TOPIC A DISARMAMENT OF NORTH KOREA by accinent

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 17

									
                                 


















































             TOPIC
A

    DISARMAMENT
OF
NORTH
KOREA


                 


                 


                 




                                     1

                                        



Dear delegates of the Security Council,

In OLINMUN 2010 we will be dealing with two major world issues: The
Disarmament of North Korea and NATO’s Hierarchy vs. Security Council.

To reach a resolution on each of the topics, the Security Council needs your
creativity, diplomacy and power of analysis, among other abilities. We encourage
you to use these in your debates, sure that your high standards and maturity in
discussing will enhance the outcome of our committee.

Welcome to the Security Council of the Seventh Olinca Model United Nations!


Yours Sincerely,


                            Pamela Martinez Jaime
                          Chair of the Security Council

Fulvio Prian Zama                                         Andrés Cravioto Torre
    Moderator                                               Head of Committee

                            David Lameiras Barrera
                                 Deputy Chair





                                                                             2

Background of the Committee

The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the Charter, for the
maintenance of international peace and security. It is so organized as to be able to
function continuously, and a representative of each of its members must be present at
all times at United Nations Headquarters. On 31 January 1992, the first ever Summit
Meeting of the Council was convened at Headquarters, attended by Heads of State
and Government of 13 of its 15 members and by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the
remaining two. The Council may meet elsewhere than at Headquarters; in 1972, it held
a session in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and the following year in Panama City, Panama.

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council's first
action is usually to recommend to the parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful
means. In some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation and mediation. It
may appoint special representatives or request the Secretary-General to do so or to
use his good offices. It may also set forth principles for a peaceful settlement.

When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first concern is to bring it to an end as
soon as possible. On many occasions, the Council has issued cease-fire directives
which have been instrumental in preventing wider hostilities. It also sends United
Nations peace-keeping forces to help reduce tensions in troubled areas, keep
opposing forces apart and create conditions of calm in which peaceful settlements may
be sought. The Council may decide on enforcement measures, economic sanctions
(such     as     trade      embargoes)        or       collective    military      action.

A Member State, against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by
the Security Council, may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges
of membership by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security
Council. A Member State which has persistently violated the principles of the Charter
may be expelled from the United Nations by the Assembly on the Council's
recommendation.

A State which is a Member of the United Nations but not of the Security Council, may
participate, without a vote, in its discussions when the Council considers that that
country's interests are affected. Both Members of the United Nations and non-
members, if they are parties to a dispute being considered by the Council, are invited
to take part, without a vote, in the Council's discussions; furthermore, the Council sets
the      conditions      for      participation    by     a       non-member      State.


                                                                                       3

The Presidency of the Council rotates monthly, according to the English alphabetical
listing of its member States.



Historical Background

Since the 1950s, the DPRK has been proceeding with a nuclear development
program. It seems that North Korea is engaged in one of two things: they are either
building weapons to then give them up in exchange for a new relationship with the
United States, or they are trying to build-up a nuclear arsenal to use as deterrence.

Some observers would call it "diplomacy by extortion." They say the communist north
is building atomic weapons in order to secure economic aid and special trade
agreements with its neighbors and the West in exchange for curtailing its nuclear
weapons program.

Pyongyang maintains that it needs a deterrent to possible South Korean, Japanese
and American military aggression against North Korea; however, this argument has
lost its credibility. The North has always argued that while they're interested in
economic reform, they need the leverage of the security threat because they're not
certain that the intentions of the rest of the world are really benign in terms of
negotiating with North Korea. The problem, though, is that since 1994 there is a record
of apertures with North Korea initiated by South Korea, Japan, the United States,
Europe and Australia. It would be very difficult to survey the countries that have
engaged North Korea and argue that they have not credibly communicated that their
intentions are benign. Therefore, the argument that the North continues to put forward,
while it still may be credible to them, is becoming less credible to the rest of the world.

North Korea maintains uranium mines with four million tons of exploitable high-quality
uranium.

In the 1970s, it focused its study on the nuclear fuel cycle including refining,
conversion and fabrication. In 1974, Korean specialists independently modernized a
Soviet IRT-2M research reactor in the same way that other reactors operating in the
USSR and other countries had been modernized, bringing its capacity up to 8
megawatts and switching to enriched fuel to an 80 percent. Subsequently, the degree
of fuel enrichment was reduced. In the same period the DPRK began to build a 5 MWe
research reactor, what is now called the "second reactor." Later, in 1977, the DPRK
concluded an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA].

The North Korean nuclear weapons program dates back to the 1980s. In the 1980s,
focusing on practical uses of nuclear energy and the completion of a nuclear weapon
development system, North Korea began to operate facilities for uranium fabrication
and conversion. It began construction of a 200 MWe nuclear reactor and nuclear
reprocessing facilities in Taechon and Yongbyon respectively, and conducted high-
explosive detonation tests. In 1985 US officials announced for the first time that they
had intelligence data proving that a secret nuclear reactor was being built 90 km north



                                                                                        4

of Pyongyang near the small town of Yongbyon. The installation at Yongbyon had
been known for eight years from official IAEA reports. In 1985, under international
pressure, Pyongyang acceded to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT). However, the DPRK refused to sign a safeguards agreement with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an obligation it had as a party to the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As of February 2005, Defense Intelligence Agency analysts were reported to believe
that North Korea may already have produced as many as 12 to 15 nuclear weapons.
This would imply that by the end of 2004 North Korea had produced somewhere
between four and eight uranium bombs [on top of the seven or eight plutonium bombs
already on hand]. The DIA's estimate was at the high end of an intelligence
community-wide assessment of North Korea's nuclear arsenal completed in early
2005. The CIA lowballed the estimate at from two to three bombs, which would
suggest an assessment that the DPRK had either not reprocessed a significant
amount of plutonium from the 8,000 spent fuel rods removed from storage in early
2003, or had not fabricated a significant number of weapons from whatever amount of
plutonium had been reprocessed. The Department of Energy's analysis put North
Korea's stockpile somewhere in between, which would be consistent with the roughly 7
or 8 plutonium bombs that could be produced from all existing plutonium stocks, and
no uranium bombs.

If one assumes that the DPRK produced sufficient plutonium for eight bombs, and
expended one of these bombs in a test in Pakistan in 1998, then as of 2005 their
plutonium bomb inventory would be seven weapons. Taking the mid-point of the DIA's
estimate of between four and eight uranium bombs, the plausible uranium bomb
stockpile as of early 2005 would be six weapons, increasing at a rate of one bomb
every two months. Thus the early 2005 stockpile would be 13 weapons, growing to
about 20 weapons by the end of the year.

Present Situation

North Korea's efforts to develop nuclear weapons have presented North East Asia, the
United States and indeed the whole international community with an extraordinarily
serious security challenge. In 2003 North Korea became the first country to pull out of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); in 2006 it tested a nuclear device. While
six-party talks finally achieved a breakthrough in February 2007 with a general
denuclearization deal, and closure of the Yongbyon reactor followed in July after a
series of delays, there are concerns about keeping that deal on track.

Since North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT and the restarting of its plutonium
generating reactor at Yongbyon in 2003, progress to address the situation has been
slow. Pyongyang justified its nuclear ambitions by saying it felt threatened by the U.S.
Assessments at the time suggested that it had the capability to develop more than 200
nuclear weapons by 2010.

Six-party talks (involving the United States, North Korea, China, Japan, Russia and
South Korea) began in August 2003, but were repeatedly stalled, in part due to U.S.
demands that North Korea dismantle its nuclear program before a deal could be


                                                                                     5

reached. Meanwhile, Pyongyang continued to defy international pressure and to
produce weapons-grade plutonium — in 2006 North Korea was estimated to have a
stockpile large enough to build as many as a dozen nuclear weapons. The situation
escalated when, on 9 October 2006, it tested a nuclear device, having test-fired seven
missiles in Japan's direction on the fifth of July.

Talks reconvened in January 2007, a welcome resumption of the diplomatic process
after a thirteen-month hiatus. On February 13, Pyongyang committed to dismantle its
nuclear facility at Yongbyon by April 14 and admit International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) inspectors within 60 days, in exchange for energy aid and security assurances.
When Pyongyang missed both deadlines, it was feared to be another failed attempt at
ending the stand-off. However, in early July, the Yongbyon reactor closed down,
following the release of $25 million in North Korean funds from Macao's Banco Delta
Asia that had been frozen after a U.S. money-laundering designation.

While positive steps have been taken recently, many critical details — such as a
timetable for denuclearization — remain to be worked out. It will take time to overcome
six decades of enmity and mistrust between the U.S. and North Korea. Convincing
Pyongyang to give up its nuclear card, which it may see as the ultimate guarantee for
regime survival, will require continued efforts.

Bloc Countries

Six-Party Talks

The Six-Party Talks are aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear program through a
negotiating process involving China, the United States, North and South Korea, Japan,
and Russia. Since the talks began in August 2003, the negotiations have been
bedeviled by diplomatic standoffs among individual Six-Party member states--
particularly between the United States and North Korea. In April 2009, North Korea
quit the talks and announced that it would reverse the ongoing disablement process
called for under the Six-Party agreements and restart its Yongbyon nuclear facilities.
Because Pyongyang appears intent on maintaining its nuclear program, some experts
are pessimistic the talks can achieve anything beyond managing the North Korean
threat.

United States of America

For Washington, the Six-Party Talks serve as a means to make North Korea's nuclear
weapons program a multinational problem rather than an issue to be solved through
bilateral discussion only. Although Washington worries about the Communist state's
poor human rights record, the chief U.S. concern remains Pyongyang's nuclear
program and possible sale of nuclear materials and technology to hostile states and
terrorist groups. As part of any agreement, Washington wants the reclusive state to
accept IAEA monitors in the country.



                                                                                    6

The Obama administration is willing to discuss a peace treaty to formally end the
1950–53 Korean conflict, but says North Korea first must return to multilateral talks to
discuss its nuclear activities and take “affirmative steps” toward dismantling its nuclear
program.

North Korea

The regime of Kim Jong-Il seeks a nonaggression security pledge from the United
States, which deploys more than twenty-five thousand troops in South Korea.
Pyongyang also wants normalized relations with Washington. North Korea wants
unfettered access to economic aid from other Six-Party countries and hopes for the
completion of the two light-water reactors promised in the 1994 Agreed Framework.

South Korea

Frozen in an unresolved conflict with North Korea, South Korea's ultimate goal is the
denuclearization and reunification of the Korean peninsula. Seoul also wishes to avoid
a sudden regime change in Pyongyang that would force it to bear the economic
burden of a large, sudden influx of refugees from the north, across its border.

Russian Federation

Moscow's position at the table allows Russia, also concerned with refugee flows, to
reassert its influence in Northeast Asia. Russia has joined China in warning against
cornering North Korea with harsh sanctions.

China

Beijing serves as Pyongyang's long-standing ally and main trade partner, and has
used its influence with the Kim regime to bring North Korea to the Six-Party negotiating
table. China's ability to play such a role in the talks boosts its relations with
Washington. Like South Korea and Russia, China fears a rush of refugees across its
borders and has provided North Korea with energy and food assistance. Beijing has
been resistant to implementing stringent UN resolutions imposing sanctions against
Pyongyang. North Korea is also serving as a buffer zone between China and U.S.
troops in South Korea.

Japan

Tokyo worries about North Korea's testing of missiles that could reach Japan's
population centers or U.S. military bases there. But Japan also sees the Six-Party
Talks as a forum for negotiating an admission of Pyongyang's guilt in the 1970s and
1980s abductions of Japanese citizens by North Korean spies. The issue serves as a


                                                                                       7

divisive point in the U.S.-Japan alliance; Tokyo did not want Washington to remove
North Korea from its state sponsors of terrorism list until the abduction question was
resolved. Meanwhile, Pyongyang has demanded at times that Tokyo not participate in
the talks.

Sources of information and research

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13593/ [On Line] [Accessed January 5th, 2010] Available
in World Wide Web

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4985 [On Line] [Accessed January 5th,
2010] Available in World Wide Web

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/6-party.htm    [On    Line]   [Accessed
January 5th, 2010] Available in World Wide Web

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9679.doc.htm       [On    Line]   [Accessed
January 7h, 2010] Available in World Wide Web

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8778.doc.htm       [On    Line]   [Accessed
January 8th, 2010] Available in World Wide Web




IMPORTANT TO CHECK:

    •   Security Council’s resolution 8778
    •   Security Council’s resolution 9679

-RECOMMENDATIONS-

     A comprehensive, phased, negotiated settlement remains the best way of
      convincing the North to give up its nuclear weapons. The U.S. and other
      members of the six-party talks should continue to push forward with a plan that
      offers specific economic rewards and security assurances in exchange for
      specific actions taken by North Korea in           achieving denuclearization.

     Given North Korea's history of breaking international agreements and the value
      it places on its nuclear program, any offer should incorporate stringent
      verification processes. It should also identify appropriate coercive measures as
      the price of default on promises — normally sanctions, but not excluding the
      use of military force, in an extreme case such as an attempt to transfer nuclear
      material to another country or non-state actor. Resolving the nuclear issue must



                                                                                   8

     remain the top priority along with other important issues such as human rights
     violations, economic openings and conventional arms, which would be set
     aside until denuclearization is achieved. Negotiations with North Korea are
     invariably difficult; nevertheless, a comprehensive, phased negotiation strategy
     offers the best chance of achieving denuclearization.                        ck














                                         

                                         

                    Olinca
Model
United
Nations
2010







































                                TOPIC
B

                  NATO’s
Hierarchy
vs.
Security
Council.



                                                                                  9

                                        


                                        



Dear delegates of the Security Council,


In OLINMUN 2010 we will be dealing with two major world issues: The
Disarmament of North Korea and NATO’s Hierarchy vs. Security Council.

To reach a resolution on each of the topics, the Security Council needs your
creativity, diplomacy and power of analysis, among other abilities. We encourage
you to use these in your debates, sure that your high standards and maturity in
discussing will enhance the outcome of our committee.

Welcome to the Security Council of the Seventh Olinca Model United Nations!


Yours Sincerely,




                            Pamela Martinez Jaime
                          Chair of the Security Council

Fulvio Prian Zama                                         Andrés Cravioto Torre
    Moderator                                               Head of Committee

                            David Lameiras Barrera
                                 Deputy Chair





                                                                             10

Background of the Committee

The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the Charter, for the
maintenance of international peace and security. It is so organized as to be able to
function continuously, and a representative of each of its members must be present at
all times at United Nations Headquarters. On 31 January 1992, the first ever Summit
Meeting of the Council was convened at Headquarters, attended by Heads of State
and Government of 13 of its 15 members and by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the
remaining two. The Council may meet elsewhere than at Headquarters; in 1972, it held
a session in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and the following year in Panama City, Panama.

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council's first
action is usually to recommend to the parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful
means. In some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation and mediation. It
may appoint special representatives or request the Secretary-General to do so or to
use his good offices. It may also set forth principles for a peaceful settlement.

When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first concern is to bring it to an end as
soon as possible. On many occasions, the Council has issued cease-fire directives
which have been instrumental in preventing wider hostilities. It also sends United
Nations peace-keeping forces to help reduce tensions in troubled areas, keep
opposing forces apart and create conditions of calm in which peaceful settlements may
be sought. The Council may decide on enforcement measures, economic sanctions
(such     as     trade      embargoes)        or       collective    military      action.

A Member State, against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by
the Security Council, may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges
of membership by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security
Council. A Member State which has persistently violated the principles of the Charter
may be expelled from the United Nations by the Assembly on the Council's
recommendation.

A State which is a Member of the United Nations but not of the Security Council, may
participate, without a vote, in its discussions when the Council considers that that
country's interests are affected. Both Members of the United Nations and non-
members, if they are parties to a dispute being considered by the Council, are invited
to take part, without a vote, in the Council's discussions; furthermore, the Council sets
the      conditions      for      participation    by     a       non-member      State.


                                                                                      11

The Presidency of the Council rotates monthly, according to the English alphabetical
listing of its member States.



Background

NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance consisting of 28
countries: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Formed in 1949, NATO was set up to discourage an attack by the Soviet Union on the
non-Communist nations of Western Europe. After World War II ended in 1945, an
intense rivalry had developed between Communist countries, led by the Soviet Union,
and non-Communist nations, led by the United States. This rivalry became known as
the Cold War. In 1955, the Soviet Union and Communist nations of Eastern Europe
formed their own military alliance to oppose NATO. The Soviet-led alliance was called
the Warsaw Pact. NATO was established not only to discourage Communist
aggression but also to keep the peace among former enemies in Western Europe. In
World War II, for example, Italy and Germany had fought most of the other countries
that later became NATO members. In forming NATO, each member country agreed to
treat an attack on any other member as an attack on itself. Militarily, the United States
was - and still is - the alliance's most powerful member, in part because of its large
supply of nuclear weapons. The NATO countries believed that the Soviet Union would
not attack Western Europe if Soviet leaders thought such an attack would trigger war
with the United States. NATO's policy is known as deterrence because it is designed
to deter (discourage) an attack. NATO's purpose, however, has been less clear since
the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union were dissolved in 1991.

NATO was formed as a result of the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed by 12
countries on April 4, 1949, in Washington, D.C. The 12 countries were Belgium,
Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Greece and Turkey joined NATO
in 1952. West Germany joined in 1955. Germany replaced West Germany as a NATO
member in 1990, when West Germany and East Germany were united. Spain joined
NATO in 1982. During the Cold War,

NATO helped maintain peace in Europe through its policy of deterrence. But it also
experienced disagreements among its members. The most troublesome disagreement
involved nuclear weapons. United States officials generally insisted that NATO rely on


                                                                                     12

nuclear weapons to deter a Soviet attack. People in NATO countries, however,
opposed the use of these weapons. Also, European countries occasionally doubted
that the United States would actually use nuclear weapons to defend Europe. Their
doubts were based on the fact that the Soviet Union also had a powerful nuclear force.
For these reasons, Britain and France built their own nuclear weapons and in 1966,
France pulled its troops out of the NATO military command, though it remained a
NATO member.

NATO's biggest crisis followed the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union
in 1991. The Soviet Union broke apart into a number of independent states. Most of
these states - and the Soviet Union's former allies in Eastern Europe - rejected
Communism. Some felt that without its traditional Communist enemies, NATO had lost
its purpose and should be dissolved.

In an attempt to resolve the uncertainty about NATO's future, the alliance began the
Partnership for Peace program in 1994. More than 20 countries joined the program,
including Russia. Most of the other countries that joined were Eastern European
nations. The program provides for joint military planning and exercises with NATO
members but does not involve formal NATO membership.




                                                                


Security Council

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the principal organs of the
United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and
security. Its powers, outlined in the United Nations Charter, include the establishment
of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the
authorization of military action. Its powers are exercised through United Nations
Security Council Resolutions.



                                                                                   13

There are 15 members of the Security Council, consisting of five veto-wielding
permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) and ten
elected non-permanent members with two-year terms. This basic structure is set out in
Chapter V of the UN Charter. Security Council members must always be present at
UN headquarters in New York so that the Security Council can meet at any time.

This requirement of the United Nations Charter was adopted to address a weakness of
the League of Nations since that organization was often unable to respond quickly to a
crisis.

The five permanent members of the Security Council are the only nations recognized
as possessing nuclear weapons under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This
nuclear status is not the result of their Security Council membership. Several other
countries with nuclear weapons have not signed the treaty and are not recognized as
nuclear weapons states.

Veto Power

Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive
matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, also
known as the rule of "great Power unanimity", by a permanent member prevents
adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes
(9). Abstention is not regarded as a veto despite the wording of the Charter. Since the
Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used its veto 6 times; France 18
times; Russia/USSR 123 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States
82 times. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the
Council's existence. Since 1984, China (PRC) has vetoed three resolutions; France
three; Russia/USSR four; the United Kingdom ten; and the United States 43.

Procedural matters are not subject to a veto, so the veto cannot be used to avoid
discussion of an issue.

3 out of 5 of the countries in the Security Council who have veto power belong
to NATO.

Present Situation

‘Global’ is a new and frequently used word in NATO parlance. “Global NATO”, “global
threats”, “global partnerships”, “global stability” as well as “global security providers”
and a “Global Security Providers’ Forum” are expressions which lately have become
part of NATO’s discourse. Of course new ‘fashion words’ appear from time to time, but
what is puzzling is that not long ago, just uttering the word would have caused
nervousness because it indicated a “far-away-out-of-area” role for NATO. Out-of-area
has always been controversial, but “global” has been no less than unthinkable, which
is precisely what makes it remarkable that “global” not only has entered into NATO’s


                                                                                      14

rhetoric, but also into its operations and its relationships. However, despite the
frequent use of the term the institutional and operational implications of “global” are by
no means clear.

In the current debate about NATO’s role, the conception of “Global” exists in two
different formats. One is the bold vision of Ivo Daalder and James Goldgeir who
suggest that NATO should take steps to broaden membership widely beyond the
transatlantic area to include other democratic countries. The other is the much more
careful NATO line that NATO should enter into enhanced and pragmatic, but limited,
relationships with countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Japan, as well as
building on existing partnerships, dialogues and initiatives. In the bold vision the result
would be a Global NATO in terms of geographic reach and membership, whereas the
more careful vision is a NATO that is able to protect against global threats and to act
globally. The distinction between the two conceptions of “global” was summed up by
Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer by stating that; “we do not need a global
NATO, but a NATO that can protect its members against global threats”. Hence a
distinction between “a global NATO” and “a NATO acting globally” is clearly visible.

Today, China, Russia and other countries deal with a majority of nations inside
the Security Council that belong to NATO. Should the Security Council’s
interests, that represent the world’s interests, be guided by NATO’s point of
view? What is NATO’s role in today’s world?

Bloc Countries

Block A, NATO

As members of the NATO, all countries present in the council that belong to the
NATO’s 28 countries should maintain a position that goes with NATO’s ideals. Any
country who has a membership offering or is part of NATO’s membership program
should strongly consider joining this block.

Besides U.S.A, countries in this block must be:

Albania                        France,                         Luxembourg,

Belgium,                       Germany,                        The Netherlands,

Bulgaria,                      Greece,                         Norway,

Canada,                        Hungary,                        Poland,

Croatia,                       Iceland,                        Portugal,



                                                                                       15

Czech Republic,                 Italy,                        Romania,

    Denmark                     Latvia,                       Slovakia,

Estonia,                        Lithuania,                    Slovenia,

United Kingdom                  Turkey                        Spain

Countries in this block should have interests equal to the ones the main nations of the
block present. These last being the U.S.A, the U.K and France.

Block B

This block consists of any country that was not listed as a member of NATO. The block
B main countries are Russia and China, due to the fact that they are the ones with veto
power that do not belong to NATO.

Block C

This is an alternate block that can be formed by any country that doesn’t belong to
NATO apart from China Russia and close supporters. This block is meant for neutral
countries or countries that are not permanent members of the SC and do not have
solid discussion power.

The
 Chair
 strongly
 recommends
 delegations
 to
 try
 to
 join
 one
 of
 the

other
country
blocks
before
joining
Block
C.


TIPS

      •   Delegates, just read the two points that are marked with red, the debate should
          go around these two based on world’s security and stability.
      •   The most politically correct way to go would be to find a balanced solution.
      •   With NATO countries in any discussion, the Security Council’s negative impact
          or lack of effectiveness in resolutions are strong arguments.
      •   In Block B countries, questioning NATO existence based on solid facts and
          showing the negative impact it has caused around the world are very good
          ways to go.




Sources of information and research

http://members.tripod.com/more_tra/1e_nato_txt.htm


                                                                                     16

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_background.html

http://www.gees.org/documentos/Documen-02879.pdf

http://www.un.org

                                GOOD LUCK!











                                                  17


								
To top