View Political & Security Topics

The GA Committees develop resolutions based on their respective title (i.e. The Legal Committee debates legal issues) that may be forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration.  Since resolutions may be forwarded to the General Assembly, delegates from these committees may be allowed to address the General Assembly, but are not guaranteed that right. Therefore all comments and discussion points from a country of this committee should be forwarded to their General Assembly Ambassador. 

Topic 1: Illegal Trafficking

The UN estimates that 700,000 to 4 million women and children are trafficked across international boarders each year. The business of human trafficking across the globe also generates over $7 billion dollars each year (“Sex Trafficking: Facts and Figures” Para. 1). Furthermore, some 200 million people, or 5 percent of the global population age 15-64, have used illicit drugs at least once in the last 12 months (UN World Drug Report). Not only this but in the 1990’s, “out of 49 major conflicts -- 47 were fought with small arms and light weapons and that most of the conflicts were exacerbated by the availability of illegal small arms, illegal trade in small arms” (World: UN Conference…). Also, “experts estimate that there are more than 600 million small arms and light weapons in circulation worldwide” (United Nations Small Arms…). It is evident that illegal trafficking is a predicament in the global community; it is a detriment to not only the community, but the people in those communities.

Human trafficking is increasing at a steady rate. Women are often taken from their homes to work as prostitutes, especially in areas such as Thailand, Ukraine, and Cambodia; and men and boys are often trafficked from Bangladesh and India into nations such as Saudi Arabia to act as camel jockeys in camel races. In war-torn African nations such as Côte d’Ivoire, the Central African Republic, and Liberia, children are often taken from their homes to act as child soldiers for rebel armies, often instructed to kill their own relatives (“Childhood Denied: Child Soldiers in Africa” Para 4). The United Nations as well as other various NGO’s (Non-Governmental Organizations) and NPO’s (Non-Profit Organizations), such as Amnesty International, have declared that the main causes of human trafficking are: poverty, insufficient penalties for traffickers, and the cultural ideals of many heavily trafficked nations. In 1999 with the creation of the Global Programme against Trafficking in Human Beings (GPAT), the UN attempted to combat human trafficking on a global scale.

Moreover, the international drug trade has flowered in recent years, and poses an enormous challenge to nations all over the world. Illegal substances grown or manufactured in one nation can cause economic, health, or security problems in another. Additionally, border security is threatened by drug trafficking, and often the task of maintaining this security is too momentous to uphold. Through the Office of Drugs and Crime, the UN has implemented some measures of economic development and cooperative law enforcement which have reduced drug traffic in countries like Columbia and Tajikistan. Nonetheless, unmonitored border and shipping practices continue to feed the black market. The illegal trade of legal drugs, like prescription drugs, has not been fully addressed by the UN at this time.

Illegal trafficking of small arms has been a detrimental practice to the global community. An estimated three million people have died in the Democratic Republic of Congo since 1998 because of arms trafficking and plundering (Amnesty International). However, the issue is slowing beginning to get the attention it desperately needs. In 2006, the UN held a conference to target small-arms trafficking to review the Programme of Action(PoA) implemented in a previous 2001 conference. The goal of the PoA is to “Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects is part of the follow-up process recommended by the States that participated in the United Nations Conference that adopted the Programme of Action in July 2001” (United Nations Small Arms…). It is still unclear to determine, however, the success of what the UN has implemented.

Illegal trafficking, whether it pertains to human, drug, or small arms, has brought many detrimental changes along with many diseases and casualties to the world. With millions around the world, in a bountiful amount of nations being affected by these illegal practices, the UN has to act to stop the problem.

Questions:

• How does the UN currently monitor the trade of weaponry? Should more be done that is already occurring?
• What conflicts have been generated based upon the illegal use of small arms? How could they have been avoided?
• What further actions can the UN take to prevent illegal trafficking without infringing on national sovereignty and international security?
• How can the people of third-world nations be educated about illegal trafficking? Should it be the responsibility of the UN or of NGO’s and the nation’s own government?
• Who should decide where drug problems exist, and which should be addressed?
• Should the UN be involved in deciding which drugs are legal or illegal?

Works Cited:
“Childhood Denied: Child Soldiers in Africa.” Web.Amnesty.org 23 April 2007
<http://web.amnesty.org/pages/childsoldiers-africanchild-eng>

“Sex Trafficking: Facts and Figures.” WorldRevolution.org 23 April 2007
<http://www.worldrevolution.org/Projects/Webguide/GuideArticle.asp?ID=1430>

“Trafficking in Human Beings.” UNODC.org 23 April 2007
<http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/trafficking_human_beings.html>

"Terror Trade Times Issue No. 4." Amnesty International. <http://web.amnesty.org/pages/ttt4-article_4-eng>.

"United Nations Small Arms Review Conference 2006 FAQ's." United Nations Small Arms Review Conference 2006. United Nations. <http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/faq.html>.

"UNODC- World Drug Report." UNDOC. 25 Apr. 2007. United Nations. <http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/world_drug_report.html>

back to Topics

Topic 2: Biochemical Weaponry

As terrorism and large-scale warfare become the imminent fears of many nations across the globe, the arena of biochemical weaponry becomes a growing threat. The use of such weapons could cause massive cases of death and injury if used, due to their incredible power through their isolation of various diseases or deadly poisons. While only few nations have seen the usage of biochemical weaponry, the possibilities of how such weapons could be used is growing at an incredible rate. In addition, the use of such weapons creates an entirely innovative type of warfare, in which attacks are unknown to those who undergo exposure. Finally, these deadly poisons have the capacity to murder large populations of civilians, which could bring about situations which directly threaten the security of all human beings.

Many nations have experienced exposure to biochemical weapons, most recently, the anthrax scare in the United States in 2001. While this was not an incident of large exposure, as biochemical attacks are meant to act on a much smaller scale, it was an example of what these weapons could accomplish if unleashed. Only during the Cold War had the Soviet Union begun to create a program that would have been able to create such a stronghold for weaponry, however, these weapons were never used. Currently many nations have been able to manufacture these weapons such as the United States, Libya, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, but no further attacks have occurred (“Biochemical Weapons” Para. 1). While is unknown which forms of biochemical weaponry these nations possess, the main controversy surrounds such deadly poisons as anthrax and lethal diseases such as bubonic plague, smallpox, and botulism, which could kill hundreds of thousands of people if left untreated after exposure. If released, these vices could easily murder entire populations if antidotes are not administered immediately after infection. In nations, which do not have the information that many more developed countries have about biochemical weapons, the usage of these weapons could spread without their knowledge and create worldwide chaos.

As of 2007, the United Nations has only taken few legislative measures to exterminate biochemical weapons. The 1925 Geneva Protocol banned the use of known noxious gases during wartime following WWI and was signed by many nations including the United States and France. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention prohibited the development, production, stockpiling, and transfer of any form of biochemical weaponry. It was ratified by more than 100 nations, yet many signatory countries such as, Iraq, Iran, China, and North Korea, have violated the convention's terms and have been found to be manufacturing many varieties of biological weaponry (“Global Guide to Bioweapons” Krock Para. 1). The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) has led many inspections of nations that are known to house this type of weaponry and has urged many nations, including Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, to halt their production of anthrax and other known choking agents (“International Weapons Control Measures” Para. 1). However, as these weapons have not been used yet in the international arena while Iraq over the past decade has used noxious gas to kill its own people due to religious conflicts. The fear is present though, and the citizens of “target” nations, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel have made their terror clear through constant urging at various UN sessions to halt production of biochemical weaponry in the Middle East and in North Korea. As of now, UN has refused to make any advances in the field as biochemical weaponry has not proved to be as destructive as the nuclear missiles that the nations under investigation have also been producing. However, if the issue continues to be ignored and nations are able to release these toxic agents into other countries, populations could be easily wiped out without a trace of warning.

Questions:

• Should biochemical weaponry manufacture be permitted to continue by the United Nations? When is the correct time to act? If civilians are placed at risk, is their manufacture a violation of human rights?
• Should the UN be permitted to legislate against the manufacture of biochemical weaponry if no great attack has currently occurred?
• If the UN is able to restrict the manufacture of biochemical weaponry, which nations should be commanded to halt their production? Only those which are considered a threat? Or all nations who possess them?
• What are adequate means of penalizing nations which are known producers of biochemical weaponry?

Works Cited:
“Biochemical Weapons.” BBC.co.uk 19 November 2004. 23 April 2007
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/biochemicalweapons/>

“International Weapons Control Measures.” ArmsControlCenter.org 23 April 2007
<http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/cbw/control/>

Krock, Lexi. “Global Guide to BioWeapons.” Pbs.org 3 November 2001. 23 April 2007
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bioterror/global.html>

back to Topics

Topic 3: Preemptive Aggression

Preemptive Aggression is a common resolution for many countries when international tensions become too much for a country to handle. It is a foreign policy, most commonly implemented by the Westernized nations, to resolve all dilemmas with war. However, the reason for such combat is found to be under suspicion, for the issues leading to war are not black and white. Therefore, preemptive aggression can be seen as an illegitimate exercise of self-defense, and therefore contradicts what the United Nations stands for. Recent occurrences as to when this policy has been implemented include the United States invading Iraq.

The westernized countries are not the only victim of exercising this unjust policy. Kosovo, a province in Serbia which has been under the United Nations administration since 1999, attacked portions of their own province, along with Bosnia to rid the area of the Serbian minority. For reasons that include “the other side [Serbian minority and Bosnia] is evil and bent on causing harm,” the Bosnian province used preemptive aggression as an “ethnic cleanser.” (“Beware of Preemptive Aggression”)

Furthermore, in 1994, the United States considered a preemptive attack upon North Korea to prevent the country from creating a nuclear development plan. However, in retaliation, North Korea used this threat as an excuse to “develop a missile capacity to defend themselves.” (“Beware of Preemptive Aggression”) As it stands now, the issues between the United States and North Korea remain unresolved. Other examples of when preemptive aggression has been used include; the British attack on the USS Caroline (1837), the Israeli bombardment of the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak (1982), the cruise missile strikes on Sudan and Afghanistan (1998), the Six-Day War (1967), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), and the South African/Angola conflict.

As it stands now, there are no guidelines in regards to the legality of these “aggressive” attacks. However, it is not justified for a country to declare war merely on suspicion. “The primary role of the United Nations Organization is to promote international peace and security.” (ICJ)And for the United Nations, as one of the most powerful organizations in the world, to effectively do what it was originally created to do, the policy of preemptive aggression must be addressed and regulated.

Questions:

• What is the definition of preemptive aggression?
• Is preemptive aggression a legal act of self defense?
• What grounds classify a war declared under preemptive aggression?
• How should the U.N. determine if a war was started because of preemptive aggression?
• Does the U.N. have the ability to justify preemptive aggression as an illegitimate excuse to conduct war?
• Should a precise set of guidelines be created upon which allows or condemns of preemptive aggression?

Works Cited:
Clark, Gregory. "Beware of Preemptive Aggression." International Herald Tribune. 2 July 1999. The Herald Tribune. <http://www.iht.com/articles/1999/07/20/edclark.t.php>.

International Commision of Jurists (ICJ). 20 Feb. 2003. <http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2755&lang=en>.

Karenga, Maulana. "Statement on Peace, Justice and Resistance to War." Position Statement. 38 Feb. 2003. The Organization of Us and the National Association of Kawaida Organizations(NAKO). <http://www.us-organization.org/position/spjrw.html>.

Sandole, Dennis J. D. Capturing the Complexity of Conflict: Dealing with Violent Ethnic Conflicts in the Post-Cold War Era. Routledge, 1999.

back to Topics