The Newsletter of the Model United Nations of The Hague – 24 April 2015 – The Hague – 9 Pages – Volume 1 | Issue 2

> IMPRESSUM

Editors-in-ChiefNabadip DebAlexandra van Walraven

Layout DesignerIskander Khairoutdinov

PhotographerJip van Leemput

JournalistsDianto LeeflangChristine NikanderIuna VieiraTanya ZhekovaCamelia VasilovStela Marinova GinevaRachel GreenwaldIlinca BogaciovSakari NuuttilaTamara RaatsShariqa HabibMaria Mois

MUNOTH 2015 was opened in the Nieuwe Kerk with inspiring and motivating speeches that reflected the theme of this year’s edition, as introduced by Secretary-General Malou den Dekker: adapting to a globalizing world.

First, the floor was given to Christophe Verhellen, who is the UN BeNeLux communication officer. He opened his speech by stating that 2015 is a milestone year for the UN. It is a year of looking back to what the UN has accomplished in the past 15 years in regards to the Millennium Development Goals. The goal of halving global poverty has been reached in 2010, despite the beginning of the financial crisis. Verhellen added that this reduction of poverty does not mean that economic inequalities among people are automatically decreased as well. There are still a lot of challenges that need to be tackled. Humanitarian issues such as maternal health and basic sanitation in developing countries are examples.

The emphasis of Verhellen’s speech is on looking forward as he discusses the start of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs consist of 6 clusters and 17 goals that focus on the themes of prosperity, dignity and justice. Verhellen states that “the world will change” and especially the topic of justice will become important.

Verhellen ended his talk with returning to why 2015 is a milestone year for the UN: 2015 marks the organization’s 70th anniversary.

The second key-note speaker was Jang Jin-sung, a professor within the School of Asian Studies in Leiden University, and one of the few individuals who managed to escape North Korea. He stood before us with his interpreter and stated ‘today, I will talk about North Korea.’ Many of us know of the atrocious human rights horrors that occur within the secretive state on a daily basis, but Mr. Jin-sung was able to provide a fresh view into the workings of the confining regime.

MUNOTH 2015 Opened: “Time for Global Action”> STELA GINEvA AND TAMARA RAATS

Crisis Security Council 8

General Assembly on Food Security 7

/MUNof TheHague/MUNOTHObserver

munoth.orgmunothobserver.wordpress.com

@themunothobserver

The MUNOTH Observer – 24 April 2015 2

In his line of work as a psychological warfare officer and poet, he was able to interact with Kim Jong Il, as well as have access to all world media. He was one of three hundred people within his office to have access to this information, one of a small minority in the heavily censored state. His riveting story inspired many questions from the audience.

Asked what drove him to make the escape, he named two factors. The first, he said, was meeting Kim Jong Il ‘I realized he was not God, only a frail man.’ Prior to this, like many North Koreans, he believed his leader to be a saint, a divine person, who ‘didn’t even use a toilet’. Because of the outrageous propaganda of absurd claims such as the deity status of the leading family, North Korea must always have a monopoly on information.

The second factor was that his access to open media granted him knowledge that he could not live with on his own - he lent books and other media to his friends. Eventually, one was lost. This

United Kingdom’s nuclear materials: protecting its citizens or threatening the world?> TANyA ZHEKOvA

During the initial meditation phase of the case against the United Kingdom (UK) in the International Court of Justice, the word “modernization” became a point of serious disagreements between the advocates of the two sides. Although it was agreed that the United Kingdom has made greater steps for disarmament in comparison with other nuclear powers such as the US or Russia, the Marshall Islands’ advocates insisted that several of the British government actions were contradicting their pledged positions. It was pointed out that the UK has recently renewed its mutual defence agreement with the USA on nuclear cooperation and many Conservative and Labour MPs in the current government support the Successor to the Trident programme, proposing to spend 100 billion on nuclear renovation. However, an advocate of the UK stated that if the

simple action could have cost him his life, as sharing this information was akin to committing treason. So, he ran.

Asked if he ever wishes to return to North Korea, Mr. Sung said “Yes, I definitely want to go back to North Korea, but not just going back, taking freedom with me to North Korea.”

The two keynote speakers of the opening ceremony inspired plenty of discussion amongst MUNOTH participants, an indication that the event was a success. No doubt many are looking forward to tonight’s soiree, where Mr. Christophe Verhellen will be taking questions. <<

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

The MUNOTH Observer – 24 April 2015 3

Stipulation Agreement Drafted in ICJ: To serve as evidence during court proceedings > STELA GINEvA

The International Court of Justice began the first proceedings of the Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom case today. The Marshall Islands wants the United Kingdom to meet its obligations towards nuclear disarmament, and submit to its breaches of obligations under the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The most substantial aspect of the day consisted in the mediation session preceding the opening statements. This session was intended to bring forth points of agreement between both sides, but resulted in heated debate which had to be moderated on more than one occasion by the judges. Nevertheless, this did have a positive outcome as it brought to existence an officially drafted stipulation agreement consisting of a number of claims which both sides agree on. This stipulation will be used as evidence during the official proceedings.

The content of the stipulation includes five articles. The first one states that the UK has been taking significant steps towards nuclear disarmament. To evidence this, the UK stated that it has made a commitment to reduce its nuclear stockpile from 225 warheads to 180 warheads with 120 operational. Further, the importance of Art. VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty was highlighted, as well as its nature. Both sides agreed

that Article VI ‘contains a behavioral obligation to pursue negotiations, not an obligation to achieve a particular result’ (Art. 3, Stipulation Agreement). Further, both sides conceded that ‘maintenance and modernization of nuclear weaponry is of vital importance for the health and security of the general public’, and as a result should not be confused with obligations to non-proliferations. This was under Article 4.

Following a break for lunch, the opening statements of both the Marshall Islands and United Kingdom were heard. The Marshall Islands asserted that ‘The United Kingdom is not pursuing its obligations of disarmament in the way it is supposed to. It is not meeting its obligations and in fact is claiming to do much more than it is, in order to gain geo-political advantage in the

international scene.’ Followed by that were the statements by UK advocate Ondrej Toloch who expressed that the UK views safe disarmament as a ‘burning issue’ which must be tackled in an ‘’adequate and compassionate way’’. In a rebuttal, Marshall Islands advocate Amalia von Magyari stated that ‘we definitely need to address the fact that the UK has shown its commitment in policy but also to compare it with actions…this definitely needs to be addressed, that the UK has actually implemented the NPT.’

The UK advocates requested a recess during which rebuttals and further points of debate could be considered. Such were the happenings of the first day in the court proceedings! <<

nuclear arsenal is not modernized, it could pose a great threat to the country’s citizens.

The Marshall Islands agreed firmly on this point as the Pacific country itself has been a long-term victim of the nuclear waste effects resulting from the 67 nuclear tests, which the United States conducted on their territory. Nevertheless it was emphasised that taking care of nuclear waste should be clearly distinguished from upgrading nuclear warheads. There is a danger that this type of renovation can be used as an excuse or cover-up for nuclear armament.

A heated debate ensued, with the British side stating that “every country holds a duty to protect its citizens. Nuclear waste poses threat and it is the government’s responsibility to take care of it”. The Marshall Islands raised the question whether all the modernizations undertaken by the UK is done with the purpose of taking care of waste. Referring to the earlier statement that

the United Kingdom is planning to reduce its warheads from 225 to 180, it was suggested that “reducing the number of warheads and upgrading the capacity of the existing ones is not mutually exclusive”. “Every country has obligations to the rest of the world” according to the Marshall Islands advocates and that includes the threat posed by the possession of nuclear weapons.

Eventually the two sides reached five common points of agreement before continuing with the opening statements and informal debates. The next few days will determine the course of the case. So far, the Marshall Islands are slowly achieving their main purpose of throwing a spotlight on the policies of the nuclear weapons states, which claim to be committed to a nuclear weapons–free world while not showing willingness to reach that goal. The United Kingdom however has a very strong defence, which could prove hard to controvert in the court of law. <<

The MUNOTH Observer – 24 April 2015 4

Today’s discussion in the Human Rights Council about the Middle Eastern conflict was mostly focused on entering into multilateral discussions with one another. It was after the break that the debate headed quickly towards talks about possible solutions. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland started by saying they were already satisfied with the commitment shown by the different members to cooperate on the issues of refugees and accountability. The delegation, however, urged to pay more attention to the aspect of dialogue.

Morocco’s stance was all-inclusive: they want peace talks with all parties involved. The United States, however, believed there is no place for dialogue with ISIS. The Syrian Arab Republic stressed the importance to tackle ISIS first as they are Syria’s “biggest threat”. A minor clash emerged between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the United States when the UAE accused the United States of supporting ISIS through funding their weapons. The United States dismissed this as merely a claim: “We are fighting them.” They emphasized the humanitarian atrocities committed by ISIS – rape, torture, mass killings and destruction of Syrian heritage - and pointed to their involvement in actually targeting the terrorists through airstrikes and underground practices. The mentioning of the suffering of the Syrian people set the tone for what was discussed the rest of the debate.

The remaining time was, thus, mainly spent on the humanitarian issues concerning the Syrian refugees and civilians stressed by Morocco, Sweden, Pakistan and the Syrian Arab Republic. Morocco called for a “regional tactic.” The delegation regarded it important that nations within or close to the Middle-Eastern region cooperate together to help refugees. The delegation gave the example of the financial support they get from Spain to provide Syrian refugees passports until Syria

is safe again for return. Additionally, Morocco and Pakistan recognized the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Syrian delegation in turn showed appreciation for this stance and the direction that the debate was heading in general. They, however, used the notion of sovereignty as support for their argument that Syrians should not be forced out of the country if they wished to stay.

The United States, however, have proposed the peace talks to take place in The Hague without participation of ISIS. Pakistan meanwhile, has called

for funding from the international community, the Arab League in particular, for the Syrian refugees. Syria, excluded from the Arab League, wondered whether this funding would also apply to the Syrian civilians and if this specific involvement of the Arab League was decided on purpose. Perhaps this was decided because Syria wishes its civilians to stay within its borders, which could make provision of humanitarian aid difficult. The outlooks are still hopeful so far, as the United Kingdom is content with the cooperation of all delegates in order to reach “a coherent conclusion.” <<

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Fruitful Conversations: Dialogues and Peace Talks> TAMARA RAATS

The MUNOTH Observer – 24 April 2015 5

Syria calls for stabilization of the “paradise and beacon of hope” it once was> SAKARI NUUTTILAAs the Human Rights Council convened for its first session, most delegations called for mutual action against the deterioration of human rights and atrocities currently being committed within the Syrian Arab Republic. There was ubiquitous condemnation of the human rights abuses and violations of international law committed within the realm of the civil-war ridden state.

Most delegations except, most notably, that of the United States, called for non-military intervention in Syria. The delegation of Sierra Leone was most verbal in condemning the stance of the United States.

“Only peaceful negotiation will lead to solutions to the problem. We need a resolution of non-armed intervention.”

The delegation of Sierra Leone added that along with militant groups, the authorities of Syria have also caused widespread killing in the country. France and Qatar went as far as to refuse to negotiate with the Syrian government due to the violence against civilians it is perpetrating within its borders.

“We do not believe Syria shares the view of putting their people first. Syria does not have its people as its first priority, at least not all of them,” the French delegation stated.

Syria was quick to counter the claim made by the French delegation.

“We feel we are representing our people as best we can. We are a government of the people, by the people, for the people, as we hope the delegation of France is as well.”

In its opening speech, the delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic claimed it was both “hopeful and disappointed” in the commencing discussions. The delegation expressed its thankfulness for the willingness of other nations to cooperate in finding solutions, but also its disappointment in the attitudes of

some delegations toward the actions of the Syrian government. The critique turned personal as the Syrian delegate singled out the French delegate for regarding him as “a lesser person”.

The Syrian delegation recognized the importance of all delegates working together in the fight against ISIS and other terrorist activity that has brought chaos to “the stable paradise and beacon of hope in the Middle East that Syria once was”. The delegation’s stance is that the only way to solve the humanitarian crisis in the country is to restore stability to the region. The delegation denied any involvement in committing crimes in Syria.

The Russian Federation, who has consistently attempted to block all forms of UN intervention in Syria, frequently stated its neutrality in the discussion. The Russian delegation also beseeched the other delegations to remain neutral, lest Syrian delegation would feel “isolated and threatened”. The delegate pointed out that Russia has been sending humanitarian aid to and funds to help relieve the refugee crisis.

“We want to see more nations doing the same. We need real solutions with real money and real actions. We all recognize the problems in Syria, but do not seem to move on from that.” <<

SECURITy COUNCIL

The topic encompassing the cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations in maintaining peace and security was to be discussed by the Security Council; as the representatives of the countries present all acknowledged the necessity of strengthening said cooperation, the discussions did not possess major opposing views, however the atmosphere

was lively as the delegates tried to come up with concrete methods, policies and tools to tackle the issue.

In the post lunch session, it was quickly established that a sensitive issue for the United Nations is represented by the methods of selecting regional organizations to be engaged with UN endeavours in order for a fruitful

cooperation to take place. The representative of the United Kingdom pointed to the issue of legitimacy and suggested the creation of a flexible set of criteria by which to assess the organizations. The majority of delegates were of the opinion that a Panel of Experts (PoE) should be established in order to assist the Security Council in this matter.

Cooperation – a two-way street, but where does the journey begin? > ILINCA BOGACIOv

The MUNOTH Observer – 24 April 2015 6

The delegate of Nigeria called for the establishment of periodical check-ups of the selected organizations in order to make sure the standards are maintained over time, while China’s representative considered that a quota should be imposed so as to limit the number of organizations per continent. However, the United States of America thought the discussions should focus more on the actual tools that need to be implemented in order to strengthen the already existing cooperation between the UN and regional factors. Ultimately, it was a matter of HOW versus WHAT: while certain delegates thought that elaborating on the methods in which cooperation should be established is a more pressing issue, others wished to discuss specific tools that would be used by the United Nations in said cooperating with regional organizations. Such disagreement comes as no surprise given the complexity of the issue at stake, and one can easily see why the difficulty lies in knowing where to start from.

It remains to be seen how the delegates will be able to provide an answer to this problem, and one that can satisfy the demands of every member state. <<

Strategies for cooperation between the UN and regional organizations> RACHEL GREENwALD

While all the countries represented in the United Nations Security Council believe more cooperation needs to occur between the UN and other regional organizations, the best strategy to reach this further cooperation is still a major point of contention.

The United Kingdom worries that allowing other regional organizations to have too much power when it comes to making decisions could undermine the mission of the UN. “Regional organizations have strategic objectives that the UN should not be involved in regarding expansionism and trade,” the delegate representing the United Kingdom said. “If the UN were to act with strategic objectives other than development the institution would lose its legitimacy.”

Nonetheless, the United Kingdom recognizes that using regional

organizations can allow the UN to act more effectively than it has in the past through the use of local experts and perspectives. Venezuela stated that it believes the contacts regional organizations have on the ground during conflicts should allow them to have more power when it comes to making decisions. “The UN has the potential to infringe on a country’s sovereignty when it just comes in and tells organizations what to do,” the delegate of Venezuela said.

Respecting a country’s sovereignty was often a topic of concern that came up during debates. In particular, Malaysia, Chile, and Venezuela voiced worries about the UN’s use of military intervention during conflicts. Malaysia and other southeastern countries would like to remain self-reliant, the Malaysian delegate said. We believe focusing on factors other than military force can

yield more benefits, such as sharing knowledge to prevent conflicts.

France explained that creating a framework for more information sharing and consultation between regional organizations and the UN should become a main focus when it comes to resolving conflicts.

Regardless of their differences, the delegates have a large amount of mutual understanding for each other as they work to find a solution to this issue. However, there are sure to be challenges ahead as the discussion continues.“We are all bound by the same common ground”, the delegate to Chile said, “But, I think the main points of contention will be down to deciding what local organizations best represent all actors and when these organizations should be used.” <<

The MUNOTH Observer – 24 April 2015 7

The General Assembly discusses on food security> DIANTO LEEFLANG

The first day of the General Assembly saw it discussing on the issue of global food security. The committee agreed that it issue is a pressing one as many people in the world struggle with starvation. There are different approaches taken to the topic. The United States announced early in debate that it regards the issue as a global issue, needing global solutions. Yet, many developing countries argued that it is important for many states first to become self-sufficient by developing a independent agricultural sector, before integrating into the international food market. Over the course of the day, the assembly it seems has found a common path of consensus.

The main subtopics discussed were food waste, gender inequality in access to food, infrastructure and technology sharing.

Firstly, on the issue of food wasting, the committee was concerned with the way usable food is often disposed in both the industrial process and in the domestic

environment. The committee discussed on how regulations can be adjusted to make production and consumption more energy effective.

Secondly, the committee recognized that in order to send aid to rural areas, due to social structures of local communities it is often unequally distributed over different parts of the community. As is often the case, the women benefit the least. Yet the committee will face the challenge of cooperating with community leaders without allegedly going against cultural habits.

Thirdly, in order to improve domestic markets, the transaction costs for small local farmers to sell their product has to be decreased and for villagers to buy them. Infrastructural adjustments in rural areas can facilitate the accessibility of central markets for producers and consumers of food.

Lastly, some delegates have asked for technology sharing through seed banks.

The issue to deal with is intellectual property rights which hinder the accessibility of agricultural technologies for small scale farmers.

As much as the assembly is making progress on the solutions it focuses on, it will have to watch out for old pitfalls. Some countries have faced severe socio-economic problems after the green revolution. The capitalizing of the market by introducing fertilizers resulted in smaller farmers being pushed out of the market. Farmers that cannot invest in new agricultural technologies or travel to distant market places may be degraded to workers under the payroll of big landowners. Additionally, will the committee be able to address local problems through a international framework? <<

GENERAL ASSEMBLy

The MUNOTH Observer – 24 April 2015 8

A Missed Opportunity at Establishing a Paradigm Shift?> CHRISTINE NIKANDER

The General Assembly was filled with varied discourse on agricultural development, as well as food security and nutrition. The topics of discussion ranged from proposals on methods to eliminate hunger, to the idea of educating small farmers and agricultural stakeholder, to the use of GMOs.

Later in the afternoon, the delegate of Iran had suggested that the debate of the General Assembly continue with the inequalities of food distribution on a global scale. The Iranian delegate proposed the debate takes a turn towards focusing on the regional differences in nutrition intake and suggested that an interest be taken in obesity.

In response to the delegate of Iran, the delegate of the UK stated that the

emphasis should not stray away from starvation. The delegate asserted that the principal focus of the United Nations was to address the most predominant and pressing issues that member nations where facing. He proclaimed that starvation constitutes a great threat and causes a greater death toll than obesity. The delegate of the UK seemed oblivious to the general medical consensus that obesity is a larger global health issue than starvation.

The statement that starvation is more lethal than obesity went uncommented by other delegates. Furthermore, the delegates of the General Assembly failed to acknowledge the possible necessity of a paradigm shift. Limiting the negative outcomes of nutrition and food security to solely malnutrition and starvation

falls short of painting a holistic portrait. It seems surprising that the inverse effects of food quality should be marginalized by the General Assembly. The unfavorable selection of nutrition as well as the improper processing of food – in the regions with a sufficient food stock or among individuals that have access to an abundance of food – has not yet been taken into consideration by the General Assembly.

In the light of the one-sided approach to nutrition by the delegate of the General Assembly, the foundations from a feasible resolution are yet to be set. <<

CRISIS SECURITy COUNCIL

Gloomy Cloud of International Politics Looms over the Crisis Security Council> SHARIqA HABIB

The delegate of United Kingdom, stated that the UK is strongly in favour of “boots on the ground”, at the same time also pointing out that do not wish for direct state involvement. It suggested the collective action of the United Nations through the Blue Hats to which

The Crisis Security Council of MUNOTH convened in order to discuss the imminent global threats that the world faces. At the present session, the committee is debating the danger of the Nigerian Islamic extremist group, Boko Haram.

France and United States, their long term allies, are in favour.

True to their usual colours the Russian delegate went on record to express concerns regarding any military involvement. The delegate of France also supported Russia in what was an unusual deviation of the foreign policy stating that they too were against a military intervention in the Boko Haram crisis which they believed should be handled through regional multilateral coalition with Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Niger. It said that while the international community’s involvement is necessary, direct involvement is not the way forward. France remarked that it is confident that common grounds could be found among the council and they hoped to reach a resolution by the end of the present session without facing any veto.

Nigeria expressed concern regarding the military intervention in Nigeria and requested the council to approach with caution and critically analyze the situation in hand before deciding on any concrete action. <<

The MUNOTH Observer – 24 April 2015 9

The simplest way to solve a problem – ignore it? > MARIA-CAMELIA vASILOv & MARIA MOIS

CRISIS SECURITy COUNCIL

The Crisis Security Council started with a very difficult task at hand: choosing a particular topic of international security. The delegate of the Kingdom of Jordan, introducing herself as being “allied to the five permanent Security Council members, thus in a unique position to promote peace” quickly became the agenda-setter, proposing a choice between discussing ISIS and discussing the militant islamist group Boko Haram. Since the Russian Federation pointed out that the issue of Boko Haram was more likely to be tackled in a productive way and the committee overwhelmingly agreed, “Nigeria”, “terrorism” and “humanitarian action” became the words of the day.

Throughout the afternooon, the Crisis Security Council continued its discussions at a fast pace. The solutions proposed to the issue of terrorism by Boko Haram were very ambitious: authorizing a military intervention (with African Union forces) ; calling for a humanitarian mission ; demanding investigations about human rights violations, etc. Skeptics have repeated that the solutions were so far-reaching that they bordered inapplicability, but the general spirit was “if the Security Council cannot do it, then who can?” Unfortunately, the set of proposals sparked intense debates and eventually died as a working paper, never even making it to the stage of resolution.

What was striking, though, is how the delegates chose to focus on these long term goals at the expense of completely ignoring the current threat of a cyber attack, of which they have been announced in a previous information inject.

An official statement made at the by the Russian delegate captures this criticism: “The Crisis Security Council voted not to discuss it. Russia finds the issue incredibly important, however our vote in favor of discussing the matter was shot down. Russia is concerned that further ports might be attacked should the issue remain unaddressed”. The Crisis Security Council returned briefly to this pressing issue, with USA declaring for the press that “Considering the large amount of damage that can be done through a cyber attack, we had to prioritize and focus on the issue of cyberfare. We suggested the creation of an international cooperation for the prevention and dealing with the consequences of cyberwarfare”

The latest shock in the Council was brought by the news of a nuclear reactor melting down in Lyon, with human lives taken and big economic impacts. The USA delegate expressed “Sincerest compassion for the giant loss of the French people” and stressed that if there is someone who did this on purpose, then “The Security Council is the place to tackle the issue”. What if the nuclear meltdown was caused by a state actor? The American delegate believes that in such a case, first they would try to open the dialogue with the said government, and failing that – they would take “any and all necessary measures”. Now

this is the kind of discourse that any perpetrator should fear upon hearing it in the Security Council...

All in all, the delegates are working hard to figure out the ongoing events on the international stage, but there are still plenty of issues which have been overlooked. The public opinion would suggest the Council to deal better and more thoroughly with each event, thus living up to its name: Crisis. <<

> PRESS TEAM