Dear Delegates,

It is my utmost pleasure to extend you the warmest welcome to the 2003 Dayton Model United Nations. My name is Janelle Henderson, and I will serve as your Director in our simulation of the Security Council. I received my B.A. in East Asian Studies at Ohio Wesleyan University and have traveled extensively throughout Europe, Japan, and Southeast Asia, so I have a variety of travel stories to share if you are interested! Currently I am working at The Ohio State University. Your Chair will be Bobby Westerfield. This background guide will serve as a general reference to the issues that will be debated at the 2003 Conference. It will not provide you with all of the information necessary to have a successful debate, but will give you an introduction to the topics at hand and present questions to guide your research. The three topics which have been selected represent several of the many pressing issues and challenges which the Security Council is facing today. These topics are: I Security Council Reform II Peacebuilding in Post-conflict Afghanistan III Children and Armed Conflict All delegates are expected to prepare and send in a position paper before the conference. Please see the examples from last year on the website. If you have any questions regarding this committee, research, position papers, or anything else, please do not hesitate to contact Bobby or myself and we will do our best to assist you. Best of luck with your research, and we look forward to meeting you in February!

Sincerely,

Janelle Henderson, Director (Henderson.328@osu.edu)

Bobby Westerfield, Chair (bobbywesterfield@hotmail.com)

Topic I: Security Council Reform

The primary function of the United Nations Security Council, as designated by the U.N. Charter, is to maintain international peace and security. When faced with a threat to peace, the Council usually attempts to reach an agreement by peaceful means between the conflicting parties. If, however, the dispute cannot be resolved and fighting ensues, the Council then works to end the conflict as soon as possible, by mechanisms such as cease-fire directives, economic sanctions, collective military action, or sending in peace-keeping forces. The Security Council has 15 Members, five permanent members and ten elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Currently, the ten elected members are: Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, Syrian Arab Republic, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, and Ireland. The five permanent members are: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States, China, and France. Each Council Member has one vote, and decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the votes of all five permanent members. This rule is often considered the rule of “great Power unanimity,” often referred to as the “veto” power. This structure, however, represents the global power structure of 1945, as the five major winning countries of World War II have maintained their permanent, favored status and can use their power to veto Council decisions. According to critics of the current form, the Security Council is “undemocratic and often ineffective,” as a select few members dominate U.N. policy and often veto popular decisions to promote their own interests. Furthermore, despite the fact that the ten elected members come from all regions of the world, the Security Council still remains out of proportion, favoring the nations of the industrialized North. Another criticism of the current Security Council format is that it lacks transparency. Critics have argued that there is not enough access to the Security Council debates and decision-making processes. Although the Permanent Members all have websites, the websites contain little information on Security Council reform debates. Most of the discussions surrounding Security Council reform, however, do revolve around the concept of “expanding” the Security Council. Many nations in the General Assembly are upset that they have no permanent voice in the council. Many of the reform proposals have suggested expanding the council from five to 10 permanent members, and adding more elected members. However, this proposal leaves many questions unanswered, such as how the new geographic composition would be determined, which new members should become permanent seats, or whether or not the veto power should be maintained. How to decide which countries would get a place on the Security Council is a major question that would need to be resolved under reform efforts. Germany and Japan, two leading world economic powers and two of the largest contributors to the U.N. have been bidding for a permanent seat on the Council, along with other leading world economic powers. Japan, which is the world’s second largest donor to the U.N. budget has recently begun to argue, “no taxation without representation,” in an effort to become a permanent member, despite its past atrocities throughout Asia during World War II . However, if Germany were to obtain a permanent seat, Italy would become the only major European power to not have a permanent seat, thus prompting the Italian government to oppose the idea of expansion. Brazil, India, Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa, have also been claiming that they should become permanent members, much to the dismay of some of their neighboring countries. Despite these continuing debates about Security Council reform and expansion, however, it appears that reform may be somewhat stalled. According to a statement made by UN Kofi Annan on July 14, 2002, “it would take several more years before membership of the UN Security Council could be expanded.” Pointing out the debate in Africa where Nigeria, Egypt, and South Africa were all striving to obtain a permanent Council seat, he stated that there was no easy way to determine which country would get the slot, and that “it will take several more years before the UN can find a solution.” Furthermore, with the situation in Iraq unresolved, several diplomats have agreed that the issue of Security Council reform should not be at the top of United Nations debate. At the same time, however, nations who are not currently on the Security Council are growing increasingly frustrated with their inability to have any input on how to deal with Iraq, thus adding more support to the argument that reform is necessary. Regardless of the situation in Iraq or any other conflict that might arise, delegates to DAYMUNC are urged to carefully consider their country’s position on Security Council reform. Perhaps with a bit of creative innovation and compromise, delegates will be able to resolve the issue and develop a solution that will result in effective Council reform.

Topic II: Peacebuilding in Post-conflict Afghanistan

Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States began a bombing campaign against Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, to begin the war on terrorism and oust the Taliban rule. Although this bombing lasted only a short time, the Afghan people have been at war for almost 25 years. During this time, over one and half million people were killed, thousands were displaced, and state and civil institutions were almost destroyed. As a result, the country is in “complete ruins,” in many aspects. Despite the continuing war on terrorism and the problems in Iraq, the UN Security Council has still placed peace building in Afghanistan near the top of its agenda. Ironically, the chain of events that led to the fall of the Taliban began before the September 11 attacks, when Ahmad Shah Massoud, a leading military commander of the United Front, was assassinated by suicide bombers. Later in November and December, 2001, Mazar-I-Sharrif, Kabul, and Kandahar fell as a result of the U.S. attacks, marking the military and political defeat of the Taliban. War-lords re-emerged and established themselves as de facto powers in many areas. Although the Interim Authority, led by Hamed Karzai, and the Transitional Administration created by the Loya Jirga, did assume some power, many of these war-lords still have managed to maintain some control through violence, robberies, and looting, which poses a threat to security and effective development. The lack of a unified security structure or military force means that Afghans will continue to be exposed to violence, crime, and intimidation. Perhaps just as daunting as the political crisis in Afghanistan is the humanitarian crisis that the nation is facing. The World Food Programme has estimated that between five to seven million people face starvation during the winter due to drought, internal displacement, and the inability to effectively deliver aid. The infrastructure and telecommunications sector are all but destroyed, with only phone lines still working and with few people having access to phones or radios. Drug use, strictly prohibited during Taliban rule, is now skyrocketing. Furthermore, refugees and displaced individuals face many challenges as they attempt to resettle and begin their lives again. In many areas around the country, there is still widespread violence, high unemployment, and a severe lack of housing and social welfare. In any post-conflict situation, a variety of transitions must take place before the nation can be truly at peace. In November of 2001, the three key transitions and challenges facing Afghanistan were identified as follows: 1. A security transition from war to peace with regard to the conflict between the Taliban and the United Front-rooted in over twenty years of conflict and compounded by the current international military campaign and its security ramifications both in Afghanistan and regionally; 2. A political transition from the current governance structure to a single representative and democratic entity able to close the current gap; and 3. A much-needed socio-economic transition from an extensive informal war economy strengthened by years of conflict and absence of effective governance institutions, to an open, functional, and legitimate economic foundation generating wealth and basic services for all Afghans. In order to successfully complete these transitions in Afghanistan and build a peaceful nation, aid and post-conflict assistance will must include a variety of factors. There must be sometime of assistance for political rehabilitation, to develop the capacity for effective governance and elections, and to reform the security and justice systems. Social rehabilitation assistance is necessary to assist women, children, refugees and internally displaced persons, and to rebuild education and health systems. Economic rehabilitation assistance is necessary in order to remove the thousands of landmines throughout the country, improve the nations’ infrastructure system and agriculture industry, and generate economic reforms. In order to achieve the best solutions for peace and security in Afghanistan, it is important to examine the strengths and failures of other post-conflict situations. In summary, four of the most common mistakes that have repeatedly taken place during post-conflict peace building include: 1. De-linking peace building from other forms of assistance; 2. Over-emphasis on physical infrastructure; 3. Vague promises of assistance and delays in disbursing funds; and, 4. Weaknesses in aid management. The United Nations and the international community must strive to prevent these mistakes from hindering the development of peace in Afghanistan. In order to do so, it is important for those involved to gain an understanding of Afghan culture and values to maximize the impact and delivery of assistance. Developing a strategic plan that closely combines peace building with humanitarian assistance is another essential strategy. Finally, organizations must work together to establish links that will expedite the management, coordination, and delivery of aid. In consideration of this issue, delegates must become familiar with the work that other UN Committees and NGOs are doing to promote peace and security in Afghanistan. Essentially, your goal is to work to create a peaceful and stable Afghanistan. Delegates must carefully examine and deliberate the options that the international community can pursue in order to choose the best solutions and mechanisms to achieve this goal. 

Topic III: Children and Armed Conflict

“I was in the front lines the whole time I was with the [opposition force]. I used to be assigned to plant mines in areas the enemy passed through. They used us for reconnaissance and other things like that because if you’re a child the enemy doesn’t notice you much; nor do the villagers…” The above statement from a child soldier who served in Myanmar illustrates one way of how armed conflict destroys the lives of children. Currently, in over 50 countries around the world, children are suffering during and after armed conflict. In the last decade, over 2 million children have been killed in conflict, over 1 million have become orphans, over 6 million have been injured or disabled, and over 10 million have been left with “grave psychological trauma.” In addition, many young women and girls have become the targets of rape and sexual violence as a tool of war. These statistics demonstrate the pervasive, harmful effects that armed conflict can have on children who are caught up crossfire. It is indeed children that suffer the most, and children who need extra protection during the chaos of modern armed conflicts. The United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council have recognized this need as a result of a 1996 report Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. The report recognized there is no such thing as children having “no part” in warfare, but that they are often involved in conflicts in various levels. As a result of this report, the U.N. Secretary-General appointed a Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict in 1997. As a part of his mandate, Olara A. Otunnu, the current Special Representative, has worked to protect the rights of war-torn children, and has focused his campaign on: • building greater awareness and mobilizing action; • proposing initiatives and engaging key actors to protect war-affected children; • promoting the application of international norms and traditional value systems that provide for the protection of children in times of conflict; • proposing concrete initiatives to protect children in the midst of war and engaging parties to conflict to undertake specific commitments in that context; • making the protection of children a priority concern in peace processes and peace operations and in all efforts to consolidate peace, heal and rebuild in the aftermath of conflict. Despite Otunnu’s efforts, children continue to be caught up in arm conflicts. One of the most disturbing ways is by their participation as soldiers. Children as young as 8 years old are being forcibly recruited and coerced into becoming soldiers. Young and unable to resist manipulation by adults, children are often coerced by adults, particularly those from impoverished backgrounds who may join to defend or protect their families. Once in the military, child soldiers can participate in a variety of positions, ranging from cooks to messengers to armed combatants. Furthermore, young women and girls are often forced to provide sexual services to male soldiers and are constantly faced with risk of abuse. Children are also often forced to plant or remove landmines. Landmines pose a greater risk for children than adults, even in peacetime, because they are more frequently exposed to the risks of landmines when they go out to play, work, or take a walk outside. Because they are curious, a child may mistake a landmine for a toy and pick it up and play with it. According to statistics from the International Committee of the Red Cross, landmines kill and mutilate 8,000-10,000 children each year. Furthermore, mine explosions are cause greater physical damage to the body of a child than an adult because of their smaller size, and a child who is able to survive is most likely to be seriously injured and permanently disabled. Armed conflict also threatens the physical, mental, and emotional development of children. Many recent armed conflicts have occurred in the world’s poorest countries where children are particularly vulnerable. Every year, thousands of children are killed from the direct result of armed fighting, but many more pass away from malnutrition and diseases such as cholera, measles, diarrhea, malaria, pneumonia, and tuberculosis. In most armed conflicts, food supplies are disrupted, limiting access to water, seeds, and fertilizers, making it more difficult for people to buy food and leading to malnutrition. Infants and children under the age of three are at greatest risk. During conflicts, schools are often closed or cancelled, threatening children’s access to education. Finally, the psychological and traumatic effects of war can take years for children to recover from. With these and other devastating effects that armed conflict can have on children, it is imperative that the U.N. Security Council take measures to improve the situation. Prevention efforts must be made to eliminate the use of child soldiers, and policies and procedures need to be adopted and implemented to ensure the physical and emotional safety of children during armed conflict. Member-States must also work to better include children into humanitarian aid mechanisms and peace building efforts after conflicts have ended. When these measures are implemented, children around the world will be able to live and grow up in peace and safety.