Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Committee: United Nations Security Council

(UNSC)
Topic: Combating the Threat of Non State
Military Organisations
Country: The Russian Federation
Delegate: Navjosh Singh Atwal
School: Strawberry Fields High School

Position Paper
Currently, many countries are addressing the increase of nonstate actors. Some say that non-state actors provide a threat
and thus should not be provided with weaponry by any means.
Countries who feel this way lobby for international law that
would regulate, and in some cases even place international
bans on selling weapons to certain non-state actors. These
international regulations would decide which non-state actors
are acceptable and which should not be trusted with weapons.
While Russia does not support the actions of all non-state
actors, we maintain that it is not for the creators of an
international law to subjectively judge which groups are fit and
which are unfit for possession of weaponry. The Counter
Terrorism Committee should not make decisions to regulate
which non-state actors are deemed dangerous.
Decisions of that nature should be handled internally by each
individual country. A uniform international law could not meet
the desires of each country because countries often disagree
regarding the intentions and very nature of non-state actors.
Sale of weaponry to these non-state actors can be appropriate
when approved by government. In fact, the sale of weaponry is
generally encouraged as a vital part of the Russian economy.
To disallow the sale of weaponry to certain buyers could put a
dent in the economy. In 2012, Russia reached a record 14
billion dollars in arms exports. While some countries may be
less devastated by weapon-sale regulation, Russia would take a

significant blow. Decisions that will hurt Russia should be left


to Russia. Which groups have weaponry sold by Russia is no
concern of others. We are more than capable of regulating
sales and identifying which groups present a domestic or
international threat.
One of the ideas pushed by the international law supporters is
the need for a universal list of weaponry and a definition of
terrorism that would then be outlawed. In theory, such a
notion could solve some of the worlds most pressing issues.
Unfortunately, this matter is not so simple. Creating any
uniform international law is difficult because countries have
different points of view on different matters. This is more
prominent in the creation of universally defined terrorism. For
instance, put The Islamic Republic of Iran and USA at a table
and two completely different perspectives of terrorism will
come out, and in all likelihood, no sort of agreement would be
reached. This is the problem with international law attempting
to judge respective non-state actors, groups, and
organizations.
It is for the reasons presented above that Russia insists that
sale of weaponry to non-state actors should be self-defined by
each country. The international scale simply has too many
different opinions to offer and a set of laws could not possibly
satisfy the needs and outlooks of all countries. It is at the
discretion of each government to direct their own country, and
other countries, candidly speaking, should focus more on the
issues within their borders, not within the borders of strangers.

Вам также может понравиться