You are on page 1of 25

IMUN 2017

Disarmament and International Security


Committee (DISEC)
Topic A :
Withdrawal of Foreign Military Bases

Topic A : Withdrawal of Foreign Military Bases


Introduction/Statement of Problem:
For the past century, military bases have been established overseas by many world
powers throughout modern conflicts. The United Kingdom, France and other colonial powers
established overseas military bases in many of their colonies during the First and Second World
Wars. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union established military bases
within their respective spheres of influence. More recently, the War on Terror has resulted in
overseas military bases being established in the Middle East.
Foreign assistances to the local governments which consist of weapons and equipment
play essential roles in the assurance of regional stability. Conflict plagued regions tend to rely
heavily on foreign financial aid. Afghanistan for instance, is estimated to receive much less than
the $4 billion annual civilian aid pledged by foreign donors should the incumbent foreign
military forces pull out completely. In addition, experts also expect to see a significant downfall
in Afghan businesses tied closely to the U.S military such as construction companies and daily
necessity supplying firms. The withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia proves yet again the
significance of foreign financial aid. The transformation to pure market-based trade relations and
sudden loss of job opportunities previously provided by the Russian Federation led to severe
consequences in Georgia, until the IMF and World Bank stepped in.However, without effective
mandate and monitoring system, it is uncertain whether the officials would apply them with
other intentions. For example, Arab governments have been constantly accused of utilizing
foreign-aided weapons against unarmed civilians during the Arab Spring in 2011. It is evident
that existing mandates on the usage of equipment aided by foreign countries requires further
revision.
Recently, in response to domestic pressures, most countries are rapidly decreasing
military actions overseas. Instead of deploying their personnel in the regions, countries now
supply equipment and act as advisors to continue their support to the local
governments.Although the sudden departure of foreign military forces emancipates the locals of

external control, it often results in turbulence and instability in politically volatile regions.
Foreign countries dont necessarily take responsibilities for repairing damaged infrastructures
upon withdrawal. Local governments often lack the financial ability to afford the reconstruction
of power plants, public water systems, transportation systems, schools and other critical public
facilities. The vacancy of the aforementioned infrastructures often results in stagnant economic
growth and generation intellectual gaps, which largely contributes to the impediment of national
recovery. Iraq for instance, suffered from multiple civil conflicts between the two religious
parties and perpetual invasion of ISIS since the United States transferred all the national security
responsibilities to the central government of Iraq.

U.S.Military Bases

Current Situation
Since the beginning of fifteenth century, the Age of Discovery, countries around the world had
been establishing military bases overseas. In the nineteenth century, the Great Britain dominated
the world and stretched its control to mainly four parts of the globe, adds up to 35 separated
countries. However, due to the break of World War I in the early twentieth century, the power of
the European countries had rapidly decline. After that, the United States gradually took over the
world and turned itself into a new dominant player. During World War II, the United States
constructed military bases all over the world. They established over thirty thousand installations
in around a hundred countries and areas.

Military Bases around the World


Being the winners of World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union made themselves
dominant in every aspect. Both of them, intended to compete with each other, put great effort in
establishing military bases worldwide. For instance, the USSR expanded its territory towards
Eastern Europe and the Middle East and also founded other military bases in order to gain

advantage over the United States. On the other hand, the United States kept about a thousand
foreign military bases by the time entering 1970s despite its failures in Korea and Vietnam.
Severely affected by the Soviet Afghanistan War, the Soviet Union dissolved and withdrew its
men from the military bases in the surrounding countries in the 1990s, thus causing the
instability in the region. To restore order, especially in Afghanistan, the United States deployed
troops and established military bases in the region. After the 911 Event in 2001 and the Second
Gulf War from 2003, the United States government established the Operation Enduring Freedom
program (OEF). However, after 13 years of struggling, it seemed that U.S. military actions had
received poor results, and they ultimately decided to withdraw 5,000 U.S. soldiers in 2014, and
will retreat entirely from the region by 2016.68 Nevertheless, the situation in the region further
intensified after the withdrawal of the U.S. troops, exemplifying the fact that further actions and
assistance are needed help the countries regain stability and order.

Map of Russian Military Bases In the Former Soviet Union

Case Studies
Russian Federation
Russia currently holds military bases in eight former Soviet Union countries. It utilizes its
abundance in energy resources to effectively prolong its military presence in the region. In 2005,
Russia began the withdrawal of foreign military bases in Georgia, but failed to complete the
action. Subsequently, a war broke out between the two countries, further deteriorating their
diplomatic ties.

The United States of America


The United States of America operate military bases all over the world. Some were acquired
after conflict, such as the ones in Germany, Italy, and Japan. Some were gained in support of
allies in conflict, such as the ones in England and Korea. While some of the bases are present in
agreement with host nations for mainly security purposes, others are not so welcomed.

The Middle East Countries


The abandoned foreign military bases in this area were often taken over by local governments
or terrorist groups. Authorities often tend to abuse the strong emotional and economic
dependency of local residents to the bases to strengthen political influence.

The European Countries


Russias influence in Eastern Europe remains dominant; correspondingly, the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) has an operation in the region called the NATO Eastern Europe
build-up plans. Almost all of the European countries near Russia rely deeply on Russias energy,
especially natural gas. Due to the pipelines pass through these area, it enhances the importance of

these countries, and hopefully, promoting the position of these countries in EU as well.

UN Past Actions
While countries as the United States and the Soviet Union retreating their forces from the
foreign military bases overseas, it appears that such actions might result in regional instability,
thus calling for further assistance. According to a report released by the Secretary General of the
United Nations, closure of foreign military bases often requires regional support to appropriately
distribute resources left by former troops and also to transfer the facilities and the land for other
usages. In addition, assistance from international and regional organizations is also needed to
preserve order.
The United Nations, as well as other organizations, plays an essential role to provide aids
in intention of helping them to restore order. For instance, the United Nations Assistance Mission
in Iraq (UNAMA) provided consultancy toward the government of Afghanistan and helped them
reform their democratic system. Furthermore, the United Nations Development Program in
Afghanistan opened workshop in intention of deepening the understanding of the government
servants by the aspects of change management, policy formulation process, public administrative
reform and inter-ministerial coordination.
The Oslo Guidelines, formulated in 1994 and endorsed by IASC and the UN
organizations, outlined the main principles and standards of military bases and civil defenses.
According to the guidelines all humanitarian assistance must be provided in accordance with
the core principles of humanity, and neutrality with full respect for the sovereignty of the states.
To curb the escalation of conflicts regarding military bases, the UN in August of 1988 took
strong actions to stop the military intervention of Iraq to control the Arvand River and the
annexation of Khuzestan. A consensus was reached and brought forth a cease-fire. The United
Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNIIMOG) was established to verify, confirm and
supervise the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of all forces to the internationally
recognized boundaries without delay (UN Security Council). In 2003 the UN Security Council
established the International Security Assistance Force to secure Kabul and the surrounding areas
from foreign threat. NATO assumed the control of the ISAF in 2003. At that time, the ISAF were
trained to advise, assist, and fight alongside the Afghans whenever needed.

Questions to Consider
To analyze the complicated situation after the withdrawal of foreign bases, delegations should
focus on ongoing crises and figure out their roots. The questions below should guide your
research.
Which organizations should be integrated?
How can the UN and the international community help cease turbulence and restore
stability in politically volatile regions?
How can agencies and frameworks be effectively coordinated throughout DISEC?
How to stably transfer all national security responsibilities to the central government?
How can foreign financial aid, such as the IMF and the World Bank step in and help
boost the rebuilding process?
How foreign assistance help to reform the governmental, economic and military structure
of the country, rebuilding social order and country stability without sovereign
intervention?

IMUN 2017
Disarmament and International Security
Committee (DISEC)
Topic B :
Arms Proliferation

Topic B : Arms Proliferation


Statement of Problem :
The United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All
Its Aspects was held in New York City from 920 July 2001 as decided in United Nations
General Assembly Resolution 54/54 V. Preceded by three preparatory committee sessions, the
two-week Conference resulted in the adoption of the 'Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat
and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects. States are
required to report to the United Nations on the progress of their implementation of the UN
Programme of Action, commonly known as the UNPoA.
The extent to which illicit trade in small arms is a primary cause of armed conflict and other
serious humanitarian and socioeconomic issues has drawn controversy. The extremely high
instance of small arms violence and the presence of illicitly obtained weapons, especially in
areas of turmoil and armed conflict, is undisputed, because other societal factors play a strong
role in creating armed conflict, however, the role of such weapons as a driver of continued
violence and disruption has been called into question. Recent scholarship has focused on the root
societal causes for violence in addition to the enabling tools. Another target of criticism is the
ability to regulate illicit trafficking through international means, since it is unclear exactly what
proportion of the weapons are trafficked across borders. The nature of the trafficking enterprise
makes exact statistics difficult to determine. Recently, however, researchers have had some
success establishing hard numbers within limited parameters.
According to a 2012 Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution publication, "the
relative importance of diversion or misuse of officially authorised transfers, compared to
international entirely illegal black market trafficking has been thoroughly confirmed." The
authors go on to elaborate that..."For most developing or fragile states, a combination of weak
domestic regulation of authorised firearms possession with theft, loss or corrupt sale from
official holdings tends to be a bigger source of weapons concern than illicit trafficking across
borders."

The United Nations General Assembly scheduled a review conference in New York which
was held from 26 June to 7 July 2006. The Review Conference was plagued by disagreements
and states were unable to agree on a substantive outcome document. There have also been four
Biennial Meetings of States to consider the implementation of the Programme of Action, in 2003,
2005, 2008 and 2010. The 2008 Biennial Meeting of States resulted in the adoption, by vote, of
an Outcome Document focusing on three main issues: international assistance, cooperation and
capacity-building; stockpile management and surplus disposal; and illicit brokering in small arms
and light weapons. The Fourth Biennial Meeting in 2010 was able to adopt, for the first time by
consensus, a substantive Outcome Document which addresses the issue of illicit trade across
borders.
A second conference convened from 27 August to 7 September 2012 in New York.
Data issues
Perhaps the greatest barrier to resolving debates over gun policy is the lack of comprehensive
data. Although the UN Arms Register tries to keep track of major weapons holdings, there is no
global reporting system for small arms. Gathering data for Small Arms and Light Weapons
(SALW) can be difficult, considering the transparency of some countries and lack of an
organized system within countries. However, as pointed out by the Small Arms Survey, in the
past ten years twenty-nine countries have made available a national arms export report. Twentyfive of these countries being European, while only four countries being non-European which
include Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United States. While some countries make
information available about the small arms of their armed forces and law enforcement agencies;
others release estimated data on public ownership. Most refuse to release anything, release rough
estimates or simply do not know. Fortunately, to address these issues, the Small Arms Survey's
contributors have devised a transparency barometer allowing them to consider each country's
cooperation and credibility on shared information.
According to the 2007 edition of the Small Arms Survey, there are at least 639 million
firearms in the world, although the actual total is almost certainly considerably higher. This

number increases by approximately 8 million every year, for a total economic impact of about
USD$7 billion annually.[citation needed]
The Small Arms Survey figures are estimates, based on available national figures and field
research in particular countries. They give a general sense of trends and the scale of the number
of small arms.
Gun rights issues
The necessity of gun control and international arms control, while generally uncontroversial
in most regions across the globe, is a matter of public debate in countries such as Pakistan and
the United States where gun ownership for purposes other than hunting is prevalent and socially
acceptable. Non-governmental organisations such as IANSA argue that the prevalence of small
arms contributes to the cycle of violence between governments and individuals. Unlike the
judiciary of most nations, the U.S. Supreme Court, through Antonin Scalia's interpretation of the
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, explicitly limits the legislative and
executive branches of both the federal and state governments in their ability to regulate gun
ownership. However, this interpretation is a matter of contention. On the other hand, U.S. gun
rights lobby groups, most notably the National Rifle Association and Jews for the Preservation of
Firearms Ownership, assert that access to gun ownership is often necessary for self-defence.
Similarly, gun ownership is widely held by many in Pakistan to be a necessary protection against
crime as well as a way through which citizens can participate in law enforcement.
Stephen Halbrook,a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer
known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association, proposed the Nazi gun
control theory, which claims that disarming citizens leaves them defenseless against totalitarian
governments (such as Jews in Nazi Germany). This theory has not been supported by qualified
experts.

Impact on Africa
The persistence and the complication of wars in Africa are partially due to small arms
proliferation. Researchers for the Small Arms Survey estimate that approximately 30 million
firearms are being circulated throughout Africa. This number is much less than the total number
of small arms in Europe, estimated to be 84 million. However, the number of small arms isn't as
important in comparison to how they are being used. The Small Arms Survey reports that at least
38 different companies are producing small arms in Sub-Saharan Africa, yet indigenous
companies are not fulfilling the demands. South Africa is the largest exporter of small arms in the
region, but only $6 million in small arms were exported out of the country, while $25 million
dollars in small arms were imported into the continent in 2005. Beyond legal trade, the illicit
trade of small arms and light weapons also has a great affect on Africa. Many of the illicit trade
among small arms in Africa can be attributed to post-conflict removal and movement of
weapons. This illegal transfer of weapons from country-to-country has been seen to incite
conflict in bordering regions by the same armed groups. An example of this can be seen in the
conflicts ranging from Liberia, moving towards Sierra-Leone, the Ivory Coast, and finally to
Guinea. Another illicit trade of small arms is seen in craft production. Reports from arms
analysts Matt Schroeder and Guy Lamb suggest that the country Ghana has the potential to yield
200,000 new weapons every year. The consequences of small arms on African people due to
international conflicts within Africa, rebel group activities, mercenary groups, and armed gang
activities have yet to be fully measured. The International Action Network on Small Arms,
Saferworld, and Oxfam International put it in perspective when they reported that armed conflict
cost Africa $18 billion each year and about USD$300 billion between 1990-2005. During this
period, 23 African nations experienced war: Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Central Africa Republic,
Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Republic of Congo, Cte d'Ivoire, Djibouti,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal,
Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, and Uganda.

Current Situation

In 2008, the United Nations Security Council, held an all-important 5881st Meeting
(UNSC/9316) where some 50 speakers examined Means of Intensifying Fight against Illicit
Trade in Arms. The exclusive attention devoted to the issue was an express admission that it has
speedily got to an alarming rate. Incidentally, most of the speakers were from third world
countries. The theme of their message was on the threat posed to international peace and security
by uncontrolled trade in small arms. Despite the landmark resolutions on how to combat the
problem, several events that occurred thereafter, diminished the earlier high hopes. At the very
time the meeting was held, Arab Spring inferno had not occurred, and none was also looking
forward to the emergence of killer squads like Boko Haram, ISIS and other murderous
organizations.
However, the later upsurge in domestic, national and international violence shows that the
world was speedily drifting towards self-destruction. This is accentuated by the fact that at no
time in the remote past was human life and existence threatened as it does in the meantime.
Several factors combine to nurture this tendency and each finds its being in the rapidly
increasing production capacity of small arms and light weapons which widespread availability to
public and private use has become potent sources of criminal activities, wars; ethnic or
communal conflicts and other forms of atrocities being committed against humanity and society.
The statistics of arms production and trends in arms proliferation was articulated by Arendshort
(2003) and shows that, there is an estimated 1,734 companies in 98 countries worldwide
involved in arms production. There are 639 million firearms in the world today of which 41% are
illegally held. In other words, the developed countries of the world; U.S.A, Britain, Russia,
China and France account for 88% of the world conventional arms exports.
Since the end of the Cold War, increasing international attention has been focused on
problems arising from the worldwide proliferation of small arms and light weapons. This is so
because these weapons have been the primary tool of violence in the many ethnic and internal
conflicts that have erupted in recent years (Klare, 2015). In some cases, ethnic nationalities have
fought each other in the name of hatred, most especially in some semi-cosmopolitan societies,

for example, in the conflicts between the Zango-Kataf and the Hausas in Kaduna state, the
Aguleri-Umuleri/Umuoba Anam in Anambra state, the Hausas-Yoruba groups in Ogun state, etc.
All these have contributed to the very low socio-political and economic development of the
country (Adetiba, 2012). The conflicts are too frequent and commonplace and each has had or
inflicted landmark effects on the victims. The casualty or fatality rates are usually unreasonable,
sometimes beyond states imagination to engender institutional fragility and thus, doubts on the
states capacity to protect lives and property of citizens. There are two forms of arms that are
commonly accessible for prosecution of these conflicts and crimes; the first is small arms, which
refers to hand-held weapons like assault rifles, carbines, pistols, and submachine guns; and the
second type, light weapons, that refers to easily portable crew-served weapons like heavy
machine guns, bazookas, and light mortars (Arendshort, 2003). Guns seem to be so accessible
that in 2009, the Congressional Research Service estimated that there are 310 million firearms in
the United States, and these exclude, of course, the weapons owned by the US military. Of that
number, 114 million were handguns, 110 million were rifles and 86 million were shotguns (Obi,
2016). These small arms and light weapons have been responsible for the majority of the combat
deaths in recent wars and figure in much of the crime and civil violence visited upon vulnerable
societies around the world. In 2013, total number of deaths caused by guns in the United States
as computed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, stood at 33,169. In Japan for that
period the figure was under 70. The breakdown of the figures showed that 11,208 deaths were
the result of homicide; 21,175 deaths resulted from suicide; 505 deaths resulted from accidental
discharge, and 281 deaths were due to firearms use of undetermined intent (Obi, 2016).
Monumental devastations are caused by arms proliferation and the crime does not have any
geographical insignia, as both the advanced and developing countries are deeply affected. Each is
afflicted by sporadic and often times widespread incidents of gang shooting, as occurred lately in
France, the US, Germany, Britain, etc but more frequent in developing societies like Nigeria
where armed robbery, kidnapping, assassination; communal conflict, sectarian violence and
ethnic rivalry, including militancy and insurgency are the hallmarks. Most arms used for these
operations pose great challenge not only to the constituted authorities whose duty it is to regulate
the flow of the arms, but also the unsuspecting victims who suffer from their possession and use

in every little disagreement. In this context, commentators, policy makers and law enforcement
agents; including victims of conflicts and crimes that are perpetrated with illegal arms have
raised serious concerns about the horrific development; across national boundaries but
particularly in the developing societies. In several instances, the sophistication of the arms used
by various groups for prosecution or commission of crimes surpasses the ones available to law
enforcement agencies, especially in developing societies. It makes insecurity widespread and
renders peaceful coexistence barren. It is, however, a problem in a country that is polarized along
ethnic, linguistic, religious and ideological divides; where each struggles for survival and uses
every legitimate and illegitimate means available to pursue the cause. It is further compounded
by volatile competition for leadership and scarce resources, which has been a characteristic trend
in the political and economic practices of most third world countries.
Case Studies
Nigeria
At the National Consultation on Physical Security and Stockpile Management (PSSM) in
Abuja, organized by the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament in Africa
(UNREC) and the Presidential Committee on Small Arms and Light Weapons (PRESCOM), it
was revealed that Nigeria hosts 350 million or 70 per cent of the 500 million illegal arms in West
Africa. Statistics was provided by the UNRECs director during the consultation in Abuja and
said that these Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) are in the hands of non-state actors who
use the weapons to threaten lives and property of their compatriots.
The illicit proliferation of SALW has had a dramatic impact on peace, security, as well as
lives and properties of the people. said Ige. Nigeria is one of the countries that is experiencing
some of the most devastating effects of the proliferation of SALW as a result of spillover effect
of the recent crisis in Libya and Mali. Needless to say, the unresolved internal conflicts in
different parts of the country are affected by SALW as well, especially in the North-East, Niger
Delta and Southern regions.

This is a warning that the weapons used by Nigerias neighbors find easy access into the
country and a ready market in Nigeria to increase the tempo of its own internal conflicts, but
thats not the only culprit.
Actually, the origins of the illegal arms proliferation could be reduced to three chief
sources. One is the ineffective management of Nigerias borders. The second one is the stockpile
mismanagement by Nigerias security agencies where weapons meant for government work are
lent or sold to armed robberies and non-state agents. The third one is the obsolete law used in
regulating the arms.
The current law is the 1959 Firearms Act. In this regard, the Resident Coordinator of the
UN Systems in Nigeria, Ms Jean Gough, said that the elaboration of laws and procedures which
are adapted to the current reality, aiming to provide the necessary framework to better prevent
the occurrence of eventual theft, loss, diversion and explosion in national weapons and
ammunition storage has become an essential requirement. She added that international partners
are committed to preventing the non-state actors from illegal use and abuse of arms.
Experts call on the Nigeria National Assembly to fast-track the process of strengthening our
laws concerning this menace. A government that allows room for its agents to give weapons to
non-state actions to foment trouble, is not only creating unnecessary distractions for itself but
also destroying its people and the little development accumulated in the last 50 years.
Brazil
Small arms and gun violence present the most dramatic threat to public safety in Latin
America. Most of them flooded Latin America during the Cold War, most significantly during
the Central American civil wars of the 1980s. Both the United States and the Soviet Union
supplied their Latin American allies with mass quantities of weapons through proxy arms
dealers.
According to data provided by the Norwegian Initiative on Small Arms Transfers, in 2005
Latin America legally imported at least $175 million worth of small arms and light weapons, as
well as ammunition and spare parts. In 2013, Brazil was one of the largest regional producers of
small arms, transferring more than $100 million worth of weapons, respectively, to other Latin

American countries. For example, the ongoing armed conflict in Colombia brought up the raising
of the most sophisticated black-market arms-trafficking network serves. Researchers have
identified that 14 trafficking routes were from Brail.
Addition to international smuggling, the diversion of domestic production and privately
owned stocks contributes to illicit ownership in Brazil. About 80% of the illegal guns in Rio de
Janeiro are made domestically according to the Small Arms Survey. The police records indicate
that 72% of illegal firearms seized by Brazilian police were domestically made. The majority of
these firearms were legally produced and sold, and then diverted to illicit markets through sale,
trade, or theft.
Furthermore, statistics in Brazil shows that these weapons threaten economic development.
Compared to other types of violent trauma, gunshot wounds exact a higher cost. Gun violence
burdens communities with higher health care costs, reducing productivity and discouraging
investment. A study by the Small Arms Survey in Rio de Janeiro found that the average medical
cost of a single gunshot wound was $4,500, almost three times the cost of a stab wound. Gun
violence exacts almost $370 million in health costs in Brazil while productivity losses are
estimated at $78 million.
Recently, Brazil has been extremely active in addressing small-arms proliferation at the
national level and has taken incremental steps to achieve great progress. The Brazilian
government has also worked closely with nongovernmental organizations like Viva Rio, which
works to prevent urban crime and conducts large-scale public demonstrations on small arms,
including gun destructions.
One way of it is Weapons collection. Programs prior to the public destructions have taken
literally tons of weapons off the street. Brazil undertook a National Voluntary Firearms Handover
campaign, which led to the recovery of nearly 250,000 weapons in six months, exceeding the
programs original target of 80,000. The initial success of the initiative prompted the Brazilian
president to extend the program an additional six months. In all, the yearlong collection program
removed 450,000 firearms from the hands of civilians.

In October 2005, Brazil voted on a resolution that would ban civilian possession of guns
and ammunition. Although the referendum failed, it was the first vote of its kind and served to
raise awareness about small-arms issues throughout Latin America.
UN Past Actions

Arms control, non-proliferation efforts and disarmament are among the core aims and
functions of the United Nations, which according to Art.1 (1) of its charter aims to maintain
international peace and security.
The General Assembly has in many ways, mainly through its Disarmament and International
Security committee, dealt with the question of non-proliferation. Apart from this committee, the
General Assembly has for example established the Disarmament Commission (UNDC) and
repeatedly discussed the matter of non-proliferation of arms. However, resolutions adopted by
the General Assembly are non-binding and therefore often without meaningful effect.
Nonetheless, the U.N. has been the important international forum in which regulations, arms
controls and non-proliferation treaties were discussed, for example through the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty or the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Organisation.
The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which contains the only binding
commitment to nuclear disarmament in a multilateral treaty, became international law in 1970.
At the time, there were five nuclear weapon states: China, France, the United Kingdom, the
United States, and the USSR. Since then, India, Israel, and Pakistan have developed nuclear
weapons and North Korea developed a nuclear explosive capability. These four states are the
only countries not party to the Treaty. 190 governments have ratified this Treaty (though there
are 189 States Parties, as North Korea withdrew from the Treaty after it ratified it.)
Originally intended as a temporary treaty, the NPT stipulates that 25 years after entry into force,
a conference shall be convened to decide whether or not the Treaty shall continue indefinitely, or
be extended for an additional fixed period or periods. In 1995, this conference was convened,
and a package of decisions extend the Treaty indefinitely. Five years later, at the 2000 Review
Conference all 187 governments - including the five official nuclear weapon states - agreed to 13

practical steps for the systematic and progressive disarmament of the world's nuclear weapons.
At the 2005 Review Conference, states parties could not agree on a final document, and the five
week long conference was considered to be a failure. In 2010, states parties adopted a 64-point
action plan in order to move forward. However, their fulfilment of this action plan, in particular
the disarmament requirements, is so far significantly lacking. The states parties meet every five
years at a Review Conference (or RevCon) to assess the implementation of the treaty. There is a
Preparatory Committee (or PrepCom) conference that meets for two weeks in the three years
leading up to the Review Conference. In preparation for the 2015 Review Conference, there are
three PrepComs: in 2012 (Vienna), 2013 (Geneva), and 2014 (New York). The Review
Conferences always take place in New York.
During the PrepComs, many working papers are tabled, and the Chairman drafts a Final
Summary statement, but none of these documents are binding. Rather, these statements, working
papers, summaries, and reports are to be used as assessment tools at the Review Conference.
Only the Review Conferences produce a consensus document. NGOs have become significant,
visible, and important players at these conferences, and we have included the materials that they
have circulated at these conferences as well.
Also in the area of non-conventional weapons the U.N. has been very active. For
instance, through the above-mentioned U.N. register for conventional weapons, it created a file
with the goal of measuring and illustrating the trade of all kinds of weapons.

The UN Programme of Action provides the framework for activities to counter the illicit
trade in small arms and light weapons. It was adopted by all UN member states in 2001. Since
that time the UN has worked to support the implementation of the UNPoA at national, regional,
and international levels. It has hosted one Review Conference in 2006, two biennial meetings of
states in 2008 and 2010, and one meeting of government experts in 2011. Its next Review
Conference will be held in August 2012, with a preparatory committee in March 2012 to prepare.
By-products of the UNPoA include the International Tracing Instrument and the
recommendations of a Group of Governmental Experts on arms brokering.

In 2016, the UN General Assembly concluded upon resolution L.41, decided by


overwhelming majority to initiate negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons in 2017.
Negotiations are set to take place 2731 March and 15 June7 July 2017 in New York, with the
participation and contribution of international organizations and civil society representatives;

Summary
This guide serves as a brief introduction thus far giving delegates a general understanding
of the complication and standpoint regarding arm proliferation in international politics. There is a
wealth of information and a tremendous amount of scholarship available towards this area of
discussion. In order to deepen your understanding of the title, your first resource should be
staying up-to-date on current news. These situations are constantly being updated whether
through diplomatic or military action. Look into newspaper reports, government statements and
speeches, and other social statements to get the most credible information. The UN also
occasionally publishes updates on their missions in these territories, but as of now, you should
already understand that procedures towards global disarmament is already in progress with
scheduled meetings and review conferences.
In accordance with the current situation, during our sessions we will be modelling one of
the plenary meetings of the seventy-first session in the first committee of General Assembly,
focusing on the discussion of National legislation on transfer of arms, military equipment and
dual-use goods and technology, drafting United Nations Resolution A/71/L.58. Delegates are
expected to have a solid and comprehensive understanding of the status quo. One direct resource
is always past UN Resolutions, as it is always important to see what went well and what could be
improved or replaced, even beyond the First Committee itself.
Position Paper Requirement
Position Papers are an important part of conference preparation. Therefore, it is essential
that you put thought into crafting these policy documents. This section details the expected
structure for your Position Papers. They should be one page long with 1-inch margins on all

sides, single spaced, and have 12-point font with typeface of Times New Roman. Images are not
required, but if used, should not be distracting. A unique Position Paper is required for each topic
(thus, delegates in DISEC will prepare two).
As for the context of this document is not limited. However, it is best if you include the
following contents while drafting this document :
Restatement of the topic from the delegates perspective generally
Restatement of the topic as it relates to a delegates specific country
Detailed proposing approaches to solving the issue
If you have any questions, feel free to email the dais staff and we will be happy to assist you.

Reference
"U.S. Military Bases and Empire." Monthly Review.
http://monthlyreview.org/2002/03/01/u-s-military-bases-and-empire/.
"Withdrawal Symptoms." Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/
withdrawal-symptoms.
"What the 'Zero Option' Would Look like in Afghanistan." Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty.
http://www.rferl.org/content/afghanistan-withdrawal-us-effects/25150527.html.
Sokov, Nikolai. The Withdrawal of Russian Military Bases from Georgia: Not Solving Anything.
"Tracing the Middle East weapons flow." Al Jazeera Media Network.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/10/20111019152444131301.html.
"Where in the world is the U.S. military", Politico Magazine
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321
"Department for Disarmament Affairs Report of the Secretary-General." The Relationship
between Disarmament and Development in the Current International Context. N.p.: United
Nations, n.d.
"Afghanistan: UN Mission Welcomes Establishment of Electoral System Reform Commission."
The UN
News Centre. http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51452#.VbzW0XgVdFI.
"Afghan Civil Servants to Be Trained in Inclusive Personnel Development and Admin Reform."
The United Nations Development Program. http://www.af.undp.org/content/afghanistan/en/

home/presscenter/pressreleases/2013/02/04/afghan-civil-serva nts-to-be-trained-in-inclusivepersonnel-development-and-admin-reform.html.
"Background" United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNIIMOG).
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/uniimogbackgr.html.
Banko, O. H. (2016, August). Global Trends in Arms Proliferation in Third World Countries and
the Impending Apocalypse of the Human Race: A Case Study of Arms Race and Security
Challenges in Nigeria. Retrieved January 21, 2017, from http://www.ijird.com/index.php/ijird/
article/view/100966
International Journal of Innovative Research & Development
Trust, D. (2015).

/react-text Http://myukk.org/SM1048.html react-text: 91 . Alarming arms

proliferation in Nigeria. doi:10.18494/sam.2015.1048


Jordan, R. (2016). Neoliberalism and Free Trade in Latin America. Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Latin American History. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.013.227
Arms Trade Treaty. (2017, January). Retrieved January 21, 2017, from http://
www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/att
Reaching Critical Will - Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Arms Trade Treaty. (2017, January). Retrieved January 21, 2017, from http://
www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/att
Reaching Critical Will - Women's International League for Peace and Freedom