The Question of Establishing a UN Protocol for Nuclear Technology in Hostile States

The Security Council I. Purpose of Committee: Article 26 of Chapter V of the United Nations Charter best summarizes the role and responsibility of the United Nations Security Council. It reads: In order to promote the establishment of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the worlds human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating, with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee referred to Article 47, plans to be submitted to the members of the UN for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments. Under the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council has been granted various functions and powers, including, but not limited to: maintaining international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations; investigating any disputes or situations which may lead to international friction; recommending methods for adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement; formulating plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments; determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken; calling on members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression; taking military action against an aggressor; recommending the admission of new members; exercising the trusteeship functions of the UN in strategic areas; and recommending to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General; and together with the assembly, electing the judges of the International Court of Justice.1 Under the United Nations Charter, all member nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organs of the UN can merely recommend action to be taken by governments, the Council alone has the power to make decisions, which Member States are legally bound and obligated to follow under the charter. The United Nations Security Council is composed of fifteen member nations, five of which are permanent members with veto power, and the other ten of which are rotating members. The five permanent members are China, France, The Russian Federation, The United Kingdom, and The United States of America. The ten non-permanent rotating members serve two-year terms, based on geographical location and voting by the General Assembly. It has been established that there will always be three African nations, two Asian nations, two Latin American nations, two Western European nations, and 1 Eastern European nation. The ten non-permanent members currently are, Republic of the Congo (2007), Ghana (2007), South Africa (2008), Qatar (2007), Indonesia (2008), Panama (2008), Peru (2007), Belgium (2008), Italy (2008), and Slovakia (2007). When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council's first action is usually to recommend to the parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful means. When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first concern is to bring it to an end as soon as possible. On many occasions, the Council has issued cease-fire directives
1

United Nations Security Council Functions and Powers-http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html

which have been instrumental in preventing wider hostilities. It also sends United Nations peace-keeping forces to help reduce tensions in troubled areas keep opposing forces apart and create conditions of calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought. The Council may decide on enforcement measures, economic sanctions such as trade embargoes or collective military action. The Presidency of the Council rotates monthly, according to the English alphabetical listing of its member States. The Security Council meets when the President feels it is necessary for the Council to convene. This occurs when he/she feels that there is a significant threat to international peace and security; however this meeting must not exceed fourteen days. II. Introduction: Since the discovery of nuclear technology in the mid twentieth century, the question of establishing a UN protocol in any nation, whether it was is in a hostile state or not has been a problem that the Security Council has had to deal with. As advancements in nuclear technology come, it has become an situation that the UN Security must deal with in order to promote international peace and security throughout the world. III. History: On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland, acting as the direct cause of World War II. American and English scientists were concerned that the Nazis were developing nuclear weapons. On August 1, 1939, Albert Einstein signed the now famous Einstein letter, warning President Roosevelt of the Nazis desire to develop an atomic bomb. The letter finally reached Roosevelts desk on October 11, 1939, and on October 21, the Briggs Advisory Committee on Uranium. In 1942, Col. Leslie Groves of the Army Corps of Engineers was put in charge of the weapons project. Thus was the foundation of the landmark Manhattan Project The first nuclear bomb was detonated under the code-name Trinity. After its success, President Truman of the United States used it to his advantage at the Potsdam Project and began the development of the uranium Little Boy bomb and the plutonium Fat Man bomb. On August 6, 1945, Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima, instantly killing thousands, with many more to die of radiation and nuclear fallout. Three days later, Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki, with similar results. These two attacks, combined with the threat of dropping more, caused the Japanese to surrender. At the time, the United States had a monopoly on the nuclear weapons, yet the Soviet Union was working on a nuclear project. Following World War II, the United States government released the Smyth Report, which gave detailed specifications on the entire Manhattan Project, which the Soviet Union used as a blue print for their own nuclear weapon development. Just over 4 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviets tested their first weapon, Joe-1. This was the start of the arms race, with Truman announcing that he would be pursuing the development of hydrogen bombs. The closest the world has ever been to nuclear destruction was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Sparked by American discoveries of missile bases being set up in Communist Cuba and Soviet nuclear missiles being sent to Cuba, this crisis spanned two weeks of October 1962. The USs President Kennedy announced that any attack from Cuba would be treated the same as if it had originated in the Soviet Union and then ordered a quarantine of Cuba to prevent any more missiles from being placed on the

island. The Soviets offered to remove the weapons if the United States would not invade Cuba and would remove their weapons from Turkey. Kennedy accepted the first demand in public, and then accepted the second in secret by the Attorney General. On October 28, the Soviet ships were ordered back to the Soviet Union, relieving the fears of the people who were worried about a possible third world war. During the arms race, the Soviet Union and the United States attempted to amass more nuclear weapons than the other. Both nations continued to build up their supplies, until a decision was reached, which prevented a nuclear war from breaking out. Alternative methods of protection from missile attack (rather than nuclear retaliation) were brought forth, including system requiring launching satellites that would be able to shoot down any enemy missile that was launched. This was a very expensive process and required a large part of both nations budgets. Thus, it was one of the contributing factors to the downfall of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Unions collapse signified an end to the Cold War, also freed the UN to focus on preventing the ever-present nuclear fears of the Cold War from reoccurring.

IV. Treaties: There are two main treaties that the majority of the global community approves of. The Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) obligates members not to transfer other nuclear weapons, nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any non nuclear-weapon state. Countries that are non-nuclear weapon states pledge not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. Under these agreements, all nuclear materials in peaceful civil facilities must be declared to the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), in order to guarantee that members are complying with the Treaty. The treaty was created in 1968 an as of early 2000 a total of 187 states were Parties to the NPT. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only states that were not members of the NPT. The counterpart to the NPT is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Public opposition to nuclear weapons and the dangers of an arms race fueled by nuclear testing have lead governments to try to limit and stop nuclear testing for over 40 years. Finally, following the adoption of a unanimous resolution at the United Nations General Assembly in 1993, the Conference on Disarmament began negotiations on a CTBT to end nuclear testing for all time. These historic negotiations have gathered widespread support. Another relevant treaty is the more recent Fissile Missile Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT), which involves the reduction and limitation of fissile missile material in order to prevent hostile use of the materials and missiles. V. Case Study: Dual Nations Israel-Palestine The nearly-nonstop conflict between Palestine and Israel has dominated the United Nations since Israels birth after World War II. The nuclear threat from this fighting has caused the world to take another, more in-depth look into the fighting and has forced us to realize that the whole world is currently at risk.

Out of this dual-party conflict that imposes a nuclear terror, it is only Israel that is allowed to possess nuclear weapons. It is an undeclared nuclear power since it is not a party to non-proliferation and non-testing treaties such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Its nuclear capabilities are uncertain: the Negev Nuclear Research Center has been capable of producing weapons grade nuclear material since the mid-1900s, but it has never been under the watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, it is widely believed that Israel has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons, and the IAEA has stated that it believes Israel is "a state possessing nuclear weapons," which has been neither confirmed nor denied by the Israeli national government. The discrepancies of the enforcement of United Nations anti-proliferation doctrines among different nations have been quite visible in Israels case. Israel is the only Middle Eastern nation to not have signed the NPT. Furthermore, it does not allow international inspections of its facilities. Prominent members in the United Nations, such as the US, take extreme actions through its laws and other means to prevent nuclear weapons from being acquired by Arab states, such as Iran and Pakistan. However, they remain complacent regarding Israel's nuclear efforts and its supposed nuclear weapon arsenal. The UN has been vocal about the need to stop fighting before Israel resorts to potentially using its weapons, and have developed several resolutions to do so, yet fears remain about the effectiveness of these measures, considering the lack of proper enforcement of decisions that limit or reprimand Israeli behavior. India-Pakistan The India- Pakistan conflict gripped the worlds attention immensely during the 1990s. Although both nations have fought numerous times since their separation and freedom from the British in 1947, the global community rarely viewed the two as serious threats to international security. This changed, however, when India began developing its nuclear program and tested several missiles in response to Pakistani testing of the Gauri missile in 1998. Both nations were considered undeclared nuclear powers (much like Israel) since neither Pakistan nor India had signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or other non-test and non-proliferation treaties. The United States of America took offense to Indias program, and claimed that the nations were violating such treaties. This began a call for the global community to attempt economic sanctions against India. Some of the actions called for in the refusal of millions of dollars in military and economic aid, the cutting off of all bank loans, and the cancellation of new loans valued up to $14.5 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank--all of which were crucial to Indias efforts to develop and update service systems, such as electricity, that were extremely unreliable and below-par. Soon several industrial nations had joined in the efforts of levying economic sanctions. For Pakistan, powerful nations like Japan, Canada, Germany, Britain, and the United States ended aid to Pakistan and asked the International Monetary Fund to place a moratorium on loans to Pakistan. Although the several key nations sought to implement the sanctions on a global scale, the majority of western nations refused to support such a plan. The United Nations role during this time was mainly as a voice for peace, though individual members acted in a harsher fashion. The UN had 45 military observers of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) along the

Line of Conflict (the area of greatest border and militant dispute between Pakistan and India). It also strived to get India and Pakistan to become official parties to key nuclear treaties, especially the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the CTBT, issuing several documents such as Resolution 1172, which urged all non-party states to become parties to the NPT as soon as possible. Several member nations sought to enforce the terms of treaties such as the 1994 Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act, and implementing sanctions and other punitive measures accordingly. Although the more powerful members of the United Nations expressed outrage at the events, India and Pakistans decision to turn to nuclear programs has often been viewed as a final resort for them, something India in particular was very vocal about. One of the key issues brought up by Indias politicians was the fact that the Security Council is controlled by the Permanent 5, and that many developing nations were not represented nearly as much. The building fear of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan brought these concerns to light, as India reiterated their feeling of hypocrisy, bias, and monopolization of the United Nations decisions. As stated by Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee, The [non proliferation] treaties are discriminatory and hypocritical. Our hope is that those nations that want to continue their nuclear monopoly will accept that the same rules should apply to all. (Boston Globe, May 29, 1998). The validity of the feeling that nations could not trust the Security Council to provide security for nations strongly allied with the Permanent 5 became strongly debated by India and other developing nations, and criticism of the United Nations infrastructure grew. By 1999, India and Pakistan expressed intentions to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by September. The fear of an imminent nuclear war between the two nations eased, especially as international attention focused onto other issues, such as IsraelPalestinian fighting and the United States War on Terror. However, some feel that the India-Pakistan nuclear tensions highlighted the need to improve UN protocol regarding non-proliferation and non-testing treaties, the treatment of undeclared nuclear powers, the representation of potential nuclear powers, and the level of enforcement of nuclear doctrines on all nations. Single Nations Iran The Nuclear Program in Iran did not start until the 1950s during the Cold War. A program was signed in 1957 under the Atoms for Peace Program in cooperation with the United States. At the time, the program and Iranian government seemed stable toward western nations and was not a threat to the world. Two years later, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center was established, which was supplied by a U.S. nuclear research center supplied with enriched uranium. Iran later signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 also planning to have 23 nuclear plants in Iran together with the United States by 2000. In 1975 the United States signed the US-Iran Nuclear Co-operation which gave the U.S approximately six billion dollars in return for supplying nuclear energy equipment. After the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) planned to provide Iran assistance to produce enriched uranium under the Technical Assistance Program, which was later terminated under pressure from Western Nations, especially the United States. By 1990, the U.S had put sanctions on

Iran, which left Iran few candidates to have as foreign nuclear partners. By 1996, the U.S. attempts to prevent Iran from having any plans with other countries had failed because China had sold a conversion plant to Iran. By the 21st century, Iran had managed to successfully complete the nuclear fuel cycle alone. In 2002, Alireza Jafarzedeh, an Iranian against the nuclear plants, revealed two unknown nuclear sites with uranium enrichment facilities. In November of 2004, Irans nuclear negotiator announced the ending of their uranium enrichment program under pressure from the European Union. However, the Iranian government resumed its conversion after the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by August of the following year, though saying that suspension was still in order. This led the European Union to pressure the IAEA to bring the Iranian program up to UN Security Council. In early 2006, the IAEA voted to report Iran to the Security Council and succeeded. In April of 2006, President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had successfully enriched uranium, vowing that Iran would not back away from uranium enrichment, also saying that Iran should now be treated as a nuclear power. Iran did offer to have some negotiation, but would not agree to end uranium enrichment. North Korea As the Cold War came to a close, North Korea, also known as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK), lost the support of the Soviet Union that had kept them economically stable for nearly forty-five years. The United States learned of nuclear plants in Northern Korea, which raised U.S. suspicions since North Korea did sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korea did not allow the IAEA to inspect their nuclear complex in Northern Korea until 1992, and the inspections were shadowed by the USAs suspicions that North Korea was secretly converting the spent fuel into plutonium. However, the inspections were not successful. North Koreans blocked the inspections at two waste sites of nuclear material, but the inspectors found evidence that North Korea was not revealing their true intentions with plutonium. One year later, North Korea announced that they plan to withdraw from the Non Proliferation Treaty, a shock to many of the Western Nations. Later, from much pressure from the United States, North Korea suspended their plan to withdraw from the NPT. By December of that year, the IAEA was no longer sure of what North Korea was producing in their nuclear plants. In 2002, the United States yet again insisted that nuclear energy and missiles were being constructed in the DPRK. In October of 2002, the U.S. announced that North Korea admitted in talks that they had secret nuclear arms program in the country and offered to suspend the programs in return for aid, signing a non aggression pact with the U.S. In November, North Korea accused the United States of intentionally misinterpreting that North Korea has nuclear weapons, when the Koreans say that what was said that it had the right to have nuclear weapons. This led the DPRK to reject inspection of their nuclear facilities. In December, North Korea announced that it would reactivate nuclear plants for energy, blaming the US for halting their oil shipments. A few weeks after, North Korea began rebuilding the Yongbyon power plant, shipping fuel rods used for plutonium enrichment, and expelling the IAEA inspectors from Korea.

By January of 2003, North Korea yet again announced its withdrawal from the NPT. By February, the nuclear facilities were set up and completely restored, which concerned the UN Security Council. In April, the DPRK told the U.S. that they were in possession of nuclear weapons. As of 2006, a report by the Institute for Science and International Security announced that the North Korean plutonium is enough for up to 13 nuclear weapons. Into July, the DPRK has been repeatedly launching missiles, claiming that it was their right to test missiles; this has become a major concern of the international community. Nations around North Korea, such as China have been looking toward ways to stop them from testing, such as imposing sanctions on North Korea, as China trades a lot with the DPRK. VI. Bloc Positions: The Middle East: The Middle East has been shadowed by conflicting attitudes towards nuclear technology. Many nations are member of key treaties such as the NPT, yet there have been high tensions within the region involving fears over nuclear wars. Israeli nuclear technology has drawn heavy criticism and apprehension from the nations in the region. However, recently Iran has pursued nuclear technology against the Security Councils will, and its actions have drawn mixed responses from its region. Asia: Most nations in Asia are interested in preventing nuclear proliferation and advancement of weapon technology, especially due to long-lasting regional tensions between present nuclear nations. A key exception to this is the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) recent involvement in nuclear development. Nations such as China and Japan have played large roles in talks and actions involving the DPRK, and the majority of Asia is interested in preventing nuclear weapons technology from spreading. The Americas: The North American nations are predisposed to speak out against spreading nuclear technology to hostile states. The United States, in particular, has been one of the key voices in the issue since the beginning of the nuclear fears. South America becomes a bit more obscure, as several nations there possessed nuclear technology from Soviet Union involvement, and nations such as Venezuela have unfriendly relations with major anti-nuclear nations such as the United States. Africa: Most nations do not have the resources or the initiative to pursue nuclear programs, due to prevailing economic conditions and national tensions. Some have tried to establish nuclear programs, but those fell apart and were abandoned. The only nation that has succeeded has been Libya, with help from Pakistan in creating nuclear weapons. The European Union: The European Unions members have been key members in the outcry against proliferation of nuclear technology in situations that may lead to warfare. With many of the major powers as members, the EU has been central to efforts to handle technological advancement in non-nuclear nations, especially as several nations in their region seek alternative energy sources. However, their views have occasionally conflicted with other major international powers, and there have been some regional disagreements over how extensive the EUs involvement with several other nations should be. VII. Current Status:

The international community has been scrutinizing this topic in-depth in recent times. Tensions have risen over the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, as well as over their refusal to abide by international nuclear agreements. Once the talks and agreements over violations of nuclear pacts were ruled predominantly by the United States; now other nations such as China have a growing say and influence in peace talks. The United Nations is seeking a way to effectively resolve the issue of nuclear technology is states that have blatantly declared a refusal to respect previous decisions of the UN, while simultaneously dealing with the fears of decreasing international security. VIII. Proposed Solutions: The intense international focus on this issue has produced several proposals that can merit consideration as potential solutions. Some believe that the unapproved advancement of nuclear technology is not meant to create weapons for warfare, but is meant to draw attention from the global community and to give nations leverage for discussions. Several nations have brought up the need to reform current treaties to make them more effective: others have brought up the idea of altering the jurisdiction of overseeing agencies, specifically the IAEA, to better handle the issue. There are also groups calling for a complete reform of the entire Security Council, or even the entire United Nations system. IX. Conclusion: As the global conditions change and nations become more interdependent, the UN finds more nations seeking to become involved and wanting to level the playing field. Long-standing fears over nuclear technology lead most nations to still fear the instatement of such technology without the UNs approval. However, the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology have been very attractive to nations seeking more lucrative and effective forms of energy, while others also seek to attain nuclear weapon technology to be on an equal footing when it comes to offensive power with major developed nations. Whatever the specific case, it is clear that changing conditions have led to a need for a clearer process regarding nuclear technology in the hands of potentially hostile states, lest the world face the possibility of a nuclear world war the likes of which would have fathomless consequences. The committee will only discuss information before January 2007. X. Questions a position paper must answer: 1. To what extent is your nation involved in nuclear power? Keep in mind social, political, and economical factors. 2. Describe your nations history and relations with areas of concern. 3. Has your nation played a major role in any international proposals for any reform movements? Questions a resolution must answer:

1. Revisions to existing protocols 2. Types of penalties to violators of protocols 3. New protocols/establishment of new protocols

XII. Works Cited i. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html ii. http://www.iranwatch.org/wmd/wponac-nuclearhistory-0904.htm ii. http://cns.miis.edu/research/india/indiach2.htm iv. http://cns.miis.edu/research/india/ v. http://www.fas.org/news/indopak.htm vi. http://www.nci.org/ind-pak2.htm vii. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1732430.stm viii. http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html ix. http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/manhattanproject/cfm x. http://www.atomicarchive/History/coldwar/index.shtml xi. http://www.iaea.org/