UGAMUNC XX

General Assembly, 1st Committee

______________________________________________________________________________________

Hello Delegates!

Welcome to the 2014 University of Georgia Model United Nations Conference. My name is Lauren Williams (laurenw@uga.edu) and I will be your chair for General Assembly I, the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC). I am a sophomore from Thomaston, Georgia and this is will be my second year at UGAMUNC. I previously served as the co-chair at UGAMUNCs Second Continental Congress Crises committee. This year we have selected three topics that represent some of the most important international issues relating to disarmament and international security, and I am thrilled to see the lively debate that is sure to follow. Due to the caliber of the topics for this committee and your level of preparation, intelligence, and creativity, I know you will find UGAMUNC DISEC 2014 as one of your greatest Model UN experiences.

Before proceeding I would like to introduce myself. I am currently an Honors Student double majoring in Political Science and Public Relations here at the University of Georgia. Besides Model UN, I am a member of the National Society of Collegiate Scholars and Alpha Lamda Delta National Honor Society. In my free time, I like to participate in intramural sports, experience the great city of Athens, and cheer on the Atlanta Braves, Denver Broncos, San Francisco Giants, Georgia Bulldogs, and the greatest athlete to ever live: Peyton Manning.

I am honored to have Carter Chapman (cchapma@uga.edu) as my co-chair at this years conference. Carter is a sophomore from Atlanta, GA double majoring in International Affairs and Marketing with a minor in Portuguese. He is a brother in Phi Delta Theta fraternity as well as the President of Building Tomorrow at UGA. Like his chair, Carter is a big sports fan and cheers for all of the Atlanta based teams as well as Chelsea FC, a soccer team that plays in the English Premier League. He is also widely considered to be one of the greatest people ever to attend the University of Georgia.

As you begin your research, I hope that you will find this background guide useful as a starting point. However, it is only a starting point for your research and preparation, and I strongly encourage you to do independent research to better understand the issues, your respective countries positions, and the range of possible solutions.

Please feel free to email me if you have any questions. I am very excited for this years committee and I look forward to meeting you all in February.

Best of luck and GO DAWGS!

Sincerely,

Lauren Williams

Chair, GA1, DISEC

Background of General Assembly, 1st Committee

Since the founding of the League of Nations in the 1920s, efforts to prevent war and its effects have been a focal point of international relations. The victorious Allies established the United Nations at the end of World War II to prevent such a catastrophe from ever reoccurring. The charter drafted by the United Nations original fifty-one nations called for a General Assembly to address grievances and international issues. The charter also established six committees to provide recommendations for resolutions.

The United Nations General Assembly First Committee is one of the six main bodies within the General Assembly. It is one of the original organizational bodies established by the United Nations to provide adequate research and information for the UN General Assembly. This body meets annually for a four to five week session in October and focuses on issues concerning disarmament, international security, and maintaining peace around the globe. Contemporary issues within the First Committee pertain to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction (including biological and chemical weapons) and small arms and lightweight weapons trade.

Currently, the United Nations is composed of 193 member nations, each of which sits on the First Committee and has an equal vote. While it is not the First Committees role to take decisive action as they are not able to pass binding resolutions, implement sanctions, or mobilize military, it does deliberate on various issues and reports its findings to the United Security Council and secretariat of the UN. In addition, this body works closely with the United Nations Disarmament Commission and the Conference on Disarmament to address and begin to resolve some of the most pressing issues facing the international community.[footnoteRef:1] [1: General Assembly of the United Nations, Disarmament and International Security: First Committee. 2013. http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/index.shtml.]

I. Bioterrorism & the Reduction of Chemical Weapons

Introduction

The use of chemical and biological weapons is not a new occurrence as countries, regimes, and coalitions have utilized these in warfare since ancient times. The use of chemical weapons dates back early as 400 BC when the Spartans used sulfur gas against their enemies.[footnoteRef:2]Despite the Hague Convention in 1907 that prohibited the use of chemical weapons, chemical agents have been deployed continually, notably in World War II, Vietnam, and in the Gulf War.[footnoteRef:3] The international community has gone to great lengths to prevent the spread of chemical and biological weapons, but their use continues to devastate human lives. [2: Grossman, Zoltan. The Pot Calling the Kettle Black: A Short History of Biochemical Weapons. September 2, 2013. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/02/a-short-history-of-bio-chemical-weapons/.] [3: Ibid.]

These biological weapons can originate from various bacteria, viruses, toxins, rickettsia, fungi, and in combinations.[footnoteRef:4]While many believe that the anthrax virus serves as the most blatant weapon by bioterrorists, due to its reputation and capability to infect masses on a relatively short time scale, the smallpox virus, Sever Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), plague, tularemia, viral hemorrhagic fevers, Q fever, and epidemic typhus have all become prime candidates for attacks involving bio weaponry in part due to their readily availability.[footnoteRef:5] [4: Hilleman, Maurice R. "Overview: Cause and Prevention in Biowarfare and Bioterrorism." 2002. Vaccine 20 (25): 3055-3067.] [5: Ibid.]

Photo Credit: http://healthyamericans.org/reports/bioterror08/

The Center for Disease Control categorizes chemical weapons into several classifications by the type of chemical or its effects. These include: biotoxins, blister agents, blood agents, caustics (acids), pulmonary agents, incapacitating agents, long-acting anticoagulants, metals, nerve agents, riot control agents (tear gas), toxic alcohols, and vomiting agents.[footnoteRef:6] [6: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Surveillance for Bioterrorism. 2013. http://emergency.cdc.gov/bioterrorism/surveillance.asp]

A Long History

It was not until the twentieth century that we saw an increase in the magnitude and level of devastation brought on by biological warfare, much of which was at the hands of non-state actors. In March of 1995, the Japanese militant group Aum Shinrikyo opened containers of liquefied sarin on five different subway cars in Tokyo, killing 12 people.[footnoteRef:7] In another act of bioterrorism, U.S. officials discovered that members of a cult founded by Guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in Oregon spread salmonella bacteria over salad bars and coffee creamers in various Oregon restaurants, injuring over 750 people in 1984[footnoteRef:8]. Many foreign governments suspect the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda to be maintaining chemical and biological labs at facilities throughout the Middle East. As the threat of terrorism increases, so does the threat of chemical and biological warfare. [7: "Century of Biological and Chemical Weapons." BBC News - Home. 25 Sept. 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1562534.stm.] [8: Goebel, Greg. "[4.0] A History Of Biological Warfare (2) / CB Terrorism." Vectorsite. Greg Global Public Domain. http://www.vectorsite.net/twgas_4.html.]

However, it is not only non-state actors whose possession and use of chemical weapons have posed a threat to international security and human lives. German spies infected the livestock of Allied forces with anthrax during World War I, and in 1918, the Japanese essentially began a biological warfare program as they acquired massive stockpiles and experimented on prisoners of war, where they later would poison Soviet water sources and release bacterial plague into Chinese villages over the course of World War II.[footnoteRef:9] After witnessing the massive acquisition of chemical stockpiles by Japan, other European countries were quick to follow suit to fortify heir biological weapons programs. The U.S. began vast research into bio weaponry during and after World War II, but all stockpiles were eventually destroyed in 1969 by a signed executive order from President Nixon.[footnoteRef:10] Despite the signing of the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, Russia intensified its efforts into its bio weapons programs well into the 1990s, even dispensing yellow rain toxins to allies they supported.[footnoteRef:11] Even after the accidental but disastrous release of anthrax from a Soviet military compound in Sverdlovsk in 1979 that killed hundreds, Russia continued to increase their production capacity of anthrax and strengthen its supply of chemical agents.[footnoteRef:12] Additionally, Iraq admitted to violating the BWC, although it was one of the ratifying nations, when it conducted research into the offensive use of several toxins and deploying weapons filled with anthrax and biotoxins in 1991.[footnoteRef:13] [9: Houston Department of Health and Human Services. Definition, History, and Threat of Bioterrorism. http://www.houstontx.gov/health/OSPHP/Definition%20History%20and%20Threats%20of%20Bioterrorism.pdf.] [10: Ibid.] [11: Ibid. ] [12: Ibid.] [13: Ibid.]

Past UN Action

The Geneva Protocol signed in 1925 was the first mechanism to prohibit first use of biological and chemical agents in warfare, but it did not put into place any mechanism for ensuring compliance.[footnoteRef:14] Because there was no direct prevention mechanism, the protocol did not have a significant effect on the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons.[footnoteRef:15] The most significant action by the U.N. came in 1972 when 22 states signed the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which entered into force in March 1975 and banned the development, production, acquisition, transfer, and stockpiling of biological and toxin weapons.[footnoteRef:16] Interestingly, at the BWCs inception in 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union held the only publicly known biological weapons stockpiles.[footnoteRef:17] The intended role of the BWC, now ratified by 170 states with the addition of Malawi in April 2013, was serving a complimentary role to the tenets of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.[footnoteRef:18] To resolve the dilemma of enforcing compliance, if a party finds that another state is not complying with the standards of the treaty, under the BWC, they may file a complaint with the UN Security Council.[footnoteRef:19] The BWC seeks to eliminate large quantities of pathogens and toxins and its transfer systems. [14: "PROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS, OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE (GENEVA PROTOCOL)." Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes. Center for Nonproliferation Studies. http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/inventory/pdfs/genev.pdf.] [15: "The Great Chemical Weapons Hoax." Internationalist Group -- Reforge the Fourth International! http://www.internationalist.org/chemwarhoax0503a.html.] [16: "BTWC: Text of the Convention." The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Website. http://www.opbw.org/convention/conv.html.] [17: "The Bio Weapons Convention." CDI - Center for Defense Information - Security Policy Research Organization. http://www.cdi.org/issues/cbw/bwc.html.] [18: Ibid] [19: "The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) At A Glance | Arms Control Association." Arms Control Association | The Authoritative Source on Arms Control since 1971. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc.]

The BWCs Article Twelve requires a review conference every five years. There have been seven review conferences thus far, producing moderate results. At the second review conference in September 1986, BWC state parties adopted Confidence Building Measures to increase the effectiveness of the BWC. The (CBMs) included directives to exchange information on abnormal outbreaks, exchange data on high-containment research centers, and promote scientific contact.[footnoteRef:20] In response to the threat of biological warfare in the first Gulf War, state parties of the third review conference in September 1991 created a group of governmental experts (VEREX) for the purpose of reaching a consensus on a compliance verification mechanism.[footnoteRef:21] VEREX submitted its findings in a report in 1993, further suggesting the need that a multi-combatant approach be undertaken to enforce the BWC[footnoteRef:22]. The Sixth Review conference in 2006 set up an Implementation Support Unit for the Convention, which provided administrative support and assistance and support and assistance for obtaining universality.[footnoteRef:23] The Seventh Review Conference reaffirms that under all circumstances the use of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons is effectively prohibited by the Convention and affirms the determination of States parties to condemn any use of biological agents or toxins other than for peaceful purposes, by anyone at any time.[footnoteRef:24] [20: "PROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS, OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE (GENEVA PROTOCOL)." Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes. Center for Nonproliferation Studies. http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/inventory/pdfs/genev.pdf.] [21: "Biological Weapons Convention." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Bio/BioSecondPageBWC.shtml.] [22: "Biological Weapons Convention: Executive Summary." Defenselink. http://www.dod.gov/acq/acic/treaties/bwc/execsum.htm.] [23: "Sixth Review Conference of the State Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention." United Nations Office at Geneva, Nov. 2006. http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/12F9BC8D8F5DB0B6C12571A200318F92/$file/BWC_Backgrounder.pdf.] [24: United Nations Office at Geneva. Seventh Review Conference of Biological Weapons Convention Adopts Final Document and Concludes Session. December 22 2011. http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/925929F5F28485EAC125796E0064AD82?OpenDocument.]

Another pivotal breakthrough came in 1992 when, the UN General Assembly approved the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The CWC prohibits the development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical weapons and advocates for the destruction of all chemical weapons and even routine evaluations of chemical plants.[footnoteRef:25] Currently, the international community has destroyed about 81% of the recognized chemical weapons stockpile, with 189 states having ratified the convention.[footnoteRef:26] Notable non-members of the convention are suspecting of harboring chemical weapons including Egypt, Israel, North Korea, and Syria, although the Syrian government has agreed to provisional status into the CWC after alleged use of chemical weapons on its own people. [25: "BTWC: Text of the Convention." The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Website. http://www.opbw.org/convention/conv.html.] [26: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Demilitarisation. 2013. http://www.opcw.org/our-work/demilitarisation/.]

While the objectives of both the CWC and the BWC enjoy moderate success, many problems still remain. Both the CWC and BWC still lack an effective international compliance verification mechanism.[footnoteRef:27] Both state and non-state actors still hold existing stockpiles that cannot be identified and destroyed without a verification regime. As with many international treaties, there are also many inconsistencies between the provisions of the CWC, the BWC, and the domestic chemical and biological weapons policy of state parties.[footnoteRef:28] Both conventions also experienced difficulties in regards to the limits of on-site inspections.[footnoteRef:29] The state parties of the BWC and the CWC must also find a way to increase Convention membership so that universality is ensured. As advances in biosciences and biotechnology continue to increase the threat of biological and chemical warfare, the international community must work to create effective compliance verification, guarantee full compliance, and ensure universal membership. [27: Tucker, Jonathan B. "The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Challenges and Solutions." Monterey Institute of International Studies, Apr. 2001. http://cns.miis.edu/reports/pdfs/tuckcwc.pdf.] [28: Goebel, Greg. "[4.0] A History Of Biological Warfare (2) / CB Terrorism." Vectorsite. Greg Global Public Domain. http://www.vectorsite.net/twgas_4.html.] [29: Tucker, Jonathan B. "The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Challenges and Solutions." Monterey Institute of International Studies, Apr. 2001. http://cns.miis.edu/reports/pdfs/tuckcwc.pdf.]

Chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia

Photo credit http://www.parsons.com/SiteCollectionImages/content/0909-russian-chem-main.jpg

A Growing Risk

It is clearly evident that developments in bioweapons have thoroughly evolved in recent years due to advancements in modern technology, and the number of parties actively engaged in pursuing bio weaponry for offensive purposes is still a dozen and growing.[footnoteRef:30] One of the greatest dangers the international community currently faces is the threat of biological and chemical weapon use by non-state actors, mainly terrorist and insurgent groups. The fact that several governments sponsored terrorist groups in past conflicts by providing the financial backing needed by the insurgency groups further exacerbates this danger. The governments of Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq are just some of the recognized nations providing financial backing and refuge to known terrorist groups while private benefactors in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia also contribute to these groups efforts.[footnoteRef:31] Additionally, it is increasingly hard to prevent the spread of such weapons and to identify those countries that are stockpiling these chemical agents as weapons because chemical and biological materials have diverse purposes and are vital to medical research and protection.[footnoteRef:32] Since the infamous anthrax attacks in the United States in 2001, spending, regarding research on medical defense in many countries has dramatically increased[footnoteRef:33] [30: Hilleman, Maurice R. 2002. "Overview: Cause and Prevention in Biowarfare and Bioterrorism." Vaccine 20 (25): 3055-3067.] [31: Terrorism: Major Terrorist Groups. 2013. http://www.towson.edu/polsci/ppp/sp97/terror/groups.html.] [32: Kerr, Paul Korski. "Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: Status and Trends." Federation of American Scientists, 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL30699.pdf.] [33: Bellamy, R. J., and A. R. Freedman. 2001. "Bioterrorism." QJM 94, No. 4: 227-234.]

Additional problems arise due to the ease in which chemical and biological weapons can be released. Ballistic missiles, rocket launchers, aircrafts, and manual dispersion can dispatch chemical and biological weapons.[footnoteRef:34] While many methods of chemical and biological weapons dispersion require the expertise and skill of national armed forces, there are several methods that require very little manpower and come at a relatively low financial cost. In total, the relative ease in which bioweapons can be attained and their ability to affect the masses over large geographic areas in very small concentrations make them the ideal choice for terrorists groups. [34: Kerr, Paul Korski. "Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: Status and Trends." Federation of American Scientists, 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 10 Oct. 2010. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL30699.pdf.]

Recent Developments: The Syrian Situation

While the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, Ad Hoc Group, the 2006 Sixth Review Conference, and smaller subsequent conventions may have reduced state supported pursuits of biological agents, recent years have shown an increase in smaller factions and rogue groups advancing their own agendas through exploring bio weaponry. After long suspicions of Syria harboring some of the most advanced chemical weapons in the Middle East, rockets containing the chemical sarin hit the suburbs of Damascus, Syria on August 23, 2013 killing hundreds and injuring thousands.[footnoteRef:35] [35: Bodies still being found after alleged Syria chemical attack: opposition. The Daily Star. Lebanon: August 22, 2013. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Aug-22/228268-bodies-still-being-found-after-alleged-syria-chemical-attack-opposition.ashx#axzz2chzutFua]

Devastation in Syria

UN investigations concluded that the rockets did indeed contain high quality sarin and, Syria launched the rockets from areas under governmental control. While Syrians government under President Bashar al-Assad and the opposition forces blame each other for the chemical attack, the European Union, Arab League, and United States cite evidence that points to the Syrian governments forces. Much debate has risen in the international community on whether military action should be taken against Syria, with President Obama currently appealing to the public and Congress to support drone strikes against Syria despite wavering criticisms of intelligence reports by the U.N. and United States from members of Congress. While the international community condemned the attacks, states and individuals within those states have mixed views on the potential for military intervention.

Destruction in Damascus, Syria

Photo Credit:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/AP_syria_crisis_lt_130825_16x9_992.jpg

On November 1, 2013, Syria met a deadline to disable or render inoperable all of its declared chemical weapons production and facilities after facing threats of military intervention from the United States.[footnoteRef:36] Additionally, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspected nearly all of Syrias production facilities, certifying the safety of these facilities and verifying their inventories. While peace talks between Syria and several nations remain ongoing and slow moving, President Bashar al-Assad still has access to substantial amounts of conventional weapons.[footnoteRef:37] Meanwhile the current state of the country remains in havoc with news of Israeli attacks on Syrian military bases alleged to be harboring Russian missiles and outbreaks of polio and other highly contagious diseases.[footnoteRef:38] [36: Evans, Dominic Syria meets deadline to destroy chemical production facilities. October 31, 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/31/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBRE99U08N20131031] [37: Ibid.] [38: Ibid.]

Cause for Immediate Action and Preparedness

Proponents of immediate action in increasing awareness and defense have expressed interest in a variety of methods to combat rising threats. Some highly advocate the further development and use of a surveillance system that can chart outbreaks to reduce fatalities.[footnoteRef:39] Others, including nonaligned international agents, express interest in setting an international standard for defense, such as developing vaccines and antibiotics, and trying to prevent attacks in war and on a domestic front.[footnoteRef:40] Many express the urgency in recognizing these ongoing issues and point to the fact that bioweapons are inexpensive to produce, readily available, possess a large capability to affect masses, and can spread quickly over large geographic distances. These serve as dangerous advantages for terrorist groups that are set on inflicting harm. Bioterrorism and the threat of chemical weapons are escalating crises that pose a great threat to international security and human lives. Therefore, preparation is key when responding to the threat of biological weapons. [39: Bravata, Dena M, Kathryn M McDonald, Wendy M Smith, Chara Rydzak, Herbert Szeto, David L Buckeridge, Corinna Haberland, and Douglas K Owens. June 1 2004. "Systematic Review: Surveillance Systems for Early Detection of Bioterrorism-Related Diseases." Annals Of Internal Medicine 140, No. 11: 910-922. ] [40: Ibid.]

The CDC has implemented thorough guidelines for shipment of specific pathogens that may be used as bioterrorism agents and NGOs have invested much money into research on diminishing the severity of potential chemical attacks.[footnoteRef:41] [41: Houston Department of Health and Human Services. Definition, History, and Threat of Bioterrorism. http://www.houstontx.gov/health/OSPHP/Definition%20History%20and%20Threats%20of%20Bioterrorism.pdf.]

Additionally, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Defense, the American Red Cross are just a few of the organizations that distribute preparatory information and actively train individuals and first responders for potential attacks brought on by biological warfare.[footnoteRef:42] [42: Ibid.]

Questions to Consider

1. How can the UN regulate the manufacturing and development of biological weapons? Is this even the UNs responsibility or should this responsibility lie within the governments of the individual state?

2. How can the UN discern the differences between biological materials that are potentially terroristic threats and those that are also used in developing vaccines for medicinal purposes?

3. Are any states currently violating withstanding policies and what actions should be taken against those who violate international agreements?

4. Should an international agency whose sole purpose is to monitor the development of biological weapons be created and if so, what are its provisions?

5. What can be done to halt the acquisition of chemical weapons by non-state actors?

6. What action should be taken against Syria? What measures should be taken to prevent this event from ever reoccurring?

II. Cyber Security

Introduction

The internet is an absolute necessity, an incontrovertible means of communication, and an infinite source of knowledge in the modern era. Governments, businesses, institutions, and individuals all make up the global community of Internet users and rely on it as an essential feature to accomplish any and all tasks in todays world. Cyberspace makes it possible for international businesses and governments to quickly and efficiently conduct business, manage crucial infrastructure, and run social networks that have become the center of knowledge communication, and media.[footnoteRef:43] Global Internet usage increased from 360 million to over 2 billion from 2000 to 2010, and its continued expansion makes it a central focal point of the global economy.[footnoteRef:44] [43: Department of Defense. Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace. July 2011. 1-13. PDF.] [44: Ibid.]

This vast computer-networking infrastructure is used to control computer networks, control towers, railroad operations, telephone systems, power supply stations, and stock exchanges not only on a national level but a global one. Thus, cyber security has become a heightened issue to all technologically connected states as well as the institutions and corporations that work within them. The potential for cyber attacks have dramatically increased in part due to the rising proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the ease of information exchange.[footnoteRef:45] Additionally, the increase of cyberspace operations in frequency and sophistication and the rise of small group or individuals engaged in malicious cyber activity creates a very real threat to global security, capturing the attention of the international community and its realization for collective action.[footnoteRef:46] [45: United Nations Department of Ecomic and Social Affairs. Cybersecurity: A global issue demanding a global approach. New York, December 2011. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/ecosoc/cybersecurity-demands-global-approach.html.] [46: Dr. Frederick Wamala, The ITU National Cybersecurity Strategy Guide, September 2011. Geneva, Switzerland. 5-119. PDF.]

Cyber Crime

Cyberspace is described as the systems and services connected either directly to or indirectly to the Internet, telecommunications and computer networks.[footnoteRef:47] The growing importance of the protection of cyberspace stems from the ideological notion that it is the governments responsibility to protect the life and property of its citizens as well as to maintain order, all of which pertain to its use.[footnoteRef:48] Threats to cyber-related infrastructure and individuals continue to increase annually, with reportedly 431 million adults victims affected around the world in 2011.[footnoteRef:49] Therefore, it is not surprising that cybercrime has now become a profitable market, which exceeds a trillion dollars annually in online fraud, identity theft, and lost intellectual property.[footnoteRef:50] [47: Ibid.] [48: Ibid.] [49: United Nations Department of Ecomic and Social Affairs. Cybersecurity: A global issue demanding a global approach. New York, December 2011. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/ecosoc/cybersecurity-demands-global-approach.html.] [50: Ibid.]

Cyber crimes also pose a unique threat to international security. As the worlds web communications have grown, so has the legal scope and understanding of how cyber crimes are to be considered and prosecuted. Current laws are underwhelming inadequate, making legal proceedings dense and circuitous. Additionally, the shear quickness in which cyber attacks can be carried out makes it hard to prevent and even harder to find those who are behind it.[footnoteRef:51] Cyber attacks have become so advanced that even those with the most secure systems are subject to victimization. Some of the most high-profile companies that were victims to cyber attacks include Google, Sony, Lockheed Martin, PBS, and Citibank.[footnoteRef:52] Likely many more attacks a year go unreported as companies try to maintain a favorable reputation and avoid legal issues.[footnoteRef:53] [51: Dr. Frederick Wamala, The ITU National Cybersecurity Strategy Guide, September 2011. Geneva, Switzerland. 5-119. PDF.] [52: Ibid.] [53: Ibid.]

One of the biggest concerns lies in advanced persistent threats (APTs), which are more malicious in nature, rarely publically disclosed, and largely seek to acquire secrets and intellectual property.[footnoteRef:54] The victims of these types of attacks are often high profile governments, military organizations, and international institutions. Organized criminals, terrorists, and insurgents have a virtually new offensive domain in which they can carry out their harmful practices and disrupt government operations. Thus, cyber security has now evolved into a crucial matter of national security. Also, a huge risk is posed in the way in which cyber attacks can escalate. What is to prevent successful hackers from continuing their criminal activity and repeatedly pursuing the same or even more high profile targets? This escalation would be nothing short of cyber warfare, and the success of some parties would encourage other insurgents, creating a harmful trend. Therefore, efforts to secure the World Wide Web against cyber attacks from hackers, terrorists, private profit-driven groups, or the states themselves, whether it is for espionage or cyber warfare, are crucial to protecting international infrastructure. [54: Ibid.]

A Brief History and Notable Breaches

Since the creation of the Internet, there have been those who have sought to manipulate it for their own personal advantages.[footnoteRef:55] Even before the development of the personal computer, computerized phone systems were subject to attacks by those labeled phone freaks.[footnoteRef:56] These individuals would find loopholes in the system where they would proceed to make unlimited free phone calls and disrupt the entire system.[footnoteRef:57] [55: James, Randy. A Brief History of Cybercrime. June 1, 2009. TIME Magazine. http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1902073,00.html.] [56: Ibid.] [57: Ibid. ]

Cyber warfare essentially dates back to the development of the tapeworm program in the 1970s by engineer and inventor of the Ethernet, John Shoch.[footnoteRef:58] The program was accidentally leaked and released network worms across the globe seeking to gain information and control.[footnoteRef:59] These original network worms still partially exist and evolved into more sophisticated and advanced cyber weapons. This has contributed to illegal botnets (a network of compromised internet connected computers that can be controlled by a remote user and is used for malicious purposes) that are specifically engaged to run malicious attacks.[footnoteRef:60] However, it was the Morris worm that was the first recognized to have been a threat. It spread around computers largely in the United States and slowed computers down to the point where they were ineffectual.[footnoteRef:61] Hackers in 2006 found wormholes (a vulnerability which opens up a system to worms that operate or infect a computer system) in Microsofts system, which allowed them to create zombie computers, which remote hackers could control. [58: Fosnock, Craig. Computer Worms: Past, Present, and Future. N.d. East Carolina University. ] [59: Ibid.] [60: Ramneek, Puri. "Bots &; Botnet: An Overview" (PDF). SANS Institute. August 8, 2013.] [61: Nato Review Magazine. Cyber Timeline. 2013. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/Cyber/timeline/EN/. ]

The first series of coordinated attacks and APTs (advanced persisted threats), later called Titan Rain, occurred in 2003 against the United States national government systems and sensitive networks of Lockheed Martin. These attacks that continued for at least three years are speculated to be of Chinese origin, most likely the result of Chinese military hackers seeking to gain information on the U.S.[footnoteRef:62] In April 2007, Estonia, following a feud with Russia, found its government networks disrupted and online banking was halted after harassment from unknown foreign entities.[footnoteRef:63] (See Figure 2.1 at the end for a list of additional notable breaches in cyber security composed by NATO Review Magazine.)[footnoteRef:64] [62: Hall, Kevin. The 7 Worst Cyberattacks in History (that we know about). September 22, 2010. http://www.dvice.com/archives/2010/09/7_of_the_most_d.php.] [63: Nato Review Magazine. Cyber Timeline. 2013. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/Cyber/timeline/EN/.] [64: Ibid.]

Additionally, in the last decade, there has been an increase in the number of information leaks. WikiLeaks, an online non-profit international organization whose self-proclaimed goal is to bring important news and information to the public and serve as an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking" has caused controversy through its release of sensitive information.[footnoteRef:65] Reactions to the leaks range from condemnation (mainly from those who the leaks directly relate to) and a global financial blockade by major finance companies to praise for increasing transparency and championing the democratic ideal of free speech. The organizations leaking of the Afghan War logs, Guantanamo Bay procedures, Iraq War logs, and Syria files are some of its most significant leaks. In June 2014, former NSA employee Edward Snowden leaked classified details of several top-secret United States and British government mass surveillance programs to the British Paper The Guardian. Like the WikiLeaks organization, his actions have been the subject of praise while others condemn him as a traitor who exposed confidential national secrets. The issue of leaking confidential information raises the question whether this violates international law, national law, or whether this is an inherent right of free speech. [65: WikiLeaks. What is WikiLeaks? 2013. http://wikileaks.ch. ]

Past U.N. Action

The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), and the U.N. agency International Telecommunications Union (ITU) are the leaders in addressing issues of cyber security and its international protection. These groups have worked to influence international policy makers, increase international awareness, fight cybercrime, and increase child online protection. The ITU was a leading facilitator of the World Summit on the Information Society in Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005.[footnoteRef:66] The ITU, which is made up of 193 member nations and 700 private sector institutions, again rose to the forefront as the facilitator of the World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.[footnoteRef:67] Although the conference was not held to specifically address cyber crime, it did address international rules for telecommunications and creation of a global coalition to monitor cyber activity.[footnoteRef:68] However, only 89 of 152 voting nations signed the amendments to the ITUs proposal, with many viewing these proposals as a negative threat to the freedom of the Internet. [66: World Summit on the Information Society. Basic Information About WSIS. 2006. http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/about.html.] [67: ITU Membership. 2013. http://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/default.aspx. ] [68: Ibid.]

General Assembly I Meeting on Environment 2007

Photo Credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_meeting_on_environment_at_General_Assembly.jpg

One of the most significant actions taken by the U.N. on cyber security came on December 21, 2009 when the UNs General Assembly adopted Resolution 64/211: creation of a global culture of cyber security and taking stock of national efforts to protect critical information infrastructures at their 64th session.[footnoteRef:69] It suggested each nation work on protecting vital digital infrastructures, emphasized the cooperation between governmental and non-governmental organizations, and recommended initiatives regarding the investigation and prosecution of cyber related attacks.[footnoteRef:70] Additionally, the U.N.s significant strides to hosting a cyber weapons convention as well as the U.N. Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justices establishment of an intergovernmental expert group on cyber security in 2010 are just a few of the necessary first steps to combat the escalating threat of cybercrime. [69: United Nations General Assembly. Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 21 December 2009. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/211] [70: Ibid.]

Questions to Consider

1. What action can be taken to strengthen international infrastructure to secure it from potential cyber attacks?

2. What can be done to prevent terrorists and insurgent groups from acquiring the technological means to commit cyber attacks?

3. What can be done to stop the escalation of cyber attacks to all out cyber warfare?

4. Has your country been a victim of a cyber attack? What means do you have to thwart future attacks?

5. Should an international agency be created under the U.N. whose sole purpose is to monitor global cyber security? What would be its provisions?

6. To what extent should corporations, such as WikiLeaks, private groups, and even individuals that leak confidential information, be punished or if at all? Does this violate national security or is it a matter of free speech?

7. What defines a malicious cyber attack? Does an international standard for cyber security need to be written? What clarifications need to be made?

8. Under what conditions is it the UNs responsibility to regulate member nations use of the Internet without infringing on their national sovereignty?

Figure 2.1*

Time of Occurrence

Description

December 2006

NASA was forced to block emails with attachments before shuttle launches out of fear they would be hacked.

Business Week reported that the plans for the latest US space launch vehicles were obtained by unknown foreign intruders.[footnoteRef:71] [71: Nato Review Magazine. Cyber Timeline. 2013. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/Cyber/timeline/EN/.]

June 2007

The US Secretary of Defenses unclassified email account was hacked by unknown foreign intruders as part of a larger series of attacks to access and exploit the Pentagon's networks.[footnoteRef:72] [72: Ibid.]

October 2007

Chinas Ministry of State Security said that foreign hackers, which it claimed 42% came from Taiwan and 25% from the US, had been stealing information from Chinese key areas.

In 2006, when the China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation (CASIC) intranet network was surveyed, spywares were found in the computers of classified departments and corporate leaders.[footnoteRef:73] [73: Ibid.]

Summer 2008

The databases of both Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns were hacked and downloaded by unknown foreign intruders.[footnoteRef:74] [74: Ibid]

August 2008

Computer networks in Georgia were hacked by unknown foreign intruders around the time that the country was in conflict with Russia. Graffiti appeared on Georgian government websites. There was little or no disruption of services but the hacks did put political pressure on the Georgian government and appeared to be coordinated with Russian military actions.[footnoteRef:75] [75: Ibid.]

January 2009

Hackers attacked Israels internet infrastructure during the January 2009 military offensive in the Gaza Strip. The attack, which focused on government websites, was executed by at least 5,000,000 computers.

Israeli officials believed the attack was carried out by a criminal organisation based in a former Soviet state, and paid for by Hamas or Hezbollah. [footnoteRef:76] [76: Ibid.]

January 2010

A group named the "Iranian Cyber Army disrupted the service of the popular Chinese search engine Baidu. Users were redirected to a page showing an Iranian political message.

The same Iranian Cyber Army had hacked into Twitter the previous December, with a similar message.[footnoteRef:77] [77: Ibid.]

October 2010

Stuxnet, a complex piece of malware designed to interfere with Siemens industrial control systems, was discovered in Iran, Indonesia, and elsewhere, leading to speculation that it was a government cyber weapon aimed at the Iranian nuclear program[footnoteRef:78] [78: Ibid.]

January 2011

The Canadian government reported a major cyber attack against its agencies, including Defense Research and Development Canada, a research agency for Canada's Department of National Defense. The attack forced the Finance Department and Treasury Board, Canadas main economic agencies, to disconnect from the Internet.[footnoteRef:79] [79: Ibid.]

July 2011

In a speech unveiling the Department of Defenses cyber strategy, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense mentioned that a defense contractor was hacked and 24,000 files from the Department of Defense were stolen.[footnoteRef:80] [80: Ibid.]

October 2012

The Russian firm Kaspersky discovered a worldwide cyber-attack dubbed Red October, that had been operating since at least 2007.

Hackers gathered information through vulnerabilities in Microsofts Word and Excel programs. The primary targets of the attack appear to be countries in Eastern Europe, the former USSR and Central Asia, although Western Europe and North America reported victims as well.

The virus collected information from government embassies, research firms, military installations, energy providers, nuclear and other critical infrastructures.[footnoteRef:81] [81: Ibid.]

March 2013

South Korean financial institutions had their networks infected in an incident said to resemble past cyber efforts by North Korea.[footnoteRef:82] [82: Ibid.]

*Chart taken directly from Nato Review Magazine. Cyber Timeline. 2013. http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/Cyber/timeline/EN/. See website for further information.

III. Nuclear Proliferation: Iran and North Korea

Introduction

After the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, the spread of nuclear weapons and capabilities has been limited to just a few states, namely, the five permanent members of the Security Council in China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. However, since then, the nations of Israel, Pakistan, and India have developed their nuclear capabilities and, with the exception of Israel, have documented nuclear weapons[footnoteRef:83]. In addition to these countries, North Korea and Iran are seeking to develop their nuclear programs with the hope that they can use them for peaceful purposes, or, according to other countries, perhaps something more sinister.[footnoteRef:84][footnoteRef:85] [83: Federation of American Scientists Status of World Nuclear Forceshttp://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html] [84: Nuclear Threat Initiative: Country Profile: Iranhttp://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/] [85: Nuclear Threat Initiative: Country Profile: North Koreahttp://www.nti.org/country-profiles/north-korea/]

North Korea has already produced a nuclear device despite heavy sanctions imposed upon them by both the United States and UN as a whole. The world perceives North Korea as a stable but unpredictable nation that might become even more dangerous with their continued development of a weapons arsenal. The newest Dear Leader possesses one of the worlds largest armies and an increasingly stagnant economy[footnoteRef:86], striking a tenuous balance between civilian and military establishments, fostering a fear in developed countries regarding North Koreas nuclear program. [86: Global Firepower Active Military Personnel by Countryhttp://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp]

Iran is also seeking to create a nuclear weapon and have publicly stated that they wish to see Israel wiped off of the map[footnoteRef:87]. While Iran has said many times that their nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful in nature, the US and several other major powers have blocked their attempts at nuclear power through heavy economic sanctions. However, with a recent change of president, there might be a change in tone in regards to nuclear negotiations. [87: New York Times Wipe Israel Off of the Map says Iranianhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html?_r=0]

Past UN Action

The UN has already placed massive economic sanctions on both Iran and North Korea, with the former having already successfully detonated a nuclear device in 2009. In both instances, the UN quickly passed measures condemning their actions[footnoteRef:88] [footnoteRef:89]. These actions were consistent with a pattern of North Korean aggression followed by world condemnation and sanctions. North Korea often took action during periods of political transition, with the test in 2009 following Kim Jong-Il's stroke and issues surrounding the naming of his son, Kim Jong-Un, as his successor[footnoteRef:90]. Two tests occurred in 2012, one in April and another in December, in what is believed to be an attempt for Kim-Jong Un to consolidate power.[footnoteRef:91] [88: UNSC Resolution 1874http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9679.doc.htm] [89: UNSC Resolution 2094http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc10934.doc.htm] [90: Time Magazine Kim Jong-Il's Death: North Korea Waits for Kim Jong-Un to Consolidate Powerhttp://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2102781,00.html] [91: CNN: Power Consolidation inside North Koreahttp://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/world/north-korea-power-consolodation/]

North Koreas ally, China, has often hampered UN sanctions against North Korea, but yet, the most recent round of sanctions was drafted by the United States with assistance from China, further illustrating North Korea's increasing isolation in the international community[footnoteRef:92]. In the past, only sanctions that can be directly attributed to the development of nuclear and ballistic capabilities passed against North Korea[footnoteRef:93]. China has blocked stricter sanctions, as they have been hesitant to economically shackle their neighbor through energy and economic sanctions; however, these hesitations haven't stopped the United States from both cutting off aid to the country and increasing sanctions of their own[footnoteRef:94]. [92: New York Times New Sanctions on North Korea Pass in Unified UN Votehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/world/asia/north-korea-warns-of-pre-emptive-nuclear-attack.html?_r=0] [93: New York Times China Looms Over Response to Nuclear Test by North Koreahttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test.html?hp&_r=0] [94: Congressional Research Service Foreign Assistance to North Koreahttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf]

The UN has taken a significantly larger role in sanctions imposed against Iran. The United States has pushed through stiff sanctions that severely limit the sale of any items that might be used for nuclear production. Russia and China, both longtime supporters of the Iranian government, have begun to back away from Iran as it became more belligerent and aggressive with their pursuit of nuclear technology. However, the effect of sanctions are being called into question as they are increasingly affecting the average citizen and appear to have little effect on the production capabilities of the government[footnoteRef:95]. [95: Reuters Analysis: Harsher US sanctions on Iranian Oil sales may have little effecthttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-usa-iran-sanctions-idUSBRE98G1D720130917]

Photo Credit: http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1792941.ece/ALTERNATES/s927b/CS37691523TO-GO-WITH-NKorea-1792941.jpg

Irans Nuclear Past

In February 2003, Iran revealed their first nuclear development site, compliant with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, claiming that the site would only be used for peaceful purposes, but the United States believed that Iran was using this site as a cover for developing nuclear weapons[footnoteRef:96]. Iran proceeded to open up these sites to IAEA inspections; however this didn't prevent the UNSC from passing sanctions. In 2006, the UNSC passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend all nuclear related activities within two months. This resolution promised increased sanctions for non-compliance, and when Iran failed to submit, the sanctions went into full effect[footnoteRef:97]. [96: Global Policy Forum UN Sanctions Against Iranhttp://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/iran.html] [97: UNSC Resolution 1747http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc8980.doc.htm]

While there have been multiple attempts at negotiations between Iran and the West, they have previously stalled due to disagreements in the scope and purpose of Iranian production. Negotiations have also stalled due to a history of conflict between the United States and Iran. Iranians trace their grievances back to the 1953 CIA sponsored coup of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and the CIA-installed government of the Shah. For the United States, the 1979 capture of the American embassy in Tehran and holding the embassy workers there for 444 days is still one of the biggest problems in relations with Iran[footnoteRef:98]. [98: United States Institute of Peace Negotiating with Iran: Questions and Answershttp://www.usip.org/publications-tools/negotiating-iran/negotiating-iran-questions-and-answers]

With the election of a new moderate President in Iran, this may represent a new direction for negotiations. President Hassan Rouhani has already made significant strides with the international community by both acknowledging the Holocaust and wishing the Jews a happy and safe Rosh Hashanah[footnoteRef:99]. Immediately following this, a phone call took place between the two Presidents and a meeting between the two foreign ministers, these actions representing a significant improvement in relations between Iran and the United States[footnoteRef:100]. [99: The Guardian Iranian President tweets Rosh Hashanah Blessing to Jewshttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/iranian-president-rosh-hashanah-blessing] [100: CNN It's a three-decade first: Presidents of US, Iran talk directly, if only by phonehttp://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/politics/us-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t1]

North Koreas Nuclear Past

The North Korean desire for nuclear weapons has existed for far longer in North Korea than it has in Iran. After North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1993, the global community has been dealing with Korean ambitions and has largely responded with near unanimous condemnation of their actions. With missile tests occurring initially in 1993 and continuing every few years afterward, most recently in 2012, the North Korean government has increasingly cut itself off from the rest of the world, both willingly and unwillingly[footnoteRef:101][footnoteRef:102]. [101: New York Times Missile Is Tested by North Koreanshttp://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/13/world/missile-is-tested-by-north-koreans.html] [102: The Guardian US Warns North Korea of Increased Isolation if Threats Escalate Furtherhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/29/us-condemns-north-korea-threats]

The world saw the assent of Kim Jong-Un to the Presidency after his fathers death as an opportunity for a potential improvement in relations with the Koreans[footnoteRef:103]. However, his actions proved otherwise with a drastic increase in weapons testing and nuclear saber rattling[footnoteRef:104]. North Korea has also begun to pass some of the thresholds needed for launching a nuclear weapon at another state; among them the ability to launch ICBMs[footnoteRef:105] and the successful use of domestically produced tools for nuclear production[footnoteRef:106]. These successful tests have created many problems for the international community as they are beginning to indicate the sanctions might not have worked in deterring the North Korean government from pursuing nuclear weapons. [103: Congressional Research Service Kim Jong-Il's Death: Implications for North Korea's Stability and US Policyhttp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42126.pdf] [104: New York Times North Korean Rocket Fails Moments after Liftoffhttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/world/asia/north-korea-launches-rocket-defying-world-warnings.html?pagewanted=all ] [105: New York Times Security Council Condemns North Korea Rocket Launchinghttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/world/asia/security-council-condemns-north-korea-rocket-launching.html] [106: New York Times North Korea Learning to Make Crucial Nuclear Parts, Study Findshttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/world/asia/north-korea-learning-to-make-crucial-nuclear-parts-study-finds.html?pagewanted=all]

While these gains mark significant strides in the development capacity of North Korea, they've come at the expense of the citizens of North Korea, with the country still experiencing famines on a semi-regular basis.

Questions to Consider

1. In a threatening international environment, why should North Korea and Iran be forced to disarm?

2. With extensive sanctions already in place and pressure on the North Korean and Iranian governments from all sides, what other measures can the UN take in order ensure disarmament compliance?

3. If defense and peaceful purposes are the reasons cited for nuclear development, what approaches should the international community take?