Day Two

Committee: Disarmament and International Security Committee

CRISIS: The Suspension of Drone Strikes

Reported by: Shariq Jumani

With nations looking favorably upon extending a hand of diplomacy, and bartering
solutions of their own volition, progress is inevitable. Likewise, the Disarmament
and International Security Committee, on Day two, progressed towards drafting a
resolution, with working papers in order. However, a crisis presented itself, as no
agreement was reached relative to a hypothetical framework, on the use of Drones
in the War against Terrorism. While each bloc contended its proposals, a deadlock
was reached on the continued use of drones, until further technological
advancements.
The use of drones in the War of terror, which has inadvertently raised debate on
their effectiveness, forced the committee to focus its attention on the framework
within which drones could continue to operate. With respect to our democratic
principles, allowing Pakistan 51% control of the usage of drones will facilitate future
cooperation with the U.S. in the War on Terror, said the delegate of Pakistan,
emphasizing the need for the U.S. to respect sovereignty, and territorial integrity.
This proposal won unanimous support from its allies; however, the delegate of Saudi
Arabia, pointed out loopholes in such an agreement, and instead, proposed the
formation of an international body consisting of the present countries, in which a
fifty-one percent majority would be required to pass new laws. However, the
delegate of Syria assessed such a body was bound to fail, by virtue of the demand
that the United States be granted veto power.
Debate was rekindled over the viability of the continued usage of drones, and their
legality with regard to international law. Non Military personnel in the Central
Intelligence Agency should not be allowed to operate drones, the delegate of
Pakistan reiterated, stressing upon the need for accountability, of a single entity,
under international law. The delegate of Spain vouched in support of the notion
stating that, efforts should be made to ensure transparency of drone attack
reports. Further, the delegate of Spain added that, the country has the right to
retain confidential information about drone attacks, in the event that, suspicion
arises about the host nations integrity to the cause.
Extrapolating this line of argument, the U.S. was interrogated about the legitimacy
of its targeting terrorist cells on foreign soil, without officially declaring war, setting
a dangerous precedent. The delegate replied, The United States faces the greatest

terrorism threat, and on the pretext of self defense, will continue to defend its
citizens. The U.S. pressed on to challenge Pakistans viability to deal with the
insurgents themselves. This flared tension, as the delegate of Pakistan retorted and
probed whether, the U.S. would find the use of Pakistani lethal force acceptable on
U.S. soil, in the hypothetical event that, American terrorists target Pakistanis.
Meanwhile, striking while the iron was still hot, the delegate of Syria criticized the
United States approach, reminding the committee, by quoting Article 2(4) of the
U.N. Charter, that the use of U.S. force was illegal, and inconsistent with the
Purposes of the United Nations, and would only serve to foment anti United States
hatred, and garner support for the insurgents. The delegate of Spain claimed the
right to defense and said, that use of intelligence to pin point targets would
increase the accuracy of drones, and would, instead, help secure the international
community from insurgents.
With cross hairs pointed at each other, and relations between countries under
duress, the continuation of the usage drones, remains highly debated, and in many
aspects, controversial.