You are on page 1of 30

UN General Assembly 1st Committee: DISEC

Introduction to the committee:
The UN General Assembly is made up of 30 committees, 6 of which are the main committees. The first
committee of the General Assembly is the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC).
DISEC deals with issues regarding world peace. According to Article 26 of United Nations Charter,
DISEC’s mandate is “to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security
with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources.” Under the UN
Charter, all member states and observers of the United Nations are automatically part of the first
committee of the General Assembly, and have an equal vote. Documents also require a simple majority
to be passed. With topics similar to those discussed in the Security Council, DISEC meets once a year for
a 5-week session in October.

DISEC covers a variety of different topics ranging from the illegal trade in weapons to conflicts dealing
with non-proliferation of biological and chemical weapons. Like the other committees of the United
Nations General Assembly, DISEC is unable to impose sanctions, authorize armed intervention or pass
binding resolutions. That being said, DISEC has submitted recommendations to the United Nations
Security Council and to the UN Secretariat on several occasions. DISEC has assisted in the production of
several important treaties and conventions, including the Chemical Weapons Convention (1992), which
outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, and the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(1968), which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote peaceful cooperation in the
field of nuclear energy amongst other things. Although DISEC was not directly responsible for the
creation of these two documents, it certainly played an important role in laying the foundations thereof.









Letter’s from Committee Directors.
Welcome Delegates!
Yet again we find the world in jeopardy, threats and fears. International security still has a lot of
unanswered questions. DISEC at College of Business Management Model United Nations will focus on
issues that are of keen interest to a lot of nations in the world and the issues that have become global
phenomena. To survive in these difficult times, diplomats must secure self-interest and that of their
nation.
On behalf of the CBMUN organizing committee and the secretariat, I, Hassaan Zafar, a junior at Institute
of Business management, welcome you all to the fifth annual session of CBMUN.
We have indeed come far with CBMUN today, in this installment we plan to go a step ahead of
conventional diplomacy, a step ahead of words and mere resolutions! We seek to explore the real
reasons as to why the global contentions exist and find real solutions!
Stakes are definitely high dear delegates, as we expect our young diplomats to become great diplomats
tomorrow. In this pursuit, we shall train you, test you and help you.
Remember, today we live in a changed world.
In the 21st century, I believe the mission of the United Nations will be defined by a new, more profound
awareness of the sanctity and dignity of every human life, regardless of race or religion.
Kofi Annan
Hassaan Zafar
Committee Director
DISEC

Dear delegates,
It is my utmost pleasure to welcome you to the Disarmament and International Security Committee at
CBMUN’13! My name is Zehra Qureshi and I am thrilled to be your Co-Committee Director alongside the
very talented and a brilliant orator Mr. Hassaan Zafar. I am currently a second year law student at the
University of London. Apart from participating in MUN’s, I do take part in many extracurricular activities
aside from the obvious. I am a major sports enthusiast. Chelsea FTW! Not only that, I am also a part of
the public speaking society at my college, through which I started taking part in MUN’s. And yes, when I
tell you, I know my facts, trust me!
A word to the beginners – since this is a learning platform, do not be scared, speak for what you believe
in, even if no one is listening (believe me someone always is).


My Dear Delegates, when you step into the committee, please remember it is not about winning but
showing excellent diplomatic skills. This committee revolves around world peace, be it the current
militarization of the arctic or the protection of civilians in modern warfare. So please adhere to the norms
that have already been set and you will do just fine.
Finally on a lighter note, let’s make the most of the experience we will all share together. Thus, I’m
looking forward to a stimulating debate and the most comprehensive resolution to date.
Cannot wait to see you all in February! And remember this year it is Beyond Diplomacy.
Zehra Qureshi
Co-Committee Director
DISEC

Topic Area A: The Protection of Civilians in Modern
Warfare.
Members of armed forces are sent off to war to kill enemy combatants. They are not sent off to kill
civilians. Nonetheless, modern wars invariably result in far more civilian deaths than military deaths. One
of the central operational rules regulating the conduct of hostilities that essentially only permits civilian
casualties when they are incidental to an attack on a legitimate military target. The rule is explored in light
of the changing nature of warfare over the last two centuries including the shifting ratios of military to
civilian war-related deaths. More questions arise on the continuing validity of this rule when, in recent
decades, the overall statistics for war-related deaths reveal that civilian fatalities are considerably greater
then military deaths
If one assumes that war is inevitable, in any particular situation due to the severe viewpoints of the
opposing factions, or in general as a destructive result of our very humanity, then one must prepare for it.
Weapons of war must be built, and soldiers must be trained.
During this process of training brings with it a choice. Each soldier is told about the risk involved with
becoming a member of the armed forces, and has the option to not take part in the militarized activity.
Some nations do advocate conscription, but this should only be perpetrated by elected governments, so it
can be said in some regard that the population does still have that choice.
It stands to reason that those who do not choose to be part of an armed force should have their choice
upheld.
There are a number of reasons why civilians may come to harm during armed conflict, some technically
more legitimate than others.


1. An attacking force can suspect that the civilians are aiding/actively supporting/hiding members of
the opposing force, which could make them a target.
2. Genuine military targets can be attacked with too much force which can have an adverse effect on
nearby populations.
3. Destruction of infrastructure and abandoned munitions could cause long term damage to civilian
health and standard of life long after the war has finished
4. The defending faction could actively hide and build installations amongst civilian populations in the
hope that the opposing force will not attack.
5. Unmanned operations (such as Drone strikes).
6. Ethnic Cleansing.
7. Asymmetric warfare.
8. Collateral damage.
9. Either side could use civilians as hostages in an effort to influence the other.
10. Malicious soldiers could personally cause harm to civilians for any other purpose.
No state or person would claim that every human that they came across during any conflict was evil, or
destined to be a soldier. The majority of the inhabitants of a conflict zone may have nothing to do with the
war and no desire to become involved.
There is one very obvious and undesirable eventuality if a state makes no provision for the protection of
civilians during warfare. If overwhelming force is used (for example, nuclear weaponry) the aggressor has
a very good chance of completely destroying the population that they may claim to be liberating,
conquering or defending. This is an outcome that no military, government or population will find
acceptable.


Background
The elements of the crime of attacking civilians are that: 1) the perpetrator directed an attack; 2) the
object of the attack was a civilian population or individual civilians not taking part in hostilities; 3) the
perpetrator intended the civilian(s) as the object of the attack; 4) the attack took place within the context
of an armed conflict; and 5) the perpetrator was aware of the existence of the armed conflict.

Attacking civilians is considered to be a grave breach of the Geneva conventions and, as such, it is
subject to universal jurisdiction. Civilians (and civilian objects) are also considered to be "protected
persons" under the Geneva Conventions and the Fourth Geneva Convention is exclusively focused on
the protection of civilians.

Geneva Convention IV
Article 33, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “Reprisals against protected persons
and their property are prohibited.”



Additional Protocol I
Article 52(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of
reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives.”
Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Convention states that in international
conflict “constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian object…”

Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 3(7) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “It
is prohibited in all circumstances to direct [mines, booby-traps and other devices], either in offence, defence or
by way of reprisals, against … civilian objects”
In some cases, it is quite difficult for any officials, or the soldiers on the ground, to determine who is and
who isn’t a civilian. Laws already exist for the protection of civilians and their property, but in the midst of
a battlefield it is very difficult, for obvious reasons, to make sure that these laws are followed, and it is
equally difficult for offending parties to be discovered and prosecuted for any small scale crimes
committed during conflict.

Realizing the effects of modern warfare on civilian populations, the Secretary-General of the UN called for
the establishment of a “culture of protection” in a report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in
March 2001. Since conflict has become more advanced and complex, the civilian population has come
under increasing and persistent threats. Civilians are regularly caught in cross fires or deliberately
targeted as means of furthering a cause. Implementing a framework for the Protection of Civilians is an
on-going priority for the United Nations.
The Secretary-General now reports regularly on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. Since 1999,
five reports have been presented to the Security Council, which are prepared by the UN Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in consultation with all UN Departments and other relevant
humanitarian organizations.

Progress Made So Far
Gradually progress has been made with the activities of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC
have prosecuted many war criminals from notable cases including the United Kingdom’s arrest,
requested by Spanish Authorities, of former Chilean President Pinochet on charges of torture, and the
arrest of Chad’s former President Hissein Habre, by Senegal on similar charges. The successful
prosecution of individual criminals can go a long way towards helping to heal the wounds of war by
allowing victims to feel that justice has been met, as well as ending impunity which could act as a
deterrent to those who may violate the rights of civilians later. Also seen are many resolutions made by
the Security Council, links to which can be found at the end. Geneva conventions have also gone a long


way to helping the issue. The fourth Geneva Convention dealt with protection of civilians during times of
war, to which there is a link to at the end. However, all Geneva conventions may be relevant to the topic.
A Security council report stating some contentions on this issue,
published in 2005:
After more than three months of negotiations, the Council remains unable to arrive at an
agreement on several aspects of the draft of a third resolution on the protection of civilians in
armed conflict. As we reported in our 13 January Update Report, major controversy has
focused on the issue of the responsibility to protect, as well as on references to the International
Criminal Court (ICC), condemnation of torture, and on language regarding access for
humanitarian personnel to civilians in war zones. For full background on the Council’s work on
the issue of protection of civilians in armed conflict, please consult our December 2005
Forecast Report.

The concept of responsibility to protect remains the main object of contention. Russia continues
to be reluctant for the Security Council to endorse this responsibility. France and the UK
consider it a key priority, and see no value of a new resolution on the protection of civilians
without any reference to the responsibility to protect.
Further disagreements among and objections by the permanent members-notably the US,
Russia and to some extent China-significantly stalled the negotiating process in January. Russia
proposed including in the draft provisions on the prohibition of torture and the protection of
civilians in occupied territories that in turn the US has refused to accept. The US also remains
opposed to any mention of the ICC and seems hesitant to re-affirm the Council’s willingness to
respond to situations of armed conflict where civilians are being targeted or humanitarian
assistance to civilians is being deliberately obstructed, despite the fact that such language was
included in the original 1999 Council resolution on civilians in armed conflict (In February and
early March, the process was moving forward a little, in part due to a change in the position of
China. China’s earlier position was that the Council should wait for the General Assembly to
address the responsibility to protect first, but it now seems to be more inclined to accept such a
reference in the resolution, provided that it uses the exact same language of the September
2005 World Summit outcome document, approved by the world leaders.
The UK, who has taken the lead on this draft resolution, has been conducting bilateral
consultations with the other permanent members of the Security Council, with the goal of
addressing the contentious issues between them before presenting another draft to the non-
permanent members. The pace of consultations among the P5 dropped significantly early in the
year (only two meetings of the P5 were held in 2006) but seems to have picked up again at the
beginning of March.
The dynamics within the Council with respect to the responsibility to protect have changed since
the draft was first circulated in late November. Four of the new five non-permanent members of
the Council (Congo, Ghana, Peru and Slovakia) are clearly in favor of a resolution endorsing
this concept. With the change in the Chinese position and in absence of support from the
departed non-permanent members Brazil and Algeria, the Russian position might become
increasingly isolated.


At this stage, it seems that a resolution endorsing the responsibility to protect is still possible if a
compromise over the language used can be reached. Regarding the other contentious issues,
members will need to decide if they want to pass a resolution that might be weaker than the
Council’s previous resolutions on this matter.
Consultations will continue over the next few weeks though it is impossible to predict when a
resolution might be adopted. Unlike resolutions that deal with specific situations or mandates,
thematic resolutions do not face deadlines and negotiations can sometimes take many months.


Issues
However, there are still many issues with all the progress made. The Secretary-General stated while
talking to the Council, “The task before us now is to take the necessary steps to fully realize that potential
and meet the five core challenges”.
He then continues to say, “In practice, that entails consistent application of the aide-memoire on the
protection of civilians; regular meetings of the expert group on the issue prior to establishing or renewing
peacekeeping mandates; consistent condemnation of violations of the law by all parties to conflict, without
exception; ensuring compliance, including targeted measures, mandating commissions of inquiry and
referring situations to the International Criminal Court; and timely deployment of peacekeeping missions
or additional temporary capacity with robust protection mandates”.
Deprivation
There are other issues also. One extremely important issue is humanitarian access being blocked from
reaching the millions of people in desperate need of help. Done by either governments or warring
factions. Depriving basic necessities - withholding food, and deliberately starving civilians – as a weapon
of war. Access is often denied because it is viewed as contrary to the political and military objectives of a
warring party.
Forced displacement
Forced displacement or forced migration may be another very important issue. Those subjected are
known as internally displaced persons (IDPs) are today estimated to number over 50 million worldwide of
which 25-30 million have lost their homes due to conflict. The responsibility of assisting IDPs lies with
governments, and national and local authorities. The UNHCR is mandated to lead internal action for the
protection and assistance of refugees. It is not the only organization to deal with IDPs but it could be the
most influential. However, consistent lack of funding remains a major constraint to international efforts on
IDPs. The funding of the IDP – related aid is comparatively low.



Civilian disappearances
Intelligence is the key in modern warfare, using civilians as Intel sources is common, according to
international law there is no set jurisdiction on this issue, recently the most notorious terrorist Usama- bin-
Laden was reached with the help of Pakistani civilian. The person was charged with the crime of treason
and was sent to jail. Pakistan protested, it was an attack on its sovereignty, both by holding an operation
and using individuals.
But Pakistan does not come clean; allegedly, many civilians have been picked up and transported to
unidentified locations by its intelligence agency ISI for interrogative purposes. It is believed by their
relatives that they are tortured and are kept in a bad shape.
Scores of civilians in Rwanda have allegedly been tortured into making false confessions after being
detained illegally without charge or trial, an investigation by Amnesty International has found.
Former detainees claimed they were subjected to electric shocks, severe beatings and sensory
deprivation while being held at a military camp and a secret network of safe houses in the capital, Kigali,
according to Amnesty.
The Question
The issue can be divided into two parts:
1) How should the Intelligence agencies of the country should deal with civilians? ; What are the
limitations as to which they are bound? ; Should the military or intelligence agency have an upper
hand over civil courts?
2) How are the foreign Intelligence agencies expected to behave? Should the CIA or MI6 have the
access to any criminal/suspect or civilian in any other country without taking the host nation into
confidence? ; What is the role of ICC and IHL in these regard?

Asymmetrical Warfare
Asymmetric warfare is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or
whose strategy or tactics differ significantly.

"Asymmetric warfare" can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence
and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles
often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the weaker combatants attempting to use
strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality. Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized.
This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and
rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.



The term is frequently used to describe what is also called "guerrilla warfare", "insurgency", "terrorism",
"counterinsurgency", and "counterterrorism", essentially violent conflict between a formal military and an
informal, poorly equipped, but resilient opponent.
Tactical basis
The tactical success of asymmetric warfare is dependent on at least some of the following assumptions:
 One side can have a technological advantage which outweighs the numerical advantage of the
enemy; the decisive English longbow at the Battle of Crécy is an example.

 Technological inferiority usually is cancelled by more vulnerable infrastructure which can be
targeted with devastating results. Destruction of multiple electric lines, roads or water supply
systems in highly populated areas could have devastating effects on economy and morale, while
the weaker side may not have these structures at all.

 Training and tactics as well as technology can prove decisive and allow a smaller force to
overcome a much larger one. For example, for several centuries the Greek hoplite's (heavy
infantry) use of phalanx made them far superior to their enemies. The Battle of Thermopylae,
which also involved good use of terrain, is a well-known example

 If the inferior power is in a position of self-defense; i.e., under attack or occupation, it may be
possible to use unconventional tactics, such as hit-and-run and selective battles in which the
superior power is weaker, as an effective means of harassment without violating the laws of war.
Perhaps the classical historical examples of this doctrine may be found in the American
Revolutionary War, movements in World War II, such as the French Resistance and Soviet and
Yugoslav partisans. Against democratic aggressor nations, this strategy can be used to play on
the electorate's patience with the conflict (as in the Vietnam War, and others since) provoking
protests, and consequent disputes among elected legislators.

 If the inferior power is in an aggressive position, however, and/or turns to tactics prohibited by the
laws of war (jus in bello), its success depends on the superior power's refraining from like tactics.
For example, the law of land warfare prohibits the use of a flag of truce or clearly marked medical
vehicles as cover for an attack or ambush, but an asymmetric combatant using this prohibited
tactic to its advantage depends on the superior power's obedience to the corresponding law.


Similarly, laws of warfare prohibit combatants from using civilian settlements, populations or
facilities as military bases, but when an inferior power uses this tactic, it depends on the premise
that the superior power will respect the law that the other is violating, and will not attack that
civilian target, or if they do the propaganda advantage will outweigh the material loss. As seen in
most conflicts of the 20th and 21st centuries, this is highly unlikely as the propaganda advantage
has always outweighed adherence to international law, especially by dominating sides of any
conflict.
 As noted below, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is one recent example of asymmetric warfare.
Mansdorf and Kedar outline how Islamist warfare uses asymmetric status to gain a tactical
advantage against Israel. They refer to the "psychological" mechanisms used by forces such as
Hezbollah and Hamas in being willing to exploit their own civilians as well as enemy civilians
towards obtaining tactical gains, in part by using the media to influence the course of war.
21st century
Israel/Palestinians
The battle between the Israelis and some Palestinian organizations (such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad) is
a classic case of asymmetric warfare. Israel has a powerful army, air force and navy, while the Palestinian
organizations have no access to large-scale military equipment with which to conduct operations; instead,
they utilize asymmetric tactics, such as: small gunfights, cross-border sniping, rocket attacks and suicide
bombing.
Sri Lanka
The Sri Lankan Civil War, which raged on and off from 1983 to 2009, between the Sri Lankan government
and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) saw large-scale asymmetric warfare. The war started as
an insurgency and progressed to a large-scale conflict with the mixture of guerrilla and conventional
warfare. The LTTE pioneered the use of suicide bombing and perfected it with the use of male/female
suicide bombers both on and off battlefield; use of explosive-filled boats for suicide attacks on military
shipping; use of light aircraft targeting military installations.
Iraq
The victory by the US-led coalition forces in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
demonstrated that training, tactics and technology can provide overwhelming victories in the field of battle
during modern conventional warfare. After Saddam Hussein's regime was removed from power, the Iraq
campaign moved into a different type of asymmetric warfare where the coalition's use of superior
conventional warfare training, tactics and technology were of much less use against continued opposition
from the various partisan groups operating inside Iraq.






Ethnic Cleansing
There is no formal legal definition of ethnic cleansing. However, ethnic cleansing in the broad sense – the
forcible deportation of a population – is defined as a crime against humanity under the statutes of
both International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY). The gross human-rights violations integral to stricter definitions of ethnic cleansing are
treated as separate crimes falling under the definitions for genocide or crimes against humanity of the
statutes.
The UN Commission of Experts (established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780) held that the
practices associated with ethnic cleansing "constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to
specific war crimes. Furthermore ... such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide
Convention." The UN General Assembly condemned "ethnic cleansing" and racial hatred in a 1992
resolution.
There is however situations, such as the expulsion of Germans after World War II, where ethnic cleansing
has taken place without legal redress Timothy V. Waters argue that if similar circumstances arise in the
future; this precedent would allow the ethnic cleansing of other populations under international law.

The Role of ICC
Although already highlighted as a progressed organization, the ICC still has many issues. In truth it is
almost impossible to prosecute all suspected perpetrators of conflict related crimes. Truth commissions
have become an accepted method of addressing impunity and helping people reconcile the past. One is
planned for Sierra Leone for many of the same reasons. However, a Truth Commission should never be a
substitute for individual prosecution. To help combat this problem, a solution should be found to allow the
ICC or other such organizations to be able to prosecute most if not all war criminals.
Often during armed combat woman and girls are vulnerable to sexual violence, mutilation and trafficking,
all of which are used as weapons of war. The Council called for prosecution of crimes against women, an
increased protection of women and girls and ensuring that women participate more in decision making in
conflict resolution and peace process. Still however, crimes are committed against them and preventative
matters may need to be taken or other possible solutions.
Land Mines
An overlooked yet threatening issue is that of landmines. They are often laid with the express purpose of
forcing civilians from their communities. Those who survive the initial mine blast almost always suffer
horrific injuries and amputations, and are often left disabled for life. Landmines impede the reconstruction
process of war-affected societies, the return of refugees and IDPs to their communities. They hinder
political reconciliation and block humanitarian relief efforts.



Old population
Also an issue is the elderly population in war and after when reconstructing. Field studies say that elderly
men and women wanted to full partners in reconstruction and rehabilitation measure. One major issue is
isolation, many being deliberately left behind to guard land and also abandoned in the chaos as other
family members escape, unable to fend for themselves because of the destruction of communities and
social support systems. Few agencies provide tracing and family reunification programs for older adults,
resulting in their permanent abandonment and neglect.

Drone Strikes
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one
"suspected terrorist"). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is
deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals
as a part of a "double-tap" strategy eerily reminiscent of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.
These numbers and reports alone should cast much doubt on the effectiveness at protecting the U.S. and
combating terrorism that the Obama administration uses as justification for drone strikes. If a drone kills
an actual terrorist but leaves multiple, sometimes dozens, of innocent civilians vaporized as well, this
creates a brand new set of enemies and blowback. According to Jeremy Scahill’s reporting at The Nation,
U.S. drone strikes in Yemen are the primary source for Al-Qaeda’s presence in the Arabian Peninsula.
Obama’s “signature strikes” — where targets are hit for displaying “suspicious behavior” and which
Petraeus also wants to expand — are backfiring and can only boomerang back to us.
Collateral or incidental damage
Collateral or incidental damage occurs when attacks targeted at military objectives cause civilian
casualties and damage to civilian objects. It often occurs if military objectives such as military equipment
or soldiers are situated in cities or villages or close to civilians. Attacks that are expected to cause
collateral damage are not prohibited per se, but the laws of armed conflict restrict indiscriminate attacks.
Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions states that, in an
international conflict, “constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians, and civilian
objects.” In addition, under Article 51, carpet bombing is prohibited, as are attacks that employ methods
and means of combat whose effects cannot be controlled. Finally, attacks are prohibited if the collateral
damage expected from any attack is not proportional to the military advantage anticipated. Military
commanders in deciding about attacks have to be aware of these rules and either refrain from launching
an attack, suspend an attack if the principle of proportionality is likely to be violated, or replan an attack so
that it complies with the laws of armed conflict.



Journalists
One other issue is the case of journalists. During warfare the misuse of information can have deadly
consequences in armed conflicts, just as information correctly employed can save lives. The hate media,
when used to incite genocide such as in Rwanda, is an extreme example of the way information can be
manipulated to promote conflict and incite mass violence. Hate speech, misinformation and hostile
propaganda continue to be used as blunt instruments against civilians, triggering ethnic violence and
forcing displacement. Preventing the spread of this information and ensuring distribution of accurate
information is essential. Therefore, the protection of journalists and media crew is fundamental. All
journalists and media crew are classed as civilians, having the same rights as each civilian. It should
therefore be the foremost objective to work for improved compliance with their rights. This requires proper
training ad instructions for those who have to implement them.
Sanctions
Sanctions on countries cause mass human suffering is not only inevitable but part of their design. In
2006, the senior Israeli official Dov Weisglass infamously described the purpose of his nation's blockade
on Gaza with this candid admission: "'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them
die of hunger." Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman justified the Iran sanctions regime this way: "Critics of
sanctions argue that these measures will hurt the Iranian people. Quite frankly, we need to do just that."

Even more infamously, the beloved former Democratic Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - when
asked in 1996 by 60 Minutes' Lesley Stahl about reports that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of
US-imposed sanctions on that country - stoically replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -
we think the price is worth it." So extreme was the suffering caused by sanctions in Iraq that one former
UN official, Denis Halliday, resigned in protest, saying that the sanctions policy met the formal definition of
"genocide":

"We are now in their responsible for killing people, destroying their families, their children,
allowing their older parents to die for lack of basic medicines. We're in there allowing children to
die who were not born yet when Saddam Hussein made the mistake of invading Kuwait."

History of some casualties in the past wars:
World War II
According to most sources, World War II was the most lethal war in world history, with some 70 million
killed in six years. The civilian to combatant fatality rate in World War II lies somewhere between 3:2 and
2:1, or from 60% to 67%.The high rate of civilian casualties in this war was due in part to the increasing
lethality of strategic weapons, used to target enemy industrial or population centers, and famines caused
by economic disruption. A substantial number of civilians in this war were also deliberately killed by the
Axis Powers as a result of racial policies (for example, the Holocaust) or ethnic cleansing campaigns.


Korean War
The median total estimated Korean civilian deaths in the Korean War are 1,547,000. The total estimated
North Korean military deaths are 215,000 and the estimated Chinese military deaths are over 400,000. In
addition to this the Republic of Korea military deaths are around 138,000 dead and the military deaths for
the United Nations side is around 40,000. The estimated Korean War military dead are around 793,000
deaths. The civilian-combatant death ratio in the war is approximately 2:1 or more precisely 195%. One
source estimates that 20% of the total population of North Korea perished in the war.

Vietnam War
The Vietnamese government has estimated the number of Vietnamese civilians killed in the Vietnam
War at two million, and the number of NVA and Viet Cong killed at 1.1 million — estimates which
approximate those of a number of other sources. This would give a civilian-combatant fatality rate of
approximately 2:1, or more precisely 182%. These figures do not include civilians killed in Cambodia
and Laos. However, the lowest estimate of 411,000 civilians killed during the war, (including civilians
killed in Cambodia and Laos), would give a civilian-combatant fatality rate of approximately 1:3, or more
precisely 37%.


1982 Lebanon War
In 1981, the PLO in Lebanon began shelling villages in northern Israel. In 1982, Israel mounted
its response. The war culminated in a seven-week long Israeli naval, air and artillery bombardment of
Lebanon's capital, Beirut, where the PLO had retreated. The bombardment eventually came to an end
with an internationally brokered settlement in which the PLO forces were given safe passage to evacuate
the country.
According to the International Red Cross, by the end of the first week of the war alone, some 10,000
people, including 2,000 combatants, had been killed, and 16,000 wounded—a civilian-combatant fatality
rate of 5:1. Lebanese government sources later estimated that by the end of the siege of Beirut, a total of
about 18,000 had been killed, an estimated 85% of whom were civilians.
According to Richard A. Gabriel between 1,000 and 3,000 civilians were killed in the southern campaign
.He states that an additional 4,000 to 5,000 civilians died from all actions of all sides during the siege of
Beirut, and that some 2,000 Syrian soldiers were killed during the Lebanon campaign and a further 2,400
PLO guerillas were also killed. Of these, 1,000 PLO guerrillas were killed during the siege. According to
Gabriel the ratio of civilian deaths to combatants during the siege was about 6 to 1 but this ratio includes
civilian deaths from all actions of all sides.
Chechen wars
During the First Chechen War, 4,000 separatist fighters and 40,000 civilians are estimated to have died,
giving a civilian-combatant ratio of 10:1. The numbers for the Second Chechen War are 3,000 fighters
and 13,000 civilians, for a ratio of 43:10. The combined ratio for both wars is 76:10. Casualty numbers for


the conflict are notoriously unreliable. The estimates of the civilian casualties during the First Chechen
war range from 20,000 to 100,000, with remaining numbers being similarly unreliable. The tactics
employed by Russian forces in both wars were heavily criticized by human rights groups, which accused
them of indiscriminate bombing and shelling of civilian areas and other crimes.
NATO in Yugoslavia
In 1999, NATO intervened in the Kosovo War with a bombing campaign against Yugoslav forces, who
were alleged to be conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing. The bombing lasted about 2½ months,
until forcing the withdrawal of the Yugoslav army from Kosovo.
Estimates for the number of casualties caused by the bombing vary widely depending on the source.
NATO unofficially claimed a toll of 5,000 enemy combatants killed by the bombardment; the Yugoslav
government, on the other hand, gave a figure of 638 of its security forces killed in Kosovo. Estimates for
the civilian toll are similarly disparate. Human Rights Watch counted approximately 500 civilians killed by
the bombing; the Yugoslav government estimated between 1,200 and 5,000.
Coalition forces in the Iraq War
According to a 2010 assessment by John Sloboda of Iraq Body Count, a United Kingdom-based
organization, American and Coalition forces had killed at least 28,736 combatants as well as 13,807
civilians in the Iraq War, indicating an essential civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 1:2 It is unclear
what percentages of civilians were killed in the initial invasion by the coalition.

US drone strikes in Pakistan
The civilian casualty rate for U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan is notoriously difficult to quantify. The U.S.
itself puts the number of civilians killed from drone strikes in the last two years at no more than 20 to 30, a
total that is far too low according to a spokesman for the NGOCIVIC. At the other extreme, Daniel L.
Byman of the Brookings Institution suggests that drone strikes may kill "10 or so civilians" for every
militant killed, which would represent a civilian to combatant casualty ratio of 10:1. Byman argues that
civilian killings constitute a humanitarian tragedy and create dangerous political problems, including
damage to the legitimacy of the Pakistani government and alienation of the Pakistani populace from
America.] An ongoing study by the New America Foundation finds non-militant casualty rates started high
but have declined steeply over time, from about 60% (3 out of 5) in 2004-2007 to less than 2% (1 out of
50) in 2012. The study puts the overall non-militant casualty rate since 2004 at 15-16%, or a 1:5 ratio, out
of a total of between 1,908 and 3,225 people killed in Pakistan by drone strikes since 2004.

Israeli–Palestinian conflict
The head of the Shin Bet reported to the Israeli Cabinet that of the 810 Palestinians killed in Gaza in
2006 and 2007, 200 were civilians (a ratio of approximately 1:3). Haaretz assessed this to be an
underestimation of civilian casualties. Using B'tselem's figures they calculated that 816 Palestinians had
been killed in Gaza during the two-year period, 360 of whom were civilians. 1,010 Israelis were killed
between September 29, 2000 and January 1, 2005. Of these, 773 were civilians killed in Palestinian
attacks, resulting in a ratio of approximately 5:1.



Israeli airstrikes on militants in the Gaza Strip
The civilian casualty rate of the targeted assassinations was surveyed by Haaretz military journalist Amos
Harel. In 2002 and 2003, the ratio was 1:1, meaning one civilian killed for every militant killed. Harel
called this period "the dark days" because of the relatively high civilian death toll as compared to later
years. He attributed this to an Israeli Air Force (IAF) practice of attacking militants even when they were
located in densely populated areas. While there were always safety rules, argued Harel, these were
"bent" at times in view of the target's importance.

Some questions to think about as you research:
How has technology spread the impact of war to civilians?
How can we secure civilians in times of Modern warfare?
How can we address and bring to justice nations that pay no regard to civilians’ safety?
What has your country done to address these issues?
How does the issue of sanctions play into this conflict- do sanctions harm civilians more than
they influence government?
How are civilians affected differently by war depending on their gender, race, age, and
socioeconomic status?
Should International Humanitarian Law (IHL) rules differentiating between military targets and
civilians be strengthened? How?
How does the hot-button issue of drones play into this topic and how can we address their
usage?
Glossary of Terms
Civilian: A person not actively involved in a current military operation. This definition can extend to retired
military personnel, and even current serving personnel who are not taking part in the conflict.
Conscription: The practice of forcing civilians to take part in military action. Many countries exercise their
constitutional requirement for all citizens to take part in some form of military service for a number of
years.
Geneva Convention: First drafted in the latter decades of the nineteenth century, this collection of
treaties and agreements are effectively “the rules of warfare”. The Convention lists types of weapons and
practices that are not permitted. The most recent addition to the Convention, Protocol III, adds laws about
the treatment of medical personnel in a war zone. Contravention of the Geneva Convention is the official
definition of “War Crime”.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights Act: Signed after the end of World War II in 1948, the
Declaration forbids practices such as torture (Article 5) regardless as to whether the person is a civilian or
not.






Useful Links

http://www.sharedhumanity.org/LibraryArticle.php?heading=Attacking%20Civilians,%20the%20War%20C
rime%20of

ICC Papers + Security Council Resolutions

OCHA Protection of Civilians in Armed Combat Homepage

UNHCR OCHA Paper on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Combat: Older People

Fourth Geneva Convention

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1331&context=twlj
http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=civilians
http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-it-acceptable-to-knowingly-kill-civilians-to-eliminate-a-key-target-
in-the-war-on-terror











TOPIC AREA B: MILITARIZATION OF THE ARCTIC



"While in the Arctic there is peace and stability, however, one cannot exclude that
in the future there will be a redistribution of power, up to armed intervention."24
—Vladimir Vysotsky, Russian Navy Admiral, April 2008


Background of the problem

Due to global warming, the waters surrounding the Arctic have become increasingly valuable as potential
viable trade routes. Moreover, the territory up North is also rich in natural resources; it is believed to
possess 20-25% of the world's undiscovered oil and natural gas. Thus, in attempt to obtain such valuable
and elusive resources for domestic subsistence and advancement interests, nations like that of Russia
and Canada, are continuously deploying troops and marking territory without the consent of the
international community nor of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. The main Arctic Nations that were
first embroiled in this controversial issue are Russia, Canada, Demark, The United States of America,
Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Norway. The world was used to the fact that major intrigues are invariably
related and submitted to the Arctic Council, which was set up in 1996 to settle territorial disputes between
the Arctic Nations. The Arctic Council is established to:

Provide a means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic states with the
involvement of the Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues.
In particular issues of sustainable development and environmental protection in the Arctic.
Oversee and coordinate the programs established under the AEPS on the Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Program (AMAP); Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) ; Protection of the Arctic
Marine Environment (PAME); and Emergency Prevention, Preparedness and Response (EPPR).
Adopt terms of reference for, and oversee and coordinate a sustainable development program.
Disseminate information, encourage education and promote interest in arctic related issues.

However the declaration states’ that “the Arctic Council should not deal with matters related to military
security”. Due to the important role in the region the Arctic Council can take Militarization of the Arctic into
consideration but it should be done keeping in mind the declaration and its powers. Also keep in mind
‘The IIulissat Declaration’.

The Ilulissat Declaration was the outcome of a meeting of the five Arctic states (Canada, Denmark,
Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States of America) with the purpose of discussing the
future of the Arctic region. The Declaration presents the common position of the five states in therms of
maritime safety, climate change and sovereign rights.


By this document, the signatory states reaffirm their commitment towards the existing international law
regulations governing the aforementioned issues. The countries involved consider the current legal
framework provided by the UNCLOS, the International Maritime Organization and the Arctic Council to be
most appropriate for tackling these issues. The countries expressed their opposition towards any regime
for the Arctic Ocean that would be contrary to the provisions of UNCLOS; therefore, the only provisions
that these countries are willing to negotiate are the ones complementary to the current system.

Things have changed; other countries now seem to resent this approach, for they would also like to take
part in the division of the Arctic pie. Following in the footsteps of the United Kingdom, Germany, France,
Spain and Poland are India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Brazil and People's Republic of China, which
are knocking at the Council door, insisting that the Arctic should belong to everyone.




Past International Actions

Before World War II, the Arctic region was completely un militarized. During the war, it served as a transit
area for the Arctic convoys delivering supplies to the parties. It was the post-war era that represented the
boost in its strategic importance, by starting to be considered as potential core of national security
interests of several countries.
This change can be explained by the concurrence of three factors: the East-West conflict, which lead to
the formation of political blocks; the developments in military technology; and geostrategic factors specific
to the Arctic region. The last of the factors refers, firstly, to the fact that it tis the shortest distance between
Europe, Asia and North America and thus, between the 2 superpowers United States and Soviet Union.


Secondly, it has to do with the fact that 80% of the industrial production in the world takes palace north of
30°N, while 70% of the world's major cities are located north of 23°N; therefore the Arctic started being
considered as the natural route for any nuclear attack or intercontinental missile launches. Additionally,
the Soviet Union had developed the Northern Fleet to become its most powerful naval power. The reason
is the following: the Soviet Union was aspiring to become a naval power; however, due to the fact that it
was mainly a landlocked country, it was facing serious difficulties when accessing world's high seas. All of
its other fleets (the Black Sea, the Baltic and partially the Pacific fleets were forced to pass through straits
controlled by countries with solid relations to the United States). The Northern Fleet was, however, the
exception, by having direct access to the world's oceans.
The introduction of Delta submarine in 1972 further strengthened the Northern Fleet; it had to no longer
rely on the barrier-protected GUIK gap (between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom), because
the Delta submarines could hit any target in Europe or North America form the Arctic waters. The
response of the United States was to transform the region into a military front. Due to the long-range
missile threat, the US set up several lines of early warning systems. Other countries also undertook
measures in order to assure their safety. Even though Sweden chose to remain neutral, it maintained
significant forces in the northern areas, in order to assure that no country would try to use its territory to
conduct an assault. Norway also took certain measures in order to ensure it had the capability to respond
to a Soviet attack.
The peak of the process of the militarization of the Arctic was reached in the 1980s. Submarine-launched
ballistic missiles (SLBMs) began to play a significant role in the strategy of both superpowers, since the
land-pased intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) became more and more vulnerable to counterstrike.
The ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) in the Arctic Ocean could strike almost any target, without
parting far from their homelands. At the same time, submarine operations were very safe, given the
difficulties in locating them in Arctic conditions (the acoustical monitoring devices like sonars were
seriously compromised by the noise of he ice).
The situation was similar in the case of air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs). Their superiority over
ballistic missiles is a result of their increased maneuverability: ALCMs could be controlled at any point
along their flight, so they could confuse ordinary scanners. Furthermore, by flying at low speeds and
altitudes, they were capable of confusing conventional air defense systems. Long-range cruise missiles
could reach in the 19080s targets located at up to 3000km.

Following these developments, a much stronger need for sea and air defense systems in the area
emerged. Conventional methods of monitoring the movements of submarines (from aircraft, satellite or
other acoustic device) were useless when dealing with SSBMs operating under the Arctic ice. Therefore,
the only solution found was to deploy attack submarines in the Arctic.

A similar need for developments caused by the ALCMs has led to the modernization of the Distant Early
Warning (established between Alaska and Greenland, with the assistance of the governments of
Denmark and Canada). The North Warning System eventually contained 13 medium-range microwave
radars and 39 short-range radars. At the same time, the US ans Iceland have concluded an agreement


according to which the US was to construct two additional radars in Iceland, for the purpose of monitoring
Soviet activities in the Arctic.

After the Cold war was over, most countries reduced their northern capabilities. Reasons for this situation
can be found both in the economic challenges the Russian Federation was facing and in the need for US
forces to be deployed in other areas. Therefore, major Arctic powers faced a decreasing necessity for
maintaining their large presence there.

Introduction of the topic and current status

Currently the Arctic Nations are conducting or planning to conduct scientific surveys in the Arctic, both to
make potential claims on the seabed as well as to gain more concrete knowledge on the possibility of
deriving wealth from Arctic resource development. Following research and surveys, countries are racing
to submit territorial claims to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, a commission created
to supervise the implementation of UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).

Denmark's "Strategy for the Arctic" has attracted mass media attention in May 2011.31 It follows from the
document that Denmark claims the continental shelf in five areas around the Faroe Islands and
Greenland, and also the North Pole, which it sees as part of the Greenland shelf and Copenhagen plans
to make a relevant submission to the Commission no later than 2014.The news rang the alarm for
Canada; since Ottawa proclaimed its sovereignty over the North Pole back in the 1950s.Under the
International Court ruling, the claim may be granted if no other country proves, within 100 years, that the
Arctic Ocean floor belongs to it. More than half of the term has elapsed since, but in recent years the
demonstratively peaceful Canada, which has actually never fought a war, has started showing
unprecedented alarmism.

Countries like Russia and Canada have already submitted countless statistical and factual claims on the
region and have subsequently been rejected by the Commission as being invalid and insufficiently
corroborated. Consequentially, Russia and Canada—and soon to be Denmark—have began to illicitly
and illegitimately deploy military presence in the Arctic region to lay "primary" claims. The United States is
building up its military potential in the Arctic as well.

The United States proposes that the national Arctic Navy begin intensive Arctic training, acquire new
Arctic-class vessels and icebreakers and set up ground and undersea surveillance and monitoring
stations. United States multipurpose nuclear submarines are constantly patrolling the Arctic Ocean as
well. Even China that lies far away from the Arctic wants a stake in the region. Its Snow Dragon
icebreaker has entered the Arctic waters twice. South Korea is also getting icebreakers ready. This ever,
increasing participation of nations around the globe is evidently intensifying tensions between contenting
countries.



International framework

In order to avoid conflicts, the United Nations have settled a Convention in order to define the repartition
of competences: 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This convention establishes in international
law a 12 mile territorial zone and a 200 mile economic zone in which a country has exclusive drilling and
extraction rights.Hitherto, it is very evident that the Arctic’s militarization stems largely from seeking
jurisdictional control over contested territories.

This is directly related to UNCLOS. From Canada flexing its military in its Northern archipelago to Russia
patrolling the Lomonosov Ridge with nuclear submarines, most Arctic economic and political aspects of
the Convention and its implications for States. Such information is used by States during the ratification
process, in the management of the marine sector of their economies and in the development of a national
sea-use policy. The United Nations also gives assistance to the two newly created institutions - the
International Seabed Authority and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Other than the UN, member countries have taken action to prevent further conflagration of tensions. The
Canadian Pugwash Group issued a call in 2007 for an Arctic Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (ANWFZ) which
will follow the guide for NWFZ established by the UN General Assembly in 1975. While nuclear weapons
are not the only threat to peace in the region, they are the most potent.

There are three major obstacles that make an Arctic Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone extremely difficult to
negotiate. The first: The Russian Federation (and perhaps other nuclear weapon states as well) routinely
deploys a large proportion of its ballistic missile-firing submarines on patrol in Arctic waters. The second
major set of “facts” creating obstacles for a negotiated Arctic NWFZ directly follows from the first: Virtually
all of the largest and most important naval bases of the Russian Northern Fleet are located north of the
Arctic Circle.


A third major obstacle is the position of the United States. Like the Russian Federation, it is both an
Arctic State and a Nuclear Weapon State (NWS). Unlike the Russian Federation, the U.S. does not
currently deploy nuclear weapons in its Arctic territory (Alaska). Moreover, the US has yet to ratify
UNCLOS, entailing that the US is not subject to the rule of UNCLOS.

Recent Militarization

Russia
The Inuit are a group of culturally similar indigenous peoples inhabiting the Arctic regions of Canada,
Denmark, Russia and the United States. In the face of military related developments, the well-being and
security of indigenous societies cannot be taken for granted and the solutions that are found should keep
in mind the people living there. Russia has already staked its claim to a majority of the Arctic waters,
which it shares with four NATO countries and planted a Russian flag on the seabed under the North Pole


in July 2007 to reinforce its position. "Overall, we are looking at how far the region will be militarized.
Depending on that, we'll then decide what to do," Interfax news agency quoted General Nikolai Makarov,
the head of Russia's General Staff.

Russia air and naval power in the region has also become more visible. Long-range strategic bombers fly
over the Arctic and are frequently shadowed by NATO aircraft. Russia's Northern fleet based in
Murmansk has expanded patrols, after a period of relative inactivity after the 1991 collapse of the Soviet
Union. But Russia claims that Russia is against militarization.



Canada

Canada recently reaffirmed its commitment to Arctic territory which ensures it more effective control. In its
foreign policy statement on the Arctic, made public last August, the Canadian government gives priority to
reinforcing its General Assembly military presence in this region of the world, but this time taking care to
cloak it under a set of good intentions regarding economic and social development, as well as
governance. Its first objective is to supposedly “safeguard”, through an increased military presence, its
sovereignty over an important portion of the Arctic continental
shelf.

In effect, “the defense strategy Canada First will give the Canadian Forces the necessary tools to
increase their presence in the Arctic. Under this strategy, Canada will acquire new patrol vessels capable
of sustained sea-ice operations to ensure close surveillance of our waters, so that they gradually open to
the maritime industry.



To support these ships and other vessels of the Canadian government that are active in the North,
Canada is constructing a port at Nanisivik, with facilities for maritime docking and resupply.” In addition,
the US and Canada are working together to better monitor and control the North American airspace under
NORAD. The monitoring of the Arctic is in fact defined as the vigil kept on the Russian operations
conducted in this ocean.


United States of America

Former President George W. Bush delivered a presidential directive in regards to the United States’
stance on the Arctic Policy. He placed emphasis on the importance of the preparing strategies regarding
missile resistance and early warning systems in the Arctic region. In his directive, President Bush stated
that, "The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is
prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests."
John Kerry also stated, "The Arctic should be recognized as a strategic priority for our nation.

In order to guarantee secure borders, ensure access to natural resources mediate shipping and
transportation routes, and protect our marine resources,we must become full partners with the other
Arctic nations and ratify the U.N.Convention on the Law of the Sea."

The directive mentions that there is a race for control over certain areas of the Arctic. With the current
administration in the United States, there is a split of support over the UNCLOS, while President Obama
is in full support of the doctrine; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disagrees with it.

There have been intentions of endorsing the convention and emphasizing the importance of the role of
the Arctic Council. The US does not want to allow the council rights to handle the security issues. Russia
and the United States differ in the fact that General Assembly the Russia does not support the freedom of
navigation throughout the Arctic Ocean.


NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also an important player in the area, given the fact that 5 of the
Arctic countries are NATO members (the United States, Canada, Denmark, Iceland and Norway) and the
purpose of the organization is to ensure the safety of all its members and to provide them with the means
for collective defence in case a third party undertakes hostile actions against one or several of the
member countries.





Case Study: Denmark's "Strategy for the Arctic"

Denmark released a strategy for the Arctic on August 24, 2011. Called, “Kingdom of
Denmark Strategy for the Arctic 2011–2020,” the strategy applies to the country’s entire
realm, which includes Greenland and the Faroe Islands.58 One of Denmark’s main
objectives in the Arctic concerns sustainability and social development. This is in sharp
contrast to Canada and Russia, for instance, two countries which are arguably more
concerned with defense and sovereignty than the environment and people. The
government also strives to prevent conflicts and avoid the militarization of the Arctic.
The Arctic foreign policy set in Copenhagen affects Greenland. Though it exercises self-
rule, it does not create its own foreign policy in the North, though it does manage its
own mineral resource development. This is important to Denmark both in principal and
fiscally. As a principal, Denmark supports allowing indigenous peoples to choose their
own development strategy for their natural resources and then support themselves from
the revenues. Fiscally, the subsidy that Denmark provides to Greenland every year will
be reduced according to the amount of revenues the country pulls in from mineral
resource development.

Case Study: Canada vs. Denmark

When it became clear five years ago that global warming is making it possible to
navigate through the Northwest Passage from the Baffin Bay to the Lincoln Sea, the
Canadian authorities sent six patrol boats to the region. At first, Ottawa aimed its
demarche at Washington, which also sought control over the route. But Canadian
officials started fulminating against everyone when Denmark, too, marked its military
presence in the region; for Denmark has been vying with Canada for Hans Island
(Tartupaluk) for half a century.
While Denmark was gathering documentary evidence to substantiate its claims, Canada
allocated funds for building a deep-sea port and a naval base in the once abandoned
Nanisivik. That effort was followed by rebuilding and expanding the Resolute army
training centre, as well as by the construction of new Arctic patrol vessels.

Case Study: Canada vs. Russia

Canada boosted the strength of its military force in the Arctic area tenfold. Canada has
now made it a point to hold war games in the Arctic every summer, and no one can say
how things would have worked out in the long run, if the United Kingdom had not
unexpectedly suggested that the Arctic should be divided between Canada and Russia.
Canada has got a kind of special status as a result, that of a NATO interest
representative in the Arctic and Russia’s chief opponent in the region



. The United States and Denmark are now taking part in the Canadian naval force war
games in the Arctic in the framework of the strategy, with the NATO war games gaining
in scale by the year. Russia is now concerned about an increase in military control of
the Russian water area, the more so since British yachts and Chinese schooners have
been regularly visiting the coastal waters that are part of the Northern Sea Route.
Russia has set up motorized infantry brigades for the Arctic that will reinforce the aircraft
and coast defence ships patrolling the Northern Sea Route.

Meanwhile, the Commander-In- Chief of the Russian Navy, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky,
has voiced concern about the fact that the North Atlantic Alliance has defined the Arctic
as part of its zone of interest and that NATO’s moves, aimed at establishing the
Alliance’s dominant position in the region, have been growing systemic and “coalition-
based” in character. Meanwhile, the United States is actively developing its sea-based
Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system, and it would seem that nothing can prevent it from
deploying the elements of the system in the Arctic Ocean to control the greater part of
Russian territory.

The struggle for mineral resources and transport routes, differences on approaches of
principled importance, and also militarization and global warming are turning the
struggle for the Arctic into a complicated multiple-factor game, in which the military
component is looming increasingly large.





Future efforts

With the implementation of UNCLOS and the Committee, the United Nations will be on close watch and
will continue to serve as a mediator and supervisor in territorial/economic claims in the Arctic Region. The
ANWFZ suggestion of the Canadian Pugwash Group is ideal but plagued by the numerous obstacles the
implementation process may face in the future. The inhabitants/indigenous people of the Arctic should
have a sounder voice in contributing opinions on how the Arctic should be governed. US and Russia (and
all their allies like Canada and Germany, respectively) should be on close watch to prevent a relapse of
the Cold War.

At present days, there are a number of non-governmental organizations and political figures calling for an
agreement dealing with the specific issues of this area (e.g.: maritime security, exploitation of natural
resources, environment regulations and so on), modeled after the Antarctic Treaty. Similar to the Antarctic
Treaty, an arctic Treaty could ban any military activity in the Area and freeze all territorial claims.

At the same time, there are a number of governments, including the main players in the area, opposing
the establishment of a distinctive regime, considering the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as being
sufficient for this area as well. Some of the arguments they bring reference to the nature of the two areas:
the Arctic is an Ocean surrounded by continents, whereas Antarctica is a continent surrounded by
oceans. Therefore, they consider the fact that the Arctic is already governed by the UNCLOS to be
sufficient for a proper administration of the region.


Proposed Solutions

Arctic Treaty

At present days, there are a number of non-governmental organizations and political figures calling for an
agreement dealing with the specific issues of this area (e.g.: maritime security, exploitation of natural
resources, environment regulations and so on), modelled after the Antarctic Treaty. Similar to the
Antarctic Treaty, an arctic Treaty could ban any military activity in the Area and freeze all territorial claims.
But there are many main players who do not want a treaty and believes that the UN Convention on the
Law of the Sea is sufficient.



Arms Limitation

It needs global support and global recognition, in order for the countries in the area to receive the
guarantee that no other country will infringe this regime. Similar to other regions, the Arctic could be
declared as a Nuclear-Free Zone, in order to prevent tensions. Secondly, it may also prove more efficient


for Arctic nations to work together to build mutually beneficial relationships and agreements. All parties
involved are concerned with ascertaining the rights to resources and with determining how to regulate
secure and environmentally safe shipping in the area.

Conclusion:

Computers and the Internet can play an enormous role in terrorism. At the same time they can provide
perhaps our biggest defense against terrorism if used to our advantage. Information at each level of
Internet defense analysis must be shared, collated and redistributed across federal, state and local
government boundaries, as well as amongst industry and academia, and in some cases, the private
citizenry. Additionally, a well-designed technical solution can circumvent some of the problems inherent in
cross-sector information sharing, by eliminating the need for the actual data to do the correlation. Some
technologies have been developed which would appear to lend themselves particularly well to this sort of
implementation, but practical test are required before any conclusion can be reached.






QUESTIONS a RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER

1. With intensive militarization and claiming of the Arctic water and resources, this
conflict is tantamount to the Cold War; could there be a new Cold War? Why and why
not? What are the similarities between the Arctic conflict and the Cold War? What are the
differences?
2. With inevitable continuous arming of the Arctic, what are some of the limits that the
UN, as the international central facilitator, may set on those countries vying for the
region?
3. Are there possibilities for nations to beyond the Arctic border to be involved and
possibly take sides in this conflict?
4. How do other non-Arctic nations view this dispute? To what extent would are they
willing to allow the militarization of the Arctic? What action might they take to compete
for the abundant resources in the Arctic?
5. Is the UNCLOS sufficient to serve as the single piece of international legislation
for the Arctic region?
6. Does the Arctic Ocean present relevant distinctive features from the other seas and
oceans that would make necessary the establishment of a specific international
agreement – an Arctic Treaty?


7. What should be the status of the Arctic Ocean: should it be considered entirely as
international waters or should the national claims of certain States be considered
legitimate?
8. Now should the military presence in the region be dealt with? Should the nations
be allowed to station weapons there?


USEFUL LINKS:

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea:

http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.h
tm

Global research on Western militarization Of the Arctic:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/western--‐ militarization--‐ of--‐ the--‐ arctic/27626

The Arctic Council
http://www.arctic--‐ council.org/index.php/en/