Hofstra University Model United Nations Conference
Special Political and Decolonization Committee
______________________________________________________________________
Aizaz Chaudary
Chairperson
1 Welcoming Letter
Delegates, Welcome to Hofstra University’s Model United Nations Conference 2017! As your chair, I will be guiding you this weekend to come up with substantive solutions to the issues we are facing. First off, I would like to tell you a little bit about myself, and I hope to learn more about all of you as we move along. I am currently a senior majoring in Computer Science and minoring in Mathematics at Hofstra. I also serve as the President of Hofstra Model United Nations, and am involved with the Hofstra e-Sports club and Computer Science Honor Society. I joined the MUN club freshman year as it was something that had been with me throughout my academic career dating back to sophomore year in high school. I was very eager to see what type of topics and discussions I would be a part of doing MUN in college. Rest assured, I was not disappointed. All four years I helped tackle a wide spectrum of issues at conferences ranging from rights of indigenous groups to internet piracy and education. At HUMUNC 2014 I served as a dais, and helped discuss protecting the rights of workers as well as preventing the repression of journalists. The following year I had the privilege of serving as the Under-Secretary General and then as Secretary General at HUMUNC 2016. This year for SPECPOL, we will be discussing Internet Governance and the Improvement of UN Peacekeeping. I chose these topics because I wanted to infuse my interests in technology and the UN, and apply them to global issues. I believe that technology is something that has made huge strides and will continue to do so, especially the internet and social media. However, many countries are hesitant to accept these things and in this committee we will explore why that might be so. Peacekeeping missions are one of the UN’s primary tools for dealing with rapidly evolving issues around the world. I am interested in seeing the role Peacekeeping missions can play in the future of the UN and how they will evolve. I look forward to hearing your stands on both of these issues. This will be my first time chairing and I am very excited to see what you all have to offer! Your chair, Aizaz Chaudary achaudary1@pride.hofstra.edu
2 Introduction to the Committee The Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL) is the fourth committee
within the General Assembly of the United Nations. It deals with a wide variety of subjects including “decolonization, Palestinian refugees and human rights, peacekeeping, mine action, outer space, public information, atomic radiation and University for Peace.�1 This year, the delegates will confront the issues of UN peacekeeping and internet governance. SPECPOL was established in 1993, and is the combination of the Decolonization committee and the Special Political Committee. Historically, SPECPOL has been focused on alleviating developing countries dependencies on countries that used to colonize them previously. Since 1945, over eighty former colonies have become independent partly due to the work of SPECPOL. Today, SPECPOL helps countries become more economically, culturally, and socially independent, and break out of the standards previously set for them.2 In this committee we will explore how UN Peacekeeping is a valuable tool for finding solutions to extended problems in an area and how they can be reformed, as well as how countries have used the internet to control the flow of information.
3 Introduction to the Topics Hofstra University’s Model United Nations Conference SPECPOL committee this year
will focus on two very relevant and relatable topics. Internet governance is a topic which has started to come to light recently as technology has progressed. More and more of the conversation is shifting to the web, among other things. Issues with Peacekeeping missions have also surfaced, whether dealing with the troops on foot, or the structure of the organization as a whole. The first topic, Internet governance, is the development and application by governments, the private sector, civil society and the technical community, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and activities that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.3 Today, the internet has the power to promote sustainable human growth, and create knowledgeable societies. Most of all, the internet has the capability of heightening the flow of information and ideas throughout the world. While some countries have created a less stringent internet use policy, others continue to limit it. In North Korea, all websites are under government control, and about 4% of the population has internet access. In Iran, bloggers must register at the Ministry of Art and Culture.4 Those that express opposition to the mullahs who run the country are harassed and jailed. Even in countries such as the United States, recent events such as the Edward Snowden’s leaks have raised suspicion when it comes to privacy. Some cite online hate speech and youth radicalization as an extreme disadvantage of the internet. An example is the political upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa, where social and digital media played a role in sustaining the “Arab Spring.” The second topic, the improvement of UN peacekeeping missions, is very important for the UN’s influence on global issues. It is a collective effort which requires the cooperation of all
4
stakeholders. In recent decades, the number and levels of conflict have decreased, and peacekeeping efforts have played a minor role in this. However, peacekeeping is a high risk action, and there is always a chance that it may not work out as planned. There is no sure way to say it is going to work. However, there are cases such as Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste where a peace operation changed the landscape of a country in a positive manner. Unfortunately, there are some factors that have placed a handcuff on the success of peace keeping missions. Audits and investigations have revealed substantial mismanagement, fraud, and corruption.5 There are also many examples of flawed peacekeeping operations that the UN failed to make the correct decisions for, such as Rwanda. The distribution of the financial burden on countries is also a cause of concern as there is a misunderstanding about the responsibilities of each country involved, whether they are carrying the financial burden or contributing troops. These are only some of the issues that will be need to addressed when discussing this topic.
5 Topic A: Internet Governance
Introduction The internet is a global system that links commercial, household, and government networks. Internet technology is very different from other types of communication, as it is based on global and open standards. Today, we can find devices connected to the internet without even looking. We live in a time where the internet has become ubiquitous, even undermining traditional media such as newspapers and broadcasting. In 2005, the World Summit on the Information Society defined Internet governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.�6 Recently, internet governance has come into the limelight due to its effects on social and political issues. These issues include the online economy, as many businesses world-wide move to the online market for business activity. The governing of the internet can potentially decide who gets to participate in this online economy and who cannot. Privacy and civil liberties is also another major issue that is invoked when talking about internet governance and government surveillance. Issues of freedom of expression on the internet give rise to debates concerning what is the right balance of national security and a free internet. Internet-related policies are controlled by the states within their borders. Policies dealing with the internet range from issues such as passing laws prohibiting online gambling, to prohibiting certain websites or content from being viewed. Most times, a country’s policies on traditional media such as newspapers, carry over to the web as well. Governments whose policies are more authoritarian censor political and social content. Some examples are, blocking of websites and certain search results.
6 At the World Summit on Information Society in 2006, the Internet Governance Forum
(IGF) was created as an international organization of governments and nongovernmental parties to discuss internet governance policies on an equal footing by the United Nations.7 Since 2007 it has held workshops on topics such as low cost sustainable access and media pluralism and freedom of expression in the Internet age. It is also known for its forums where best practices are addressed for the development and deployment of the internet. The IGF is most known for its advocating of the multi-stakeholder model, where policies are discussed with the private sector as well as civil society groups. The Council on Foreign Relations’ Stewart Patrick writes "No other governance model can deter the fragmentation of the Internet into jealously guarded, national telecom-run fortresses, where access to social networks such as YouTube—even the Internet itself—can be denied instantaneously."8 However, this multi-stakeholder approach is not accepted by everyone. At the second annual World Internet Conference in Wuzhen, China, President Xi of China advocated that each country should be able to choose how they want to regulate the internet. In the views of the Chinese government, “Cyber Sovereignty”9 takes priority over freedom of expression. In contrast to the multi-stakeholder approach, President Xi calls on countries to first create the principles of internet governance, and then involve the non-governmental parts afterwards.
Case Studies The Middle East provides a case study of how the internet can influence political and social policy, as well as how governments react to its influence. Egypt is an example of a country whose citizens have advocated for less oppressive censorship. During the events of the Arab spring, countries such as Libya, Syria, and Egypt all experienced internet blackouts in order to subdue protests. During this time, Facebook and Twitter were heavily used to spread messages as well as
7
organize protests. According to a study, a week before Hosni Mubarak’s resignation, tweets about Egypt went from a mere 2,300 a day to 230,000 a day.10 It was because of influence like this that the Egyptian government felt that it had to take-down the internet to calm things down. On the contrary, some think this forced people onto the streets even more and worsened the situation. In 2015, the government of Egypt passed cybercrime law that restricts the freedom of expression online even further. Ragab Saad states “the dispute continues primarily between two camps: one seeking to tighten its grip on Internet freedom through regulation, the other advocating for the protection of online freedom of expression.”11 Karim Amer, a blogger, was sentenced to four years in prison for his comments against Islam and the President in 2007.12 Many cite this as the first instance of the Egyptian government bringing charges on an individual’s online freedom of expression. In recent years, Egypt’s government has claimed that the tightening of internet governance is a tool in Egypt’s war on terror. However, not everyone is convinced. Some believe this may just be a pretext to limit the Egyptian people’s online presence. Following this new policy, Prime Minister Ibrahim Mahlab created the High Council for Cyber-Security in order to combat cyber threats, however many internet activists believe this may be a way to limit online freedoms further. There is a delicate balance that has to be maintained in Egypt, which creates an environment of uneasiness on the topic of internet governance. On the other end of the spectrum, the African country Tunisia has actually decreased its web content censorship. Most of the decrease occurred after former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali left in 2011. Since then, the government has removed filters on certain social media sites such as YouTube. However, due to the Telecommunications Decree and the Internet Decree of 1997, the flow of the internet still has to go through certain government channels. Much of these ideas stem from countries in the Middle-East and North Africa trying to eliminate the internet presence
8
of terrorism. However, companies have stated that “The point of social media platforms is to provide a forum for users to express themselves.” Freedom House has labeled Tunisia “Partly Free” on its most recent Freedom on the Net report. As the government of Tunisia deals with terrorism like many other countries in the region, it has taken a different approach than most as well. The government has resisted calls for filtering and blocking, and have claimed they will work together with social media to remove material related to terrorism. According to the Freedom on the Net report, “Tunisia’s online media landscape is vibrant and open.”13 Since 2011, new newspapers, radio stations, and television channels have appeared, giving people access to information they didn’t have before. Many of these new outlets also have an expansive online presence. There are still some lingering attitudes of self-censorship, rooting back to Ali’s regime, but people are overall more comfortable talking about religion, the government and other subjects. In Tunisia, it will be interesting to see if the country can leave behind its oppressive past, and keep moving forward to a more open internet. Currently, according to the 2015 Freedom of the Net report by Freedom House, the most censored countries in the Middle-East are Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The least censored countries are Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia. Another dimension to consider is how internet freedom can relate to development. There was a consensus at the 10th IGF to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The specific goal was goal 9, which hopes to “significantly increase access to information and communications technology and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the internet in least developed countries by 2020.”14 The IGF stresses the relation of human rights and fundamental freedom, with online freedom. A cooperation between all multistakeholders including the private sector, government, and civil society concerning the internet are seen as a key to the development of a nation.
9
Additional Resources •
“World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)” http://www.internetsociety.org/wsis
•
“Freedom on the Net 2015 by Freedom House” https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2015
•
“United Nations: Internet Governance Forum” http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/
Bloc Positions Asia Pacific and Eastern Europe Groups President Xi of China has made it clear what China’s stance on internet governance is. He has called on nations to come together and create a framework that protects the “cyber sovereignty” and a government’s ability to control the internet within its borders. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev as well as the leaders from Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikstan, and other countries have shown support for President Xi’s words. Thus, at least two large states from Asia and Eastern Europe believe that Internet policy should be developed by governmental bodies alone. However, countries such as Ukraine, Poland, and Estonia are very friendly to internet related things. Through the efforts of organizations such as SEEDIG, Eastern and South European countries built and strengthened an open and accessible internet. Japan, another prominent Asian country has a lot more freedom than countries such as China. On the other hand, countries such as Japan have more freedom than China. According to the Freedom of the Net report, Japan ranks 7th on the list of limits of content. Japan could be a leader in this bloc for nations looking to improve their infrastructure.
10
Western Europe and Others and Latin American and Caribbean Groups These countries have supported a multitaskholder approach in the past as proposed by the World Summit on the Information Society. This group believes that internet policy should be a community approach, including civil society as well as other non-governmental bodies and that all parties should discuss internet governance on an equal footing. Recently however, events such as the outing of the NSA program to collect massive amounts of internet and other data by Edward Snowden have spurred the global community to question if these areas are as free as we thought. Many have also referenced the Charlie Hebdo incident as a signal that some countries may need added filtering and content overview. Middle East and Northern African Group The Middle-Eastern and North African region includes a mixed bag when it comes to internet governance. However, one thing in common these countries have is that generally they are currently or have recently experienced oppressive government systems. This is an interesting dynamic as these newly developing countries could serve as a model for countries who are still part of that oppressive system. However, the opposite could also be true, where the extremely conservative nations view these new developing nations as ones that have lost their way. Also, religion plays a key underlying role in internet governance for countries in these regions. Guiding Questions 1. Does your state support “Cyber sovereignty� or the multi-task holder approach? 2. Does religion play a big role in the media dynamics of your country? 3. Where does your state rank on the Freedom House report?
4. Has your state been involved with protests recently? 5. Is controlling the presence of terrorism within your borders a priority to your state? 6. Does your state have a history of media/internet oppression? 7. Is your state trying to move towards a more liberal approach to the internet?
11
12 Topic B: Improvement of UN Peacekeeping
Introduction Peace-keeping operations are regarded as some of the most impactful actions the UN takes. The scale of these operations has grown tremendously in the last twenty-six years. During the 1990’s, the United Nations launched more peace-related operations than in the previous four decades.15 The general trend has shown that these operations continue to grow in size and effort. Peacekeeping is now being done at a very fast pace, and these increased demands have demonstrated there are some flaws and weaknesses that must be addressed. As U.N. peace-keeping missions get more aggressive in scope, more resources also need to be generated to support them. In general, the U.N and its member states believe that the missions should be involved with “assisting countries in shifting from conflict to a negotiated peace and from peace agreements to legitimate governance and development.”16 However, in some cases, this approach has not been used. There are some cases, such as Western Sahara, where the presence of the UN has become the status quo. The peacekeepers stationed there do not actively try to keep the peace, and their presence there has not led to a significant impact. Some situations like these are caused by decade long disputes with no signs of stoppage by the countries involved. UN involvement in these types of conflicts can serve as an excuse for the parties involved to not end the conflict, and instead, the missions continue to provide resources in the area. Former Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad stated “peacekeeping should not be a substitute for ending conflict.”17 Recently, it is starting to become clearer that the U.N has had a tough time dealing with missions that have not worked out the way they were mandated. Due to funds always being a tight resource at the UN, Khalilzad states “While we understand the risks of leaving too soon, we should look to terminate nonviable peacekeeping operations.”18
13 On the ground, there have also been issues that have come to light about peace-keeping
operations. Concerns about the safety of peacekeepers in highly violent areas has come into question. In some areas, peacekeepers have been killed due to new risks such as the emergence of international criminal groups who cross poorly guarded borders, especially in Africa.19 Peacekeepers have been targeted due to their roles, but in recent years, peacekeepers have also been charged with committing crimes themselves, most prominently sexual misconduct. While some action has been taken to address this issue, cases such as these undermine the ideals and credibility of U.N peace operations. The UN has a zero tolerance policy with respect to sexual exploitation and abuse. Since peacekeepers are accountable to the laws of their home country and the U.N. has no ability to prosecute misdeeds, some of these crimes go unpunished. Friction between western industrialized countries as well as others who provide most of the funding and middle to low income states that provide troops is starting to rise. It has been the case where countries that provide troops feel as if they are being criticized by the financing countries, and the financing countries feel that the troops are not being trained properly. Jair van der Lign, head of peace operations research at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, suggests that “countries that provide funding also provide more troops, while those who traditionally send troops should find ways to increase their financial contributions.�20 Mismanagement, fraud, corruption, and the improper use of force are all areas of UN peace making efforts that still needs improvement.
Case Studies The Security Council created the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) in 1964. The reason for the creation of this was to alleviate fighting between the Greek
14
Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. Since then, UNFICYP has stayed on the island to “supervise ceasefire lines, maintain a buffer zone, undertake humanitarian activities and support the good offices mission of the Secretary General.”21 UNFICYP is an example of an extended effort by the UN to bring peace to a region. However, it is not clear whether the mission can be designated a success. UNFICYP has become a part of the political landscape of the region, but may have led the parties in conflict to extend their disagreement so they do not have to come to a solution to their problem. This demonstrates how the UN needs to improve its deliberation process to start and stop a peacekeeping operation. Notwithstanding such problems, the model used by the operation is one that is very interesting. Greece and Cyprus are responsible for covering 40 percent of the operations cost.22 Some have cited the UNFICYP model as one that should be adopted when an operation is requested to be carried out over an extended period of time. Using this model, financial burden is placed on all parties and thus there could be more incentive to settle the disputes between the relevant parties. UNFICYP may have set a precedent for operations in the future that may require an extended time to complete what it is mandated to do. The United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, known as MINUSMA, is considered by many as the United Nations’ most dangerous peacekeeping mission. MINUSMA’s goal is to “stabilize the vast Sahelian country amid ongoing threats from militant groups.”23 Since it’s establishment in 2013, the missions has suffered 101 casualties, sixty-eight of which were due to attacks from militants.24 Major General Michael Lollesgaard of Denmark, commander of the peacekeeping mission, has stated “You can add 5,000, you can add 10,000 [peacekeepers], but if we’re not getting progress in the implementation of the peace agreement, it will never be enough.”25 One of the major reasons why the mission has been so devastating is the
15
varying levels of training each troop has received, which come from forty-eight different countries. Lollesgaard believes troop-contributing countries need to do a better job of preparing their soldiers, especially when it comes to counter-IED training. These types of tactics are widely used in areas affiliated with Al-Qaeda militants who use landmines and road-side bombs to attack. Lollesgaard states “This [IED use] is a threat that is growing and growing and we need to adapt here, and it takes a lot of training. We would prefer that most of that training was done in the country before they arrive, but currently that’s not the case.”26 Poor military training has contributed to the high death count in Mali, as well as the slow process of agreeing on peace. Other general areas where UN peace-keeping may need reform are outlined in the Brahimi report published in March 2000. The panel conducting the research noted that for peacekeeping operations to be even more successful, all missions must have access to proper resources and be equipped with any tools they may need. Most importantly, all missions must operate “under clear, credible and achievable mandates.”27 The reason for the creation of the Brahmi report was the United Nations failure to prevent genocide in Rwanda as well as Bosnia and Herzegovina. Another important aspect of UN peacekeeping reform is the ability of member states and other partners to have an open dialogue on how to better improve UN peacekeeping to adapt to the needs of today as well as tomorrow.
Bloc Positions Financing countries Countries contributing to the funding of peace keeping operations will look for more cost-effective ways to do a better job of peace-keeping. Most of the P5 as well as countries like Japan contribute
16
a lot of funds to peacekeeping operations. It is also in their best interest to not get involved directly with issues where they feel like their position may incite backlash. Troop-contributing countries These countries contribute to peacekeeping operations with their troops. With the recent allegations of peacekeeping officers coming to light, these countries will not allow the UN to gain jurisdiction over their soldiers. These countries must work together with the financing countries to strike a balance and alleviate any concerns that may arise because of performance. The safety and protection of troops is a very important issue for these countries. Countries which have/need peacekeeping efforts These countries will look to improve UN actions within their own borders while keeping sovereignty. This bloc includes states who may wish to have an extended mission to benefit the conflict in question, by laying out a framework for doing so. Policy and mandate reform is a very crucial topic to this bloc.
Guiding questions 1. Has your country contributed financially to peacekeeping missions and to what extent? 2. Has your country provided troops for peacekeeping mission? 3. Does your country have a UN mission currently deployed to it? 4. How have you benefited from the UN mission deployed to you? 5. Does your country look favorably upon keeping jurisdiction of your troops?
6. Does your country believe the UN should have the power to bring charges upon troops? 7. How can soldiers be better prepared to be involved with a mission?
17
18
NOTES 1. "Special Political and Decolonization." <http://www.un.org/en/ga/fourth/>.
United
Nations.
UN,
n.d.
Web.
2. "Global Issues," United Nations <http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/decolonization/index.shtml>. 3. "Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XI: Declaration regarding Non Governing Territories,� <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml>. 4. "Top 10 Internet-censored Countries." USA Today. Gannett Satellite Information Network, 2014. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.
5. Schaefer, Brett D. "Critical Reforms Required for U.N. Peacekeeping." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 08 Sept. 2009. Web. 05 Nov. 2016. 6. "About: Why Debate Governance of the Internet?" IGP Blog. Internet Government Project, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2016�
7. Masters, Jonathan. "What Is Internet Governance?" Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.
8 Idid.
9 "Freedom on the Net 2015: Tunisia." Freedom House. Freedom House, 2015. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.
10 "An Overview of Internet Censorship in the Middle East." Golden Frog. Golden Frog, 28 Mar. 2016. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.
11 "Internet Forum Enhances Link between Internet, Development." United Nations. United Nations, 16 Nov. 2015. Web. 13 Dec. 2016.
19
12 Saad, Ragab. "Egypt’s Draft Cybercrime Law Undermines Freedom of Expression." Atlantic Council. Atlantic Council, 14 Apr. 2015. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.
13 "Arab Spring Anniversary: When Egypt Cut the Internet." Al Jazeera English. Al Jazeera, 15 Jan. 2016. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.
14 Tews, Shane. "China Challenges Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance." Tech Policy Daily. Tech Policy Daily, 23 Dec. 2015. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.
15. Fasulo, Linda. An Insider's Guide to the UN. 3rd ed. New Haven: Yale UP, 2015.
16. Schaefer, Brett D. "Critical Reforms Required for U.N. Peacekeeping." The Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 08 Sept. 2009. Web. 05 Nov. 2016.
17. Fasulo, Linda.
18. Ibid..
19. Schaefer, Brett D.
20. Eagle, William. "New Study Suggests Reforms to UN Peacekeeping Operations." VOAnews.com. Voice of America, 24 Feb. 2015. Web. 04 Nov. 2016.
21. Schaefer, Brett D.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Gaffey, Conor. "This Is What It's like Peacekeeping in Mali, the U.N.'s Most Dangerous Mission." Newsweek. Newsweek, 12 June 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.
20
25. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. "Reform of Peacekeeping. United Nations Peacekeeping." United Nations. United Nations, n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2016.