Page 1


MARCH 23-24, 2018


The Governor’s School Model United Nations Conference

March 23-24, 2018 Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School for Government and International Studies

Sponsor Handbook

Dedication The Secretariat of the 2018 Governor’s School Model United Nations Conference extends its sincerest gratitude to: Mr. Max Smith, Model U.N. Sponsor, for his unwavering support and great commitment to the conference; Ambassador Samantha Power for gracing the conference with her presence and making it one to remember; The Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School Administration for all that they do in support of both Model United Nations and the school; Ms. Deborah Snagg for her patience and invaluable technology expertise; The Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School faculty and staff for their support in technology and building logistics for the conference; The subscribers, supporters, and staff of The Richmond Forum; And our welcome sponsors and delegates.


November 6, 2017 Dear Delegates and Sponsors, GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology

I am thrilled that you plan on joining us for the Twenty-First Annual Governor’s School Model United Nations Conference (GSMUN) at the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School for Government and International Studies. Since April, the rest of the Secretariat and I have been working hard to make GSMUN XXI the most groundbreaking conference yet. This year, nearly 500 delegates from across the Mid-Atlantic region are attending GSMUN for a weekend of enthralling debate in one of our eighteen committees, which range from the Security Council to the Incan Empire. Our theme for GSMUN XXI is Champion the Change, because that is precisely what we want our delegates to do. I am positive all of the delegates have, at some point, had someone tell them they are the leaders of the future, but I want them to recognize the power they hold as the leaders of today―whether it is in their school, in their community, or elsewhere―and approach that responsibility with compassion, brilliant ingenuity, and an unfettered determination to champion the change. Since our inception, GSMUN has sought to instill those values and prepare our middle and high school delegates for facing the future in a turbulent world. This weekend, your students will have the opportunity to engage in debate in one of our eighteen exciting committees and attend a speech by our keynote speaker former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, courtesy of our partnership with the Richmond Forum. Ambassador Power will be speaking to her experience at the United Nations and discussing its role in global cooperation. Delegates will have also the chance to support our fundraising efforts for Love146, an organization that strives to end child trafficking and help survivors, through the purchase of GSMUN XXI merchandise, the sale of baked goods, or direct contributions in committee. Over the past year, Secretariat has been working tirelessly to ensure that GSMUN XXI will be an unforgettable experience. If you have any questions, concerns, or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at While Model U.N. can certainly be competitive, I encourage delegates to remember the spirit of diplomacy at its core. My hope is that after this weekend, students will walk away from the experience with a more global perspective, as they consider how to contribute to the international community and “Champion the Change.” I thank you for your registration and look forward to seeing you in March.

Sincerely yours,

Catherine Y. Qian Secretary-General, GSMUN XXI

Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor



Table of Contents General Information What is Model UN? Notes for Sponsors Keynote Speaker GSMUN XXI Secretariat GSMUN XXI Chairs Fundraising

Model UN Basics Delegate Research Guide Parliamentary Procedure Guide Delegate Recognition Guidelines

Background Guides 2008 Financial Crisis De Gaulle Cabinet Diet of Japan European Council House of Saud Incan Empire 1532 International Monetary Fund JCC Cuban Missile Crisis: USSR JCC Cuban Missile Crisis: United States JCC Indo-Pakistani War: India JCC Indo-Pakistani War: Pakistan Nobel Committee Organization of American States Peace of Westphalia Press Corps Roman Senate SPECPOL UN Security Council

Conference Logistics Schedule of Events Conference Location Other Resources

7 8 9 12 13 17 18

19 21 31 44

45 49 59 69 83 97 109 123 135 149 159 169 181 191 207 221 231 243 261

275 276 277 278


General Information



What is Model UN? Model United Nations is a simulation of the United Nations and other international bodies that allows students to learn about global issues by representing the interests and policies of countries from around the world. It is a challenging, yet enjoyable, way for students to learn about international affairs while enhancing skills in negotiation and public speaking. Model United Nations is specifically designed to increase awareness of what needs to be accomplished in the world of international affairs and to guide its participants toward finding viable solutions for issues complicated by the processes of international diplomacy. Students assume the roles of delegates from states represented in the United Nations or another international body. After researching their country’s policies and positions on the designated issues, delegates write and debate resolutions in an effort to craft a solution to the problem at hand through discussion and consensus. As they participate in debate, delegates realize the problems involved with implementing theoretical positions in a practical context, and they begin to understand the process by which constructive solutions are accepted and rejected in the global community. Knowledge of foreign affairs and public speaking experience are helpful, but not crucial. Nevertheless, both will certainly be acquired through participation in this Model United Nations conference. Therefore, in accordance with the philosophy of Model United Nations, delegates at GSMUN will participate in a lively forum conducted within the framework of the United Nations and its associated bodies, discussing and attempted to resolve critical issues facing our global community. We have created an environment that allows students to utilize critical thinking, negotiation, and cooperation skills to practice the art of diplomatic relations in the modern world.


Notes for Sponsors: Country Assignments We will be sending information concerning positions in GSMUN XXI committees that have been assigned to your school’s delegation in the near future. If you would also like to receive this information through a different medium, please contact Liam Goble-Garratt our Charge d’Affaires. Liam’s email is In the coming weeks, please work with your students to determine who will fill each spot. Our general committees include the SPECPOL, IMF, European Council, Organization of American States, and the Diet of Japan. Please fill any spots you have on these general committees with students who have little to no previous Model UN experience. Students who have been to at least one Model UN conference prior to GSMUN may feel more comfortable in other committees, so please assign your delegates accordingly. The De Gaulle Cabinet, Nobel Committee, 2008 Financial Crisis, Peace of Westphalia, Incan Empire 1532, House of Saud, Roman Senate, Press Corps, and Joint Crisis Committees have been designated as “specialized committees.” Please assign your most experienced and promising delegates to these committees. The Joint Crisis Committees will require exceptionally well-prepared delegates. Furthermore, because missing delegates are often most detrimental to smaller committees such as these, please try to fill all positions you may have on these committees. Once you have assigned your students, please send your delegates’ names along with their respective committee positions to Liam. If you do not fill all of your positions on the specialized committees listed above, be sure to inform Liam which spots are open so that he may make alternative assignments. Please send this information to him no later than February 24, 2018, so that he can account for nametags and other administrative details. Please note that all delegates are expected to prepare position papers and send them to their chair via email prior to the conference in March. Chairs who receive position papers ahead of time should read through them and send delegates feedback within 48 hours. Chairs can also be contacted regarding any additional questions about their specific committees. Contact information for chairs can be found in their introduction letters at the beginning of each committee’s background guide, which can be found in this Sponsor Handbook. All delegates should bring a hard copy of their position paper to the conference on Friday as chairs will be collecting them during the first committee session, even if delegates have already emailed their work. Guidelines for writing position papers can be found in the “Delegate Research Guide” section of the Sponsor Handbook or on the GSMUN XXI conference website (


Notes for Sponsors: Position Papers An important factor in a delegate’s GSMUN experience is the quality of his or her research before the conference. To encourage a thorough understanding of topics before committee starts, all GSMUN committees ask for a position paper to be written by each delegation (double delegations should only submit one paper). This position paper should outline general information about the represented country or person and define the delegation’s position on each of the committee’s topics. Typical position papers are two to three pages (one page per topic). In order to assist delegates in their research, a list of helpful websites relevant to each committee’s topics is located at the end of each Background Guide. Additionally, a list of more general resources is located in the “Delegate Research Guide” section of this Sponsor Handbook. Chairs have provided their contact information at the start of each Background Guide. They are happy to answer any questions a student may have about research, and will respond within 48 hours. Students who submit their papers to their chairs via email prior to the conference will receive helpful feedback and suggestions to help make their GSMUN experience more enriching and enjoyable. It is requested that all students submit a position paper at the start of their first committee session. Upon request, a position paper workshop may be added to a school’s request for pre-GSMUN training by Maggie Walker students. Press Corps requires unique preparation. Please see its Background Guide for more information.


GSMUN Honor Policy The Maggie Walker Governor’s School’s Honor Code is a core aspect of the school’s academic excellence; it assures all students, faculty, and staff that trust in one another is of utmost importance at all times. The maintenance of that community of trust falls largely on the students themselves, as they are held responsible for citing sources. The Maggie L. Walker Model United Nations Program, as an extracurricular body within the larger community of the school itself, practices the policy of maintaining honor at all times. The Secretariat of the Governor’s School Model United Nations Conference does not assign position papers as busywork. The chairs read the papers carefully and take them into account as they award commendations at the conclusion of the conference. Thus, any plagiarism present in the papers will be viewed not only as a breach of academic etiquette and the manifestation of disrespect towards the institution of the Governor’s School Model United Nations Program, but also as grounds for immediate disqualification from the competitive aspect of the conference. No matter how well a delegate performs in committee, plagiarism in the position paper will mean disqualification from awards. At Maggie Walker, however, we maintain that the most important aspect of a conference is not how many awards a delegation wins, but to what degree the members of that delegation have realized their true potential within the world of diplomacy and leadership. The sad state of world politics has provided us again and again with negative examples of leaders struggling to maintain political clout using corrupt strategy. Join with us as we strive to inspire future leaders who hunger for justice in the stead of deceitful accreditation.


Keynote Speaker: Ambassador Samantha Power The youngest-ever U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power has been a leading voice internationally for principled American engagement in the world. One of TIME’s “100 Most Influential People,” she has spent half of her career explaining complex geopolitical events as a Pulitzer Prizewinning author, war correspondent, and Harvard professor— and the last eight years helping to shape them. In April, 2017 she returned to teaching, as the Anna Lindh Professor of Practice at Harvard Kennedy School and Harvard Law School, where she is writing a book, The Education of an Idealist, which will chronicle her years in public service and reflect on the role of human rights and humanitarian ideals in contemporary geopolitics. As the 28th U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Power became the public face of U.S. opposition to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria, negotiated the toughest sanctions in a generation against North Korea, lobbied to secure the release of political prisoners, and helped mobilize global action against ISIL. From 2009 to 2013, she served on the National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights. Called by Forbes “a powerful crusader for U.S foreign policy as well as human rights and democracy,” Ambassador Power was named one of Foreign Policy’s “Top 100 Global Thinkers.” The American Academy in Berlin awarded her the 2016 Henry A. Kissinger Prize. “She has an excellent and analytical mind,” said Kissinger, “I admire the way she has faced our challenges.” Her book, “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide won the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award in 2003. The New Republic praised it as “Nothing less than a masterwork of contemporary journalism…An angry, brilliant, fiercely useful, absolutely essential book.” She also wrote the New York Times bestseller Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World (2008) and was the co-editor of The Unquiet American: Richard Holbrooke in the World (2011). Before joining the U.S. government, Ambassador Power was the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, a columnist for TIME, and a National Magazine Award-winning contributor to the Atlantic, the New Yorker, and the New York Review of Books. Ambassador Power began her career as a journalist, reporting from places such as Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, Rwanda, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. At the age of nine, Power immigrated to the United States from Ireland. She earned a B.A. from Yale University and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. (Information provided by The Richmond Forum.)


GSMUN XXI Secretariat Catherine Qian Secretary-General Catherine first attended GSMUN as an 8th grader from Moody Middle School and has since been a part of the treasured institution as a vice-chair and chair. She always looks forward to this March weekend the most. In addition to Model UN, Catherine is the captain of the Quizbowl team, an intern at McGuireWoods, a volunteer for Music Orchard and her local library, a big sister to her little brothers, and president of Young Democrats, TJ History Honor Society, and the National French Honor Society. Catherine finds joy in reality TV, food, Bertrand Russell's philosophy, and anything by F. Scott Fitzgerald. She is thrilled to be attending the University of Pennsylvania next year as part of the Huntsman Program in International Studies and Business.

Will Larson Director-General Will Larson is a senior at Maggie Walker and is enjoying his third year as a member of the Model United Nations Club. After volunteering at GSMUN in 2016 by passing notes in committees, Will is thrilled to be putting more useful skills to the test this year as Director-General. Other than Model UN, Will serves as captain on a tennis team that has won 4 consecutive state titles in addition to being an avid libero on the volleyball team. He also enjoys listening to classic rock music and going to bed sometime before 1 a.m.

Jenny Glazier Undersecretary-General for External Communications Jenny Glazier, a senior at Maggie Walker, is excited to serve as Director of External Communications for GSMUN XXI. Jenny began working at GSMUN as a freshman and has been part of past conferences as a vice-chair and a chair. Along with attending multiple other conferences as a delegate, she serves as cotreasurer for the Model UN club. Outside of Model UN, Jenny serves as copresident of the English Honor Society, an assistant director of the Music Orchard Program, an intern at Tingen & Williams, and secretary of the Spanish Honor Society. In her rare free time, she loves to watch movies, Irish dance, and travel with her family.


Liam Goble-Garrett Charge d’Affaires Liam Goble-Garratt, a senior at Maggie Walker, is very excited to be your Charge D’Affaires during this year’s Governor’s School Model United Nations Conference. He has previous experience chairing and vice-chairing GSMUN committees and has participated in many conferences as a delegate. He has chaired DISEC and QUAD Congo in the past two years, and had a lot of fun doing so. Having family spread all across the globe really helps in staying up to date on international issues, and he hopes to be able to do study abroad in college. In the time not spent writing background guides and papers, Liam enjoys playing on the Maggie Walker soccer team, playing basketball, and traveling.

Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Annie Wang is a senior at Maggie Walker and is thrilled to serve as Director of Charitable Giving for GSMUN XXI. This is her fourth year with GSMUN, having previously served as a fundraising staffer, vice chair of DISEC, and chair of QUAD: Uganda. Annie also serves as co-treasurer of Model UN club and co-president of Science National Honor Society. Outside of Model UN, she enjoys volunteering at St. Mary’s Hospital and interning at the Goodwin Research Lab. In her spare time, you can find her baking, snacking on dark chocolate, traveling, or catching up on sleep.

Kate Lord Undersecretary-General for Logistics Kate Lord is excited to serve as the Undersecretary-General for Logistics. This is her second year as part of Model UN. Last year she served as the vice chair of ECOSOC Africa. In school, Kate enjoys studying Physics and Chinese. She has a mentorship in Materials Science at VCU and hopes to become an engineer. Outside of school, Kate devotes precious time to running cross country and pole vaulting. She is also part of Maggie Walker Quizbowl. When she actually has free time, Kate is either reading Harry Potter or listening to music you’ve probably never heard of.


Evan Donnellan Director of Crisis Simulations Evan Donnellan is a senior at Maggie Walker and is excited to serve as the Undersecretary-General for Crisis Simulations. Evan has been an active participant in GSMUN since his freshman year when he served as a crisis staffer. Evan has had experience serving in committee and for crisis and looks forward to using those perspectives in the crisis room. When not dreaming up elaborate international crises, Evan serves as a co-President of Latin Honors Society as well as a member of French Honors Society. He mentors at VCU in the Emergency Department, and has aspirations to double-major in biology and music technology. When not at school, Evan enjoys biking around Richmond and playing music.

Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Aditya Kannoth is a senior at Maggie Walker and has been participating in Model UN since first attending GSMUN in the 8th grade. He has attended several conferences throughout high school, including those at the University of Virginia and Johns Hopkins, but always looks forward to GSMUN the most. When not preparing for GSMUN, he serves as the co-president of the club with Liam Goble-Garratt. Outside of Model UN, Aditya serves as senior class copresident, captain of the MW golf team, an intern in the VCU Neurosurgery department, and a tutor with Music Orchard. With the little free time that he manages to find, he likes to try and improve his pitiful golf swing on the course and find the tastiest food that Richmond has to offer.

Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies

Michael is the Director of General Assemblies for GSMUN this year. He is a senior at Maggie Walker, and, after joining Model UN his sophomore year, has served in multiple positions, as both a chair and vice-chair. Michael is a pitcher for Maggie Walker’s baseball team, and also enjoys fishing, martial arts, and running Spartan races. In the future, Michael hopes to practice law.


Andrew Shin Director of Press and Publications Andrew is a senior and has participated in Model UN since eighth grade. Currently, he is serving as co-secretary for Maggie Walker’s Model UN club. In addition to Model UN, Andrew has various other activities and interests. He plays viola in the Richmond Symphony Youth Orchestra and is captain of the Maggie Walker Debate Team. He also has a deep interest in North – South Korean politics and actively raises awareness for Liberty in North Korea. In his free time, he enjoys hanging out with friends and binge watching shows on Netflix. Andrew is so excited to serve you all as Director of Press and Publications at GSMUN XXI.

Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Som, a junior at Maggie Walker, is very excited to serve as the Director of Technology for GSMUN XXI. He has been involved in Model UN since the 8th grade, and joined the Model UN club at Maggie Walker in freshman year. Since then, he has gathered lots of experience as a delegate, vice-chair, and chair. Som is also an active member of many other clubs at Maggie Walker, serving as the head of finance in the robotics team, House Minority leader of Maggie Walker's Model Congress Conference, and an actively participating member of the debate team. In his free time, Som enjoys playing basketball, volunteering, hanging out with friends, and learning pretty much whatever he can.

Max Smith Model U.N. Sponsor Mr. Smith serves as the Assistant Director of Governor's School. Previous to this he taught in AP and IB education systems for twelve years in the RVA area. He has traveled widely as a Korea Society fellow, a Goethe Institut scholar, and as the recipient of the Pat Taylor Teaching Award. This is his tenth year as the sponsor of Governor's School Model UN and his second as the sponsor of the school's Honor Council. His undergraduate degree is from the University of Richmond and his master's degree was conferred by the University of Virginia. At home, his pride and joy are his three year old son and his five year old daughter. August 2017 was his 10th wedding anniversary with his amazingly supportive wife.


GSMUN XXI Chairs Narmeen Rashid and Caroline Brickley Special Political and Decolonization Committee

Yashnoor Sandhu and Maggie McKenna Nobel Committee

Cade Elliot and Sive Lowell International Monetary Fund

Marina Peebles and Richard Zhai 2008 Financial Crisis

Idoia Dizon and Reshad Awal European Council

Angela Stefanovska and Yumna Rahman Peace of Westphalia

Emily Dai and Abby Joyce Organization of American States

Jaideep Damle and Grady Trexler Incan Empire 1532

Julia Ochsenhirt and Siddharth Venigalla Diet of Japan

Chloe Aldana and Lauren O’Connell House of Saud

Will Hoffler and Catherine Brady De Gaulle Cabinet

Priya Singh and Alan Lai Roman Senate

Lawrence Jia and Nate Taminger United Nations Security Council

Kamya Sanjay and Lisa Qin Press Corps

Sammy Guinn JCC Cuban Missile Crisis: United States

Alex Nikolov JCC Cuban Missile Crisis: USSR

Aashri Aggarwaal JCC Indo-Pakistani War: India

Nikhil Paul JCC Indo-Pakistani War: Pakistan


Fundraising Esteemed Delegates and Sponsors, Every year, students come together at Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School to discuss a variety of global issues and debate potential solutions with their peers. However, in addition to our goal to make students understand the importance of diplomacy, cooperation, and global responsibility, our conference also seeks to make a real difference in the international community by fundraising thousands of dollars for a chosen charity. As the Director of Charitable Giving for GSMUN XXI, it is my distinct honor to present Love146 as the official charity for this year’s conference. Love146 is an international human rights organization dedicated to ending child trafficking and exploitation. The charity has numerous programs in place to educate youth on how to protect themselves from human trafficking, and to train professionals to recognize signs of abuse and respond to threats facing vulnerable children. What especially drew us to Love146 was the organization’s inspirational history and mission of providing children with specialized care necessary for holistic restoration. Love146 operates two survivor care homes in the Philippines, which care for exploited children, providing them with therapy, food, tuition, and medications to heal and prevent future exploitation. All proceeds will go directly to Love146, and will make an impact on countless lives. This year, GSMUN hopes to donate more than $10,000 to Love146 by the end of the conference to support the movement to end child trafficking. However, it is not a goal we may achieve alone, and we need your support to continue our tradition of contributing to worthy causes. Together, we can become advocates of sustainable change. We have already been working hard to reach our fundraising goal, and our efforts will continue through the conference weekend. There will be numerous ways to learn more about Love146, such as hearing about the mission and major achievements of the charity from Mr. Rob Morris, President and Co-founder of Love146, when he speaks at the conference. For more information on the charity, please visit To get involved or donate, please visit Thank you in advance for your support! Sincerely,

Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving, GSMUN XXI


Model UN Basics




Delegate Research Guide



Delegate Research Guide Dear Delegate, We at the Governor’s School Model United Nations Conference are sure that you are excited to embark on a new journey full of learning and discovery. In our increasingly integrated world, understanding international policy is crucial to being an informed citizen. Foremost among global policymakers are organizations such as the United Nations. You, the delegate, are now about to take on the role of a participant in this organization as you begin to make these critical decisions for yourself. Your excitement about researching your committee’s topics and country’s policies may likely be combined with feelings of apprehension about the workings of committee. In order to ease these fears, we have prepared the Delegate Research Guide which follows. As in past years, the Governor’s School Model UN Club teamed up with the school’s Media Center Specialist to put together a “Model UN Research Guide.” The Research Guide is designed to help focus research and make conference preparation more meaningful. The document walks delegates through the research and position paper process from start to finish and includes position paper guidelines and a sample to use as a template. In order to streamline research and give delegates a solid starting point, the guide provides links to helpful sources as well. It is highly recommended that delegates utilize this resource in preparing for the conference. You can access the Model UN Research Guide by following this link: Delegate Research Once you have received your country and committee assignments, the guide will help you with your research while writing your position paper. You should email the paper to your chair(s) prior to the conference; if this is done far enough in advance, chairs will be able to provide you with feedback. The position paper serves several purposes: To familiarize you with the foreign policy of your nation or the views of your particular person (for specialized committees) To familiarize you with the topics you will be discussing in committee To help you find appropriate resources for further research It will be helpful to follow the process outlined below in order to prepare yourself for the conference and the position paper. Good luck, and enjoy! 1. Start by carefully reading the background guide for your committee. Highlight, question,and make note of its key points. Pay attention to the instructions from your chair(s). They may include the chair’s philosophy and expectations for your paper. 2. Determine what kind of resources the author used. Read these for further depth and insight. 3. Contact your chair if you have any questions at all about the committee or the topics. 4. Once you are familiar with the topics, it is time to find your nation’s views on the issues.Start by researching the general policies of your country: a. With whom does your nation usually work? Who are your allies? 22

b. c. d. e. f. g.

Is your nation involved in any significant regional organizations? With which countries do you not get along? What are your major foreign policy concerns? What are your most important domestic issues? How does your country view the role of the UN? Use the “Nation Guide: Basic Research” found on page 29 to guide you and to help you organize your research. 5. Follow this with research on the specific topics for your committee: a. Do the issues relate to your nation in any specific way? b. Has your country printed any material on your topic, or does it belong to a group that has? c. What solutions to the problems have been attempted by your country? d. What kinds of solutions is your nation likely to support? Answering these questions will require substantial research. Fortunately, the Internet has made this process manageable. The following websites will be especially useful: – This site will tell you everything you need to know about the structure of your committee, past actions that have been taken, and items on the upcoming UN agenda. You can discover which nations voted in favor of and against UN resolutions. Spend a significant amount of time here! – This will take you directly to the home pages of the UN missions for your nation. Most pages are in English or have English versions. If you invest some time looking through this website, you may find actual speeches and press releases by your country on your topics. – Columbia International Affairs Online is an excellent site that has compiled resolutions, working papers, policy briefs and other relevant information. It does require a subscription, but you can sign up for a free trial, which is highly recommended! – The CIA World Factbook will give you basic demographic and map information about all UN nations. It is good basic resource to help you learn about your nation. – This website has all the statistics you could possibly want! Create your own graphs comparing developed and developing nations in terms of rates of female literacy, or rank African countries based on the number of refugees in each. This is a lot of fun, and it has interesting, unusual statistics. – The United States Department of State received so many questions about Model UN that they created their own Model UN website. 23

This is great if you are interested in United States policies, and it also has links to other student resources. – Yale University has been a depository for UN documents since 1945. According to the website, the collection includes official records of the main organs of the UN, sales publications, periodicals, UN Treaty Series, UN Development Programme and UN Environment Programme publications, and other generally distributed documents and publications of the United Nations. – Links to online newspapers from nations around the world. – English only online newspapers. Tips for Students in Specialized Committees Read your background guide carefully. Email your committee chair(s) if you are unsure about committee structure or content. It is important for you to understand the overall role of your country or your specific person within your committee. If you are representing a specific nation, you can conduct research much as you would for any other committee. Try to discover the dynamics of your committee- who are your allies and adversaries? If you are representing a specific person, you must learn their role in the body you are simulating, in addition to your nation’s overall policies. For example, the Prime Minister might come from a different political party than the Minister of Defense, and they might therefore disagree on policy issues. Try to also discern your person’s responsibilities--do you lead or tend to follow another member of the committee? Be ready to think on your feet and to be flexible. These committees are often more informal than General Assemblies in terms of procedure, but they will require you to think and act as a group to deal with specific events and to grapple with the consequences of your own actions. Look over the Parliamentary Rules of Procedure for Specialized Agencies and acquaint yourself with the standard operating procedures unique to smaller, crisis-focused committees. Have fun!


Nation Guide: Basic Research Official Country Name: ______________________________________________________________________________ Governmental System: ______________________________________________________________________________ Head of State/Government: ______________________________________________________________________________ Official Language(s): ______________________________________________________________________________ Major Political Parties: ______________________________________________________________________________ Allies/Blocs: ______________________________________________________________________________ Major Religions: ______________________________________________________________________________ Population: ______________________________________________________________________________ Environmental Stance: ______________________________________________________________________________ Standard of Living: ______________________________________________________________________________ Developmental Status: ______________________________________________________________________________ Has the UN ever had to intervene in any conflict involving this nation? ______________________________________________________________________________ Has the UN ever cited this country for human rights violations? ______________________________________________________________________________ Ethnic/Cultural Issues? ______________________________________________________________________________ Trade blocs/associations? ______________________________________________________________________________ Military power and weapons capabilities? ______________________________________________________________________________ Economic system? ______________________________________________________________________________ Major trade partners? ______________________________________________________________________________ Industries and Natural Resources? ______________________________________________________________________________ 25

Sample Position Paper for General Assemblies Committee: United Nations Security Council Country: Russian Federation Delegate Names: Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev School: Moscow Prep Country Introduction: The Russian Federation is the ninth largest economy in the world with a GDP of 1,954,000 U.S dollars (USD). Since the Soviet Union's dissolution in 1991, the exploitation of natural resources has allowed Russia to reemerge as a major player on the world stage. Supplies of oil, natural gas, metals (nickel, palladium, iron), and timber have reignited Russia’s economy and further linked Russia to the rest of the world. With 80% of its trade coming from these commodities, Russia’s fate depends largely on the price swings of the marketplace and the economic standing of other countries.1 Furthermore, Russia’s immense size and expansive resources have granted the country regional powerhouse status and global political clout. One-fourth of Europe’s natural gas, which keeps the continent warm during the harsh winter, comes from Russia. As of December of 2012, Russia recorded a trade surplus of 17,132 USD which has helped its economic status in international affairs. Currently, Russia's military is the world’s fifth largest by manpower, with 1,040,000 active soldiers. Russia's military budget is 71.2 billion USD, the third largest military budget in the world. This, however, accounts for only 3.2% of Russia's GDP.2 Topic 1: Militarization of Russia's Neighboring Countries Since the end of the Cold War and the rebirth of Russia as an independent country, Russia and the United States have endured a difficult relationship. The United States rose as a victor, while the Soviet Union crumbled. Distrust of the United States is seeded deeply in Russia's national character and in the relationship between Russia and the United States. This is clearly evident today with the militarization of Russian borders by Russia and the United States.3 In the past years, the United States has started efforts to create allies with nations near the Russian borders, al well as militarize them. Currently, the United States gives military aid to Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Uzbekistan has remained in Russia's sphere of influence for many years. However, in recent years it has begun to align itself with Western powers, alarming the Kremlin.4 The United States' arming of Uzbekistan has increased its influence in the region. The U.S has supplied Uzbekistan with night-vision goggles, body armor, and GPS systems. In reaction to this, Russia has tried to counter American power in the region by arming both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. It has spent 1.3 billion dollars in supplying these countries with weapons. This aid will 1

CIA Intelligence Agency. "Russia." The World Factbook. Accessed July 10, 2013. 2 Ibid. 3 Kucera, Joshua. "Are the U.S. and Russia Fueling Tension Between Uzbekistan and Its Neighbors?" Last modified March 26, 2013. Accessed July 10, 2013. 4 Ibid. 26

provide Tajikistan with air defense system upgrades and discounts on fuel. In return Russia's lease on the military base in Tajikistan will be extended.5 For the same reasons, Russia hopes to strengthen its ties with its fellow members in the Collective Security Treaty Organization through arming them. Armenia, Belarus, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Kazakhstan are all members of this alliance. The Kremlin has often expressed its concern over the United States' growing power in central Asia and the CSTO has allowed Russia to gain some leverage. As a member of the CSTO, Russia is allowed to veto the creation of foreign military bases in any CSTO nation.6 Russia's leverage over these countries also results from the fact that it supplies many member countries with oil. For example, Russia has threatened in the past to cut off Kazakhstan from its oil supply and other commodities. Russia's relations with the Ukraine point to another case study. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine has tried to distance itself from Russia with multiple attempts to join the EU and NATO. It has tried to align itself with Western powers and this has created hostility with the Russians. Russia is fully aware of Ukraine's need for natural gas and is ready cut off some or all supply of natural gas or oil, as occurred in 2006. Russia will not stand to allow the US to gain power in Central Asia and is prepared to take whatever measures necessary to ensure that this does not occur.7 Topic 2: Nuclear Non-Proliferation in North Korea Determining how to deal with nuclear non-proliferation in North Korea is a controversial topic that the UN and the United Nations Security Council have yet to solve. However, none of the resolutions that the UNSC enacted have convinced North Korea to dismantle their nuclear program. Russia plays an important role in the Security Council due to its close relations with North Korea, as a result of their mutual involvement in the "Six Party Talks." The "Six Party Talks" started in 2003 after North Korea withdrew from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, The United States, and Japan are involved in these talks. The main goal of these talks is to find a peaceful solution for the controversial nuclear weapons programs in North Korea.8 Russia is in favor of finding a diplomatic solution for the North Korean predicament, as are countries such as China that are closely allied with North Korea. Whereas the United States urges for the immediate and permanent disarmament of North Korea's nuclear program, Russia believes in a step-by-step approach combined with economic incentives.9 Russia strongly opposes any sort of sanctions that will bring harm to the people of North Korea. It believes that military intervention is not acceptable because it will only ensure that relations with North Korea become even more hostile.10 The Kremlin argues that political 5

Ibid. "Basic Facts." ODKB. Accessed July 10, 2013. 7 BBC. "Russia Country Profile." BBC News. Last modified March 2012. Accessed July 10, 2013. 8 Bahoria, Jayshree. "The Six-Party Talks on North Korea's Nuclear Program." Council on Foreign Relations. Last modified March 8, 2013. Accessed July 11, 2013. 9 "The Global Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime." Council on Foreign Relations. Last modified June 25, 2013. Accessed July 11, 2013. 10 Grove, Thomas “Russia, China oppose military intervention in North Korea.� Reuters. Last modified February 22, 2013. Accessed July 11, 2013. 6


negotiations are the only way that North Korea will respond effectively. Also, with the number of North Korean nuclear weapons unknown, military intervention proves the least certain option. Russia is of the opinion that increasing food aid to North Korea will possibly be an incentive for the Koreans to disarm their nuclear program. An estimated 1/3 of North Korea's population is malnourished and the famine in North Korea has been one of the longest in history. 10,000 people died in January of 2013 alone due to the famine. In 2011 the country received 47 tons of food aid. However, this has not helped to abate the hunger that is very prominent among the citizens of North Korea. 11 Furthermore, Russia is in favor of removing some economic and political sanctions from North Korea once the Hermit Kingdom has complied with Resolution 1874. This resolution was passed on June 12, 2009 after it was discovered that North Korea had done an underground nuclear weapons test. The main provisions of this solution are that North Korea must return to the "SixParty Talks" to discuss the steps that must be taken to resolve this conflict peacefully. Another provision of this resolution is that North Korea must re-join the Treaty on Nuclear-NonProliferation immediately. 12


"Russia sends food aid to North Korea." The Voice of Russia. Last modified June 15, 2012. Accessed July 11, 2013. 12 "Resolution 1874." United Nations Security Council. Last modified June 12, 2009. Accessed July 11, 2013. 28

Sample Position Paper for Specialized Committees Committee: The Second Continental Congress Role: John Dickinson Delegate Name: John Doe School: American University Introduction The “immedicabile vulnus” (irreparable injury) is at length struck. The rescript to our petition is written in blood. The impious war of tyranny against innocence has commenced in the neighborhood of Boston. Thus wrote John Dickinson to Arthur Lee of Virginia on April 29th, 1775 in response to the Battles at Lexington and Concord. This letter, composed less than a fortnight before the Second Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia, displays Dickinson’s characteristic nuance. First he establishes the facts, then and only then does he draw his conclusions. Firstly, the colonies and the British Empire had entered in a state of war, for “this most unnatural and inexpressibly cruel war began with the butchery of unarmed Americans at Lexington.” Secondly, “that the continent is preparing most assiduously for a vigorous resistance.” Most importantly, “while we revere and love our mother country, her sword is opening our veins.” Nothing could be more characteristically “Dickinsonian” than juxtaposing sincere love of mother country with the cruel truth of British aggression in the early stages of the American Revolutionary War. 1 With the skills of an international relations analyst, Dickinson cautioned against alliances with France and Spain, for fear of having to “wear their chains” as the oppression of one colonial power was traded for the domination of another. Yet, at his core, Dickinson realized exactly what it meant to be an American and summed it up in a few succinct sentences. “Our towns are but brick and stone,” he wrote, “and mortar and wood. They, perhaps, may be destroyed. They are but the hairs of our heads. If sheared ever so close, they will grow again. We compare them not with our rights and liberties.”2 Stirring as the letter remains today, those words reflect Dickinson’s mental state as he embarked upon the odyssey of the Second Continental Congress. Part outraged, part cautious, Dickinson demonstrated time and again, true to his Quaker roots, that peaceful measures should be the Congress’ first recourse, and violence reserved as only a last, defensive resort. Neither radical nor loyalist, Dickinson could be considered a pragmatist, a leader unafraid of compromise for the sake of both national unity and the general good. Topic 1: Legal Issues With the passage of the “revenue-enhancing” Townshend Acts in 1767, the young lawyer Dickinson made a name for himself as a constitutional critic of parliamentary overreach. Arguing against the constitutionality of the Townshend duties, Dickinson concluded that, rather than only providing the revenue needed to quarter troops in the colonies, the duties were also being used to siphon away the “power of the purse” state legislatures had possessed to control Royal Governors’


John Dickinson, "John Dickinson to Arthur Lee," 1775, in The American Revolution: Writings from the War of Independence, comp. John Rhodehamel (New York, NY: The Library of America, 2001), pp. 21-24. 2 Ibid. 29

salaries. Or, as Alden writes in A History of the American Revolution, Dickinson persuasively argued that “the primary purpose of Britain was to strengthen her hold upon America, not to compel the Americans to assume their fair share of the burdens of empire.”3 The American Colonists rallied around Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania, his chosen vehicle for disseminating logical, reasoned argument against the Townshend Acts. “If the Parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any or all the other colonies of their divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those who are powerful by their union.” Realizing the strength of the American colonies as a united front, Dickinson opposed violence that would only galvanize British opposition to American self-government, writing, “I am by no means fond of inflammatory measures; I detest them...but a firm, modest exertion of a free spirit should never be wanting on public occasions.”4 Instead of resorting to violence, Dickinson supported the boycotts of British products which ultimately led to the Acts’ repeal, pioneering an early form of highly effective protest for which he would advocate on multiple occasions later on in his political career. Earlier experience representing Pennsylvania in the 1765 Stamp Act Congress established his belief, later transformed into the pithy motto “No Taxation without Representation,” that “no taxes be imposed on them [the colonies] but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives.”5 Beyond his opposition to the Stamp Act and Townshend Acts, Dickinson’s legal perspective rested on a few assumptions. First, he considered the American colonists as British citizens permitted to a certain degree of self-government by right of royal charter and by necessity of 3,000 miles of ocean separating patria and colony. Thus, Americans were entitled to the same rights as British citizens, including proportional, not virtual, representation. Topic 2: Economic Consequences At the time a wealthy aristocrat and owner of the largest plantation in the colony of Delaware, Dickinson undoubtedly possessed a vested interest in stability and reconciliation with Great Britain, the colonies’ largest trading partner. Higher taxes and trade restrictions certainly cut into his profit as a planter, and like many of the merchant and planter class, Dickinson’s views aimed to preserve and enhance the status quo rather than bring forth a new order, like American independence. Topic 3: Social Consequences Although lacking the propagandistic tendencies of New England firebrands like Samuel Adams, Dickinson’s skill with the pen allowed him to rouse sentiments in those who read his works, such as the 1768 “Liberty Song,” which goes, “In Freedom we’re born and in Freedom we’ll live. / Our purses are ready. Steady, friends, steady; / Not as slaves, but as freemen our money we’ll give.”6 One solution to the growing crisis between Britain and her colonies, according to Dickinson, was the peaceful boycott; he favored reconciliation over war. 3

John R. Alden, A History of the American Revolution (New York, NY: nopf, 1976), p. 96. Letter by John Dickinson, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania," December 1767, accessed February 12, 2013, Web. 5 Denise Kiernan and Joseph D'Agnese, "John Dickinson: The Signer Who Never Signed," in Signing Their Rights Away: The Fame and Misfortune of the Men Who Signed the United States Constitution (Philadelphia, PA: Quirk Books, 2011), p. 127. 6 John Dickinson, "The Liberty Song," 1768, in The Quotable Founding Fathers, ed. Buckner F. Melton, Jr. (Washington, D.C.: Brassey's, 2004), pp. 169-170. 4


Parliamentary Procedure Guide



Parliamentary Procedure Guide For novices, the most confusing aspect of Model United Nations is usually parliamentary procedure. “Parli Pro” provides order to large gatherings, such as UN committees. Even if the following descriptions don’t seem clear, don’t worry. Once you are actually in committee, everything will be much clearer. Remember, you can always ask your chair a question about procedure by raising a point of parliamentary inquiry (more about that later). INTRODUCTORY RULES 1. Scope of the Rules These introductory rules, in their entirety, apply to all Governor’s School Model United Nations Conference committees and should be followed by all delegates. 2. Attire All delegates are expected to wear Western Business Attire during the conference. For boys, this entails a shirt and tie. For girls, this means a skirt, slacks, or a dress. Delegates must wear professional attire befitting the professional setting of the conference. 3. Conduct All delegates are expected to maintain courteous conduct and decorum during all sessions by respecting staff rulings and other delegates. THE COMMITTEE 4. Functions of the Committee Chairperson A chairperson shall open and close each session, enforce the rules, recognize speakers, put questions to a vote, and announce rulings. All of these actions are subject to the chair’s discretion with the best interests of the committee in mind. 5. Roll Call Roll call is the first order of business for any session; it is crucial because a quorum (one- half of the members plus one) is required for a committee to take action on an issue. If a delegation is present, it shall answer either “present” or “present and voting” when the name of its country is called. Answering “present” simply means that the delegation is attending the committee session, will vote on all procedural matters, and can vote “yes,” “no,” or “abstain” on resolutions. However, a delegate who answers “present and voting” is obligated not only to vote on all procedural issues, but also to either vote “yes” or “no” on all resolutions. If a delegate arrives after the opening roll call, he or she must send a note to the dais informing them of his or her presence and voting status.


6. Voting Rights In General Assembly committees, each member state shall have only one vote. Abstentions on a matter may only take place when voting on a resolution or an amendment. All delegations must vote on procedural matters. Note: Observer states may vote only on procedural matters, not on amendments or resolutions. DEBATE 7. Setting the Agenda To begin debate on setting a topic, a temporary speakers’ list will be created by a delegate’s motion. In the event of a delegate making a motion to set the topic, one speaker in favor and one against will address the committee for 30 seconds each. A simple majority sets the topic, and if the motion fails, the speakers’ list continues until a topic is selected. 8. Speakers’ List After a topic is selected, a speakers’ list will be created with a set speaking time by a delegate motion. Speakers may comment on the topic, as well as any resolution or amendment pertaining to the topic. Once a speakers’ list is exhausted of all names, debate on the topic will cease, and the committee will move into voting procedures. 9. Closing and Re-opening the Speakers’ List A delegate may make a motion at any time either to close or to re-open the speakers’ list. When it is closed, debate continues, but no more nations can be added to the list. The list can be re-opened at a later time. To do either action, one speaker for and one against are required, as well as a simple majority vote. 10. Time Limit A strict time limit shall be placed on all speakers in order to promote the flow of debate. To change the speaking time, a motion may be made on the floor. One speaker for and one against are required, as well as a simple majority vote. 11. Yielding A speaker who is discussing a substantive issue may yield his or her time to the following: points of information from the body, the Chair, or to another member, who cannot yield that time to another. A yield must be specified by the speaker, and if time is yielded to the chair, no comments are allowed. Any yield must be made before a delegate begins his or her speech. Sitting down without yielding is considered a yield to the chair. 12. Right of Reply If a delegation feels a remark made was unjustly injurious to them or their country, a right of reply may be granted at the Chair’s discretion. In order to request this, the delegation must immediately send a note to the dais explaining how their country was insulted. The Chair’s ruling may not be appealed.


POINTS AND MOTIONS 13. Points in Committee v Point of Order: This is made when a member wishes to draw attention to a possible procedural error by the Chair. The point of order and the Chair’s ruling must be immediate. v Point of Parliamentary Inquiry: This is made when a question exists regarding these rules and is used for clarification. v Point of Information: This is a question to a speaker made when the speaker yields to points of information. Once recognized by the Chairperson, a delegate may ask a concise question; only the answer shall count against the speaker’s time limit. If any clarification of the question is needed, it will be made by the Chair, who will ask the questioner. v Point of Personal Privilege: This point may be made if at any time a delegate experiences a personal discomfort which impairs his or her ability to participate in the proceedings. The Chair will attempt to relieve the cause of discomfort if possible. This is the only point which may interrupt a speaker. 14. Motions v Motion to Postpone Debate: If it becomes necessary to postpone debate on a topic, this motion should be made. To re-open debate, rules regarding the speakers’ list will be followed, and the old speakers’ list will be used. v Motion to Close Debate: If a member wishes to close debate and move into voting procedure, this motion may be made. There will be two speakers for and two against this motion, and a two-thirds majority is required. v Motion for a Moderated Caucus: The committee may digress from the speakers’ list and the Chair will moderate. The delegate raising the motion must recommend a total time for the caucus as well as a speaker’s time and the subject of debate. v Motion for an Unmoderated Caucus: During debate, this motion may be made at any time. The time limit is set at the discretion of the Chair and will not exceed thirty minutes. The motion will be put to immediate vote and will require a simple majority to pass. No rules of formal debate will exist at this time, and delegates are free to discuss committee matters with others. v Motion to Recess: This motion can be made at any time at the Chair’s unappealing discretion. It requires a simple majority to pass.


RESOLUTIONS AND AMENDMENTS 15. Resolutions All business at the conference is passed in resolution form. A resolution is introduced by one or more members of the committee who wish to sponsor it. For it to be introduced and considered, one-fifth of the members present must place their country’s signatures on the resolution. These signatories do not necessarily have to support the resolution, but they must wish to see it considered. More than one resolution may be signed by a delegation. A resolution is called a “working paper” until it has gone through the above steps and has been formally read to the committee. After the paper has been introduced, it is henceforth referred to as a “draft resolution.” At the discretion of the Chair, a moderated caucus may be given to the sponsors in order to discuss the resolution and to answer questions. 16. Amendments An amendment changes a working paper, draft resolution, or resolution by adding, striking out, or substituting a word or phrase in an operative clause. A friendly amendment is one agreed on by all sponsors and must be submitted to the Chair with the signatures of all sponsors. After being reviewed by the Chair, the amendment becomes part of the original document. An unfriendly amendment is one that is not supported by all of the sponsors. Therefore, it requires the signatures of one-fifth of the members present to be considered. Unfriendly amendments are voted on before the draft resolution to which they correspond and in the order in which they were submitted. An unfriendly amendment requires a two-thirds vote to pass. 17. Withdrawal of Resolution or Amendment If all sponsors agree on the withdrawal of an amendment or draft resolution, it will be formally removed from debate and all discussion on the former resolution will immediately cease. VOTING 18. Voting on Procedure Members present must vote on all procedural matters. 19. Voting on Resolutions Resolutions require a simple majority to pass. A member who answered “present and voting” during roll call may not abstain. 20. Conduct When voting begins, the chamber will be sealed and silent, and no entry or exit is permitted. All points or motions not pertaining to the vote are out of order. 21. Roll Call Votes Upon request by a member and with the Chair’s permission, a roll call vote will commence. The Chair shall call out each member’s name, and they shall respond with: Yes, Yes with Rights, No, No with Rights, Abstain, or Pass. Once the list is read through, all members who passed shall then vote; delegates who pass may not then abstain. Explanations from those who voted with rights should be concise and concern only those instances when a vote goes against policy. If a member answered “present and voting” during roll call, then they may not abstain from voting on a resolution. 35

22. Resolution Reordering If multiple draft resolutions exist, they are considered in order of submission. However, a motion for reordering may be made before voting. When it is made, the new order of voting must be stipulated by the member who requests the adjustment. There shall be one speaker for this motion and one against, and it requires a simple majority to pass. 23. Dividing the Question Immediately after debate is closed and before unfriendly amendments are considered, a motion for division may be made. This means that a member wants two or more parts of a draft resolution to be considered separately; these parts shall be specified by the speaker. Two speakers both for and against are required. Once the speakers are finished, a vote on the division shall be made. The motion requires a simple majority to pass. Should it pass, the sections that were divided shall be voted on separately. If there is more than one motion for division, the Chair shall decide their order of consideration. OTHER 24. Appealing the Chair’s Decision A delegate can move to appeal rulings on a discretionary matter by first speaking in favor of a reversal, after which the Chair will speak in favor of his or her ruling. A two-thirds vote must be made to overturn a ruling. Note: All of the above rules are derived from modified versions of Robert’s Rules of Order and other Model United Nations Parliamentary Procedures.




Vote to Pass

Setting the Agenda

1F, 1A


Postpone Debate

1F, 1A


Close Debate

2F, 2A


Moderated Caucus



Subject to Chair’s approval

Unmoderated Caucus



Subject to Chair’s approval




Subject to Chair’s approval

Closing Speaker’s List

2F, 2A


Time limit on speech

2F, 2A


Divisoin of Resolution

2F, 2A


Question of Competence

1F, 1A


Roll Call Vote


Subject to Chair’s approval Subject to Chair’s approval

POINTS Point Order

Comments Call attention to possible procedural error

Parliamentary Procedure

Inquiry to Chair regarding the rules


Questions for Speakers

Personal Privilege

Personal Discomfort


Comments Require signatures from 1/5 of body

Friendly Amendment

Automatic inclusion with signatures of all sponsors

Unfriendly Amendment

Requires signatures from 1/5 of body and 2/3 vote to pass


Comments No comments/questions allowed

Points of Information

To questions from the Floor

Another Delegate

He/she may not re-yield the time 37

RESOLUTION FORMAT Committee Name: Official Name of Sponsoring Country or Countries: Signatories Topic: SKIP TWO LINES AND CENTER THE TITLE, WHICH CANNOT BE CHANGED BY AMENDMENT The General Assembly (or other organ), Recalling that five spaces should be indented before each preambulatory phrase, Recognizing that one line should be skipped after the title and before and after every phrase, Gravely concerned that delegates may forget to use a comma at the end of perambulatory phrases, Noting that every resolution begins with the name of the organ, not with the name of the committee, Recalling that preambulatory phrases cannot be amended, Aware that the format of a resolution may be changed by the Chair,

1. Nevertheless recognizes that this format is used at most conferences; 2. Urges that three lines separate the preambulatory portion from the operative portion of the resolution; 3. Welcomes clear and simple wording and splitting complex ideas into sub-operative clauses with: a. A colon introducing the first sub-operative, b. One line between each sub-operative, and c. No underlining within the sub-operative; 4. Observes that a resolution, being only one sentence, always ends with a period.


RESOLUTION INTRODUCTORY PHRASES Perambulatory Phrases Affirming Alarmed by Approving Aware of Believing Bearing in Mind Cognizant of Confident Declaring Deeply concerned Deeply conscious Deeply convinced Deeply disturbed Deeply regretting Desiring

Emphasizing Expecting Expressing its appreciation Expressing its satisfaction Fulfilling Fully aware Fully alarmed Fully believing Further deploring Further recalling Guided by Having adopted Having considered Having considered further Having devoted attention

Having examined Having heard Having received Having studied Keeping in mind Noting further Noting with regret Noting with satisfaction Noting with deep concern Noting further Noting with approval Observing Realizing

Emphasizes Encourages Endorses Expresses its appreciation Expresses its hope Further invites Further proclaims Further reminds Further recommends Further requires Further resolves Has resolved Notes Proclaims

Reaffirms Recommends Reminds Regrets Resolves Solemnly affirms Strongly condemns** Supports Takes note of Trusts Urges

Operative Clauses Accepts Affirming Approves Authorizes Calls for Calls upon Condemns (UNSC only) Congratulates Confirms Considers Declares accordingly Deplores Draws attention Designates


** UNSC only

SAMPLE RESOLUTION Disarmament and International Security Committee Sponsors: Afghanistan, Bolivia, China, Guinea-Bissau, Malaysia, Philippines Signatories: Yugoslavia, Canada, USA, Luxembourg, Peru, South Africa, Zambia, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Finland, Mexico Topic: Disarmament RESOLUTION 1-2

The General Assembly, Recognizing the need for international compliance and trust while moving toward the eventual goal of disarmament, Recalling the original goal of the UN to promote a healthy global environment through cooperation, Believing that participation in the Conventional Arms Register, although voluntary, would benefit the global community, Noting with concern the lack of a diverse population in the current Conventional Arms Register,

1. Defines conventional arms transfer as a movement of conventional arms from Nation “A” to Nation “B” by sale, trade, or barter; 2. Further defines transparency as the act of making known to the global community clear, concise, and easily understandable information concerning arms; 3. Designates a participatory nation as one that yearly submits to a register by April 30th, declaring what conventional arms it may have traded; and 4. Calls for the establishment of incentives for participatory nations in the form of: a. Non-military technology including: i. Agricultural ii. Medical, and iii. Educational; b. Refers the designation of incentives to: i. Regional bodies, ii. Committee on Sustainable Development, and iii. Committee on Science and Technology. 40

RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SPECIALIZED AGENCIES See the standard Parliamentary Procedure Guide for general rules. Cabinets and other specialized agencies will function in a moderated caucus as the default (no vote required) for the purpose of moving debate along quickly. Chairs will determine speakers and speaking time. Chairs will also recognize speakers, who may stand up at their table or at a podium depending on the chair’s discretion. Chairs will NOT ask for Points and Motions between speakers. Therefore, delegates must make a point or motion before the chair calls on the next speaker by raising their placards to get the chair's attention. Since resolutions are not used in most specialized agencies, unmoderated caucuses will be allowed only if necessary. After a cabinet sets the agenda for the first topic, the delegates will move between both topics continuously, in accordance with crises. Thus, there is no need to vote to “close debate” or “postpone debate.” Memoranda: Each memorandum should follow the example provided. Although there are no specific clauses for memoranda, the wording of the writing should be diplomatic since other countries’ leaders will be reading communiqués and press releases. Communiqués, Directives, and press releases will be introduced by the writer after submitting the memorandum to the chair. The chair will ask the writer to give a brief introduction to the memorandum before reading the memorandum to the committee. All memoranda requiring approval by the entire committee will be passed by a simple majority vote. Information requests will be sent directly to the chair who will forward the message to the appropriate department. FORMAT OF MEMORANDA EXAMPLE OF COMMUNIQUÉ FROM CHECHNYA TO RUSSIAN CABINET To: Russian Cabinet From: Chechnya Chechnya would like to remind the Russian Cabinet of the demands sent regarding the negotiations. If the demands are not met within an hour, Chechnya will declare its independence from Russia and establish itself as an independent nation.

Chechnya Independence Movement 41



Vote to Pass


Setting the Agenda

Minimum 1F, 1A


Subject to Chair’s approval

Unmoderated Caucus



Subject to Chair’s approval




Subject to Chair’s approval

Question of Competence

1F, 1A


Subject to Chair’s approval

Roll Call Vote



Subject to Chair’s approval




Subject to Chair’s approval





Call attention to possible procedural error

Parliamentary Procedure

Inquiry to Chair regarding the rules


Questions for Speakers

Personal Privilege

Personal Discomfort

Communiqués Press Releases



Comments Sent out to correspond with cabinets of other countries (Example: see below) Can be used to send condolences to the public after failed missions or inform the public of any news Example: The Pakistani Government would like to offer its condolences to the families impacted by the attack last night in Karachi and inform the public of the undergoing investigation on suspect groups behind the attacks.



Used to instruct any groups under the jurisdiction of the agency Example: Move the troops to the border of Pakistan and be ready for any action in case of emergency.

Information Requests

Sent to respective departments under the jurisdiction of the agency (“home government”) for information on current crisis or debate topics Example: Has the CIA gathered any new information regarding the mobilization of troops on the Pakistani border?

Technology Code of Conduct 1. All computer users have the responsibility to use computer resources in an efficient, effective, ethical, and lawful manner. The following policies, rules, and conditions apply to all users of computer resources and services. Computer resources include, but are not limited to, the following: host computers, file servers, workstations, stand-alone computers, laptops, software, data projectors, and internal or external communication networks. 2. Any student who intentionally damages or destroys Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School’s (MLWGS) hardware, and/or software, whether directly or indirectly, shall also be responsible for all costs associated with repair and/or replacement. 3. Fraudulent, harassing, embarrassing, indecent, profane, obscene, intimidating, or any unlawful material shall not be sent by email or any other form of electronic communication or displayed on or stored in Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School’s computers and networks. Users encountering or receiving such material must immediately report the incident to the Director of Technology for investigation.


Delegate Recognition Guidelines GSMUN should not be viewed as a competition. The conference serves as an educational forum in which students learn and practice diplomacy through discussion, debate, research, and analysis of the social, cultural, political, and economic policies of member states. Above all, GSMUN strives to teach delegates that member states must work together to overcome “real life� crises and policy conflicts, which will arise during the course of the simulation. In past years, we have observed that the most successful delegates master all three vertices of the Model United Nations delegate triangle:

Preparation means completing enough research to possess a mastery of the issues at hand in committee, writing a standout position paper, and thinking of credible solutions. Public speaking is what will comprise most of the time in committee – best to organize speeches well, focus on persuasion, and avoid repetition. Politics refers to building coalitions, winning votes, and treating fellow delegates with respect. Those delegates who commit themselves to the spirit of diplomacy may be recognized for their efforts. Recognition will be at the discretion of the chair of each committee and will incorporate the following criteria: v v v v v v

Quality of pre-conference research and position paper Relevant contributions to debate and focus on solutions Knowledge of committee topics and accurate representation of national or personal interests in both voting and speaking Ability and eagerness to work with other delegates Demonstration of the spirit of diplomacy


Background Guides




January 11, 2018 Dear Delegates and Sponsors, GSMUN XXI Champion the Change Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies

After this letter are the background guides for each of the 18 committees of GSMUN XXI. The Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School Model UN Cub has worked tirelessly to develop stimulating committee topics and the following background guides. GSMUN XXI Chairs began writing their extensive and comprehensive papers this past summer, and since then, their papers have undergone countless revisions to become the final versions that you see here. As the editor of committee background guides, I have worked closely with the Secretariat and Chairs of this conference to ensure that these papers are as informative and helpful as possible. Their dedication to this conference showed as we went through each and every paper at meetings in the morning, during lunch, or after school. The hard work of Chairs made these background guides as factual and helpful as they are. Along with the Chairs, both the Secretariat and Mr. Smith were also essential to the editing process. These background guides would not be nearly as complete without their substantive and grammatical recommendations, endless patience, and persistent support. The background guides that you will read here are meant as jumping-off points for position papers and committee debate. They provide an explanation of the topics that will be debated in committee. The “Questions to Consider” portions will guide delegates in brainstorming potential solutions to the issues posed before the conference itself, and the “Resources for Further Research” sections provide links to websites that the chairs found informative in illuminating each topic. We strongly encourage delegates to seek information beyond our background guides for a more comprehensive view of each issue from the perspective of the country or individual that they represent, and I encourage all sponsors to inform their delegates of all the resources available to them in the background guides. Sincerely yours,

Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology

Jenny Glazier Undersecretary-General for External Communications, GSMUN XXI

Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor



2008 Financial Crisis Marina Peebles Chair Richard Zhai Chair



Dear Delegates,

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s 2008 Financial Crisis Committee! Your chairs, Richard Zhai and Marina Peebles, are thrilled to meet all of you. As delegates in the 2008 Financial Crisis committee, you will all meet to alleviate the 2008 financial crisis during the events leading up to the crash and immediately following. Taking place in the 4th quarter of 2007, the committee focuses on not GSMUN XXI only the American economy, but also the following ripple effect it had on the Champion the Change global community. It’s the duty of the delegates in this committee to think creatively and come up with solutions to help restore the American economy. Catherine Qian Richard Zhai, a sophomore, can’t wait to serve as co-chair in the 2008 FCC. Secretary-General This is his second year doing Model UN at Maggie Walker and second year participating in GSMUN. In addition to Model UN, Richard also runs Will Larson and participates in a variety of clubs. Outside of school, he plays piano, enjoys Director-General cooking and eating, plus he loves to travel. He is looking forward to meeting all of you and having a great time!! Jenny Glazier Marina Peebles, a junior at Maggie Walker, is very excited to be a co-chair Under-Secretary General for for the 2008 FCC! This is her fourth year doing Model UN, and originally started in External Communications 8th grade at Moody Middle School. Outside of Model UN, Marina enjoys participating in Walker Model Congress and also playing soccer for Kickers. She Liam Goble-Garratt loves to volunteer at the Richmond SPCA and also loves languages and traveling. Charge d'Affaires She is looking forward to a fantastic committee and is very excited for GSMUN Annie Wang 2018! Director of Charitable Giving As delegates of this committee, you are expected to come prepared to debate about the financial crisis and the different aspects causing the market crash Kate Lord of 2007 as well as possible solutions to alleviate the stress on the economy - not Under-Secretary General for only the American economy, but the global one as well. You should know the Logistics causes of the market crash and well as the financial terms outlined in your background guide. The background guide is simply a guide to start your research, Evan Donnellan and delegates will be expected to complete a position paper, formatted in Chicago Under-Secretary General for Manual Style (CMS) and pertaining to your position on the committee. At Crisis Simulations GSMUN, all position paper are expected to follow the Maggie Walker honor code; any and all plagiarism will not be tolerated. Finally, a large part of GSMUN is our Aditya Kannoth commitment to making a difference through charity. There will be merchandise, Director of Specialized baked goods, and many other things on sale during the conference, with all of the Agencies proceeds going to charity - so don’t forget to bring money! If you have any questions or concerns, or would like feedback on your position papers, feel free to Michael Zmuda contact your chairs at We are looking forward Director of General Assemblies to meeting everyone in committee! See you at GSMUN XXI and good luck! Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications

Your chairs,

Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Marina Peebles

Richard Zhai



Committee Overview Committee Background This committee will focus on the events following September 13th, 2007 and the following financial crisis, the most severe financial crisis in the United States since the Great Depression. The crisis itself was mostly caused by a combination of debt and mortgage-backed assets, a devaluation of the assets which held all of the monetary value of property. A rise of mortgage-backed securities, or loans backed by mortgages, in the early 2000s was caused by securitization (pooling debt and later giving assets based on this debt). The mortgages being securitized were of relatively poor quality (sub-prime mortgages). However, rating agencies rated many of these Mortgage Backed Securities and collateralized debt obligations at AAA, otherwise known as the highest possible rating, because they did not realize the lowquality backings of these mortgages. The early 2000s also saw hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of mortgages given to people with people with low credit rates who would be unable to pay for the adjustable rate that came with these mortgages. For example, the first 2 years of a mortgage would be issued with a sub-8% interest rate, that would later rise to a 15% interest rate following the 2 years. When housing prices began to fall, homeowners would be unable to afford to refinance their homes and began to default on the loans. This built towards the ultimate financial crash. June 2007 saw the first sign of unease, when Bear Stearns, the 5th largest investment bank in the US, announced extensive losses because of subprime assets in

2 of its hedge funds. Credit markets started to fail and more and more banks started experiencing losses because of subprime assets. The housing crisis and then the stock market crash in 2007 led to extensive economic instability and caused a large recession. This recession is the focus of this committee. Keep in mind that any of the historical events that happened following September 13, 2007, have not happened in this committee and the possible solutions are not limited to those that actually occurred. Background Information Often referred to as the second largest global economic crisis in the world, the Great Recession of 2008 caused the rapid decline in the economy of the USA before taking most of the developed world with it into recession. Alarmingly, starting at the end of the 4th quarter in 2007, the United States economy shrank 0.7% later to see the Dow drop 54% over the span of the crisis. The repercussions of the American emergency spread across the world. Nearly all countries associated with US trade, or countries trading with countries that directly traded with the US, or any countries trading with those countries, saw recessions linked to the devaluation of the dollar, large reductions in imports and exports, and soaring prices of commodities. The UK and the rest of the EU saw banks lose over 50 billion US dollars as well as unemployment rate spikes of nearly 5 percentage points over the next 4 years. Similarly, the US financial crisis pushed many highly developed countries as well as emerging markets into recession. Japan, largely reliant on exports by the US, saw a large decline in business earnings and 53

spending, taking the Japanese economy with it. Around the world, these highly established economies, and many more in all continents, were affected and forced to rebuild their economies subsequently, halting progress effectively. In the mid 2000s, low annual percentage rate encouraged banks to quickly set up subprime mortgages with hopes of getting quick returns. Without proper down payments and rapid increasing interest rates, banks were left with devalued real estate and no way of getting money back. The lack of down payments also gave buyers little reason against foreclosing. In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks: Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Merrill Lynch. However, by 2008, only two of these five banks had survived, and those two did so with the help of the government bailout. The mentality on Wall Street at this time was to take extreme risks in an attempt to reap short-term profit. For a few years, that strategy successfully swept cash into the banks, only encouraging greater and greater risk. The success over those few years led to increased real-estate value and interested buyers who were further encouraged by banks to buy through competitive mortgages and the absence of securitization. During 2006, over 84% of subprime mortgages were given by private lending institutions. As the crisis escalated in 2008, the US government sought desperately to alleviate the situation, mostly by trying to save the struggling banks. The government attempted to recover Bear Stearns with a governmentsponsored sale.

However, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy soon after, while Bear Stearns was saved by the US government with large cash sums and sold to JPMorgan Chase. As a way for the government to save the economy, TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was written and passed. The choice of using this program is debatable, as there could have been many other more farsighted approaches, but it was one of the key programs that helped pull the US out of recession. General Information Some key concepts and pieces of information necessary in order to completely understand the topic are as follow. CDOs, otherwise known as collateralized debt obligations, are asset backed securities in which loans and bonds are centralized and packaged together. All of the assets found in CDOs have debt obligations attached to them. They are then sold to investors who earn money from them. When a default occurs, the collateral is then distributed down the ladder of investors, the system of the ladder being the order that investors are paid, in which senior tranches (portions) get collateral first. Due to the propagation of CDOs, large amounts of credit were easy to obtain and an overabundance of loans were given out. In addition, the fact that investors were given the money from the loan instead of the original loaner, this made the risk for the investors much higher. The collateral from loan defaults is distributed from highest priority downwards, making the risk for less invested people significantly higher. Also, shares of CDOs can become very difficult to sell when investors detect instability. In the 2008 financial crisis, CDOs played a major role. In the 2000s up until the height of the bubble in 2007, CDOs partially allowed 54

people to take large mortgages from banks which increased demand for real estate and prices. Once interest rates increased and people defaulted, the price of the real estate crashed and started the crisis. As banks offered more and more mortgages and started taking bigger risks in the mid 2000s, they started to offer loans to nearly everyone, even to people with poor credit ratings who really couldn’t afford down payments. This risky behavior caused those people who took subprime mortgages to easily default without worry of losing down payments. Since banks gave out so many subprime mortgages, the number of defaults went up substantially and banks had no security due to a rapid increase in supply of houses, in which the banks could only sell for much lower and no down payment to compensate. During the 2008 financial crisis, the use of subprime mortgages and risky bank behavior were key mistakes that pummeled both the banking industry and economy. Current Analysis Bank of America announced that it would buy Merrill Lynch for 50 billion dollars on Monday, September 15, 2008. While initially it was thought that Bank of America would attempt to acquire Lehman Brothers, those discussions ended and the purchase of Merrill Lynch, a retail brokerage company, followed. At the time of the deal, Merrill Lynch had posted 17 billion dollars in losses and shares in the company were down by 65% over the last four quarters. The day after the Bank of America deal, another deal was proposed to alleviate the effects of the financial crisis which was the Barclays Deal; it was proposed to save Lehman from bankruptcy by buying the fourth largest investment bank on Wall Street

out. Lehman Brothers filed for the biggest bankruptcy in history, with 639 billion dollars in assets. Barclays agreed to buy the core of Lehman Brothers for 1.75 billion dollars the day after they had declared bankruptcy, on September 15. The proposed deal would save between 8,500 and 10,000 jobs on Wall Street and would involve Barclays paying 250 million dollars in cash, and taking on 72 billion in trading assets and 68 billion in trading liabilities. Goals of Current Meeting The goals of the current meeting are to restore both the American economy and Wall Street by attempting to make new deals and analyzing the positive and negative effects of the possible deals. It is important to keep in mind the international repercussions of the crisis itself as well as the solutions this committee will create and how they will impact the international economy. Additionally, please keep in mind that this committee begins on September 13th, 2007, the day of the market crash. Nothing following that date has occurred and it is up to this committee to revive the economy and the businesses on Wall Street as efficiently as possible. Keep in mind that there were real solutions attempted after the market crash, however due to some of the damage which unfolded even with those solutions, your job is to find creative ways to salvage whatever is left of the economy and limit long term damage on the global level through discussion and resolutions. Questions to Consider 1. What possible solutions and deals would be most beneficial to the revival of the US economy? Why? 2. To what extent has the crisis affected the global economy? 55

3. What steps need to be taken to recover the global economy? 4. Who is to blame for the economic instability? Why? 5. How will this committee shape the future of the American economy? What are the biggest changes that should differ from the economy prior to the crash and the economy going forward? 6. What reactions will foreign economies have towards any solutions? What considerations must be made to ensure a stable international market? 7. What is a possible solution that will most directly affect the American public?

Ogg, Jon. "CDOs and the Mortgage Market." Investopedia. Last modified October 14, 2016. Accessed August 20, 2017. /07/cdo-mortgages.asp. Roubini, Nouriel. "The Recession Felt around the World." ForeignPolicy. Last modified February 19, 2008. Accessed August 20, 2017. 9/the-recession-felt-around-theworld/. "Subprime Mortgage." Investopedia. Accessed August 20, 2017. s/subprime_mortgage.asp.

Bibliography Amadeo, Kimberly. "The Great Recession of 2008: Explanation with Dates." the Balance. Last modified July 7, 2017. Accessed August 20, 2017. “Bank of America Buys Merrill - $50 Billion.” CNN Money. Last modified September 15, 2008. Accessed August 14, 2017. news/companies/merrill_bofa_talks/i ndex.htm?cnn=yes.

"Japan in Recession." The Economist. Last modified November 18, 2008. Accessed August 20, 2017.

MacDonald, Alistair, and Sara Schaefer Muñoz. “CSI Lehman-Barclays: Who Really Killed the September 2008 Deal?” The Wall Street Journal. Last modified March 12, 2010. Accessed August 14, 2017. /12/csi-lehman-barclays-who-reallykilled-the-september-2008-deal/.

Maxfield, John. "25 Major Factors That Caused or Contributed to the Financial Crisis." The Motley Fool. Last modified February 28, 2015. Accessed August 20, 2017. 15/02/28/25-major-factors-that-caused-orcontributed-to-the.aspx.

Teather, David, Andrew Clark, and Jill Treanor. “Barclays to Buy Lehman Brothers Assets.” The Guardian. Last modified September 16, 2008. 56

Accessed July 21, 2017. ss/2008/sep/16/barclay.lehmanbroth ers1. Tourlayai, Halah. “In Defense of the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Deal.” Forbes. Last modified September 28, 2011. Accessed August 14, 2017. ouryalai/2011/09/28/in-defense-ofthe-bank-of-america-merrill-lynchdeal/#2edd31c77b81. “Financial Crisis 2007/2008.” Wall Street Oasis.



De Gaulle Cabinet Catherine Brady Chair Will Hoffler Chair



Dear Delegates,

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s Cabinet of Charles De Gaulle! This committee will be discussing Charles De Gaulle’s term as leader of France, specifically the 1968 protests that swept the country, leading to radical upheaval in economic and Catherine Qian social spheres. Your chairs, Catherine and Will, are excited to lead the discussion Secretary-General and debate about this interesting topic. Catherine Brady is a junior at Maggie Walker and will be participating in Will Larson GSMUN for her third time this year. Additionally, Catherine is an officer in GSA Director-General and a member of Generation Action, Spanish Club, and Arabic Club. Outside of school, Catherine is an active member of Chesterfield 4H and spends her Jenny Glazier afternoons doing modern dance. She looks forward to this year’s GSMUN! Under-Secretary General for Will Hoffler is a senior at Maggie Walker and is chairing for a second time. External Communications He is also the Secretary of the Spanish Club, member of the ASL club, Dodgeball club, and an SCA Representative on the student board. In his free time, he enjoys Liam Goble-Garratt playing Spanish flamenco guitar and volunteering at the Children’s Museum. Will Charge d'Affaires also has played on the varsity baseball team for 4 years now. He is excited to work with the young delegates and facilitate a professional debate this year. Annie Wang At GSMUN, all position papers are expected to follow the Maggie Walker Director of Charitable Giving honor code; any and all plagiarism will not be tolerated. Finally, a large part of GSMUN is our commitment to making a difference through charity. There will be Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for merchandise, baked goods, and many other things on sale during the conference, Logistics with all of the proceeds going to charity - so don’t forget to bring money! If you have any questions or concerns, or would like feedback on your position papers, Evan Donnellan feel free to contact your chairs at We are looking Under-Secretary General for forward to meeting everyone in committee! See you at GSMUN XXI and good Crisis Simulations luck! GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies

Your chairs,

Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications

Catherine Brady

Will Hoffler

Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor



Committee Overview Committee Background Since the Second World War until 1969, Charles de Gaulle played a major role in French politics until the early 1970’s. His success in operating an exiled government under Nazi control and continuing to inspire the French people to fight back led to his rise in power and popularity. In 1958, the people’s support of de Gaulle allowed him to found the Fifth Republic, a new system of government in which de Gaulle served as the first president. Quickly, his beliefs and values, specifically his experience stemming from his fighting alongside the Free France Forces in the Middle East and North Africa during World War II, permeated the French government and society resulting in significant events such as the end of the Algerian War and independence of several former French colonies. In order to properly execute this revised policy making body, de Gaulle required a Prime Minister as the head of government and a legislative branch consisting of a lower and upper house, senate, national assembly, and a parliament. With this new government in place, France spent the next decade improving its economy and rebuilding its culture. Charles de Gaulle’s committee is in charge of debating and voting on new ways France can achieve its goals. Also, any domestic conflict falls under its purview, including the student and factory protests of 1968. In these circumstances, the committee must create quick and effective legislation that can resolve the two issues.

I. French Students’ Protests of May 1968 Background As France entered the 1960’s, the economy was stable and the general view of the government was positive. However, young adults, specifically university students, had been frustrated with the lack of job opportunities for graduates and the universities’ poor facilities. Though never large enough to influence the policies of the government, college students remained adamant about their cause and pursued other ways to bring attention to these issues. That moment arrived in early May of 1968 as students gathered at the Sorbonne to protest the outdated university curriculum. The gathering of students was met with police intervention as several students were injured and hundreds more were arrested. As a result, the university canceled all courses to focus on relieving tension in the area. On May 6, 1968, another demonstration broke out in response to the police’s maltreatment of students. Over 20,000 students gathered at Sorbonne along with the Union Nationale des Étudiants de France (UNEF) to condemn the government’s actions towards them (O’Kane). Police forces aggressively counter-acted with batons and tear gas in order to disperse and subdue the large crowd. Chaos ensued as hundreds of protesters ran and formed barricades using large items; some even retaliated with throwing stones. Ultimately the riots subsided as the police gained control over the area and called for negotiations with student leaders. Arrangements had been made for students and faculty to return to campus 63

safely, courses to reopen, and charges against students to be dropped. Tensions temporarily decreased as the streets were cleared and barricades dismantled. Following negotiations, the students at Sorbonne returned only to be confronted by police again. Frustrated with the government’s lack of compliance, the students broke into riots. On May 10th, barricades formed along the River of Gauche. The police attacked that afternoon with batons and tear gas injuring and arresting hundreds. As violence broke out in the streets of France, several media sources recorded and broadcasted the brutality (Schwartz). The news of rioting students reached the televisions and radios of people across the world and quickly did many sympathize with protesters. Some countries went as far to publicly oppose France’s poor tactics to handle the demonstration. The support for the protesters tremendously grew as the domestic issue became an international event. With this momentum, the movement reached its peak in advocates as over a million people marched through Paris on May 13th. Demanding their original requests, demonstrators capitalized on the opportunity to challenge the Prime Minister (PM) on television. In response, PM George Pompidou released all of the arrested students and reopened Sorbonne the following day. Current Status Even though Sorbonne has been reopened to the public, groups continue to host smaller protests against the government. Several student-led organizations have declared an “autonomous university” (Poggioli). This entails that the university operates and functions independent of the outside influences like the government. Although this is not recognized by any

legitimate form of bureaucracy, it indicates that the students no longer willing to cooperate. With tension increasing everyday, the discontent with the government has spread to larger places such as the factories. Both demographics have raised awareness regarding their disapproval of current conditions in France. Charles de Gaulle’s campaign of ten years is being threatened as the atmosphere has now become more revolutionary than ever. The government has worked with both sides negotiating to return to previous situations, but they are ineffective. Currently over 400 groups have established themselves in Paris for the purpose of challenging the current policies of the French government, some of them founded and operated by students at Sorbonne. Certain student organized groups have even been able to appear on television interviews to discuss their grievances. Now the issues have become more prevalent than ever as countries across the world pitch in their opinions of the movements. Analysis Within two weeks, the student protesters had successfully gained the attention of the world. Now with an international audience, they began to advocate for change. As a result, Charles de Gaulle created an election for the seats in Parliament and for president to allow the people the opportunity to change anyone who they did not favor. However, little changed as de Gaulle maintained his role and many of the seats remained loyal to him. Student run and left-wing organizations persisted in their push for change securing smaller wins like improved facilities at universities and revised curriculum of secondary schools (Max). Songs, literature and media from all over the 64

world were produced advocating for the protesters and their goals. Though, the power of publicity the left-wing parties obtained led to several extremist articles and speeches coming to light. Associated more closely with the industrial unions, many groups vouched for an anti-capitalistic society. Anarchists and socialists rose to prominent positions in several of these groups. The effects of their statements resonated with very few as foreign supporters quickly opposed these radical messages. This ultimately crippled the students’ campaign in fighting for better conditions and job opportunity. Their goals were quickly overlooked as socialistic groups, grouping themselves with the student protesters, began critiquing the principles of the capitalistic economy (many supporters of the students lived and supported capitalism). Questions to Consider 1. Was the brutality of the police necessary to control the situation? Could there have been better steps taken to handle the protests? 2. As the protesters gained more attention from the world, did this harm and boost their campaign for change? Why? 3. The student protests seemingly set off a reaction as the industrial unions began to challenge the government soon after. If the university events had not happened, would the factories still have protested? 4. To what extent did the students and university faculty get what they wanted? 5. Did the association of radical groups such as socialists and anarchists with the student protests harm the students’ cause? If so, why?

II.French Workers’ Protests in May 1968 Background After World War II, the economy and social structure of France changes drastically. Although De Gaulle’s presidency was seen as a continuation of old ideas and rigid class systems, unpredicted changes in economics led to greater changes in French society. The French economy up to World War II was highly agricultural, but following the end of the war, two-thirds of French farmers left the rural countryside and headed to work in the urban centers. After losing much of its colonial control in the Algerian War, the French economy shifted towards making modern, finished goods for a European market with signing the Rome Treaty of 1957 and joining the European Economic Community. The treaty proposed a common European market with shared customs policies. New and growing industries, such as airplanes and automobiles, and increased trade within Europe led to greater demand for workers and necessitated longer working hours. However, wages and working conditions failed to keep up with the modernization of industry, and labor unions, such as the Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail, began to radicalize. Union members felt that along bearing the burden of poor working conditions, unfair wages, and unstable job security due to unjustified firings, they were being kept in poverty by the policies of the De Gaulle government and by the broken university system. Poor working conditions included strict hierarchy in the factory and excessive overproduction of materials, but also spread outside of the workplace, as overcrowding in urban centers lead to a housing shortage that 65

left many workers, particularly young workers, to live in hostels. This mirrors the overcrowding in universities, as university attendance rose 224% between 1958 and 1968. Current Status The protests in May of 1968 began with rioting students, but by May 13th, workers had also joined the movement, coinciding with the re-opening of Sorbonne.The police brutality against protesting students had turned many against the government. The communist labor union encouraged workers to occupy warehouses and go on strike. Analysis Workers began striking on May 14th and continued until May 30th. The labor strikes began in Paris, but spread across the whole country, involving millions of workers and paralyzing the French economy. The strike resulted in an estimated 15,000,000 lost working days. Historians believe that the actions of students and workers in France inspired events in Italy and Czechoslovakia, where students and workers both rose up against the government, and served, along with riots in West Berlin during the same time period, as future models of anti-authoritarian movements. The importance of workers’ participation in such protests can be seen in East Germany, where similar movements failed due to lack of participation by the working class and failure of the students to involve the working class. The workers’ unions played a central role in the protests as well. While the more radical, communist union, the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT), originally supported the workers’ strikes and sit-in, other unions, such as the socialist union, the

Confédération Française Démocratique de Travail (CFDT), supported a less radical approach. In both unions, however, the leaders looked more favorably on an internal approach to solving the workers’ problems. They hoped to negotiate with the factory owners rather than with the government. Workers themselves seemed to support the students’ more radical goal of governmental change, but eventually the union leaders wrested control of the protest. The unions also provided greater discord among the workers due to their apprehension to trust foreign workers, who had served as strikebreakers in past strikes. On May 30th, Charles De Gaulle declared new legislative elections in an attempt to appease the protesters. This led to elections in June 1968, which the Gaullist party won. The Gaullist party eventually passed policies to reform the university system and raise wages for workers. However, all of the workers’ burden, particularly that of younger workers, was not alleviated. The new policies did not address job loss, and unemployment jumped from 2.5% in 1970 to 7.3% in 1983. Policies with more foresight into the future of the European economy, which moved towards a more open market during the 1970s, and the need for more educated workers to fill jobs in emerging industries may have been more effective than the Gaullist attempts to appease the protesters. Workers also failed to achieve one of their most important protest goals, joint management of the factories. Questions to Consider 1. How were the struggles of the protesting students and workers intertwined? 66

2. How was the cycle of poverty perpetrated by the working conditions and social status of industrial workers? 3. How did the policies of the Gaullist government spur the protests? 4. What were the different factors that led to the workers’ protest? 5. Why was there discord between the different groups protesting? 6. What were the consequences of disagreement in the goals of the protest?

Bibliography Encyclopædia Britannica. “Treaty of Rome.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed August 17, 2017. reaty-of-Rome. Max, Ben. What, If Anything, Did the Protests of 1968 Achieve? Accessed August 17, 2017. What_if_anything_did_the_protests_ of_1968_achieve. “1968 Protests Mount in France.” Accessed August 17, 2017.

Further Research • ntent/french-students-and-workerscampaign-reform-may-revolt-1968 (This site provides a basic timeline of the events of the protest as well as listing key figures) • library/mrc/studying/docs/france (This site provides documents from 1968 and the surrounding years that document the event) • iewcontent.cgi?article=3381&context =honors_theses (This paper provides deeper insight into political tensions surrounding the protests) • (This lecture provides a very in-depth discussion of the events of the protest, workers are specifically the focus of “Chapter 4”) • baWDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP8&ots=M1pW apHedU&dq=may%201968%20franc e&lr&pg=PP8#v=onepage&q&f=fals e. (This source discusses the more global political causes and effects of the protest)

O’Kane, Katharine. “La Génération Perdue: Youth Unemployment in France and the Policies behind It.” University of Rhode Island Senior Honors Project, 1-28. Pickles, Dorothy. “Charles de Gaulle.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed August 17, 2017. hy/Charles-de-Gaulle-president-ofFrance. Poggioli, Sylvia. “Marking the French Social Revolution of ‘68.” NPR. Last modified May 13, 2008. Accessed August 17, 2017. /story.php?storyId=90330162. Reader, Keith, and Kursheed Wadia. The May 1968 Events in France: Reproductions and Interpretations. Springer, 2016. Accessed August 17, 2017. baWDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP8&ots=M1pW apHedU&dq=may%201968%20franc 67

e&lr&pg=PP8#v=onepage&q&f=fals e.

Swarthmore College. “French Students and Workers Campaign for Reform (May Revolt), 1968.” Global Nonviolent Action Database. ntent/french-students-and-workerscampaign-reform-may-revolt-1968.

Schwartz, Peter. “1968: The General Strike and the Student Revolt in France.” World Socialist Web Site. Last modified May 28, 2008. Accessed August 15, 2017. may1-m28.html.


Diet of Japan Julia Oschenhirt Chair Siddharth Venigalla Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s Diet of Japan Committee! Your chairs, Siddharth Venigalla and Julia Ochsenhirt, are so excited to meet you all. As members of this committee, you will convene to discuss prevalent issues that must be faced by the Diet. Delegates will discuss territorial tensions in the East China Sea and the issue of the aging population of Japan. You will need to come up with innovative solutions to such issues while always debating and cooperating with your fellow committee members. Siddharth Venigalla, a sophomore at Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School, looks forward to co-chairing the Diet of Japan Committee. This is his second year in the Model U.N Club, and his first time chairing for a GSMUN committee. In addition to GSMUN, Siddharth is involved in a multitude of clubs and activities, including Walker Model Congress, Quiz Bowl, Future Medical Professionals and volunteering at the Children’s Museum of Richmond. In his free time, Siddharth enjoys reading sports analytics and political news and binge-watching Netflix. He is excited for this year's GSMUN XXI, and knows that the committee and its members will make this year an enjoyable and enriching experience! Julia Ochsenhirt, also a sophomore, is very excited to be a co-chair for Diet of Japan! This is her second year as a member of Maggie Walker’s Model UN club and second time chairing, though first time for Maggie Walker. As well as Model UN, Julia plays field hockey for the school team, sings with Deadbeats, and is involved with Music Orchard. In her free time, she enjoys playing piano, watching The Bachelor, and spending time with her family, friends, and two dogs, Butterscotch and Layla. She’s looking forward to meeting all of the talented delegates who she knows will make Diet of Japan amazing! As delegates of this committee, you are expected to come prepared to debate at a high level about the issues facing the Diet of Japan with thorough knowledge of both topics designated in the background guide. You should be informed about the structure and function of the Diet of Japan and also of current events that may affect debate. While the background guide will be a useful tool, it is only a guide and outside research is expected. Delegates are also expected to write a comprehensive position paper, formatted in Chicago Manual Style (CMS). At GSMUN, all position papers are expected to follow the Maggie Walker honor code; plagiarism will not be tolerated in any means. Finally, an essential aspect of GSMUN is our commitment to making a difference through charity. There will be high-quality merchandise, baked goods, and many other things on-sale that you won’t want to miss out on, so don’t forget to bring money! If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact your chairs at We are looking forward to meeting you in committee! See you at GSMUN XXI and good luck! Your chairs,

Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Julia Oschenhirt

Siddharth Venigalla



Committee Overview Committee Background The Imperial Diet, also called the Japanese Kokkai (“National Assembly”), or Teikoku Gikai (“Imperial Assembly”), is the Japanese national legislature. The Meiji Constitution of 1889 established the Diet, originally creating two houses with equal powers: the 400-member upper house, or the House of Peers, which was almost entirely appointive and served largely to confirm the decisions of the lower house, and the House of Representatives, which was composed of 300 elected members. In the beginning, the Diet could only confirm or deny laws drafted by the executive, not create their own. The 1947 Japanese Constitution dramatically changed the Diet in powers and structure. The House of Peers was renamed the House of Councillors, and now consists of 100 members elected by the nation as a whole, and 150 elected as representatives from each prefecture. The most important change brought about by the 1947 Constitution, though, was the shift of lawmaking responsibilities. Formerly, the Emperor exercised legislative power, and simply needed consent from the Diet to pass his laws, but Article 41 now describes the Imperial Diet as "the highest organ of State power" and "the sole law-making organ of the State", meaning that the Emperor no longer has true legislative power, and Japan is more democratic. There are 3 major political parties that are currently represented in the Diet of Japan. The Liberal Democratic Party (LDR) has been in power almost continually since its formation in 1955, and holds over 291 of 467

seats in the House of Representatives and 121 in the House of Councillors. The LDR is right-wing, supporting national and social conservatism, and Japanese nationalism. The Democratic Party (DP) is centrist to centreleft, and was founded in 1996 to challenge the LDR. 49 councillors represent it in the upper house and 97 representatives in the lower house. Finally, New Komeito is a centerright, Buddhist-based political party founded in 1998. It holds 35 seats in the House of Councillors and 25 in the House of Representatives. I. Japan’s Aging Population Background Japan is an island nation with a population of 127 million. Ethnically Japanese people constitute an overwhelming majority of its demographic, with current estimates being 98.4 percent. Its largest minority groups are Chinese and Koreans, representing 0.5 and 0.42 percent of the population, respectively. Though the Japanese are known for their hospitality towards foreigners, they oftentimes only consider them “guests” in their country rather than true citizens, which leads to different forms of discrimination, especially in the workforce. Furthermore, Japan does not have a birthright citizenship law, meaning that children born in Japan from foreign parents are not granted automatic citizenship - rather, they must undergo a process similar to naturalization in the United States. The sheer number of ethnic Japanese people, coupled with laws and widespread beliefs that discourage immigration, have contributed to 73

the country being rather isolated for much of its history. In terms of population trends, Japan’s population has grown slowly but steadily over time, save for a period of rapid growth between the late 1800s and 1940s due to the industrial era, commercialized agriculture, and urbanization; the population increased from 42 million in 1897 to 83 million in 1950. Growth continued through the latter half of the 20th century but slowed dramatically, stagnating by the beginning of the 21st century, eventually becoming population decline. Since World War II, the nation has faced a decline in both birth and death rates, which are much of the reason for its decrease in population growth. The average life expectancy in Japan is the highest in the world at nearly 84 years, due to improving technology and medical systems, including its universal healthcare system, while women bear on average only 1.4 children due to social stigma against having children outside of marriage, an old-fashioned corporate culture that discourages women to both work and raise children, and poor childcare. Japan has not always suffered from low birth rates. The country had quite a high Total Fertility Rate (TFR) before the 1950s, and experienced a baby boom between 1947 and 1949. However, this boom was cut short by the Eugenic Protection Law of 1948, which legalized induced abortions. Between 1949 and 1980, the TFR fell from 4.5 to just 1.79 births per woman (for perspective, the guideline for developed countries is 2.1 children in each family to keep population fixed). Due to the combination of falling fertility and death rates, Japan’s population is aging - there is an increasing elderly

population, and there is a shrinking pool of young people to supplement them. The aging population presents a number of issues, as having a large percentage of the population over working-age can be a financial burden, and will cause slow economic productivity, among other concerns. The Japanese government has established a number of programs that may help cope with the large number of retirees while boosting the economy, including creating a long-term care insurance system, experimenting with robotics, and enacting the Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe’s “Abenomics” program. Japan’s long-term care insurance system is one key way that the country has adapted to its growing number of elderly citizens. Before the 21st century, households were expected to take in any older people in their family who could not care for themselves. However, much of the public began to see this as a burden, and as the retiree pool grew, the government made reforms. Now, Japan boasts a public, universal care system funded “half by general tax revenues and half by a combination of payroll taxes and additional insurance premiums paid by everyone 40+”. Families are still caregivers the majority of the time, but subsidized services with reasonably priced fees now support them. A few of the most popular services include respite care, adult day care, and visiting nurses. The system has provided inspiration for elderly care systems in other countries, including the United States. While they help cope with the large ageing population, Japan has also worked to stop possible stress on the economy. Various corporations have proposed filling labor shortages with robots (one company, Spread, even has a concrete plan to have robots fill 74

nearly all of the tasks needed to grow lettuce on one of their farms). Robots could also help to support elderly people and fill other roles that may be necessary as the population ages. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also implemented his “Abenomics” program, which aims to revive the economy in three ways. The first is intentional inflation, in which the Central Bank releases more money into the market to encourage spending rather than saving. The program also includes a revised fiscal policy and new plans to spur growth, including lowering corporate taxes, encouraging the labor participation of women, welcoming foreigners in society, and pushing for tourism and increased exports. Though the program does seem to be improving the economy, many Japanese citizens have questioned whether it is working well enough to match formidable predictions of the future. In the words of an editorial from the Japan Times, “should we patiently keep waiting for the Abe administration’s policies to shoot the economy forward, or should we question whether the right policies are being pursued?” Current Status Because of the aging population, grim predictions for the future population and demographics of Japan are shaking the nation. The populace began to shrink in 2011, and estimates say that the number of Japanese citizens will fall from the current 127 million to 97 million by 2050, and below 50 million by 2100. Such a decline would harm the economy of Japan, its reputation as a world leader, and the quality of life for all its inhabitants. Furthermore, should current trends continue, people over 65 will account for close to 40% of the population by 2050 and the workforce will fall to just 42% of the

total expected population by 2050, from 60.8% in 2017. The possibility of having a nearly equal number of working-aged people and retirees in an already shrinking population calls for serious concern for a number of reasons. First, with a smaller pool of working age citizens, businesses may struggle to fill important roles, and therefore encounter problems like low productivity, delayed business expansion, and high labor costs. Japan would also face an increased cost for elder care and a high “dependability ratio”, or the ratio of elderly people needing care to young people who are able to provide it. Furthermore, with a small working-age population, funding for government programs may be scarce due to the lower amount of people able to contribute through taxes. On top of the aforementioned problems, a host of other probable issues include an increase in unemployment rate, lack of growth, and decreased productivity in key industries like electronics, which may all contribute to Japan losing its place as a leader in industry and the 3rd largest economy in the world. Analysis As previously stated, the Japanese government has already made great strides in coping with the aging population. However, they have yet to successfully implement a solution that could permanently rebalance the population, or stop the grim predictions for the future. One factor that causes population to both decline and age is a low birthrate, and the most obvious solution to that is raising it. This proves to be a quite difficult task, though, as it requires changing the mindset of couples across the country. This is quite a popular idea, and clearly favored by the 75

Japanese government: the Prime Minister issued a statement in 2015 promising to “create a society in which all people have their hopes for marriage and childbirth fulfilled and raise the birthrate to 1.8 children per woman from the current rate�, and the Diet has sponsored dating sites in hopes of raising marriages and encouraging couples to have children. Even so, the birth rate has continued to fall in recent years. Another popular suggestion to help with population decline and a shrinking working age population is increased immigration. New immigrants could fill gaps left in the workforce in order to revitalize the economy. The main issue with increasing immigration in Japan lies again with the beliefs of its citizens: Japan has always been an incredibly isolated country and currently, a slight majority of the population is against accepting foreigners. The government has already implemented reforms on immigration policy, and the Diet could focus on simply building on that portion of the Abenomics program, or experimenting with something entirely new regarding immigration. Other possible solutions proposed by experts include the revitalization of rural communities, helping to integrate elderly people into society (in hopes of raising the age in which people retire and having them contribute to their communities for longer), and continuing work with robotics. As always, innovative ideas and originality are always encouraged, as is building on the previous actions of the Japanese government. What is most important is simply that the Diet be resolute and unified in dealing with an issue that could jeopardize the future of Japan. Questions to Consider

1. Does the aging population require an immediate solution? Should we trust predictions and involve the government in something as intimate as fertility rate? 2. Should Japan simply continue to cope with the aging population or try to resolve the issue with more drastic solutions? 3. Is it more important to focus on economic issues the country may face or on the societal needs of citizens in Japan? 4. What are your opinions on each solution covered in this guide? What are some other unique solutions the Diet of Japan should consider? II. Territorial Disputes in the East China Sea Background The East China Sea is a marginal sea east of China and is also part of Pacific Ocean. It is estimated 200 million barrels of oil reserves are present in the East China Sea. Due to its immense natural resources, the East China Sea has become a heated area of contestation between China and Japan. In addition, a total of 81,000 square miles of area of disputed maritime boundary exists in the East China Sea between Japan and China. The Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are the heavily contested islands that this committee will be focusing in on. Formally claimed by Japan in 1895, the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were privately owned by a series of Japanese citizens for most of the past 120 years. Japan has controlled them since 1895, excluding the brief period of U.S control during WWII. Nonetheless, China began to declare claims in 76

the 1970s over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, citing historic rights to the area. Tensions resurfaced again regarding the islands in September 2012 when Japan bought three of the disputed and dually economically significant islands from the private owner. The economically significant islands are northeast of Taiwan and have potential oil and natural gas reserves, are near prominent shipping routes, and are surrounded by rich fishing areas. Discussions between China and Japan to build a crisis management mechanism tool began in 2012. The aforementioned talks stalled when China declared the establishment of an air defense identification zone over the islands, “airspace over land in which the identification, location, and control of civil aircraft is performed in the interest of national security”, however this has not been stringently enforced. In April 2014, President Obama stated that the disputed islands were covered under the U.SJapan Security Treaty. However, the United States did not take a position on their ultimate sovereignty. China and Japan then signed a four consensus point document laying out their differences concerning the disputed

islands in 2014. Later, bilateral discussions continued in early 2015, aiming to implement the aerial and maritime communication mechanism. Each country claims economic rights in an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) two hundred nautical miles off its coast according to international law, but that space overlaps for China and Japan because the sea separating them only spans 360 nautical miles. As soon as China discovered natural gas near the overlapping EEZ-claimed area, Japan immediately objected to any drilling in the area due to the fact that the gas fields could extend into the disputed zone. Current Status China has made numerous incursions into Japanese claimed territory, leading to negative drawbacks for the Japanese. China has built large naval warships to guard vessels near the disputed islands, presenting serious concerns for Japan. Besides Chinese incursions into Japan’s claims, several other prevalent issues exist in the East China Sea, such as the Shirakaba/Chunxiao gas field. The Shirakaba/Chunxiao gas field, and therefore the islands have potential oil, natural gas and methane hydrate deposits. In 2008, both sides agreed to jointly develop the resources but Japan has accused China of unilateral drilling. As stated by CNN, “According to a 2016 report by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, China has at least 12 operational drilling rigs.” The major issue however, is when Chinese aircraft have entered Japanese airspace and have caused the Japanese military to scramble fighter jets in response. In 2015, Chinese aircraft approached Japan’s airspace more than 570 times, causing Japan’s military to scramble fighter jets in response. Likewise, the 77

Japanese Air Self-Defense Force fighters scrambled a record 199 times between April and June of 2016 in response to Chinese maneuvers. Incursions by Chinese surface ships into waters of Japan are increasing, along with airborne incursions by Chinese fighter jets, which, according to CNBC, can lead to an “accident or misunderstanding between the two militaries — a situation that could rapidly escalate, given the already heightened military tensions in the region”. The Japanese government has been displeased over China’s intrusion into Japanese airspace and territory it claims in the East China Sea, an example being in May when “four Chinese coast guard ships and a drone aircraft entered territory it claims around disputed islands in the East China Sea, according to Defense Ministry officials.” as stated by CNN. As reported by CNN, Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada said “use of the drone aggravated tensions inflamed by what Japan says are a record number of scrambles by its Self-Defense Force aircraft in response to Chinese incursions in the last fiscal year”. Based on China’s intrusions into Japanese claims in the East China Sea, Inada representative of the Japanese government stated that "China is escalating the situation unilaterally, and this is totally unacceptable,". Analysis The East China Sea remains today as a heavily contested area between China and Japan. The numerous incursions made by the Chinese military pose serious threats to the Japanese military and government. Whether by sea or air, a Chinese incursion into Japanese territory comes with the the risk of an accident between the two militaries, which could intensify quickly, given the already

heated tensions in the East China Sea. In order to solve this problem, it may be possible to set stricter consequences for incursions of Chinese aircraft and ships into Japanese territory. However, these consequences would have to be stringent enough to dissuade the Chinese from making further incursions, but also not too strict as to provoke military action from either side which could intensify rapidly as stated before. Another prevalent issue for the Diet to address in the East China Sea is the unilateral drilling in the Shirakaba/Chunxiao gas field. The contested islands are part of the gas field and have potential oil, natural gas and methane hydrate deposits. Despite that, in 2008, both sides agreed to jointly develop the resources, CNN referenced a report that claimed China still had at least 12 operational drilling rigs in 2016. The Diet could possibly investigate these Chinese drilling rigs and demand the Chinese government to cease operations once evidence is provided by the Japanese government to the Chinese and international community. While the aforementioned issues are compelling, the issue of the East China Sea as a whole is the heated tensions and the heavy military presence of both China and Japan. The idea of steady demilitarization in the East China Sea, in attempt to cool the heated tensions present is plausible. Steady demilitarization could prevent the risk of an accident between the two militaries escalating rapidly into violence. Instead of each military trying to intimidate the other in order to achieve its goal, steady demilitarization could allow for negotiation between both sides and compromise over the disputed islands. Although, this idea may sound better than in reality based on the fact that China has and 78

continues to invest in its military, with its country’s debt budgets reaching record highs according to CBS: to prove its might as a superpower and may not back down in the East China Sea. To delve further into the idea of demilitarization, one last idea the Diet could contemplate is diplomacy. In specification, an Sino-Japanese Committee of diplomats from their respective departments of Foreign Affairs could be established to lay out framework to allow China and Japan to develop extract the contested islands’ resources jointly. The resource extraction and development could be supervised by a multiparty task force of Chinese and Japanese officials to prevent bias and corruption. While the situation is difficult in the East China Sea, the Diet of Japan must take action. The Diet of Japan is the legislature of Japan and the highest organ of state power and must protect the wellbeing of Japan. Conclusively, it is vital the Diet of Japan prevents further incursions by the Chinese into Japanese airspace and overall China’s exploitation of claimed Japanese territories. Questions to Consider: 1. How will you prevent further incursions on Japanese territory by Chinese aircraft and ships? 2. What measures can be taken to stop Chinese unilateral drilling in the Shirakaba/Chunxiao gas field? 3. To what extent should Japan build up its military presence in the East China Sea, and is demilitarization a realistic option to calm the tensions? 4. At this point is diplomacy considerable for the Diet given the heavy military presence of both sides?

5. If it comes to a certain point, is Japan willing to take military action against the Chinese for their behavior in the East China Sea? Bibliography “Abenomics 3 Arrows Explained.” Tofugu. Last modified September 19, 2014. Accessed August 18, 2017. abenomics-3-arrows/ Butkiewicz, Lynann. “Implications of Japan’s Changing Demographics.” The National Bureau of Asian Research. Last modified October 10, 2012. Accessed August 18, 2017. /research/activity.aspx?id=304 Canon, Maria E., Marianna Kudlyak, and Marisa Reed. “Aging and the Economy: The Japanese Experience.” The Regional Economist. Last modified October 2015. Accessed August 18, 2017. ns/regional-economist/october2015/aging-and-the-economy-thejapanese-experience “China’s Newest Weapons of War.” CBS. Accessed August 16, 2017. chinas-newest-weapons-of-war/. Jack, Dallin. “The Issue of Japan's Aging Population.” Chicago Unbound. Last modified 2016. Accessed August 18, 2017.http://chicagounbound.uchicag 34&context=international_immersion _program_papers Dillow, Clay. “Military Nightmare Scenario Brewing in East China Sea.” CNBC. Last modified April 4, 2017. Accessed August 79

16, 2017. Farrell, Chris. “What Japan Can Teach Us About Long-Term Care Financing.” Next Avenue. Last modified August 21, 2015.Accessed August 18, 2017. what-japan-can-teach-us-about-longterm-care/

Accessed August 18, 2017. globe-investor/retirement/retireplanning/how-japan-is-coping-with-arapidly-agingpopulation/article27259703/ McCurry, Justin. “Japanese Firm to Open World’s First Robot-Run Farm.” Last modified February 2, 2016. Accessed August 18, 2017. nment/2016/feb/01/japanese-firmto-open-worlds-first-robot-run-farm

Fukukawa, Shinji. “Countermeasures for Japan’s Changing Demographics.” The Japan Times. Last modified March 4, 2015. Accessed August 18, 2017. n/2015/03/04/commentary/japancommentary/countermeasures-japanschangingdemographics/#.WZb_zZOGNhC

Panda, Ankit. “Japan's Demographic Crisis: Any Way Out?” The Diplomat. Last modified March 26, 2014. Accessed August 18, 2017. ans-demographiccrisis-any-way-out/

“How Uninhabited Islands Soured China-Japan Ties.” BBC. Last modified November 10, 2014. Accessed August 16, 2017.

Parameserawan, Prashanth. “Where Are China and Japan on Maritime Talks?” The Diplomat. Last modified December 8, 2016. Accessed August 16, 2017. where-are-chinaand-japan-on-maritime-talks/.

Hunt, Katie. “East China Sea: How an Uninhabited Island Chain Splits Japan and China.” CNN. “Press Conference by Prime Minister Shinzo Last modified February 7, 2017. Accessed Abe.” Prime Minister of Japan and August 16, 2017. His Cabinet. Last modified October 7, 2015. Accessed east-china-sea-senkaku-diaoyu-islands August 18, 2017. explainer/index.html. statement/201510/1213721_9930.html

Lafond, Eugene C. “East China Sea.” Encyclopædia Rudd, Kevin, and Joseph Nye. “How to Navigate the Britannica. Last modified May 1, 2017. East China Sea Dispute between Japan and Accessed August 16, 2017. China.” The Washington Post. Last modified 18, 2014. Accessed August 16, 2017. China-Sea. how-to-navigate-the-east-china-sea-disputeMalow, Iain. “Bold Steps: Japan’s Remedy for between-japan-anda Rapidly Aging Society.” The Globe china/2014/04/18/953731a8-c67b-11e3and Mail. Last modified May 3, 2017. 9f3780

7ce307c56815_story.html?utm_term=.eaef5b Wakatsuki, Yoko, and Junko Ogura. “Japan: China 250137. ‘Escalating’ Tensions over Disputed Islands.” CNN. Last modified May 19, 2017. Accessed Smith, Noah. “Immigration Is a Tough One August 16, 2017. for Japan to Swallow.” Bloomberg View. Last modified japan-china-disputed-islands-jetsDecember 7, 2015. Accessed August drone/index.html. 18, 2017. Watanabe, Akira, Fred G. Notehelfer, G. articles/2015-12-07/immigration-is-aCameron Hurst, Gil Latz, Kitajima tough-one-for-japan-to-swallow Masamoto, Marius B. Jansen, Takeshi Toyoda, Taro Smith, Sheila A. “A Sino-Japanese Clash in the East Sakamoto, and Yasuo Masai. “Japan: China Sea.” Council on Foreign Relations. Government and Last modified April 22, 2013. Accessed Society.” Encyclopædia Britannica. August 16, 2017. Last modified March 21, 2016. August 18, 2017. japanese-clash-east-china-sea. pan/Government-and“Tensions in the East China Sea.” Council on Foreign society#ref319253 Relations. Accessed August 16, 2017. Watanabe, Akira, Yasuo Masai, and Gil Latz. tracker/p32137#!/conflict/tensions-in-the“Japan: People.” Encyclopædia east-chinaBritannica. Last modified March 13, sea. 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017. pan/People#toc23249 “The Graying of Japan: Tough Choices on the Population Dilemma.” Knowledge@Wharton. Last modified May 21, 2014. Accessed August 18, 2017. /article/graying-japan-tough-choicespopulation-dilemma/



European Council Idoia Dizon Chair Reshad Awal Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s European Council! Your chairs, Reshad Awal and Idoia Dizon, are so excited to meet you all. As members of this committee, you will convene to discuss both internal and external problems experienced in the European Union. Delegates will confer on many hot button topics, including the recent Brexit as well as the Schengen Area. You will need to come up with viable solutions to such issues while always debating with your fellow committee members. Reshad Awal, a senior, is ecstatic to serve as co-chair for the the European Union. This is his fourth year in the Model UN club and also his first year chairing a GSMUN committee. Aside from Model UN, Reshad is also the vice-president of the German Club and Secretary of Young Democrats. In his free time, he enjoys discovering new music and hanging out with friends. However, Reshad would like nothing more than to stay in bed and sleep. Idioa Dizon, a senior, is delighted to serve as co-chair for the European Union. This is her fourth year in the Model UN club. Idoia participates in a multitude of other clubs and organizations as well including the Chinese National Honors Society and the Richmond Friends of the Community, which she is president of. If she had one free day to do absolutely anything, Idoia would be out with friends. She looks forward to some enthralling debate! As delegates of this committee, you are expected to come prepared to debate at a high level about the issues regarding the European Union, including the many current events with thorough knowledge of both topics designated in the background guide. While the background guide will be a useful tool, it is only a guide and outside research is expected. Delegates are also expected to write a comprehensive position paper, formatted in Chicago Manual Style (CMS). At GSMUN, all position papers are expected to follow the Maggie Walker honor code; plagiarism will not be tolerated in any means. Finally, an essential aspect of GSMUN is our commitment to making a difference through charity. There will be high-quality merchandise, baked goods, and many other things on-sale that you won’t want to miss out on, so don’t forget to bring money! We are looking forward to meeting you in committee! See you at GSMUN XXI and good luck! Your chairs,

Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications

Reshad Awal

Idoia Dizon

Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor



Committee Overview Committee Background The end of World War II left Europe divided, with democratic western nations fearful of the instability of Germany’s recovery and the danger of further encroaching communism in the eastern bloc. Germany, Belgium, France, Holland, Italy, and Luxembourg formed the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 to promote growth in key resources including coal, steel, and iron. In order to manage the ECSC, a group of supranational bodies that would later become the EU were created to legislate and resolve disputes. In 1957, the ECSC member nations signed the Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) to consolidate and share knowledge of atomic energy, and the European Economic Community. The EEC formed the economic basis of the EU, as it created a common market with no tariffs to hinder the flow of labor and goods. The EEC officially became the European Union under the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. Whilst all EU member countries are also members of the Economic and Monetary Union to coordinate common fiscal and monetary policies, only the 19 countries that have adopted the euro make up the euro area. Most recently, all member countries passed the Treaty of Lisbon to reform the Constitutional Treaty previously rejected by French and Dutch voters, and to provide for an executive figure of the Union called the High Representative. The EU has faced a growing debt crisis since 2009, when Greece defaulted on its debt. Since then, there has been the potential for sovereign debt defaults

from Portugal, Italy, Ireland, and Spain. Beginning in 2015, migration into the EU from across the Mediterranean and overland through southeast Europe increased drastically, spurring a refugee crisis that remains a contentious topic amongst member states and poses challenges to existing EU migratory policies. I. Brexit Background Following the end of World War II, tensions between European countries remained high. The extreme nationalism from the war left many countries strained for a solution to the weakened composure of the continent. European integration became seen as the most likely, as well as the most effective, solution to remedy the issues. On May 9th, 1950, French foreign minister Robert Schuman made a statement (known as the Schuman Declaration) which proposed placing French and German coal and steel production under one common authority. The organization was open for participation from other Western European countries as well. The design of the cooperation was to create common interests between European countries as to lead to gradual political integration. The declaration was met with positive reception, with the West German Chancellor as well as the governments of the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Luxembourg responding quickly. Less than a year later, the six countries signed the Treaty of Paris on April 18th, 1951. The treaty created the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), Europe’s first supranational community.


Integration only continued from this point, as multiple other organizations pooling resources were created soon after. By the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) were created and modeled after the ECSC. The EEC created a customs union and general economic cooperation between the six members. The ultimate goal of the community was the create a single common market. The EAEC was founded with the purpose of creating a market for nuclear power in Europe, as well as developing nuclear energy and distributing it to the members states and selling the surplus to nonmembers. During the 1960s, tension with the institutions showed prominently, as France was seeking to limit the supranational power, however in 1965 an agreement was reached. The Merger Treaty was signed in July of 1967 which created a single set of institutions for the communities. The three organizations became collectively known as the European Communities (EC) in 1967. A new wave of admissions occurred in 1973, where Denmark, Ireland, and the UK became added. Despite Norway being in talks for admission as well, the citizens rejected membership via referendum. Soon Greece, Portugal, and Spain all joined as well in the 1980s. The Schengen Agreement of 1985 paved the way for the creation of open borders without passport control between member states along with some non-member states, as it largely abolished internal border checks. The agreement was then supplemented by the Schengen Convention in 1990 which proposed the abolition of systematic internal border controls completely, along with a common visa policy.

The purpose of the Schengen Area is to operate like a single state, allowing for citizens to travel from country to country with few boundaries or inconveniences. Other new additions included the European flag being used by the EEC and the Single European Act being signed, which established a single, unified market. Problems soon began to arise with the introduction of euro, as the integration was not given proper oversight. Despite attempts to solve the issues were made, success was limited. Former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe were planned to be added, as well as Cyprus and Malta. The expansion only increased the complexity of the system. On November 1st, 1993, the EC was absorbed and incorporated into the European Union (EU) via the Maastricht Treaty. It now became the first pillar to a three-pillar plan. The ESCS dissolved in 2002 following the expiration of the original treaty, however elements of the community were included in the new EC. The second pillar is the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) which handles foreign policy and the military. The final pillar is the Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (PJCCM) which fights crime. The pillar system was created as multiple member states believed it necessary to expand the EC into foreign policy, military, criminal justice, and judicial cooperation, while also doing more than simply adding them to the existing European Communities. The Maastricht Treaty also led to the creation of the euro. In 2002, the euro currency replaced the national currency in 12 of the member states, and has since increased to include 19 countries within what is known as the eurozone. 88

The European Union only continued its expansion from this point, adding 10 more countries in 2004 and 2 more in 2007. The 2009 Lisbon Treaty called for reform of many aspects of the EU. The legal structure of the EU shifted the three-pillar system into a single entity. A position for president of the European Council was created, and the position of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy was strengthened. The Council of Ministers, which represents the governments of the member states, switched from unanimity to majority voting. Along with the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament was strengthened, with both working alongside each other. The changes made streamlined the system structure while also updating and reworking old aspects of the EU. Current Status As it stands, the European Union has 28 members states, with of the states using the Euro. Though many states have little contention with the manner in which the EU is run, the citizens of the UK have shown their disfavor for the system. In December of 2015, a public poll within the UK showed a majority of the citizens favoring staying within the UK, however many citizens only favored staying under the condition of David Cameron, the former British Prime Minister, being able to negotiate adequate safeguards for non-Euro member states and restrictions on new EU migrants’ access to in-work benefits. The outcome of renegotiations were announced in February 2016. Some limits to the in-work benefits were agreed upon, however they would have to get permission from both the European Commission and the European Council. Cameron later announced a referendum date for June 23rd, 2016, in

which the UK public would vote to leave or remain within the EU. The most relevant issue in which the public was divided on was the economic aspect. For membership to the EU, the UK is required to send money to Brussels, the headquarters of the EU, which gets redistributed as needed to other countries. The arguments in favor of leaving believe that the EU membership is not profitable as a whole for the UK, as they are receiving less than they put into it. Reports show that the UK payment to the EU in 2015 was 17.8 billion pounds, however the public gets a rebate due to a deal made by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, lowering the payment to 12.9 billion pounds. The money is returned to the UK via subsidies and grants. Farmers receive money via the Common Agricultural Policy, and scientists and economic developments receive EU money as well. In total, the Treasury reported that the public receives 4.4 billion in return while private organizations receive 1.4 billion. In total, about 6 billion is returned. While Brexit supporters may see this as reason enough to leave, others argue that the benefits of being able to freely sell to other European countries outweigh the reimbursement. The campaign in preparation for the June referendum largely included two camps: “Britain Stronger in Europe” and “Vote Leave”. Britain Stronger in Europe was a cross-party advocacy group which campaigned for the UK to remain within the EU. The group had major support from both the Conservative party, as even the former Prime Minister Cameron supported the cause, along with the support of the majority of Labour MPs (Members of Parliament). Vote Leave was also cross-party, however the 89

majority of their political support derived from the senior Conservative MPs, with only some of the Labour MPs. The “Leave” campaign had a few major concerns in terms of the EU, including: large membership fees, independence, and decreased immigration. As previously mentioned, the Vote Leave campaign had a heavy focus on the lack of pound reimbursement, only getting back a fraction of what is paid into the system. They also wanted the UK to make their own laws rather than shared decisions with other nations, as to cater more directly to the citizens personal needs rather than that of 20 countries. Lastly, they want a lower rate of immigration. This argument has multiple layers, however one of the most prominent reasons to lower immigration is for the implications on the National Health Service and the public services. While only 0.24% of UK citizens are immigrants, that equates to around 170,000 people, many of which are concentrated within the greater Manchester area. 39,000 immigrants came in 2016 seeking asylum, 21,000 of which were rejected. The Geneva Convention states that a refugee should be accepted into a country if, ”well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion,” is found. Under the UN, the UK has agreed to follow this. Despite the high number of rejections, France is much higher, at around 74% of refugees seeking asylum being rejected. Because of this, applicants see the UK as a more attractive option to potentially join, however many living in the UK do not want to see an influx of people, due to not only health issues, but also not wanting to see

immigrants taking jobs away from citizens of the UK. The “Remain” campaign unsurprisingly feels contrarily on all the aforementioned topics. Despite the immediate monetary reimbursements not matching up to what is put into the system, it is believed that the profit from the ability to freely trade offsets and allows the citizens to prosper. They believed that being part of a large union provides greater security, in terms of economically and militarily. “Remain” proponents also believed in the importance of immigrants, as they allow the economy to be fueled and they pay for public services. Many also note that a large portion of immigrants coming are of the younger age, meaning they would be likely to pay a greater share of taxes, taking the burden off the current citizens while they also profit off of the things able to be created. After heavy campaigning from both groups, as well as other groups which advocated more or less for the same issues, the referendum took place. With 52% of the citizens voting “Leave”, the public’s mind was officially made. Prime Minister David Cameron shortly resigned following this decision, and Theresa May replaced him following a leadership contest. Conservatives now plan to bring in a Repeal Bill, which will turn all the EU legislation into UK law in one document where the government will be able to edit or remove clauses at will. Analysis Article 50 has been invoked as of March 29th, 2017. Officially, this sets forth a two-year plan for the United Kingdom to officially remove themselves from the European Union. Though this time period may be extended, the two years is given as to 90

negotiate the withdrawal and to make agreements as to lower any possible hostility. As Theresa May triggered the process on March 29th, 2017, the UK is scheduled to leave on March 29th, 2019. Negotiation talks have been underway since June 19th, 2017, as the EU and UK have scheduled meetings for a week each month. Currently they are reaching agreements on the rights of UK and EU citizens after Brexit, as well as a figure for the amount the UK will need to pay for leaving. The status of the Northern Ireland border is also in talks. Since the results of Brexit were announced, the value of the pound has remained about 10% lower than what it was prior to the referendum, while inflation figures have continued rising, now at 2.6%. Of the most important areas of the negotiation talks, Theresa May is careful to avoid cliff edges, where current regulations on things such as cross-border trade and travel between the UK and EU are completely cut off overnight. This is possible if the UK simply cuts ties without proper negotiation, however doing so would be detrimental to the economy. Another issue May faces is the loss of a Conservative majority in Parliament following the June elections. After calling a snap election three years early, May believed she would win a mandate to help her through the negotiations, however she was instead met with a loss of 13 seats (down 318 from the previous 331), which is now 8 seats short of a majority. Contrarily, the opposition Labour Party gained 30 seats from 2015, elevating Jeremy Corbyn’s, the leader of the party, standings while also calling into question the authority of May. The conservative edge has been lost, making the already strenuous negotiations even more difficult with not only

the UK and the EU having to come to terms with each other, but also the internal UK government in opposition with itself. Since the Brexit vote occurred, continuous opinion polls have been conducted on the British public, which have only continued to muddle the results. The question of whether the UK was right to leave the EU has been a constant fluctuation between yes and no, with each week the favor shifting to one side or the other. A sizeable portion, about 10%, of the population remains undecided on the matter, however it is possible to sway the public in favor of May. Within the campaign to leave, one of the largest issues was the immigration policy, which a fair portion of the population wanted reduced immigration as to alleviate fears of public health. If this were to be achieved, it is possible the public could be appeased and even favor the decision to back out of the EU. Though the process is currently ongoing, the results of the negotiations will continue to slowly be revealed. Until then, the public is likely to continue the relative indecisiveness in their decision. The lack of Parliamentary Conservative support will undoubtedly make the negotiations more difficult, however the greater variance in the council could also allow for the decisions made to be favorable to a greater portion of the public. Questions to Consider 1. What are the implications of the Brexit on businesses within the UK? 2. How heavily does British nationalism play into the need to split from the EU?


3. Why were both campaigns cross-party groups instead of having support from a single group primarily? 4. How should Brexit negotiations be dealt with? 5. Could the UK public have achieved their wishes without leaving the EU?

majority of the European Union’s member states, with 26 countries covering a population of over 400 million people and an area of 4,312,099 square kilometers (1,664,911 sq mi). While the agreement excludes the EU nations Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, and Romania, it now includes non-EU countries, including Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. During the UK’s time as an EU member state, it and Ireland opted out of the Schengen Agreement in order to preserve their free movement arrangement called the Common Travel Area. The Schengen provisions allow for the abolition of border checks at internal borders by tightening controls at the external borders. These tighter controls are enumerated by the agreement and are the same for all Schengen nations. Additionally, the agreement requires police and judicial cooperation from all members in cases of border surveillance, hot pursuit, and criminal extradition, and the establishment of the Schengen Information System to aid authorities in finding wanted people that may have fled the nation in which a crime was committed. This system establishes a shared database for police stations and consulates, and joint efforts to fight drug-related crime. Additionally, it requires all Schengen countries to have common rules on asylum and a common list of countries whose nationals require visas. Although the Schengen Area allows free passage between member countries, national authorities may still carry out police checks at internal borders as long as the checks are not equivalent to border checks. In case of “a serious threat to public policy or internal security”, the agreement allows for border control policies to be temporarily reintroduced for no more than thirty days.

II. The Schengen Agreement Background The end of World War II renewed in western European nations an interest in forming a federal Europe. They hoped this union would be able to prevent another country from starting a third world war, and would be able to resist the expansion of communism from the east by binding all member states to pan-European democratic institutions. One step taken toward this goal was the signing of the Schengen Agreement on June 14, 1985 by France, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This agreement eliminated border controls among signatories. In this way, member states must give up some national sovereignty and place more trust in other signatories, as the responsibility for investigating foreigners’ identities and baggage lies with the first country in the Schengen Area they enter. After entering one member country, travel between member states can occur without any further border controls. The original six signatories envisioned a Europe in which goods and the working population would be able to travel and settle freely throughout any state. Since then, the Schengen Agreement has evolved from an intergovernmental initiative to a part of the body of rules governing the European Union under the 1999 Amsterdam Treaty. The Schengen Area has grown to encompass the 92

Other Schengen countries, the European Union Parliament and Commission, and the public must be informed of the temporary reinstallation of border controls. Current Issues EU governments agree that the greatest challenge facing the Schengen Area today is Europe’s immigration crisis. In 2015, there was an influx of over a million migrants into the Schengen Area. The highest volume of refugees originates from Syria and travel overland through eastern Europe, with additional refugees from Turkey travelling across the Mediterranean Sea to Greece. The EU’s immigration crisis has divided its members. Northern countries such as France and Austria have admonished southern countries for their ineffective border controls against asylum seekers and failure to fingerprint new arrivals, thus allowing migrants to move throughout the Schengen Area freely. As a result, many of these countries have threatened to close their borders with select southern Schengen nations. Southern countries, on the other hand, criticize northern Schengen members for their lack of assistance since the beginning of the refugee crisis in 2015. Although southern countries repeatedly requested for resources to patrol exterior Schengen borders and rescue refugees, northern and central nations denied the aid necessary to effectively check southern borders. After Greece’s arguments for greater involvement by other nations, Austria went so far as to warn Greece that it could be kicked out of the area temporarily. Additionally, eastern nations rejected the idea of immigration quotas, in which asylum seekers would be distributed

among all Schengen nations on a voluntary basis. The Paris attacks proved to be the final push needed for Schengen countries to unanimously agree on at least temporary rule changes to decrease the influx of migrants. After these attacks, Schengen nations were alarmed that killers had so easily slipped into Paris from Belgium, and that some had entered the EU with crowds of migrants via Greece. Politicians in all member countries have also begun to feel pressure from constituents fearful of the possibility of attacks by migrants. As a result, there is a general consensus among members of the need to increase exterior border security. Not all members, however, agree on the possibility of regulation changes for internal borders. Current Analysis Under the current regulation of the open travel area, member governments can choose to suspend the Schengen system for up to two years. After 20 years of operation, some officials, including Austrian interior minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner, believe that “Schengen is on the brink of collapse.” While open borders play a critical role in federal Europe and the common identity produced by uniquely European mobility practices, Schengen regulation neglects to specify sufficient exterior border controls to allow for safe interior movement. When the area’s internal borders fell, member countries still retained the ability to patrol their exterior borders as they saw fit. When the refugee crisis began in 2015, this highly variegated border patrolling caused difficulties in regulating the high volume of migration and tension between member countries. With public pressure on politicians growing, the course for the European Union 93

to take involves acknowledging that each action an individual country takes affects its neighbors. The first issue for the council to address is strengthening external borders. In order to do so, the states involved in the agreement must reconcile the differences in resources each is willing to provide to achieve a shared goal. Although this process would not require changes to be made to the Union’s enumerated Schengen regulations, the Commission’s final coast and border guard proposal requires compromise between all nations, as members may have to contribute more resources to create a common border policy. In response to the beginning of the refugee crisis in 2015, some countries chose to temporarily reinstate border controls. Additionally, the European Commission proposed an amendment to Schengen in late December 2016. The law previously dictated that only non-European Union travelers need a background check against the Schengen Information System at the area’s external borders. If the amendment passes, however, the background check would apply even to EU citizens, who had previously been exempt. The second major issues that the council needs to confront is that of asylum seekers. As of now, the influx of refugees disproportionately affects only a handful of Schengen countries. Because the difference is so extreme, members have strong disagreements about how the crisis should be addressed. Germany, for example, is the recipient of one of the largest volumes of migration in the EU, and expects to receive over 800,000 asylum seekers in 2018. While the country previously staunchly opposed modifying the Dublin regulations, which dictates that asylum requests should be

processed in the migrant’s country of entry, now leads the push for change. The 2015 Berlin proposal recommends that the EU create a list of “safe” countries, from which migrants would not be allowed to request for asylum. Other contentious ideas dividing member states is the establishment of a refugee quota for the region, and proportional versus even distribution of refugees among member states. Regardless of the group’s final decisions, the council must be unified in border patrol actions, and all member states must be prepared to utilize time and resources, and cooperate with neighbors to adapt to Schengen agreement for modern issues. Questions 1. What are the contemporary benefits of the Schengen system? Is the agreement as beneficial to member nations as it was during its conception? 2. What are some possible negotiations to reconcile the wants of countries who are in the agreement for free movement and countries that want to reintroduce border controls? 3. To what extent should border regulations be allowed to increase before the agreement becomes obsolete? 4. What line should be draw, if any, for terror attacks that mark a point of no return for free-travel in the Schengen Area? 5. How much autonomy should be given to the individual member nations, if any, in specifying their own border policies? Should these specifications have a time limit?



"Europe Rethinks the Schengen Agreement." Stratfor Worldview. September 2, 2015. Accessed August 21, 2017. e/europe-rethinks-schengenagreement.

Anonymous. "Schengen Information System." Migration and Home Affairs European Commission. December 06, 2016. Accessed August 21, 2017.

Menghi, Martina, and Yves Pascouau. "The Schengen Area Under Threat: Problem or Solution?" Synthesis. September 2, 2015. Accessed August 21, 2017. ynthesisschengenmenghipascouausept 2015.pdf?pdf=ok.

Amadeo, Kimberly. "How the Eurozone Crisis Affects You." The Balance. July 23, 2017. Accessed August 21, 2017. ne-debt-crisis-causes-cures-andconsequences-3305524.

Traynor, Ian, and Helena Smith. "EU border controls: Schengen scheme on the brink after Amsterdam talks." The Guardian. January 26, 2016. Accessed August 21, 2017. /2016/jan/25/refugee-crisisschengen-area-scheme-brinkamsterdam-talks.

Blunt, Mitch. "How to solve Europe’s migration crisis." POLITICO. February 08, 2016. Accessed August 21, 2017.

Wilde, Robert. "The History of the European Union (EU)." ThoughtCo. 2016. Accessed August 21, 2017.https://www.thoughtco. com/the-history-of-the-europeanunion-1221595.



House of Saud Chloe Aldana Chair Lauren O’Connell Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s House of Saud! Your chairs, Lauren O’Connell and Chloe Aldana can’t wait to get started! As delegates in this committee, you will be taking on the roles of key leaders in the Saudi Arabian government to help solve issues like Saudi succession and international relations. To do this adequately you will have to research and prepare your arguments and ideas about each topic. Luckily for you, your chairs have provided a background guide to help get you started. If you know nothing about Saudi Arabia, this is your chance to learn! Lauren O’Connell is a senior at Maggie Walker and she is delighted to be chairing her last GSMUN Conference with you. This is Lauren’s third time chairing a committee, but she has been involved with GSMUN since her freshman year. When not wielding the gavel, Lauren spends the majority of her time acting. Lauren is the president of the International Thespian Society at Maggie Walker. Lauren is also very interested in foreign languages, she has taken French, Arabic, and American Sign Language, she also studies and intends to major in Chinese in college. She cannot wait to put her Arabic skills to use with all of you in debate. Chloe Aldana, a sophomore, is excited to serve as co-chair of this committee. This is her second year as a member of Maggie Walker Model UN, and her second year working GSMUN. However, this is her first year serving as a chair. Throughout her time doing Model UN, she has attended conferences such as JHUMUNC and WMIDMUN. Chloe is not only a member of Model UN, but also participates in Spanish Club at Maggie Walker, as well as being the captain of Maggie Walker’s JV soccer team. In her free time, Chloe plays the ukulele and bakes, and with spare moments she enjoys watching old movies. Delegates are expected to be able to debate comprehensively and accurately about topics relating to the House of Saud, which will require research and a thorough background knowledge going in. All delegates should have an understanding of the Saudi Arabian government and issues facing the country currently, which will involve a decent understanding of current events. The background guide is meant to act merely as a guide to get you started on research, all delegates are expected to do research outside of what is provided in the guide. With this research, delegates are expected to prepare a position paper formatted in Chicago Manuel of Style (CMS). All delegates must also adhere to Maggie Walker honor code and plagiarism will mean automatic disqualification for awards such as Best Delegate at the end of committee. Outside of debate, one of the biggest factors of GSMUN is the charity we support every year. GSMUN merchandise and baked goods will be available so please do not forgot to bring money and support charity! Please feel free to direct any questions to your chairs at Have fun and see you at GSMUN XXI! Your chairs,

Chloe Aldana

Lauren O’Connell 99


Committee Overview Committee Background The House of Saud is the royal family of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and is comprised of thousands of members. Everyone in the House of Saud is descended from the patriarch Mohammad bin Saud. The House is comprised of nearly 15,000 members, though most of the power rests with the top 2,000 members. Mohammad bin Saud was the founder of the family back in the eighteenth century and created the name Al-Saud. The House of Saud has been heavily involved in Saudi Arabian history since the formation of the first Saudi state. The first Saudi state began in the eighteenth century by Muhammad bin Saud when he joined with Muhammad bin Abd-al-Wahhab to create a state dedicated to pure Islamic teachings. The two created an ideological foundation based off of the teachings of Islam that still exist today, and also gave them a reason to invade other regions under the guise of religion. The Al-Saud rule became popular, but Saudi state attracted the attention of the Ottoman Empire when they attempted to invade and take over the region. The Ottomans conquered the region on Arabia in after an ongoing war between the Al-Rashid of the Ottoman Empire and the Al-Saud of Saudi Arabia, forcing the Al-Sauds into Kuwait. After it was claimed in 1824 by the Al-Rashid family, The Al-Saud family sought to regain control of the region, bringing a period of peace and prosperity to the region. In the early 20th century, Abdulaziz AlSaud left Kuwait to continue the warfare between the Al-Rashid and Al-Saud

families. By 1906, the Al-Rashids fled the region, and the Al-Saud family was recognized as the official rulers of the region. The Treaty of Jeddah was signed in 1927 by the United Kingdom recognizing the two kingdoms conquered by Abdulaziz. In 1932, the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formed when the two kingdoms united under King Abdulaziz Al-Saud. Saudi Arabia is considered an absolute monarchy, meaning that King Salman is not only the head of state, but he also gets the final say in government. The government is run by senior princes of the Al-Saud family. Their role is to enforce Shari’a Law, or Islamic religious law, laid down by the Qur’an, the constitution of the land. The only decision that is not left entirely to the king is the matter of succession, which is determined by the Allegiance Council, comprised of elite members of the family. Recent political divisions have resulted in some tension in the family, primarily over dispute between the politically involved royal family and more distant members of the family who want higher status. Increased Islamicism has also lead to the development of Islamic terrorism. Typically the family handles politics in a political and religious sphere and politics range from conservative Islamicism to something more resembling Western politics among some of the younger members.


I. Succession Crisis within the House of Saud Background Although succession crises within the House of Saud has been a hot topic recently, it is something that has been continuously occurring throughout Saudi history. Traditionally, the line of succession passes from oldest brother to next oldest brother, and decisions on this matter are left to the Allegiance Council. The process involved in the changing of crown princes is a complex one. Order of succession is determined by the House and is selected amongst the children on the IbnSaud, although typically succession is done by Agnatic seniority, which is the order of succession where the crown passes not from father to eldest son, but from brother to brother until the oldest generations are exhausted. After this, the order of sons and grandsons in the line of succession is determined by merit by the Allegiance Council. The Allegiance Council is a group of 34 senior members of the House of Saud who meet in secret and are responsible for determining the line of succession. The council was created by King Abdullah to help deal with an event where both king and crown prince were dead to deal with succession crises before they become a problem. It also prevents the event of a takeover. When selecting the next crown prince, the Allegiance Council looks for merit as well as status. Some of the things they look for include, but are not limited to: popularity with the House of Saud and amongst Saudi citizens, a religious persona, acceptable maternal origins, and government experience. In the past there have been incidences where the line of succession has had to

change. In 1918 the king’s preferred son, Turki, died of influenza. Although his wife was pregnant, the members of the Al-Saud family could not come to an agreement on a suitable heir. The Ibn Saud and his brother Muhammad bin Abdul-Rahman began arguing over whose son would be the next in line, motivating the Ibn Saud to name his son, Saud, as his heir over his nephew Khalid. Even after it was established that the line of succession should be through agnatic seniority disputes continued, many of which born from kings wanting to name their preferred sons as their heirs instead of following the official line of succession. Before Prince Muhammad ousted King Saud in 1964, King Saud attempted to have the line of succession officially changed from agnatic seniority to agnatic primogeniture, or to the eldest son of the current king. Prince Muhammad named Fahd and Abdullah his successors. During Abdullah’s rule he created the allegiance council to assist in times of succession crisis. Current Status Recently, King Salman moved to change the line of succession in Saudi Arabia. Originally, the throne was to be passed to his nephew Muhammad bin Nayef, but the line has been changed to pass to his son instead, Muhammad bin Salman. Many are taking issue to this, especially senior members of the royal family. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has literally called him an idiot in past interactions. Although the royal decree issued when the change was made said that the majority of the Allegiance Council was in support of the change, it still remains to be seen if Muhammad bin Salman is fit to rule. Muhammad bin Salman, referred to by the Guardian as a “hothead prince”, is seen by the public to be rather radical. At 31 years 102

old, he is the youngest crown prince in the history of the state. The older public in particular sees him to be rather radical because of his western style of engaging in business and also because of his costly involvement in the war with Yemen when he served as defense minister. During that time, bin Salman responded aggressively to Iran’s support of Shia rebels in Yemen, costing the country billions in the flawed snap judgement. Following the political unrest in Yemen beginning in 2011, bin Salman mobilized a response team , which was his first move as defense minister. Many considered this move to be drastic and some claim that bin Salman started the war in Yemen. However, bin Salman is also known for his determination to raise Saudi Arabia into the chief supplier of global oil, and to accomplish this he has been selling shares of Saudi Aramco which many young Saudis praise as being a start to a new, more capitalistic Saudi Arabia. However, bin Salman is favored not only by King Salman, but also by the young public, capitalists, and by foreign leaders including President Donald Trump. One of the hopes with selecting him as the future leader of Saudi Arabia and the Al-Saud family is that he can continue to develop the fledgling relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States. They also hope that he could westernize the state because of his previous job overseeing the oil monopoly. They also want Saudi leadership to appeal to the youth. However, recent talk has indicated that his approval rating is dropping. He has been involved in some recent arrests of beloved Islamic leaders, including Salman Al-Ouda, a well known cleric, who spoke out on Saudi-Arabian politics on Twitter, garnering himself 13,000 retweets.

Muhammad bin Nayef, the previous crown prince of Saudi Arabia, was originally selected for the position by the Allegiance Council. Bin Nayef is in many ways the traditional candidate for the position. He is 54 years old which is a much more conventional age for the position in Saudi Arabia. He has served the Saudi government as First Deputy of Prime Minister, Minister of Interior of Saudi Arabia, and Chairman of the Council of Political and Security affairs. Additionally he is considered more moderate to the public than bin Salman, despite being less empowering. He also has a large security acumen since he was involved in bringing down Al-Qaeda. Bin Nayef has also been awarded the George Tenet Medal from the American Central Intelligence Agency as a reward for “excellent intelligence performance,� in response to his opposal of Al-Qaeda.[vi] Although bin Nayef has fewer political accomplishments, his past political actions have been much less divisive. Additionally, the selection of Bin Nayef also follows the convention of agnatic seniority. Analysis Although the situation in Saudi Arabia with the change in succession is hardly dire, there is considerable tension that is arising. An example is actually here in the United States. President Trump, like many of the presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt, has had a sort of infatuation with the Saudi monarchy due to the resources they can provide when relationships between the two countries are stable. However, there is much concern in the United States that Muhammad bin Salman will not only drag down Saudi Arabia, but also the United States. Bin Salman is seen as someone who could potentially modernize the Saudi Arabian economy, but these are all hollow promises. 103

During his time as president of the Council for Economic and Developmental Affairs bin Salman has been attempting to raise money for sovereign wealth by selling Saudi shares of Armaco. One thing that is clear about bin Salman is how he will serve the country as diplomatic head of the nation. In the past two years that he has been serving as deputy crown prince to bin Nayef, he has lead Saudi Arabia into costly skirmishes with Yemen, Qatar and Iran. Not only does this indicate a level of recklessness in his eventual rule, but it could also affect United States, one of Saudi Arabia’s most valuable allies. There are several possible outcomes. The first is to allow bin Salman to maintain his place as the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. He has the support of 31 of 34 members of the allegiance council, the king, and young Saudi capitalists. Another possible option is to create legislation to force the line of succession to revert back to bin Nayef on account of merit and fitness for the position. This choice could be better for national security but would alienate the young, as well as Westerners. Questions to Consider 1. Is this change grounded in historical trend or does it represent something completely new in Saudi history? 2. Would a longer reign of a monarch benefit Saudi-Arabia at the cost of being more radical? 3. What does overthrowing the decision of the Council say about its legitimacy? 4. Should the king be all powerful in choosing the line of succession when so many decision processes are in place?

II. Qatar Gulf Crisis Topic Overview Qatar is a small nation in the Arabian Peninsula, off the western coast of the Persian Gulf. It has a large amount of natural gas and oil reserves, which brings in an abundance of revenue for the country. This creates comfortable living conditions for citizens of Qatar. The oil reserves are in the waters between Qatar and Iran, creating a strong diplomatic and trade relationship in the two nations as well as exploration benefits for both parties. Qatar is known to have cooperative and diplomatic ties with many countries in the Middle East, but many of these nations have begun to cut ties with Qatar. As of late, many of Qatar’s neighbors have shed light on the nation’s involvement with radical groups that are prevalent throughout the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Bahrain had previously withdrew ambassadors from Qatar in 2013 due to similar affiliations with the Muslim brotherhood. In 2014, many of Qatar’s neighbors signed an agreement that determined a number of extreme Islamist groups throughout the Middle East to be terrorist groups. Signing the agreement severed the nation’s associations with these groups and prohibited support for them. However, despite support of the agreement from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, Qatar refused to sign. To this day, Qatar does not classify certain extremist groups as terrorists, and continues to aid them as of mid-2017. Among these are the Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. GCC, the Gulf Cooperation Council, has been involved in the crisis. Qatar is a member of the GCC, as well as other nations that have cut ties creating intrinsic issues in the council. 104

While Qatar’s diplomacy with many Middle Eastern nations has been dissolved, Iran is maintaining a relationship with the nation. Qatar and Iran have strong connections due to their shared sea with an abundance of oil and gas in the middle of the territory that have been in place for decades. The two nations have had long lasting agreements that include rights concerning exploration of shared bodies of water for oil in the Persian Gulf. Despite their strong diplomatic relations, Iran has been an enemy nation to many of Qatar's allies which include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and others in the GCC. The issue with Qatar’s support for terrorist groups has heightened the conflict that was already present at times due to its Iranian ties. Not only has the crisis affected diplomatic relations, but it has affected quality of life for Qatari citizens as well as been a factor in global gas prices. Qatar has many necessary imports; a little less than half of all food in Qatar is imported through Saudi Arabia, making them an important ally in regards to trade. Furthermore, Qatar is a global leader in LNG, or liquefied natural gas. It provides for over a third of the world, focusing on the Eastern Hemisphere. Their exports are very important in the world economy and a deficit would be devastating to many economies in the long run. Current Status Currently in Qatar, many restrictions have been implemented as both direct and indirect results of this crisis throughout the gulf. Travel as well as imports have been compromised due to the rebuttal from border nations. This includes closing of land and some sea borders, most prominently Saudi Arabia which surrounds most of Qatar’s western border. Conflict with other countries

is affecting the trade by land and restricting exports. This has taken an economic toll as gas is a large export of Qatar and the lack of ability to export has increased general scarcity and reduced income for the nation as a whole. Conflict with UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain is compromising the economic trade of around $7 billion, $2 billion, and $500 million respectively. Much of the Middle East has also felt the impacts of this crisis. Gulf countries are suffering because of Qatar’s role in the oil and gas production; rapidly reducing prices of oil are promoting salary reduction along with the suspension of projects in Qatar. Not only has trade been affected, but travel bans imposed by the other nations have proven difficult for Qatar. Qatari flights and airlines have been indefinitely suspended; this is problematic because this suspension is halting dozens of flights between two formerly diplomatic countries and is slowing the revenue for all nations involved. Flight suspension effectively blocks Qatari citizens from traveling to the Arab capital of Doha, creating adversity for the nation as this block prevents Qatar from reaching other cities and efficaciously limiting the food imports. These imports, which throwing off the supply and demand within the country. The GCC has suffered throughout Qatar’s foreign transgressions. The conflicts between Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and the UAE intercedes and contradicts the GCC’s mission to create cooperation and peace between all members, uniting them as one force. As a council, the GCC is not pleased with the support from Qatar to the terrorist groups. The action of cutting off Qatari relations was a “final straw” due to Qatar’s rupture of GCC procedure and


interference with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. There is an underlying humanitarian issue that was prompted by the restrictions and bans put in place. The countries that have halted diplomacy with Qatar gave Qatari citizens living in their nation fourteen days to evacuate. This displaced many Qatari people that held dual citizenship of Qatar and another nation. The statement also pushed an influx of people into Qatar, which is already down resources due to travel restrictions and a lack of imports and exports. This rule set in place by all four nations has split many families and has created a humanitarian issue on top of everything else in the situation. This would only promote internal conflicts within the GCC, halting decades of peace and progress within the council. Analysis Qatar and other gulf countries are in the midst of a complex conflict that encompasses religion, economics, diplomacy, and the wellbeing of the general population. Currently, there are heavy restrictions and travel bans which prevent Qatari citizens from living fully as well as increasing global gas prices and inflating gas. If not handled, this could become more permanent. Ideally, through GCC intervention and Qatari cooperation, there will be a decision made to sever ties to the Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood rather than positive relationships to other countries. Intervention from neutral parties in the GCC that peacefully promote a resolution could help. Also needed to solve the crisis is an understanding of Qatar's relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. Discussing why they support these organizations and how it affects their nation and foreign relations could help lead to a

conclusion. If resorting to simple resolutions is necessary, there could possibly even be a use of travel ban lifts as incentives for Qatar's cooperation to restore a healthy relationship between Qatar and its international allies. Questions to Consider 1. What aspects of the GCC and its future are compromised by this crisis? 2. Has the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement affected the whole crisis, and does its involvement with Iran trigger any preexisting conflict between GCC Gulf States and Iran? 3. What does the humanitarian issue add to the morality and logistics of the isolation of Qatar? 4. What possible long-lasting implications could the restriction of oil and gas, as well as the price plummet, have on the international community? Bibliography Alkhalisi, Zahraa. 2017. Qatar Keeps Gas Flowing to UAE Despite Blockade. June 7, 2017. Al-Wasami, Naser. "Saudi Arabia’s Allegiance Council gives Prince Mohammed bin Salman vote of confidence." The National, June 21, 2017. Accessed September 29, 2017. udi-arabia-s-allegiance-council-givesprince-mohammed-bin-salman-voteof-confidence-1.92347. BBC. 2017. Qatar Crisis: What You Need to Know. July 19, 2017. Crystal, Jill A., and John D. Anthony. “Why Iran Approaches Qatar 106

Crisis with Caution.” State of Qatar. August. Deutsche Welle. 2017. June 14, 2017.

September 29, 2017. ures/2017/06/saudi-arabiamohammed-bin-nayef170621122951195.html.

Dorsey, James M. 2017. Crisis in the Gulf: Escalation or Negotiation? June 12, 2017.

Reuters. 2017. “Top U.S. Diplomat Ends Talks in Gulf; No Sign Qatar Crisis Resolved.” July 12, 2017.

Hubbard, Ben. "Saudi King Rewrites Succession, Replacing Heir With Son, 31." New York Times (New York City, NY). 6/21/world/middleeast/saudi-arabiacrown-prince-mohammed-binsalman.html?_r=0.

Sadek, Aya. 2017. “Timeline of GCC Relations with Qatar.” June 22, 2017. Sajjad, Aqsa. 2017. “The GCC-Qatar Crisis Explained: All You Need To Know. June 21, 2017.

Hubbard, Ben, Eric Schmitt, and Mark Mazzetti. "Deposed Saudi Prince Is Said to Be Confined to Palace." New York Times (New York City, NY/USA), June 28, 2017. Accessed September 29, 2017. /world/middleeast/deposed-saudiprince-mohammed-bin-nayef.html.

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." House of Saud. Accessed September 29, 2017. i-royal-family-history/.

Kabbani, Nader. 2017. The High Cost of High Stakes: Economic Implications of the 2017 Gulf Crisis. June 15. Law, Bill. "The most dangerous man in the world?" The Independent, January 8, 2017. /voices/the-most-dangerous-man-inthe-world-a6803191.html.

Teller, Neville. 2017. Qatar and the Hamas Dimension. July 10. Tisdall, Simon. "Mohammed bin Salman al Saud: The Hothead Who Would be King." The Guardian, June 24, 2017. world/2017/jun/25/mohamme d-bin-salman-saudi-h eir-young-hothead-with-ambitions.

Line of Succession to Saudi Arabia's Throne. Last modified June 21, 2017. Accessed September 29, 2017. ractive/2017/06/line-succession-saudiarabia-throne-170621175317617.html.

The Telegraph. 2017. “Four Countries Cut Diplomatic Ties with Qatar as Gulf Rift Deepens.” June 5, 2017.

"Profile: Former Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Nayef." Algezeera. Last modified June 21, 2017. Accessed



Incan Empire 1532 Jaideep Damle Chair Grady Trexler Chair



GSMUN XXI Champion the Change Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications

Dear Delegates, Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s Incan Empire Committee! Your chairs, Jaideep Damle and Grady Trexler, are very excited to meet all of you moderate this debate. As members of this committee, you will gather to discuss both the state of the Incan Empire after the Incan Civil War and of the arrival of the Spanish led by Francisco Pizzaro. Delegates will discuss and debate how to go about the many problems arising from the aftermath of the devastating war, which includes rebuilding infrastructure, resupplying the empire’s resources, and politically uniting the subjects. Additionally, you will discuss how to approach the Spanish conquistadors. You must come up with solutions to these issues while debating them with fellow committee members. Jaideep Damle, a junior at Maggie Walker, is overjoyed to be serving as cochair for the Inca Empire Committee. This is his third year in the Model UN club, and his first year as a chair. In the past two conferences, he has served as a vice chair and as a crisis staffer. Aside from Model UN, Jaideep also participates in the Model Congress, for which he is also chairing. He also runs cross-country, indoor track, and outdoor track. When he is not working hard at school, Jaideep can always be found at home watching Netflix or reading comic books. Grady Trexler, also a junior at Maggie Walker, is even more overjoyed to be serving as co-chair for the Inca Empire Committee. This is his third year in the Model UN club, and his second year as a chair. In addition to the glorious Model United Nations Club, Grady plays soccer, debates, and leads the a capella group, the Deadbeats. Outside of school, he enjoys going to concerts, hanging out with friends, and doing whatever tickles his fancy. He’s ecstatic for a great committee. As delegates, you are expected to arrive prepared to debate these pressing issues for the Incan Empire with a working knowledge of the history of the empire, its political structure, and important figures in the current time period, (1532 CE). Additional research should be conducted in order to produce a wellstructured argument. Many of your characters will not necessarily be historical, so it is important that you use your research to come up with a backstory for your individual that fits into the context of the committee. Delegates are also expected to write a detailed position paper, formatted in Chicago Manual Style (CMS). At GSMUN XXI, all position papers are expected to follow the Maggie Walker honor code; plagiarism will not be tolerated by any means. Finally, a vital part of GSMUN is making a difference in the world through a selected charity. There will many baked goods and fashionable merchandise that you do not want to miss out on, so bring some cash. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact your chairs at We cannot wait to meet all of you in committee at GSMUN XXI. Have fun and good luck! Your chairs,

Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Jaideep Damle

Grady Trexler



Committee Overview Committee Background The Inca Empire was one of the largest early civilizations in the Americas that flourished from 1400 to 1533 CE. The empire extended across the western strip of South America. In addition to bordering the Pacific Ocean, it encompassed notable geographical features including the Amazon Rainforest and a desert coastline, which were on opposite sides of the Andes Mountains, forming a natural barrier. The Incas managed to make their homes within the rough terrain of the Andes by building bridges made of sturdy vines between mountains and over gorges. Rights to the bridges were reserved solely for animals, warriors, and road runners. Commoners were not allowed any access. The actual origin of the Incas is still questionable, but several creation myths may offer some answers. One of them says that the creator god, Viracocha, had originally created stone giants to rule the planet. However, he began to dislike their behavior, finally destroying them with a great flood. Afterwards, he created the remainder of the gods and all other ethnic groups at Lake Titicaca. In another creation myth, the Incas came from a sacred cave, known as Tampu T'oqo, which was located just south of Cuzco, the city that would become the capital of the Inca empire. The Incas, specifically, were brought to life by the Sun God, Iti. Their leader was said to be Inti’s representative to Earth. Inti saw the humans as ignorant savages, and felt sorry for them. He created the first two Incas by sending one of his sons, Manco Capac and his sister, Mama

Oqllu. Inti made Manco Capac the ruler of all people. Inti gave them specific instructions to go out to find the most ideal place to start a civilization, which would be marked if they could drive a god stake into the ground with one blow. Manco Capac and Mama Oqllu, along with the rest of their siblings set out to establish their civilization. They finally settled in the valley of Cuzco where Manco Capac stuck his golden stake in the ground, indicating the place where their civilization would begin. On their way, Mama Oqllu taught the people of Earth farming and weaving while Manco Capac taught them how to make and use weapons, so that they could expand their territories. This myth established certain Inca customs, such as sisters marrying brothers and the great devotion to ancestors, who were considered descendants of the Gods. Following a common story among many religions, the Incas had a myth about a great flood. It recalls an era in which people were falling to vices such as cruelty and greed. They also started to fail to pay attention to their gods. The only exception was in the mountains of the Andes. One day, a couple farmers were told by their llamas that a great flood was coming. This prompted the farmers to gather their families and herds to the high caves, where they lived while the rain flooded their home. Eventually, Iti, the sun god, appeared and dried up the water. After this, the families came down and repopulated the area. One of the legends that arose from this myth was that llamas are the only ones who remember the great flood, and therefore, they remain in the highlands. 113

For many years, the Incas grew as a civilization, but they were never regionally united until the arrival of Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui, who is known as the first great Inca leader. He was the son of Inca ruler, Viracocha, named after the sun god. When a neighboring tribe, the Chancas, invaded the empire, Viracocha fled, but Pachcuti stayed to hold off the invaders and took the throne in 1438. Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui first began to strengthen his hold around Cuzco before expanding the empire, and conquering many civilizations in the process. However, Pachacuti was more focused on building a strong and unified empire rather than just simply conquering other tribes. He would always start with with diplomacy first when dealing with another tribe, and if that did not meet a desired result, then the Inca forces would easily come and overpower them. Pachacuti also wanted to make his empire have a common culture, and so he made Quecha, the Inca language, the common tongue spoken throughout the empire. For conquered tribes that could be considered hostile, Pachacuti ordered them to relocate to areas where it would be difficult to form any type of resistance. However, he did not make Inca rule harsh on the conquered people, and did not relocate them to inhospitable places, such as high mountains. This system of relocation was called the mitima system. In addition to expanding the empire, Pachacuti was also remembered for his establishment of a system of roads. Once the empire became fully established, a tax and administrative system was founded with all the power being consolidated at Cuzco. This tax system was not based on a monetary system, but rather on labor. This was called he Mit’a, and it

required one individual from each household to provide support for the Inca government each year. This labor could be in the form of military service, road construction, or working in gold mines. The curacas, who was the representative of the conquered areas for the Inca government, determined which person from each household would perform service as part of the Mit’a. This was done as to not severely hinder the work of the actual household. Whenever a territory was conquered, a census was taken to see how many people lived there. Then, they examined the land to see how much of it could be cultivated. Based on these two statistics, the land was distributed to each household based on how much work each could get done. The Inca administration system needed some form of record keeping. They did not have a form of writing, but they did have a form of counting and performing calculations called the quipu. The quipu was made of multicolored cords of cotton that was knotted at certain intervals. The different colors and knots could be used to signify different things that were being counted. They could also represent different places in the decimal system. The Inca empire expanded its territory at a rapid pace. Pachacuti’s successor, Thupa Inca Yupanqui, is credited for adding another 4,000 kilometers to the empire. It was at this time that the Inca Empire was at its height. The area it controlled was equivalent to that of the United States Eastern Seaboard. Despite not being ruler of the Inca people anymore, Pachacuti Inca Yupanqui was still involved with government affairs, and he particularly focused on rebuilding Cuzco from previous attacks by initiating 114

many building tasks. The Inca empire was known as the “Land of the Four Quarters,” Cuzco being at the center with highways and other routes connecting the four different areas. The entire Inca territory spread across a good portion of South America, including modern day Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, and Colombia. The entire area stretched for about 5,500 kilometers. The Incas had a very unique government structure within their empire. They had an absolute ruler called “Sapa Inca.” The Sapa Inca, similar to many empires at the time, was considered divine and above the rest of the people. The Sapa Inca lived a life with great riches and power. The Incas mummified their rulers, so he was taken care of after death. Like many other South American civilizations, ancestor reverence was incredibly important to the Inca society and culture. The Sapa Inca would sometimes be brought out to ceremonies to “eat” and “drink. Furthermore, the Inca had a rough idea of an afterlife. Those who lived a good life went beyond the sun to be happy in death. However, those who led bad lives were punished to rot in the dark center of the earth. The nobility all went beyond the sun. Human sacrifice was somewhat prevalent in the Inca religion, but not so much so as other religions like the Aztecs, who sacrificed so many of their own that it led to a sharp decrease in population. Rather, for special occasions, such as the installment of the next Sapa Inca or a great victory, the Incas would sacrifice a child or young teen. It was considered a great honor to be chosen for sacrifice, although the victims were killed in horrific ways such as being buried alive or having their hearts cut out.

The Inca political system was made up of interlocking units. At the top of the chain was the Sapa Inca. Then, four apos ruled over four quarters, or suyus, of the empire. An apo was always a male blood relative to the Sapa Inca. Each suyu was further divided into provinces, ruled by a governor. Each province had two curacas, leaders instated when the Inca overtook a new territory. They ruled 10,000 households each. The two curacas oversaw ten more curacas, who oversaw 1,000 households. These 1,000 household were split into two more curacas, each overseeing 500. This delineation went on until the lowest level, where someone oversaw ten people’s work. This means that the life of a common Inca man could be affected in a very real way by the Sapa Inca: the Sapa Inca requests something be built, so the appropriate apo tells a governor who carries the message down the chain of curacas to get the appropriate number of men. The final part of Inca society was a group of administrators who saw the settlement of the “ayllu,” which was the smallest familial unit in Inca civilization. It is made up of a few households with related families. The ayllu was immensely important in the eyes of the kingdom. An ayllu was one’s kinship and family, a clan. Each ayllu satisfied the tribute required from the government. This was a form of the mit’a, the work draft. All of the local administrators reported to regional administrators, who reported to a governor in each quarter of the empire. These governors then reported to the apos, who reported to the Sapa Inca himself. An important part of the Inca political, religious, and military system was a group of elite Incas called the “orejones” or 115

“big ears” by the Spanish. These were those close to the Sapa Inca who had the right to wear special earplugs to show their stature and relations to the king. The orejones formed the highest group of nobility. As time went on, the Inca would have to create more tiers of nobility, leading to two lower groups of nobles who were not related to the Sapa Inca. The Inca civilization did not have a currency, so taxes were paid in either goods or labor. All of the agricultural land was split into three parts: for state production, the Sappa Inca, and the farmer’s own use. In addition to agricultural expectations, the local communities were expected to help build and maintain imperial projects and roads.

Quito in the northern part of the empire. While Huascar ruled from Cuzco, Atahualpa maintained an army numbering some fifty thousand men in Quito. He formed an alliance with three major Inca generals: Chalcuchima, Quisquis, and Ruminahui. During this time, Huascar was working to ensure loyalty throughout his portion of the empire. He also used this time to form an alliance with another indigenous group called the Canari. Fearing for his life, Atahualpa did not return to Cuzco despite his brother’s requests. Atahualpa knew he was considered a rival to the throne. He sent two of his generals to talk to Huascar, who instead, killed and tortured the men. Huascar then sent men of his own to take Quito. Atahualpa, defeated at Tomebamba, escaped back into Quito and regathered his troops. With the help of General Quisquis, Huascar’s forces were repelled. It was at this point that Atahualpa changed his battle tactics to a more aggressive style. Later, he sent his forces to Ambato where he defeated Huascar’s general, Atoc, and the rest of his army. With the support of Generals Chalcuchima and Ruminahui, Atahualpa led, what is called the most “gruesome” battle of the Inca Civil War. They were sent to Canari lands where everything was burned and destroyed along with most of the population. After the Canaris were defeated, Atahualpa’s army slowly made their way towards Cuzco. When Huascar’s forces were pushed back towards the South, Atahualpa sent two of his generals, Chalcuchima and Quisquis, after him. His other general, Ruminahui, stayed back to guard Quito. In a battle just outside of Cuzco, Atahualpa’s army defeated Huascar. Atahualpa, who was in the city of

I. Rebuilding After the Civil War Topic Overview The Inca Civil War (1527-1532) was one of the bloodiest conflicts in the history of the empire. It began as a conflict between two brothers. With both the Sappa Inca, Huayna Capac, and his oldest son, Ninan Cuyochi, dead, the fate of the Inca Empire was uncertain. Both father and son died of the same mysterious illness that has been ravaging the empire in recent years. This disease was actually smallpox that was brought to the New World by the Spaniards who were exploring other parts of the region at the time. The Inca nobles of Cuzco had to choose who was to succeed his father out of a vast pool of sons. Huascar was chosen since he was the son of Huayna Capac’s main “sister-wife”. The desire for the throne was the main source of conflict for the two brothers. Atahualpa was secretly imprisoned at the beginning of Huascar’s reign because he thought that Atahualpa would attempt a revolt. Eventually, Atahualpa escaped to 116

Cajamarca at the time, was informed of this victory, and Huascar was captured. Current Issues The Inca Civil War caused much infrastructural damage and many deaths, and therefore resulted in an extremely weakened military which means a severely limited military. In addition to this, the Inca people are still divided in their loyalties. Although Atahualpa won the war, many still chose to side with his brother, who remained captive. This division in loyalties has severely weakened the empire politically. It is possible that in the future, those loyal to Huascar could rise up and form an armed rebellion against the newly proclaimed Sappa Inca, Atahualpa. Furthermore, the civil war has caused a great deal of infrastructural damage. The extent of the damage was measured and it appears that it will take a great deal of labor and resources to fully repair the damage. The amount of resources that the empire currently has is not enough to fully rebuild what has been destroyed. The current manpower loyal to Atahulapa is also not enough. This makes it even more imperative that the empire be politically united. Conflict will arise in the repairing of infrastructure if the people are still politically divided. Additionally, there have been sightings of white foreigners in the Inca land. Little is known about these people and it is possible that they possess the manpower and other resources that could help rebuild the empire. There has also been a breakout of an unknown disease throughout the empire. Huascar’s execution is something that is also being considered by Atahualpa and his generals. Analysis

Action must be taken in order to combat the situation at hand. Due loyalty divisions, the empire is politically unstable. If this problem is not solved soon, then the state of the empire will continue to politically decline until it had collapsed. Territorial divisions are a possibility, but it would severely limit the power of the Sapa Inca, Atahualpa. It could also potentially lead to another civil war between the two sides. Additionally, the infrastructural damage to the empire must be dealt with in order to provide subjects with the proper means to provide service to the empire. This is another reason that the political loyalties situation must be resolved. The empire must be fully united in order to effectively combat the problem with infrastructural damage. Sending teams out of the empire to find other tribes that can provide resources and service would be an option. However, this would take a while, and this problem is something that needs to be resolved quickly. It is possible that the white foreigners seen roaming around the empire could possess materials and manpower needed to help rebuild the empire. Therefore, it is important to consider how to approach them. The population problem presented by the mysterious new diseases must also be taken into account. Current Inca doctors do not have the means to find a cure for this disease. It is possible that the white foreigners will possesses the means to a cure for this illness. The civil war also heavily devastated the Inca army. Therefore, methods must be considered to fully redevelop the mighty Inca military in the events of a larger threat. Rebuilding the military is also crucial because that would be another way of regaining loyalty to Atahualpa from those who 117

continue to support his brother. There is another issue concerning the execution of Huascar. His death is currently being considered by high Inca authorities including Atahualpa and his generals. There are rumors that Huascar is working with some outside force to seize control over the empire again. If evidence of this is discovered, his execution would be imminent. However, this would cause a massive outcry from those loyal to him, and could potentially start another civil war. Questions to Consider 1. How should the Inca empire unite itself under Atahualpa? 2. Should new territorial divisions in the empire be considered? 3. How will the empire build up its army to combat new threats? 4. How will the empire be able to deal with infrastructure damage? 5. How should the empire deal with Huascar?

reinforcements and then entered Inca territory. The group stopped in Cajamarca, a small Inca town in Peru. Pizarro requested an audience with Atahualpa. This was not, however, Pizarro’s first venture into the new world. He had served for years in the Caribbean, helping to explore the Gulf of Urabá and trekking across the Isthmus of Panama. In 1519, Pizarro helped to found Panama. Here, he would serve as the lieutenant governor of the city. In 1524, Pizarro set out for his first expedition on the western coast of South America with fellow explorer Diego de Almagro who rallied up a small force. The group barely survived the trip, returning with thirty less men than they had left with. Conditions grew so harsh that they began to eat seaweed to avoid starving. Undeterred, Pizarro set out again in 1526. He faced a divide with Almagro in 1527, resulting in Almagro leaving with some of the men for supplies. Pizarro and his men stayed on the Isle of Gallo. After Pizarro’s group had sailed to another island, Almagro returned to get the rest of their ill-fated crew. Famously, Pizarro allegedly drew a line in the sand of the beach with his sword and told his men whoever crossed the line would be rewarded with riches beyond belief. Thirteen crossed the line into fame all over the New World. After Pizarro took the helm of another ship sent to “rescue” the men, they stayed with an Inca nobleman who gave the Spaniards a taste of the extreme luxury of the Inca Empire. Spirits lifted, the men returned to Panama in 1528. Pizarro sailed back to Spain to get permission to venture south down the coast, as the Panamanian government technically did not allow any further southern

II. Arrival of the Spanish Topic Overview In the month of November, 1532, the Inca Empire was so preoccupied trying to stay together that they took little notice of the small group of Europeans which slowly encroached onto Inca territory. Unbeknownst to the war-torn empire, this small group would change their history forever. This was Francisco Pizarro and his force of 260 men, including cavalry and war veterans. Although the group had been in South America for an extended period, this was the first time that the Incas would make contact. Before moving on to the Inca, Pizarro conquered Coaque. He waited for 118

expeditions. The king, however, impressed by the gold and silver Pizarro brought, granted him permission and leadership over lands discovered. Pizarro rallied four of his brothers, including the somewhat famous Hernando, and was joined by another Hernando, this one de Soto, after fighting in Peru for a while. Current Issues The Inca are not in an ideal state to deal with much of any conflict in their empire, thus making the arrival of the Europeans a more pressing problem. The empire has dealt with a civil war, disease, and overextension. The empire’s resources are limited. The empire has been ravaged by great misfortune The arrival of Europeans earlier in Central America could have infected populations there. The theory goes that those people, then, infected other native tribes. Although it is impossible to know the extent of the damage, estimates reach as high as three fourths of the population. Historians are unsure of the cause, but the fact remains that there has been a great downshift in the population of the Inca. Some suggest smallpox, which killed Cuitlahuac in Tenochtitlan, the great Aztec stronghold. However, there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion about the reason behind the population decline, just that there was one. Politically, the empire is struggling to survive. The Incas expanded through warfare, meaning relations between the conquerer and the conquered were always tense. The Incas relied on a heavy system of bureaucracy which stifled the native people, even forcing the Inca religion upon them. Particularly in the northern territories, there is an unending swell

of revolts which strain the resources of the empire even further. In a situation of warfare, not all provinces would ally with the Inca. Combined with the fact that the empire is already divided from its civil war, political tensions are high. Pizarro has requested a meeting with Atahualpa in Cajamarca. Both men currently reside in the city, meaning that a meeting would not be difficult to organize. The Spanish have 260 men, while Inca forces number in the thousands. Furthermore, Pizarro asks that Atahualpa convert to Christianity. Analysis/Possible Solutions The presence of Pizarro cannot be ignored, and this possible new threat must be dealt with. The Inca’s military is strong, but the empire is in decline. Production from farms has decreased significantly. Furthermore, there is a large gap in communication between different provinces of the empire. The messenger system of the Inca relies heavily on manpower to work, meaning that without men, it can falter. Disease and civil war have taken their toll on the empire. Although Atahualpa sits on the throne, his reign is shaky. Any action taken against the Spaniards could cause conquered territories or those still sympathetic to Huascar to rise up against Atahualpa. Actions must be measured carefully to not upset the fragile balance of power. It is worth noting that although the force of Spaniards is rather weak, they possess strange technologies unlike any the empire has seen before. An all-out war could prove potentially disastrous.


Questions to Consider 1. How should Pizarro be treated? 2. Should the Inca unite against this new “threat,” or merely keep their political divisions? 3. Should the Inca be willing to give away some of its wealth to avoid war? 4. Should the Inca be willing to give away some of its territory to avoid war?

1478–1541)." In Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture, 2nd ed., edited by Jay Kinsbruner and Erick D. Langer, 259-261. Vol. 5. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2008. World History in Context (accessed October 15, 2017). X3078904421/WHIC?u=rich82127& xid=1e222268. Dhwty. "The War of the Two Brothers: The Division and Downfall of the Inca Empire." Ancient Origins. Accessed August 19, 2017.

Bibliography Ballesteros-Gabrois, Manuel. “Francisco Pizarro.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Last modified February 20, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. graphy/Francisco-Pizarro

"Francisco Pizarro." Historic World Leaders, edited by Anne Commire, Gale, 1994. World History in Context, 0482/WHIC?u=rich82127&xid=870bf0 a2. Accessed 15 Oct. 2017.

Brown, Kendall W. "Pizarro Brothers." In Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World, edited by Jonathan Dewald, 489-490. Vol. 4. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004. World History in Context (accessed October 15, 2017). X3404900873/WHIC?u=rich82127&xi d=c265c477.

"Huascar." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed August 19, 2017. /Huascar-Inca-chieftain.

Cartwright, Mark. "Inca Government." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified October 22, 2015. ernment/.

"Inca Civilization." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Accessed August 19, 2017. zation/. "Inca Empire for KidsGeography." Inca Empire Geography - The Inca Empire for Kids. Accessed August 19, 2017. ml.

Cartwright, Mark. "Pizarro & the Fall of the Inca Empire." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified July 01, 2016. Accessed August 19, 2017. 15/.

"Inca Government and Economy." Early Civilizations in the Americas Reference Library, edited by

Cook, Noble David. "Pizarro, Francisco (c. 120

Sonia G. Benson, et al., vol. 1: Almanac, Vol. 1, UXL, 2005, pp. 179-198. World History in Context, 20/WHIC?u=nypl&xid=fc8dc37c. Accessed 19 Aug. 2017. "The Inca Civil War: Not Civil At All." Hidden Inca Tours. March 12, 2016. Accessed August 19, 2017.

"Inca Religion, Arts, and Sciences." In Early Civilizations in the Americas Reference Library, edited by Sonia G. Benson, Sarah Hermsen, and Deborah J. Baker, 199-220. Vol. 1, Almanac, Vol. 1 Detroit: UXL, 2005. World History in Context (accessed October 15, 2017). X3424400021/WHIC?u=rich82127&xi d=373cebbc.

"Inca Mythology." In UXL Encyclopedia of World Mythology, 572-579. Vol. 3. Detroit: UXL, 2009. World History in Context (accessed October 15, 2017). apps/doc/CX3230900175/WHIC?u=ri ch82127&xid=9a6aef7c. "Pachacutec Inca Yupanqui." In Middle Ages Reference Library, edited by Judy Galens and Judson Knight, 281-287. Vol. 3, Vol. 2: Biographies. Detroit: UXL, 2001. World History in Context (accessed October 29, 2017). X3426200081/WHIC?u=ri ch82127&xid=fa648a0c.

Livi-Bacci, Massimo. "The depopulation of Hispanic America after the conquest." Population and Development Review 32, no. 2 (2006): 199+. General OneFile (accessed October 15, 2017). PS&sw=w&u=rich82127&v=2.1&it=r &id=GALE%7CA149460259&asid=42 8277214f5b213343969a817e5a4c5f.

"Inca Government and Economy." In Early Civilizations in the Americas Reference Library, edited by Sonia G. Benson, Sarah Hermsen, and Deborah J. Baker, 179-198. Vol. 1, Almanac, Vol. 1. Detroit: UXL, 2005. World History in Context (accessed October 29, 2017). X3424400020/WHIC?u=rich82127&xi d=024a9ea6.

"The Conquest of the Incas." In Early Civilizations in the Americas Reference Library, edited by Sonia G. Benson, Sarah Hermsen, and Deborah J. Baker, 241-260. Vol. 1, Almanac, Vol. 1. Detroit: UXL, 2005. World History in Context (accessed August 19, 2017). = CX3424400023/WHIC?u=mlin_s_thay acad&xid=547fd86d.

Signell, Adrian. “Civil War.” Inca Encyclopedia Block A [licensed for noncommercial use only]/ Civil War. Accessed October 15, 2017. http://incaencyclopediaa.pbwork

“The fall of the Inca Empire.” Discover Peru. Accessed August 19, 2017.



International Monetary Fund Sive Lowell Chair Cade Elliot Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s International Monetary Fund! This year’s conference is sure to be a memorable weekend filled with high-quality debate and diplomacy, and your chairs, Sive Lowell and Cade Elliott, cannot wait to get started. In this committee you will debate contemporary issues facing the IMF such as fluctuating commodity prices and hyperinflation in Zimbabwe. Your goal for the conference is to create lasting solutions to these problems through lively debate with your peers.

Sive Lowell, a junior, is thrilled to serve as co-chair for the IMF this year. This is her third year in the Model UN club and her second year serving on a GSMUN committee. In addition to participating in Model UN, she enjoys running cross country and track for Maggie Walker, participating in the school’s a capella club, volunteering with her Girl Scout troop, and playing piano and ukulele. When she is not devoting time to one of her extracurriculars, she can normally be found wearing pajamas and watching The Office. Cade Elliott is a senior at Maggie Walker and is delighted to chair the International Monetary Fund Committee. He started participating in GSMUN as a crisis member, then as chair of the JCC Nationalist China Committee last year. Outside of school, Cade spends most of his time swimming competitively at NOVA of Virginia Aquatics and on the Maggie Walker swim team. He thoroughly enjoys traveling the world with his family, having been to 39 countries and all seven continents. As delegates of this committee, you will be expected to arrive at the conference with a thorough knowledge of the structure and function of the IMF, as well as any pertinent current events will also be critical to navigating the conference effectively. Outside research on the topics is expected along with a position paper formatted in Chicago Manual Style (CMS). All position papers will be held to the standard of the Maggie Walker Honor Code, meaning that plagiarism will not be tolerated in any capacity. Finally, an integral aspect of GSMUN is charity. There will be opportunities throughout the conference to donate money to the highlighted charity whether through committee-specific donation or through buying high-quality merchandise that will be for sale throughout the weekend. The committee that raises the most money at the end of the conference will be awarded a prize, and to ensure that the IMF is that committee, your chairs will be providing additional incentives throughout the weekend to encourage you to donate. Even if you are unmoved by the prospect of prizes and glory, remember that all of the money will go towards an incredible cause! If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact your chairs at We look forward to meeting you in committee! See you all at GSMUN XXI, and good luck! Your chairs,

Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Sive Lowell

Cade Elliot



Committee Overview Committee Background The International Monetary Fund, or IMF, was created in 1944 to allow for financial cooperation between members of the United Nations and to maintain a stable international economy. The IMF and the World Bank were both created at the United Nations Bretton Woods conference in New Hampshire to operate in tandem with one another: the IMF would devote time to macroeconomic issues while the World Bank focused on economic development and poverty reduction. According to the IMF, it achieves its goal through advising member countries on economic policies that “promote stability, reduce vulnerability to crises, and encourage sustained growth and high living standards.” Additionally, the IMF monitors global economic trends and provides monetary resources to countries in need. Every member country of the United Nations is represented in the IMF equally, by the Board of Governors, and proportionally, by the Executive Board. Each member country provides the Board of Governors with one governor and one alternate governor who are officials from the country’s central bank or finance ministry. The Executive Board, on the other hand, contains twentyfour elected members who represent all member countries of the United Nations. The Managing Director serves as chairman of the Executive Board and head of all IMF staff and is elected by the Executive Board every five years. The IMF has worked to maintain international economic stability for over seven decades, and it plays a crucial role in the

global economy. It continues to work tirelessly to provide better living conditions for people all around the world through educated economic policies, training for government economists, and loans to nations struggling with balance of payments problems. I. Relief for Countries Impacted by Adjusting Global Commodity Prices Background While a commodity is any nondifferential article of commerce, commodity prices are how much a specific commodity is worth at a particular moment. Without taking supply and demand into account, commodity prices and inflation are usually in lockstep. Because of this, commodity prices are often used to serve as a measure of inflation in the global economy. The IMF monitors current commodity prices, updating them on its website every month to maintain accuracy, and predicts future ones for up to two years ahead. The IMF’s price index for commodities is not country-specific, but instead uses weighted averages to serve as a broad measure for the globe. Since commodity prices are used as a measure of inflation, declining prices can have serious consequences for the global economy as well as economies of specific countries. For example, the decline in oil prices in 2014 and 2015 hurt oil-rich countries such as Venezuela and Russia while being beneficial for large oil importers such as the United States and Canada. This imbalance causes such importing countries to become more stable and robust than exporting countries, creating a gap in the global economy. 127

Generally, when a lack of demand causes commodity prices to drop across the board, emerging markets, usually commodity producers, are hurt more than well-established economies, usually commodity consumers. Since countries in Latin America and the Middle East are mostly producers, of agricultural products and oil, respectively, low demand means their economies are doubly injured by both lower prices and lower demand. Inversely, commodity consumers are able to benefit from low prices, which is beneficial for their economies. Once again, this creates an imbalance between countries. An example of the IMF’s past efforts to aid countries affected by commodity prices would be its actions during the commodity price boom beginning in 2007. Inflation, rising food prices, and deteriorating external balances of net commodity importers led to chaos in many countries’ economies. Several African countries such as Burkina Faso, Cameroon, and Niger suffered from riots and demonstrations due to the high food prices. In response, the IMF made several calculated efforts to alleviate the problems being faced. Since low-income countries were most affected, the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) was implemented specifically to aid low-income countries through using temporary subsidies. Additionally, the Exogenous Shocks Facility (ESF) was available to “provide policy support and financial assistance to low-income countries facing exogenous shocks” (IMF 2017). In a report by the Executive Board evaluating the effectiveness of the PRGF program, it was determined that while large-scale economic activity had improved in low-income countries, per capita income remained low. The PRGF was later replaced by the

Extended Credit Facility, and the ESF was replaced by the Standby Credit Facility. Current Status Commodity prices in 2017 were relatively stable, but the IMF has predicted that they will drop in 2018. Furthermore, it is always difficult to predict changes in the global economy. Fluctuating commodity prices can be harmful whether they increase or decrease. Rising commodity prices can cause inflation, rising food prices, and hunger among the poorer sects of society. Alternatively, decreasing commodity prices can hurt commodity producers and cause them to receive less money for their goods than they would were the commodity prices normal. Due to the negative implications of fluctuating commodity prices, the IMF has a duty to aid countries that are hurt by such changes. Current Analysis Even though commodity prices are relatively stable currently, it is crucial that the IMF has a plan in case of another financial crisis. Despite the fact that there are already programs in place such as the Extended Credit Facility and the Standby Credit Facility, they must be re-evaluated to determine their effectiveness, especially because of the mixed success of past programs such as the PRGF. In the case that the current programs are not resulting in their desired effect, new programs may have to be formulated and implemented. In addition, the IMF should consider longerterm solutions such as new economic policies in countries that are often harmed by changing commodity prices. One solution that has been suggested by several World Bank Africa officials has been to diversify economies in low-income countries. For example, Makhtar Diop, the World Bank Vice 128

President for Africa, suggested providing affordable electricity for African citizens so that they could then branch into other markets on their own. Punam Chuhan-Pole, Acting Chief Economist for World Bank Africa, also believed that urbanization could be a key to providing such countries with an opportunity for growth, which would then limit their dependence on commodities and make them less vulnerable to price fluctuations. Questions to Consider 1. Should IMF solutions be reevaluated, discarded, or should they continue to be used? 2. What are some long-term solutions that would allow low-income countries to be less impacted by changes in commodity prices? 3. How can the IMF determine which countries will be most adversely affected by changes in commodity prices in order to preemptively aid them? 4. Have the IMF’s past predictions of commodity price changes been correct? If not, what can the organization do to make them more accurate? 5. Is there any way the IMF could control commodity prices more so that changes are not as large, or does the organization just have to learn to manage them? Further Research • /press-release/2016/04/11/africalow-commodity-prices-continue-toimpede-growth A press release from the World Bank suggesting ways to diversify African economies ploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Commo dity_Prices_on_EM_102814.pdf A report on how changing commodity prices can impact emerging markets r/facts/prgf.htm Factsheet by the IMF describing the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility r/faq/ffpfaqs.htm A list of FAQs by the IMF in regard to the impact of high commodity prices on developing countries dities?mhq5j=e3 A website that tracks commodity prices and updates them regularly - the data is delayed by at least 10 minutes

II. Aftermath of the Zimbabwe Crisis Background Zimbabwe is a former British colony, but is now its own country with a population of around 16 million people. The country is located in the southern portion of Africa, bordered by Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa, and Zambia. Founded as a British colony in November 11, 1965, it later gained political independence in April 1980. While initially prosperous and successful, President Robert Mugabe and his cabinet have inflicted new conditions upon the country which have resulted in severe economic complications, increased racial tensions, unrest, and unstable ties with many UN groups, including the IMF and World Bank. As such, Zimbabwe is currently ranked the 26th poorest country in the world. For the past two decades, Zimbabwe has been a degenerating economy, 129

causing severe hyperinflation and a growing number of impoverished conditions Many attribute this to Robert Mugabe, and his cabinet’s controversial choices and potential oversight. In April 1980, Robert Mugabe became the first President of Zimbabwe, giving the people of Zimbabwe a hope for a fresh start and a bright future. Mugabe campaigned on a platform of fixing the wrongs done by the British colonization and strengthening black rights while creating equality for all races. The country inherited a heavily regulated economy from its British colony, and had prospered for around one decade under Mugabe’s control, yet as the economy began expanding the negative aspects of regulation submerged. In the late 1980s, large deficits in payments had occurred, along with budget deficits to aid the economy. Mugabe finally sought help for this erratic economy, and in 1991 he began an Economic Structural Adjustment Program (ESAP), designed by the IMF and World Bank. Zimbabwe was given a loan of money, 125 million to help keep the country afloat and restore GDP growth. Under this ESAP, Zimbabwe’s GDP increased 5% from 19911996, the budget deficit decreased from 11 cents to 5 cents, and the agricultural sector’s earnings increased 3.4 cents. The agreement stipulated that Zimbabwe had to meet the IMF’s requirements in order to obtain the loan. While trying to meet these requirements, the Zimbabwean government had realized that in the long-term these changes implemented would ruin the economy, yet the aid of the IMF and World Bank was needed, so they followed through. The devaluation of currency caused Mugabe to hyperinflate the Zimbabwean currency in

the future, and the IMF encouraged Zimbabwe to import foreign goods,. The IMF also reduced government intervention in the economy. This altered Zimbabwe’s macroeconomic structure. With the reduced role of government management, the black market took hold in Zimbabwe, along with price and cost distortion variety. With this temporary financial stability, Mugabe could finally complete some of his campaign promises. Mugabe’s government regime wanted to create equality by for black people in Zimbabwe. To complete this, in the late 1990s, the government advocated for and ultimately implemented land reforms, taking land from white farmers and giving it to black farmers. What Mugabe and his government did not know, was that many of these newly employed black farmers had no experience in farming, leading to a severe decline of crops. This decline increased prices, which in turn caused Mugabe to increase the salaries of many government workers. Eventually, demand for products outweighed the supply, and merchants and street vendors began to manipulate the price of their products. Using only paper currency, Mugabe ordered mass printing of much more money. The land reforms that were instituted gave black families farm land that was previously monopolized by white landowners, to give a sense of equality to both races. Overall, the country faced severe declines in crops from 2000-2009. In the early 2000s, during the Second Congo War, Mugabe and the Zimbabwean bank starting to print their own money, excluding the World Bank. They failed to report about $ 23 million given to the IMF every month. Meanwhile, the government


raised the salary of soldiers to increase enlistment. With a mix of a degenerating economy, low GDP, and the stress of the Second Congo War, Mugabe began to hyper inflate the value of his dollar. This helped the people of Zimbabwe afford the extremely high-priced crops, due to their scarcity, yet rendered the Zimbabwean dollar virtually worthless. Hyperinflation was blamed on economic sanctions from the IMF, United States, and European Union. Other sanctions included the freezing of Zimbabwean assets, visa denials targeting advisors of the Mugabe regime, and private and public restrictions of trade placed on Zimbabwe. There were many negative aspects to hyperinflation that would keep the country in shambles to this day. For example, many businesses would double prices hourly, and companies would revisit their market prices constantly. This not only caused food shortages but a government salary could barely afford one loaf of bread. Due to the worthless value of a Zimbabwean dollar, business was quoting prices in local currency, but also foreign currency. At the peak of hyperinflation, the presence of the black market expanded. Many people began to buy from the black market due to the imported products and ability to convert currency. This allowed for a very productive barter system, due to lack of valuable currency. In 2003, due to the dire conditions set upon the economy, a huge wave of Zimbabweans emigrated to nearby countries, South Africa, Namibia, etc. The wave of people leaving contributed to the degrading labor force. About 6% of the entire population emigrated away in 2005.

Current Status Following the land reforms placed by the Mugabe regime, many aid organizations and donor countries withdrew help from Zimbabwe, due to Mugabe’s inability to pay off prior debt. Soon after, Mugabe stated that the withdrawal of these organizations and countries stemmed from sanctions, but was corrected that Zimbabwe disqualified themselves from access to proper funding. Then, in 2002, the EU had set sanctions on Zimbabwe, refusing any aid to the country. Approaching the latter part of the 2000’s, Zimbabwe remained in a degenerative economy, with hyperinflation rates at 231%. Along with this, much of the country was left without, welfare, food, and the ability to afford healthcare or an education. Due to this, in August of 2007, Zimbabwe was stricken with a cholera epidemic, that left 4000 dead and 90,000 ill. This was all due to a lack of medical care and no foreign or UN humanitarian aid. Many speculate that, due to Mugabe’s harsh rule and unfavorable tactics on opposing political parties, many foreign countries had cut ties with Zimbabwe and did not want to aid the country any longer. Therefore, in accordance to many donor countries, developmental institutions, and aid organizations, actual sanctions had been applied to Zimbabwe, due to their human rights abuse, misuse of authority, and government-controlled companies. In July of 2008, Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation rates were at a maintained 231%, with a Treasury Bill rate of 66%, and a statutory Reserve Ratio of 45% of demand deposits, to reduce lengthy queues in banks. As a result of the Zimbabwean economic crisis, many government ministries became dependent on the Zimbabwean reserve bank. 131

This bank began funding most governmental operations and institutions. Yet, due to a lack of automobiles, some funding was used towards the importing of such vehicles and the creation of mansions. Meanwhile, that money spent could have been used to further develop hospitals and schools to aid the mass majority of Zimbabwe’s citizens. The currency had been inflated so much, that in February of 2009, the people of Zimbabwe had finally abandoned their dollar. Civil servants and government workers refused to accept Zimbabwean dollars, as it had no value to them. Many people began illegally asking for U.S. dollars in exchange for goods, sometimes through the black market, where trade was not regulated. In February of 2015, the European Union (EU) had removed their 12 year sanctions on the country of Zimbabwe, while still enforcing their travel ban on Robert Mugabe and his regime from visiting the EU. The EU then offered a 234m euro olive branch to Zimbabwe. Promises were made that, if government officials used this aid properly, direct budget support could become a reality in a few years. The EU had changed their mind, due to Zimbabwe’s revision of their constitution. The loan went towards boosting agricultural production, improving healthcare, and government institutions. As of recently, in February of 2017 the economy shrank 0.3 percent and is estimated to shrink another 2.5 percent in the upcoming year. Many Zimbabweans have had their liquid assets frozen during foreign transactions, driving many companies out of business due to the inability to pay workers cash. The country is in an economic death spiral, due to shortages of money and the

increased distribution of bonds to help circulate money back into the economy. Due to all the problems Zimbabwe faces, many more citizens have emigrated to nearby countries, majority of Zimbabweans have fled to South Africa and Namibia. This also takes more resources from the neighboring countries to aid these immigrants. Analysis Zimbabwe is still in an economic rut, with a tyrannical president governing the country into further damage. A majority of the issues regarding hyperinflation and the economy itself, directly relates to Mugabe and his regime’s methods and policies imposed on the Zimbabwean people. For example, the land reforms implemented heavily reduced the annual crop yield, left many white farmers without land, and heavily influenced Zimbabwe’s GDP and agricultural sector. As a direct result in the reduction of Zimbabwe’s GDP, Mugabe began to mass print paper currency, starting the endless cycle of hyperinflation. Due to Mugabe and his regime’s unethical tactics during elections against other candidates, including torture, murder, and rape; many foreign countries and NGO’s refused to give any humanitarian aid to the country. This still holds back many countries today from any form of aid, until Mugabe’s death or resignation. With the newly edited Zimbabwean constitution, stipulating that the president may only serve two 5 year terms, the EU had given a loan of 243 million euros in 2015. This had allowed Zimbabwe to invest more into hospitals, schools, and other government building. Currently, in 2017 Zimbabwe is in an economic death spiral, with the future looking very bleak.


The country of Zimbabwe has been reluctant in joining neighboring countries in the Common Monetary Area (CMA), which links South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho, and Swaziland into a monetary union. If Zimbabwe were to join this organization, financial aid would be distributed through the other participants of the CMA. The country is in desperate need of aid from any organizations or donor countries that could provide aid. Questions to Consider 1. How can the IMF assist Zimbabwe? Is there need for any other organizations? 2. How will the public react to any changes made by the IMF and World Bank to modify guidelines when assigning Structural Adjustment Programs? 3. How can countries such as South Africa and Namibia be assisted due to the emigration of Zimbabweans? 4. How could the governing system of Zimbabwe be influenced, to encourage foreign donor countries to provide humanitarian and fiscal aid to the country? 5. How can Zimbabwe remove economic sanctions and allow for the economy to grow once again?

IMF. "The Exogenous Shocks Facility- High Access Component - ESF-HAC." International Monetary Fund. Last modified April 14, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. sheets/Sheets/2016/08/02/21/19/E xogenous-Shocks-Facility-HighAccess-Component. IMF. "The IMF at a Glance." International Monetary Fund. Last modified April 20, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. heets/IMF-at-a-Glance. IMF. "IMF Primary Commodity Prices." International Monetary Fund. Last modified July 26, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. /commod/index.aspx. IMF. "Impact of High Food and Fuel Prices on Developing Countries—Frequently Asked Questions." International Monetary Fund. Last modified July 28, 2017. Accessed August 24, 2017. r/faq/ffpfaqs.htm.

Bibliography "Crisis in Zimbabwe." IRCtoP. Accessed August 25, 2017. http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.or g/index.php/crises/crisis-inzimbabwe.

IMF. "The Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF)." International Monetary Fund. Last modified July 31, 2009. Accessed August 24, 2017. r/facts/prgf.htm.

"History & Politics." Our Africa. Accessed August 25, 2017.

IMF. "How the IMF Promotes Global 133

Economic Stability." International Monetary Fund. Last modified May 15, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017. heets/Sheets/2016/07/27/15/22/Ho w-the-IMF-Promotes-GlobalEconomic-Stability.

Robertson, John. "Zimbabwe’s Hyperinflation." Harvard International Review. July 17, 2009. Accessed August 25, 2017. 9. Subbaraman, Rob, Craig Chan, Tony Volpon, and Olgay Buyukkayali. The Impact of Commodity Prices on EM. October 28, 2014. Accessed August 24, 2017. ploads/pdf/The_Impact_of_Commo dity_Prices_on_EM_102814.pdf.

Latham, Brian, and Michael Cohen. "'Death Spiral' Looms for Zimbabwe Economy as Cash Runs Out." February 06, 2017. Accessed August 25, 2017. rticles/2017-02-06/-death-spirallooms-for-zimbabwe -economy-as-cash-runs-out.

The World Bank. "Africa: Low Commodity Prices Continue to Impede Growth." News release. April 11, 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. /press-release/2016/04/11/africalow-commodity-prices-continue-toimpede-growth.

"Markets Data: Commodities." Financial Times. Accessed August 24, 2017. dities?mhq5j=e3. Oster, Alan. "Commodity Price Declines and Their Economic Impact." International Banker. Last modified March 9, 2015. Accessed August 24, 2017. king/commodity-price-declines-andtheir-economic-impact/.

"Zimbabwe Economic Update: The State in the Economy." World Bank. July 2017. Accessed August 25, 2017. ry/zimbabwe/publication/zimbabweeconomic-update-the-state-in-theeconomy.

Palmer, Robin. "Land Reform in Zimbabwe, 1980–1990 | African Affairs | Oxford Academic." OUP Academic. April 01, 1990. Accessed August 25, 2017. le-abstract/89/355/163/106556/ LAND-REFORM-IN-ZIMBABWE1980-1990?redirectedFrom=PDF. 134

JCC Cuban Missile Crisis: USSR Alex Nikolov Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies

On behalf of GSMUN XXI, I am thrilled to welcome you to the JCC Soviet Union committee, chaired by yours truly, Alex Nikolov. As delegates, you will be representing high-ranking Soviet officials and Cuban nationals tasked with handling the Cuban Missile Crisis. The year is 1962, and the Soviet Union has just installed missiles in Cuba. The world is nearing the brink of war. It will be up to you and your fellow delegates to deescalate the situation while pursuing the goals of the Soviet bloc, all through lively and spirited debate. Before I go into further detail, let me introduce myself. As I mentioned, my name is Alex Nikolov, and I am entering my third year of high school. I am eagerly looking forward to chairing a Joint Crisis Committee after four years of participation in GSMUN. I started as a delegate in 7 grade and will now be chairing my second GSMUN committee! Aside from Model UN, I participate in Russian Club and Walker Congress as part of my love for languages and political debate. Outside of school, I enjoy playing tennis, learning piano, and listening to all sorts of music. I’m a sucker for good food, terrible puns, and Imagine Dragons. Now that you have a good idea about the committee and your chair, I would like to go over some requirements and recommendations. As delegates, you will all be expected to come to committee prepared for debate. This means having a strong grasp of the scope of the issues and understanding the Soviet Union’s perspective at the time. The Background Guide found on our committee page is a great place to start but further research is highly recommended. A central part of your preparation will be writing a position paper formatted in Chicago Manual Style to be emailed to me or turned in on the first day of the conference. The paper should adopt your individual’s stance on the crisis and discuss the possible resolution of the conflict. While this is a historical committee, I encourage delegates to be creative with their solutions. While you should remain practical, committee does not need to strictly adhere to history. The “Questions to Consider” section of the Background Guide can help you begin developing ideas for your paper. Please be reminded that plagiarism is strictly prohibited! Finally, GSMUN is dedicated to supporting change in the community through charitable outreach. Throughout the conference, merchandise and baked goods will be sold to support this year’s charity. Don’t forget to bring money so you can enjoy some high-quality merchandise all while helping out a great cause! Above all else, I hope you are looking forward to the conference as much as I am. If you have any questions or concerns, or need help in any stage of the researching process, feel free to email me at th

Your chair,

Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Alex Nikolov


Committee Overview Committee Background The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) was the ruling political party of the Soviet Union from its inception to its fall in 1991. It was the role of the Soviet Government to implement the decisions of the CPSU, making the Communist Party the leading political institution in the nation. The structure of the Soviet Government modeled that of the CPSU; the General Congress of the Party elected the Central Committee, which elected members of the Politburo, the highest policy-making authority in the Soviet Union. Decisions regarding the state of the union were made by the senior-most members of the party, the officials of the Politburo. The First Secretary of the Politburo served as the de facto leader of the Soviet Union. The CPSU was founded by Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolsheviks. The party arose in opposition to capitalism and the oppression of the working class. The Bolshevik ideology was based off of the work of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels who argued for a command economy that nationalized industry and abolished private property. Lenin and his followers believed in a government founded by political revolutionaries who were dedicated to achieving the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Bolsheviks seized power during the October Revolution of 1917, establishing Russia as a socialist state. The radical ideas of the party immediately sparked tension with the West, sowing the seeds for the Cold War decades later. The party was named the AllUnion Communist Party in 1925 after the

creation of the Soviet Union and was finally named the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1952. The Politburo, as head of the party, continued to craft the Soviet policy for decades. The existence of the Politburo ended with the rest of the party in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Introduction to Cold War Politics The Cold War was a term first coined by George Orwell in his 1945 essay You and the Atomic Bomb, where he described a world with “two or three monstrous super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people could be wiped out in a few seconds, dividing the world between them”. This year indeed marked the end of one war and the beginning of another. During the Second World War, the United States and Soviet Union forged an uneasy alliance to defeat their mutual enemy, Nazi Germany. However, this alliance immediately began to deteriorate following Germany’s surrender in May of 1945. The United States and Soviet Union emerged as two opposing superpowers determined to increase their political prominence and military might. Thus began the Cold War, an era defined by the deepseated rivalry between the US and USSR. The war would not be fought with conventional weapons but with political and economic struggles that sometimes brought the two nations into direct confrontation. The animosity between the Soviet Union and United States can be attributed to several factors. For one, the principle of communism greatly differed from the freemarket capitalism in the West. In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Friedrich 139

Engels argued that competition and private ownership of land were tools used by the bourgeois to exploit the poorer working class. The Manifesto called for a centralized state that controlled agriculture and industry and abolished private property. These were the principles that fueled the Bolshevik Revolution and established the socialist Soviet State in 1922. However, the United States remained hostile to these radical ideas and refused to recognize the Soviet Union until 1933. World War II furthered the divide between the USSR and US. The Soviet Union suffered twenty million causalities from Germany’s invasion, and Premier of the USSR Joseph Stalin largely blamed the United States and Britain for their delayed response in opening the Western Front. After the war concluded, Germany was divided into four occupational zones between the US, France, Britain, and the USSR. East Germany, under Soviet control, elected a communist government. Other communist regimes with the support of the Red Army took root across Eastern Europe, forming a socialist bloc with strong ties to the Soviet Union. This served a dual purpose for the Soviet government. The spread of communism in Eastern Europe supported the Marxist worldview and created a buffer zone to deter any future invasions of the Soviet homeland. The Soviet Union’s main goal during this period was to increase its world prominence, which meant supporting communist revolutions across the globe. This brought the Cold War to new heights during the late 1940s. In 1947, the US adopted a policy of containment to limit the Soviet’s influence in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Soviet-backed communist forces clashed with

US-backed troops in China and North Korea, resulting in a communist state in China and a divided Korean peninsula. While tensions were increasing between the US and Soviet Union, a development in 1949 would dramatically change Cold War politics. In addition to the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Soviets successfully tested their first nuclear weapon. The US, having lost its nuclear supremacy, began development on the hydrogen bomb theorized to be over one hundred times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. A nuclear arms race ensued, which acted more as a deterrent than a sign of aggression. With such devastating stockpiles of weapons, both nations understood that neither would win from a nuclear war, a concept known as Mutually Assured Destruction. Despite such a deterrent, tensions over the island of Cuba in 1962 would almost bring the two countries to war. Lead-Up to the Cuban Missile Crisis In December of 1956, Fidel Castro and a group of followers landed on the island of Cuba to overthrow Dictator Fulgencio Batista. Since Batista first came to power in 1933, the United States government had backed his regime. This support continued throughout the late 1950s despite rampant corruption, human rights abuses, and overall government inefficiency. The US government was concerned with Fidel Castro’s leftist ideologies and the threats they posed to American business in Cuba. However, public support for Castro grew, and on January 1, 1959, Batista fled the country, and Castro soon established himself as the leader of Cuba. Upon assuming leadership, Castro nationalized private business and opened a 140

correspondence with the leader of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev. The US immediately broke diplomatic ties with Cuba and impressed an embargo on the country. In 1961, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) devised a plan to train exiled Cubans and lead an invasion of the island to overthrow Castro. The Bay of Pigs Invasion, as it became known, was a resounding failure that deeply scarred US-Cuban relations. Regardless, the CIA continued its attacks on Cuban sovereignty through assassination attempts and covert operations such as Operation Mongoose. This constant threat from the CIA prompted Castro to forge a deeper relationship with the Soviet Union. Nikita Khrushchev, the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and leader of the USSR, proposed the idea of deploying Soviet missiles in Cuba. Despite widespread misconceptions, the US military far surpassed the Soviets in terms of nuclear weaponry and the ability to deliver these weapons. In 1962, the United States’ nuclear stockpile consisted of roughly 3,500 warheads, over six times that of the Soviet Union. The US had developed 203 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) capable of reaching the Soviet Union from American soil, a stark contrast to the 36 ICBMs possessed by the Soviets. US forces also boasted more strategic launch sites. The first nuclear tipped mediumrange ballistic missiles developed by the United States Air Force, known as PGM-19 Jupiter missiles, were stationed in Italy and Turkey in 1961, and more accurate Thor missiles were stationed in Britain. All of this amounted to a staggering nuclear imbalance, which Khrushchev hoped to remedy by placing Soviet missiles in Cuba.

Khrushchev was convinced by his military advisors that missiles in Cuba, one hundred miles from the US coastline, would help balance the nuclear gap by providing Soviets a first strike capability. Khrushchev also believed that missiles in Cuba would grant him the political capital he needed to obtain West Berlin. Berlin, like Germany, had been divided into four occupational zones following World War II. West Berlin remained a US-controlled enclave deep within Soviet territory. Khrushchev recognized the importance of West Berlin just as Stalin did decades prior during the 1948 Berlin Blockade. The city was an important political center and granted Western troops direct access to Soviet territory. By 1958, over two million East Germans had defected through Berlin, depriving the country of its human and capital resources. The very existence of West Berlin as a western-controlled entity was a rebuttal to the Soviet claim to being Germany’s rightful authority. Uniting the capital under Soviet control, expelling Western troops, and resuscitating the stagnated East German economy would have been great achievements for the USSR. In 1960, the US was unwilling to discuss the topic of West Berlin, but Khrushchev hoped Cuban missiles could serve as a bargaining chip to begin negotiations on the city. Deployment of Missiles to Cuba Following the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Cuba officially joined the Soviet bloc. Khrushchev gained an ally who not only represented the progression of world socialism but was situated one hundred miles from the United States. As with the United States, the Soviet Union felt an obligation to defend its allies, and in May of 1962, a secret Soviet delegation convinced Cuban Defense 141

Minister Raul Castro to accept Soviet missiles. The plan, known as Operation Anadyr, was to install nuclear-capable R-12 and R-14 surface to surface missiles in Cuba. These missiles were known to the CIA as SS-4 Sandal and SS-5 Skean missiles. Khrushchev decided to send five regiments totaling eighty missiles in all. The medium range R-12 missiles could strike major cities such as Washington D.C. and Dallas, and the intermediate range R-14 missiles could cover the entire continental US. Defense Minister Marshal Sergei Biryuzov and Presidium member Sharaf Rashidov both believed the missiles could be deployed expeditiously and be camouflaged under the cover of palm trees. The operation was to be kept completely secret through the implementation of denial and deception techniques, known in Russian as maskirovka. The operation was named after a region in northernmost Siberia, and missile engineers were instructed to pack for travel to a cold region. Besides the deceiving name, all logistics were kept highly classified; only the most senior officials were granted access to operational details. Maskirovka techniques were implemented throughout the entire process. Foreigners and news agencies were forbidden to travel outside of Havana, equipment was hidden below board, and large cinder-block walls were constructed around unloading docks. The first R-12 missiles arrived in Mariel, Cuba on September 8th. The first shipment of nuclear warheads arrived October 4th. In addition to the weaponry, Operation Anadyr called for over 50,000 technicians. By late October, roughly 42,000 personnel had landed in Cuba disguised as agricultural specialists, irrigation specialists, and machine operators.

From the unloading docks, the R-12 missiles were transported under canvas tarps during the night. Over the next few weeks, reports were leaked to the CIA of canvascovered night convoys and Russian officials within Cuba. Soviet representatives in the United Nations denied such reports, and Soviet Ambassador to America Anatoli Dobrynin personally assured Robert Kennedy that there were no offensive missiles stationed in Cuba. However, the missile sites became a challenge to hide. Cuba’s forests were sparse, and the construction of the missiles required large machinery, fuel trucks, heavy cable wiring, and large concrete foundations. Due to suspicion of Soviet actions in Cuba, the US began U-2 reconnaissance of the island starting in August of 1962. The planes were capable of taking one thousand photographs in under ten minutes as they flew over the heart of Cuba. On October 14, a U-2 aircraft manned by Richard Heyser photographed the San Cristobal area, one of the first missile launch site locations. This provided US Intelligence the first concrete evidence of Soviet missiles stationed in Cuba. On October 15, the CIA confirmed what the photographs suggested, and the next day President of the United States John F. Kennedy was informed about the missiles. Possible Responses from the United States Upon learning of the missiles, Kennedy assembled his cabinet members and top advisors to discuss possible responses. The Executive Committee of the National Security Council, or ExComm for short, consisted of several members including the President, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Director of Central Intelligence John McCone, and Special Assistance 142

McGeorge Bundy. Allowing the missiles to remain in Cuba was never an option for the committee. Historians view John F. Kennedy as one in a long line of “Cold Warrior” Presidents. Kennedy believed that if the US took a step back and allowed missiles in Cuba, the Soviet Union would take a step further and continue aggression. Whether the Soviets deployed the missiles to protect an ally or provoke the US remained a moot point, but ExComm members agreed that leaving the missiles would weaken America’s credibility in the face of allies and adversaries alike. The committee presented a broad range of political opinion. On one end of the spectrum was the proposal for military intervention. General Maxwell Taylor believed the crisis to be a “test of wills” with the most definitive course of action being an airstrike on all known missile sites. Taylor further suggested that the airstrike be followed with a US-led invasion of Cuba to overthrow Castro and dismantle any further launch sites. The plan would undeniably lead to the death of Soviet troops and prompt a Soviet invasion in another part of the world, most notably West Berlin. Although this was the quickest path to war, the generals hoped cooler heads would prevail before nuclear weapons were considered. This policy of brinksmanship was not uncommon during the Cold War. By pushing an enemy to the brink of war, the enemy either backed down or was forced to escalate. Those less receptive to the idea of military confrontation proposed the idea of issuing a naval blockade around Cuba to prevent further militarization. International law classifies a blockade, either at land or sea, as a declaration of war. Committee members suggested calling the blockade a “defensive

quarantine” banning all offensive weaponry being shipped to Cuba. While the action would still be a blockade at heart, its legal premise did not require a declaration of war. Ships bound for Cuba would be checked and, if found to hold offensive weaponry, be turned back. The quarantine would however require unanimous approval from the Organization of American States. On the other end of the spectrum was U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, who believed diplomacy was the only way to deescalate the crisis. Stevenson proposed an agreement where the US withdrew its Jupiter missiles from Turkey and the Soviets withdrew their missiles from Cuba. While diplomacy seemed to offer a peaceful resolution to the conflict, the exchange was the most unpopular idea presented in the ExComm meetings. General Taylor believed the Soviets could not be trusted and that diplomacy offered no permanent solution, whereas an invasion could overthrow Castro and install a US-friendly leader. Others were wary of the political image the US would be left with if missiles were removed from a NATO ally for America’s own protection. Possible Soviet Solutions In the Soviet Union, when it became clear that the United States had confirmed the presence of missiles in Cuba, it became the responsibility of Khrushchev and his advisors to anticipate the responses of the United States and devise possible solutions to such responses. To begin, it is important to understand that the Soviet Union was under no obligation to remove the missiles after they were discovered by US intelligence. For one, the missiles in Cuba did not pose a serious threat to the nuclear balance. The missiles, once fully operational, would require several 143

hours to be prepared for launch. For this reason, there was no significant difference in response times of Cuban missiles, ICBMs stationed in the Soviet Union, and submarinebased missiles off the coast of the United States. Robert McNamara stated, “A missile is a missile. It makes no great difference whether you are killed by a missile from the Soviet Union or Cuba.” In addition, the deployment of missiles in Cuba was a reaction to US foreign policy at the time. While Kennedy blamed Khrushchev for bringing the world to “the abyss of destruction,” it was the Kennedy administration that made the first destabilizing moves in 1961. The Jupiter missiles installed in Turkey were designed to provoke rather than promote collective security. The missiles were stationed above ground, immobile, and highly vulnerable to attack. Their role was to deliver a disarming first strike, as they would easily be targeted after initiating a nuclear war. Furthermore, the Kennedy administration had repeatedly sponsored attacks on Castro’s regime and the Cuban government through the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Operation Mongoose, and repeated assassination attempts. The Soviets believed the missiles in Cuba were justified and necessary in countering the United States’ provoking conduct. As a result, the Soviet Union was prepared to protect the missiles or respond elsewhere in the world in the event of a US attack. In addition to the installment of R-12 missiles, Soviet officials also brought at least ninety nuclear-capable tactical Luna missiles to Cuba, unbeknownst to American intelligence. Issa Pliyev, Army General and commander of the Soviet forces in Cuba, discussed using these tactical weapons to

defend against a US invasion force. The weapons were designed to be used on the battlefield against infantry units with Soviet and Cuban forces nearby. Defense Minister Rodion Malinovsky and Chief of the General Staff Matvei Zakharov gave local commanders discretion in using the Luna weapons “for the destruction of the invaders of the Cuban territory and to defend the Republic of Cuba.” At the height of the conflict, once the missiles had become operational, Fidel Castro strongly advocated for a preemptive nuclear strike on US soil. Some Soviet officials also believed a US airstrike would warrant an invasion of Berlin. Under General Malinovsky, the Soviet Army had grown to the most powerful force in Europe in terms of size and conventional force. NATO reports suggested that Berlin, surrounded by Soviet territory, could not be defended in the event of an attack. Both an invasion of Berlin or use of tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba could have easily escalated to a global conflict by invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty. However, ceding Cuba to the United States would have been a great loss for the Soviet Union. Khrushchev and his advisors were also tasked with knowing how to respond to a naval quarantine of Cuba. The United States had not declared war and by international law did not have the right to blockade the island. Soviet ships could either respect the quarantine and turn back or continue their path to Cuba. To enforce the quarantine, US ships would likely fire disabling shots into the rudder if a ship refused to stop; one proposed solution was to protect the rudders of Soviet ships with submarines, forcing the US to either stand down and allow passage or escalate the conflict with lethal force. 144

Breaking naval quarantine would allow the Soviet Union to continue its militarization of Cuba and greatly increase the nation’s chances of successfully defending the island. Like the United States, the Soviet Union also entertained diplomatic options. In his campaign for US president, Kennedy clearly stated he would not allow a Soviet buildup in Cuba. For this reason, Khrushchev had great political leverage in negotiating the terms of withdrawing the missiles; he understood Kennedy’s public support rested on the removal of the missiles. A diplomatic resolution to the conflict would have had to address the two major Soviet goals of the time: protecting Cuban sovereignty and removing US Jupiter missiles from Turkey and Italy. If the missiles were to become operational, the Soviet Union might also have had enough political leverage to begin discussions on West Berlin. However, Soviet officials were wary that as the conflict continued, the world came closer to war. A diplomatic resolution would also allow for warmer relations between the Soviet Union and United States. Steps could be taken to increase communications and transparency between the Kremlin and White House to avoid future escalation of conflicts. In an effort to maintain peace and security, some Soviet officials were willing to collectively reduce nuclear arsenals alongside the US, although such treaties did not come to fruition until the Nixon and Brezhnev administrations. Conclusion October 16, 1962 began the Cuban Missile Crisis, an intense 13-day political and military standoff between the US and Soviet Union. The incident brought the Cold War to historic heights and led the world to the brink

of nuclear war. Despite the bold move to install missiles in Cuba, Khrushchev did not intend to provoke the US and bring the two nations to war. In a recent interview with Sergei Khrushchev, the son of Nikita Khrushchev, Sergei argues that Soviet missiles in Cuba were only a means to protect an ally and preserve the Soviet Union’s stature as a global superpower. The Soviet Union did not create a crisis when the US deployed missiles in Turkey, and Nikita Khrushchev hoped it would be the same with the US when missiles were placed in Cuba. Khrushchev did not expect the Americans to react so strongly, which his son later explained as a misconception about the American psyche. According to Sergei, whereas Russia had endured centuries of invasions and devastating warfare, the United States had never experienced such an existential threat so close to its border. The Cuban Missile Crisis tested the wills of the two largest superpowers and brought the world to near destruction. It required determination from its leaders, yet a willingness to concede and deescalate through diplomatic terms. Nikita Khrushchev and John F. Kennedy both sought the best path for their nations and could not risk devolving into nuclear war. When asked if the crisis would have played out differently if Richard Nixon had been president of the United States, Sergei Khrushchev responded, “I don’t think so. Only one thing could have successfully resolved the crisis – negotiation.” Questions to Consider 1. Does the American government pose a threat to Castro’s rule over Cuba? If so, how can the Soviet Union ensure the United States does not sabotage his regime in the future? 145

2. Can the Soviet Union extend this policy to all socialist allies where the US has interfered with foreign sovereignty by supporting anticommunist forces, such as in China? 3. Do Jupiter missiles in Turkey and Italy pose a threat to world peace? 4. If Soviet missiles were to remain in Cuba, would this decrease world security by furthering militarization or prevent conflict by acting as another deterrent to nuclear war? 5. How should the Soviet Union react to an American invasion of Cuba? Would such an invasion warrant a Soviet invasion of West Berlin? 6. Do Cubans and Soviet officials stationed on the island have the capability of defending the island from US forces? Should local commanders be authorized to use tactical nuclear weapons, or is the risk for escalation too great? Alternatively, should more conventional support, such as troops and battlefield weaponry, be sent to Cuba to defend against a possible invasion? 7. How should the Soviet Union react to a US naval quarantine on Cuba? Does the US have the right to blockade Cuba without declaring war? 8. Should the Soviet Union be willing to dismantle the missiles in Cuba, and if so, at what cost? 9. Would such an arrangement include defensive weaponry such as antiaircraft missiles and tactical nuclear weapons? 10. Finally, what steps can the Soviet Union take to prevent conflicts from escalating in the future? How can US-

Soviet relations be ameliorated to encourage diplomacy and world peace? Further Research • 1961-1968/cuban-missile-crisis - A summary of how the Cuban Missile Crisis actually played out • gazine/v891/Nay.pdf - An article on the Soviet psyche and Nikita Khrushchev’s perspective on the crisis • 1961-1968/bay-of-pigs – Information on Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, and other CIA attempts to sabotage the Castro Regime • ml#fn8 – A detailed account of Operation Anadyr • 0/what-was-at-stake-in-1962/ - A look into the nuclear imbalance during 1962 and the types of missiles sent to Cuba • nal/1983-4/pavy.htm - Responses proposed by ExComm (how the crisis could have played out) • - A treaty passed following the Cuban Missile Crisis Bibliography Dobbs, Rachel. "What Was at Stake in 1962?" Foreign Policy. Last modified July 10, 2012. Accessed August 17, 2017. 146 what-was-at-stake-in-1962/.

August 17, 2017.

Hansen, James H. "Soviet Deception in the Cuban Missile Crisis." Central Intelligence Agency. Last modified June 27, 2008. Accessed August 17, 2017. #author1.

Nay, Sherry. "The Cuban Missile Crisis: The Soviet View." Torch Magazine, Fall 2015, 29-32. Accessed August 17, 2017. zine/v891/Nay.pdf. Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs. "The Bay of Pigs Invasion and Its Aftermath, April 1961-October 1962." Office of the Historian. Accessed August 17, 2017. 61-1968/bay-of-pigs.

History Channel. "Batista Forced out by Castro-Led Revolution." History. Accessed August 17, 2017. "Kennedy Announces Blockade of Cuba during the Missile Crisis." History. Accessed August 17, 2017.

"The Cuban Missile Crisis, October 1962." Office of the Historian. Accessed August 17, 2017. 61-1968/cuban-missile-crisis. Pavy, Jeanne. "The Role of the Executive Committee in the Cuban Missile Crisis." Loyola University Student Historical Journal 15 (Spring/Fall 1984). Accessed August 17, 2017. l/1983-4/pavy.htm.

Independence Hall Association. "The Cold War Erupts." U.S. History. Accessed August 17, 2017. Khrushchev, Sergei. "Soviet Perspective on the Cuban Missile Crisis from Nikita Khrushchev's Son." Interview by Sam LaGrone. USNI News. Last modified February 5, 2013. Accessed August 17, 2017. iet-perspective-cuban-missile-crisisnikita-khrushchevs-son.

Schwarz, Benjamin. "The Real Cuban Missile Crisis." The Atlantic, January/February 2013. Accessed August 17, 2017. /archive/2013/01/the-real-cubanmissile-crisis/309190/. Swift, John. "The Cuban Missile Crisis." History Today, March 2007. Accessed August 17, 2017.

Lindsay, James M. "TWE Remembers: Secret Soviet Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Cuba (Cuban Missile Crisis, a Coda)." Council on Foreign Relations. Last modified October 29, 2012. Accessed 147


JCC Cuban Missile Crisis: United States Sammy Guinn Chair



Dear Delegates, GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology

Welcome to the United States Committee on the Cuban Missile Crisis at GSMUN XXI. As members of this committee you will advise President Kennedy, who will be represented by your chair. Each committee member will hold an important position of knowledge, skill, and expertise. Our country depends on you, the members of this committee to ensure an outcome that secures peace and protects the best interests of Americans. Sammy Guinn, a junior, is thrilled to serve as chair of this committee. This is his third year as a member of Maggie Walker’s Model UN Club, and he has attended several conferences, including VAMUN XXXVI, where he was awarded Best Delegate. Along with participating in Model UN, Sammy is also a member of the Model Congress club, the School Advisory Council, and President of the Maggie Walker Jewish Students Association. When he has free time, he likes to play frisbee or spend time with friends. Sammy also enjoys binge watching Netflix, especially the Office, which he has viewed in its entirety, several times. This committee will be fun as well as educational, and I encourage delegates to fully embrace their character. Some preliminary work will be required to maximize the success of this committee. As delegates, you are expected to come prepared with thorough research on the topic for this committee. The background guide naturally provides background information on the topic, but delegates should further research the history of this event as well as the historical figures on the dossier in order to write a comprehensive position paper. It is essential that each delegate write a position paper, as it will act as an reference guide during the conference. Please use CMS formatting for the position paper, and keep in mind that the conference follows Maggie Walker’s Honor Code policy, and plagiarism will not be tolerated. That being said, if you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at my email, Lastly, please remember that the most important part of Model UN is the quality of your ideas, and how it contributes to the debate in committee. I am looking forward to meeting you all in committee and have fun! Your chair,

Sammy Guinn

Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor



Committee Overview Committee Overview The Soviet Union was established when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik followers won the October Revolution of 1917. Once in power, the Bolsheviks established the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) as the leading political body of the nation. The CPSU adopted a political philosophy known as Marxism-Leninism. This version of communism established the policies of the CPSU as the supreme law. It also advocated state socialism, a political philosophy that supports state ownership over the means of production. Additionally, Marxism-Leninism emphasized collective goals and community, setting it apart from the individualistic ideologies in the west. Under Soviet law, individuals had right to express themselves as long as their express was in the best interest of the nation as a whole. The Soviet government held extensive power to limit individual right if it was deemed to be the best decision for the country. Soviet Marxism-Leninism promoted nationalism as well. Soviet media often portrayed the nation’s successes as victories for the communism as a whole, and stressed the struggle between communism and capitalism. The goal of the Soviet government was to execute the platform of the CPSU. The Politburo was the highest policy-making authority in the Soviet Union. The General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was the leader of the Politburo and the de facto leader of the nation as a whole. The position was renamed First Secretary in 1953 by Nikita Khrushchev.

Cold War Background The Cold War describes the period of political tension in the second half of the twentieth century in which two superpowers, the United States and Soviet Union, competed for influence. Though they were allies during the Second World War, their relationship was tenuous. The United States was suspicious of Soviet communism and viewed Joseph Stalin as a tyrant. Meanwhile, the Soviets resented the United States for not allowing the country to join the international community and for delaying the opening of a western front during the Second World War. The Allies divided Germany into four occupation zones after it fell in 1945. The countries occupying the three western zones wanted to unite their sections to help the German economy. The Soviets opposed this plan, however, because it would give the unified western half more power than their eastern portion. In 1946, negotiations between the western zones and the Soviets ended. The Americans, British, and French responded the following year by unifying their zones. Later, when a unified currency was introduced to the western half, the Soviets began the Berlin Blockade. When the country was divided, the capital city of Berlin was also partitioned into occupational zones. However, the city was entirely surrounded by the Soviet occupational zone. During the Berlin Blockade, the Soviets prevented access to West Berlin. Rather than meet Soviet demands, the western powers decided to airlift supplies to West Berlin, leading to the end of the Soviet blockade in 1949.


The Berlin Blockade is sometimes marked as the beginning of the Cold War. However, most historians mark the year before, 1947, as its first year. That year President Truman introduced his self-named Truman Doctrine. This document established American foreign policy that directly aided anti-communist countries and actively resisted Soviet and communist expansion. The political philosophy reflected in the Truman Doctrine is known as containment. First introduced by American diplomat George F. Kennan in 1946, containment theory would go on to influence nearly every foreign policy decision made by the American government during the Cold War. As the Soviet Union tried to expand the influence of Communism, and the United States tried to contain it, the two nations came into conflict. These conflicts in which two powers indirectly fight each other through a regional conflict are known as proxy wars. Proxy wars in Asia lead to the establishment of China as a communist state and the division of the Korean Peninsula. The balance of the Cold War changed dramatically in 1949, when the Soviet Union developed its first nuclear weapon, starting the arms race that lead to the development of thousands of nuclear weapons. With these bomb, both countries had the power to destroy the world several times over. The theory of Mutual Assured Destruction states that if two powers which vast nuclear capabilities, such as the United States and Soviet Union, go to war, then both combatants will be destroyed by nuclear warfare. The nuclear deterrent was a powerful political force during the Cold War; however, there were a few times the world came very close to a nuclear conflict. Perhaps the event

that brought the United States and Soviet Union closest to nuclear war was the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuban Missile Crisis In 1959, after a nearly six-year conflict, Cuba emerged as a communist state, led by revolutionary Fidel Castro. The Cuban revolution stunned both the United States and the Soviet Union because it began and ended without help from the Soviet Union. This affirmed the Marxist theory that the proletariat would rise up on its own. The United States was particularly stressed by the Cuban revolution because it is only 90 miles of the coast of Florida, and anti-American sentiment was rampant in Cuba during this period. Many Cubans felt they lived in the shadow of America. After gaining independence from Spain in 1898, Cuba became an American protectorate. The American declaration of war on Spain included the Teller Amendment which prevented the United States from annexing Cuba and promised political freedom and selfgovernment. However, at the end of the conflict the American military did not leave Cuba until the Platt Amendment was implemented. This piece of legislation allowed the United States to intervene in Cuban affairs whenever it saw fit. This was later used to justify continued military intervention in Cuban affairs. After the Cuban Revolution in 1959, Cuba-United States relation deteriorated. In 1961, the United States broke all ties with Cuba and began attempts to overthrow the popular communist regime. The United States also imposed an embargo that was still in place at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. As ties between the United States and Cuba 154

frayed, Cuba looked to other nations as potential trade partners. They found a close ally in the Soviet Union, another communist nation. This alliance further distanced Cuba and the United States. In late 1960, President Eisenhower authorized military training for Cuban refugees as part of a plot to topple Castro’s government. In 1961, newly elected President John F. Kennedy decided to go ahead with operation, despite his criticism of Eisenhower’s policy toward Cuba during his campaign. The Cuban government successfully defeated the 1,500 CIA trained Cuban Refugees. This military and political disaster became known as the Bay of Pigs Invasion. President Kennedy claimed full responsibility for the attack and anti-American sentiment in Cuba rose to new heights. After Bay of Pigs the United States carried out several attempts to assassinate Castro and other key Cuban officials and repeatedly ran American military drills that practiced invading an island like Cuba. Under pressure from the actions of the United States, Cuba looked to the Soviet Union to provide some kind of security for the nation. The Soviet Union was also concerned about American ballistic missiles stationed in Turkey and Italy. After negotiations, they decided to build missile launch sites in Cuba and store nuclear missiles on the island. This decision was a calculated risk by First Secretary of the Communist Party Nikita Khrushchev. He believed President Kennedy would have a weak response because the President did not react powerfully to the construction of the Berlin Wall. At this time, the missile race was at its height. Kennedy talk extensively about a “missile gap” during his campaign. He claimed that America was falling behind the

Soviets in missile production. It was the opposite, however, as the United States had significantly more missile capabilities than the Soviets. Khrushchev used this misconception to make it seem as if the Soviet Union had far greater nuclear abilities than it did. The Soviet Union did not have the ability to launch an accurate nuclear strike on the continental United States from its own territory until 1965. This meant, in 1962, missiles needed to be deployed to allies closer to the United States to even the scales. Additionally, Khrushchev planned to use the missiles as a way to take West Berlin. If the Americans did nothing, the missiles could be used to deter action in Berlin. If the Americans tried to negotiate, the missiles could be removed in exchange for West Berlin. On October 14th, 1962, pictures from a U-2 plane flight showed potential Soviet missiles sites on Cuban soil. The next day, the photographs were reviewed and experts identified the mid-range nuclear missiles. President Kennedy was notified the following morning. In response, he formed an advisory council called the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (EXCOMM) that would aid him in making a decision on the crisis. EXCOMM considered several different solutions. The first was to simply not respond at all. Supporters of this argument stated that the threat of Soviet missiles exited prior to the sites in Cuba and these new sites have virtually no effect on the overall strategic military balance. The committee decided it need to act, however, because they did not want their allies to view the United States as weak or give the Soviet Union a sign to move on West Berlin. Naturally, the committee favored a negotiation with the Soviets, but 155

Khrushchev was unwilling to move. Some proposed a secret negotiation with Cuba, which would help the United States further its agenda in the Caribbean, but it seems unlikely Castro would turn on his close ally to work with the hated Americans. Many of the advisors on EXCOMM championed an invasion of Cuba. They argued that this would lead to the destruction of the missiles and the end of the Castro regime. However, many thought that this act of aggression would give the Soviets the freedom to take West Berlin by force. Bombing the missiles was an option, but if the missiles were armed it would cause a nuclear explosion with fallout close enough to the United States to kill Americans. The committee also proposed a blockade to prevent more weapons from entering the island. However, this was a particularly risky plan because a blockade is an act of war according to international law. This duty of this committee will be to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis and prevent nuclear war.

Bibliography "About the Crisis." Cuban Missile Crisis. Accessed August 20, 2017. http://www.cubanmissile Allison, Graham T., and Philip Zelikow. Essence of decision: explaining the Cuban missile crisis. New York: Longman, 2010. Armstrong, John Alexander. Ideology, politics, and government in the Soviet Union: an introduction. Lanham, Md: University Press of America, 1986. "Cuban Missile Crisis." International Military and Defense Encyclopedia, edited by Trevor N. Dupuy, Macmillan Reference USA, 1993. World History in Context, Accessed 15 July 2017. "Cuban Missile Crisis." John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. Accessed August 20, 2017.

Questions to Consider: 1. How does the Soviet deployment of Missiles affect the balance of power? 2. What are the motivations for Soviet deployment of missiles in Cuba? 3. How might each response affect the situation in Berlin? 4. How will American allies react to the US response? 5. How does the crisis affect Americans? What should be done to reduce panic and keep the public informed? 6. How will the response affect CubanAmerican relations in the future?

"The Cuban Missile Crisis: October 16–28, 1962." Global Events: Milestone Events Throughout History, edited by Jennifer Stock, vol. 3: Central and South America, Gale, 2014. World History in Context, Accessed 15 July 2017.

"Cuban Missile Crisis." The Cold War--19451991, Gale, 1992. World History in Context, Accessed 15 July 2017.


Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: a new history. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2007. hools/AL/SaralandCitySchools/Sarala ndHigh/Uploads/Forms/The%20Col d%20War.pdf.

Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. "Decolonizing the Cuban Missile Crisis." International Studies Quarterly 52, no. 3 (2008): 555-77. 9734251. Smith, Gordon B. Soviet politics: Struggling for change. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education, 1992.



JCC Indo-Pakistani War (1971): India Aashri Aggarwal Chair



Dear Delegates, GSMUN XXI Champion the Change Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s Joint Crisis Committee Indo-Pakistani War 1971: India. You chair, Aashri Aggarwal, is so excited to meet you all. As member of this committee, you will convene to discuss the internal and external events of the IndoPakistani War of 1971. This committee will represent the acting Government of India starting in 1971 and will work together to make decisions on India’s best interest. You will need to come up with viable moves and strategies to defeat the unrest in Pakistan without crippling the Indian economy and morale. Aashri Aggarwal, a junior, is ecstatic to serve as the chair for JCC India. This is her third year in the Model UN club at Maggie Walker and also her third year chairing a GSMUN committee. Aside from Model UN, Aashri is also the Assistant Director of Music Orchard and a lab assistant at MCV. In her free time, she enjoys playing violin in the Richmond Symphony Youth Concert Orchestra and running. If she had one free day to do absolutely anything, Aashri would be watching Riverdale. She looks forward to some enthralling debate and interesting directives! As delegates of this committee, you are expected to come prepared to debate at a high level about the current situation of India and Pakistan with thorough knowledge of their past grievances. You should be informed about the specifics of your role and what personal powers you have in the committee. Additionally, you are urged to come to committee with possible solutions and ideas to solve the crisis. While the background guide will be a useful tool, it is only a guide and outside research is expected. Delegates are also expected to write a comprehensive position paper, formatted in Chicago Manual Style (CMS). A GSMUN, all position papers are expected to follow the Maggie Walker honor code; plagiarism will not be tolerated in any means. Finally, an essential aspect of GSMUN is our commitment to making a difference through charity. There will be high-quality merchandise, baked goods, and many other things on-sale that you won’t want to miss out on, so don’t forget to bring money! If you have any questions or concerns feel free to contact your chair at We are looking forward to meeting you in committee! See you at GSMUN XXI and good luck! Your chair,

Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications

Aashri Aggarwal

Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor



Committee Overview Committee Background The Republic of India was created during the division of British India in 1947. When British India was divided into the Dominion of Pakistan and the Republic of India, it displaced between 10 and 12 million people along religious lines creating overwhelming refugee crises in the newly constituted dominions. The violent nature of the partition created an atmosphere of hostility and suspicion between Republic of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan even today. Since the partition, Republic of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan have gone to war several times. The actual division of British India between the two new dominions was accomplished according to what has come to be known as the 3rd June Plan or Mountbatten Plan. This plan ruled out the separate independence of Bengal and strived to make the Dominion of Pakistan as small as possible. The Republic of India was formed out of the majority Hindu regions of British India and the Dominion of Pakistan was formed from the majority Muslim areas. The province of Bengal was divided into the two separate entities of West Bengal, awarded to the Dominion of India, and East Bengal awarded to the Dominion of Pakistan. East Bengal was later renamed East Pakistan. Thousands of Hindus, located in the districts of East Bengal, which were awarded to Pakistan, found themselves being attacked and this religious persecution forced hundreds of thousands of Hindus from East Bengal to seek refuge in the Republic of India. The huge influx of Hindu refugees into Calcutta

affected the demographics of the city. Many Muslims left the city for East Pakistan and the refugee families occupied some of their homes and properties. After the partition, there has still been religious persecution in Islamic Republic of Pakistan of Hindus, and each year substantial amounts continue to flee to the Republic of India. The Bengali people are the demographic majority in Islamic Republic of Pakistan, making up an estimated seventy-five million in East Pakistan, compared with the fifty-five million in the predominantly Punjabi-speaking West Pakistan. The majority in the East is Muslim, with large minorities of Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians. The West considers the people of the East to be secondclass citizens of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In 1948, a few months after the creation of the Dominion of Pakistan, Governor-General Mohammad Ali Jinnah declared Urdu as the national language of the newly formed state, although only four percent of Pakistan’s population spoke Urdu at the time. He branded those who supported the use of Bengali as communists, traitors and enemies of the state. The refusal by successive governments to recognize Bengali as the second national language culminated in the Bengali language movement and strengthened support for the newly formed Awami League, which was founded in the East as an alternative to the ruling Muslim League. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 caused further grievances, as the military had assigned no extra units to the defense of the East. This was a matter of concern to the Bengalis who saw their nation undefended in case of an 163

Indian attack and that the Pakistani Government was willing to lose the East if it meant gaining Kashmir. The first war between the two countries was the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 or the First Kashmir War. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan precipitated the war in an effort to secure Kashmir, but the result of the war was inconclusive. However some argue that the Republic of India was the victor of the war as it was able to successfully defend about twothirds of Kashmir. This war marked the creation of the Cease-fire line, and ended on December 1948. Another war between the two countries was the War of 1965. This started as a result of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan attempting to precipitate an insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir against the rule of the Republic of India. The Republic of India retaliated by launching a full-scale military attack on West Pakistan. This seventeen-day war ended after a diplomatic intervention by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America. Both the Republic of India and The Islamic Republic of Pakistan claimed victory. Both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are still heavily involved in the area as the tensions rise concerning East Pakistan. As the Cold War continues both countries have picked a side. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has ties to both the Republic of India and The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It continues to give industrial aid to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan but has given assurances to the Republic of India that if a confrontation with the United States of America or the People’s Republic of China develops, it would take counter-measures. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan continues to

have close ties to both the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China. The People’s Republic of China’s main concern is that the tensions may progress to Kashmir and the People’s Republic of China’s territories in that area. The Middle East, especially Iran has varying ties with The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and provides various types of aid to the country. Review of the Current Status Since 1950s, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s politics have been in constant turmoil. To overcome the Bengali domination and prevent them from their right to form the central government in Islamabad, the controversial One Unit program was promulgated in 1954. To diminish the differences between the two regions of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the program merged the Four Provinces of West Pakistan into a single province, as was the case with East Pakistan. This was met with great opposition from the West Pakistanis. The government was having difficulty governing both wings of the divided country. In 1970, President Yahya Khan disestablished the status of West Pakistan as a single province in order to restore it to its original heterogeneous status comprising of four provinces as defined at the time of establishment of Pakistan in 1947. This coincided with his announcement of the first general election. The general elections, held in 1970, resulted in East Pakistan’s Awami League gaining one hundred sixty-seven out of one hundred sixty-nine seats for the East Pakistan’s Awami League and a near-absolute majority in the three hundred thirteen-seat National Assembly while the vote in West Pakistan was mostly won by the socialist Pakistan People’s Party. The slow response to 164

the Bhola cyclone, which struck on November 12, 1970, was seen as a contributing factor in the elections. The Awami League leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman stressed his political position by presenting his Six Points and endorsing the Bengalis’ right to govern and attempting to end the perceived exploitation of East Pakistan by the West Pakistani rulers. This election caused many in West Pakistan to fear that the Bengalis would draft the constitution based on the six-points and liberalism. The geographical distance between the eastern and western wings of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is vast as East Pakistan is over sixteen hundred kilometers away, which greatly hampers any attempt made to integrate the Bengali culture with the cultures of West Pakistan. In addition, there are also religious and racial tensions between Bengalis and the multi-ethnic West Pakistanis as Bengalis looked different from the dominant West Pakistanis. To resolve the crisis at hand, the Ahsan-Yaqub Mission was formed and was met with favorable reviews from the Awami League, the Pakistan Peoples Party, and the Pakistan Muslim League. This Mission was a fact-finding expedition and peace initiative mission dispatched by the Pakistani government to East Pakistan in early 1971. However, the National Security Council didn’t support it and it was than subsequently vetoed. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party, endorsed the veto and subsequently refused to yield the premiership of Pakistan to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Awami League called for general strikes in the country. In retaliation, President Yahya Khan postponed the inauguration of the National Assembly

and caused uproar in East Pakistan and the Awami League. The postponement of the National Assembly on March 1 led to widespread lawlessness by Bengali protests during the first twenty-five days of march, in which the Pakistani government lost control over much of the province. During this twenty-five day period of lawlessness, attacks by Bengalis on non-Bengalis were common as well as attacks by Bengalis on Pakistani military personnel. The supporters of Awami League and the dissidents in East Pakistan began targeting the ethnic Bihari community, which had supported West Pakistan. In early March 1971, rioting Bengali mobs killed approximately three hundred Biharis. The Government of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan used the “Bihari massacre” to justify its deployment of the military in East Pakistan on March 25 , when it initiated its military crackdown. After President Yahya Khan accepted the resignation of Lieutenant-General Yaqub Ali Khan, the chief of staff of the East-Pakistani military, he called on the West Pakistani led military to suppress further dissent in the East. Mass arrests of dissidents began in East Pakistan and after several days of strikes and non-cooperation movements, Tikka Khan led the Pakistani military to crack down on Dhaka on the night of March 25, 1971, initiating Operation Searchlight. This was seen as the sequel to ‘Operation Blitz,’ which had been launched in November of 1971. Though Commander of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s Eastern Military High Command Vice-Admiral Syed Mohammad and Air Commodore Mitty Masud objected to the planned operation, Yahya Khan launched the operation under st



pressure from Pakistan’s Army and Air Force’s General. There have been several rumors that Admiral Ahsan and AirCommodore Mitty Masud will be relived from their subsequent posts due to their objections. As a result of the event in Dhaka, the Pakistani government has outlawed the Awami League and many of its members and sympathizers are taking refuge in Eastern India. The Indian government has opened the East Pakistan-Indian border to allow the Bengali refugees to take safe shelter, but state government of West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura are overwhelmed with the influx of refugees. Also, if the flood of impoverished East Pakistani refugees continues, many fear that the Republic of India’s already overburdened economy will not survive. Beginning in 1950, the Republic of India faced trade deficits that increased in the 1960s. The government of the Republic of India had a major budget deficit and therefore could not borrow money internationally or privately. As a result, the government issued bonds to the Reserve Bank of India, which increased the money supply, leading to inflation. The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 led the United States of America and other countries to be friendly towards The Islamic Republic of Pakistan to withdraw foreign aid to the Republic of India, which necessitated devaluation. The Republic of India was told it had to liberalize trade before aid would resume. Currently, The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s navy is marked inferior to the Republic of India’s. Since The Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s navy was founded in 1947, it has operated from inadequate bases of financial, technological, and personnel

resources. This combined with the presence of a continuing and generally overweening threat enjoying advantages of geography and scale. The United States of America nor Great Britain has not given The Islamic Republic of Pakistan any weaponry or ships; the country’s navy is rapidly losing ground. Furthermore, the people of the Republic of India are anxious for action to be taken. There is widespread outcry from the public towards the Republic of India’s restraint towards going to war. The Indian Army is currently extremely well organized and has a significant numerical superiority over the Pakistan Army. However, the onset of monsoon season in East Pakistan is imminent and the army tanks are in the process of being refitted. There is also fear of the Chinese intervening on Pakistan’s behalf if the Republic of India declares war on West Pakistan right now. The tensions between the two countries are at an all time high with the discord from the War of 1965 still at the forefront of many peoples’ minds. The religious tensions of the matter between the two sides of The Islamic Republic of Pakistan also serve to escalate the concern in Hindudominant Republic of India as it becomes clear that Hindus are being targeted. However, the Republic of India cannot afford another long and costly war with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As members of the government of the Republic of India, you must figure out how to ease the tensions both domestically and internationally without collapsing the economy. This committee will be the acting government of India and the chair will be Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. It will be set to start at the beginning of April 1971.


Questions to Consider 1. Is it in India’s best interest to go to war with West Pakistan over the independence of East Pakistan? 2. If India goes to war with Pakistan, how will that impact India’s already strained economy? 3. Does India have a moral obligation to fight for the Hindu Bengalis under attack in East Pakistan? 4. As refugees continue to flood the Eastern borders of the country, will India accept all of them? Will the federal government provide support and aid to the state governments that are accommodating these refugees? 5. Since the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is going through such instability, India could make a move regarding Kashmir. Is this a plausible course of action? 6. If the violence in East Pakistan continues, it could be considered genocide. Who in the international community can India appeal towards for aid? Will this aid just be monetary? 7. If India decides to aid the Bengalis in their fight for independence, what type of aid will India give? Will India just provide monetary aid or will India put boots on the ground? 8. How will India deal with possible retaliation from the United States or China if India goes to war with Pakistan? Will this further strain the economy?

background of the fued between the two countries. The Foreign Policy of Pakistan: Ethnic Impacts on Diplomacy- This is best for developing strategies against Pakistan and what types of foreign aid Pakistan will receive. “1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America, and Britain”The World Reporter- These countries will play a huge role in foreign aid during this committee and it is crucial to understand their behavior during the actual war. Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia by Bina D’Costa- This source will give further information about the events that have happened right before the committee starts. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction by Adam Jones- Best for understanding if the killings in East Pakistan qualify as a genocide and how that affects India’s stance.

Bibliography Bose, Sarmila. “Anatomy of Violence: Analysis of Civil War in East Pakistan in 1971.” Economic and Political Weekly 40, no. 41 (October 2005): 4463-71. Cochrane, Iain. The Causes of the Bangladesh War. N.p.: University of London, 2009. D’Costa, Bina. Nationbuilding, Gender and War Crimes in South Asia. N.p.: Routledge, 2011.

Useful Sources • The Partition of India by Gurharpal Sigh and Ian Talbot- This will be best used to understand the tensions and

DeRouen, Karl, Jr., and Uk Heo, eds. Civil Wars of the World. N.p.: ABC-CLIO, 2007. 167

“East Pakistan: Even the Skies Weep.” Time, October 25, 1971.

“Language Policy in Education in Bangladesh.” Language Policy, Culture and Identity in Asian Contexts, 2007.

Ehtisham, S. Akhtar. A Medical Doctor Examines Life on Three Continents. New York: Algora Publishing, 1998.

Jones, Adam. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. 2nd ed. N.p.: Routledge, 2010.

The Foreign Policy of Pakistan: Ethnic Impacts on Diplomacy. London: I.B. Tauris, 1997.

Nohlen, Dieter, Florian Grotz, and Christof Hartmann. “Elections in Asia and the Pacific.” Oxford Scholarship, November 2003.

Goldrick, James. No Easy Answers. Bangladesh: Lancer Publishers, 1997. Haggett, Peter. Encyclopedia of World Geography: The Indian Subcontinent. 2nd ed. N.p., 2001.

Salik, Siddiq. Witness to Surrender. N.p.: Oxford University Press, 1997. Shrivastava, Sanskar. “1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America, and Britain.” The World Reporter, October 30, 2011.

Hoontrakul, P., C. Balding, and R. Marwah, eds. The Global Rise of Asian Transformation. N.p.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. Hossain, Tania, and J.W. Tollefson.

Singh, Gurharpal, and Ian Talbot. The Partition of India. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, n.d.


JCC Indo-Pakistani War (1971): Pakistan Nikhil Paul Chair



Dear Delegates, GSMUN XXI Champion the Change Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s JCC for the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971! Your chair, Nikhil Paul, is so excited to meet you all. As members of this committee, you will convene to discuss the issues faced by Pakistan approaching and during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. Delegates will handle the rising issues within East Pakistan, and the increasing tensions with India over issues like Kashmir. You will need to come up with viable solutions to such issues while always debating with your fellow committee members. Nikhil Paul, a junior, is ecstatic to serve as the chair for the Indo-Pakistani War. This is his third year in the Model UN club and his second year being part of the leadership in a GSMUN committee. Aside from Model UN, Nikhil is also active in Model Congress, Debate, LiNK, Ping Pong Club, and more. In his free time, he enjoys playing basketball at the Y and producing his own fire beats. Nikhil loves basketball, Netflix, and the occasional Marvel movie. As delegates of this committee, you are expected to come prepared to debate at a high level about the issues plaguing the Pakistan with thorough knowledge of the issues explained in the background guide. You should be informed about the workings of the Pakistani government itself and also of events that may affect debate. While the background guide will be a useful tool, it is only a guide and outside research is expected. Delegates are also expected to write a comprehensive position paper, formatted in Chicago Manual Style (CMS). At GSMUN, all position papers are expected to follow the Maggie Walker honor code; plagiarism will not be tolerated in any means. Finally, an essential aspect of GSMUN is our commitment to making a difference through charity. There will be high-quality merchandise, baked goods, and many other things on-sale that you won’t want to miss out on, so don’t forget to bring money! If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact your chair at I am looking forward to meeting you in committee! See you at GSMUN XXI and good luck! Your chairs,

Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies

Nikhil Paul

Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor



Committee Overview Committee Background Although the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 does not mark the first time that India and Pakistan have gone to war, it did forever affect the dynamic that both of these nations had with each other and with the rest of the world. As a result, Pakistan lost its position as the most powerful Muslim nation, and allowed India to become the premier superpower within South Asia. After the Partition of India, the IndoPakistani War of 1947 (First Kashmir War) erupted. As the name implies, the war was waged over control of the highly sought after Kashmir territory. The conflict lasted from 1947 to 1948, and resulted in a technical victory for India as they successfully kept a majority of Kashmir. The Hindu Maharaja, Hari Singh, ruled over both Kashmir, which was disproportionately more Muslim, and Jammu, which had a more equal number of Muslims and Hindus.. The people of Kashmir, concerned that they would be forced to join India, approached both the Muslim League and Pakistan looking for aid. Pakistan sent troops into Kashmir to incite rebellions, and, in response, the Maharaja had his states of Kashmir and Jammu join India to receive military aid. The war lasted around one year before a UN cease fire was finally commissioned between the two nations. The result was India maintaining possession over Kashmir valley, Jammu, and Ladakh, whereas Pakistan gained Azad Kashmir and GilgitBaltistan. Although this war was relatively short, it foreshadowed the rocky relationship these two nations would have in the coming decades.

The second war between India and Pakistan occurred in 1965, and was aptly named the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. This conflict lasted just under 2 months, and was a direct result of Pakistan’s attempt to create insurgency in Kashmir. After the insurgency, India retaliated by invading the Pakistani territory in Kashmir. The war ended after the UN mandated a ceasefire between the two nations, and the Kashmiri border between Pakistan and India remained relatively unchanged. However, both India and Pakistan claim victory from the war. Although much of the international actions taken by India and Pakistan after the Partition were targeting each other, several other nations played a part in these two nations’ politics including the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. As a result of the ongoing Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR) had involvements in the different conflicts, although the Soviet Union played a bigger hand due to their proximity to the region. The USSR attempted to be an ally to both India and Pakistan, but did not support Pakistan’s constant military action against India. The USSR, however, supported the cause of East Pakistan, as an independent Bangladesh would weaken China. The United States was the primary supporter for Pakistan, as they wanted to curb USSR influence throughout India. Both the USSR and the US played an integral role in organizing the ceasefire for the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Another major power that had influence in these conflicts was China. The Chinese considered India to be imperialistic, especially in East Pakistan, and consequently backed ,



Pakistan in many of the Kashmiri skirmishes. Many of the countries of the Middle East also played a small part in the disputes due to their connections to Pakistan, although the aid varied from country to country.

to the Two Nation Theory. The Two Nation Theory stated that the basis for separation between India and Pakistan was religion, and despite other pertinent demographics of the region, there should only be one Muslim nation and one Hindu nation. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the All-India Muslim League, was perhaps the strongest supporter of a unified Pakistan separate from India. He believed that the Muslims in India would live as a minority unless they inhabited their own nation. The first major effort to separate Bangladesh took place in 1905 at the hand of Viceroy George Curzon, who believed that two separated Bengals would be easier to govern. He separated the area into East Bengal, also known as “East Bengal and Assam”, and West Bengal, also known as “Bengal”. Before the split, Viceroy Curzon noticed that the eastern half of Bengal was neglected in funding and infrastructure, and he realized that a division would provide them with the aid that they required. The Muslims of East Bengal agreed with this decision. However, the educated middle-class Hindus of West Bengal, known as the Bhadrolok, saw this as the British government trying to reduce their influence, and consequently organized boycotts and protests. This movement sparked the larger Swadeshi Movement that pushed for Indian independence led by Mahatma Gandhi, and eventually led to the formation of the All India Muslim League and the All India Hindu Mahasabha. Viceroy Curzon finally surrendered to the movements, and in 1911, Bengal was reunited. Several decades later, East Pakistan began to have massive riots in order to protest the Pakistani government’s 1947 decision to make Urdu the official national language.


East Pakistan/Bangladesh Background The Partition of India in 1947 set off the series of conflicts between Pakistan and India that exist even to this day. The actual division of India was known as the Mountbatten Plan, named after the GovernorGeneral of India at the time, Lord Mountbatten. This plan allowed for different legislative groups throughout India to decide how they wanted to align themselves: with Pakistan or India. It recommended that the states ruled by princes join one of the two domains, but did not explicitly force them to do so. The Mountbatten Plan was announced on June 3, 1947, and set the partition date for August 15, 1947. The Indian Independence Act of 1947, created by the British parliament, officially removed the British from much of India on July 18, 1947. After this, the Government of India Act 1935 took effect as the basis of laws. India and Pakistan were to be separated at the Radcliffe line, allowing the areas with Muslim majority to be part of Pakistan, and areas with Hindu majority to be in India. Unfortunately, despite the attempts by both nations to minimize the amount of people displaced, this act still displaced 10-12 million people. One crucial aspect of the Mountbatten plan was the mutual agreement by both sides to not create an independent Bangladesh. Outside of religion, there was little that linked Bangladesh/East Pakistan to the rest of Pakistan, but it was still part of Pakistan due 174

Bengali students from the University of Dhaka protested the removal on December 8, 1947. The main consequences of not allowing Bengali to be an official language were rendering Bengali intellectuals illiterate and ineligible to become part of their own government. In December, the Rastrabhasa Sangram Parishad committee was formed with the goal of reinstating Bengali as an official language. Several legislators from East Bengal in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan sponsored the proposal to make Bengali an official language. The Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Kahn, denounced this as an attempt to separate Pakistan, subsequently defeating this proposal. A few months later, on March 11, 1948, several students held a strike on Pakistani goods and had protests, at which the police arrested and beat several of the protesters. After 4 days, Chief Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin finally agreed to sign an accord which met some of the students’ demands, but Bengali was still not made into an official language. On March 21, 1948, Muhammad Ali Jinnah gave a speech in Dhaka reaffirming that Pakistan was to remain an Urdu-only nation, and denounced anybody against Urdu as enemies of Pakistan. He also overruled the deal that Khawaja Nazimuddin signed with the students. In 1952, the Shorbodolio Kendrio Rashtrobhasha Kormi Porishod (SKRKP) committee was formed. The SKRKP met and debated the central government’s proposal to have Bengali be written in an Arabic script, and decided against it. The SKRKP also agreed upon holding a strike and rallies on February 21, 1952. The government preemptively attempted to curb this by imposing Section 144 in Dhaka, preventing any large gatherings from occurring. For the

next 8 days, several large protests, boycotts, and strikes were held, matched by several instances of police brutality and police shootings. Due to the severity of the events, February 21 became a national holiday in East Pakistan known as Shohid Dibosh. In the aftermath, the Awami Muslim League, horrified by the actions taken by the government, became the Awami League, separating themselves from religion and pushing for an independent Bengal. In 1954, Pakistan tried to create a more representative government by holding an East Bengal Legislative election. The Awami League formed a United Front coalition with several Bengali parties that supported Bengali nationalism and rights. The United Front coalition gained a majority in the legislation by getting 223 out of the 309 seats available. However, in fear of secession, the Governor General of Pakistan, Malik Ghulam Muhammad, dismissed the vote. In an attempt to appease the growing discontent with East Pakistan, Prime Minister Ali Bogra created the One Unit Program on November 22, 1954. This combined all 4 provinces within West Pakistan, and declared the formation of two regions: West and East Pakistan. The West Pakistan capital was made in Islamabad, and the East capital was made in Dhaka. This decision proved unpopular in West Pakistan, due to the diminishment of their power in the government. In 1970, President Yahya Kahn reestablished the 4 provinces through Legal Framework Order No. 1970. Discontent in East Bengal was brewing since the Partition of India, but was expedited by the inability of the Pakistani government to take actions to appease the Bengalis. The ,


conflicts started with protests, and eventually escalated to a full liberation war in 1971.

believed only a united Pakistan had such a capability India, waiting for an opportunity to prove themselves as a world power after a humiliating defeat in the Sino-Indian War, decided to support East Pakistan in the fight against their chief rival. Because East Pakistan was much more populated than West Pakistan, a separation between the two would also weaken Pakistan’s position as an Islamic power, as it is currently the world’s most populated Islamic nation. Due to these circumstances, war is inevitable. It is now the goal of the Pakistani Committee to successfully keep the nation intact and prove that they are the premier South Asian power by defeating India in war.

Information on the Time period (1969March 25, 1971) In 1969, massive protests took place once again in East Pakistan. The police tried to contain the protests by shooting some of the activists. As a result, President Ayub Kahn eventually resigned and handed power over to Yahya Kahn, who established martial law. On December 6, 1970, President Yahya Kahn held a general election for the National Assembly. There were 300 seats, 162 for East Pakistan and 138 for West Pakistan. This election, however, backfired when the Awami league won 160 out of the 162 seats allocated for East Pakistan, thus gaining a majority in the National Assembly. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) won the majority of the West Pakistani seats; 81 out of 138. The rest of the seats were taken by smaller parties. Because the Awami League amassed such a large number of votes, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, leader of the Awami League, became Prime Minister. However, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the leader of the PPP, refused to have the Awami lead the National Assembly and banned all PPP members from attending it. Finally, in March of 1971, President Yahya Kahn indefinitely suspended the National Assembly. Analysis East and West Pakistan continue to have increasingly strained relations. However, any attempts to create an independent Bangladesh from East Pakistan continue to be squashed by West Pakistan due to their firm belief in the Two Nation Theory. Ali Jinnah wanted to have Pakistan rival India as the supreme sovereign power in South Asia, and

Questions to Consider 1. Is Muhammed Ali Jinnah’s policy of keeping Urdu as the official language still effective in uniting Pakistan? If not, what changes to the policy would appease both the West Pakistanis and Bengalis? 2. How should Pakistan react to India receiving an increase in aid from the USSR despite the Soviet Union’s efforts to be allies with Pakistan? 3. Would it be beneficial for Pakistan to elicit support from China? 4. Should the general elections for the National Assembly be honored? 5. If India did provide aid to the Bengali insurgence, what steps should be taken against India? 6. If a war did break out, how would Pakistan overcome having a significantly smaller force than India?


Bibliography Ahmed, Salahuddin. Bangladesh: past and present. New Delhi: A.P.H. Pub. Corp., 2004.

Hagerty, Devin T. South Asia in world politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.

Banglapedia. "Language Movement." Language Movement - Banglapedia. Accessed September 05, 2017. title=Language_Movement. Banglapedia. "United Front." Banglapedia. Accessed September 05, 2017. title=United_Front.

Hussain, Ahmede. "Promises to Keep." Star Weekend Magazine. July 31, 2009. Accessed September 05, 2017. ne/2009/07/05/cover.htm. India. Election Commission of India. SVEEP. Comprehensive SVEEP Plan of J&K State 2014 . By ECI. 2014. Accessed September 5, 2017. Jammu%20&%20Kashmir19092014.p df.

Bapu, Prabhu. Hindu Mahasabha in colonial North India, 1915-1930 constructing nation and history. London: Routledge, 2013.

India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner. Provisional Population Totals Paper 1 of 2011 : Jammu & Kashmir. By Indian Census. 2011. Accessed September 5, 2017. l.

BBC. "India Pakistan | Timeline." BBC News. Accessed September 05, 2017. tic/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_ pakistan/timelin e/1947_48.stm. Cheema, Brigadier Amar. The crimson chinar: the Kashmir conflict: a politico military perspective. New Delhi: United Service Institution of India, 2014.

Indus. "1947: The partition of India scheme." 1947: The partition of India scheme Indpaedia. Accessed September 05, 2017. .php/1947:_The_partition_of_India_s cheme.

Country Studies. "Transition to Nationhood, 1947-58." PAKISTAN PERIOD, 1947-71. Accessed September 05, 2017. 14.htm.

Jackson, Robert. South Asian crisis: India, Pakistan, Bangla Desh. London: Chatto & Windus Ltd, 1975. Jayapalan, N. India and Her Neighbours. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers, 2000.

Gilmour, David. Curzon: imperial statesman. London: John Murray, 1994.

Joseph, Josy. "Haji Pir conqueror says handing it back to Pak was a mistake." News. December 22, 2002. Accessed September 05, 2017. ec/21haji.htm.

GS. "Military." Indo-Pakistan War of 1965. Accessed September 05, 2017. y/world/war/indo-pak_1965.htm.


Kahn, Liaquat Ali. Pakistan the Partition of India. Bombay: Thaker Co., 1946.

Nohlen, Dieter, Florian Grotz, and Christof Hartmann. Elections in Asia and the Pacific: a data handbook. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Keay, John. India: A History. New York City, NY: Grove Press, 2000.

NWE. "Partition of Bengal (1905)." Partition of Bengal (1905) - New World Encyclopedia. March 26, 2015. Accessed September 05, 2017. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.or g/entry/Partition_of_Bengal_(1905).

Lieven, Anatol. Pakistan: A Hard Country. New York City, NY: PublicAffairs, 2012. Londoni. "Bhasha Andolon (Bangladesh language movement 1948-1952)." History of Bangladesh. Accessed September 05, 2017. story-of-bangladesh?id=5.

Prasad, S. N. Operations In Jammu Amp Kashmir 1947-48. History Division Ministry Of Defence Government Of India, 1987. Accessed September 5, 2017. Banasthali University.

Louis, William Roger, Alaine M. Low, Robin W. Winks, and Peter James Marshall. Historiography. London: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Priyanka. "1965 war: We achieved air superiority in three days, says Air Force Marshal Arjan Singh." Defence. October 4, 2015. Accessed October 7, 2015. /news/defence/1965-war-weachieved-air-superiorityin-three-days-says-air-force-marshalarjansingh/articleshow/49214326.cms.

Lyon, Peter. Conflict between India and Pakistan: an encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2008. Menon, Vapal Pangunni. The transfer of power in India. Bombay: Orient Longmans, 1957. Mikaberidze, Alexander. Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Interactive, 2011.

Qāsim, Sayyid Mčr. My Life and Times. New Delhi: Allied Publishers, 1992. Rawat, Rachna Bisht. 1965: stories from the second Indo-Pak war. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 2015.

Mountholyoke. " Bangladesh: Bengali Language Movement." Bangladesh: Bengali Language Movement. Accessed September 05, 2017. o22d/classweb/bengali_language_mo vement/bhashaandolon.html.

Shrivastava, Sanskar. "1971 India Pakistan War: Role of Russia, China, America and Britain." The World Reporter. August 18, 2014. Accessed September 05, 2017. 11/10/1971-india-pakistan-war-roleof-russia.html.

Mudiam, Prithvi Ram. India and the Middle East. London: British Academic Press, 1994.


Singh, Hoshiar, and Pankaj Singh. Indian Administration. New Delhi: Pearson, 2013.

Time. "The World: India and Pakistan: Over the Edge." Time. December 13, 1971. Accessed September 05, 2017. ine/article/0,9171,910155,00.html.

SoP. "West Pakistan Established as One Unit." Story Of Pakistan. June 1, 2003. Accessed September 05, 2017.

Umar, Badruddin. The Emergence of Bangladesh: Class Struggles in East Pakistan, 19471958. Vol. 1. London: Oxford University Press, 2004.

SoP. "Legal Framework Order." Story Of Pakistan. June 1, 2003. Accessed September 05, 2017.

Walia, Pushpinder. "How Borders, Boundaries and Bedlam Define History in Saadat Hasan Manto’s story “ Toba Tek Singh”." PhD diss., DAV College for Women,, 2015. Abstract in International Journal of Advanced Research 3, no. 9 (July 15, 2015): 252-56.

Thapar, Romila. A History of India. Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966.



Nobel Committee Yashnoor Sandhu Chair Maggie McKenna Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s Nobel Committee! Your two chairs, Maggie McKenna and Yashnoor Sandhu, are very excited to meet you and have a productive few days of committee! As members of the Nobel Committee, you will take a look at some of the disputes regarding the Nobel Prizes and consider ways to clarify regulations. You will then also work to choose Nobel Prize winners for four different categories for the 2018 year. You will need to debate with other committee members and be prepared to develop solutions and vote on winners for prizes. Maggie McKenna is a sophomore and is delighted to be co-chairing for the Nobel Committee. This is her second year in Model UN. Outside of Model UN, Maggie also participates in various other clubs such as Future Medical Professionals, French Club, Creative Writing, and Improv. In her free time, she does three different types of dance, reads a lot, and does theatre with her school. On the weekends, she mostly spends way too long watching the Office. She’s very excited for debate! Yashnoor Sandhu is a junior and is thrilled to be a co-chair for the Nobel Committee. This is her third year in Model UN. Aside from Model UN, she participates in Future Medical Professionals, Spanish Club, German Club, UNICEF Club, Bhangra Club, and she plays tennis for Maggie Walker. In her free time, she enjoys baking and doing volunteer work. Yashnoor’s ideal day would include playing with her dog and watching Netflix. She is looking forward to some engaging debate and wants to remind you to bring money to donate to this year’s charity! As delegates for the Nobel Committee, you are expected to be prepared to participate in intellectual and focused debate about the controversies regarding the Nobel Prizes. For the second part of committee, you will be asked to nominate possible recipients of four Nobel Prizes and then debate with the committee to determine the winners. Be informed about how the Nobel Committee works, and also know details about the achievements of your nominees. The background guide will help clarify some of this, but outside research is expected. You will need to write a full position paper, formatted in Chicago Manual Style (CMS) including your opinions on the first part of committee and compelling arguments for your chosen nominees for the second part. At GSMUN, your position papers must follow the Maggie Walker honor code, and plagiarism will be in no way tolerated. Finally, a significant piece of GSMUN is our commitment to making a difference through charity. There will be merchandise, baked goods, and other assorted items on sale throughout the committee, so bring money! There will be a prize system set up for committee if we reach a certain goal, so be prepared to donate! If you have any questions, concerns, or want to reach out, contact your chairs at We are excited to meet you in committee! See you at GSMUN XXI and good luck! Your chairs,

Yashnoor Sandhu

Maggie McKenna 183


Committee Overview Committee Background Alfred Nobel was a revolutionary scientist, thinker, and academic during his time. Born on October 21, 1833 in Stockholm, Sweden, his early education led him to become fluent in more than one language and to become interested in writing. He is most known for his inventions and scientific discoveries, notably dynamite, which he saw as a safer and more efficient method of construction. He was also heavily involved in manufacturing arms, while ironically also being interested in peace issues. In his will, written in 1895, he established the five Nobel Prizes, dedicating his massive fortune to the celebration of scientific, literary, and peacerelated achievements and those involved in them. In order for someone to win a Nobel Prize, they must be nominated by a qualifying nominator, typically an academic or political figure. Their works are then reviewed by a committee, and finally the laureate, or recipient of the prize, is selected by a group of professionals. There are five total true Nobel Prizes: Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, and Peace. There is also a sixth prize, the prize in Economic Sciences, which is not a true Nobel Prize because it was not outlined in Nobel’s will, although it is in honor of him. One prize is given in each category, and since Nobel’s death 579 prizes have been given to a total of 911 laureates. Laureates in the categories of Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, and Economic Sciences receive their prizes at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony in Stockholm,

while winners of the Peace Prize are given their award at a ceremony in Oslo. Both of these ceremonies take place on December 10th. During the ceremony, the Laureates are given a Nobel Medal, a Nobel Diploma, and confirmation of the prize money from the current ruler of Sweden. Since the first Nobel Ceremony in 1901, many notable persons have won the Nobel Prize. Some of the most prominent include Marie Curie, Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, Al Gore, Ernest Hemingway, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., William Faulkner, Jimmy Carter, and John Steinbeck. Complete lists of all individuals and groups who have been recipients of a Nobel Prize can be found on the Nobel Prize website. I. Reconsideration of Award Qualifications Background One of the most esteemed honors a scholar or philanthropist can receive is the Nobel Prize. The Nobel Committee is responsible for selecting the recipients of the award in 6 categories: physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, peace, and economics, in memory of Alfred Nobel. Although a prize in any of these fields is a great accomplishment, there have been numerous controversies regarding the award recipients and their qualifications since 1901, the founding year of the Nobel Committee. The Nobel Committee is divided into four different institutions and subcommittees based on the field of study, which then choose their laureates after carefully assessing their achievements. Each candidate’s achievement or work, after receiving a 185

nomination from a qualified individual or institution, is examined by the subcommittees of people who have been selected by their respective institution. The qualification requirements of the nominators are outlined on the Nobel Prize website. After six months of report-writing and discussion the laureate in each field is chosen by the corresponding institution through a majority vote. In his will, Alfred Nobel wrote that the laureate “shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses,” which provides a certain level of criteria to be eligible for the peace prize. However, the criteria for the prize in the other categories is much more subjective and there is no quantification of the piece of work or the accomplishment for which the candidates were nominated. The Committee does not release the list of nominees until 50 years after the nomination and does not disclose what exactly they look for in the work or accomplishment while undergoing the selection and elimination process. Current Status As stated previously, many controversies surfaced after the announcement of the laureates on multiple occasions. The Nobel Committee has been accused of being too politically motivated or not rewarding credit and, ultimately, the prize to those who played an integral role in research or experimentation, specifically in regard to the science fields. The most recent example of the Nobel Committee’s inappropriate involvement in politics was seen when Barack Obama was awarded the Peace Prize in 2009. Obama was nominated for the prize

merely two weeks into the first term of his presidency, which was hardly enough time to accomplish something worthy of a peace prize. Nobel officials stated that they chose Obama for the prize because he probably needed a vote of confidence to help build global support for his policies, and they appreciated his calls for worldwide peace. Many would argue that in giving this premature award to Obama, the Nobel Committee contradicted for it stood. An undoubtedly difficult aspect of the selection process, especially in the science and research fields where research and experiments are conducted as teams, is deciding who should receive credit and who should not. Additionally, the various topics within the scientific field build off on one another, so another decision is whether or not researchers who actually introduced a new concept first should receive the prize in addition to someone who furthered and expanded upon the concept. In 2006, the Chemistry Prize went to Andrew Fire and Craig C. Mello for their research regarding RNA interference and gene silencing. Fire and Mellow were not the first plant biologists to study RNA interference, yet they won because they were well-known among the scientific community for their research. It was stated that the Committee award other plant biologists, such as David Baulcombe, for their successful research in the same field. Another issue, particularly in terms of the peace prize, is that whether states should receive the peace, considering and statesmen have the power to wage war in addition to facilitate peace. Henry Kissinger, the US Secretary of State during Nixon’s presidency, received a Nobel Peace Prize for the negotiation for the ceasefire in Vietnam; 186

however, the war continued for another three years after Kissinger received the prize. Such examples of mistakes made by the Nobel Committee come to show that the system should consistently be reviewed. Analysis Over the years, the Nobel Board of Directors has established certain Statutes of the Nobel Foundation. These statutes are to ensure the mission of Alfred Nobel is always the central idea around which all of the subcommittees and institutions function, as well as to work out any issues or controversies which may arise but have not already been resolved. Amendments to the statues can be presented to Board, at which point they will be discussed and undergo a voting procedure. An amendment must win at least 3 votes in order to pass. Questions to Consider 1. How should credit be allocated when multiple people are involved in the work? 2. How much does a person have to contribute to be considered for the prize? 3. Many controversial prizes are said to be politically-motivated or premature. What changes can the Nobel Peace Committee implement to avoid being biased in this sense while choosing a laureate? II: Recipients of 2018 Nobel Prizes Background In order for a candidate to be considered for a Nobel Prize, they first have to be nominated by a qualifying nominator. The parameters for a nominator vary between category, but generally include former Nobel Prize Recipients, professors, scientists, and other academic professionals. Some

categories also allow nominations to be submitted by members of Parliaments, Assemblies, or other notable government bodies. The requirements are in place to ensure that only qualified candidates are nominated, while maintaining diversity and representation of different minorities and nationalities in the process. Nominations remain private and are not released to the public until 50 years after the nomination; because of this, the current archive of nominees only goes up until 1966. The process for Laureate selection is very long and follows a specific timeline with several steps. While exact dates are variable between categories, the following is a brief overview of the timeline. In September, nomination forms are sent out, and these forms must be submitted to the Committee by January 31st. In February, these nominations are reviewed and preliminary candidates, typically around 300 per category, are selected. From March until May, the Nobel committee consults with appointed experts to review the work of the candidates. Following this, a report is collected with notes from the Committee and is then sent to the group that makes the laureate selections, and shortly after this report with recommendations is submitted. In October, the Laureates are selected, and the prizes are awarded on December 10th in Stockholm, during the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony. The Laureates are selected by different groups. For the prizes in Physics, Chemistry, and Economic Sciences, the group is the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Laureates in Medicine are selected by the Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet; those in Literature are chosen by the Swedish Academy, and the group that selects the Peace 187

Prize recipient is a five-member committee chosen by the Parliament of Norway. Each Prize Category also has a Committee of varying numbers that is responsible for determining the most prominent of the nominees and developing a report with recommendations to submit to the various Academies and groups. For Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, and Economic Sciences, there are six members, mostly professors of science; for Literature, there are four members and two associate members, all of whom are writers. The Peace Prize is set up slightly differently, as the Committee is the same group that makes the final selection. As discussed above, there are six categories for prizes; Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature, Peace, and Economic Sciences. However, the Prize in Economic Sciences is not technically a Nobel Prize, as it was not a part of Nobel’s original will. Instead, it is a prize in honor of Nobel, started in 1968. The Model UN discussion will revolve around physics, medicine, literature and peace. The selection criteria is very loose and does not have many specific requirements; most of the selection process falls to the discretion of the selection body. The initial criteria, as described by Alfred Nobel in his will, are the following: Physics: “To the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics” Medicine: “To the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine” Literature: “To the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction”

Peace: “To the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses” Members of this Model UN Committee will be required to nominate one candidate for each of the four categories seen above. To guide these nominations, here are some considerations. Considerations when Selecting Nominees Your nominations should attempt to limit the influence of political factors in nonpolitical categories. This is especially significant in the Literature category, where there have been some small controversies lately over this category becoming too political. Make sure that you consider the importance and effects of discoveries and actions for each of the categories. During voting procedures, remember to keep in mind any decisions made during the prior committee session and apply those to any choices you might have to make. Furthermore, you may wish to use former recipients, especially recent ones, to develop an idea of preferable candidates to award prizes; information regarding former winners can be found on the Nobel Prize website. Additionally, be sure to consider long-term impacts of your nominees. There are many controversies regarding past winners, from those who developed discredited medical practices to peace prize winners who later engaged in war - be sure to think about the current and possible future political significance and implications surrounding your choices for nominees. Remember that your nominee must be alive currently to win the prize. Finally, your nominations should 188

seek to limit biases and expand the 2017. winners-chosen-896848. demographics for candidates. Questions to Consider 1. Who are your candidate nominationsGreen, Alex. “What’s Wrong with the Nobel Prize in Literature.” WBUR 90.9. Last modified for each category? October 13, 2015. Accessed August 22, 2. How has your candidate and their 2017. discovery/actions/writing been 2015/10/13/this-is-not-what-alfred-nobelhad-in-mind-alex-green. influential, important, or otherwise impactful? Gunderman, Richard. “The Curious History 3. What are the political implications of of the Nobel Peace Prize.” The your candidates and how might these Conversation. Last modified be controversial? October 7, 2016. Accessed August Overview of System for Selection 22, All participants should determine a 2017. he- curious-history-of- the-nobelpotential, valid candidate for each of the four peace-prize-66609. selected categories (Physics, Medicine, Literature, and Peace) prior to committee. Please include in the position paper a write-up of the selected candidates and their contributions including details necessary to make the candidate seem like a valid choice. Be sure to look at considerations for candidates. The chairs will then determine the top five candidates prior to committee meeting, during which committee members will discuss and debate candidates. At the end of debate, committee will enter voting procedures that will be further explained during committee. Final remarks before voting will benefit from having details regarding the candidate’s qualifications, so be prepared. Bibliography

Maranzani, Barbara. “7 Things You May Not Know about the Nobel Prizes.” History. Last modified December 10, 2012. Accessed August 22, 2017. /7things-you-may-not-know-aboutthe-nobel-prizes. “Nobel Prize Facts.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. prizes/facts/. “Nomination and Selection of Chemistry Laureates.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. ation/chemistry/.

“Alfred Nobel’s Will” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. ll/.

“Nomination and Selection of Laureates in Economic Sciences.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. ation/ economic-sciences/.

Grauschopf, Sandra. “How Are Nobel Peace Prize Winners Chosen?” The Balance. Last modified July 4, 2016. Accessed August 22, 189

“Nomination and Selection of Literature Laureates.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. rature/.

“Nomination and Selection of Physics Laureates.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. ation/physics/.

“Nomination and Selection of Medicine Laureates.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. dicine/.

“Nomination Archive.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. ation/archive/.

“Nomination and Selection of Nobel Laureates.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017.

Phillips, Jak. “Top 10 Nobel Prize Controversies.” Time. Last modified October 7, 2011. Accessed August 22, 2017. /specials/packages/article/ 0,28804,2096389 _2096388_2096380,00.html.

“Nomination and Selection of Peace Prize Laureates.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. ce/.

“The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.” Nobel Last modified 2017. Accessed August 22, 2017. nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/


Organization of American States Emily Dai Chair Abby Joyce Chair



Dear Delegates, GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s Organization of American States Committee! Your chairs, Emily Dai and Abby Joyce, are thrilled to meet you all. As members of this committee, you will convene to discuss both internal and external problems experienced by the OAS. Delegates will investigate the issues surrounding Cuban reintegration and the Venezuelan government’s oppression of its citizens. You will need to come up with viable solutions to such issues while debating with your fellow committee members. Emily Dai, a junior, is extremely excited to serve as co-chair for the OAS. This is her third year in the Model UN club, but her first time chairing a GSMUN committee. Aside from Model UN, Emily is also the historian for the National Art Honor Society and chairing for Walker Model Congress as well. In her free time, she enjoys running track for Maggie Walker and hanging out with her friends. Abby Joyce, a sophomore, is delighted to serve as co-chair for the OAS. This will be her second year in the Model UN club, and her first time, as well, chairing a GSMUN committee. Outside of Model UN, Abby also enjoys chairing in the Model Congress club, and engaging in other political activities. Her pastimes include playing tennis for Maggie Walker and playing piano. Embracing her nerdy side, Abby loves reading, her favorite novels being The Martian by Andy Weir and Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. As delegates of this committee, you are expected to prepare and debate at a high level on the two topics assigned from the background guide. Additionally, you should be knowledgeable about the internal structure of the OAS and current issues that may affect debate. Outside research from the background guide will be expected, and could help you present a factual argument. Delegates are expected to write a comprehensive position paper, formatted in Chicago Manual Style (CMS). It should be noted that all position papers must follow the Maggie Walker honor code, in that plagiarism will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Taking debate aside, GSMUN XXI will also give delegates the opportunity to give back to the community through charity. Merchandise, baked goods, and other items will be on sale throughout the conference, so don’t forget to bring money! If you have any questions or concerns, don’t hesitate to contact your chairs at We’re excited to meet you all, and are looking forward to a good debate! See you at GSMUN XXI, and good luck! Your chairs,

Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Emily Dai

Abby Joyce 193


Committee Overview Committee Overview The committee of the Organization of American States (OAS) was chartered on April 30, 1948, in Bogotá, Colombia, to promote better political relations between Latin American countries and the United States. Just a year before, the Rio Pact had been signed, which created a military alliance between the United States and Latin America. However, Latin America desired to have more than only a military alliance, and the Organization of American States was established. Some of the original objectives of the committee were to settle border disputes and matters of a country’s security, but it now has the power to oversee elections. Their current, primary goals are promoting democracy, protecting human rights, aiding in economic and social development, and regional security cooperation. The committee has three main bodies of operation: the General Assembly, Permanent Council, and General Secretariat. The most profound of the three bodies is the General Assembly. Its functions are defined in Chapter IX of the OAS Charter, and all mechanisms, policies, actions, and mandates of the OAS are created by this body. Some of its other powers are determining a program-budget and quotas for all member states, establishing measures for coordinating the activities of the organs, agencies, and entities of the Organization itself, and determining the structure and function of all other operating subcommittees within the OAS. Article 56 outlines a fundamental rule in the functioning of the

General Assembly, which states that “all member states have the right to be represented in the General Assembly.” The Permanent Council handles other matters that the General Assembly may not. They prioritize the friendly cooperation between all member states, and assist in resolving their disputes. At the request of member states, the committee may draft agreements to promote and facilitate cooperation between the OAS, the United Nations, and other Inter-American institutions. Carrying out all agreements, mandates, and decisions written by the General Assembly is an important task the Permanent Council performs. In addition to the Permanent Council, the General Secretariat also plays a key role in carrying out all decisions made by the General Assembly. The committee submits reports on the financial condition of the OAS to the General Assembly, and, when needed, supplies secretary assistance to the General Committee. They can also advise the agenda and rules of procedures for other committees. The General Secretariat also serves as the archives for documents from the General Assembly, the Councils, and other subcommittees. The OAS can only function if all are in agreement. Countries cannot be forced to accept any decisions made by the OAS, however, they may agree to follow through with a plan. Countries pay quotas to maintain the budget, so that the body may be active and provide services to countries which need


them, and to actively promote democracy and the respect of human rights. History of the Issue Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Venezuela had been a prosperous, capitalist nation, because of their rich oil deposits. Oil was found in the early 20th century, and the country completely rebounded from its once isolated and primitive social and economic status following their independence from Spain. By 1970, foreign investment in the oil deposits allowed Venezuela to become the richest country in their region, and one of the top 20 richest countries in the world. However, things gradually regressed for the Venezuelans as government policies changed, which negatively altered the state of the economy and country. One individual who can be blamed for the start of Venezuela’s gradual move to a socialist-dictatorship is Rómulo Betancourt. By 1958, a stable democracy had been established, yet under his presidency, Venezuela began to transition into a dictatorship. Before his career in politics, Rómulo Betancourt had been a Marxist. Even though he had renounced his Marxist ways, fundamental principles of Marxism still followed him into his presidency, beginning in 1959. Under his leadership, his administration devalued of the Bolivar, undermined property rights, created a tax hike of 36%, and enforced State presence within economics. He left office in 1964. Two presidents later, Carlos Andrés Pérez took office in 1974 , and was able to realize Betancourt’s dream of a nationalized oil industry by 1975. Having a corrupt government and politicized economy, the government transitioned to a petro-state. Consent of the governed was undermined and

wealth was held in the hands of the elites. With each oil boom in the economy, the government acquired more money that was frequently spent on social programs to appeal to the impoverished. By then, government spending had significantly increased, and economic deficits became the norm. Because of the government’s reckless spending policies, economic deficits continued to rise. The increasing oil booms came to be convenient for the Pérez administration. Using additional funds, he continued to institute social programs that eventually bottomed out the government’s wallet. These irresponsible spending tactics set the foundation for the eventual departure of the 1970s and the “golden era” of Venezuela. Because the government spent too much and too recklessly, the lack of money lead to instability, and eventual collapse due to inappropriate management. Carlos Andrés Pérez left office in 1979, but returned once more in 1989. In the 80s, increasing poverty rates, increased debt, corrupt state enterprises, and burdensome regulations led to social tension and economic mismanagement. Even oil, the pillar of the Venezuelan economy, was unable to pull the country out of such economic decline. After Pérez assumed the presidency once more, he realized how poor the current economic state of the country was. His changes consisted of: tax hikes, flawed privatizations, and marginal spending cuts. They did not properly address Venezuela’s main problems- the flawed monetary policies, restrictive regulatory system, and poorlyformed capitalist policies. During this time of strife, political parties were able to use the government’s vulnerability to further their own political 196

agenda. One such person is Hugo Chávez, the man who is arguably responsible for Venezuela’s current state. In 1992, with the assistance of a group of left-wing officers, Chávez plotted a government coup over the existing administration. After its failure, he was sent to jail. Chávez’s actions and beliefs caught the citizens’ attention and gained widespread support, and was pardoned in 1994. After beginning the fourteen-year-long “Bolivarian Revolution,” he assumed the role of presidency in 1999. Chávez was handed over a country that was in drastic economic turmoil, having GDP growth of -13% from 1958-1998. The inflation rate had become 35.8% by 1998, and the unemployment rate was 14.5% by 1999. He persisted to push socialist ideas in his agenda as president. Due to the lack of funds, Chávez was unable to establish any of his socialist policies without currency controls, expropriation, and price controls. After he amassed just enough money, he implemented numerous social programs in a tyrannical fashion. Under Chávez’s strict rule, political institutions were de-legitimized, media outlets that opposed him were portrayed as adversaries, and political activists were victims of human rights violations at Chávez’s hands. His term ended in 2013 with his death, yet his methods of running the country are still embraced by the current president, Nicolás Maduro. In a poll taken by Venezuelans in 2014, 57% of respondents stated they believed that Nicolás Maduro was performing poorly in office. By 2015, the inflation rate skyrocketed to 121.7%, the GDP reached 18.1% as of January 2017, and poverty rates rose to 82%. Because of the current dictatorship fashion of governing, the Venezuelan people are now facing a crisis that

could make recovery from their current state nearly impossible. Current Status The government and the people of Venezuela are at odds. Nicolás Maduro wants to maintain a dictatorship style of rule, and those opposed are unable to freely speak out. Nicolás Maduro is doing everything in his power to maximize his status, and so far, is succeeding. The government’s tyranny over its citizens took significant strides on March 29, 2017, with the Constitutional Crisis. Nicolás Maduro was looking for ways to avoid the opposition-controlled parliament. Helping Maduro gain more power, a supreme court ruling allowed the supreme court absorbed all of parliament’s responsibilities, ruling them irrelevant. Now, Maduro and his socialist party had limitless power due to the now powerless parliament. Although the ruling was reversed on April 1, the damage was done. Leaders in the opposing party accused Maduro of trying to turn Venezuela into a dictatorship because the supreme court undermined the constitution for political gain. And more so, only parliament’s power was restored. No changes were made regarding the limit of Maduro’s legal power. The legislation explicitly states that he may bypass parliament or modify any law, if deemed necessary by him, to maintain the stability of the country. The secretary general of the Organization of American States, Luis Almagro, described the event as a “selfinflicted coup”. To be expected, this triggered a massive political outcry. On April 1, largescale protests occurred throughout the capital, and requiring security forces to subdue the uprisings. These protests proved to be violent, when a man by the name of Jairo Ortiz was shot and killed. On April 7, matters got far 197

worse for the opposition. Henrique Capriles is a possible candidate for president for the 2018 election from the opposition’s party. He was banned from running for office for the next 15 years because he had been “disqualified.” The Venezuelan government convicted Capriles of having administrative irregularities as governors, which is illegal, and he is no longer allowed to run in the elections. On April 17, after the opposition called for the military to defy the president, they instead pledged allegiance to the President and socialist party. A few days later, in a speech given by the president himself, Maduro stated that he wanted to increase the number of people in the Bolivarian Forces from 100,000 to 500,000. Two days later, the “Mother of All Marches” was held. The opposition, upon seeing their efforts to protest the government were useless, decided to pull off the largest march they could. At around 10:30 A.M., thousands upon thousands of people flooded the streets of Caracas in an anti-government protest. The clash was brutal, the riot police used tear gas and rubber bullets to subdue the crowd, despite menial success. The protesters had their own assortment of weapons, which included stones and firebombs. The clash lasted all day, and, in the end, three people were killed. Finally, on April 26, 2017, the Venezuelan government called to withdraw from the Organization of American States. The Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodriguez stated in a televised statement, “Tomorrow, as ordered by President Nicolas Maduro, we will present a letter of resignation from the Organization of American States, and we will begin a procedure that will take 24 months [to

withdraw from the OAS].” Attempts have been made to persuade Venezuela to not leave, but so far there has been no change. A meeting was held in the OAS regarding the current crisis in Venezuela, but no decision has been made on how to handle the crisis. The United States, Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Peru proposed a declaration that would free political prisoners, end the violence, and have more regard for law and human rights. US State Department Undersecretary for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon said the ultimate goal of the declaration was to "return to full respect for the rule of law, full respect for freedoms of political expression and participation” in Venezuela. The declaration also called for the Venezuelan president to scrap his plans for the creation of a citizens' assembly to rewrite the constitution. The plan had been announced on May 1, 2017 by Maduro, and it called for a constituent committee to be formed, and rewrite the previous 1999 constitution. As of now, Venezuela has given no notice of revoking their withdrawal from the OAS. Analysis The lack of democracy and institution of socialist policies have devastated the country of Venezuela, regressing the once prosperous capitalist society. The strict regulations, limited political freedoms, and restricted economic opportunities have deprived citizens of once fundamental freedoms. In response to the consistent economic and political hardships, the government did the only thing it thought possible, which was to institute more costly social programs. Amid all of the economic and social turmoil, citizens have tried to speak out against the government, notably in recent years, and the government has ignored to the 198

pleas of citizens and politicians that are calling for change. And now, the Venezuelan government is calling to withdraw from the Organization of American States, which could be the key to restoring Venezuela to what it once was. One significant problem is the disconnect between the government and its citizens. No matter how many times citizens speak out against the government, their efforts are always squashed. Maduro’s administration needs to pay more attention to the citizens, rather than furthering his own agenda. With an increasing disapproval rate of his presidency so far, he would greatly help the reputation of his presidency if he were to act on behalf of the citizens, not himself or his colleagues. He may be able to begin pulling the country back together again, if only he were to embrace new ideas and methods of governing, and listen to what his people have been saying for years. Another problem is if the government doesn’t listen to the demands of their people, who are pleading for the restoration of democracy. The withdrawal from the OAS could jeopardize the future of the country, and citizens will have a significantly harder time changing their country for the better. The administration’s continual acts of squashing opposing views and shutting down debate has left the country in shambles, and it will undoubtedly decline further if nothing is changed. The Maduro administration must be encouraged to alter their original promises, and move toward a democracy. It is essential to the future of the country that something be changed regarding the way legislation is passed and policy is enforced. Questions to Consider

1. What mistakes were made in Venezuela’s history that could have averted their current political and economical crisis? How can Venezuelans use this information to possibly improve their current predicament? 2. What changes can be made to the economy that would allow Venezuela to prosper like it had in the 1960s and 70s? 3. Which policies are hurting Venezuela the most? How might officials go about amending them? 4. What different economic policies would need to be removed or added in order to boost the economy? What about political changes? 5. How else might the Organization of American States aid Venezuelan citizens, even when their government refuses to cooperate? 6. What changes would need to be made in order for Venezuela to revoke their paper of resignation to the OAS? Further Research • An indepth analysis of Venezuela’s transition to socialism. • : Current economic statistics regarding Venezuela. • uela/gdp-growth-annual: Statistics regarding GDP throughout history. • Venezuela’s critical decision to withdraw from the OAS. 199

1. Adherence by any member state to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the inter-American system. 2. The Government of Cuba, which has officially identified itself as a MarxistLeninist government, is incompatible with the principles and objectives of the OAS. 3. This incompatibility excludes the present Government of Cuba from participation in the inter-American system. The status of Cuba following the Conference was complicated. Cuba was technically a member state but the communist government was not permitted to be represented during any meetings. Cuba was still required to report the status of the human rights system to OAS officials. Some member states, such as the U.S., maintained tense relations with Cuba. However, there have been previous attempts by the U.S. to reform relations. President Gerald Ford and his secretary of state Henry Kissinger explored the idea of rapprochement with Cuba, but this ended with the intervention of Cuban forces during Angola’s civil war. Ford’s successor, Jimmy Carter, ordered new rounds of talks in hopes of normalizing ties with Havana in 1977, but Cuba’s military ventures in Africa also prevented this from happening. Presidents Reagan, H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Bush have kept a strict foreign policy, such as economic and diplomatic isolation, against Cuba unless there was a regime change. This turbulent relationship has discouraged OAS member nations from seriously considering the reincorporation of Cuba as an active member. However, Cuban reintegration has remained a frequent source of contention among the member countries.

I. Cuban Reintegration into the Organization of American States Background Cuba joined the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1948 as one of the 21 initial members. Cuba continued to be a member until Fidel Castro and a group of revolutionaries seized power in Havana and overthrew the U.S.-backed government of Fulgencio Batista. Although the United States officially recognized this new government, the relations between Cuba and the U.S. began to deteriorate rapidly. President John F. Kennedy aimed to politically and economically isolate Castro’s Cuba by imposing a full economic embargo and strict travel restrictions. On April 17, 1961, the U.S. embarked on a failed military invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, a southern coast in Cuba. This invasion helped to strengthen Castro’s leadership, caused Kennedy to order a number of internal investigations across Latin America, and deteriorated U.S. – Cuban relations even further. At the same time, most nations within the OAS remained impartial on the issue because they believed the issue was a private dispute between Cuba and the U.S. However, both Venezuela and Colombia would break off diplomatic relations after continued pressure from U.S. ambassador DeLesseps Morrison. On January 21, 1961, the OAS assembled at the Punta del Este Gathering. The U.S. encouraged other American states to draw a hard line against Cuba. 14 member nations voted to exclude Cuba, with 6 nations abstained from voting. All 20 nations supported the declaration to suspend arm sales to Cuba. The resolutions passed during this gathering include the following: 200

Current Status of Cuban Reintegration Although there have been attempts to rejoin Cuba, Fidel Castro explicitly stated in 2005 that Cuba would never take part in the OAS again. Castro stated that the organization has “only humiliated the honor of Latin American nations”. Additionally, the Cuban government often referred to the OAS as the “Ministry of Colonies” of the U.S. On June 3, 2009, the 39 Generally Assembly of the OAS voted to lift Cuba’s suspension of participation in the OAS. After the suspension was lifted, Castro reiterated that Cuba would not return to the organization. In 2014, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez stated that Cuba would never return to the OAS. Cuba’s resistance is not the only issue over Cuban reintegration. During President Donald Trump’s campaign, he stated that he would dispose of Obama’s process in normalizing relations with Cuba. Previously, Obama had been able to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba in 2015, but he maintained the commercial, economic, and financial embargo. President Trump promised to reduce U.S. money going toward the Cuban military and security forces while fully reversing Obama’s Cuba policy in order to create a “better deal”. The U.S. and Canada continue to require that for Cuba to rejoin, it would have to make progress toward a democracy. Other member states of the OAS, such as Venezuela and its allies, would gladly let Cuba reintegrate regardless of the current government. Cuba still remains the only undemocratic country in the western hemisphere and continues to reject the values that define the OAS. Cuba has continually suppressed the rights of their own citizens and continues to reject a market-economy.

The divisive nature of Cuban reintegration among member states harms the organization and damages prospects of multilateral diplomacy. Advocates for Cuban reintegration believe that the division within political ideologies and borders can be eventually bridged, which was demonstrated in June 2009 when member states voted to lift Cuba’s 47-year ban. Obama had been eager to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba in an attempt to ease restrictions on the island by creating more economic opportunities and fulfill humanitarian-related initiatives. Washington officials believe that establishing relations with Cuba and abandoning their previously failed isolationist policies will improve the U.S. image and help strengthen their role in Latin America. Specifically, by rehabilitating the U.S. image in the eyes of OAS member countries. One of the most pressing issues regarding Cuban reintegration is the rise of a left-wing political ideology called Chavism. Chavism is the belief that the state should support social welfare programs for its citizens. The ideology has its origins in the beginnings of Hugo Chavez’s political career. Popular policies advocated by Chavismos include nationalization of industries, a strong anti-neoliberal stance on economic issues, and participatory democracy. Like most populist movements, Chavism has largely failed in Venezuela and has left the Venezuelan people worse off. The invitation for Cuba to reintegrate was seen as a victory for Venezuela and Chavismo ideology. Venezuela and Cuba both believe that they must continue to fight against western imperialism and capitalism. Thus, Chavism poses a threat to the democratic principles the OAS is built upon. Current Analysis of Cuban Reintegration



Clearly, there are many positives and setbacks that come with the decision of reintegrating Cuba. Cuban reintegration has loomed over all OAS assemblies and often serves to harm the organization itself as the divisive nature of issue often pits countries against each other, damaging the prospects for multilateral diplomacy in the western hemisphere. Efforts the United States will make in the future is crucial to the future of Cuba in the OAS. Members of Congress believe that democracy and human rights are the key objectives for Cuba, but Congress has been split on how exactly to achieve those objectives. Some believe that isolating Cuba is the only way to produce change, while others believe that normalizing relations with Cuba will promote increased engagement from the island. U.S. action related to the normalization of relations with Cuba and the reintegration of the country into the OAS have broader implications as well. Latin American governments have generally opposed the U.S. government’s sanctions against Cuba, so normalizing relations with Cuba will remove a contentious issue that has been putting pressure in U.S.-Latin American relations. However, many others still argue that Cuba’s inclusion in the OAS would weaken the legitimacy of the organization by showing the consolidation of democracy does not remain a priority to the OAS. Whether Cuba is reintegrated or not has serious ramifications to the U.S., and any decisive action will forever change the course of the OAS. The most important thing to do is act now, rather than kicking the issue down the curb. The other main issue surrounding Cuban reintegration if the threat of the growing popularity of Chavism that poses on

the OAS. Chavism and Chavez himself are a danger to U.S. security and destabilizes the OAS by acting as a political ally to countries such as Iran and North Korea. Chavez and Castro believed that they must band together to fight against Yankee imperialism and capitalism. Chavez had helped pave a way for Cuba to reintegrate back into the OAS and spearheaded diplomatic efforts for Cuba’s rehabilitation as an equal participant in OAS issues. Earlier this year, the Venezuelan government announced that it would leave the OAS unless the organization pulled their support of opposition to Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro. The unprecedented decision to pull out of a democratic institution such as the OAS is evident of the authoritarian nature of the Venezuelan government. There needs to be major effort toward keeping Venezuela in the OAS. This may be achieved by pulling support from political dissenters in Venezuela or by fully reintegrating Cuba. Whatever policy reached must be reached quickly, as Venezuela leaving may have disastrous results in the future of the OAS by creating a precedent of member states pulling out and abandoning democratic principles altogether. Questions to Consider 1. Should multilateralism within the western hemisphere be prioritized over a commitment to democratic principles? 2. Is it possible for Cuba to reconsider joining? 3. Is there something member nations can do to expedite the decision? 4. What problems come with Cuban reintegration? How can this be prevented? 5. What actions could be taken to ensure Venezuela doesn’t leave?


6. How would Venezuela leaving impact the future of the OAS?


Further Research • • s-cuba-relations • 7/04/venezuela-chavismo-madurosupreme-court/ • AS-cuba-readmit • pdf •

Clemente, Rosa, Earl Bousquet, Jack Rasmus, Edu Montesanti, and TeleSUR /. RsfDB-mk. "Venezuela: ‘Imperialist’ UN Attacks Us for ‘Capitalist Empire’." Venezuela: ‘Imperialist’ UN Attacks Us for ‘Capitalist Empire’ | News | teleSUR English. February 28, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017. ws/Venezuela-Imperialist-UNAttacks-Us-for-Capitalist-Empire20170228-0017.html. Felter, Claire, Brianna Lee, James McBride, and Danielle Renwick. "U.S.-Cuba Relations." Council on Foreign Relations. June 19, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. s-cuba-relations. s/attachments/Dem_TF_Perin.pdf

Bibliography Anonymous post to BBC News newsgroup, "OAS Fails to Agree on Venezuela as Protests Continue," June 1, 2017. Accessed August 12, 2017.

Filip, Busen. "The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Reestablishment of Ties between the U.S. and Cuba." GlobalResearch. April 10, 2015. Accessed August 18, 2017.

Anonymous post to BBC News newsgroup, "Venezuela Opposition Leader Capriles Banned from Politics," April 8, 2017. Accessed July 13, 2017. Anonymous post to Press TV newsgroup, "Venezuela Army Declares Loyalty to Maduro Ahead of Big Opposition Demo." Accessed 2017. /04/18/518473/Venezuela-armydeclares-loyaltyMaduro.

"FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1958–1960, CUBA, VOLUME VI." U.S. Department of State. Accessed August 18, 2017. uments/frus1958-60v06/d581.

203 Staff. “Organization of American States Established.” Published in 2009. Accessed July 20, 2017.

Rosas, Pedro. Pedro Rosas to Vox newsgroup, "How Venezuela’s Supreme Court Triggered One of the Biggest Political Crises in the Country’s History," May 1, 2017. Accessed July 14, 2017. /1/15408828/venezuela-protestsmaduro-parliamentsupreme-court-crisis.

Meyer, Peter J. "Organization of American States: Background and Issues for Congress." August 22, 2016. Accessed August 18, 2017. pdf.

Rueters Staff. Rueters Staff to Reuters newsgroup, "Venezuela to Withdraw from OAS, Denounces by Washington," April 26, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017.

“OAS Fails to Agree on Venezuela as Protests Continue.” BBC News. Published June 1, 2017. Accessed August 15, 2017.

Schlesinger Jr. A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. 1965. Taylor, Alan. “In Venezuela, the Mother of All Marches.” The Atlantic. Published April 20, 2017. Accessed July 13, 2017. oto/2017/04/in-venezuela-themother-of-all-marches/523725/.

OAS Staff. Organization of American States. Accessed July 13, 2017. Padgett, Tim. "Inside the OAS's Cuba Conundrum." Time. June 01, 2009. Accessed August 18, 2017. world/article/0,8599,1902042,00.html

Trombetta, Reynaldo. Reynaldo Trombetta to The Guardian newsgroup, "In Venezuela 82% of People Live in Poverty – Where Are Our Friends Now?," April 4, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. entisfree/2017/apr/05/venezuelawestern-socialistsnicolas-maduro-abuse.

Pew Research Staff, comp. Venezuela President Maduro Topline. September 24, 2014. Accessed August 18, 2017. 22/venezuela-president-madurotopline/. Rapoza, Kenneth. "Chavismo Becomes 'El Chupacabra' Of Venezuelan Democracy." Forbes. April 27, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017. poza/2017/04/27/chavismobecomes-el-chupacabra-ofvenezuelan-democracy/.

"Venezuela Annual GDP Growth Rate." Trading Economics. uela/gdp-growth-annual.


"Venezuela before Chavez: A Prelude to Socialist Failure." Mises Institute (blog). Entry posted May 4, 2017. Accessed July 15, 2017.

"What Is Chavismo?" The Borgen Project. December 16, 2014. Accessed August 19, 2017. Williamson, Kevin D. Kevin D. Williamson to The National Review newsgroup, "The Facts about Venezuela," April 26, 2016. Accessed July 14, 2017. e/434591/venezuelas-crisis-hugochavez-socialism-brought-povertynot-success

“Venezuela Unemployment Rate.� The Global Economy. Accessed August 8, 2017. Venezuela/Unemployment_rate/.



Peace of Westphalia Angela Stefanovska Chair Yumna Rahman Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies

Welcome to Governor School Model U.N. XXI! Your co-chairs are Yumna Rahman and Angela Stefanovska. This committee, Peace of Westphalia, is a historical committee that takes place in the mid-seventeenth century as Europe struggles with the political and religious changes caused by warring that had gone on for centuries. Two of the major topics are how to rebuild the religious landscape of Europe between Catholics and Protestants, and how the political power of Europe should be spread out between the countries involved. Yumna Rahman, one of your co-chairs, is a junior that has been in involved with Model UN since her freshman year. She enjoys attending Model UN conferences as a delegate as well as participating in Model Congress. Other clubs that she takes part in include Arabic Club, UNICEF, Future Medical Professionals, French Club, and MLWGS Bhangra team. In her free time she enjoys reading, playing violin, and watching Netflix. She looks forward to meeting everyone! Angela Stefanovska, a junior, is excited to co-chair the Peace of Westphalia committee at GSMUN XXI! Angela has participated in Model UN since the eighth grade and attended GSMUN as a delegate, vice-chair, and co-chair in the past. Outside of Model UN, Angela is a member of many clubs including Maggie Walker’s Operation Smile Chapter, Spanish Club, and Future Medical Professionals. She also plays volleyball for her school team and enjoys watching Netflix and hanging out with friends in her free time. Now that you have read introductions on your chairs, delegates must keep in mind the following things for committee day. Delegates are required to come in with a written position paper addressing both topics of the committee to be considered for an award. It is preferred they be typed in 12-point Times New Roman, double-spaced, and with 1-inch margins. Successful position papers have a clear stance on how to address topics in the viewpoint of your designated country/person. Use the background guide as a resource in understanding the topics, but outside research is expected with properly formatted Chicago Manual Style (CMS) citations. With that being said, all position papers submitted at GSMUN are expected to adhere to the Maggie Walker honor code, meaning absolutely no plagiarism is tolerated. Also, don’t forget to bring money since merchandise will be sold the days of committee to help raise money for this year’s charity. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact your chairs at We hope you are all looking forward to contributing to insightful debate and creating worthwhile resolutions for the committee, and we wish you the best of luck! Your chairs,

Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Angela Stefanovska

Yumna Ruhman



Committee Overview Committee Background The Peace of Westphalia was a peace conference called in Münster and Osnabrück (two cities in modern-day Germany) in December of 1644 to discuss the end of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). It lasted for four years as representatives from all over Europe worked to come up with a resolution to the conflict. This committee takes place historically during those 4 years, 1644 to 1648, in which the delegates must work to discuss the conditions of the peace treaty and lay out how each country involved will ultimately be affected. Primary topics of discussion include how the Holy Roman Empire will be restructured, how to appease all nations involved in the Thirty Years War, and to what extent religious freedom can be tolerated. It is now in the hands of the delegates to decide the entire political structure of Europe following this period of intense religious warfare and the fate of one of the largest political organizations in early European history - the Holy Roman Empire. I. Fate of the Holy Roman Empire Background A thorough understanding of the Thirty Years’ War is essential in discussing the effects of the Peace of Westphalia. Religion, namely Catholicism, was the dominant authority in Europe in the 16 century. However, dissatisfaction grew as the Protestant Reformation gained more followers, pitting formerly loyal Catholics against an increasingly corrupt Pope and resulting in tension and divisions throughout the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). Weakened

imperial power and unrest between ruler and their subjects began as early as 1555. Although the Thirty Years’ War broke-out based on religious conflicts, the motives of the war became mainly of political supremacy as fighting continued on a continental scale in the latter years. It pitted Protestant against Catholic, the Holy Roman Empire against France, the German princes and princelings against the emperor and each other, and France against the Habsburgs of Spain in the hopes of weakening the major power. The war began following the revolt in the Bohemian state, a princely state within the Holy Roman Empire located in the presentday Czech Republic, where Protestant citizens revolted against Ferdinand II due to the closure of two Lutheran churches. The Bohemians lost the Battle at White Mountain in 1620, and the number of protestant followers in the Habsburg entities decreased. The Thirty Years’ War consisted of four phases against the Emperor: the Bohemian and Palatine period, the Danish-Lower Saxony period, the Swedish period, and the French-Swedish period. Many rising European powers, including Sweden, France, Denmark, England, and Scotland, fought against the Habsburg states, which were backed by the Holy See of Rome. The motivations for war changed during the war’s third phase from a religious/civil struggle between Catholics and Protestants to a war of political supremacy between the French and Spanish. The third phase introduced Swedish involvement under Gustavus Adolphus and the rivalry between



France and the Habsburg as major European powers. Adolphus led the Protestants and defeated the Imperialists in 1631 at the Battle at Breitenfeld. Struggles were now fought by foreign powers rather than mainly the German states, making the war a continental and political fight. Current Status Despite the delays from Emperor Ferdinand III, negotiations for a treaty began as early as 1643, with the Catholic allies meeting in Münster and Protestants in Osnabrück. With many different political interests coming from the total of 176 plenipotentiaries, negotiators struggle in making compromises. The desperate Emperor wishes to end the war with a final treaty, even if means conceding to outrageous religious interests. French authorities hope to grasp strategically and economically important territories from the Spanish. Furthermore, France hopes to fuel power to the German princes in order to weaken the empire and increase the autonomy of the political entities under the guidance of the French. The German princes, however, demand that the HRE remains under the Emperor with limited authority. With the rise of French power and the declining Habsburg authority, the Treaty of Westphalia acknowledges sovereignty, meaning that the state holds all authority over a particular region, and equally separate nation-states. It provides a foundation for the new constitutional structure following the Thirty Years’ War and is considered to mark the beginning of modern international law. The introduction of a state system in the HRE emphasizes the balance of power, making sure that all states exercise equality and prevent one state from overpowering the

others. Coalitions may form in an attempt to prevent a single state from becoming a major power. Although there are no major territorial transfers written into the Peace of Westphalia, there were some minor territorial gains by France and Sweden that altered the political power of the Emperor. France obtained control of Alsace (a historically strategic region) and some land west of the Rhine, including Metz, Toul, and Verdun, which limited the Emperor’s power. Sweden gained port Bremen and the town of Stettin within the Pomeranian region, which was economically important to the HRE. Under the treaty, the Spanish Habsburgs cannot take control of Germany, which was divided into many independent political entities. The remaining east Pomeranian region now belongs to Brandenburg Prussia, which became significant in the unification of Germany in 1871. Furthermore, France and Spain continued fighting even after the signing of the Peace of Westphalia, and these Franco-Spanish Wars did not end until 1659 with the Peace of the Pyrenees. Fighting also continued in the north between Sweden and Denmark. The Peace of Westphalia also resulted in the independence of the Dutch Netherlands, marking the end of the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648) by making Spain formally recognize the Dutch Republic. Analysis The Peace of Westphalia detailed how peace and order can be reinstated in Europe through the establishment of the state system, the balance of powers, and revised economic policies. Cardinal Mazarin also removed custom barriers, and Jean-Baptiste Colbert added infrastructure reforms to ensure job


security, boost population growth, and introduced a new civil code. Much of the policies within the Peace of Westphalia originated from the Prime Minister of France under Louis XIV, Cardinal Mazarin, who emphasized the creation of sovereign states through a “principle of benevolence” that would result in mutually beneficial relationships among nations. The Peace of Westphalia outlines this principle of peace in Article 1: “That this Peace and Amity be observ'd and cultivated with such a Sincerity and Zeal, that each Party shall endeavour to procure the Benefit, Honour and Advantage of the other; that thus on all sides they may see this Peace and Friendship in the Roman Empire, and the Kingdom of France flourish, by entertaining a good and faithful Neighbourhood.”

jobs along the major rivers. Although the Habsburgs and Venetians, who had an alliance with each other, feared that the increased economic freedom would dissolve the empire itself, they agreed to Mazarin’s terms as a result of pressures for peace following the Thirty Years’ War. Mazarin established peace and stability among the German states at a time of devastation and lack of diplomatic/political reforms, providing a platform for German unification in the future. Another guarantor included JeanBaptiste Colbert, who applied the policies of the Peace of Westphalia to launch programs to boost French economic development. Many have recognized Colbert for introducing the reforms of a modern nation state, including his projects for job security, protectionist policies to protect domestic industries, importance of population growth, and civil code. The signing of the Peace of Westphalia also resulted in drawbacks that limited the power of Ferdinand III even though he had superiority over the German princes. Additionally, many smaller entities favored the previous protection of the HRE since smaller states have difficulty in practicing the new economic and political freedoms under the Peace of Westphalia. Although Ferdinand III improved his position in the Holy Roman Empire compared to that from the start of the war, the settlement lacked many Habsburg interests, indicating the descent of imperial power. France succeeded in not including Spain within the peace settlement but did not gain a significant amount of power following the treaty despite the territorial gains. Overall, diplomats rushed to devise a peace treaty due

Thus, Mazarin supported the maintenance of a productive economy through fair and free trade. As a French diplomat, Mazarin allowed his representatives to indirectly intervene in the creation of Germany’s economic program in 1642 to further French expansion and weaken Germany’s imperial power. He viewed the Rhine River, which was seen as the border between France and Germany, as an economic interest and that the high customs fee on the Rhine should be minimized for trading across borders. Negotiators in the creation of the Peace of Westphalia discussed Mazarin’s research on the Habsburg Empire river system and his proposal for a RhineMain-Danube canal, which would connect the North Sea to the Black Sea and create many 213

to the collapse in authority in the Holy Roman Empire in 1645, but the agreement resulted in political and religious stability that allowed for coexistence despite the ongoing conflicts among some nations even after 1648. Questions to Consider 1. How could a plan to “balance powers” within the empire help prevent future wars from occurring? How could it alternatively result in conflict? 2. What kind of conditions affected the establishment of the state system? 3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of state sovereignty? 4. How will Mazarin’s policies better the HRE both economically and politically? 5. Was the Peace of Westphalia successful in providing long-lasting peace? How should it be revised to better fit the interests of the major powers? Further Research • (Peace of Westphalia as the turning point in Europe, excellent source for relevant background information) • ury/westphal.asp (Entire text of the Peace of Westphalia for evidence) • 10453/3289/1/2006006060.pdf (Essay “The Rise of the Territorial State and the Treaty of Westphalia”) •'% 20War.htm (Information on the Thirty Years’ War with a solid breakdown and importance) 9073a.htm (Definition of international law and its relevance to the time period)

II. Religious Tolerance Background The Thirty Years War first began when religious matters were initially disrupted all across Europe with the Protestant Reformation. The Protestant Reformation was a religious revolution that introduced a sect of Christianity that was different from Catholicism, which had been the only form of Christianity in Europe before then. The Reformation began primarily with Martin Luther, a German monk who attacked the allpowerful Catholic Church, saying that many of their practices were not in line with the Bible’s teachings. To convey his message, he wrote his 95 Thesis on all that was wrong and corrupt within the Catholic Church and what he believed should be reformed. While Luther’s specific version of faith was known as Lutheranism, his movement introduced Protestantism, a term for any sect other than Christianity which would come to include many other sects that branched out from Luther’s beliefs. While there are no concrete dates for the time of the Reformation, it began in 1517 and died out late in the sixteenth century. After Martin Luther posted his 95 theses, conflict erupted as more and more people began to understand his religious interpretation and agreed that the Catholic Church held too much power and, through corrupt practices like indulgences, absenteeism, and nepotism, was quickly estranging itself from its followers. The Protestant movement grew rapidly and led to 214

uprisings and insurrections, as more and more Germans embraced the Protestant version of Christianity, valuing individual faith and the independent study of the scripture above the Pope’s “infallible” authority. The Holy Roman Emperor at the time, Charles V, saw the princes’ conversions to Christianity as equivalent to treason, and so he moved to banish Luther and outlaw the budding sect of Christianity of his Protestant followers. In 1531, the Protestant princes decided to form a defensive alliance, calling it the Schmalkaldic league, to protect themselves against the emperor. The problem remained that essentially half of the empire now adopted Lutheranism, and the old concerns of loyalty and treason based on religion did not die. Over next few years, Charles V worked to come to an agreement with the Protestant princes on the matter while also dealing with various smaller conflicts and revolutions throughout the empire. Finally, Charles called in his brother Ferdinand to conduct negotiations with those that remained of the Schmalkaldic league. Around the same time as the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church launched the Counter Reformation, also known as the Catholic Revival. In 1545, the Council of Trent was called with the intention to revitalize the Roman Catholic Church and amend some of the corrupted ways of carrying out practices. The council’s doctrinal teaching was a counteraction to the emphasis on the role of faith and God’s grace that Lutherans had, and it was a reaction against Protestant teaching on the amount and nature of the sacraments. The Roman Inquisition was a system of tribunals intended to prosecute individuals suspected of a variety of crimes relating to religious doctrine. This

inquisition was more successful in controlling doctrine and practice than similar bodies in those countries where Protestant princes had more power than the Roman Catholic Church. The Peace of Augsburg was signed in 1555 as a temporary settlement within the Holy Roman Empire of the religious conflict arising from the Protestant Reformation and Counter Reformation. It was a treaty between Charles V and the forces of the Schmalkaldic League that decided the people of each state of the HRE would follow the religion of the ruler of the state. At this point in time, the princes could choose only between Lutheran or Catholic. The political power of the Catholic Church in Europe was greatly reduced after the Peace of Augsburg and the power dynamic was shifted from that point on. The Peace of Augsburg settled the immediate political and religious issues of the day but ultimately proved flawed. The treaty did not accommodate the later different forms of Protestantism, such as Calvinism. Still, the Peace of Augsburg illustrated that different religions could coexist within the empire, and led to a new level of tolerance, however temporary it may ultimately have been, between Catholics and Protestants. The Thirty Years War finally ignited when Calvinists in Bohemia rebelled against their Catholic rulers in the year 1618. In the political atmosphere dominated by Catholics, Protestants were regarded with suspicion and faced discrimination, judicial bias, and other forms of prejudice and persecution. However, soon many German princes themselves converted to Protestantism, alienating their Catholic subjects for the same reasons. Bohemians, mostly Protestant, were unhappy with Emperor Ferdinand II of Austria. They 215

had enjoyed a measure of independence under Ferdinand’s predecessors, but Ferdinand II was committed to a more strict jurisdiction. Ferdinand was a devout Catholic and so he closed one Protestant church and destroyed another. As a staunch enforcer of the Counter-Reformation against Protestantism, he was determined to make all his lands thoroughly Catholic. The violence began May 23, 1618, with the Second Defenestration of Prague when Bohemian rebels stormed the royal palace and threw Ferdinand’s governors out the window. Each country involved over all the phases of the war had their own motives and religious goals in mind. Unlikely alliances were made because political pursuits often trumped religious beliefs. France began to support the Protestants, even though France was a Catholic state. The war began as a religious struggle, with dynastic and political factors in the background, however the war progressed, politics came to the forefront, playing a larger role. This was why in 1635 the French, led for the most part by the Catholic Cardinal Richelieu, entered the war on the side of the Protestant princes of the Holy Roman Empire. King Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, became an ally earlier on and sent Swedish military aid during the war’s third phase that saved the Protestant cause in 1630. Ferdinand II, the heir to the Bohemian throne, called on the aid of the Catholic Germans of the princely states and made alliances with Spain and the Papacy. The German princes, primarily Calvinists, who fought against Ferdinand II in the 1620s were strongly influenced by confessional considerations, and as long as they dominated the anti-Hapsburg cause, so did the issue of religion. But because they failed to secure a

lasting settlement, the task of defending the “Protestant cause” gradually fell into the hands of Lutherans, who proved willing to ally with Catholic France and Orthodox Russia in order to create a coalition capable of defeating the Hapsburgs. By the end of the war it was clear that the war had crippled the internal cohesion of many states and overturned the diplomatic balance of power created during the Renaissance. Although the Thirty Years War is commonly remembered as a religious struggle, by the end it was no longer a war between just Catholics and Protestants but between leaders seeking methods of advancing their personal political agendas. Even after the Thirty Years War ended, diplomatic proceedings were difficult. The primary obstacles to an overall peace in Germany after 1635 were the ambitions of France and Sweden and changes in military. Sweden wanted territorial and financial compensation but France, under the authority of cardinals, sought something more ambitious that involved a hefty reduction in both Spanish and Austrian Hapsburg power. Additionally, matters were further complicated by the individual objectives of various German princes and the isolated negotiations between Spain and the Netherlands. Ultimately, 176 ambassadors representing 196 rulers attended the peace negotiations. Current Status The current religious climate of Europe is in turmoil after the final war of religions. The only legal basis they had to go on before the Treaty of Westphalia was decided upon was the Peace of Augsburg. The Peace of Augsburg contained three main principles: The principle of cuius regio, eius 216

religio meaning “whose realm, his religion,� provided for internal religious unity within a state. The religion of the prince became the religion of the state and all its inhabitants. Those who chose not to conform to the prince's religion were allowed to leave. The second principle was known as reservatum ecclesiasticum, intended to cover the special status of the ecclesiastical state. If the bishop of an ecclesiastic state changed his religion, the inhabitants of that state did not have to change their religion too, however the bishop was expected to resign from his post. The third principle, Declaratio Ferdinandei translated to Ferdinand’s Declaration, exempted knights and the people of some cities from the requirement of uniform religion if the reformed religion had been practiced there since the mid 1520s. This allowed for some towns and cities with a mix of Catholics and Lutherans to live together. It also protected the authority of the princely families, the knights and some of the cities to determine what religious sameness meant in their territories. Analysis The Peace of Augsburg failed to be a lasting solution to the religious conflict for a number of reasons, which are sought to be amended with the new treaty. While the Peace of Augsburg gave legal basis for the practice of the Lutheran theology, it did not accept any of the reformed sects of Christianity such as Calvinism and Anabaptism. It may have been moderately successful in relieving tension in the empire and increasing religious tolerance, however it left important things unaddressed. Neither the Anabaptists nor the Calvinists were protected under the treaty, so many Protestant groups living under the rule of a Lutheran prince still found themselves in

danger of the charge of heresy. The intolerance and injustice of the other sects led Calvinists to revolt and creates sparks of violence for the Thirty Years War. Had the Peace of Augsburg been more inclusive and comprehensive in its religious allowances, the major Thirty Years War may never have even occurred. However, considering the society of the time, any degree of religious concession for a faith other than Catholicism was a monumental step. Leaders of the time were adamant in maintaining tradition and not particularly open minded so expected more allowances in the Peace of Augsburg would have been unrealistic. Analysis lies in how far the leaders will be willing to go in allowing an even more tolerant religious policy after the insurrections by discontented sects. Questions to Consider 1. Should the conditions of the Peace of Augsburg still apply now? 2. Should Calvinists be given religious tolerance? 3. What are the contingencies to any religious allowances? 4. What is the case for any new sects of Christianity that may emerge in the future? 5. How will any new changes in religion impact the political scope of Europe? Bibliography Beaudry, Pierre. "The Economic Policy That Made the Peace of Westphalia." The Schiller Institute. Last modified May 2003. Accessed December 4, 2017. gic/treaty_of_westphalia.html.


Brown, Gregory. "Principles of the State System.” University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Accessed Deceber 4, 2017. http:// wciv2c10/wciv2c10lsec2.html.

Zealand Jurisprudence 9 (2006): 62-70. Accessed December 4, 2017. 10453/3289/1/2006006060.pdf. Staff. “Thirty Years’ War.” Last modified 2009. Accessed August 23, 2017. y-years-war.

Carlson, Cody K. “This week in history: Peace of Augsburg allows for religious tolerance.” Deseret News. Last modified September 23, 2015. Accessed August 25, 2017. 431/This-week-in-history-Peace-of-Augsburgallows-for-religious-tolerance.html.

Indepthinfo. “Thirty Years War.” Last modified 2016. Accessed August 24, 2017. /30-years-war.htm.

Comenius, Jan Amos. “The Thirty Years War.” Last modified 1987. Accessed August 25, 2017. ues/issue-13/thirty-years-war.html.

"Peace of Westphalia: France's Defense of the Sovereign Nation." EIRFeature 29 (November 29, 2002): 18-32.

Darby, Graham. "Westphalia, Peace of (1648)." Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World, edited by Jonathan Dewald, vol. 6, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, pp. 205-208. World History in Context, 5/WHIC?u=rich82127&xid=5a28a5c1. Accessed 26 Nov. 2017.

Reich, E. “The Religious Peace of Augsburg, 1555.” Wayback Machine. Last modified May 13, 2008. Accessed August 25, 2017. /323/texts/augsburg.htm. Sommerville, Johann P. "The Aftermath of the Thirty Years' War." University of Wisconsin. Accessed December 4, 2017. sommerville/351/351-05.htm.

Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World. “Westphalia, Peace of (1648).” Last modified 2004. Accessed September 1, 2017. rn-europe/treaties-and-alliances/peacewestphalia.

Spahn, Martin. "The Thirty Years' War." New Advent. Last modified 2012. Accessed December 4, 2017. 4648b.htm.

Graves, Dan. “Peace at Augsburg.” Christianity. Last modified April 2007. Accessed August 26, 2017.

"Treaty of Westphalia." October 24, 1648. The Avalon Project. Lillian Goldman Law Library, New Haven, CT.

Hassan, Daud. "The Rise of the Territorial State and the Treaty of Westphalia." Yearbook of New

Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. "The Peace of Westphalia---A Turning Point 218

in Europe." Jehovah's Witnesses. Accessed December 4, 2017.

WordPress. "Peace of Westphalia/Treaty of Westphalia." International Relations. Accessed December 4, 2017. e-of-westphaliatreaty-of-westphalia/.



Press Corps Kamya Sanjay Chair Lisa Qin Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications

It is our pleasure to welcome you to the GSMUN XXI Press Corps committee! Press Corps is composed of a collective body of journalists representing a variety of real media sources. Delegates will sit in on committee discussion, make observations, and conduct interviews in order to compose informative and engaging news articles concerning the happenings of the conference. We cannot wait for you all to dive in and hone your journalistic skills, but first, allow us to introduce ourselves. Lisa Qin is a junior this year at Maggie Walker and is enthused to be one of your chairs! She has been participating in Model UN activities since 8th grade, and was a crisis staffer at GSMUN in her freshman year. In her free time, she is usually either playing golf or basketball, because the grind never stops. She is also a renowned chef, specializing in a mean bowl of Kraft mac and cheese. Kamya Sanjay is also a junior and beyond excited to serve as your second chair. She has been involved with Model UN since her freshman year at Maggie Walker. Journalism is one of Kamya’s passions, and she serves as the Editor-in-Chief of the Jabberwock, Maggie Walker’s school newspaper. Kamya is the captain of Maggie Walker's Lincoln-Douglas debate team, an advocate for Operation Smile, and a dancer. In her limited free time she enjoys making Spotify playlists, checking items off her to-do list, and taking stress naps. While preparing for the conference, it is important to note that Press Corps is not a traditional committee. Each delegate will be assigned a news agency to represent rather than a country or historical figure, and will observe other committees’ sessions, gathering information through interviews and notes in order to write reports that will be published in the GSMUN Gazette during the conference. While writing these reports, you should attempt to emulate biases of your assigned source. Rather than writing a traditional position paper, each journalist is responsible for researching their assigned source and composing an analysis in two sections. The first will cover your source’s history, bias, and influences. The second portion will serve as a critique of a recently published article from your source, no older than 6 months old. These analyses should be in 12-point Times New Roman font, double spaced, with Chicago-style footnotes and a bibliography. There is no page limit or length requirement, but these analyses should be around 500 words; keep in mind that the Pulitzer Prize (Best Delegate Award) will be awarded to a single delegate at the end of the conference based on the quality and accuracy of their writing in regard to their assigned source. Be ready to turn in analyses online (e-mail) or printed by the first committee session of the conference. Of course, be mindful that any work done prior to and during the conference must abide by Maggie Walker’s honor code. Plagiarism will result in disqualification from awards. Feel free to email us with any questions at! We are thrilled by the prospects of this year’s conference and are happy to help you at any time. We cannot wait to see our brilliant and talented journalist team at GSMUN XXI! Your chairs,

Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Kamya Sanjay

Lisa Qin



Committee Overview Committee Background The Press Corps committee does not function under three strict sessions of parliamentary procedure debate. Thus, because the committee is not traditional, delegates are not required to compose a position paper. Instead, each delegate will be assigned a specific international news association (examples include Al Jazeera, the Washington Post, the Telegraph, and El País), and will be required to write a brief history and analysis of the specific organization as well as a critique of one article from the given agency. The article must be no older than 6 months. It is important that you identify sources of bias concerning your agency and within your specific article of choice. Your critique should ultimately provide an analysis that notes style, content, and tone conventions. Any delegates wishing to receive constructive criticism on their analyses may email them to the chairs for consideration. Analyses must be double spaced in 12 point Times New Roman font. In the first committee session of GSMUN XXI, delegates will be assigned two committees to cover. Each delegate, posing as their assigned news source, will be required to write two articles during the conference. Delegate journalists will be dispatched to their assigned committees and will spend each session observing committee proceedings, taking detailed notes, researching to supplement their articles, and interviewing other delegates for quotes and perspectives whenever necessary.

While navigating the role of international correspondents, delegates must manage their time wisely. Each delegate’s first article will be published electronically on the GSMUN Gazette’s online website on the night of the first committee session. It is likely that each delegate’s first article will be less detailed than their second article due to the natural proceedings of committee, but delegates should work diligently to ensure that they produce quality material. The GSMUN Gazette remains a source of inter-committee information for all delegates, and delegates often take home paper copies of the Gazette as a reminder of their GSMUN experience. Each delegate journalist’s second article will be published during lunch after the second committee session. Since delegates will have more time to research and write this article, it is expected that the second session article be comprehensive and analytical, tackling committee crises and covering multiple viewpoints. These written pieces should mirror press releases or news reports that discuss “current events” of various committees in detail, such as actions taken by certain countries regarding committee specific issues, delegate responses, and significant committee proceedings. The third session will contain a special social media journalism simulation. In this third session, delegates will gain experience truncating and modifying information for media publication. Delegates will be required to investigate their two assigned committees and photograph committee proceedings. They will then select the most relevant information 225

and create tweets as an exercise to disseminate information in a way that will grab the attention of other delegates during the conference. The purpose of this exercise, moreover, is to produce content that attracts attention and views while also maintaining ethical journalistic practices. Other delegates will be invited to view the twitter feed of the GSMUN Gazette and the variety of media shared by delegate journalists. Delegate journalists should conduct enough research on their news organization to be able to write from the source’s standpoint. Rather than directly placing biases on certain material, delegates should study how certain media sources maintain bias by emphasizing some viewpoints more than others, creating an illusion of presenting all sides. All articles should adhere to the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics in limiting censorship, displaying sensitivity to reader situations, demonstrating accountability, promoting journalistic integrity, and “seeking truth and reporting it.” At the end of the conference, a single journalist will be awarded the Pulitzer Prize (Best Delegate Award) based on the quality and accuracy of his or her writing in relation to their assigned source.

the traditions of the past. The first of these tenets is the fact that “blogger based media” has taken over the journalistic world. This means that the definition of “journalist” has become more loosely applied than in the past. Secondly, since the rise of the digital age, former traditionalist publications have taken to marketing themselves as content aggregators. It is no longer difficult for journalists to provide news that people will read. Journalists and news sources now attempt to offer the most readily available and user-friendly collection of information for reader consumption. This often comes in the form of various social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, all of which are continuing to evolve as they embrace their developing roles as some of the biggest outlets for news. In a study conducted in 2016, the Pew Research Center found that 62% of adults obtained news from social networking sites, most notably Facebook and Twitter. Social media has played a pivotal part in shaping the global political scene, such as in its fostering of communication and organization between protesters during the Arab Spring. More recently, the 2016 United States presidential election also demonstrated the substantial role social media plays in informing and connecting the public, whether it be through video reports on YouTube or live tweets from news agencies responding to the latest occurrences. Social networks appeal to consumers not only because they provide faster and easier access, but because they enable consumers to be connected and communicate with each other. Thus, as both the public and mainstream news agencies turn to more widespread forms of online journalism, consumers are gaining access to a

Modern Journalism The rise of the digital age has resulted in a shift in journalistic practices, as most individuals now prefer to access information by means of the Internet rather than physical, tangible media. Many renowned publications and news associations have attempted to embrace the challenge of the digitalization of information over the past decade. According to Stanford University, there are two tenets of new journalistic practice that have uprooted 226

means of expressing their own views and opinions.

Another clear example of the presence of bias is “checkbook journalism,” a process in which subjects are paid off by journalists or news agencies in exchange for exclusive rights to publish their stories. While not an illegal practice, it is generally frowned upon as less ethical than conventional investigative journalism; however, it is still widely practiced in many places. One example of checkbook journalism is “The Nixon Interviews,” conducted by David Frost who paid Nixon roughly $600,000. A more recent example is ABC News’ alleged payment of $200,000 to Casey Anthony, a mother accused of killing her two-year-old daughter, for exclusive rights to an “extensive library of photos and home video.”7 Both of these instances were regarded with contempt by many in the journalism community, as paying the sources brought into question the stories’ credibility and accuracy. Another form of biased journalism draws attention to the extraordinary rather than basic news stories, or sometimes facts. This form is known as sensationalism, and is most notably present in what was known as Yellow Journalism in the late 19th century. A large motive for sensationalism is revenue, which contributes to public distrust in certain forms of news media. Any growth of public distrust in the news industry threatens the practice of journalism itself, which is why it is important to carefully consider the impact and degree of any bias that may be present in your writing.

The United Nations Correspondents Association The United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) is a professional organization with over 250 member journalists. These journalists of various countries represent scores of publications, broadcasters, and global news agencies from different regions of the world. Conceived in 1948, the UNCA in its early stages had only fifty members who represented media solely of America and Canada. As the UN’s global influence grew, the number of correspondents followed suit. Currently the UNCA works to unite its correspondents, members of diplomatic delegations, and the Department of Public Information through the organization of press conferences, social functions, luncheons, and most notably its own annual awards event.5 The annual UNCA Awards for global media is held in New York, and was established to recognize excellence in UN coverage of journalists from all over the world. The UNCA is the organization representing the United Nations press corps as a whole, and thus functions as an example of a similar body to the GSMUN Press Corps committee. Journalist Bias In almost all forms of journalism, bias is inevitable, as journalists tend to construct information in a way favorable to their own views or interests. A common form of bias in journalism is market-oriented bias, in which individuals or agencies succumb to pressure to produce stories targeting market segments that benefit advertisers or big corporations.

The SPJ Code of Ethics Since 1909, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) has worked to create a standard of ethical journalism for worldwide application. It published its first Code of 227

Ethics in 1926, later replacing it with the 1996 SPJ Code that is still referenced today. The Society declares four principles to be of utmost importance in regards to ethical journalism, and maintains that “public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.” An ethical journalist acts with integrity to ensure the free exchange of accurate and fair information. Delegates should keep the Code in mind while writing and publishing their articles: 1. Seek Truth and Report It- Journalists should never provide false information in the form of sources, quotes, or media. All sources should be easily identifiable. Journalists should create fair, responsible, and accurate work. 2. Minimize Harm- Journalists should treat all subjects with respect. Information should be collected without excessive intrusiveness. Journalists should keep the humanity of their subjects in mind and consider the long term consequences of publishing information. They should not submit to “lurid curiosity” and should deal with certain subjects with the proper sensitivity. 3. Act Independently- Journalists should avoid conflicts of interest. If these conflicts present themselves then journalists should make them known to the public. Journalism is for accurate and fair dissemination of information. Journalists should deny favored treatment and should not accept bribes. 4. Be Accountable and TransparentJournalists should be prepared to explain their decisions to the public.

They should be willing to correct their mistakes and take responsibility for their effects. Journalists must encourage civil discourse concerning ethical journalistic practice. Realistically, the existence of bias in modern journalism is indisputable. Thus, as part of your responsibility in the Press Corps committee, you should attempt to reflect some degree of bias in your writing based on the perspective and interests of the agency you represent in order to acknowledge its existence and impact. However, you must pair this with the obligation to preserve ethicality. Your success in this committee is contingent upon your ability to balance ethicality and an accurate portrayal of journalistic bias. Tips for Journalists • As you research, carefully consider your assigned source’s biases. How will these biases factor into what information you prioritize? Would your agency look favorably or unfavorably upon certain events? • Always take note of “Who? What? When? Where? and Why?.” • Reconfirm information through research to make sure that you are delivering the facts! In the age of information journalism where every source can be fact checked, it is important to make sure you are correct the first time. • You lede is always important. This is the introductory paragraph of your story and should be used to grab the reader’s attention and entice them into reading further. Use this to your full advantage.


• •

The tone of your article should depend on your intended audience. Who would be reading your source? What would their core beliefs be? What tone, then, would you use to describe a specific event? Write news articles in the past tense with active voice. Unless the situation demands it, avoid using extremely active verbs. Your word choice should demonstrate a modicum of neutrality and should be telling rather than expressive. Variations of the word “to say” are perfectly acceptable. Do not overcomplicate sentences or use overly pretentious diction. Be aware of your target audience. Only include details that are relevant to the article. Avoid adding details that will detract from the writing, result in a loss of interest from your target audience, or redirect the overall purpose of the article. Be aware of how specific social, economic, and political factors would result in bias. Take lots of notes, especially during interviews! Interviewee consent is important as well, so if you choose to tape an interview make sure your subject knows that anything they say can be reproduced in your material.

14/the-evolving-role-of-news-ontwitter-and-facebook/. CCCE. "The Internet’s Impact on News Media." Center for Communication & Civic Engagement. Accessed September 30, 2017. gitalMedia/newsimpact.html. Crichton, Danny, Ben Christel, Aaditya Shidham, Alex Valderrama, and Jeremy Karmel. "How Has Journalism Changed?" Journalism in the Digital Age. Accessed September 30, 2017. rts/cs181/projects/201011/Journalism/index3f9d.html?page_i d=38. Gottfried, Jeffrey, and Elisa Shearer. News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016. May 26, 2016. Accessed September 30, 2017. 26/news-use-across-social-mediaplatforms-2016/. Hardesty, Greg. "SPJ Reading Room: 12 Tips for Being a Smarter Reporter." Society of Professional Journalists. Accessed September 30, 2017. "History of the United Nations Correspondents Association." UNCA. Accessed September 30, 2017.


Smith, Sydney. "SPJ Slams ABC’s Checkbook Journalism in Casey Anthony Case." iMediaEthics. Last modified March 26, 2010. Accessed September 30, 2017.

Barthel, Michael, Elisa Shearer, Jeffrey Gottfried, and Amy Mitchell. The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook. July 14, 2015. Accessed September 30, 2017. 229

SPJ. "SPJ Code of Ethics." Society of Professional Journalists. Last modified September 6, 2014. Accessed September 30, 2017.

"UNCA Constitution." UNCA. Accessed September 30, 2017.


Roman Senate Priya Singh Chair Alan Lai Chair



Dear Delegates,

We warmly welcome you to GSMUN XXI’s Late Roman Republic Senate, co-chaired by Alan Lai and Priya Singh. As members of the Roman Senate, you all have a responsibility to address the pressing problems that plague the late Roman Republic. With rising social issues and increasing civil unrest, the Senate must find a way to unite the Republic to restore order and control a vast, growing empire. Alan Lai, a junior, is excited to co-chair . This is his third year participating in GSMUN XXI Champion the Change Maggie Walker’s Model UN club and his second year of chairing for GSMUN. He also participates in Model Congress and debate. Alan is a fan of sports, and enjoys Catherine Qian playing basketball, swimming, and running track. He runs with the fall track club, Secretary-General plays basketball in the winter, and partakes in spring track and field. Outside of school, he plays piano and lazes about doing nothing. Napping is considered to be Will Larson one of his favorite pastimes. During parts of his free time, he volunteers at the Director-General Science Museum as well as at the Henrico Doctor’s Hospital. In her final year of high school, Priya Singh is ecstatic to chair for her third Jenny Glazier time for GSMUN! As a Latin student and lover of Roman history, Priya is especially Under-Secretary General for happy to be chairing the Roman Senate committee. Outside of Model United External Communications Nations, Priya is the Executive Director of Walker Model Congress, a participant in Maggie Walker’s Bhangra Club, and a mentee at VCU Pathology. In her limited free Liam Goble-Garratt time, Priya enjoys watching various sitcoms, playing with her huge Labrador Charge d'Affaires Retriever, and spending time with her friends and family. Now that you’ve been introduced to your co-chairs, here are some tips and Annie Wang tricks to excel during the conference. It is expected of delegates to be knowledgeable Director of Charitable of the topics at hand, and to complete thorough research before attending the Giving conference. Each delegate is expected to turn in a position paper at the beginning of committee. It should include brief background on the senator that you are Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for representing, analyze the issues at hand, and provide solutions. The background Logistics guide that your chairs have written gives an introductory overview of the topics, but should not be your only source of information when writing a position paper. Delve Evan Donnellan deeper into the subjects and learn more individually in order to be as prepared as Under-Secretary General for possible. When writing a position paper, please refer to the Chicago Manual of Style Crisis Simulations (Turabian Style) for formatting, meaning your position paper should be doublespaced and 12 point Times New Roman, and remember to always cite your sources! Aditya Kannoth Plagiarism is unacceptable and will result in disciplinary actions by the Secretariat. Director of Specialized Remember that quality is superior to quantity. Ideas that stimulate debate and Agencies provoke thought are looked favorably upon. With this in mind, we wish you luck on writing your papers and hope that you find success with your research! If there are Michael Zmuda any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at Director of General Assemblies Your chairs,

Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Alan Lai

Priya Singh 233


Committee Overview Committee Overview The Romans believed that Romulus, the son of a vestal virgin and god Mars, founded Rome in 753 B.C.E. on the Palatine Hill. As the first king of Rome, Romulus established the Roman monarchy. During of the Roman monarchy, the Senate was established as an advisory council, which consisted of nearly 300 members who were all patricians, a Roman class of aristocrats. In this time Rome remained relatively small and was influenced by neighboring tribes, including the Etruscans, Sabines, and Greeks. In 509 B.C.E., the people of Rome felt that the monarchy became corrupt after the son of Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh king of Rome, raped a noble woman. Consequently, they instigated a rebellion and overthrew the monarchy, replacing it with the Roman Republic. During the Roman Republic, the Senate was a advisory council to the consuls, who were the top two magistrates in the Roman government. Over nearly 500 years, the Senate converted from a simple advisory council to the most powerful political force in Rome. While consuls could only hold office for one year at a time, senators had no term limits, allowing them to gain stability over consuls. Furthermore, senators often held more experience and prestige than consuls, as many of them were elected consuls themselves before becoming senators. Additionally, the Senate’s doubled in size as consuls often tried to pack the Senate with supporters and allies, giving the Senate more influential aristocrats. By the second century

B.C.E., the Senate had become the main governing body in Rome. Our committee starts in 60 B.C.E. By the mid-first century B.C.E. Rome suffers from severe civil unrest caused by social issues and political violence, which can be traced back to the time of the Gracchi brothers. In the early second century B.C.E., the Gracchi brothers each served as tribune of the plebeians, the head of the assembly of the plebeians. Both brothers, as part of the liberal faction, the populares, attempted to pass legislation concerning food supply and land reform in favor of the plebeians, the lower class of Rome. However, the optimates, the pro-patrician Roman faction, violently killed both brothers, starting a tradition of political violence and instability in Rome. In addition, the state has been weakened by civil war and internal conflict as Sulla, in an effort to gain power and fight against the optimates, marched on Rome twice in 80s B.C.E. Moreover, Catiline tried to overthrow the state in 63 B.C.E in response to losing the consulship. More importantly in 60 B.C.E. Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar formed the First Triumvirate, the most powerful political alliance in Rome. Crassus is the richest man in Rome and conqueror of Spartacus, while Pompey is a superb general who conquered Sicily and parts of Asia Minor, and Caesar, finally, is a famous member of the populares looking for reform. These three men formed their powerful alliance to pass their agendas through the Senate. The First Triumvirate relies on the Senate to commission their military expeditions and support their soldiers. 235

Caesar, in particular, hopes to pass legislation concerning land reform and food supply through a widely patrician Senate.7 In a time of civil unrest, rising class issues, and the growth of Roman territory, the Senate must find a way to restore order in Rome. I. Land Reform Background The heated debate over land reform has been a polarizing issue and a source of civil unrest in the history of the Roman Republic. In 486 B.C.E. consul Spurius Cassius Vescillenus proposed the first agrarian law to distribute land among plebeians. The patricians saw this as a threat to their power and wealth; therefore, they accused Vescillenus of trying to gain regal power and subsequently executed him. Due to political violence, the issue of land reform was not revisited. However, the latifundia, large agricultural estates owned by patricians, had left a substantial amount of people in the Italian countryside without land by the mid-second century B.C.E. Some families whose land were consumed by latifundia had no other choice but to serve as plantation slaves for these wealthy landowners. As tribune of the plebeians, Tiberius Gracchus, the first of the Gracchi, attempted to remedy this problem. He proposed a land reform bill in 133 B.C.E. which limited the amount of land that one may possess to one thousand iugera (a form of Roman measurement) and distributed newly acquired land from Pergamum, which King Attalus III ceded to the Romans, amongst peasants. Once again, the patricians took offense to such legislation, killed Tiberius Gracchus, and threw his body in the Tiber River. However, Gaius Gracchus, the brother of Tiberius Gracchus, was much more successful in passing reforms. He was elected

as tribune of the plebs ten years later. Gaius Gracchus passed agrarian laws similar to that of his brother in 123 and 122 B.C.E. In addition, he established more colonies in Italy to redistribute more land and streamlined grain supply from Sicily and Carthage to peasants. While the Gracchi brothers took steps towards agrarian reform, the Senate and other Roman politicians have not taken as much action to solve these issues. Current Status Despite reform by the Gracchi, latifundia still persists as a problem in which wealthy landowners take over land of peasants. Moreover, as Rome wages more wars and conquers new lands, generals provide their veterans with land in appreciation for their patronage. Both of these factors have significantly reduced the amount of land available for plebeians. Julius Caesar has been a rising politician in Rome who has gained popularity as he promises redistribution for plebeians. In 60 B.C.E. Caesar announces his candidacy for consul, challenging the Senate’s lack of land reform. If elected as consul with his participation in the First Triumvirate, Caesar will have popularity to pass reforms to the agrarian law. Analysis The Roman Senate can adopt Caesar’s popular land reform plans which include land restrictions and redistribution, but most senators are not willing to do this. Since many senators are patricians, the Roman Senate has often looked to protect the wealth and land of patricians. The main way that the Senate can provide land to peasants while allowing patricians to keep their land is by conquering more land and redistributing it. However, this can be a long and expensive task with dubious results. Additionally, protecting patrician 236

estates would require the Senate to combat the powerful alliance of the First Triumvirate which favors agrarian reform. In addition, the Senate should address the relationship between soldiers and their generals because many are losing their land to veterans provided by generals. Anyhow, the Senate must address the issue of land reform to help the plebeians and solve the social wars. If they do not, the Roman Republic is at risk of instability and overthrow. Questions for Consideration 1. History has shown that unrest in the Roman Republic exists in social issues. Despite its high patrician membership, should the Roman Senate cater to needs of plebeians to bring peace? If they should, to what extent/capacity should they pander to the plebeians? 2. Should the Senate try to solve land reform through conquest? If so, who should they commission to lead forces? Which group should they attempt to conquer? 3. How should the Senate address the patronage system between generals and their soldiers? Should there be limitations on giving land to veterans? 4. If the Senate opposes the First Triumvirate’s agrarian reforms, how should the Senate combat the powerful alliance of the First Triumvirate? 5. Should the Senate give land to farmers? If so, how should it implement a system to redistribute and provide food among Romans?

conference. Remember that all delegates must write a position paper which will require additional research. The sources provided below are not an exhaustive list; therefore, they should not form the entirety of your research, but may be used as a starting point: • /livy/livy-the-periochae/? - Roman Historian Livy’s The Periochae, summaries of his books of Ab Urbe Condita. Book 58 discusses the Gracchi brothers. Books 71 through 90 give more context on the previous social/civil war, showing the contemporary instability. ropius_breviarium_2_text.htm Eutropius’ Abridgement of Roman History provides more context on the Social War in Book V. /247927.pdf - Thesis from a doctoral student on Roman land surveyors which provides direct quotes and analysis from land surveyors. n-republic/ - Articles on several topics regarding the Roman Republic, including political structure and prominent politicians. 0051324/WHIC?u=lith7757&xid=7ce 904ce - An article on latifundia and the social wars. .

II. Roman Imperialism Background The Roman Republic has a history of crowning achievements which led to the exponential growth of its territory. The source of this growth lies in Rome’s numerous military campaigns, the most notable of which

Further Research All delegates are expected to have reviewed their positions and stances on the topics before the 237

were the Punic Wars. Rome’s repeated military accomplishments combined with the toppling of the previous Etruscan rulers in 509 BCE led to the establishment of an alliance known as the Latin League. The Latin League was an alliance of around 30 villages and tribes that were located close to Rome. It was originally founded in order to provide mutual defense for all territories involved in the alliance, but it ended up causing Rome to win much more skirmishes, giving Rome the power to conquer surrounding territories. As Rome continued to expand, it no longer needed the alliance to survive. Rome’s expansion as it conquered more and more territories led to a decrease in the Latin League’s political power, and would later become the primary reason for the disbanding of the Latin League in 338 BCE. Rome waged dozens of battles against other countries, but its most prominent clash of power took place against Carthage, one of Rome’s former allies in the Latin League. The dispute between the two countries began in 264 BCE and lasted for almost a century, ending in 146 BCE. These wars, known as the Punic Wars, were the gateway to Rome’s success, as Carthage was one of few civilizations at the time which had a naval power that rivalled Rome’s massive army. By winning against Carthage, Rome could establish itself as both a menacing land and naval power. When the First Punic War occurred, Rome was the most dominant power throughout the Italian peninsula, while Carthage, located in Northern Africa, was the most dominant maritime power in the world. The clash of interests between these two civilizations took form in three different wars. In the First Punic War, Rome bested Carthage

and conquered the lands of Sicily and Corsica, marking the beginning of Rome’s reputation as both a menacing land, as well as naval power. However, in the Second Punic War, the Carthaginians, led by Hannibal, invaded Italy by crossing the Alps, and handed Rome a crushing defeat. Even though Rome lost a major battle in the Second War, it was able to rebound from the loss and come back to defeat Hannibal, as Hannibal was unable to completely pillage Rome. Rome’s victory in this war allowed the civilization to seize control of the western Mediterranean, parts of Spain, as well as Gaul. Having control over the western Mediterranean meant that Rome now could utilize the Mediterranean Sea to freely establish dozens of trade routes with other civilizations. This would lead to increased communications as well as a substantial boost to the economy- resources which would both be needed for future conquests. In the third and final Punic War, Rome entirely swept Carthage and had a decisive victory through the leadership of Scipio the Younger. After Rome won, it razed down the capital city of Carthage and made sure the Carthaginian Empire could never rebuild its power, thus allowing Rome to finally gain control of the Mediterranean area by conquering Northern Africa. Rome’s victories in all three wars against the most formidable naval power helped establish Rome as the most dominant empire in the world. At the end of the Punic Wars, Rome was the strongest land and naval power, and was the largest empire in the world at the time. The Roman legions had made a name for themselves by now. Great leadership, combined with the discipline and 238

tactics of the Roman army led to smooth and decisive victories for Rome. In addition to its success in wars, a part of Rome’s development can be attributed to the benevolent leadership and equality in its government. As a republic, Rome’s system of government allows the people to elect representatives. Having a republican government was a good idea in theory, but unfortunately, Rome’s advancements were plagued by a host of problems. In the beginning, Rome grew unperturbed, but the excess wealth of land brought along much corruption. Power corrupted the nobility and it also created a social rift between the plebeians and the patricians. A pressing concern amongst the population is deciding on what to do next. Many leadership figures want to continue to propel Rome forward, but all seem to disagree on which is the best option. This decision is left to the members of the Roman Senate. As one of the most respected administrative bodies of the empire, the Senate must come together and determine a path of action. Ideally, the decisions made should mitigate the rising conflicts and civil unrest amongst the citizens of Rome. The Senate is responsible for most matters; they handle many domestic affairs, covering topics such as financial and religious decisions. In the past, the Senate has been responsible for determining the borders of the empire, creating provinces, and distributing the legion armies. Should a general prove to exceed expectations in battle, then the Senate can grant him particular honor for his triumphs and victories. The Senate holds a vast wealth of power that it may utilize, but it must come to terms with a decision which continues the progression of Rome’s

territorial conquests while also appeasing the disgruntled lower class of Roman society. Current Status The plebeians suspect that a strong wave of corruption has taken ahold of the Senate, so unity can only be achieved through meticulous planning. The tension between the wealthy patricians and the plebeians is so palpable that any step in the wrong direction could send the Roman Empire spiralling into turmoil. Currently, the three powerful individuals of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar, who consist of the First Triumvirate, each seek to go out on their own ventures. Caesar desires to conquer Gaul entirely in order to utilize the area as a base of operations. If the location should function as a base of operations, Caesar intends to further use it as a recruitment station in order to bolster his armies in order to conquer even more lands. Like Caesar, Pompey also wishes to expand eastward and conquer lands. However, Pompey does not wish to continue expeditions to find more land. Rather, Pompey only seeks to conquer a little more land in order to find a location that can serve as a home for the veterans of his army. Pompey asks to conquer more land, but has no army to do so, as his army was recently disbanded- a decision which has proven to be popular amongst the citizens. Most veterans tend to only have combat experience and lack specialized skills for work, leading to unemployment.19 This causes a problem, as the majority of the population agree that veterans are useless if they are unemployed. Crassus, the richest man in Rome, wants to follow along with a military pursuit in hopes of gaining fame and reputation. Crassus previously made a name for himself by 239

playing a large role in stifling Spartacus’ slave revolt in 71 BCE, but wants to conquer more in order to bolster his vast wealth and lands. Not only is Crassus the richest of the three in the First Triumvirate, but he is also the richest man in Rome. His vast wealth has extreme influence over many, and he would easily be able to financially provide for whatever Pompey and Caesar want. As aforementioned, the problem that the Roman Senate must address is what to do next. As of right now, there is no indication of how this triumvirate of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar, will benefit Rome. Members of the Senate need to decide on what to do with the ideas of the aforementioned trio. All of Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar’s ideas are extreme. They require much effort and coordination, but these three characters are responsible for much of Rome’s success. The Senate must create a plan of action soon before the nation gets too restless. The triumvirate has already presented their plans, but an alternative solution can be implemented that compromises with the triumvirate in order to reduce failure rate. Analysis The common agreement amongst Roman military leadership is that further conquest is the next best move. The idea of continuous conquest has proven to work for Rome in the past, but it may not be the most optimal choice at this time. There are many factors to consider: the citizens of Rome need to be kept happy, or else mutiny will occur, and Rome needs to figure out whether it should continue on expanding or to redirect efforts toward internal renovations. Following the triumvirate’s path of conquest may lead to expansion, but it spreads Rome’s resources thin. This notion should warrant serious

concern, as if another war should break out against a formidable power, Rome would be unable to respond. Additionally, Marcus Porcius, or Cato the Younger, leads the optimates, the more conservative members of the Senate, and Porcius has expressed that he is vehemently against expansion. It will be difficult to get everyone to agree. However, if nothing is done about the unemployment situation with the veterans, citizens will become increasingly restless with the situation as well. Another big issue to consider is the current corruption within the Senate. Decisions that are made right now are possibly swayed and influenced by outsiders, causing citizens to view the Senate with discontent. The formation of the triumvirate also challenges the Senate. The powerful trio garners much influence amongst citizens, but it is unknown whether this should benefit or inhibit the Roman Empire. Precautions need to be taken to ensure that the Senate does not get undermined by outside powers such as the triumvirate. The senate’s next move will determine whether Rome flourishes or perishes. The Senate can motion to follow along with the triumvirate’s plan of military conquest, focus on cleansing Rome of its corruption, ensuring clean and unified actions from the government, or come up with an alternative compromise which appeases both the triumvirate and the citizens of Rome. These decisions each have their espective pros and cons, and they should be carefully considered before reaching a final answer on what to do.


Questions to Consider 1. Should Caesar be allowed to continue with his plans to move into the land of Gaul? What are the reasons that he should or should not be allowed to do so? Should Rome be focusing on other areas besides land conquest currently? 2. Pompey, who is viewed as a hero, wants to settle eastward and expand Rome as well; should this be allowed? 3. Should the Senate allow the triumvirate to continue to operate, or does action need to be taken against them? The triumvirate commands a lot of power, so what actions can be taken against them without causing civil war? 4. Can a balance can be struck between conquest/expansion and internal renovations? 5. What are some alternative plans or compromises that can be made between the triumvirate and the Senate that would benefit the overall flow of the Roman Empire? Further Research • se-Plutarch.html- Includes a list of many biographies of important figures in Roman history. Can pick and choose to learn about certain figures that had key roles in the Senate. • nt/appian/appian-the-punic-wars/An extremely in-depth analysis of the Punic Wars and the events that took place during the war. • y/ancient-greece-and-rome/ancienthistory-rome/roman-sena te - History

and Background of the Roman Senate and how it operated. - Information on the formation of the First Triumvirate and their opposition.

Bibliography De Nardis, Mauro. “The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors: Technical and Legal Aspects.” Doctoral thesis, University of London, 1994. Accessed August 20, 2017. /247927.pdf. Eutropius. Breviarium Historiae Romanae. Accessed August 18, 2017. ropius_breviarium_2_text.htm. "First Triumvirate." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Accessed August 20, 2017. “First Triumvirate.” Last modified 2003. Accessed August 19, 2017. pt/triumvir/first-triumvirate/. Staff. "Punic Wars." 2009. Accessed August 20, 2017. nt-history/punic-wars. "Latin League." Encyclopædia Britannica. Accessed August 20, 2017. atin-League. Livius, Titus. The Periochae. Accessed August 19, 2017. #58. 241

Lotha, Gloria. “Latifundium.” Last modified 1998. tifundium.

Setia, Veenu, and Yamini Chauhan. “Senate – Roman History.” Encyclopedia Britannica. Last modified July 20, 1998. Accessed August 18, 2017. enate-Roman-history.

"Roman Army." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Accessed August 20, 2017. /.

“The Roman Republic” Accessed August 20, 2017.

"Roman Senate." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Accessed August 20, 2017. e/.


Special Political and Decolonization Committee Narmeen Rashid Chair Caroline Brickley Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies

Welcome to GSMUN XXI’s SPECPOL Committee! Your chairs, Narmeen Rashid and Caroline Brickley, cannot wait to meet you all! In this committee, delegates will discuss how to best manage the Palestinian refugee crisis and how to establish a ceasefire in Syria. Delegates will present their own positions and listen those of other delegates. Committee will include debating different ideas in order to form thorough, thoughtful resolutions. Narmeen Rashid, a junior at Maggie Walker, is excited for a weekend filled with great debate! This is her third year in the Model UN Club. Previously, she was a vice chair of the Head Delegate Committee and a co-chair of the FCCC Committee. Narmeen has also attended multiple Model UN conferences, including VAMUN, JHUMUNC, and SIMUNC. Aside from Model UN, Narmeen serves on the Maggie Walker Honor Council. She is a co-president of UNICEF Club, Baking Club, and Future Medical Professionals. During the spring, Narmeen enjoys playing tennis for the Maggie Walker Girl’s Tennis Team. Outside of school, Narmeen volunteers at a local hospital and takes piano lessons. Her favorite things include iced lattes, Pretty Little Liars, and country music. Caroline Brickley, currently completing her sophomore year, is thrilled to be serving as co-chair of the SPECPOL Committee! This school year is her second in Model UN club. Last year, she participated in the VAMUN and JHUMUNC conferences. Other than Model UN, Caroline enjoys attending Spanish Club and learning Arabic. She plays on the Maggie Walker field hockey and soccer teams. In the community, Caroline has fun working at the Children’s Museum of Richmond and the Jewish Community Center. In her spare time, she takes piano lessons, spends time with friends, and hangs out with her bulldog, Oscar. Caroline loves going the river and traveling to interesting places. She is looking forward to meeting everyone and the great discussions to come! All SPECPOL delegates are expected to thoughtfully and thoroughly research the two topics and prepare a position paper. The position paper should be thorough but concise. The background guide provides a good starting point for research, but delegates should do outside research as well. Maggie Walker upholds a strong honor code. Therefore, delegates must provide Chicago Manual Style citations. Plagiarism will not be tolerated and will be referred to a secretariat member. With that said, GSMUN provides a unique opportunity to enrich learning and make new friends. There is also an opportunity to purchase high quality merchandise and donate to the chosen charity. Your chairs,

Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology

Narmeen Rashid

Caroline Brickley

Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor



Committee Overview Committee Background The United Nations consists of six principal organs: the general assembly, security council, economic and social council, secretariat, international court of justice, and trusteeship council. The Special Political and Decolonization Committee is one of the six main committees in the general assembly. General assembly committees are known for their large size, as all member nations participate in general assembly committees. SPECPOL is unique because it addresses a wide variety of international issues ranging from human rights and peacekeeping to outer space and mine action. SPECPOL must however abide by the UN Charter. This charter states that United Nations General Assembly committees are free to discuss international issues and provide suggestions through resolutions. These committees do not have the power to enforce these resolutions. Each member of the United Nations is a sovereign entity, and it must decide for itself whether or not to abide by the resolution. While this charter may seem to limit committees’ capacity, there still remains ample opportunity. General Assembly committees provide a forum for productive, structured debate on a variety of the world’s most pressing issues. In particular, SPECPOL has the ability to propose efficient, well-developed plans to combat world health issues and other humanitarian conflicts as well as push countries to come to a peaceful agreement instead of continued warfare.

I. Restructuring Palestinian Refugee Relief Programs Background The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has plagued the Middle East since the beginning of the 20th century. Although the nature of its exact origins is unclear, many factors have contributed to the continued escalation of the dispute. In the early 1900s, the region that is now considered Israel was controlled by the Ottoman Empire. The population under this regime was mostly Arab and Islamic. During this time in Europe, the rise of a movement called Zionism was gaining traction in the Jewish community. It called for unity and the establishment of an ancestral homeland in Jerusalem. This movement along with increasing European anti-Semitism prompted high rates of Jewish immigration to Israel. By 1910, approximately 64% of Jerusalem’s population was Jewish and only 17% Muslim. In 1922, the League of Nations delegated the task of overseeing Ottoman territories to Britain until they were seen fit to self-govern. Under the new British Mandate, tension grew between the Jewish and Arab communities, leading to hostility and violence. Both felt as though they had a rightful claim to the land and neither group felt coexisting under the same government was a viable possibility due to intrinsic cultural differences. Later in 1947, in an attempt to mitigate the rising conflict between the Arabs and Israelites, the UN contrived a partition plan to divide the land between the groups. Although ultimately approved, this effort failed to bring about peace due to 247

disagreements about the fairness of the plan. Palestinians felt that the plan was inequitable because it allocated 56% of the land for the establishment of an Israeli state and only 44% for Arab land. Both groups opposed the original proposition for different reasons including the implication that each side would be compromising on certain terms that were of the utmost importance. However, by means of a filibuster, Zionist advocates attempted to persuade nations to favor their cause. After the General Assembly’s vote of 33-13 in favor of the plan, Arab delegates staged a walkout to indicate their opposition to the resolution. The controversial partition plan ignited the already established spark of dissent between the two groups. Formal conflict ensued and Palestinians, as well as surrounding Arab nations, fought against the Israelis for control of area. This marked the beginning of the 1948 war. Jewish armed forces eventually were able to seize much of the land, leaving small territories such as West Bank and the Gaza Strip to Palestinian civilians. The major consequence of the war was the official establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, at which time the British Mandate ended as well. Following the creation of Israel, all territories harboring Palestinian individuals were considered illegally occupied. As a result, many Palestinians were forced to flee their homes under threat of the Israeli army. In 1967, a six-day war took place between the Arab nations of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, and Israeli forces. Israel’s win allowed the Israeli people to claim more territory near the Gaza Strip and West Bank and caused a serious decline in Arab morale. Currently, Israel is in possession of

nearly all land with the exception of small territories in the aforementioned areas. The state of the situation has led to the prominence of the “one state” and “two state” political solutions. These two ideas suggest either the forced inclusion of all territories into a single state or allowing areas such as the Gaza Strip and West Bank to become autonomous. However, both the former and the latter would bring their own respective complications. During the long periods of conflict, Israeli forces gradually depopulated Palestinian settlements. This caused many people to become displaced. Although this was a calculated move attempting to limit political and ideological dissension in an ideal, like-minded Israeli state, many complications ensued. Palestinians who were forced to leave their homes now seek compensation for their losses and advocate for the “Right of Return.” This is the desire to assimilate into the population and reclaim lost homes and land. The Israeli government is against this because it would introduce many demographical issues regarding the unity of the state. Consequently, the longstanding conflict has left millions without a place to live. Review of Current Issues Palestinian refugees that are still in the current state either live in the Gaza Strip or West Bank. Both of these occupied territories have been blockaded by the Israeli government for safety reasons. This blockade includes a wall surrounding the area. The existence of the blockade creates several areas of contention. One of the resultant issues from the strict isolation of the occupied territories is the sharp decrease in the number of jobs available to the refugees within these 248

regions. This is partially due to the fact that all occupations related to manufacturing are prohibited and seen as a threat to the Israeli government. In addition to this issue, refugees suffer from a lack of access to vital resources and are in dire need as a result. Only shipments thoroughly searched by Israeli forces and deemed strictly humanitarian are allowed through the blockade. It is also difficult to coordinate humanitarian missions in the first place because of the Israeli government limiting 3G service to Palestine. Many of the Palestinian refugees residing outside of Israel have fled to surrounding Arab countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. Jordan is currently hosting more than two million Palestinian refugees and Lebanon is sheltering close to a half million. Both of these nations have also taken in close to the same number of Syrian refugees, placing further strain on space and resources. Additionally, as more Syrian refugees that escape conflict and seek a home in these nations, fewer Palestinian refugees are able to be supported. Having to deal with the effects of foreign conflict in addition to domestic issues makes it highly difficult for these countries to function effectively. In wake of these numerous issues, there have been many efforts to address the dire humanitarian crisis. Many independent NGOs such as American Friends Service Committee attempt to help by advocating for Palestinian rights. They also help with day to day issues by setting up supply camps, running hospitals, conducting feeding operations, and building schools. Other organizations provide similar services as well. In an effort to maximize the efficiency of relief endeavors, the UN general assembly

called for the creation of a short-term body to specifically focus on issues regarding Palestinian refugees and relief efforts. This body was officially founded in 1950 and is called the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or the UNRWA. Despite the seemingly logical reasons for its establishment, the UNRWA has caused additional problems. The continued growth and bureaucratic existence of this agency has made a mutually dependent relationship between the organization and the refugees. This is due to the fact that the UNRWA has significantly more power, control, and access to resources than the local government, which completely undermines the importance of Palestinian authorities and only solves the issue short term. They have the presence of a “non-territorial government,� meaning they compete with the existing authorities for funding and responsibility. As mentioned previously, the UNRWA was created in an attempt to find a relatively quicker solution to the massive crisis by designating an agency solely for this purpose. When the general assembly originally proposed the idea of such a specialized body within the UN, it was supposed to be a temporary solution that would eventually be phased out. Although the UNRWA has provided much needed resources and services for the refugees, their prolonged existence for over 50 years showcases the failure of the international community to deal with this issue effectively. Analysis It is essential that major changes are made in the way that the Palestinian refugee crisis is handled. If the UNRWA was to be 249

preserved, the agency would need to be significantly refined and consolidated. One of the issues with the UNRWA is its lack of specificity and clearness regarding its aims and long-term goals. More thought out initiatives could lead to a more cohesive long-term relief plan. Furthermore, much of the funding for the UNRWA is not used effectively. A large portion is devoted to salaries and no one is held accountable for an expenditure plan. As part of a more sustainable long-term plan, funds could gradually be transferred to Palestinian authorities. If the UN could directly help the local government deal with the refugee crisis, the problem would be dealt with much more efficiently. This could also lead to increased self-sufficiency and independence. Another possibility could be the dissolution of the UNRWA and the establishment of a new body. Due to aforementioned reasons, the UNRWA is lacking in many aspects, making its existence inefficient and drawn out. Creating a new agency would allow members of the UN to look back on the shortcomings of the UNRWA and work to establish a better relief program. This would include reestablishing goals and making a more stringent set of guidelines for the program to follow. Because of the increasing number of refugees and limited supplies in the blockaded areas, it would also be beneficial if refugees could be taken in in nearby countries. Although this could have some complications regarding the stress on the host nation, the UN could focus efforts on helping these nations instead of trying to work within the confines of the blockaded areas. This would also allow for easier coordination of humanitarian missions.

As the United Nations role as a peacekeeping and non-political agency, it is their responsibility to provide aid and deal with humanitarian crises. Although these will not be permanent solutions for the Middle Eastern conflict, it is necessary to help until the hostilities and hardships have abated. This has been a major issue in the international community for over 50 years and little progress has been made. The United Nations must take action to end these horrible conditions and hardships. Questions to Consider 1. How can nations and the international community as a whole support Palestinian refugees without taking a side in the conflict? Conversely, should nations be taking a side and how should this affect the UN’s relief efforts? 2. Should the UNRWA continue to be funded? If so, what is the majority of their funding currently spent on and how could this be improved? 3. How can the UN help the Palestinian government directly to make relief efforts more effective without showing swayed political support in the conflict? 4. In what ways can individual nations work to end the hardships faced by Palestinian refugees? 5. Should surrounding nations be expected to provide asylum to refugees? If so, how would they be able to afford and support them? Further Research • 34 - This website explains the history of the UNRWA and the problems following its establishment. 250 ountries-world/early-history-israelipalestinian-conflict - This provides a brief history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since its origins. • a-blockade - This site details many of the issues that have arisen with the blockade of Gaza and other territories. • 006109246.pdf - This website provides an in-depth analysis of the UNRWA and its actions. • inian-refugees-and-right-return - This describes what caused the refugee issue and what is being done now. • /middle_east/israel_and_the_palestini ans/key_documents/1681322.stm This website explains the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and its aims. II. The Establishment of a Syrian Ceasefire Background After being humiliated by Tunisian authorities, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in the streets to protest his brutal treatment by the Tunisian authorities. Inspired by his demonstration, Tunisians took to the streets to demand democracy, basic human rights, and freedom of religion. Demonstrations started in Bouazizi’s hometown, but later occurred throughout Tunisia. After only a few months, the revolutionary fervor spread to Syria. In March 2011, major protests took place in Syria. For example, Syrians held the “Day of Dignity” protest in Damascus to demand the release of political prisoners. Meanwhile, other protesters held protests to demand basic

human rights and democracy. Protesters clashed with local policemen, resulting in numerous deaths. In May 2011, Assad mobilizes the Syrian Army to stop the protests, drawing international scrutiny. President Obama calls upon Assad to stop using force to silence the demonstrators and freezes Syrian assets in August 2011. The Arab League also suspends Syria’s membership. Despite all this backlash, Assad continues to use troops to crush dissent. Over the years, the Syrian conflict continues as all sides refuse to back down. This conflict does not only consist of Assad and the rebels, but rather over the years, numerous groups have become involved. Many foreign nations have involved themselves in this conflict by funding the rebels or Assad. This chaos also served as a good breeding ground for terrorist groups. Groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda gained power in Syria. Like the rebels, these terrorist groups hope to topple Assad’s regime; however, these groups have different ideals. All of the different parties involved can be loosely grouped into two groups: those who support Assad and those who do not. Assad’s allies include his army and Syrian support, foreign nations, and extremist groups. Assad belongs to the Alawite sect of Shi’ite Islam, a sect known for incorporating Jewish and Christian beliefs. This sect only accounts for a small minority of people in Syria; however, Alawite Muslims remain loyal to Assad. The Syrian Armed Forces also remain loyal to Assad and continue to fight on his behalf. Many officers in the Syrian Armed Forces are Alawite Muslims. Assad also compensates members of the Syrian Army generously, giving them little reason to betray him.


Several countries also support Assad’s regime. These countries are not interested in protecting Syrians’ human rights, but rather securing benefits for their own nations. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a Shiite majority and runs its country based on Shi’ite principles. Iran sees Assad as a Shi’ite ally and therefore spends billions of dollars to ensure that Assad stays in power. Iran also uses Syria as a conduit to send supplies and funds to Hezbollah, a Shi’ite extremist group. The civil war threatened the use of Syria as a channel to back Hezbollah. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia also sends billions of dollars to Assad. In return, Russia gains access to a key military base and Mediterranean port. Hezbollah is also a significant foreign supporter of Assad. Hezbollah is an extremist Shi’ite group that holds a large military presence in Lebanon. On multiple occasions, Hezbollah has sent soldiers to Syria in order to help Assad reclaim territory. Hezbollah helps the Syrian Armed Forces gain a slight numerical advantage against the Sunni rebels. On the other side, there are the rebels, their international supporters, and terrorist groups. The two main rebel groups are the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Democratic Forces. Colonel Riad al-Asad formed this group in 2011 with the main goals of taking Assad out of power and establishing a stable government. This army employs guerilla warfare against Assad’s army. The group mainly consists of volunteers, many of them being Sunni Muslims. Turkey provides aid and land on its border to the Free Syrian Army. The Syrian Democratic Forces are different from the Free Syrian Army because of its diversity. Ethnic Christians, Kurds, Sunni Muslims, and American soldiers join together in this group. The US backs this rebel group

and supplies it with weapons as well. One rebel group gaining a larger presence is the Kurds. The Kurds live in northern Syria and fight not only against Assad’s regime, but also for an independent Kurdish state in Syria. The lack of unity and central leadership amongst rebel groups hinders their progress. While terrorist groups fight against Assad, they hold ideologies that differ from other rebels. Some Islamic extremists are involved with other rebel groups, but the majority of them are involved with ISIS or Al Qaeda. Both of these groups have gained momentum during the chaos of the Syrian War. ISIS and Al Qaeda raise funds through scams, oil, donations, and taxation. Both also actively recruit members. These efforts allow these terrorist groups to thrive and continue the fight against Assad; however, terrorist groups are not only rebels against Assad’s regime, but they also want to establish a strict Islamic Government. These terrorist groups are also responsible for terrorist attacks in other western nations. This makes some people worry about funding Syrian rebels, as they believe that supplies and funds may reach the hands of terrorist groups instead. After the attacks, western nations are looking to take a stand against these terrorist groups. For example, the US has started launching missiles in zones where they believe terrorist groups are staking out. Nations around the globe denounced Assad’s use of brute force to crush protests. International interest first peaked when the claims were made that Assad used chemical weapons. The United Nations thoroughly investigated this claim and found substantial evidence supporting Assad’s use of chemical weapons. The former Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, denounced 252

Assad’s use of chemical weapons. Also, in response to this finding, the international community order Assad to destroy all chemical weapon plants. Even though Syria closes down chemical warfare plants, it does not follow through on the agreement to get rid of all chemical weapons in the allotted time. As the conflict ensues, international talks continue on how to ameliorate the Syrian conflict. Seeing terrorist groups as an increasing threat to western nations, the US has begun airstrikes in Syria. These airstrikes began in September 2014. While the US does not approve of Assad’s regime, it supports a more traditional shift of power. Thus, the US does not want to topple the regime, but rather target terrorist groups, such as ISIS, with airstrikes. Turkey and Saudi Arabia later agreed to back the United States’ airstrikes in various ways. Putin was careful before beginning airstrikes, as Russia has an important naval facility in Syria. Russia needs the cooperation of Assad, but eventually, Putin began airstrikes that also targeted ISIS and other terrorist groups. However, many of these strikes have hit western bases as well. The United States’ missiles have also hit unintended targets, such as civilians. Review of Current Issues The Syrian Civil War has devastated Syria. Much of the country has been destroyed by bombs and artillery, and its population has been depleted. Eleven million Syrians have been internally displaced, one million have been wounded, and 250,000 have died since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. The war has also impacted the international community. The sudden influx of refugees marks one of the largest global effects of the Syrian Civil War. Seeing the violence and

turmoil taking place in their country, many Syrians leave Syria in hopes of seeking refuge in another nation. There are over 6.8 million internally displaced persons in Syria and over 4.8 million registered Syrian refugees as of March 2016. This number does not account for the number of people who die en route due to poor travel conditions and human traffickers. A large number of refugees flee to Europe, but an even larger number stay in nearby countries, such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Turkey and the Mediterranean coastal nations bear the majority of the burden. These countries are hesitant to send Syrian refugees back to their war-torn nation, but they know that supporting such a large influx of refugees is not sustainable. The chaos of the Syrian Civil War provided a good breeding ground for terrorist groups. Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda took advantage of the turmoil to recruit new members and gain traction. These groups have a substantial presence in Syria and fight for an Islamic State. The growing strength of these terrorist groups has allowed them to launch numerous terrorist attacks in major western cities, including Boston, London, and Paris. The recent influx in Islamic terrorist attacks has led many westerners to become wary of Muslims and Islam. The increasing belief in this ideology has led to the rise of Islamophobia. While citizens understandably want to protect their nations, the rise in this dangerous belief has had negative impacts on the Muslim community. For example, the number of hate crimes against Muslims in countries like Great Britain, Canada, and the US has increased in the past few years. Between 2015 and 2017, there was a 197% increase in Muslim hate groups in the US. Lastly, many people have also begun to 253

support populist immigration policies due to fear of Muslim terrorists entering their countries posing as refugees. The Syrian Civil War has also robbed the childhood of numerous Syrian children, creating a lost generation. Many children under the age of 10 do not know a life without war. Meanwhile, other orphaned children are fleeing their hometowns searching for safety. The ongoing war has also decreased education rates significantly. Currently, only 50% of Syrian children are enrolled in school. A quarter of Syrian schools have been destroyed or are now being used for military purposes. Without an education, these children are more likely to rely on government aid and/or be tempted to join a terrorist group. The education crisis could be ameliorated in part through collaboration with UNESCO, as one of UNESCO’s themes is education for the 21st century. Seeing the devastating effects of the war in Syria, the international community has attempted to broker a ceasefire numerous times. In April 2012, the UN attempted to pause this conflict by brokering a ceasefire with the Assad regime. However, this ceasefire did not work due to overwhelming violence making it impossible for UN forces to monitor the ceasefire. The UN suspended the mission in June 2012. A similar pattern of failed ceasefires followed. In February 2016, Russia and the US agreed to a ceasefire, but Russia pulled out a month later. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the US Secretary of State John Kerry attempted to establish another ceasefire in September 2016. In December 2016, Turkey and Russia agreed to a ceasefire, but it failed from the start. In early 2017, Iran, Turkey, and Russia agreed to create demilitarized zones. However, this plan

was poorly executed and had little groundwork and planning. The majority of these ceasefires failed due to poor planning and a lack of outlined conditions. Time has not slowed the Syrian conflict. Fighting still ensues in the majority of the nation. There is currently a stalemate, as neither side chooses to back down. The devastating effects of the war continue to ravage the country, as each day more kids are not in school and more families flee the nation looking for a better life abroad. As Assad continues to fight against his own people, living conditions are deteriorated and more children become malnourished. Over the past couple of years, Assad released numerous dangerous Islamists in hopes that they would strengthen terrorist groups. By doing this, he hopes to shift attention away from himself and to Islamic terrorism. Islamic terrorism has come to the forefront of current conversation, but Assad is still responsible for about 95% of Syrian deaths. Recent proposals include a ceasefire in a region of southwestern Syria. Trump and Putin brokered this ceasefire, and it commenced on July 9th, 2017. This ceasefire receives little news coverage, but available reports suggest that it is still in place. However, the success of the ceasefire appears limited. Other than this ceasefire, little international action has been taken to address the Syrian Civil War, on both sides, humanitarian and political. The United Nations currently does not play a large role in ending the warfare ensuing in Syria. Rather, the United Nations Refugee Agency helps internally displaced persons and refugees rebuild their lives. The UNHCR recently launched an initiative to help people in east-Aleppo rebuild their homes as well as provide shelter kits for 254

people to live in until their permanent homes are completed. UNHCR also works to rehabilitate schools and delivers crucial medical supplies and vaccines. Analysis The international community must learn from its previous mistakes in order to establish a ceasefire that will work in the long run. Previous ceasefires failed because one or more parties backed out of the ceasefire. For example, Russia backed out of a 2016 ceasefire. In early 2017, the ceasefire between Iran, Turkey, and Russia did not succeed because Assad’s Syrian forces continued to fight in various parts of Syria, prompting the rebels to take actions in response. Consequences for breaking the peace must be put in place in order to ensure that parties do not violate the agreement. Consequences could include sanctions or freezing of assets. The international community could also threaten Assad with direct military action against his troops if he fails to abide by the terms of the ceasefire. Before such actions can be taken, negotiations must take place. It is critical for these negotiations to involve all parties in order to ensure that all parties are aware of the terms. While Assad is often noncompliant with agreements, he often shows openness to negotiations. On the other hand, rebels are often hesitant to negotiate and make spontaneous decisions. More recently, rebels have demanded to be involved in negotiations directly with Assad. While there may be logistical difficulties in arranging this, these direct negotiations could allow for less miscommunication and mutual understanding between the two groups, as currently, some rebels feel that the current ceasefire favors Assad because he is allowed to keep his

artillery units active outside of the ceasefire zone. There are hundreds of rebel groups as well, which makes it difficult to ensure that all factions will abide by a ceasefire. Going forward, it will be important to include all rebel groups in talks and address all groups’ concerns. Parties must also consider whether ISIS and other terrorist groups should be included in negotiations. These terrorist groups often demand high compensation for cooperation and often fail to uphold agreements. Due to the sporadic nature of such groups, it may be more feasible to establish a ceasefire between Assad and the rebels, and then combat terrorism separately. Countries such as Turkey, Italy, and Germany cannot support the large volume of refugees coming from Syria in the long run. Humanitarian aid can also ameliorate the effects of this devastating war, but it cannot completely undo the effects of the war. In the long run, an effective, feasible ceasefire needs to be established in order to end the warfare once and for all. Previous ceasefires failed due to a lack of planning and a lack of terms and conditions. An effective ceasefire will require compromises from all parties as well as a binding agreement. Questions to Consider 1. How will this ceasefire be enforced? What will be the consequences for a party that does not abide by the ceasefire agreement? 2. Should the international community topple Assad’s regime? Or should he be left in power in order to create a more unified front against terrorist groups? 3. How does terrorism play a role in the Syrian Conflict? Should nations attempt to negotiate with ISIS or try 255

to eliminate the group after a ceasefire is made with other parties? 4. Is it possible to unify all rebel groups? How would centralized leadership address the grievances and interests of all factions? 5. What incentives can be used to convince Assad to agree to the terms of a ceasefire, as historically, he has not been compliant? 6. How should negotiations be conducted? Should all parties be present, or should agreements be made with only several parties at a time? 7. Is it reasonable to establish ceasefires in large regions or major cities from the beginning? Or should ceasefires be established in smaller, rural regions to test the agreement? 8. What will be the terms of the ceasefire? For example, can artillery units remain active inside or outside of the zone of the ceasefire? Further Research • ps/g/page/world/timeline-unrest-insyria/207/ • orld/meast/syria-civil-war-fastfacts/index.html • /inside-syrias-multiple-fightingfactions/story?id=46731830 • •

Bibliography "The Arab-Israeli War of 1948." Office of the Historian. Last modified April 28, 2017. Accessed August 15, 2017. 45-1952/arab-israeli-war. "Blockade of Gaza." Last modified June 16, 2016. Accessed August 17, 2017. world/palestine/gaza-blockade.htm. Cable News Network. “Syrian Civil War Fast Facts.” CNN. Last modified July 8, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. ld/meast/syria-civil-war-fastfacts/index.html. Cornell University. “The Spark That Started It All.” Cornell University Library. Last modified June 27, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. g=31688 &p=200750. Department of Homeland Security. “Free Syrian Army.” National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism. Last modified April 2015. Accessed August 19, 2017. atives/free-syrian-army. Fantz, Nancy. “How ISIS Makes and Takes Money.” Cable News Network. Last Modified February 19, 2015. Accessed August 19, 2017.

256 orld/how-isismakes-money/index.html. /world/middle-east/syrian-civil-wartimeline-tracking-five-years-ofconflict-a6929411.html.

Finnegan, Conor. “A Look at the Factions Battling in Syria’s Civil War.” ABC News. Last modified April 11, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. ional/inside-syrias-multiple-fightingfactions/story?id=46731830.

"Israel Country Profile." BBC News. Last modified July 27, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017. Kaphle, Anup. “Timeline: Unrest in Syria.” Washington Post. Last modified January 20, 2014. Accessed August 19, 2017. m/apps/g/page/world/timeline -unrest-in-syria/207/.

Ghaddar, Hanin. “Stop Calling the Syrian Conflict a ‘Civil War.’ It’s Not.” The Washington Post. Last modified December 14, 2016. Accessed August 19, 2017. steverything/wp/2016/12/14/stopcalling-the-syrian-conflict-a-civil-warits-not/?utm_term=.1b7637dd68fb.

Khaddour, Kheder. “Assad’s Officer Ghetto: Why the Syrian Army Remains Loyal.” Carnegie Middle East Center. Last modified November 5, 2015. Accessed August 19, 2017.

Harris, Gardiner. “U.S., Russia and Jordan Reach Deal for Cease-Fire in Part of Syria.” New York Times. Last modified July 7, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. 07/us/politics/syria-ceasefireagreement.html.

Nachmias, Nitza. "Dilemmas of Prolonged Humanitarian Aid Operations: The Case of UNRWA (UN Relief and Work Agency for the Palestinian Refugees)." The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, July 15, 2004. Accessed August 18, 2017. 834.

"History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." Last modified July 22, 2015. Accessed August 16, 2017. w.timeline. php?timelineID=000031. Independent. “Syrian Civil War Timeline.” Independent. Last modified March 13, 2016. Accessed October 7, 2017.

"Palestinian Refugee Crisis a ‘Time Bomb’ for Middle East Region, Warns UN Official." United Nations News Centre. 257

Last modified June 17, 2015. Accessed August 18, 2017. sp?NewsID=51173#.WZhc5hPyuqB.

Accessed August 18, 2017. Shaheen, Kareem. “Syria’s Lost Generation: Report Counts Cost of Collapse in Education System.” The Guardian. Last modified March 30, 2015. Accessed August 19, 2017. /2015/mar/30/half-of-child-refugeesfrom-syria-out-of-education-reportsave-the-children.

"Palestinian Refugees and the Right of Return." American Friends Service Committee. Last modified 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. ian-refugees-and-right-return. "The Partition Plan: Background and Overview." Jewish Virtual Library. Last modified 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017. map-of-the-u-n-partition-plan.

"Success of UN Relief Agency for Palestine Refugees Also Sign of Collective Failure to Resolve Political Question That Led to Refugee Crisis, Fourth Committee Hears." United Nations. Last modified November 3, 2009. Accessed August 15, 2017. en/2009/gaspd442.doc.htm.

Pitter, Laura. “Hate Crimes against Muslims in US Continue to Rise in 2016.” Human Rights Watch. Last modified May 11, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. /11/hate-crimes-against-muslims-uscontinue-rise-2016.

Tahhan, Zena. “Rebels May Seek Direct Negotiations with Assad Government.” Al Jazeera. Last modified February 23, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. 7/02/rebels-seek-direct-negotiationsassad-government170223050938348.html.

Potok, Mark. “The Year in Hate and Extremism.” Southern Poverty Law Center. Last modified February 15, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017.

Tou’meh, Vivian. “UNHCR Helps Returnees Rebuild Their Lives in East-Aleppo.” The United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights. Last modified July 30, 2017. Accessed August 19,2017.

Rayman, Noah. "Mandatory Palestine: What It Was and Why It Matters." Time, September 29, 2014.



"What We Do." UNRWA. Last modified 2017. Accessed August 17, 2017.

Trueman, C. N. "The Six Day War." The History Learning Site. Last modified May 26, 2015. Accessed August 19, 2017. uk/ modern-world-history-1918-to1980/the-middle-east-1917-to1973/the-six-day-war/.

"Where We Work." UNRWA. Last modified July 1, 2014. Accessed August 18, 2017.

UNHCR. “Syria Emergency.” UNHCR. Last Modified May 30, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017.

Wirtschafter, Jabob, and Asaad Hann. “Syria Rebels Fear Bashar Assad Benefits from Trump-Putin Truce.” The Washington Post. Last modified July 24, 2017. Accessed August 19, 2017. ws/2017/jul/24/syria-rebels-fearbashar-assad-benefits-from-trump/.

UN News Centre. “Clear and Convincing Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in Syria, UN Team Reports.” UN News Centre. Last modified September 15, 2013. Accessed August 19, 2017. y.asp?NewsID=45856#.WZi859PytU.



UN Security Council Lawrence Jia Chair Nate Taminger Chair



Dear Delegates,

GSMUN XXI Champion the Change

Catherine Qian Secretary-General Will Larson Director-General Jenny Glazier Under-Secretary General for External Communications Liam Goble-Garratt Charge d'Affaires Annie Wang Director of Charitable Giving Kate Lord Under-Secretary General for Logistics Evan Donnellan Under-Secretary General for Crisis Simulations Aditya Kannoth Director of Specialized Agencies Michael Zmuda Director of General Assemblies

Welcome to the GSMUN XXI United Nations Security Council! Your chairs, Nate Taminger and Larry Jia, are exceedingly eager to meet you all. As members of the most important international body to currently exist, the nations you represent will convene to discuss the world’s most pressing matters in a fast-paced and exciting crisis simulation. During this conference, the UNSC has decided to focus on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the DPRK Nuclear Weapons Crisis as both are results of long-lasting conflicts. UNSC delegates will continue the endeavors of previous generations to find permanent and comprehensive resolutions to both of these multifaceted matters, negotiating with international allies and adversaries alike. Nate Taminger, a senior at MLWGS, is thrilled to serve as co-chair of the UNSC at GSMUN XXI. Among other things, Nate enjoys pursuing a career in Medicine, being on the MLWGS Volleyball and Tennis Teams. However, his favorite activities are binge-watching shows and spending time with friends. Lawrence Jia, a junior at Maggie Walker, is ecstatic to serve as your co-chair this year at GSMUN XXI. This will be his sixth year involved with GSMUN and his third year as a staff member. In addition to Model UN, Lawrence also volunteers with Money Matters, serves as an editor for the school newspaper, competes in extemporaneous speech, and engages in various political campaigns. In his rare free time, Lawrence enjoys keeping up with market news, reading autobiographies, and cooking breakfast foods for dinner. As delegates to GSMUN, it is imperative that one arrives to the conference well versed and prepared, with proper materials and knowledge to succeed in their diplomatic endeavors. Delegates should read the background guide, conduct their own research, and write a comprehensive position paper, formatted in Chicago Manual Style (CMS). As always, GSMUN adheres strictly to the Maggie Walker Honor Code and no plagiarism of any kind shall be tolerated at the conference. We are very excited to co-chair at GSMUN XXI and we look forward to seeing exciting and intellectual debate. As a reminder, GSMUN does also serve as a fundraising event for a charity organization, so please consider contributing to make an impact. Our commitment to making a difference through charity is an essential part of our conference so there will be high-quality merchandise, baked goods, and many other things on-sale that you won’t want to miss out on. As always, if you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact your chairs at We are looking forward to meeting you all in committee and wish you the best of luck in your efforts. Your chairs,

Andrew Shin Director of Press & Publications Som Mohapatra Director of Technology Mr. Max Smith MUN Club Sponsor

Nate Tamminger

Lawrence Jia



Committee Overview Committee Overview The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six main organs of the United Nations (UN), established concurrently with the latter during the signing of the UN Charter in 1945. The UNSC holds the primary responsibility for maintaining global peace and security. The body also aims to foster amicable relations between all nations and craft non-violent resolutions to urgent issues and crises. In order to preserve international security, the council is the only UN body allowed to pass binding resolutions. To enforce their decisions, the UNSC also reserves the right to place sanctions, embargoes, financial restrictions, travel bans, severances of diplomatic relations, blockades, and mobilize peacekeeping military forces. The UNSC is composed of 15 member states, 5 of which are permanent members. The US, UK, Russia, China, and France are known as the Permanent 5(P5) and reserve veto power on all substantive resolutions and actions of the Security Council. Generally, abstentions are not counted as vetoes, procedural matters are always veto-immune, and take the General Assembly rule of one nation equaling one vote. The other ten council members are elected by the General Assembly for two year terms. The UNSC also recommends appointees to the office of Secretary General and elects International Court of Justice judges along with the General Assembly. As opposed to most UN bodies, the UNSC does not meet on an annual schedule or regularly. Due to the nature of the UNSC mission, the body meets year-round whenever

the need arises and many of these meetings are during times of crisis and emergency. To preserve international peace, justice, and security during international times of difficulty is the unequivocal duty and burden of the UNSC. I. Resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Background The struggle between Israel and Palestine is as old as the Israeli state itself. Since the founding of Israel in 1948, JudeoArabic tensions have actively exhibited themselves on a global scale. Various geopolitical disputes, differences in religion, political ideologies, and a lack of common allies only manage to aggravate the situation between the Israeli and Palestinian people. Internationally, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has played out in multiple wars, as well as failed peace talks and treaties. Many nations do not even recognize Palestine or Israel as sovereign states, depending on which side of the Jewish-Islamic divide they fall on. The Israeli-Palestinian strife is one that the UNSC has faced since its establishment, however, it is also one of the longest unresolved issues on the council's docket. After the UNSC was established in 1945, the fallout from WWII became the infant organization’s primary concern. At that point, one of the major concerns was the influx of Jewish refugees. To resolve this matter, the 1947 UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, calling for the region, then known as “Palestine,” to be divided into separate Arab and Jewish states. The resolution further called for the establishment 265

of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, also known as an international city. This means that Jerusalem would be neither a part of Israel nor Palestine. Rather, the city would have a separate administrative body. One year later, in May of 1948, Israel established itself as a sovereign state. Not long after, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq invaded the new nation and the first Arab-Israeli war erupted. Ultimately, Israel repelled the invasion, and also took land originally reserved for Palestinians, creating millions of Arab refugees. Despite the conclusion of the 1948 war, decades of violence followed in the region. The 1967 Six-Day War, 1973 ArabIsraeli War, and the First and Second Intifadas all have left their bloody mark on this wartorn corner of the Levant. Violence has been prevalent in the Israeli-Palestinian quarrel. However, attempts at peace have also occurred, albeit unsuccessful. The first of such talks transpired in 1979, leading to the Camp David Accords, where Israel resolved its intent to begin making peace with Arab nations. By the 1991 Madrid Conference, Israel had signed treaties with Jordan and Egypt, as well as begun peace talks with Palestine. In 1993, President Clinton brokered a breakthrough agreement between Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Mahmoud Abbas. This agreement, called the Oslo Accords, paved the way for a separate Israel and Palestine to exist together, but the arrangement was derailed by internal political opposition in both parties.4 Clinton attempted to address the fallout in 2000 at the Camp David Summit, however, disagreements over borders, holy sites, and refugees proved to be irresolvable. Since then, violence and terror have continued to plague both Israel

and Palestine with no comprehensive foreseeable resolution.

Current Status Today, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute has become more complicated than ever, with multiple different actors and issues requiring resolutions. The rise of radical Islamic terrorism in the region and sociopolitical extremism on both sides of the divide continue to prevent the implementation of any solution, especially those concerning holy sites, such as Jerusalem. The modern conflict includes disagreements over religion, land, refugees, and two different sets of international allies. The primary difference between the Israeli and Palestinian people is religion. Israel, being a predominantly Jewish state, believes that the region the “Promised Land,” awarded to Jews by the divine decree of God. The Islamic Palestine disagrees, and argues that innocent Arabs were persecuted and forced off their land when Jews founded the state of Israel. Their argument is further supplemented by the fact that Israel refuses to honor the Palestinian “Right of Return.” In order to ensure that Israel remains predominantly Jewish, the Israeli government has refused to let Arab refugees return to their former homes, some which have stood for 266

decades. Israel also continues to occupy and settle in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, territories that compose parts of Palestine under international law.5 These flagrant land violations have led to the rise of extremism in Palestine, including that of terrorist group Hamas. Concentrated in the Gaza Strip, Hamas is recognized by the US government as a terrorist organization. The body desires the destruction of Israel and an establishment of a full-fledged Arab Palestinian State in the region. They have employed multiple terrorist tactics, including mass bombings, suicide explosives, and attacks on innocent civilians. The group creates negotiating difficulties for the PLO and its leaders because they are unwilling to compromise with Israel, or even allow the nation to continue existing. However, the PLO and their allies have laid out certain terms and conditions for which they are willing to negotiate. Analysis The PLO is mainly supported by the Arab league, an organization of Islamic nations in Africa and the Middle East. They back Palestine's claims and support a twostate solution with the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian divisions. On the other hand, Israel is back by NATO and most NATO nations. They generally support Israeli extension and/or control beyond the 1967 line for security and trade purposes. In 2003, the US, UK, UN, and Russia (Also known as the “Quartet�) negotiated the Roadmap for Peace, which implemented a two-state solution, and was supposed to solve the conflict within two years. However, 2005 came and went with no results. Even so, the Roadmap continues to serve as a helpful model for negotiations. Most nations and organizations agree that a two-state solution is the best way to

resolve the current situation in Israel & Palestine. This entails one sovereign Jewish state and one sovereign Palestinian state to solidify the existence and ability to negotiate for both nations. In order to achieve this, many nations have petitioned the UNSC to grant Palestine a full-fledged UN membership, a movement known as Palestine 194. While the idea sounds reasonable, the United States has a long history of vetoing this motion for security concerns. Israel, with the backing of the US, currently occupies Palestine with its military. The Israeli government claims to be only protecting its national security and fight terrorism, while Palestinians see this as a violation of national sovereignty, especially since the Israeli government has begun setting up illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. Also, many Palestinians and Arab nations continue to deny Israel’s legitimacy, so adding Palestine to the official roster of UN member states may level the playing field for the two nations. At the same time, it might create an opportunity to investigate accusations of human rights violations on both sides, including forced removal from homes and private land. In resolving these border disputes once and for all, the two nations may be able to reconcile and coexist peacefully. The last big piece of the story is Jerusalem. While Jerusalem serves as the capital of Israel, it also serves as the seat of Abrahamic religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all revere the municipality as sacred ground. Israel and Palestine both claim the holy city for Judaism and Islam respectively. The UN has continuously proposed that Jerusalem remain a corpus separatum, also known as an international city. Much to the 267

dismay of both the Israeli and Palestinian governments, Jerusalem becoming an international city would entail a separate government, administered either by the UN or some other sort of independent administration. Either way, the multi-faith religious importance of the city makes it a particularly significant piece of any type of successful agreement. Questions to Consider 1. How does the United Nations encourage trust and bilateral negotiations between the two parties, as wells as discourage violence? 2. In a possible two-state solution, how would land be divided? Is using historical precedent a good idea? 3. Considering the inability of Israel and Palestine to broker their own agreement, how far does their sovereignty extend? If most member nations of the UN agree on a resolution, does Israel and/or Palestine have the power to refuse? Lastly, what powers should the UN have to coax or force that refusal into acceptance? 4. How would a possible land agreement affect holy sites that both sides lay claim to? 5. Should Israel “reaccept” Palestinian refugees and offer a reimbursement and/or a path to citizenship? 6. Are Israeli military actions in Gaza and the West Bank truly over so called “security concerns”? Are they justifiable under International Law? 7. What are the pros, cons, and other possibilities of Jerusalem’s potential establishment as an international city?

8. Should Palestine be instated as the 194th member of the UN? Sources for Further Research ● ● /un-documents/israelpalestine/ ● ● ● mas.html II. The North Korean Nuclear Crisis Background The current nuclear crisis in North Korea is extremely concerning, stemming from a conflict that spanned three decades. Even before North Korea’s initial development of nuclear weapons, Kim Il Sung, who ruled from 1948 to 1994 was convinced that his nation must protect itself from the United States and its South Korean proxy government after World War II. Joseph Stalin of the neighboring USSR aided North Korea’s mission of obtaining nuclear weapons, even stating, “Are you short of arms? We’ll give them to you. You must strike the southerners in the teeth.” After the Korean War in the late 1950’s, Kim Il Sung began working on North Korea’s nuclear program. Initially, the USSR provided North Korea with years of research that allowed for the rapid expansion of its nuclear program. In 1962, North Korea committed itself to the ideal of “all-fortressization”, which focused all of its economic and social resources on its military. President John F. Kennedy attempted to create a nuclear test 268

ban treaty in the following year, which North Korea refused to sign. Instead, in 1965, North Korea developed its first nuclear reactor, the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center. Its goal in researching potential uses of nuclear power was to reunite the Korean peninsula on communist terms and become self-reliant, rather than rely on China and the USSR. The following decade resulted in a $570 million aid package from China and another $75 million aid package from the USSR in order to spur the development of nuclear power/weapons. On December 12, 1985, North Korea agreed to the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). This landmark treaty was created to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general, complete disarmament. However, in September 1992, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered discrepancies in the report North Korea submitted on its nuclear program and asked for clarification on various issues – including the question of how much reprocessed plutonium North Korea possessed. In February 1993, based on “strong evidence” that North Korea was not following its commitments under the NPT, the IAEA demanded inspection of two sites in North Korea believed to store nuclear waste – North Korea refused the IAEA’s request. In 1994, the United States signed an agreement with North Korea in which North Korea pledged to freeze and dismantle its old, graphitemoderated nuclear reactors. In return, North Korea would receive two new light-water nuclear reactors with international help.

In 2002, this seemingly agreeable arrangement had all but disappeared. Former President George W. Bush compared North Korea to Iran and Iraq by calling it an “axis of evil.” It was revealed later in October 2002 that North Korea admitted to operating a secret nuclear weapons program despite its 1994 agreement with the United States. Not surprisingly, North Korea withdrew from the NPT early 2003. Since 2003, North Korea has been testing – or claiming to test – several long-range missiles, failing to close nuclear reactors, and refusing to allow international inspectors access to suspected nuclear sites The contemporary nuclear crisis began in 2006, when North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test, at the dismay and outrage of the majority of the international community. In the following year, the North Korean government admitted it had access to nuclear weapons and had continued to test various nuclear weapons. During this process, North Korea disregarded the protest, resolutions, and sanctions from the United Nations and its member nations. Current Status Today, the nuclear missile crisis is an increasingly important issue, especially regarding the safety of Western nations and increasing tensions in East Asia. In January 2017, Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un reported that North Korea would soon test an intercontinental ballistic missile. In response to this declaration, the United States military has deployed sea-based radar equipment with the ability to track potential long-range missile launches. On July 4 of this year, the United States received word that North Korea claimed it had conducted its first "successful test of an intercontinental ballistic missile" that could "reach anywhere in the 269

world." Piggybacking off of that claim, North Korea warned of a "nuclear strike on the heart of the United States" if they tried to remove Kim Jong Un as Supreme Leader. In August 2017, the UN Security Council adopted new sanctions in response to Pyongyang's longrange ballistic missile tests. These sanctions could impact around $1 billion worth of North Korea’s foreign exports. This has caused a possible upset to North Korea, as its military has been "examining the operational plan" to strike areas around Guam. President Donald Trump retaliated, saying that if North Korea continued to threaten the United States, it would "face fire and fury like the world has never seen.6" Since then, North Korea has withdrawn its threats on attacking Guam, rather focusing on finalizing designs for warheads to be attached on its intercontinental ballistic missiles. Analysis The United States believes that a diplomacy and stricter sanctions will gradually force North Korea to abandon their nuclear program. However, in looking back through history, sanctions have not always been the most effective approach to stopping North Korea’s nuclear program development. While sanctions were successful in stopping Iran from developing their nuclear weapons, sanctions have not worked in China or North Korea. North Korea is a mysterious country with unpredictable leadership and policies; therefore, it may be beneficial to look into other plans as well. Two primary goals and solutions currently exist to deter possible nuclear threats from North Korea: economic sanctions and the possible use of military force. For years, the United States, NATO, and most other Western nations have led

crippling economic sanctions that have delayed the development of nuclear weapons. However, North Korea’s most valuable trading partner, China, continues to seek a market for Chinese goods that amount to more than ninety percent of all imports and exports in North Korea. The ideal of “allfortressization” still applies today, as most of North Korea’s revenue is immediately redirected to the military. Although such economic sanctions have been in place for decades, North Korea’s continued disregard for international backlash and advancement in nuclear technology lead experts to worry about its effectiveness. On the other hand, the threat of military action may escalate tensions to the point of nuclear war. The entanglement of alliances of stakeholders in the region, with South Korea and Japan backed by the United States and North Korea, Russia, and China comprising an opposing side, military action has proven to be the last resort of any nation attempting to avoid another full-scale conflict on the Korean peninsula.7 Questions to Consider 1. Does the entanglement of alliances across Western and Eastern nations influence the continuation of the DPRK’s nuclear program? If so, how? 2. How can the United Nations formulate an action-based plan to curb potential violence, especially considering the DPRK’s history of ignoring UN resolutions? 3. How should the West continue its approach on nuclear defense? 4. Is it the responsibility of current DPRK allies to encourage disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation?


5. How can the potential nuclear threat hinder globalization and trade in East Asia? Is it vital for neighboring nations to address the threat immediately? 6. Is this event relevant to other rogue states, including terrorist actors, obtaining nuclear weapons? 7. What precedent can be set at the United Nations in regards to dealing with rogue nuclear states? How can this affect a shifting global power structure? 8. Can and will further economic sanctions deter continued advancement of nuclear technology in North Korea? 9. Should the West take a harder stance in regards to North Korea or are NATO countries overstepping their boundaries? 10. How do nuclear weapons play into the potential for reunifying the Korean peninsula? Is it possible? Sources for Further Research ● 17/05/30/.../north-koreanuclear-crisis-donaldtrump.html ● ● rth-korea-nuclear-weaponshistory/ ● 17/05/22/science/northkorea-nuclear-weapons.html ● /factsheets/dprkchron ● 0/29/world/asia/north-korea-

nuclear-timeline---fastfacts/index.html) Bibliography A+E Networks. "Six-Day War Ends." Last modified June 11, 2010. Accessed August 17, 2017. Allison, Graham. “Thinking the Unthinkable with North Korea.” The New York Times. Last modified May 30, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017. 30/opinion/north-korea-nuclearcrisis-donald-trump.html?mcubz=0. Blanchard, Ben, and Michael Martina. “China Seethes on Sidelines Amid Latest North Korea Crisis.” Reuters. Last modified August 10, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017. British Broadcasting Channel. "Israel Profile – Timeline." BBC News. Last modified July 27, 2017. Accessed August 17, 2017. British Broadcasting Company. "Israel and the Palestinians." BBC News. Accessed August 17, 2017. hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestini ans/maps/html/1967_and_now.stm. British Broadcasting Network. "History of Mid-East Peace Talks." BBC News. Last modified July 23, 2013. Accessed August 17, 2017.


Nuclear Claims.” Arms Control Today 35, no. 2 (March 2005): 30-31. 3.

Burke, Ana. “North Korea Crisis: North in Another ‘Failed’ Missile Launch.” BBC News. Last modified April 29, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017.

Kissinger, Henry. “How to Resolve the North Korea Crisis.” The Wall Street Journal. Last modified August 11, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017.

Council on Foreign Relations. "The IsraeliPalestinian Conflict." Council on Foreign Relations. Last modified December 1969. Accessed August 16, 2017.

Liebermann, Oren. "What You Need to Know about the Israeli Settlements." CNN. Last modified February 3, 2017. Accessed August 17, 2017. iddleeast/settlementsexplainer/index.html.

Halileh, Samia O., and Ole J. Heartling. "Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." British Medical Journal 324, no. 7333 (February 9, 2002): 361. 227425.pdf?refreqid=search%3A410d d4305739e12d2713a33c045b03fc.

Miller, Steven. “The Real Crisis: North Korea’s Nuclear Gambit.” Harvard International Review 25, no. 2 (Summer 2003): 83-84. 4.

Hammer, Leonard M., Yitzhak Reiter, and Marshall J. Breger. Holy Places in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict : Confrontation and Co-existence. EBook Collection (EBSCOhost) ed. Vol. 14 of Routledge Studies in Middle Eastern Politics. London: Routledge, 2010. px?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=3029 83&site=ehost-live.

Milton-Edwards, Beverly. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict : A People's War. EBook Collection (EBSCOhost) ed. London: Routledge, 2009. bookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzIzN DQyNl9fQU41?sid=ac7090f5-5a354b70-b09387d4a8996102@sessionmgr4007&vid =1&format=EB.

"Israel/Palestine." Security Council Report. Last modified November 10, 2006. Accessed August 17, 2017. /un-documents/israelpalestine/.

Moore, Gregory. “America’s Failed North Korea Nuclear Policy: A New Approach.” Asian Perspective 32, no. 4 (2008): 9-27. 1.

Kerr, Paul. “Examining North Korea’s

National Counterterrorism Center. "Hamas." 272

Counter Terrorism Guide. Last modified January 2014. Accessed August 17, 2017. mas.html.

United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. "Where We Work." UNRWA. Last modified October 31, 2016. Accessed August 17, 2017.

“North Korea Nuclear Crisis Chronology.” Arms Control Today 33, no. 5 (June 2003): 32-33. 7.

United Nations. “Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons.” United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. Accessed August 18, 2017. md/nuclear/npt/.

Telegraph Media Group. "Palestinians Launch UN State Campaign." The Telegraph. Last modified September 8, 2011. Accessed August 17, 2017. orldnews/middleeast/palestinianautho rity/8750181/Palestinians-launchUN-state-campaign.html.

United Nations. "What Is the Security Council?" United Nations Security Council. Last modified 2017. Accessed August 16, 2017.

United States Department of State. "The Arab-Israeli War of 1948." Office of the Historian. Accessed August 17, 2017. 1945-1952/arab-israeli-war.

Waxman, Olivia. “How North Korea’s Nuclear History Began.” Time. Last modified March 7, 2017. Accessed August 18, 2017.



Conference Logistics



Schedule of Events 4:00-6:00 P.M. 6:00-6:30 P.M. 6:30-9:30 P.M.

Friday, March 23, 2018 Registration Opening Ceremonies Committee Session I 2008 Financial Crisis De Gaulle Cabinet Diet of Japan European Council House of Saud Incan Empire 1532 International Monetary Fund JCC Cuban Missile Crisis: USSR JCC Cuban Missile Crisis: US JCC Indo-Pakistani War: India JCC Indo-Pakistani War: Pakistan Nobel Committee Organization of American States Peace of Westphalia Press Corps Roman Senate SPECPOL UN Security Council

7:30-7:45 P.M.

Sponsor Meeting

8:00-8:30 A.M. 8:30-9:00 A.M. 9:00-11:30 A.M.

Saturday, March 24, 2018 Breakfast (Provided) Charity Speaker: Rob Morris Committee Session II

11:30 A.M.-12:45 P.M. 1:00-2:00 P.M.

Lobby Auditorium 339 Forum 232 238 312 334 244 200 203 206 204 338 230 319 123 335 Blackbox (136) 313 Sponsor Lounge (226)

Lunch Keynote Speaker Ambassador Samantha Power

2:00-5:00 P.M.

Committee Session III

5:00-5:30 P.M.

Refreshment Break (Snack provided)

5:30-6:30 P.M.

Closing Ceremonies

Cafeteria Auditorium Cafeteria Auditorium

Cafeteria Auditorium


Conference Location GSMUN will be held at the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School for Government and International Studies. Maggie Walker is located at: 1000 N. Lombardy St. Richmond, VA 23220

Free Parking will be available. Please enter through the Elizabeth Street entrance.


Other Resources Students will receive a GSMUN XXI Delegate Handbook upon their arrival at the conference. This handbook will include more information about conference logistics and country assignments by school. Each handbook will also contain a Parliamentary Procedure Guide for use during the conference. The Sponsor’s Guide is available on the Internet as a link from the conference website at The website is an excellent source of updated information on the GSMUN conference. If this is your school’s first Model UN conference, we will be happy to provide student volunteers to teach delegates the basics of Parliamentary Procedure. Please contact us by March 1, 2018, if you are interested in delegate training in person and by March 8, 2018 for training via video for your school. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns.

Catherine Y Qian Secretary-General, GSMUN XXI

Mr. Max Smith Model UN Club Sponsor (804) 354-6800 ex. 1001



Governor’s School Model United Nations Conference XXI March 23-24, 2018


Big Book  
Big Book