to support Assad. By fall 2011, the fighting between opposition groups and the

9

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

government’s military forces had escalated to full civil war, with large numbers of combatants on each side.17 As of June 2013, the death toll in Syria exceeded 100,000. Of those, about 43,000 were government soldiers and pro-government fighters killed by rebels, about 14,000 were rebel forces killed by the Syrian military and its supporters, and about 37,000 were civilians (including about 8,000 women and children) killed by both government and rebel forces. According to the United Nations, these are conservative estimates. Some tallies place the death toll above 200,000.18 The biggest question facing the Security Council is how to stop the fighting. Initially, it was thought the war might end with the death or deposition of Bashar al-Assad and the establishment of a democratic government. Two years later, it appears that the Syrian government is strong enough to hold onto much of its territory. Even if that were not the case, it is unlikely the fighting would end if the government changed. There is no single opposition movement ready to take the government’s place. Instead, there are approximately 1,200 rebel groups, each with a local power base and a unique agenda. Moreover, there is a growing divide between rebels who seek democratic reforms and those who wish to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state.19 According to David R. Shedd, the deputy director of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, this means the conflict could last for many years, regardless of which group technically “succeeds.”20 Human Rights and Human Security in Syria When violence initially erupted, it was by the Syrian government against unarmed civilian protesters. Thus, most accusations of human rights abuses were against the Assad regime. As the conflict has continued, however, human rights abuses from both the government and opposition forces have become apparent. According to Human Rights Watch: “Syria responded to months of peaceful protests with brutal force involving indiscriminate air and artillery assaults on residential areas and apparent targeting of civilians, and torture, which constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, pushing the political confrontation into an internal armed conflict. The opposition is increasingly conducting offensive operations. Some opposition forces have carried out serious abuses like kidnapping, torture, and what appear to be extrajudicial executions.”21 In 2013, Human Rights Watch observers found 59 instances in 52 cities in which the Syrian government explicitly attacked civilians. In many cases, these attacks, including airstrikes and bombings, targeted civilians waiting in line to receive bread from bakeries, or care from civilian medical facilities.22 Human rights organizations and the United Nations have also voiced concern over the inaccessibility of Syria to humanitarian workers and the paucity of routes for civilians to leave war zones. This problem exacerbates human security issues in the region, as people do not have access to necessities like food, water, energy, and medical assistance. Human Rights Watch reports that 70,000 people lack these basic necessities; fighting in the city of Homs has trapped and endangered up to 4,000 people alone.23 According to the UN, 6.8 million Syrians need some form of humanitarian assistance.24 Under the Geneva Conventions (which applies to intrastate conflicts and which Syria has ratified) and customary International Human Rights law,

10

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

combatants must protect the lives of civilians and must give civilians the opportunity to leave any territory experiencing armed conflict.25 In June 2013, Amnesty International reported that there were approximately 4.25 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) within Syria. Many IDPs ventured to leave the country, only to find that states like Turkey had closed their borders. As a result, IDPs have undergone continued attacks, often have to live in makeshift camps under poor conditions, and still have no access to humanitarian assistance. In one IDP camp: Heavy rain leaked into the tents and had turned the clay soil into thick slippery mud, raw sewage flowed between the tents. The food being distributed was insufficient and of very poor quality and large numbers of people complained of medical conditions for which they were receiving no treatment.26 Even when Syrians find shelter outside of camps in abandoned structures like schools, people have a paucity of food, water, sanitation, and medical services. Organization like Amnesty International have requested that states take action to assist IDPs, not only via humanitarian assistance, but also through ensuring that IDPs can escape the Syrian conflict by crossing borders.27 Relations with and Effects on Neighboring States The conflict in Syria not only affects the Syrian people. It also affects nearby states. In addition to IDPs within Syria, about 2 million Syrians have sought refuge in surrounding states (for a total of more than 6 million displaced Syrians), including more than 684,000 Syrian refugees in Lebanon, 516,000 in Jordan, 434,000 in Turkey, 154,000 in Iraq, and 107,000 in Egypt.28 This places strains on the states providing refuge in a number of ways. Refugees escaping war cause “natural resource depletion, irreversible impacts on natural resources, impacts on health, impacts on social conditions, impacts on the economy, and social impacts on local populations.”29 Often states must divert resources to refugees, putting pressure on social programs.30 For instance, in Jordan the “environmental sanitation situation has worsened due to the increased volume of waste” from refugees.31 In addition to providing a haven for a large number of Syrian refugees, Turkey has supported the opposition movement by allowing rebel bases on Turkish territory. This has inflamed Turkish relations with Syria, a former ally. In retaliation, Syria has shelled Turkish territory, killing five civilians as of June 2013.32 As a result of the approximately half-million Syrian refugees that have entered Jordan since the conflict in Syria began, Jordan has now closed its borders to refugees. Jordan has explained this with reference to the difficulty of providing food, water, and other resources and assistance to refugees, and its concern that the large number of refugees could spur civil unrest. In August 2013, Jordan asked the United States to provide surveillance and other equipment to secure the border from arms smugglers. It has also asked for humanitarian assistance meet the needs of refugees.33 The conflict in Syria also poses a serious threat to the stability of Iraq, where the minority Sunni population accuses the majority Shiite government of discrimination.34 Some of the Sunni militias currently operating in Syria have roots in and connections with the al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni insurgents who fought the US and coalition forces in Iraq from the US invasion in 2003 until the US departure in 2011. As their strength in Syria has grown, they have regrouped in Iraq. According to the US Department of State, the average number of Iraqis killed

11

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

by terrorist attacks in 2011 and 2012 was about five. By contrast, terrorist attacks killed at least 30 people during the summer of 2013 alone.35 According to the BBC, the Syrian conflict has had the most detrimental effect on the political stability of Lebanon. Hezbollah, a Shiite militia and political party with seats in the Lebanese government, depends on Assad for weapons to confront Israel and maintain political support. As a result, the group has assisted Assad in his fight against the rebels. This has angered Lebanese Sunni groups, which back the Syrian uprising and who have begun to fight Lebanese Alawites and supporters of Assad in some Lebanese cities.36 Although Israel and Syria have technically been at war since 1948, the Syrian-Israeli border was quiescent from the countries’ last real fight in 1973 until the Syrian civil war began in 2011. When shells and gunfire from the Syrian conflict permeated the border near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, Israel returned fire. Israel has expressed concern that Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda affiliates will obtain advanced weaponry from the Syrian conflict and use it against Israel. To limit this possibility, Israel has used airstrikes to attack military convoys in Syria. In response, Syria has accused Israel of supporting rebel groups and has threatened to strike at Israel if it takes further action.37 International Responses to the War and Chemical Weapons Use Shortly after the Syrian protests began, a number of regional organizations took stances against Bashar al-Assad. Most recognizably, the Arab League (of which Syria was a founding member) encouraged Assad to step down and hold peaceful elections and imposed economic sanctions to encourage him to do so. The European Union also imposed an oil embargo, which has severely reduced Syria’s economic output.38 A number of states in and beyond the region have become involved in the conflict. For example, Iran and Russia provide military assistance to the Syrian government, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar provide arms and training to opposition groups.39 In June 2013, after CIA analyses of the bodies of Syrian civilians and opposition forces revealed traces of chemical weapons, the US announced that it would provide moderate Syrian rebels with small arms and anti-tank equipment.40 In response, Russia and China have criticized the US for intervening in Syria’s internal affairs, in violation of the UN Charter. Despite their differences on intervention, the US, Russia, China, and other states worked together in 2012, as the UN supported Group on Syria (also known as the “Friends of Syria”), when they facilitated negotiations in Geneva between the conflicting Syrian parties. In the final Geneva communiqué, the group articulated a strategy for a peaceful negotiated end to the conflict and humanitarian assistance to affected Syrians.41 Throughout the conflict, US officials have argued against direct US military involvement in Syria, favoring a peaceful resolution and, if that is not possible, supporting the rebels in their fight against the regime. The US has called on Assad to relinquish his position and has encouraged states to impose sanctions on the Syrian government and to assist moderate opposition groups.42 In addition, in 2012, US President Barak Obama established a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons,43 saying that if Syria crossed the line, it would “change his calculations.”44 On August 21, 2013, reports emerged that a chemical weapons attack had occurred in Eastern Damascus and surrounding areas. Although some observers state that only about 300 people

12

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

died, others estimate that more than 1,300 people died and that 3,600 were injured and received treatment. Among those affected or killed by the weapons were non-combatants, including a large number of children. Although Assad has repeatedly denied using chemical weapons and pinned their use on rebel forces, the US has stated that it has strong evidence that the Syrian government has used such weapons.45 Shortly after the attacks, the Syrian government agreed to permit UN observers to investigate the use of chemical weapons, as both sides of the conflict have accused each other of using such weapons.46 UN reports from their investigation give some indication that government forces may have been behind the attacks based on the trajectory and type of missiles used in the attack. Observers from Human Rights Watch note, however, that opposition forces also had possession of sarin, the nerve agent employed in the chemical attack.47 In late August 2013, as a response to the attack, the US began considering missile strikes against Syrian government military targets, arguing that it simply sought to take limited action against Syria for crossing the red lines set the previous year. As President Obama continued to seek support for the strike both domestically and internationally, Russia stated that it would accept a proposal to remove chemical weapons from Syria. Shortly thereafter, both Assad and the US agreed to begin working towards eliminating chemical weapons in Syria. On September 27, 2013, the Security Council agreed to a resolution that would work to remove Syria’s chemical weapons by June 2014. As a concession to Russia, however, the resolution does not include immediate consequences for the Syrian government if it fails to fulfill its obligations under the resolution.48 The only significant element of the resolution that does not pertain to chemical weapons was a call for the government and rebels to attend Geneva II peace talks, which have been repeatedly postponed.49 Previous Committee Work on this Topic The United Nations has made numerous attempts to foster a diplomatic solution to the Syrian conflict, particularly by sending several special envoys to speak with the involved parties. The UN initially sent former Secretary-General Kofi Annan in hopes of placating both groups. When Annan stepped down in August 2012, Ban Ki-Moon appointed Lakhdar Brahimi to serve as Joint Special Representative for Syria representing both the United Nations and the Arab League.50 UN organizations have also tried to ameliorate the negative humanitarian consequences of the conflict. Today, the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, World Food Programme, UN Children’s Fund, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and the UN Population Fund all provide services to Syrians.51 For instance, UNICEF has distributed food, hygienic supplies, and water, but Syrian government checkpoints have limited the organization’s ability to reach people in need.52 References to the Syrian conflict from the Security Council generally appear in resolutions titled under the “Middle East” category, instead of referencing the state directly. This reflects the fact that the Council is divided on the question of whether it is appropriate to intervene in Syria’s internal affairs. In Security Council Resolution 2043 adopted in 2012, the Security Council established the UN Supervision Mission in Syria (UNSMIS). This resolution gave UNSMIS the mission of monitoring a ceasefire and ensuring the fulfillment of the Joint Special Envoy’s six-point plan. The plan aims to end violence in Syria, use the special envoy as a mediator, respect the rights and aspirations of the Syrian people, ensure the access of humanitarian assistance,

13

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

and allow free movement of observers, such as journalists. Initially, UNSMIS had a 90-day renewable mandate, but the Security Council stopped renewing it in August 2013 because the use of heavy weapons and the high level of violence made it too dangerous for UN personnel to carry out the task.53 From 2011 until September 2013, with the exception of authorizing and de-authorizing UNSMIS, the Security Council was unable to achieve consensus on any measure to address the conflict. In July 2012, China and Russia vetoed a resolution that would have placed sanctions on the Syrian government until violence ended against opposition groups. This was the third instance in which China and Russia vetoed sanctions on the Syrian government. China and Russia have stated that they want to avoid another destabilizing military intervention, as in Iraq and Libya.54 In the face of Security Council inaction, the UN General Assembly passed several resolutions on the issue. In early 2013, the General Assembly adopted the resolution “The Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic,” which condemned the violence and human rights abuses committed by both sides of the fighting and urged Syria to allow humanitarian aid and independent observers into the state to distribute aid, evaluate the situation for human rights abuses, and investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians.55 According to Syria and Russia, this resolution gave unbalanced support to the opposition forces in Syria and empowered terrorist organizations within the country. China also opposed the resolution, arguing that was in violation of the UN Charter because it interfered unnecessarily in the internal affairs of Syria. By contrast, the US and members of the Arab League extolled the document as emblematic of the international community’s desire to bring peace to Syria.56 Conclusion Soon the Syrian civil war will enter its third year. What can the Security Council do to ensure that the violence ends and stability returns to the country so that the war does not spread to neighboring states and further distance UN member states from one another? In researching and writing your country’s position on this issue, consider the following questions:

What political, military, economic, and cultural relations does your country have with Syria?

How might supporting either the Assad regime or the opposition affect your country?

How has your country been affected by the civil war in Syria and by civil wars in other countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya?

What is your country’s experience with civil war and human rights violations within its own borders? What is its record of involvement in civil and international wars in other countries? What do these experiences suggest about how the Syrian conflict could be resolved?

From your country’s perspective, which of the following elements of the Syrian conflict are most important: lack of democracy, religious differences, civil war, refugees, regional instability, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction? Should the Security Council attempt to address all of these issues, or should it focus on just some of them?

Is your country a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention? How did it respond to the use of chemical weapons in Syria, to the US’s threat of force, and to the Security Council resolution on chemical disarmament?

14

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

What can the Security Council do to ensure that Syria complies with its recent resolution on chemical disarmament? If it does not comply, what should the Council do?

What can and should the Security Council do to ensure that Syrians in particular and people and states worldwide will experience greater peace and security in the coming months, years, and decades?

1 Alan Cowell, “War Deaths in Syria Said to Top 100,000,” New York Times, 26 June 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/world/middleeast/syria.html 2 “Document - Syria: No Respite for the Millions Displaced by the Conflict” Amnesty International, 20 June 2013, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE24/031/2013/en. 3 “How Syria conflict affects its neighbours,” BBC News, 9 June 2013, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22815222 4 Rick Gladstone and Somini Sengupta, “Swift Movement Is Seen on Syria After U.N. Action,” New York Times, 27 September 2013; [newspaper online]; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/world/middleeast/syriachemical- weapons.html?_r=0 5 United Nations, “Charter of the United Nations,” June 26, 1945, Chapter V, Article 24, available at http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/. 6 Encyclopedia Britannica, “Babylonia,” accessed online on 10 October 2013 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/47586/Babylonia. 7 Encyclopedia Britannica, “Assyria,” accessed online on 10 October 2013 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/39555/Assyria. 8 Encyclopedia Britannica, “Syria: Early History,” accessed online on 10 October 2013 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578856/Syria/29902/Early-history. 9Liam Stack, “Satellite Images Show Destruction in Aleppo,” New York Times, 7 August 2013, http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/07/satellite-images-show-destruction-in-aleppo/ 10 Encyclopedia Britannica, “Syria: Hellenistic and Roman Periods,” accessed online on 10 October 2013 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578856/Syria/29903/Hellenistic-and-Roman-periods. 11 Encyclopedia Britannica, “Syria: The Umayyds,” accessed online on 10 October 2013 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578856/Syria/29910/The-Umayyads. 12 Encyclopedia Britannica, “Syria: The-Ayyubids-and-Mamluks,” accessed online on 10 October 2013 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578856/Syria/29913/The-Ayyubids-and-Mamluks. 13 Encyclopedia Britannica, “Syria: Decline of Ottoman Authority,” accessed online on 10 October 2013 at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578856/Syria/29916/Decline-of-Ottoman-authority. 14 “Iraq,” CIA World Factbook, available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worldfactbook/ geos/iz.html 15 The World Factbook, “Syria,” US Central Intelligence Agency, available at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html, accessed 19 August 2013. 16 “Holding the Fort,” Economist, 31 March 2011, available at http://www.economist.com/node/18488544 17 “The Squeeze on Assad,” Economist, 30 June 2011, available at http://www.economist.com/node/18895586 18 David Jolly, “Death Toll in Syrian Civil War Near 93,000, U.N. Says,” New York Times, 13 June 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/middleeast/un-syria-death-toll.html 19 Cowell, “War Deaths in Syria.” 20 Ben Hubbard and Michael R. Gordon, “Key Syrian Rebel Groups Abandon Exile Leaders,” New York Times, 25 September 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/world/middleeast/syria-crisis.html. 21 Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, “U.S. Intelligence Official Says Syrian War could Last for Years,” New York Times, 20 June 2013, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/world/middleeast/us-intelligence-officialsays- syrian-war-could-last-for-years.html?_r=0 22“Human Rights in Syria,” Human Rights Watch, available at http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/syria, accessed 18 August 2013.

15

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

23 “Syria air strikes 'target civilians' - Human Rights Watch,” BBC News, 10 April 2013, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22098794. 24 “Syria: Security Council Should Demand Humanitarian Access,” Human Rights Watch, 15 July 2013, available at http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/15/syria-security-council-should-demand-humanitarian-access. 25 UN News Centre, “Syria: Ban and Special Representative welcome US-Russia accord to spur political solution,” United Nations, 8 May 2013, available at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44853#.UhPHCD8cCHs 26 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (12 August 1949), available at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO/380. See also: “Syria: Security Council Should Demand Humanitarian Access,” Human Rights Watch. 27 “Document - Syria: No Respite for the Millions,” Amnesty International. 28 “Document - Syria: No Respite for the Millions,” Amnesty International. 29 UN News Centre, “Thousands of Syrians stream into northern Iraq via new bridge, reports UN agency,” United Nations, 16 August 2013, available at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45638&Cr=syria&Cr1=refugee#.UhJscz8cCHs 30 Ken Conca and Jennifer Wallace, “Environment and Peacebuilding in War-torn Societies: Lessons from the UN Environment Programme’s Experience with Postconflict Assessment,” Global Governance, 15(2009), p. 490. 31Brianna Kielar, Jessica Yellin, and Tom Cohen, “Obama to Move Forward with Plan to Arm Syrian Rebels,” CNN, 24 July 2013, available at http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/us-syrian-rebels 32 Oxfam, “Integrated Assessment of Syrian Refugees in Host Communities,” ReliefWeb [OCHA], 31 March 2013, available at http://reliefweb.int/report/jordan/integrated-assessment-syrian-refugees-host-communities-march-2013. 33 “How Syria conflict affects its neighbours,” BBC News. 34 Thom Shanker, “Jordan Asks for Help in Securing Syrian Border,” New York Times, 14 August 2013; [newspaper online]; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/world/middleeast/jordan-asks-for-help-in-securing-borderwith- syria.html?_r=0 35 “How Syria conflict affects its neighbours,” BBC News. 36 Michael R. Gordon and Tim Arango, “Syrian War Fueling Attacks by Al Qaeda in Iraq, Officials Say,” New York Times, 15 August 2013; [newspaper online]; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/16/world/middleeast/ syrian-war-fueling-attacks-by-al-qaeda-in-iraq-officials-say.html?ref=syria&_r=1&. 37 “How Syria conflict affects its neighbours,” BBC News. 38“How Syria conflict affects its neighbours,” BBC News. 39 Liz Sly, “Syria’s economy is key to Assad’s future,” Washington Post, 14 November 2011, available at http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-11-14/world/35281705_1_assad-regime-damascus-ayham-kamel. 40 Michael R Gordon, “Kerry Announces Saudi Support for Syrian Strike,” New York Times, 8 September 2013; [newspaper online]; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/middleeast/kerry-announces-saudisupport- for-syrian-strike.html?ref=world 41 Dan Roberts, “US Says it Will Arm Syrian Rebels after Chemical Weapons Test,” The Guardian, 13 June 2013, available at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/13/syria-chemical-weapons-us-confirm.

42 United Nations, “Action Group for Syria Final Communique,” 30 June 2012, available at http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Syria/FinalCommuniqueActionGroupforSyria.pdf. 43 Hilary Rodham Clinton, “Remarks Following UNSC Meeting on Syria,” US Department of State website, 31 January 2013, available at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/01/182848.htm. 44 “U.N. Chemical Weapons Inspectors to Start on Monday,” Reuters, 18 August 2013, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/18/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBRE97H05220130818 45Mark Mardell, “Obama’s Thick Red Line on Syria.” BBC News, 22 August 2013, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23800031. 46 “Syria chemical attack: What we know,” BBC News, 24 September 2013, available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23927399. 47 “U.N. Chemical Weapons Inspectors to Start on Monday,” Reuters.

16

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

48 “Syria chemical attack: What we know,” BBC. 49 Gladstone and Sengupta, “Swift Movement is Seen on Syria After U.N. Action.” 50 Security Council Report, “Syria: From Stalemate to Compromise,” 27 September 2013, http://www.whatsinblue.org/2013/09/syria-adoption-of-a-chemical-weapons-resolution.php 51 UN News Centre, “UN, Arab League appoint veteran diplomat to take over Annan’s role on Syrian crisis,” United Nations, 12 August 2012, available at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42702#.Uko5p4bNU0E. 52 UN News Centre, “News Focus: Syria,” United Nations, available at http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=146&Body=Syria&Body1=, accessed 4 September 2013. 53 UN News Centre, “Syria: UN officials urge humanitarian access to thousands trapped by intense fighting,” United Nations, 2 August 2013, available at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45555&Cr=syria&Cr1=#.UhJ0aT8cCHs 54“United Nations Supervision Mission in Syria,” United Nations, available at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/unsmis/, accessed 2 September 2013. Also see: UN Security Council Resolution 2043 (2012), available at http://www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/RES/2043%20(2012). 55 Rick Gladstone, “Friction at the U.N. as Russia and China Veto Another Resolution on Syria Sanctions,” New York Times, 19 July 2012; [newspaper online]; available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/world/middleeast/russia-and-china-veto-un-sanctions-against-syria.html. 56 UN General Assembly Resolution 67/262 (2013), available at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/262. The preceding section of the background guide was used at the Teton County Model UN Conference.

2. The Situation in North Korea The first nuclear weapons were dropped by the United States on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, causing mass destruction and loss of life. Shortly after, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT, was ratified by the United States, United Kingdom, USSR (now Russia), and 40 other signatory states. North Korea was originally a part of the NPT, having agreed to not pursue the development of nuclear weapons or any related nuclear efforts. In 2003, however, North Korea withdrew from the NPT, claiming that the United States had failed to uphold the 1994 Agreed Framework. Since then, North Korea claims to have successfully tested two nuclear weapons, once in 2006 and again in 2009. It is currently estimated that North Korea's missiles can hit distances of up to 2,500 km. This topic clearly falls under the discretion of the Security Council, as North Korea poses a threat to international security and peace. Background and Current Situation Since 1967, North Korea has had at least one nuclear reactor, the first of which was a research reactor donated by Russia. In 1993, North Korea announced that it would withdraw from the NPT, and refused to allow IAEA inspectors access to its nuclear plants. After one year, the United States claimed that North Korea had access to at least enough plutonium to construct ten nuclear weapons, if not more, and began threatening North Korea with the possibility of military air strikes. Faced with the imminent destruction of its nuclear power plants, North Korea entered into the Agreed Framework, an agreement with the United States and South Korea. According to the Agreed Framework, North Korea would limit its plutonium program and would seek

17

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

to create more positive international relations, in trade for a supply of light water reactors and fuel oil from the United States and South Korea. However, due in part to a failure by the United States to provide energy aid to the Korea Peninsula Energy Development Organization, the light water reactors were never built. In 2002, North Korea resumed use of its old reactors. Shortly after, North Korea announced that the United States had failed to uphold its end of the Agreed Framework, and publicly withdrew from the NPT. Since its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, North Korea has tested two nuclear weapons. The first of these tests occurred on October 9, 2006, even though six-party talks had been in place since 2003. These talks involved North Korea, the United States, China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia. In 2007, North Korea told the members of these talks that it would dismantle its main nuclear plant, in exchange for fuel aid and normalization talks with the United States and Japan. On July 14, IAEA inspectors confirmed that the main facility had been shut down. After what seemed to be a major accomplishment in the six-party talks, tensions arose once again in 2008 between the United States and North Korea. Stating that the United States had insisted on unfair and intrusive inspection measures, North Korea forbid IAEA inspectors from entering its plants on October 8, 2008. Following this, North Korea announced on April 25, 2009 that it would resume use of its nuclear power plants, and that it would begin reprocessing spent fuel to garner arms-grade plutonium. On May 25, 2009, North Korea publicly stated that it had performed a second successful nuclear test, and its central news agency stated that the test was conducted as part of measures to bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defence in every way. The true aims of North Korea's nuclear tests remain hidden from the public, but many scholars have speculated as to why the country continues to develop and test nuclear weapons. These reasons fall into two categories: internal and international goals. Internally, North Korea may want to affirm its power, increase international pride, and portray a sense of prestige and legitimacy. Internationally, North Korea may be seeking to leverage its diplomatic position with countries such as the United States, Japan, and China. Whatever the reasons, it is clear that North Korea will continue on its current course to obtain larger and more powerful nuclear weapons unless preventative measures are taken by the United Nations Security Council. The relationship between South Korea and North Korea is at best capricious. North Korea has attacked South Korea many times over the years, twice recently in 2010. On March 26, 2010 a ROK (South Korean) Navy ship, Cheonan, was attacked and sunk while on patrol duties in the territorial waters of the Republic of Korea. The 1,200 ton corvette was sunk and 46 South Korean servicemen onboard perished. With the help of international experts from Australia, Sweden, U.K., U.S.A., and Canada, material evidence was obtained through scientific and objective investigations. The outcome of the investigation proved that the cause of the sinking of the Cheonan was caused by an underwater explosion by a torpedo made in North Korea that was shot from a North Korean submarine. There was overwhelming evidence that pointed fault at North Korea, including Korean letters inscribed on the torpedo remains. The armed attack by North Korea against the ROK, was a violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement and the 1992 Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression and Exchanges and Cooperation between the South and the North. The attack by North Korea was a violation against peace and poses a threat to the security of the Korean

18

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

Peninsula and other neighbouring countries. The other unprecedented attack occurred on Tuesday November 23, 2010. North Korea fired artillery shells at Yeonpyeong Island that contains 1,400 residents. An estimated 200 shells were fired at Yeonpyeong Island. Many civilians were wounded and two soldiers were killed defending the South Korean civilians. North Korea is a de-stabilizing force not only in East Asia, but elsewhere in the world, with an estimated $1 billion generated from illegal arms sales. Kim Jong-il died on December 17, 2011 and at this point in time there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding Kim Jong-il’s chosen successor, his youngest son Kim Jong-un, since not much is known about him. Will Kim Jong-un assume a more conciliatory position towards the West and resume the Six Party Talks, or will he forge a different path for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea?

In this photo taken on Saturday, Oct. 9, 2010 released by China's Xinhua News Agency, Kim Jong Un, third from left, the third son of North Korean Leader Kim Jong Il, applauds while watching the Arirang mass games performance in Pyongyang, North Korea. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Yao Dawei)

Bloc Positions Western World Most of the western world has signed onto the NPT, or some variation of it, and the withdrawal of North Korea from the NPT has been received rather badly as a result. The United States has always remained firm in its stance against North Korea's aggressive actions, but has also been open to multi-party talks. Recent missile tests, including one performed on July 4, 2009, have been seen as a form of attack against the United States.

19

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

Russia and China Although Russia once supplied North Korea with nuclear research plants, both Russia and China look down upon any nuclear tests performed by North Korea (and any other country, for that matter). China is especially worried by North Korea's aggressive actions, due to its proximity to the militaristic country. China has participated in six-party talks with North Korea in the past, and may be agreeable to a renewed multinational approach. Focus Questions

Has your country signed the NPT? When did your country become a signatory to this treaty?

What sort of nuclear development has your country pursued?

Should the international use and/or research of nuclear energy be monitored more closely? Is the IAEA suited to monitor countries such as North Korea?

Outside of previous resolutions, what sort of punitive measures should the UNSC take against North Korea?

How do the UNSC's punitive measures affect the citizens of underdeveloped countries such as North Korea?

What sort of aid should the UNSC supply to the countries immediately surrounding North Korea (such as South Korea)?

3. The Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo Between 1998 and 2003, the Democratic Republic of Congo was the site of a major war that encompassed a range of groups and issues. Government forces and militias fought against rebel groups from the eastern region of the country. While nominally a civil war, the roots of conflict transcended boundaries due to the involvement of neighbouring countries on both sides. Namibia, Angola, and Zimbabwe all supported the government forces and used them as proxies while Rwanda and Uganda supported various rebel movements. Conflict was not confined to the struggle between the government and the rebels, though, as various rebel groups fought between one another. Over five million people are estimated to have died as a result of this long and chaotic conflict, with millions more displaced. The war was brought to an end in 2003, with most of the country achieving peace and stability. However, much of the eastern part of the country remains in the control of various rebel groups and until 2008 was the scene of a brutal proxy war between the government and Rwanda. Since the end of the Rwandan genocide, Rwanda’s government has used Tutsi militias in DR Congo as proxies to seek out and destroy Hutu militias such as the prominent FDLR (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda), which it holds responsible for the atrocities of the genocide. This ongoing ethnic conflict was not settled with the end of the Congolese Civil War, and inspired bitter enmity between Rwanda and the Congo government until 2008, when the two came to an agreement and jointly endeavored

20

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

to eliminate the FDLR in Congo. This operation by the Rwandan and Congolese armies is ongoing and despite its more official nature and the presence of UN peacekeeping troops, remains brutal with reports of mass rapes and other atrocities by both sides. An estimated 160,000 more people were displaced by this new round of fighting. The UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, MONUC, was created in 1999 to ensure adherence to early ceasefire agreements. Since then, the mission’s force and mandate have each expanded to make it the largest and most aggressive ongoing UN peacekeeping mission in the world. As with most peacekeeping missions deployed to ongoing and brutal conflicts, concerns about MONUC’s effectiveness have been abundant. The government of the DR Congo has requested a troop withdrawal from the western part of the country and a full withdrawal of all peacekeepers by mid-2011. However, John Holmes, the Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, has argued that the mission has brought a measure of stability to the country and should be allowed to remain in the country beyond the deadline proposed by the government. It remains to be seen whether this appeal will be entertained by the Congolese government. A major issue in the ongoing conflict in the DR Congo has been the use of the country’s resource wealth by the involved parties to facilitate further armament and bloodshed. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a vast country with relatively undeveloped infrastructure, which allows regional militias to assert control over the generous endowment of natural resources in those areas, including diamonds, gold, tin, copper, cobalt, and coltan. The illicit trade of these minerals to fund armament has provided fuel for continued conflict. If a stable peace is ever to take hold in the region, the DR Congo’s resource trade must be monitored and allowed to provide societal wealth instead of further bloodshed. This falls to the both the Congolese government and it neighbours, especially Rwanda and Uganda, whose governments have been notably reluctant in this regard. Questions to Consider from Your Government’s Perspective:

How might the international community aid the Congolese government in asserting control over the country’s eastern regions?

What can be done to prevent the use of the country’s mineral wealth for funding continued conflict?

How might civilians be better protected from atrocities such as mass rape and murder by both sides? Resources: “Democratic Republic of Congo country profile.” BBC News Online. 2010. “Q&A: DR Congo Conflict.” BBC News Online. 2010. “Impossible Task for UN in DR Congo.” BBC News Online. 2008. “UN plans to end DR Congo peacekeeping mission.” BBC News Online. 2010. “Timeline: Democratic Republic of Congo.” BBC News Online. 2010. Smith, David. “UN Begins Talks on Withdrawal from Congo.” Guardian. 4 March 2010. “Over 600 Rebels Killed or Captured: DR. Congo Army.” AFP. 17 March 2010. “UN Presence in DR Congo Crucial Despite Call for Early Withdrawal, Says Relief Chief.” UN News Centre. 3 May 2010.

21

UN

Sec

uri

ty C

ou

nci

l | S

CSC

20

14

Resolutions and other UN Documents: S/RES/1906 (23 Dec 2009) S/RES/1857 (22 Dec 2008) S/RES/1856 (22 Dec 2008) S/RES/1843 (20 Nov 2008) S/RES/1794 (21 Dec 2007) S/RES/1279 (30 Nov 2009) S/2008/773 S/2008/218 S/1999/790 Topic 2 and 3 appeared in the UNSC Background Guide for SWCHSMUN 2012.