delhi international model united nations 2020guide) as a singular topic and research accordingly,...

United Nations General Assembly

1 | P a g e

Delhi International

Model United Nations 2020

The United Nations General Assembly:

Disarmament and Security AGENDA: The situation in South Asia.

AKUL HALLAN Krishna Thakur Lakshit Vedant Chairperson Vice Chairperson Co-Vice Chairperson


2 | P a g e

Contents:

Letter from the Executive Board

Introduction to the Council

Proof/Evidence in the Council

Introduction to the Agenda

Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism Measures

Illegal acquisition of territories and related land disputes

Cyber-terrorism and Data Privacy


3 | P a g e

Letter from the Executive Board

Respected Delegates,

On the behalf of the entire Executive Board of the United Nations General

Assembly, I would like to welcome you all to Delhi International Model United

Nations 2020.

I am sure it will be a great learning experience for the delegates both experienced

and the ones who will experience it for the first time, I would want you to

embrace this opportunity and participate enthusiastically.

From each of you, we expect impeccable diplomacy, high levels of debate, and of

course, zeal to find solutions to the given problem posed before you. Knowledge

of international politics, the state of global affairs is required to make

constructive progress to complex multi-lateral problems. Remember, it’s the

delegates who set the level of debate and maintain the flow of it.

The agenda as a whole is also one of the most fascinating topics as it deals with

various aspects of logic, reasoning and most importantly International law.

Regular UNA USA Rules of Procedures will be followed in this committee, with

some slight variation which shall be explained in the committee itself.

I suggest all delegates to focus on the topics (divided further in the background

guide) as a singular topic and research accordingly, however a division in regard

to the approach shall also be welcomed.

The Background Guide is intended to give you an insight as to what we as the

Executive Board expect from you in terms of what to debate upon, and we hope

you do not base your entire research on this document. Feel free to revert back to

the executive board for any queries or for any form of assistance you shall need.

As delegates, you will be expected to be thorough with your research and base

your analysis and conclusions on the same during debate. Please remember, a

Council is only as strong as its individual delegates, and that the Executive Board

is here merely to guide debate, not to take part in it.

Looking forward to 2 days of impeccable diplomacy and meaningful debate!

Best of preparations!

Akul Hallan

Chairperson


[email protected]

+91-9953022134

mailto:[email protected]


4 | P a g e

Introduction to the Council

The Disarmament and International Security Committee was established in

1993. It is the First and one of the main committees of the General Assembly.

The role of DISEC is outlined in Chapter IV, Article 11 of the United Nations

Charter which states, “The General Assembly may consider the general

principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security,

including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of

armaments and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to

the Members or to the Security Council or to both”. As per this article, the

mandate of DISEC is highlighted as, “to promote the establishment and

maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for

armaments of the world's human and economic resources”.

Voting in the General Assembly on important questions, namely,

recommendations on peace and security, budgetary concerns and the election,

admission, suspension or expulsion of members – is by a two-thirds majority of

those present and voting. Other questions are decided by a straightforward

majority. Each member country has one vote. Apart from approval of budgetary

matters, including adoption of a scale of assessment, Assembly resolutions are

not binding on the members. The Assembly may make recommendations on any

matters within the scope of the UN, except matters of peace and security under

Security Council consideration. The one state, one vote power structure

potentially allows states comprising just five percent of the world population to

pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote. 1

1 http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/

http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/


5 | P a g e

Proof/Evidence in the Council

Evidence or proof is acceptable from sources:

1. News Sources:

a. REUTERS – Any Reuters article which clearly makes mention of the fact or is in

contradiction of the fact being stated by a delegate in council.

(http://www.reuters.com/ )

b. State operated News Agencies – These reports can be used in the support of or

against the State that owns the News Agency. These reports, if credible or substantial

enough, can be used in support of or against any Country as such but in that situation,

they can be denied by any other country in the council. Some examples are,

i. RIA Novosti (Russia) http://en.rian.ru/

ii. IRNA (Iran) http://www.irna.ir/ENIndex.htm

iii. BBC (United Kingdom) http://www.bbc.co.uk/

iv. Xinhua News Agency and CCTV (P.R. China) http://cctvnews.cntv.cn/

2. Government Reports: These reports can be used in a similar way to the State

Operated News Agencies reports and can, in all circumstances, be denied by another

country. However, a nuance is that a report that is being denied by a certain

country can still be accepted by the Executive Board as credible information.

Examples are,

http://www.reuters.com/http://www.reuters.com/http://www.reuters.com/http://en.rian.ru/http://en.rian.ru/http://en.rian.ru/http://www.irna.ir/ENIndex.htmhttp://www.irna.ir/ENIndex.htmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/http://www.bbc.co.uk/http://cctvnews.cntv.cn/http://cctvnews.cntv.cn/


6 | P a g e

a. Government Websites like the State Department of the United States of

America http://www.state.gov/index.htm or the Ministry of Defense of the Russian

Federation http://www.eng.mil.ru/en/index.htm

b. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of various nations like

India(http://www.mea.gov.in/), People’s Republic of

China(http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/),

France(http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/), Russian

Federation(http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/main_eng)

c. Permanent Representatives to the United Nations Reports

http://www.un.org/en/members/(Click on any country to get the website of the

Office of its Permanent Representative.

d. Multilateral Organizations like the NATO

(http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htm), ASEAN

(http://www.aseansec.org/), OPEC (http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/), etc.

3. UN Reports: All UN Reports are considered are credible information or evidence

for the Executive Board of the Security Council.

a. UN Bodies: Like the SC(http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/ ),

GA(http://www.un.org/en/ga/),

HRC(http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspx) etc.

b. UN Affiliated bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency

(http://www.iaea.org/), World Bank (http://www.worldbank.org/),

International Monetary Fund (http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm),

International Committee of the Red Cross

(http://www.icrc.org/eng/index.jsp), etc.

c. Treaty Based Bodies like the Antarctic Treaty System

(http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm), the International Criminal Court

(http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC)

Under no circumstances will sources like Wikipedia

(http://www.wikipedia.org/), Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org/) or

newspapers like the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/), Times of India

(http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/), etc. be accepted.

http://www.state.gov/index.htmhttp://www.state.gov/index.htmhttp://www.eng.mil.ru/en/index.htmhttp://www.eng.mil.ru/en/index.htmhttp://www.mea.gov.in/http://www.mea.gov.in/http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/http://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/main_enghttp://www.mid.ru/brp_4.nsf/main_enghttp://www.un.org/en/members/http://www.un.org/en/members/http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htmhttp://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htmhttp://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/index.htmhttp://www.aseansec.org/http://www.aseansec.org/http://www.aseansec.org/http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/http://www.un.org/en/ga/http://www.un.org/en/ga/http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspxhttp://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/HRCIndex.aspxhttp://www.iaea.org/http://www.iaea.org/http://www.iaea.org/http://www.worldbank.org/http://www.worldbank.org/http://www.imf.org/external/index.htmhttp://www.imf.org/external/index.htmhttp://www.imf.org/external/index.htmhttp://www.icrc.org/eng/index.jsphttp://www.icrc.org/eng/index.jsphttp://www.icrc.org/eng/index.jsphttp://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htmhttp://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htmhttp://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htmhttp://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICChttp://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICChttp://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICChttp://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICChttp://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICChttp://www.wikipedia.org/http://www.wikipedia.org/http://www.hrw.org/http://www.hrw.org/http://www.hrw.org/http://www.guardian.co.uk/http://www.guardian.co.uk/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/


7 | P a g e

Introduction to the Agenda

South Asia is home to many developing nations; and much like any other developing

nations around the world, South Asia has its own share of Disarmament and Security

issues to be handled.

The agenda that is provided is a vast one, and hence, the executive board suggests the

delegates to correspond with each and systematically tackle the agenda.

A few important headers we could deliberate on, under the agenda, and under the

ambit of the DISEC, as per the executive board are as follows:

Terrorism and counter-terrorism measures.

Illegal acquisition of territories and related land disputes.

Regulations on cyberspace and combatting cyber-terrorism with emphasis on

data privacy.

The executive board will only be providing a brief over the aforementioned headers,

and it is on the delegates to further correspond and decide which path they find more

feasible to approach during the committee.

Terrorism and counter-terrorism measures

Like many other regions, South Asia is confronted with a rapidly transforming

terrorism threat landscape that is increasingly transnational in nature. Local grievances

and socio-political dynamics have been exploited by groups such as al-Qaeda and the

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and linked to a global master narrative of

conflict. At the national and local levels, civil society actors, with a wide range of

experts and practitioners, seek to address many of these conditions and grievances that

fuel support for terrorism and violent extremism, for instance, through improving

access to public health, education, and social services; promoting pluralist and tolerant

societies; and advocating for more effective and accessible national institutions.

These efforts provide important lessons and good practices that can inform

cooperative multi-stakeholder policies aimed at addressing terrorism and countering

violent extremism (CVE) in South Asia.

Since 2009, the Global Center on Cooperative Security (previously the Center on

Global Counterterrorism Cooperation) has been working with the UN Security

Council Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), with generous

support from the government of Norway, to develop a process to enhance regional

cooperation among all eight member states of the South Asian Association for

Regional Cooperation (SAARC). The process initially focused on actors in the


8 | P a g e

criminal justice domain, namely judges, prosecutors, and police officers (the criminal

justice process), but expanded to include a complementary track that focused on civil

society, experts, and practitioners from the region through a series of four workshops

(the civil society and experts process). This complementary civil society and experts

process, undertaken in partnership with the Institute of South Asian Studies at the

National University of Singapore, encompassed regular dialogue and engagement with

nongovernmental actors in South Asia to foster deeper understanding of local and

regional drivers of terrorism and violent extremism and to identify critical gaps,

opportunities, and priorities for capacity-building support to address the threat. The

process generated greater awareness about established international counterterrorism

norms and frameworks. These include the emphasis on regional cooperation in UN

Security Council Resolution 1373; the importance of addressing incitement to

terrorism while balancing fundamental freedoms, as highlighted in Resolution 1624;

the international consensus around implementation of the United Nations Global

Counter-Terrorism Strategy across its four pillars; multi-stakeholder approaches to the

challenge of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs), as highlighted in Resolution 2178; and

the counterterrorism and CVE activities of UN entities such as the Alliance of

Civilizations (UNAOC) and UN Women through implementation of Resolutions

1325, 2122, and 2242. This assessment presents key outcomes of this multiyear civil

society and experts process. It provides an overview of regional challenges and the

efforts by the Global Center and CTED to identify key needs and priorities to inform

responsive policies and programs to address the threat of terrorism and violent

extremism in South Asia. This assessment concludes with a set of recommendations

on practical ways that multilateral and regional organizations and national

governments can work with civil society, experts, and practitioners to address this

threat in the region.2

Recent years have seen a dramatic rise in terrorist activities around the world,

including in South Asia. Effective and timely international and regional cooperation is

essential for States to prevent terrorist acts and bring terrorists to justice. The United

Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED), with the

assistance of the Global Center on Cooperative Security and other partners, has been

assisting South Asia in these efforts in a unique and concrete fashion for over a

decade. What started as a series of regional workshops, bringing together judges,

prosecutors and police officers, has since grown considerably. Through 12 workshops

in 9 years, over 300 judges, prosecutors, and police from Afghanistan, Bangladesh,

Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka have shared experiences,

lessons learned, and best practices on how to counter terrorism in their region and

beyond. The aim of the workshops is to promote habits of regional cooperation,

2 https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016-12_Bhulai-Fink-South-Asia-CSE-Process.pdf

https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/2016-12_Bhulai-Fink-South-Asia-CSE-Process.pdf


9 | P a g e

expand professional networks, and develop a regional platform for the delivery of

technical assistance and training. Over the years, these discussions have played a vital

role in CTED’s assessment of counter-terrorism capacities and priorities in the region,

as well as the identification of emerging trends and threats. The gatherings serve as a

laboratory for innovation by generating and testing new technical ideas, many of

which inform the core work of the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee, UN entities,

and implementing partners. The workshops have focused on a broad range of topics,

usually proposed by the participants, including anti-money laundering and countering

the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT); effective interview and interrogation

techniques; the education and training of law enforcement personnel; foreign terrorist

fighters; gender dimensions of the criminal justice response to terrorism; and the

collection and use of electronic evidence in terrorism cases. A parallel process in

support of the practitioners’ dialogue was launched in 2011 by the Global Center, in

partnership with the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of

Singapore, bringing together key experts, academics, and practitioners to explore

national and civil society responses. With support from the government of Norway,

this initiative informed and supported CTED’s work on the basis that non-

governmental actors and practitioner networks can be valuable partners in developing

cooperative efforts to address terrorism and violent extremism, complementing more

formal regional initiatives. In 2018, in an initiative funded by the government of

Japan, CTED and the Global Center plan to bring practitioners and civil society

leaders together to discuss criminal justice issues and to further promote practitioner

engagement with civil society. CTED greatly appreciates the commitment to this

innovative initiative of the eight States of the South Asian Association for Regional

Cooperation (SAARC), as well as the SAARC Secretariat, which participates as an

observer. The Executive Directorate is also grateful for the generous support provided

by Australia, Canada, Denmark, India, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and the United States

of America. Participating entities have included numerous United Nations Member

States, INTERPOL, OHCHR, the UNODC Terrorism Prevention Branch (TPB), and

the pro bono contributions of Baker McKenzie. 3

3 https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Judicial-Workshop-Brochure_2.pdf

https://www.un.org/sc/ctc/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Judicial-Workshop-Brochure_2.pdf


10 | P a g e

Illegal acquisition of territories and related land disputes.

South Asia and Southeast Asia have the maximum number of land disputes in

comparison to other parts of the world. Not only have they been domestic in nature,

but a lot of them have also taken place between countries.

The dispute of Kashmir, under the mainland of India has been one of the longest

dispute in the history of the world.

The Kashmir conflict:

While India, Pakistan and China have been arguing and fighting over the land over the

years, the recent status stands as follows for the 3 nations:

India and Pakistan:

India’s unilateral decision to revoke Article 370 of its constitution has severely

hampered the chances of a renewal of the peace process between New Delhi and

Islamabad. From Pakistan's perspective the Indian action constitutes a grave violation

of the U.N. Security Council resolutions on Kashmir and bilateral Pakistan-India

agreements, such as the 1972 Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration.

Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s government’s decision will have far reaching

consequences for Pakistan-India relations and regional peace and security. Islamabad

says that increased repression and human rights violations by Indian forces in Indian

Occupied Kashmir will breed violence, fuel indigenous uprising, and further generate

tension with Pakistan. Yet, since August 5, India has mobilized hundreds of thousands

of troops, detained thousands of Kashmiris, and imposed a curfew resulting in food

and medicine shortages. In Islamabad’s eyes, the disputed region of Jammu and

Kashmir has become a garrison area.

With the illegal steps taken by the Indian government—imposition of curfew, arrests

of political leaders and blockade of communications—the situation has reached a

tipping point. Intensifying violence in Indian-occupied Kashmir poses serious

challenges for Pakistan and the region. These challenges include:

For Pakistan, Kashmir remains the core issue and Islamabad cannot envision a

dialogue with India that excludes the Kashmir issue.

Islamabad rejects India’s claim that Kashmir is an internal matter, pointing to

past and present international and bilateral calls for a peaceful resolution

through dialogue. India’s move violates multiple U.N. Security Council

resolutions and is unacceptable to Pakistan and the international community.

The faint hope for a reasonable settlement based on the four-point formula—

which became the basis of back-channel negotiations during the 2004-08 peace


11 | P a g e

process and envisaged self-governance for Kashmiris, demilitarization, travel

across the Line of Control and a monitoring mechanism, while also protecting

the vital interests of the two countries—has been extinguished.

Pakistan fears India could stage a false flag in either Jammu and Kashmir or

mainland India and blame it on Pakistan in order to divert attention from the

volatile situation in Kashmir.

The possibility of direct Indian intervention in Azad Kashmir or subversion

inside Pakistan cannot be ruled out. In case India directly intervenes in Pakistan

or in Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan (both of which are part of what the U.N.

calls Pakistan-administered Kashmir), it could result in war between the nuclear

powers with incalculable implications for both countries and the region.

The outcome of the current Indian actions could result in more refugees from

India into Pakistan.

The latest Indian action will complicate the resolution of other long-standing

disputes over issues like the Siachen Glacier and Sir Creek.

The Indian decision will adversely impact people-to-people contacts and trade

relations between the two countries.

Tension between India and Pakistan will have a negative impact on regional

security. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation process is

already suspended due to India-Pakistan tensions. India’s move is a further blow

to regional cooperation.

Irrespective of India’s actions, the fact is that Kashmir is an internationally

recognized disputed territory and will remain so until the legitimate aspirations

of the Kashmiris are fulfilled. India’s repression in Kashmir is unlikely to

change this reality.

India and China:

Why are they fighting?

The military superpowers have been arguing for decades over territory in the high-

altitude, largely uninhabited region. Their armies come face to face at many points

along the 3,440km (2,100-mile) shared border. The confrontation came after tensions

bubbled up in recent months over a new road India built in Ladakh, along the Line of

Actual Control which divides the sides. That angered China, which deployed troops

and built infrastructure of its own in disputed territory, bringing the two sides' forces

in closer proximity and heightening the risk of clashes.

Why does it matter?

Both sides see the area as strategically important, economically and militarily. If

neither gives way, the stand-off could have destabilising consequences for the region.


12 | P a g e

The loss of life raises the stakes. Those deaths are believed to be the first in 45 years in

a border confrontation between India and China. They have fought only one war, in

1962, when India suffered a humiliating defeat.

Cyber-terrorism and Data Privacy

Cyberspace is an attractive medium for computer-savvy generation of terrorists due to

its anonymity, psychological impact and also it’s potential to inflict massive damage.

There have been numerous studies by researchers in Europe, the Middle East and

North America in analyzing the illicit activities and terrorism in cyberspace. However,

there are limited studies on similar cases in the Southeast Asian region.

Southeast Asian region supports illicit activities and terrorism in cyberspace such as

the spreading of propaganda, recruitment, as well as planning and coordination. There

is a great possibility that the virtual world evolves and plays a critical role in

promoting illicit activities and terrorism in cyberspace.

There are currently gaps in identifying terrorist content on various social media

platforms. There may be a need for greater in-house expertise in technology

companies, with the requisite language and cultural knowledge, to know where to look

for content that might be missed by algorithms.

There is a link between hate speech and terrorist activity in South Asia. Given the

extent of inter-communal violence in the region, it is critical to carry out further

research on this link.

Terrorists’ use of end-to-end encrypted communications is a common feature of all

three case studies in this paper: Pakistan; Bangladesh; and Sri Lanka. However,

government responses to this in South Asia have so far been unhelpful, as their

suggestions have been un-implementable and social media blocks have had limited

effectiveness.

There is a need for greater public–private dialogue on how the internet and social

media are used by terrorists and for counterterrorism. A multi-stakeholder approach

would not only help technology companies develop better approaches to managing the

issues but also build links between communities and authorities to develop more

cooperative approaches.

Governments should consult technology companies and civil society while designing

regulations aimed at countering terrorist use of the internet to enhance the

effectiveness and feasibility of regulations.


13 | P a g e

Government officials in South Asia need to be trained on effective identification of

terrorist content, reporting mechanisms and the use of metadata on encrypted

communication platforms for investigative purposes.

Technology companies should recruit more content moderators speaking Baloch,

Sinhala, Tamil and Bangla, and support qualitative research into the dissemination of

terrorist propaganda in regional languages.

Social media platforms should consider developing easier ways for users to report

terrorist content.

Governments in South Asia need to clarify the scope of counter-extremism legislation

and its applicability online, and clearly define hate speech and terrorist content.

Terrorism in Southeast Asia has long been a threat. Previously, the spectre of terrorism

haunted the region via threats of physical violence, from bombings to kidnappings.

However, in the current internet age, terrorism has found new ways to attack its

targets. Cyber-terrorism in the region has been a growing concern and experts have

called out ASEAN’s slow response to it.

At the moment, Southeast Asian countries are lagging behind when it comes to cyber-

security. Based on a report by global management consultants, AT Kearney, ASEAN

countries are also being used for cyber-attacks; with Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam

serving as global launch pads for malware attacks.

In October 2017, the personal information of around 46 million mobile subscribers in

Malaysia was compromised. The personal details leaked included home addresses,

national identification card numbers, and SIM card information. It was reported that

the data breach had actually occurred in 2014 but was only discovered a year later.

This is due to the lack of data breach notification laws in the country which would

require a company that has had its data breached to notify its customers.

Singapore has also been the victim of cyber-attacks. In 2017, the country was the

target of three major cyber-attacks, namely the Ministry of Defence cyber breach in

February, WannaCry Ransomware attacks in May, and Petya Ransomware activity in

June.

These incidents exemplify how far behind the region is in terms of cyber-security.

Cyber-security at this juncture of time is particularly necessary as internet penetration

in the region is at its highest and will continue to grow. Hootsuite’s report on

Southeast Asia’s digital usage indicates that the region has an internet penetration rate

of 58 percent which means there are more than 370 million internet users currently.

According to data from AT Kearney, Southeast Asia is not spending enough to protect

its citizens from cyber-security attacks. Despite high levels of growth, data shows that


14 | P a g e

ASEAN member states spent an estimated US$1.9 billion in 2017 or a measly 0.06

percent of the region’s gross domestic product (GDP) on cyber-security. The financial

impact from cyber-attacks can be crippling and devastating. According to the Asia

Pacific Risk Centre, the global cost of data breaches is projected to reach US$2.1

trillion by 2019.

With technology advancing rapidly and embedding itself deeper in our lives, ASEAN

countries need to realise the importance of investing in cyber-security. As technology

gets more pervasive, the more vulnerable we are to exploitation by cyber criminals,

unless there is proper protection in place.

One of the biggest threats in cyberspace last year was the threat of ransomware.

Ransomware is a form of digital extortion where attackers use a trojan to gain access

to a user’s computer and threatens to publish the victim’s data or perpetually block

access to the victim’s computer unless a ransom is paid.

People’s finances could be at risk with internet banking, e-wallets and even crypto-

currency usage on the rise. Without proper security measures in place, people could

lose their livelihoods in the event of a cyber-attack. Earlier this year, hackers managed

to get away with US$440 million in crypto-currency after hacking a Japanese crypto-

currency exchange.

The overall financial impact of cyber-attacks can be devastating to an economy.

According to the Asia Pacific Risk Centre, the global cost of data breaches is projected

to reach US$2.1 trillion by 2019.

One of the steps ASEAN can take moving forward is to introduce a digital strategy to

combat cyber-attacks and data breaches. However, a deeper understanding of the tech

sector and the workings of the internet is required. Aside from that, the initiative needs

to transcend borders, as information and data move freely without borders on the

internet.

ASEAN has taken steps to cooperate with other countries to tighten cyber-security. At

a previous ASEAN Summit, ASEAN and the United States (US) released a joint

statement reaffirming their commitment to strengthening cyber-security. Russia has

also made similar pledges in developing cyber-security cooperation with ASEAN.

In combating cyber-security, a common misnomer is that most attacks are carried out

by cyber criminals. However, governments need to realise that corporations are just as

capable of carrying out questionable actions when it comes to personal data, as seen in

Facebook’s multiple scandals recently. Governments also need to figure out an

overarching strategy that can keep multi-national corporations in check as well as

ensuring that the right infrastructure is in place to prevent future attacks from cyber-

terrorists.

delhi international model united nations 2020guide) as a singular topic and research accordingly,...

Documents