Disarmament and International Security

http://www.state.gov/t/us/136849.htm

This article posted on February 18, 2010 discusses how the United States will be in negotiation about Arms Trade Treaty and committed to the prevention of the illicit trade of weapons.  The US is actively taking part in promoting a global, open dialogue about the treaty.

The United States is hoping that all nations examine conventional weapon transfers to ensure that it will enhance security and stability and not promote needless violence.  They acknowledge that arms trade can have many costs for various regions.  As the article states, “Irresponsible transfers can support terrorists, enable genocidal, and create, sustain, and compound proliferation nightmares”.  The US sheds light on how the discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty is becoming more widespread from its growing impact on nations.  Thus explaining why a legally binding action much take place to “control transfers across international borders”.   In order for the treaty to be successful it needs to ensure that persons who partake in illicit arms trade are penalized.

The US continues to advocate that arms trades should only be done for “legitimate purposes”. The transfer of arms is approved only when there is realistic and reasonable evidence the intended recipient has shown that they have a legitimate need and sufficient safeguards are there to preclude either deliberate or unintended re-transfers to unapproved end uses.”  The US acknowledges the high expenses caused by checking if specific arms trades between nations are legitimate, however they consider this an expense which is very necessary to prevent “the flow of conventional arms to terrorist groups, rogue states, and other who would undermine the rule of law”.  The US believes in the international community’s responsibility in reporting any illegal arms activities.

As shown in this article, the United States strongly supports an international legislation to prevent illicit arms trade in order to secure safety and stability in nations. I propose each delegate to examine his/her country’s stance on the United State’s view of this type of international action.

 Excited to see you all in a few weeks

Your Vice Chair,

Theresa Cable

Delegates,

For those of you who are having a difficult time grasping the problem related towards illicit small arms trade,this article will provide you with some fundamental background information. The article throughly covers the multiple issues related with the illicit trade of small arms: what the small arms are, where they come from, how many there are, their legitimacy, who controls them, and other problems that emanate from small arms and light weapons.

The Article: http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/primer.html

Read this article and get a good idea of the problem and begin to think of the possible solutions you would use to minimize the trade. Be on policy and have specific solutions which are plausible.  Discuss the current solutions and some other common solutions which can be used in committee. On the day of the conference, feel free to expand on the ideas and have specific solutions.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions.

Good Luck,

Anurag Pandey

Hello Delegates,

Just a brief introduction of myself: My name is Saif Umemoto and I am a Freshman at UC Berkeley.  At this moment in time, my sentiments are to major in Political Economy, however, I am still somewhat indecisive of my academic endeavors and my options remain open.

I am very excited about the upcoming conference and hope that all of you are making necessary preparations for productive and engaging debate sessions.  With that said, I would like to introduce an article that I found on the internet which may prove to be somewhat informative and elucidating pertaining to the Disarmament committee.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45598

Article Titled: TRADE: Russia Supplying Legal and “Illegal” Arms to Africa

If any of you have prior knowledge on the prominence of Russian firearms and its global proliferation, I would imagine that you may have already noticed the frequency in which local militia, peacekeepers, government associated groups alike appear equipped with Russian made weaponry.  The article that I have linked herein discusses the growth of the Russian arms trade in the African region from both a legal and illegal standpoint.  Innately, the arms that are supplied to Africa by Russia finds its way from orthodox purchases by government and military forces all the way to the depths of the black market.  Firearms seeping into “unofficial” and illegal channels of distribution provides opportunities for militia and terrorist groups to attain firearms.  To sharpen your “resolution instincts”, I highly recommend the consideration of the following questions:

Which groups are suspected of dispersing illegal arms to militia and terrorist groups in Africa?

Can Russia be solely blamed for the  ”lack of regulation” implemented within the arms trade to Africa?

Bondarenko mentions “I am sure that the arms trade deepens the conflict further, but this is by no means the primary cause”.  What is your response to this statement? What system of checks and balances do you think should be implemented so that armaments do not fall into threatening hands?

Bare in mind that the issue at hand introduces an intricate complexity. Understand that Russia claims to be commercially trading arms to Africa legally with no intention to assimilate armaments to terrorist organizations. On that note, should the main focus on a resolution be the African purchasers or the Russian suppliers?

You decide. Try to justify your answers as notably as possible.

Hi DISC Delegates,

 My name is Theresa Cable and I will be your Vice-Chair for this year’s conference.  I am Junior majoring in Peace and Conflict Studies with a concentration in Human Rights.  I also have a strong interest in business and entrepreneurship.  I hope to one day combine my love of tropical locations and Pitbulls in a career   I look forward to meeting you all in March.

 I would like to share with another article regarding illicit arms trade.

“Kenya ‘conduit’ of weapons as South as ‘arms race’ begins in Sudan”

 Here is a link to the article:

http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/852982/-/pvtd8ez/-/

 Summary of Article:

 Kenya has been suspected for being responsible for the transfer of weapons to Southern Sudan which violates a peace agreement backed by the United States.

 The Sudan Human Security Baseline Assessment confirmed  the presence of tanks arriving at the port of Mombasa in 2008.  “US ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice did not directly answer a reporter’s question last week about Kenya’s reported involvement in this illicit arms trade. ‘“In a region where you have porous borders,” Ms Rice said in response, “there are undoubtedly weapons coming from all directions.”’

Southern Sudan has been at war with Khartoum for 20 years and the presence of violence is increasing rapidly. “International monitors worry that the 2005 peace agreement could break down in the coming months”…The international community appears completely unprepared to put out the fire that is likely to start in the event of a [peace treaty] breakdown,” the Small Arms Survey says. “It has singularly failed to prevent ongoing weapons flows into this highly volatile environment to date.

“The US envoy added that the task now is to identify the principal source of the shipments and to answer the question, “Is this simply small arms trafficking of the sort that we see throughout the continent or is it actually a deliberate effort to sow instability?”

Questions to Contemplate

 I would like you all to contemplate why Kenya would take part in the illicit trade of weapons with Sudan? 

Do you agree with the US envoy in thinking that Kenya is “actually [making] a deliberate effort to sow instability” in the country of Sudan?

  Look forward to meeting everyone.

 Best,

 Theresa Cable

 DISC Vice-Chair

Hi Delegates!

Please read this article on pro-arms interest groups such as the NRA in the US and their opinions on small arms trafficking legislation: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124121.

Having read this article, what reaction or effect do you think strong independent pro-arms interest groups such as the NRA and their disapproval of UN arms trafficking resolutions or action have on the likelihood of passage of UN action? The likelihood that countries such as the US will sign on and ratify small arms resolutions within the UN? The likelihood that countries where pro-arms interest groups reside will abide by the treaty without internal dispute and uproar?

This is obviously a delicate and complicated issue and one that is often skipped over. I’d love for you all to discuss this issue and possible solutions to address it, and also address the same questions (likelihood of countries signing on to anti-small arms trafficking resolutions and abiding by the mandates set out by these resolutions) in respect to countries that have strong illegal trafficking sectors built into their black market economy.

Have fun, and expect lots more blog topics in the near future!

Cheers,

Jillian Ardrey

Head Chair, DISC

BMUN 58

Please read this article about a pre-NPT review workshop held in the Philippines, which involved participation from 37 NPT member nations, six global groups and six nongovernmental organizations: http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100202_6309.php.

In this article, it mentions that the purpose of the review is to “set the benchmark that will lead to the total elimination of nuclear weapons,” according to Filipino Ambassador Libran Cabactulan who is expected to chair the review conference when it meets this May at the United Nations in New York. What do you think is a reasonable benchmark? And how idealistic are you that this benchmark can be determined and achieved given that Cabactulan also says that “Despite the inspiring statements of global leaders the differences in position, the disparity right now on the table is still huge and enormous”?

Also, just an aside about this topic during BMUN: Cabactulan says that the success of the NPT Review to happen in this year “will depend highly on the political will, the flexibility that the state parties and negotiators will bring into the 2010 review conference itself and maybe in the lead-up to that.” I agree that the same can be said during BMUN, and that if you all get your expectations for the changes to the NPT you’d like to see and the benchmarks you’d like set, the quicker you can get to comprimising and showing such flexibility in order to achieve success in revising the NPT. So get posting, my delegates!

Cheers,

Jillian Ardrey

Head Chair, DISC

BMUN 58

Hey DISC delegates!

Here is your first blog update on the review and revision of the NPT! Enjoy!

The current Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, came out with a  five-point action plan in 2008; it begins with a call for the parties to the NPT to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament, either through a new convention or through a series of mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification. This is the end that I hope this committee will reach while discussing the following topic related to nuclear disarmament: review and revision of the NPT. Details about future talks regarding the NPT can be found in the following article: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2010-01/09/content_12779428.htm.

What I would like to know in your responses to this post are any ideas you all have regarding this topic. How realistic are Ban Ki-Moon’s goals, especially given the lack of consensus between the USA and Russia in the current START talks (for details regarding this, see: http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100107_2654.php)? Should a new convention be created, or can the NPT be updated to more effectively work towards nuclear disarmament? What kinds of “mutually reinforcing instruments backed by a credible system of verification” to ensure that nuclear disarmament for arms uses is being enforced do you all have in mind? Especially try to cover how the UN could determine whether or not nuclear technology is being used for purely peaceful uses (this is currently allowed under the NPT; should it be?) or how it could monitor the creation and use of nuclear technology to ensure this without invading nations’ sovereignty. An example of this issue can be seeing with India’s nuclear programs; it ensures that its programs are used only for peaceful purposes, while the USA believes otherwise. Please see http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=115573&sectionid=351020104 for more information on this argument.

Well that’s it for this post; more to come in the short future! Please post any and all ideas you have as a response to this post!

Cheers,

Jillian Ardrey

Head Chair, DISC

BMUN 58

Hi DISC delegates!

My name is Jillian Ardrey and I am your head chair for DISC for BMUN 58. I am a senior business major with going on eight years of MUN experience; other information about me can be found in my introduction on the background guide I have concocted for you. It is posted on the BMUN website, and I do encourage you to read it. Doing so will truly clarify the details of the two topics we will be discussing at this year’s confcerence.

Found below is your first blog update, relating to the illicit arms trade topic!

“Whenever a state is subject to UN sanctions, the level of clandestine and illicit trade increases,” Hugh Griffiths, expert on illicit arms trafficking at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, tells ISN Security Watch in their article on North Korea’s Transnational Arms Industry (entire article found at: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?ots591=4888CAA0-B3DB-1461-98B9-E20E7B9C13D4&lng=en&id=111132; please read).

This article elaborates upon this concept, which has been proved through a variety of cases; the case of North Korea used in this article is only one of many. In the case of North Korea, “falsification of manifests, fallacious labelling and description of cargo, the use of multiple layers of intermediaries, ’shell’ companies and financial institutions to hide the true originators and recipients” is used in order to continue the illicit trade of arms for state gain, despite the various UN sanctions which have been put in place (in the example of Korea, this would specifically be Security Council resolution 1718, created in 2006).

Please read this entire article to get a feel as to how and why UN sanctions such as SC resolution 1718 would not truly stem the illicit arms trade within countries such as North Korea. Then, I pose to you the following question: how can future UN sanctions or resolutions get around this problem and truly ensure that the illicit arms trade is effectively combated? Please feel free to post your ideas in response to this blog message, or any other ideas related to this issue or the illicit arms trade in general.

See you all at the conference! I wish you all a very fruitful and exciting debate!

Cheers,

Jillian Ardrey

Head Chair, DISC

BMUN 58

Hey Delegates,

My name is Anurag Pandey and I will be one of your vice chairs for the 58th annual BMUN conference. I am very excited to meet all of you, listen to your plausible solutions, and watch you engage in diplomatic debates to draft a strong resolution.  As a first year at UC Berkeley, I am exploring the realm of business, but am also interested in political science. I did MUN all four years in high school and show keen interest in international affairs.  The head chair and the other vice chairs will also be blogging very shortly.

Prior to the conference, the head chair along with the vice chairs will be posting news and/or conference updates every week. Unlike previous conferences, blog comments will be taken into consideration for this year’s annual conference. Every delegate is expected to briefly comment on the weekly blogs. Therefore, it is important for you to be aware of the updates and pay close attention to the news that we post. Your feedback will not only assure us that we are all on the same page as a committee, but will also be a way of sharing possible ideas and solutions pertinent to the topic. Also, based on these blog comments, we will be able to add discretionary points during the conference weekend to the delegates who consistently comment on the blogs. If for any reason you are unable to comment or have any troubles leaving a comment, please email us immediately.

Very shortly, we will be posting the position paper guidelines and the Delegate Guide for the conference. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to email me at anuragp@berkeley.edu.

Sincerely,

Anurag Pandey

PS: The conference is less than two months away!