INDIA’S INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT TO UNITE NATIONS

STUDY GUIDE

COMMITTEE: DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL

SECURITY COMMITTEE

AGENDA: ANALYSING THE VIABILITY OF NWFZs

WORLDWIDE
 MANDATE
The United Nations General Assembly's first committee also known as DISEC is one of the
original core UN committees which deals with the issues of International Security, disarmament
and international nuclear distress. According to the normal procedures, the first committee meets
every week in October for a four to five-week session after the general assembly general debate.
International Organisations like DISEC have the job to ensure the maintenance of peace across
the globe and minimise the threat of weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons. Nuclear
Proliferation is a general term given to nuclear expansion and the spread of nuclear weapons and
technology. In the 21st century, Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, some
scientists even claim them to be a possible threat to the human race and see that the technology is
only given to a particular country after running it through a system of checks and balances.

INTRODUCTION

What are NWFZs?

A Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (NWFZ) is a region wherein countries pledge not to manufacture, test
or acquire nuclear weapons. As of today five NWFZs exist, with four of them spanning the entire
southern hemisphere. NWFZs are a significant factor that contributes towards the nuclear
disarmament movement1, and besides the current zones that exist, there has been discoursing
surrounding the establishment of new zones in the Arctic and the Middle East. The unique
advantage of NWFZs lies in their regional nature. The establishment of an NWFZ does not require a
framework which is globally agreed upon and negotiated upon by various countries, such as the
Treaty of Non-proliferation (NPT). The NPT caters to several countries with different needs, but an
NWZF does not need to. These zones serve the purpose of establishing a gradual limit in dealing
with nuclear threats and facilitating regional action without the necessity for multi-lateral
interference. Each treaty establishing an NWFZ includes a protocol to be signed and ratified by the
five nuclear weapon states recognized under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) - Russia, China,

1
Nuclear Disarmament : The act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons; the nuclear disarmament movement is
a global movement with no single leader, but various leaders from various countries.
France, the United Kingdom and the United States. These are legally binding protocols which call
upon these states to respect the status and restrictions of these zones. Declarations of non-use of
nuclear weapons are referred to as negative security assurances.

Need for NWFZs

Ever since the first use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, during the second world
war, disarmament has been at the forefront of international security concerns. The UN general
assembly recommended the elimination of nuclear weapons and other “weapons adaptable to mass
destruction” in its first resolution in January 1946. The requirement for NWFZs became apparent
when the world came close to its destruction during the Cuban missile crisis in 19622. Nuclear
weapons most threaten those who use them, as those who use nuclear weapons become the preferred
targets for others’ nuclear weapons. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are different from other weapons
in the sense that they cannot be used for any legitimate military purpose. This is since the level of
destruction from nuclear weapons is such that civilian collateral damage is unavoidable. Even if
nuclear weapons are allowed for deterrence3 purposes by contract, that essentially implies the
willingness to cause the deaths of millions of civilians under the pretext of deterrence purposes.
Essentially the formation of an NWFZ is used to achieve three general purposes.

1. To prevent the emergence of new-nuclear armed states within the region.

2. To keep nuclear weapons out of the zone (or in certain cases, enable foreign governments to
have the autonomy to decide whether other countries can ship nuclear material through their
borders.)
3. To prevent the usage or the threat of usage of nuclear weapons by nuclear weapon states
against countries in the zone.

Loopholes and ambiguity

NWFZs are not without their flaws and drawbacks like various other litigious documents. It has
occurred at times where NPT states have signed and ratified NWFZs, but have declared conditions
under which they can reserve their right to use nuclear weapons in certain scenarios. For example,
the United States did something similar with the African NWFZ treaty in April 1996. The US had
2
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis#:~:text=The%20Cuban%20Missile%20Crisis%
20of,came%20closest%20to%20nuclear%20conflict.
3
Deterrence is the military strategy where one party uses threats to prevent certain action from another party.
(example: A country threatens nuclear warfare to prevent another country from attacking)
signed the protocol, however, it had also added a declaration wherein it reserved the right to respond
with all options. What this implied was the possible usage of nuclear weapons, in response to a
chemical or biological weapons attack by a member of the zone. Three of the NWFZs that do exist
do not explicitly rule out the transit/transfer of nuclear weapons by nuclear weapon states through
the zones. Furthermore, generally, nuclear weapon states do not declare whether nuclear weapons
are aboard their vessels.

Non-proliferation
Sharing nuclear technology and weapons with countries that are not recognised as “Nuclear
countries” is defined as nuclear proliferation which can only be done by the Treaty of
Nonproliferation (NPT). Originally there are five nuclear states namely The US, UK, France,
China and Russia recognised as Nuclear Weapons States while four other countries are presumed
or known to have nuclear power and that are India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan although
none of them are official members of the NPT, however, North Korea acceded to the NPT in
1985 then withdrew in 2003. Non-Proliferation has been often criticised both by members and
non-members of the NPT because sharing nuclear information with some countries might cause
tensions between different countries. A recent example was seen in the Indian Subcontinent in
the late 90s when China sharing nuclear equipment with Pakistan increased and escalated
tensions on the border between India and Pakistan. The governments of different countries also
fear the risk of nuclear warfare which could permanently destabilise international/regional
relations or infringe national sovereignty of states.

HISTORY

The cold war

The initial impetus for the establishment of NWFZs occurred at the start of the cold war in 1957,
just 12 years after the first nuclear weapons were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This
period saw dissatisfaction amidst middle-powers and non-nuclear weapon states, particularly
against the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR). The dissatisfaction stemmed from the failure of these states to provide any sort of
concrete guarantee that Nuclear Weapon States (NWSs) would not use or threaten to use nuclear
weapons against non-NWSs. Towards the end of 1957, Polish foreign minister, Adam Rapacki
called for the establishment of an NWFZ spanning the regions of Czechoslovakia, Poland and
both the German republics. This proposal was rejected by the United States and the United
Kingdom on the claim that the stationing of nuclear weapons in that region was essential to
maintain balance and deter the numerically superior Warsaw pacts4 conventional forces5
stationed in the area. This proposal presented by the Polish Government, also known as the
Rapacki Plan6, was a novel concept which was taken up on various international forums,
particularly, the United Nations. Although the proposal never came into effect, it laid the
groundwork for the subsequent successful establishment of NWFZs, many of which have
essential principles and features found in the Rapacki Plan. Some examples of universally
applicable principles found in the plan are the establishment of an extensive and effective system
of control in the region, and the commitment of other states whose forces are stationed in the
zone to not maintain any nuclear weapons with the armaments of these forces and not to transfer
such weapons to any agencies within this territory. This proposal defines the restrictions under
the NWFZ as follows “not to produce, stockpile, import for their use, or allow the deployment in
their territories of any types of nuclear weapons, and also not to install, or allow to be installed,
in their territories equipment or installations for delivering nuclear weapons, including rocket
launching ramps.”7

As the cold war progressed so did the increase in proposals for NWFZs in numerous regions
including Africa, East Asia and Europe. 1959 saw proposals for NWFZs in the Balkans8, the
Korean peninsula and in the Asian Pacific. That same year the world witnessed the establishment
of the first NWFZ- the Antarctic treaty-by the United States. A unique factor regarding this
treaty was a ban on the disposal of radioactive waste in the region. This came in hindsight of
increasing international concern over the potential health impacts caused by the radioactive

4
The cold war had central Europe divided between the Warsaw Pact member states (Czechoslovakia, the German
Democratic Republic, Hungary and Poland), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) member states.
5
Conventional forces are those armed forces which are capable of conducting operations using conventional
weapons and tactics, i.e, nonnuclear weapons
6
https://www.cvce.eu/en/obj/the_rapacki_plan_warsaw_14_february_1958-en-c7c21f77-83c4-4ffc-8cca-30255b300c
b2.html
7
See footnote 5
8
The Balkan Peninsula is Easternmost of Europe's three great southern peninsulas. The region is generally
categorised as comprising, or comprising parts of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo,
Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, and Slovenia. Some extensions of the definition also include
portions of Greece and Turkey.
fallout of nuclear atmospheric testing. This concern greatly increased following the Cuban
Missile Crisis (1962) which led to the negotiation of the Partial Test Ban Treaty.

Non-proliferation treaty
In 1968, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons9, also referred to as the NPT
was first signed. It obligates the 5 original nuclear-weapon states (the United States, the Soviet
Union, the United Kingdom, France, and China) not to transfer nuclear weapons, other nuclear
explosive devices, or their technology to any non–nuclear-weapons state. Non–nuclear-weapons
states that are parties to the NPT undertake and avoid of acquisition or production of nuclear
weapons or nuclear explosive devices, in return for the acquisition of nuclear technologies for
peaceful activities, such as power generation, and for protection by the nuclear-weapon states.
They are also required to accept safeguards to detect diversions of nuclear materials from
peaceful activities to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The
NPT went into effect in 1970. In 1992, China and France acceded to it. In 1996, Belarus joined
Ukraine and Kazakhstan in removing and transferring to the Russian Federation the last of the
remaining former Soviet nuclear weapons located within their territories, and each of these
nations has become a party to the NPT, as a non–nuclear-weapon state. The NPT is the most
widely-accepted arms control agreement. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only major
nations that were not parties to the NPT until North Korea unilaterally withdrew—a withdrawal
that was not recognized by the other 187 parties. India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons
capability during the 1990s while remaining outside the NPT. Israel is said to retain a significant
nuclear weapons capability also outside the NPT

Condition for the Treaty to come into force: As implied in the treaty, a minimum of 50 nations
have to sign and ratify the treaty for it to come into force. This criteria has not been met yet
amongst vocal criticism from several countries, particularly, India. India believes the
disarmament policy to be discriminatory, since the NPT allows those nations which
manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon before January 1, 1967, to retain their weapons
after signing the treaty. Another criticism is the nature of the NPT itself, which supposedly tries

9
1https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2019.1611187#:~:text=Today%20there%20are%
20only%20five,announced%20its%20withdrawal%20in%202003.
to perpetuate the superior power position of nuclear weapon states (NWSs), and is thus viewed
as a political instrument for NWSs to garner power.

The international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons lists the countries that have signed and/or
ratified the treaty. Article V10 of the NPT states that - “Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to
take appropriate measures to ensure that, following this Treaty, under appropriate international
observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any
peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States
Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the
explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and
development. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall be able to obtain such
benefits, under a special international agreement or agreements, through an appropriate
international body with adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon States. Negotiations on
this subject shall commence as soon as possible after the Treaty enters into force.
Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty so desiring may also obtain such benefits
according to bilateral agreements.”

UN resolution 63/5511
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 63/55 was about missile technology
and the legality of the use of Nuclear weapons. The resolution's 7th introductory clause expressed
support for non-proliferation. The resolution also entailed that the signatories take measures to
ensure all nuclear activity is peaceful under the criteria set by the International Atomic Energy
Agency and in compliance with the regulations put forth by the former. The resolution was a
reiteration of the NPT's goals and as such faces similar challenges in implementation, including
the risk of nuclear terrorism or nuclear conflict.

10
https://tutorials.nti.org/npt-tutorial/understanding-the-text-of-the-treaty/#:~:text=of%20the%20world.-,2.),nuclear
%20energy%20for%20peaceful%20purposes.
11
See PDF: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/642708
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)12
The CTBT was adopted by the UNGA in 1996 and signed by 186 countries. The treaty prohibits
“any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion”13 anywhere in the world. The
decades following the CTBT's opening for signing have led to nuclear testing becoming a taboo.
Only one country-North Korea-has conducted nuclear test explosions this century, but even then,
it halted its testing in 2017. This treaty also provides for verification and compliance through the
establishment of a global network of monitoring facilities and also allows for on-site inspections
of suspicious events. Verification mechanisms also include the International Monitoring System
(IMS), which when fully operational, will consist of 321 monitoring stations alongside the
existing 16 radionuclide laboratories.14
The treaty cannot come into effect until it is ratified by 44 specific countries and is not yet in
effect due to that criterion having not been reached, given that 8 of these 44 countries have not
ratified it15. Many consider it an important step in reducing nuclear arms proliferation, as the
development of nuclear arms can be halted by preventing testing.

Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) prohibits signatories from
developing, testing, using, stockpiling, testing, acquiring, possessing, or threatening to use
nuclear weapons. The treaty entered into force on January 22, 2021, and the states of this treaty
must prevent any activities prohibited by the TPNW from taking place under its jurisdiction or
control. The states also should aid any individual negatively affected due to the testing of nuclear
weapons, in addition to undertaking the relevant steps to correct any environmentally
contaminated areas by nuclear testing. The first Meeting of the State Parties (MSP) following the
enforcement of the treaty, was held in Vienna, Austria from 21-23 June 2022. The MSP’s final
report known as the “Vienna Declaration” stated that “nuclear weapons are now explicitly and
comprehensively prohibited by international law, as has long been the case for biological and
chemical weapons.”. The report also laid out a 50-task action plan to improve progress in areas

12
https://www.ctbto.org/sites/default/files/Documents/CTBT_English_withCover.pdf
13
See footnote 11
14
https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-ctbt/
15
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/test-ban-treaty-at-a-glance#:~:text=The%20Comprehensive%20
Test%20Ban%20Treaty,nations%20and%20ratified%20by%20176.
such as gender and nuclear disarmament, eliminating nuclear weapons, and assisting victims of
nuclear-related activities.

CURRENT SCENARIO

Treaties and laws concurred

Encouraging and promoting a law binding countries to eliminate the use of nuclear weapons is a
way to spread humanity and ensure widespread knowledge about the need for perpetual peace.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is one of the global measures taken by the
UN. By passing resolution 71/258, the United Nations General Assembly voted to hold a
conference in 2017 to negotiate a treaty that would legally forbid nuclear weapons and pave the
way for their complete abolition. The Conference will be attended and contributed to by
representatives of international organisations and civil society, as the Assembly encouraged all
Member States to attend.

Treaty of Tlatelolco
Treaty of Tlatelolco was opened for signature on 14 February 1967 in Mexico City for the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean which encompasses a
surface area of more than 20 million sq. km, 30 countries and more than 600 million people.
Besides the standard restrictions of an NWFZ, the treaty aims to stop the member countries from
threatening, installing, and/or deploying nuclear
weapons to any country whatsoever and encourages
the member nations to not indulge in any activities
that are related to nuclear weapons directly or
indirectly. Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear
Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean
(OPANAL) is an intergovernmental agency
established by the Treaty of Tlatelolco to oversee and
ensure that all the members are complying with the
treaty. The treaty has not only been successful in
denuclearization of the member countries but also
has given a sense of security and peace.
Treaty of Rarotonga
The Treaty of Rarotonga, also known as the South Pacific Nuclear-free zone treaty was opened
for signature on 6th August 1985 and entered into force for 13 countries on 11th December 1986.
The treaty is supported by the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) which observes and ensures that all the
member nations abide by the treaty. As
per the treaty, besides regulating
nuclear weapons, it makes sure that no
member nation can dump any sort of
radioactive waste in the sea and/or
anywhere in the treaty zone and also
prevent and resist the non-member
countries from attempting to do so.
The treaty has been enacted for more
than 35 years and is well-observed and
enforced by PIF, hence contributing to
global peace and denuclearization of the member countries.

Treaty of Bangkok
The Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone, aka the SEANWFZ Treaty or
Bangkok Treaty was first introduced and signed on 15th December by 10 Southeast Asian
nations, in 1995 and was enforced on 27th March 1997. The treaty is looked after and regulated
by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The member nations are obliged to not
possess, manufacture or have control over any nuclear weapon anywhere inside and outside the
treaty zone which covers most of southeast Asia’s land and water, continental shelves and EEZ.
This treaty, like the treaty of Rarotonga, also mentions that no radioactive waste should be
dumped into the water.

Treaty of Pelindaba
The African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, aka The Treaty of Pelindaba, was signed on 12th
April 1996 in Cairo, Egypt. It has been signed by 51 countries out of which only 43 are full-time
members. It came into force on 15th July 2009, and more than 13 years later it got introduced.
The treaty mentions not to conduct research, control, possess or manufacture any sort of nuclear
weapons. The treaty also prohibits dumping of radioactive waste in the treaty area. The member
nations agreed to establish an organisation called African Commission on Nuclear Energy
(AFCONE) which oversees and makes sure all the member nations are abiding by the treaty.

Problems and prospects

NWFZs are not without their challenges concerning establishment and maintenance.
Following are some of the main challenges NWFZs face:

1. Foreign Policy: Perhaps the most pertinent challenge faced is that NWSs would likely not
be willing to give up their weapons due to their respective foreign policies. Example: the
United States and Russia, have in the past, opposed the creation of NWFZs under the
pretext of security purposes.

2. External Parties: Countries that are not a part of an NWFZ may be able to use nuclear
weapons against countries that are part of the NWFZ since nuclear weapons can be
delivered by long-range missiles which can travel thousands of miles.

3. Power Struggle: Adding on to the first point, The lack of cooperation from pre-existing
NWSs is the significant issue here. Countries which hold nuclear weapons also hold a
greater degree of political power.

4. Enforcement Mechanism: NWFZs do not have any concrete enforcement mechanisms

which means that there is no set way for countries that violate the terms of the zone to
face repercussions. This means that it becomes rather difficult to ensure that countries
comply with the terms of the zone.

But as was mentioned earlier, NWFZs are rapidly garnering global attention, and have various
prospects. The number of countries which support NWFZs has been steadily increasing in recent
years. This can be chalked up to various factors which include the growing awareness of the
threats posed by nuclear weapons, as well as the increasing number of countries which are
affected by nuclear testing. These affected countries are unfortunate stakeholders in the nuclear
development process. Another promising prospect is the technological aspect of things. The
development of new technologies such as satellite imagery and early warning systems are useful
tools in enforcing NWFZs. These technologies can be utilised to monitor compliance with the
terms of the NWFZ and can also be used to detect violations. Besides these factors, the
increasing public pressure is also a significant prospect for NWFZs. The heightening global
public pressure for NWFZs is driven by various factors which include an increasing awareness
regarding the dangers of nuclear weapons, as well as an increasing awareness about the growing
number of countries that are affected by nuclear weapons testing. Ultimately, the problems and
prospects balance each other out, and the future of NWFZs depends on the ability of various
countries to overcome these problems and foster cooperation to create a nuclear-weapon-free
world.
BLOC POSITIONS

India
India first adopted a "no first use" policy after its second nuclear test, Pokhran-II, in 1998. Indian
Defense Minister Rajnath Singh, speaking on the anniversary of the death of former Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee on August 16, 2019, said that India's no-first-use policy might
change depending upon the "circumstances". The exchange of nuclear and missile technologies
between Islamabad and Pyongyang has been detrimental to India’s security. Growing border
disputes with Pakistan over the Kashmir region, and China in the Line of Actual Control (LAC)
have led India to increasingly militarise its area over the past few decades. The Indian
Government's main impetus for developing nuclear weapons is deterring potential Chinese
aggression, as well as the arms race in Asia. Both Pakistan and China have developed nuclear
weapons over the past few decades, and this coupled with Pakistan and China’s allyship is a huge
incentive for India to also develop nuclear weapons

North Korea
In 2021, North Korea spent an estimated US$642 million to build and maintain its nuclear
forces. Speaking at a Korean War anniversary event, Mr Kim Jong-un added that the country was
"fully ready for any military confrontation" with the US, the state news agency KCNA reported.
China
China's nuclear weapons arsenal has grown and modernised over recent years, and current
estimates say the country has 350 operational warheads ready for delivery, over 248 land-based
ballistic missiles, and 72 sea-based ballistic missiles16. China's U.N. envoy said that Beijing does
not want to see North Korea carry out a new nuclear test, which is partly why China vetoed a
U.S.-led bid to impose new U.N. sanctions on Pyongyang over renewed ballistic missile
launches.

Russia
Russia possesses approximately 5,977 nuclear weapons, the largest stockpile of nuclear warheads
in the world, which it can launch from missiles, submarines, and aircraft. In 2021, Russia spent
an estimated US$8.6 billion to build and maintain its nuclear forces. It is one of the five
nuclear-weapon states recognized under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons. Russia’s development of nuclear weapons was exponential during the cold war when it
was a part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). This occurred for deterrence
purposes. Russia has cited the reason for possessing nuclear weapons as being a means of
response to the usage of weapons of mass destruction against it or any of its allies. In the recent
context of the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia has on multiple occasions issued nuclear threats.

The United States

At the beginning of 2022, the US Defense Department maintained an estimated stockpile of
approximately 3,708 nuclear warheads for delivery by ballistic missiles and aircraft. Before and
during the Cold War, they conducted 1,054 nuclear tests. Initially, the US developed nuclear
weapons during World War 2 as a means of countering Nazi Germany and bringing about
Japan’s surrender in the war. The development of nuclear weapons further intensified during the
cold war for deterrence purposes against the USSR and currently serves as a means of deterring
adversaries and assuring allies, and the Biden administration and Congress claim that they are
both acting in a responsible and deliberative manner to strengthen deterrence against North
Korea. Currently, in hindsight of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, US nuclear weapons are a means
of deterring potential Russian aggression

16
https://www.orfonline.org/research/chinas-nuclear-ambitions/
South Korea
South Korea, an eminent country that can produce nuclear weapons, has refused to sign the
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). It has stood unwavering on this issue
since 2017. South Korea, though not a supporter of the TPNW treaty, is a part of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. A UNGA (United Nations General Assembly) resolution from 2019 that
urged "those states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify the treaty at the earliest practicable
moment" was similarly rejected by Korea.

France
France has always been one of the opposers of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
(TPNW). As of today, France has 290 nuclear weapons which are both marine and airborne.
France believes that denuclearization of the country would result in the weakening of the
country's armed forces against Russia.

United Kingdom
The UK has always been on the opposite side when it comes to signing the Treaty on the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) since its introduction in 2018. The UK has 225 nuclear
weapons and it is planned to increase to 260 by the mid-2020s which is exactly the opposite of
what the treaty intends to do.

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS

The Arctic
Potential NWFZs have long been in discussion since the cold war, one such recurring proposal
amidst the discussion is an establishment of an NWFZ covering the circumpolar Arctic.
Discussions surrounding this proposal have been going on since the mid-1960s. The advent of
global warming and shrinking ice caps has left environmentalists and activists worried, but,
whilst many consider the Arctic melting a cataclysmic event, others view it as an opportunity.
Should the Arctic Ocean become passable, the economic prospects are large. There exists
massive Shipping prospects, as well as prospects for exploiting offshore oil and gas reserves, and
large-scale fishing.
The political race for territorial claims has
already begun, with the European Union,
Arctic Ocean littoral states, and NATO,
among others, having already made claims.
A more accessible Arctic leads to the
possibility of territorial disputes, and
therefore, militarization. A requirement for
peaceful means of ensuring international
cooperation is a must, and this is done by
avoiding militarization and weaponization
of the region. As an alternative, a
diplomatic approach towards negotiating
the politics of the new arctic-route should
take place. Historically speaking, the establishment of NWZs is a very time-consuming process.
Therefore nipping the bud early through various agreements-which includes agreements limiting
weapons of mass destruction-is a safe alternative.

The world had already witnessed the heavy militarisation of the Arctic during the cold war by the
US and the USSR. It was in hindsight that one of the first proposals of any sort of “safe Arctic”
occurred during the cold war, 1987, by then-USSR president Mikhail Gorbachev. During a trip to
the Kola Peninsula17, Gorbachev delivered a speech in which he proposed the Arctic “zone of
peace”, which is now known as the “Murmansk Initiative”.

The Middle East

The middle east is a geographical zone that is fraught with multiple security concerns and
conflicts. Several proposals for a Middle Eastern Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (MENWFZ) have
come in the past, however, there has been no concrete establishment of a MENWFZ so far. The
United Nations General Assembly 73rd session discussed included an item titled “Establishment
of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East” in the provisional agenda of that

17
Kola peninsula: A peninsula in the extreme northwest of Russia
session. The draft resolution was largely voted upon in favour of most of the present countries,
but was voted against by Israel and the US, and was abstained upon by Cameroon, Equatorial
Guinea, Fiji, the UK, and Zambia. The draft resolution A/73/50618 whilst noting the peace
negotiations in the Middle East, and expressing its desire for substantial progress to be made
towards establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the region of the Middle East, proposed
various measures. Some of the following are particularly noteworthy:
1. Urged all directly concerned parties to consider taking appropriate steps towards
establishing a MENWFZ by relevant resolutions of the United Nations General
Assembly, and also invited the countries to adhere to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons.

2. Invited all countries within the region to adhere to International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) safeguards.

3. Noted the importance of ongoing Bilateral peace negotiations in the middle east, and the
activities of the multilateral Working Group on Arms Control and Regional Security in
promoting security in the Middle East, including the establishment of an NWFZ

4. Invited all parties to consider appropriate measures towards achieving complete

disarmament in the region as well as the establishment of an NWFZ

Furthermore, the committee decided to keep the item recurring by including it in the upcoming
74th session as well which was held between the 18th and 19th November 2019.

When it comes to the establishment of an NWFZ in the Middle East the first aspect that needs to
be considered is what is meant by the term “Middle East”. The 1989 IAEA study which
attempted to establish a geographical definition of the future Middle East NWFZ, established the
region to be extending from Libya in the west, to Iran in the east, and from Syria in the north to

18
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1654097?ln=en
Yemen in the south. A subsequent UN study furthered this definition to include all League of
Arab states19, plus Iran and Israel in the zone.

The IAEA has on multiple occasions hosted discussions regarding safeguards in the Middle East
including the establishment of an NWFZ. A Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) free zone has
been a recurring topic of discussion in various conferences such as the 1995 NPT review
conference, the 2010 NPT review conference, a conference held in 2008 in Paris, a November
2011 two-day meeting at the IAEA, the 2015 NPT review conference and more. To provide some
background perspective, a resolution which called for the application of full-scope safeguards on
all nuclear facilities in the region “as a necessary step for the establishment of the NWFZ.” was
proposed by Iran and Egypt in the UNGA December conference of 1974. From 1980 to 2018 this
resolution had been passed annually without any concrete consensus or vote by the UNGA. This
is essentially because there exist opposing views on the Middle East Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone,
due to the ambiguous nature of certain countries’ nuclear policies. Israel, for example, opposes
the establishment of such a zone, as they believe it is impossible to establish disarmament due to
a “culture of non-compliance with arms control and disarmament”. However, another reason
could be that Israel themselves have an ambiguous nuclear policy, and establishing such a treaty
might force them to give it up.

SUGGESTED MODERATED CAUCUS TOPICS

1. Discussing the significance of Disarmament

2. Discussing the role of NWFZs in promoting Disarmament
3. Discussing loopholes present in Disarmament treaties
4. Examining previous treaties related to disarmament
5. Examining current NWFZ agreements
6. Examining the viability of proposed NWFZs
7. Analysing the problems of NWFZ

19
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/league-arab-states-las_en#:~:text=Currently%20it%20gathers%2022%20Arab,Un
ited%20Arab%20Emirates%2C%20and%20Yemen.
8. Analysing the prospects of NWFZ
9. Analysing the politics behind the implementation of NWFZs
10. Understanding the current global state of production of Nuclear weapons and related aspects

RESEARCH LINKS
Note: Delegates, some of the links are only meant for light reading and thus are not highlighted,
only refer to the highlighted sources as valid proof as others may or may not be accepted as a
source of proof in the Council. The decision of the Presiding Officer in regard to the acceptable
sources is Final and Binding.

1. https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-on-the-prohibition
-of-nuclear-weapons/
2. https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/#:~:text=The%20Treaty%20on%20the
%20Prohibition,threaten%20to%20use%20nuclear%20weapons.
3. https://unidir.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs//nuclear-weapon-free-zones-en-314.p
df
4. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nwfz
5. https://www.un.org/nwfz/fr/content/treaty-rarotonga
6. https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/south-pacific-nuclear-free-zone
-spnfz-treaty-rarotonga/
7. https://www.opanal.org/en/nuclear-weapon-free-zones-nwfzs/
8. https://www.un.org/nwfz/content/overview-nuclear-weapon-free-zones
9. https://www.interactioncouncil.org/media-centre/nordic-canadian-nuclear-weapon-f
ree-zone
10. https://arcticyearbook.com/arctic-yearbook/2019/2019-commentaries/326-the-forgotten-s
pirit-of-gorbachev
11. https://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/pdfs_freezoneschapt.pdf
12. https://www.interactioncouncil.org/publications/proposal-arctic-nuclear-weapon-free-zon
e
13. https://www.interactioncouncil.org/publications/proposal-arctic-nuclear-weapon-fre
e-zone
14. https://unidir.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs//nuclear-weapon-free-zones-en-314.p
dfhttps://tutorials.nti.org/npt-tutorial/understanding-the-text-of-the-treaty/
15. https://www.iaea.org/publications/documents/treaties/npt
16. https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/
17. http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2015/pdf/background%20info.pdf.
18. https://tutorials.nti.org/npt-tutorial/understanding-the-text-of-the-treaty/
19. https://www.ibef.org/blogs/india-s-nuclear-energy-boom
20. https://www.icanw.org/russia
21. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library.aspx
22. https://armscontrolcenter.org/countries/north-korea/
23. https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/sc1540/
24. https://www.britannica.com/event/Anti-Ballistic-Missile-Treaty
25. https://disarmament.unoda.org/wmd/nuclear/ctbt/
26. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/skorea-lift-nuclear-powers-share-energy-mix-3
0-by-2030-2022-07-05/#:~:text=SEOUL%2C%20July%205%20(Reuters),construction%
20work%20on%20two%20reactors.
27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336232439_THE_MENWFZ_CONFERENCE_
IN_NOVEMBER_2019_WILL_THE_UNTHINKABLE_BE_FINALLY_ACHIEVED
28. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/mewmdfz
29. https://nuke.fas.org/control/menwfz/docs/gc3947.html
30. https://ww1.odu.edu/content/dam/odu/offices/mun/docs/ib-1st-menwfz-1.pdf