Disarmament and International Security First General Assembly - GA1

Disarmament and International Security First General Assembly - GA1

Table of Content Letter from the Chair Introduction to the Committee Topic 1: Development of Information and Communication Technology to increase International Security Introduction Explanation of the Problem Focus of the Debate Questions to Consider Recommended Readings and Bibliography Topic 2: Control of Weapons of Mass Destruction Introduction Explanation of the Problem Focus of the Debate Questions to Consider Recommended Readings and Bibliography

Letter from the chair Dear Delegates, We are all excited to commence the fifth annual edition of WINMUN and wish that it will be a memorable experience for all. It is my absolute pleasure to welcome you to the First General Assembly and hopes that you are as ecstatic as we are for the conference. Our committee deals with all topics related to disarmament and international security, which is why it is primarily known as DISEC. Since its inception, WINMUN has tried to carry out the honorable responsibility of inspiring the youth to participate and find a voice in solving the international conflict. This year we hope to improve further and hope that all delegates have an equal chance to express themselves within as well as outside the committee rooms. We look forward to meeting you and hearing your ideas and resolutions for solving these international conflicts to the very best of your ability. Whether you are a MUN veteran or only a newcomer, we hope you have a great experience with WINMUN 2019. I’d like you all to note that despite the fantastic resource this background ground is for your research, it’s advisable you research from many other sources as well and discover your stance of your country on the agendas put forth for debate. Please note, if you have any doubts regarding the ROP (Rules of Procedure); you can find the WINMUN 2019 Rules of Procedure in the resources tab on our website. Furthermore, Position Papers and Resolution Guidelines, as well as samples of the same, can also be viewed in the resources tab on the site.

Letter from the chair Finally, as the conference approaches, we would like to congratulate all delegates, novice or accomplished, for choosing to be here. You decided to make a difference within the world, but more importantly, you chose to enlighten yourself and fuel the fire of compassion for humanity within yourselves. We genuinely hope that this conference will not only help you in understanding complex issues from a global perspective but also encourage you to discover your interests and causes to fight for. We primarily believe that the target of the conference is to ascertain that all delegates learn new information, improve their skills, and enjoy their time. We urge all delegates to contribute to the debate and engage in productive conversation with other delegates. Enjoy your time, do not be stressed, connect with others, and build friendships. If you need any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us! We wish you the best of luck in your preparations and can’t wait to see what you have in store for us! Good Luck! Chair of General Assembly One Abdullah Shakil

Introduction to the committee Considering your role as a delegate of GA1, its prudent you acquaint yourselves with its functions. According to the Charter of the United Nations (UN) (1945), the United Nations General Assembly (GA) is one of the main six principal organs of the UN. The GA is further divided into six central Committees, each with an exclusive agenda and purpose. Each of these committees submits reports to the GA Plenary. According to the Charter of the United Nations (1945), Chapter IV, which sets the mandate of the GA, Article 11 states that the General Assembly is entitled to address questions related to international peace and security and in specificity, discussions concerning disarmament. In our current times, due to technological advancements, the mandate is always evolving to encompass a series of additional topics that focus on ensuring international peace and security. One of the most significant missions of the General Assembly First Committee is to provide the total disarmament of the following list: “nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), disarmament aspects of outer space, conventional weapons, regional disarmament and security and the disarmament destructive machinery” (UN Charter, 1945).

Introduction to the committee According to the UN Charter, the Member States of the UN do have representatives in the General Assembly. Furthermore, it is essential to highlight that the Observer status can be approved to intergovernmental organizations and states without full UN memberships. These include the African Union, the European Union, and the only non-Member States with permanent Observer states which are the Holy See and the State of Palestine. All the delegates in the General Assembly have an equal one vote. We highly encourage you to explore your Member State’s policies in-depth to understand the full situation. Furthermore, please do work hard for your position papers as well as your resolution papers and always stay alert of your country’s foreign policy. Moreover, upon the selection of the topic, the committee must be able to draft a resolution which must attain a two-thirds majority to pass.

Committee: The United Nations General Assembly One Topic: Development of Information and Communication Technology to Increase International Security Author: Abdullah Shakiland Mohammad Amaan Siddiqui Introduction Information and communications technologies (ICTs) has impacted modern sciences and other fields of life in many aspects from bridging the digital divide to fueling new economic opportunities in the least developed, developing, and developed countries. Apart from the opportunities created by ICTs in the field of development and economy, they have also created new opportunities as well as challenges in the field of international peace and security. Due to the decentralized nature of ICTs, they are vulnerable to interference and tampering by state and non-state actors making this agenda of great importance to the General Assembly First Committee. The security threats caused by misuse of ICT has grown so much that the World Economic Forum has labeled cybercrime as the third-greatest global threat. ICTs are of dual-use, apart from the threats and insecurities caused by them they also carry a vital role in ensuring the very same security disrupted by them. ICTs have increased opportunities for security personnel, strengthened the connection between nations, provision of various data and information regarding security, quicker and easier access to information concerning security operations and provides a steady avenue for security operations for the dissemination of security reports and findings and numerous other benefits.

Explanation of the Problem EXPLANATION OF THE PROBLEM Regarding ICTs, the three most cited issues are The increased use of proxies (Proxies are tools that keep users and their private information, such as location, anonymous. They act as a mediator between the user and the rest of cyberspace, allowing the user to encrypt any information before it reaches cyberspace.) The need for capacity-building, and the importance of confidence building to ease tensions between member states. The use of proxies allows its users to attack critical infrastructure and interfere in the internal and political affairs of nations anonymously making it difficult for the victim nation to pursue deterrence or any retaliatory or legal action. However even in times of knowledge of the perpetrators, reactions by the victim nation prove counterproductive to the pursuit of peace, says a UNIDR report in 2017.

Explanation of the Problem The issue of ill-use of ICTs does not limit to conflicts between nations, but of late, such cyber-warfare technologies have become available to the common public and non-state actors as well- some of which were developed by the countries themselves and passed on to the wrong hands. Most of these dual-use aspects of ICT were recognized in the GA1 resolution 53/70 of 1999 on “developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security.” Various other resolutions and reports further demonstrated the growing need for public-private cooperation and reiterated the dual use of ICT. On legal grounds, there exists no specific international law on cyberspace. However, the Secretary General’s report 65/201 (2011) stated that the UN Charter also applied to cyber state and the concept of state sovereignty applies within cyberspace and ICT infrastructure as well.

Explanation of the Problem The 2016-17 meetings of the GGE report lacked consensus due to various issues raised by member states regarding the invocation of Article 51 of the UN Charter in response to cyber attacks. Other matters relating to ambiguous cyber laws were also raised with regards to the Geneva Convention- which only mentions conventional means of warfare. Some nations choose to interpret existing international law with applicability to cyberspace whereas some nations as well as private sector entities call for the creation of an entirely new convention for cyberspace, referred to as the “Digital Geneva Convention.” Many nations opposed the use of Article 51 in response to cyber attacks stating that it would “convert cyberspace into a theater of military operations,” other nations further opposed the defense clause stating that lesser developed nations cannot implement cyber strategies. General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) Article 3 of the Annex states- “whereby which The use of an information weapon could be interpreted as an act of aggression if the victimized state has grounds for believing that the attack was conducted by the armed forces of another state and was aimed at disrupting the functioning of military facilities, destroying defensive and economic capacity or violating the state’s sovereignty over a particular territory.” …

Explanation of the Problem …which can be used to rule on the cyberspace. Indirectly, the Laws and Customs of War on Land in the Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 whereby states are obliged to take “all necessary steps… to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” can be indirectly related to the cyberspace. Cyber and information systems used to maintain these critical social infrastructure facilities cannot be attacked under this clause. However, there is no way to identify such systems, unlike physical structures, which maintain a mark. Regardless of possible interpretations of conventional treaties with regards to ICT, the absence of a clear definition of cyberspace territory contributes to international insecurities. Even when it comes to developing ICTs for peace and security, many nations, although they do show significant progress, there still lies various drawbacks, especially with the lesser developed countries. There are reduced international funding and wrong utilization of ICT equipment. Poor governance and corruption further affect ICT and security. Unpatriotic conduct of security personnel due to lack of motivation deter practical assignment completion. Nations lack adequate competent workforce in the field of ICT. In lesser developed countries, the nature of infrastructure further hinders ICT development as the nation focuses on more basic needs of the nation rather than something specialized like ICT.

Focus of the Debate Impact on Sustainable Development The Digital Divide: The potential of new technologies, particularly information and communication technologies (ICTs), to support economic development, is widely recognized. For example, there is an estimated 1.38 percent increase in gross domestic product (GDP) for every 10 percent increase in broadband penetration in low-and-middle-income countries. However, access to ICTs remains highly unequal between developed and developing countries, as well as between rich and poor and between men and women within countries. While 82 percent of people in developed countries use the Internet, the proportion is just 43 percent globally, 35 percent in developing countries, 11 percent in Africa, and 9 percent in the least-developed countries. According to the Millennium Development Goals Gap Task Force, “As long as more people are offline than online, it is not possible to talk about global information society. The lack of relevant content in many languages further exacerbates this divide. Mobile phone access is more widespread, with 97 subscriptions per 100 people globally, but residents of the least-developed countries still lag, particularly in rural areas that lack a mobile signal. In some areas, moreover, a striking gender gap in access to and use of ICTs has emerged.

Focus of the Debate Improving access to ICTs in developing countries requires increasing investment, transferring technology from the developed to the developing world, and building the capacity of developing countries to research and develop new technologies. Lowering prices is also critical to increasing access; despite considerable progress in reducing expenses for ICTs through regulatory frameworks and rising competition, prices remain highest in the poorest countries. Environmental Impact: While ICTs have driven economic growth, they have also contributed to environmental pollution. Storage of data in the “cloud” may seem clean and efficient, but it is stored in massive digital warehouses that require enormous amounts of energy—about 30 billion watts of electricity, roughly equivalent to the output of thirty nuclear plants. Besides, new technologies are contributing to a rapid increase in the amount of electronic waste, which exceeded 40 million tons in 2014 and is growing by 4–5 percent per year. Much of this waste is toxic and is illegally dumped in developing countries.

Focus of the Debate Impact on International Security Cyberspace: While the potential use of ICTs for development, governance, and peace has posed questions about how to govern the Internet, issues related to security—and cybersecurity in particular—have made these questions more urgent. As the barriers to entry in the cyber domain are low, cyberspace includes many and varied actors—from criminal hackers to terrorist networks to governments engaged in cyber espionage. Cybercrime and cyber attacks can undermine the safety of Internet users, disrupt economic and commercial activity, and threaten military effectiveness. Moreover, a conflict that takes place in the cyber domain often mirrors conflict in the physical world. New Methods of Warfare: The cybersecurity landscape becomes even more complicated as new technologies reshape warfare. New technologies have made possible new methods of employing lethal force, such as armed uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, that pose unique challenges. There is broad consensus that the use of armed drones is not in itself illegal, but there is no consensus on how to apply international law on the use of force to drones, and there is a risk that they could expand the geographical and temporal boundaries of using power.

Focus of the Debate Their potential use by non-state actors raises further regulatory challenges. Lethal autonomous weapons systems, or “killer robots,” are also raising serious questions about the conduct of modern warfare and the application of international humanitarian law (IHL). The notion of the decision-making process is at the heart of the IHL, and as these technologies become more and more autonomous with little to no human intervention, accountability becomes more challenging to determine. New technologies have also given rise to modern forms of hybrid warfare.46 Many technologically advanced weapons systems are now available at relatively low cost. At the same time, more widely available technologies such as mobile phones and the Internet are increasingly used to support war efforts by facilitating communication, influencing public opinion, teaching new warfare techniques, gathering intelligence, and engaging in cyber attacks, as notably demonstrated in the conflict in Ukraine. The growing interest and contention around the so-called “duty to hack” also raises questions related to international humanitarian law and security. International humanitarian law requires states to use the least harmful military means available for achieving their strategic objectives, which in the case of this theory could mean using cyber operations as the predominant least-harmful response. Such cyber services could help avoid physical attacks that risk causing more considerable damage and casualties. This theory thus assigns the “duty” to invest in offensive hacking capacities.

Focus of the Debate Impact on Governance and State-Society Relations Networking: Mobile phones and social media also present opportunities to empower citizens and transform their relationship with the state. Real-time photos and videos uploaded to social media can expose government corruption or abuse and increase government responsiveness to citizen concerns. These technologies have also revolutionized people’s ability to organize and coordinate protest movements, from the protests in Ukraine to the Occupy Movement. Government efforts to counter and block these technologies have often backfired, but authorities have proven that they can learn from their mistakes and use technology to their advantage. Some of these uses, such as mass surveillance, could contribute to breaking down trust between governments and citizens. While new technologies can facilitate the rapid spread of ideas, this can have both positive and negative consequences. The easy manipulation of information and sources and the risk of viral dissemination without verification can propagate misinformation. Moreover, social media users risk finding themselves in “information cocoons” where they are not exposed to differing opinions, potentially increasing political polarization. Social media can also facilitate the spread and uptake of radical ideologies; the so-called Islamic State uses social media to recruit people from around the world.

Focus of the Debate Impact on Peace and Conflict Conflict Prevention: Although conflict prevention does not get the attention or funding, it deserves on the global stage, and this may be changing with the availability of new technological tools. ICTs provide opportunities to collect data about crime and conflict and reduce the gap between warning and response. For example, crisis mapping, social media mapping, and crowdsourcing tools can help generate data on conflict indicators. The data generated from these tools can help identify patterns associated with conflict and peace to better inform conflict prevention efforts or to monitor violations of cease-fires or human rights. However, significant hurdles to using new technologies to prevent conflict remain. These tools may not be appropriate or effective in every conflict or context. Big data, for example, come with significant risks—not just the risk of compromising privacy but also of threatening the security of individuals if the data fall into the wrong hands or that of exacerbating conflict if the digital divide parallels conflict cleavages

Questions to Consider 1. How can ICTs protect and promote global values? 2. In what way can we provide a platform for governments, businesses, and civil society across generations to make collective choices about new technologies? 3.How do ICTs foster inclusion, transparency, and economic growth; identification of the common benefits that ICT holds rather than its threats? 4. Have conventions and treaties for the boycott of ICTs against terrorist organizations been useful? 5. Has the exchange of operational information by member states concerning the use of ICT by terrorist groups significantly reduced terrorist recruitment? 6. How can ICTs be incorporated into UN Peace Operations in hopes of fulfilling their increasingly complex mandates? 7. Where does your country stand on the international measures and efforts taken to ensure cybersecurity?

Questions to Consider 8. What exactly constitutes cyber threats, attacks, and misuse of ICTs? 9. What role has your nation played in the Development of ICTs to ensure international security? 10. What entities should be placed in control of the following; - Development of ICTs to promote safety and security Prevention of cybercrimes and cybersecurity threats

Recommended Readings & Bibliography https://www.academia.edu/9829345/ROLES_OF_ICT_IN_SUSTAINING_NATIONAL_SECURITY http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/icts-and-international-security-en-332.pdf http://www.unidir.org/files/medias/pdfs/developments-in-the-field-of-information-and-telecommunications-in-the-context-of-international-security-2012-2013-a-68-98-eng-0-518.pdf https://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Eneken-GGE-2012-Brief.pdf https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/C.1/73/L.27/Rev.1 https://undocs.org/pdf?symbol=en/A/C.1/73/L.37 https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2016/10 https://www.icm2016.org/IMG/pdf/new_tech_paper.pdf http://itunews.itu.int/En/619-Building-confidence-and-security-in-the-use-of-information-and-communication-technologies.note.aspx https://www.un.org/disarmament/ict-security

Committee: United Nations General Assembly One Topic: Control of Weapons of Mass Destruction Author: Aryaman Singh Introduction Since its formation, the First Committee of the General Assembly has always been mandated to deal with disarmament and threats to peace that affect the international community. The international community considers the deliberate use of chemical, biological, or nuclear devices as abhorrent. The fear of these weapons is so widespread it has created an entirely new concept of conflict management, and it also led to the establishment of various international laws, treaties, and agreements designed to prevent the proliferation and use of these weapons. Despite these efforts, there is a concern amongst the international community about the spread and limited use of WMD’s. The term weapons of mass destruction have been in use since 1937 when it was used to describe massed formations of the bomber aircraft. At that time these aircraft seemed to pose a significant threat to civilians—as indeed they did during world war 2 (1939–45), notably in the firebombing of cities such as Hamburg and Tokyo, when tens of thousands of civilians died in a single night. With the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, around 66,000 people were instantly killed.

Introduction By the end of the year, radiation from the attack brought the death toll to 140,000. During the cold war, the United States and the Soviet Union, and other significant powers built up enormous stockpiles containing tens of thousands of nuclear bombs and missiles. At the same time, both superpowers also amassed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, the two other principal types of modern WMD. Mustard gas (a chemical weapon) was fired in artillery shells against troops during World War 1 (1914–18) and the Iran-Iraq war (1980–88). All of these occurrences were clear testimonies to the exponential increase in the threat that would be caused by the WMD’S in the forthcoming years.

Due to the increased threat of terrorism, the risk posed by various microorganisms as biological weapons needs to be evaluated, and the historical development and use of biological agents better understood. Biological warfare agents may be more potent than conventional and chemical weapons. During the past century, the progress made in biotechnology and biochemistry has simplified the development and production of such weapons. Also, genetic engineering holds perhaps the most dangerous potential. Ease of production and the broad availability of biological agents and technical know-how have led to a further spread of biological weapons and an increased desire among developing countries to have them. In recent years, the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and lingering fears of bioterrorism have overshadowed concerns that rogue states and terrorist organizations could acquire and use chemical weapons (CW). Biological warfare agents are living microorganisms that cause deadly infectious diseases such as anthrax, smallpox, and plague but, chemical warfare agents are human-made toxic chemicals such as chlorine, phosgene, and sarin nerve gas that can wipe out generations with ease. Explanation of the Problem

To stay ahead of this technological curve, the international community needs robust defenses that are nimble and flexible - Former UN Deputy Secretary-General, Jan Eliasson. Completely eradicating attacks through WMD’s by non-state entities will be a long-term challenge that requires long-term responses. The problem of nuclear proliferation is global, and any practical strategic step must be carried out after multilateral discussions. Nine states (China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are known to possess nuclear weapons, and more than thirty others (including Japan, Germany, and South Korea) have the technological capability to harness them. After the 1st world war, the great powers agreed to the fact that the use of poison gas should be prohibited but didn’t banish it outright. In 1925, the Geneva Protocol banned the Use of Poisonous gas and Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. The agreement was signed most prominently by those who had used gas in the War — Austria, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia (the U.S. signed the protocol, but it was not ratified until 1975). The international community appreciated the contract. However, the treaty did not ban the production or stockpiling chemical weapons, and most of the major signatories to the agreement continued to develop deadly poisonous gases and chemical weapons. Focus of the Debate

After 12 years of continuous negotiations, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was finally adopted by the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on 3 September 1992. The CWC opened for signature to the international community in Paris on 13 January 1993 and was initiated on 29 April 1997. The CWC is the first disarmament agreement negotiated through multilateral discussions. It provides for the elimination of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction under applied international control. On 7 July 2017, an overwhelming majority of the world’s nations voted to adopt the treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – adopted by 122 countries on 7 July 2017 – offers an effective alternative to a scenario in which threats of mass destruction are not allowed to prevail. In lieu of the destructive nature of WMD’s and the exponential threat they possess, it is imperative that the delegates of the house strive to liberate the international community from such hazards. Focus of the Debate

1. Have disarmament treaties been useful, to begin with? • 2. Historically treaties have banned the usage of chemical weapons but don’t prevent the stockpiling of such weapons. What implications can that have on international security? • 3. How can the accumulation of WMDs amongst non-state entities be prevented? • 4. Is there a nexus between WMDs, terrorism, and cybersecurity? • 5. On which occasions have WMDs such as atomic bombs and poisonous gases been extensively used in the past? • 6. Is it appropriate for countries to have enormous stockpiles of WMDs regardless of them not being used? Questions to Consider

https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/dsgsm1035.doc.htm https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/chemical/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/ http://unrcpd.org/wmd/ https://www.economist.com/leaders/2001/07/12/a-proliferating-problem https://www.mfa.gr/en/foreign-policy/global-issues/decommissioning-weapons-of-mass-destruction.html https://www.csis.org/topics/defense-and-security/weapons-mass-destruction-proliferation https://www.usip.org/publications/2001/09/controlling-weapons-mass-destruction-findings-usip-sponsored-projects Recommended Readings & Bibliography

Disarmament and International Security First General Assembly - GA1