Davis Model United Nations Conference 2015 - Topic Synopsis: UN Internal Review Committee Chair: Andrea Sanchez

Davis Model United Nations
     Conference 2015

Topic Synopsis: UN Internal Review Committee
           Chair: Andrea Sanchez

Letter from the Head Chair

Distinguished Delegates:

        My name is Andrea Sanchez and I am extremely excited to act as your Head Chair for the

United Nations Internal Review Committee. I am a third year Political Science major, American

History minor. I have been involved in Model UN for the entirety of my college career, and have

head chaired once before. I consider myself extremely lucky to have found such a welcoming yet

competitive group of people. In turn, I am thrilled to be a part of your MUN experience and hope

to make this an enriching and titillating committee for you all.

        The Internal Review Committee is not a standard Model UN stalwart like UNHRC or

UNICEF, but instead represents a unique opportunity for delegates to take a critical eye to the

underpinnings of the United Nation’s structure. Specifically, this committee will address the

structure of the Security Council and will make important choices that will cause major shifts in

the power dynamics of diplomacy. From there, delegates will see the results of these shifts in the

context of a discussion on the efficacy and value of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I

am excited to see how debate will develop on the first facet of committee, as arguments on the

issue are varied and controversial; the second part will be valuable in seeing how quickly and

effectively delegates respond to sudden and dramatic shifts in traditional power dynamics in the

UN, particularly in the context of such a salient and looming issue such as nuclear non-

proliferation. I hope to see high-minded and creative debate on the topics at hand and I look

forward to seeing all of you at DMUNC 2015.

Best,
Andrea Sanchez
unirc@davismun.org

Topic 1: United Nations Security Council Reform

Topic Background

         As the most prominent organ of the United Nations, the Security Council has been

subject to a vast amount of criticism throughout the years due to its structure and composition.

This gathering of the United Nations Internal Review Committee represents an opportunity for

this group of delegates to help redefine the parameters of the United Nations Security Council.

Any and all changes instituted by this body will come to affect the balance of power on one of

the world’s largest stages for foreign diplomacy.

         The UN Security Council was created in 1945 as a fundamental body of the overall

structure that is the United Nations. The Security Council is made up of fifteen members: five

permanent members, which are composed of the United States of America, The Republic of

China, the United Kingdom, Russian Federation, and France, and ten non-permanent members

which serve on rotating two year terms.

         The structure of the Security Council is a result of the environment in which the United

Nations was created. In the wake of World War II the victorious Allies began diplomatic

discussions on the creation of a world association meant to foster discussion between member

states. The Allied countries as such held a considerable amount of power in these diplomatic

discussions. The strength of these countries was reflected in the discussions of the Security

Council. As the sole UN body entrusted with the ability to issue binding resolutions 1, issue direct

international sanctions2, and directly send peacekeeping forces when deemed necessary3, the

1
  International Court of Justice. "Reparation for Injuries Suffered In The Service of the UN." 11 April 1949.
International Court of Justice Website. 5 January 2015 
2
 United Nations. "CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF
THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION." 26 June 1945. Charter of the United Nations. 5 January 2015

Security Council represented an extremely powerful UN body that led to fierce negotiations over

its membership structure. Ultimately, it was decided that the United States, China, the United

Kingdom, Russia, and France would hold permanent positions (known as the P5) on the Security

Council and have the ability to veto any substantive action posed by the Council. Ten other

members would hold non-permanent positions and serve on staggered two year terms, with

members drawn equitably from differing geographical areas.4

        This fundamental structure has not changed since the inception of the United Nations and

indeed has been the focus of a vast amount of criticism that ranges across various differing

philosophies. A cross-section of these criticisms reveals that there are many potential avenues for

reform, ranging from merely cosmetic pursuits to radical sweeping changes.

        Major criticism stems from the veto power that the P5 nations hold. Critics note that the

veto power forestalls action on important issues; one such example scholars cite is the excessive

number of times the United States has used its veto power in regards to resolutions ‘critical of

Israel’ (Fordham Political Review placed a count in 2013 at thirty two separate instances)5.

Actions such as these have a chilling effect on constructive discussion and effectively curtail the

ability of the Security Council to address controversial affairs by discouraging future action on a

subject. In addition to the literal veto ability these countries hold, scholars argue that the mere

3
  United Nations. "Charter of the United Nations." 26 June 1945. CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL. 6
January 2015 .
4
 United Nations. "Charter of the United Nations." 26 June 1945. CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL. 6
January 2015 .
5
 Buckley, Hannah. "A Critique of the United Nations Security Council." 5 April 2013. Fordham Political Review. 8
January 2015 .

threat of a P5 veto stalls debate, creating an artificial damper on discussion that prevents debate

from developing on topics that P5 nations may be markedly opinionated on.6 This threat,

considered a ‘pocket veto’ by certain critics, might also cause language in a resolution to be

tampered down in a form of appeasement to P5 nations, despite the desires of a consensus in the

Security Council. The power that this veto power holds, critics argue, directly challenges and

undermines the democratic system that the United Nations claims to perpetuate.

        The composition of member states in the UNSC is also a major point of contention. The

ten non-permanent positions are divided amongst five regional categorizations. This undermines

the representation of certain regions of the world. One such region is the Middle East, which

holds no block of its own but rather depends on admittance of individual countries under the

categories of Asian and African nations. This, critics argue, presents a problem of representation

for a region that is quickly gathering power on the world stage. 7The concern about

underrepresentation holds true in regards to the P5 nations. The lack of representation in this

group is magnified by its permanency- the stalwarts of UNSC diplomacy do not represent the

entirety of the regions of the world, calling into question the Security Council’s ability to

adequately make decisions that are sufficient to meet the needs of the entire world.

        Yet another point of contention is the results of the method in which countries are elected

to the Security Council. Currently, eligible countries are elected by General Assembly by a two

thirds vote to fill a two year position. This opens up the choice of members to fill positions to

political processes that are in of themselves full of turmoil and disagreement. These

6
 Okhovat, Sahar. "The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform." The Centre for Peace and
Conflict Studies (2012): 3-15.
7
 Buckley, Hannah. "A Critique of the United Nations Security Council." 5 April 2013. Fordham Political Review. 8
January 2015 .

disagreements can lead to countries being unrepresented in the Security Council; indeed, nearly

seventy countries in the United Nations have never served on the UNSC. This can be attributed

to various factors such as relative importance on the international stage, diplomatic efforts, and

political alliances. This, however, does not justify the exclusion of the voices of these states; this

exclusion, critics argue, invariably leads to the prioritization of issues related to states actually in

the Security Council, while those issues concerning nations not in the Security Council are

neglected.

        More radical critiques note that the P5 nations are at the forefront of global arms sales,

with some estimates stating that the P5 represent up to 70% of all global arms sales8. This, critics

argue, is reason to doubt the motivations of the Security Council; sworn to protect the world,

these nations are trusted to be able to resist a deep economic conflict of interest9.

Committee Guidelines

        In committee, delegates will be expected to debate the merits of the Security Council’s

structure as it stands. Discussion regarding the various methods in which change to the structure

can be put into place, taking into consideration the various social, political, economic policy

changes that have taken place since the initial conception of the Security Council.

        Within committee, each country will have a single vote, as is typical of General

Assembly. Voting on proposals to change the structural nature of the United Nations Security

8
  Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “Top List TIV Tables-SIPRI”. Armstrade.sipri.org, database for
the year 2013, excel.
9
 Okhovat, Sahar. "The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform." The Centre for Peace and
Conflict Studies (2012): 3-15.

Council will be put to a general vote, the results of which will have direct impact and

implications on the second topic.

Questions to Consider

      What roles does the Security Council play in modern post-Cold War dynamics?

      Is there validity to the continuance of a P5 block in the Security Council or is this not the

       case?

      Do current membership processes accurately reflect the needs and demographics of those

       the UN represents?

      Is the current Security Council able to quickly and thoroughly respond to relevant topics?

      Should changes merely be made to which countries have seats on the P5, or should bigger

       changes to the entire nature of the Security Council – its structure, voting regulations, and

       balance of power – also be taken into consideration?

      Is the Security Council a necessary and required component of the United Nations

       organization in the modern age?

Topic 2: Renegotiation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

        The dynamics of the Security Council will have been permanently changed by the

decisions made by the Internal Review Committee on the previous topic. As various nations

come into new positions of power, dynamics come to shift how nations perceive their own

privileges and responsibilities in the post Cold War nuclear dynamic. With the changes that

come about in the balance of power in the Security Council, states may find themselves in a

position to harness a new opportunity to enter the nuclear discussion. This will prompt

discussion as other world powers find themselves in new positions for negotiation. Most notably,

those countries (India, Israel, Pakistan and South Sudan) which have held out from signing the

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will now have a new context upon to discuss their views.

Topic Background

        The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was first launched by an Irish

minister in nineteen fifty eight, designed to consist of three fundamental pillars: the ideals of

non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear technology10. These pillars depend

in large part on the dynamics set into place in the UN Security Council- with changes in this

dynamic, as decided by this committee the structure of the NPT will be irrevocably changed.

        The first pillar consists of non-proliferation, meant to limit the five nuclear powers

consisting of China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Under the non-proliferation pillar, these five countries (all five of which are in the P5 prior to

any changes made by this committee) are limited in their ability to transfer nuclear weapons, and

are prohibited from “assisting, encouraging, or inducing any non-nuclear-weapon State to
10
  United Nations. "http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml." 1 July 1968. United Nations
Office for Disarmament Affairs. 10 January 2015 .

manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control

over such weapons or explosive devices”11.

          The second pillar, disarmament, ‘recommends’ a move towards disarmament by all

signatory states. This pillar is decidedly less ironclad in the NPT treaty, with the signatory

countries merely bound to “pursue negotiations in good faith12”. Despite these agreements, both

the Soviet Union and the United States were engaged in an arms race for the entirety of the Cold

War and both nations maintain a sizable nuclear stockpile to this day. The effectiveness of

disarmament efforts has been extremely limited, in many parts due to security concerns.

Concepts of mutually assured destruction and other nuclear deterrence strategies make nations

wary from fully cooperating in disarmament attempts.

          The third pillar, the use of peaceful nuclear technology, allows nuclear technology to “be

made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory

basis13”. This pillar in many cases is controversial due to the technology that marks the

difference between peaceful nuclear technology and otherwise. This places this pillar as a force

of contention, with many signatories to the treaty at odds with what types and how much

research should be allowed to be shared between countries.

          Of the four countries that have not signed the Non-Proliferation treaty14, Pakistan and

India are known to have nuclear weapons, while Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity,

though it is widely assumed that Israel has nuclear abilities. These countries stand to make their

11
  United Nations. "http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml." 1 July 1968. United Nations
Office for Disarmament Affairs. 10 January 2015 .
12
   Ibid
13
   Ibid
14
   Ibid

positions known in the wake of shifting power dynamics in the wake of structural changes to the

UNSC. In addition to these world powers, other emerging nations may see an opportunity to

seize the burgeoning opportunity and develop their interests in a post Cold War society.

       The dynamics of the Security Council along other diplomatic interactions will come to

affect how and if the NPT is continued, and its structure going forward. This will affect how

diplomatic affairs are determined and the dynamic of signatory nations. Most importantly, it will

determine how world affairs continue in our Atomic Age.

Questions to Consider

      How thorough and binding is the current NPT?

      How do signatory nations uphold the pillars of the NPT? Are there instances of

       incompliance?

      What is the importance of the P5 nations in the NPT?

      Has there been any significant change scientifically/economically/socially since the

       inception and renewal of the NPT? Does this change anything?

      How do the changes enacted by the previous topic affect the overall balance of power of

       the NPT?