|
|
Territories and Foreign Intervention Welcome delegates to the Territories and Foreign Interventions Committee. I’m Dan Tartakoff, one of your chairs for UNYMUN 2003. I have been to numerous Model United Nations Conferences in my two years in the Jamesville-DeWitt Political Affairs Club. I am a junior at Jamesville-DeWitt High School and this will be my first time chairing. I’m Brian Massa, and I’m going to be your other chair. I’m a sophomore at Jamesville-Dewitt High School, and a first time chair as well. We’re looking forward to chairing this important UN committee and hope that our delegates will be well researched on the topics and well versed on their country’s policies. This committee will be a resolution style committee, which means that your resolutions should be written before the conference. If you write a resolution, you must bring it and about 40 copies to the conference because we cannot accept resolutions in advance and we will be unable to make that many copies the day of the conference. While it is not required, delegates who hope to win awards must submit resolutions. Awards will be decided by evaluating the delegate’s debating skills, conduct, and contributions to the committee.
Your topics for this conference will be: KashmirWhen India gained its independence in 1947, contrasting religious views led to a rift in the forming of the new government. The only viable solution was to divide the Indian subcontinent into two areas: a Hindu state (India) and an Islamic state (East and West Pakistan). In 1971, conflicts escalated between the nations, resulting in the formation of the nation of Bangladesh (comprised of what was East Pakistan). The area between the India-Pakistan border (Kashmir) has since then been disputed as to who “owns” it. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 gave Kashmir the option of joining either India or Pakistan. Their leader Hari Singh wanted to stay independent but eventually joined India. Three wars have broken out since then: from 1947-1948, 1965, and 1999. Violence has erupted many times in between these wars between India, Pakistan, and surprisingly China. China asserts that the disputed area was once part of their ancient Chinese empire, and rightfully belongs to them. India, Pakistan, and China are currently involved in an armed standoff, a stalemate, as they have been for many years. Seeing that all of the nations laying claim to Kashmir have nuclear capability, the situation must not be allowed to escalate further. A solution must be reached that will satisfy the needs of all three nations. As of right now, the nations have pulled back somewhat from the brink of war. This may be due to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s promise to stop militants from infiltrating the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir from Pakistan. Another reason may stem from the fact that when suspected pro-Pakistan Muslim militants killed twenty-seven Hindus near Jammu in July, India stopped short of directly blaming Pakistan. Also Pakistan has modified its attitude in the last year and now recognizes the killing of innocent civilians as terrorism, not part of the freedom struggle. Steps have been made towards peace, but there is a long way to go, and not much time to do it in. How can the violence be stopped? Who actually has claim to Kashmir? How can all of the nations involved be appeased? How can we fix this so that tensions will not escalate in the future? Here are some links you may find helpful:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/kashmir/disputed.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/353352.stm http://www.ieer.org/comments/dsmt/kashhist.html Spratly IslandsThe Spratly Islands are a small group of rocky islands in the South Pacific. Seven nations have laid some sort of claim to them. The Spratly Islands and the area around them are excellent for fishing and is also thought to contain large amounts of untapped oil and natural gas. China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines have occupied areas of the islands while Brunei and Indonesia have just laid claim to parts of the region. This situation has the potential to sour Southeast Asian international relations for some while. In 1995, the Philippines discovered Chinese structures built on an area of the Spratly Islands that they had laid claim to, which was within 200 miles of the actual Philippines. The Philippine government retaliated by destroying the structures and incarcerating sixty-two Chinese fishermen accused of poaching in Filipino waters. Tensions have increased ever since. China, Taiwan, and Vietnam base their claim to the Spratly Islands on their history. Brunei, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia say that according to the international law regarding Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and the Continental Shelf of Claimant Nations they should have control of the area. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS) also says that a nation claiming right to an area by proximity is a stronger claim than a nation claiming right by history. However, it is easy to see that China, the biggest “player” here, will not be deterred so easily. So far China has refused to a multi-lateral solution, but would rather work separately with each. Tensions were heightened even more in 2001 when the Philippine navy again began jailing Chinese fishermen they accused of poaching. Members of ASEAN have since tried to create a “Code of Conduct” for the nations involved in the dispute, which will nonetheless be ineffective seeing as China is not a member of that organization. It has been suggested that a “joint development” of the islands would be the best solution. A council of nations involved in the dispute could make decisions on fishing, oil and gas extraction, and navigation. The profits from these industries could be split according to some agreed formula. However this may be seen by some nations as a violation of their national sovereignty, and others may not want to seem weak by backing down on their claim. How can we satisfy the needs of all nations involved in the dispute? How do we determine which nations have a right to the islands? What is the best way to solve the problem while lessening tensions and avoiding conflict? Here are some links you may find helpful: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/spratly.htm http://www.trungtamdukien.org/article.php?id article=493 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/278359.stm AntarcticaMany people
view Antarctica as a cold, barren wasteland, with no use other than scientific research. It can be noted though that many of the negative
views towards Antarctica’s value stem from the extreme temperatures. However, due to the current trend in worldwide
temperatures (which is termed “Global Warming”), Antarctica may, in the future,
become an area of dispute. Over the last few
decades though, researchers have speculated that hidden under the sheets of ice, valuable
oil and minerals may be found.
This 5.5 million
square mile piece of land is almost entirely covered by a sheet of ice averaging 6,000
feet in thickness. Agreements have been made
over current control and use of the continent including the Antarctic Treaty (1959), the
Protocol on the Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, and the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In
the Antarctic Treaty, some of the twelve countries that originally signed it laid claim to
parts of the Antarctic, leaving fifteen percent of the continent as “open territory”,
while others laid claim to a part of Antarctica in the future. These countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium,
Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Russia [USSR at the time], the
United Kingdom, and the United states) agreed to work together on and share scientific
research, not to build any military facilities, not to do any nuclear testing or dispose
of nuclear waste on the continent, and not to make any new territorial claims to the
continent. In 1991, a fifty-year mining ban
on the continent and the surrounding areas was enacted.
By 1996, forty-two nations had joined the treaty.
The possibility
of significant oil and mineral deposits make Antarctica a dangerous “powder keg”
in the future. In the year 2041, when the
fifty-year mining ban is dropped, what will happen? As
for right now, no parts of the treaty can be changed without a unanimous vote from the
members. With the diversity and magnitude of
the nations claiming parts of the continent, we must act carefully. We don’t want to violate national sovereignty
or ignore any viable claim. All nations
claiming parts of Antarctica are quietly watching and waiting, biding their time with
scientific research (which has produced some valuable results), until they can begin
mining. If indeed nations are allowed to
mine, a “gold rush” of sorts may occur. Can
forty-two different nations really carve up the continent in a peaceful manner? If mining is made legal, will violence erupt? If so, what are some ways in which it can be
avoided?
Here are some links you may find
useful:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/Vol132/WARDTXT.HTM
http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/texts/acrc/at.txt.html
http://polarmistexp.com/polarmist_web/antarctica/land_ownership.html
You can reach us with questions at: Dan Tartakoff (email: oreo1@a-znet.com and on AOL Instant Messenger: tardycough22) Brian Massa (email: boomer5656@hotmail.com) Territories and Foreign Interventions Welcome delegates to the Territories and Foreign Interventions Committee. I’m Dan Tartakoff, one of your chairs for UNYMUN 2003. I have been to numerous Model United Nations Conferences in my two years in the Jamesville-DeWitt Political Affairs Club. I am a junior at Jamesville-DeWitt High School and this will be my first time chairing. I’m Brian Massa, and I’m going to be your other chair. I’m a sophomore at Jamesville-Dewitt High School, and a first time chair as well. We’re looking forward to chairing this important UN committee and hope that our delegates will be well researched on the topics and well versed on their country’s policies. This committee will be a resolution style committee, which means that your resolutions should be written before the conference. If you write a resolution, you must bring it and about 40 copies to the conference because we cannot accept resolutions in advance and we will be unable to make that many copies the day of the conference. While it is not required, delegates who hope to win awards must submit resolutions. Awards will be decided by evaluating the delegate’s debating skills, conduct, and contributions to the committee.
Your topics for this conference will be: KashmirWhen India gained its independence in 1947, contrasting religious views led to a rift in the forming of the new government. The only viable solution was to divide the Indian subcontinent into two areas: a Hindu state (India) and an Islamic state (East and West Pakistan). In 1971, conflicts escalated between the nations, resulting in the formation of the nation of Bangladesh (comprised of what was East Pakistan). The area between the India-Pakistan border (Kashmir) has since then been disputed as to who “owns” it. The Indian Independence Act of 1947 gave Kashmir the option of joining either India or Pakistan. Their leader Hari Singh wanted to stay independent but eventually joined India. Three wars have broken out since then: from 1947-1948, 1965, and 1999. Violence has erupted many times in between these wars between India, Pakistan, and surprisingly China. China asserts that the disputed area was once part of their ancient Chinese empire, and rightfully belongs to them. India, Pakistan, and China are currently involved in an armed standoff, a stalemate, as they have been for many years. Seeing that all of the nations laying claim to Kashmir have nuclear capability, the situation must not be allowed to escalate further. A solution must be reached that will satisfy the needs of all three nations. As of right now, the nations have pulled back somewhat from the brink of war. This may be due to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s promise to stop militants from infiltrating the Indian-administered portion of Kashmir from Pakistan. Another reason may stem from the fact that when suspected pro-Pakistan Muslim militants killed twenty-seven Hindus near Jammu in July, India stopped short of directly blaming Pakistan. Also Pakistan has modified its attitude in the last year and now recognizes the killing of innocent civilians as terrorism, not part of the freedom struggle. Steps have been made towards peace, but there is a long way to go, and not much time to do it in. How can the violence be stopped? Who actually has claim to Kashmir? How can all of the nations involved be appeased? How can we fix this so that tensions will not escalate in the future? Here are some links you may find helpful:
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/kashmir/disputed.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/353352.stm http://www.ieer.org/comments/dsmt/kashhist.html Spratly IslandsThe Spratly Islands are a small group of rocky islands in the South Pacific. Seven nations have laid some sort of claim to them. The Spratly Islands and the area around them are excellent for fishing and is also thought to contain large amounts of untapped oil and natural gas. China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines have occupied areas of the islands while Brunei and Indonesia have just laid claim to parts of the region. This situation has the potential to sour Southeast Asian international relations for some while. In 1995, the Philippines discovered Chinese structures built on an area of the Spratly Islands that they had laid claim to, which was within 200 miles of the actual Philippines. The Philippine government retaliated by destroying the structures and incarcerating sixty-two Chinese fishermen accused of poaching in Filipino waters. Tensions have increased ever since. China, Taiwan, and Vietnam base their claim to the Spratly Islands on their history. Brunei, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Malaysia say that according to the international law regarding Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and the Continental Shelf of Claimant Nations they should have control of the area. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS) also says that a nation claiming right to an area by proximity is a stronger claim than a nation claiming right by history. However, it is easy to see that China, the biggest “player” here, will not be deterred so easily. So far China has refused to a multi-lateral solution, but would rather work separately with each. Tensions were heightened even more in 2001 when the Philippine navy again began jailing Chinese fishermen they accused of poaching. Members of ASEAN have since tried to create a “Code of Conduct” for the nations involved in the dispute, which will nonetheless be ineffective seeing as China is not a member of that organization. It has been suggested that a “joint development” of the islands would be the best solution. A council of nations involved in the dispute could make decisions on fishing, oil and gas extraction, and navigation. The profits from these industries could be split according to some agreed formula. However this may be seen by some nations as a violation of their national sovereignty, and others may not want to seem weak by backing down on their claim. How can we satisfy the needs of all nations involved in the dispute? How do we determine which nations have a right to the islands? What is the best way to solve the problem while lessening tensions and avoiding conflict? Here are some links you may find helpful: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/spratly.htm http://www.trungtamdukien.org/article.php?id article=493 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/278359.stm AntarcticaMany people
view Antarctica as a cold, barren wasteland, with no use other than scientific research. It can be noted though that many of the negative
views towards Antarctica’s value stem from the extreme temperatures. However, due to the current trend in worldwide
temperatures (which is termed “Global Warming”), Antarctica may, in the future,
become an area of dispute. Over the last few
decades though, researchers have speculated that hidden under the sheets of ice, valuable
oil and minerals may be found.
This 5.5 million
square mile piece of land is almost entirely covered by a sheet of ice averaging 6,000
feet in thickness. Agreements have been made
over current control and use of the continent including the Antarctic Treaty (1959), the
Protocol on the Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, and the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In
the Antarctic Treaty, some of the twelve countries that originally signed it laid claim to
parts of the Antarctic, leaving fifteen percent of the continent as “open territory”,
while others laid claim to a part of Antarctica in the future. These countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium,
Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Russia [USSR at the time], the
United Kingdom, and the United states) agreed to work together on and share scientific
research, not to build any military facilities, not to do any nuclear testing or dispose
of nuclear waste on the continent, and not to make any new territorial claims to the
continent. In 1991, a fifty-year mining ban
on the continent and the surrounding areas was enacted.
By 1996, forty-two nations had joined the treaty.
The possibility
of significant oil and mineral deposits make Antarctica a dangerous “powder keg”
in the future. In the year 2041, when the
fifty-year mining ban is dropped, what will happen? As
for right now, no parts of the treaty can be changed without a unanimous vote from the
members. With the diversity and magnitude of
the nations claiming parts of the continent, we must act carefully. We don’t want to violate national sovereignty
or ignore any viable claim. All nations
claiming parts of Antarctica are quietly watching and waiting, biding their time with
scientific research (which has produced some valuable results), until they can begin
mining. If indeed nations are allowed to
mine, a “gold rush” of sorts may occur. Can
forty-two different nations really carve up the continent in a peaceful manner? If mining is made legal, will violence erupt? If so, what are some ways in which it can be
avoided?
Here are some links you may find
useful:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/Vol132/WARDTXT.HTM
http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/texts/acrc/at.txt.html
http://polarmistexp.com/polarmist_web/antarctica/land_ownership.html
You can reach us with questions at: Dan Tartakoff (email: oreo1@a-znet.com and on AOL Instant Messenger: tardycough22) Brian Massa (email: boomer5656@hotmail.com) |
