UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
Hello Delegates!
Welcome to the 2014 University of Georgia Model United Nations Conference. My name is
Lauren Williams (laurenw@uga.edu) and I will be your chair for General Assembly I, the
Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC). I am a sophomore from
Thomaston, Georgia and this is will be my second year at UGAMUNC. I previously served as the
co-chair at UGAMUNC’s Second Continental Congress Crises committee. This year we have
selected three topics that represent some of the most important international issues relating to
disarmament and international security, and I am thrilled to see the lively debate that is sure to
follow. Due to the caliber of the topics for this committee and your level of preparation,
intelligence, and creativity, I know you will find UGAMUNC DISEC 2014 as one of your
greatest Model UN experiences.
Before proceeding I would like to introduce myself. I am currently an Honors Student double
majoring in Political Science and Public Relations here at the University of Georgia. Besides
Model UN, I am a member of the National Society of Collegiate Scholars and Alpha Lamda
Delta National Honor Society. In my free time, I like to participate in intramural sports,
experience the great city of Athens, and cheer on the Atlanta Braves, Denver Broncos, San
Francisco Giants, Georgia Bulldogs, and the greatest athlete to ever live: Peyton Manning.
I am honored to have Carter Chapman (cchapma@uga.edu) as my co-chair at this year’s
conference. Carter is a sophomore from Atlanta, GA double majoring in International Affairs and
Marketing with a minor in Portuguese. He is a brother in Phi Delta Theta fraternity as well as the
President of Building Tomorrow at UGA. Like his chair, Carter is a big sports fan and cheers for
all of the Atlanta based teams as well as Chelsea FC, a soccer team that plays in the English
Premier League. He is also widely considered to be one of the greatest people ever to attend the
University of Georgia.
As you begin your research, I hope that you will find this background guide useful as a starting
point. However, it is only a starting point for your research and preparation, and I strongly
encourage you to do independent research to better understand the issues, your respective
countries’ positions, and the range of possible solutions.
Please feel free to email me if you have any questions. I am very excited for this year’s
committee and I look forward to meeting you all in February.
Best of luck and GO DAWGS!
Sincerely,
Lauren Williams
Chair, GA1, DISEC
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
Background of General Assembly, 1st Committee
Since the founding of the League of Nations in the 1920s, efforts to prevent war
and its effects have been a focal point of international relations. The victorious Allies
established the United Nations at the end of World War II to prevent such a catastrophe
from ever reoccurring. The charter drafted by the United Nations’ original fifty-one
nations called for a General Assembly to address grievances and international issues. The
charter also established six committees to provide recommendations for resolutions.
The United Nations General Assembly First Committee is one of the six main
bodies within the General Assembly. It is one of the original organizational bodies
established by the United Nations to provide adequate research and information for the
UN General Assembly. This body meets annually for a four to five week session in
October and focuses on issues concerning disarmament, international security, and
maintaining peace around the globe. Contemporary issues within the First Committee
pertain to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction (including
biological and chemical weapons) and small arms and lightweight weapons trade.
Currently, the United Nations is composed of 193 member nations, each of which
sits on the First Committee and has an equal vote. While it is not the First Committee’s
role to take decisive action as they are not able to pass binding resolutions, implement
sanctions, or mobilize military, it does deliberate on various issues and reports its
findings to the United Security Council and secretariat of the UN. In addition, this body
works closely with the United Nations Disarmament Commission and the Conference on
Disarmament to address and begin to resolve some of the most pressing issues facing the
international community.1
General Assembly of the United Nations, “Disarmament and International Security: First Committee.”
2013. http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/index.shtml.
1
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
I. Bioterrorism & the Reduction of Chemical Weapons
Introduction
The use of chemical and biological weapons is not a new occurrence as countries,
regimes, and coalitions have utilized these in warfare since ancient times. The use of
chemical weapons dates back early as 400 BC when the Spartans used sulfur gas against
their enemies.2Despite the Hague Convention in 1907 that prohibited the use of chemical
weapons, chemical agents have been deployed continually, notably in World War II,
Vietnam, and in the Gulf War.3 The international community has gone to great lengths to
prevent the spread of chemical and biological weapons, but their use continues to
devastate human lives.
These biological
weapons can originate from
various bacteria, viruses,
toxins, rickettsia, fungi, and in
combinations.4While many
believe that the anthrax virus
serves as the most blatant
weapon by bioterrorists, due to
its reputation and capability to
infect masses on a relatively
Photo Credit: http://healthyamericans.org/reports/bioterror08/
short time scale, the smallpox
virus, Sever Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), plague, tularemia, viral hemorrhagic
fevers, Q fever, and epidemic typhus have all become prime candidates for attacks
involving bio weaponry in part due to their readily availability.5
The Center for Disease Control categorizes chemical weapons into several
classifications by the type of chemical or its effects. These include: biotoxins, blister
agents, blood agents, caustics (acids), pulmonary agents, incapacitating agents, longacting anticoagulants, metals, nerve agents, riot control agents (tear gas), toxic alcohols,
and vomiting agents.6
A Long History
It was not until the twentieth century that we saw an increase in the magnitude
and level of devastation brought on by biological warfare, much of which was at the
hands of non-state actors. In March of 1995, the Japanese militant group Aum Shinrikyo
2
Grossman, Zoltan. “The Pot Calling the Kettle Black: A Short History of Biochemical Weapons.”
September 2, 2013. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/02/a-short-history-of-bio-chemical-weapons/.
3 Ibid.
4 Hilleman, Maurice R. "Overview: Cause and Prevention in Biowarfare and Bioterrorism." 2002. Vaccine
20 (25): 3055-3067.
5
Ibid.
6
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Surveillance for Bioterrorism.” 2013.
http://emergency.cdc.gov/bioterrorism/surveillance.asp
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
opened containers of liquefied sarin on five different subway cars in Tokyo, killing 12
people.7 In another act of bioterrorism, U.S. officials discovered that members of a cult
founded by Guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh in Oregon spread salmonella bacteria over
salad bars and coffee creamers in various Oregon restaurants, injuring over 750 people in
19848. Many foreign governments suspect the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda to be
maintaining chemical and biological labs at facilities throughout the Middle East. As the
threat of terrorism increases, so does the threat of chemical and biological warfare.
However, it is not only non-state actors whose possession and use of chemical
weapons have posed a threat to international security and human lives. German spies
infected the livestock of Allied forces with anthrax during World War I, and in 1918, the
Japanese essentially began a biological warfare program as they acquired massive
stockpiles and experimented on prisoners of war, where they later would poison Soviet
water sources and release bacterial plague into Chinese villages over the course of World
War II.9 After witnessing the massive acquisition of chemical stockpiles by Japan, other
European countries were quick to follow suit to fortify heir biological weapons programs.
The U.S. began vast research into bio weaponry during and after World War II, but all
stockpiles were eventually destroyed in 1969 by a signed executive order from President
Nixon.10 Despite the signing of the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972, Russia
intensified its efforts into its bio weapons programs well into the 1990s, even dispensing
“yellow rain” toxins to allies they supported.11 Even after the accidental but disastrous
release of anthrax from a Soviet military compound in Sverdlovsk in 1979 that killed
hundreds, Russia continued to increase their production capacity of anthrax and
strengthen its supply of chemical agents.12 Additionally, Iraq admitted to violating the
BWC, although it was one of the ratifying nations, when it conducted research into the
offensive use of several toxins and deploying weapons filled with anthrax and biotoxins
in 1991.13
Past UN Action
The Geneva Protocol signed in 1925 was the first mechanism to prohibit first use
of biological and chemical agents in warfare, but it did not put into place any mechanism
for ensuring compliance.14 Because there was no direct prevention mechanism, the
protocol did not have a significant effect on the proliferation of chemical and biological
7
"Century of Biological and Chemical Weapons." BBC News - Home. 25 Sept. 2001.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1562534.stm.
8
Goebel, Greg. "[4.0] A History Of Biological Warfare (2) / CB Terrorism." Vectorsite. Greg Global
Public Domain. http://www.vectorsite.net/twgas_4.html.
9
Houston Department of Health and Human Services. “Definition, History, and Threat of Bioterrorism.”
http://www.houstontx.gov/health/OSPHP/Definition%20History%20and%20Threats%20of%20Bioterroris
m.pdf.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid.
13
Ibid.
14
"PROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS,
OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE (GENEVA
PROTOCOL)." Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes. Center for
Nonproliferation Studies. http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/inventory/pdfs/genev.pdf.
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
weapons.15 The most significant action by the U.N. came in 1972 when 22 states signed
the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), which entered into force in March 1975 and
banned the development, production, acquisition, transfer, and stockpiling of biological
and toxin weapons.16 Interestingly, at the BWC’s inception in 1972, the United States and
the Soviet Union held the only publicly known biological weapons stockpiles.17 The
intended role of the BWC, now ratified by 170 states with the addition of Malawi in April
2013, was serving a complimentary role to the tenets of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.18 To
resolve the dilemma of enforcing compliance, if a party finds that another state is not
complying with the standards of the treaty, under the BWC, they may file a complaint
with the UN Security Council.19 The BWC seeks to eliminate large quantities of
pathogens and toxins and its transfer systems.
The BWC’s Article Twelve requires a review conference every five years. There
have been seven review conferences thus far, producing moderate results. At the second
review conference in September 1986, BWC state parties adopted Confidence Building
Measures to increase the effectiveness of the BWC. The (CBMs) included directives to
“exchange information on abnormal outbreaks,” “exchange data on high-containment
research centers,” and “promote scientific contact.”20 In response to the threat of
biological warfare in the first Gulf War, state parties of the third review conference in
September 1991 created a group of governmental experts (VEREX) for the purpose of
reaching a consensus on a compliance verification mechanism.21 VEREX submitted its
findings in a report in 1993, further suggesting the need that a multi-combatant approach
be undertaken to enforce the BWC22. The Sixth Review conference in 2006 set up an
Implementation Support Unit for the Convention, which provided “administrative support
and assistance” and “support and assistance for obtaining universality.”23 The Seventh
Review Conference “reaffirms that under all circumstances the use of bacteriological
(biological) and toxin weapons is effectively prohibited by the Convention and affirms
15
"The Great Chemical Weapons Hoax." Internationalist Group -- Reforge the Fourth International!
http://www.internationalist.org/chemwarhoax0503a.html.
16
"BTWC: Text of the Convention." The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Website.
http://www.opbw.org/convention/conv.html.
17
"The Bio Weapons Convention." CDI - Center for Defense Information - Security Policy Research
Organization. http://www.cdi.org/issues/cbw/bwc.html.
18 Ibid
19
"The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) At A Glance | Arms Control Association." Arms Control
Association | The Authoritative Source on Arms Control since 1971.
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc.
20
"PROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS,
OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE (GENEVA
PROTOCOL)." Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes. Center for
Nonproliferation Studies. http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/inventory/pdfs/genev.pdf.
21
"Biological Weapons Convention." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World.
http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Bio/BioSecondPageBWC.shtml.
22
"Biological Weapons Convention: Executive Summary." Defenselink.
http://www.dod.gov/acq/acic/treaties/bwc/execsum.htm.
23
"Sixth Review Conference of the State Parties to the Biological Weapons Convention." United Nations
Office at Geneva, Nov. 2006.
http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/12F9BC8D8F5DB0B6C12571A200318F92/$file/B
WC_Backgrounder.pdf.
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
the determination of States parties to condemn any use of biological agents or toxins
other than for peaceful purposes, by anyone at any time.”24
Another pivotal breakthrough came in 1992 when, the UN General Assembly
approved the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The CWC prohibits the
“development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer, and use of chemical
weapons” and advocates for the destruction of all chemical weapons and even routine
evaluations of chemical plants.25 Currently, the international community has destroyed
about 81% of the recognized chemical weapons stockpile, with 189 states having ratified
the convention.26 Notable non-members of the convention are suspecting of harboring
chemical weapons including Egypt, Israel, North Korea, and Syria, although the Syrian
government has agreed to
provisional status into the
CWC after alleged use of
chemical weapons on its
own people.
While the objectives
of both the CWC and the
BWC enjoy moderate
success, many problems
still remain. Both the CWC
and BWC still lack an
effective international
compliance verification
Chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia
mechanism.27 Both state
Photo credit http://www.parsons.com/SiteCollectionImages/content/0909-russianchem-main.jpg
and non-state actors still
hold existing stockpiles that
cannot be identified and destroyed without a verification regime. As with many
international treaties, there are also many inconsistencies between the provisions of the
CWC, the BWC, and the domestic chemical and biological weapons policy of state
parties.28 Both conventions also experienced difficulties in regards to the limits of on-site
inspections.29 The state parties of the BWC and the CWC must also find a way to
increase Convention membership so that universality is ensured. As advances in
biosciences and biotechnology continue to increase the threat of biological and chemical
United Nations Office at Geneva. “Seventh Review Conference of Biological Weapons Convention
Adopts Final Document and Concludes Session.” December 22 2011.
http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/925929F5F28485EAC125796E0
064AD82?OpenDocument.
25
"BTWC: Text of the Convention." The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Website.
http://www.opbw.org/convention/conv.html.
26
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. “Demilitarisation.” 2013.
http://www.opcw.org/our-work/demilitarisation/.
27
Tucker, Jonathan B. "The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Challenges and Solutions."
Monterey Institute of International Studies, Apr. 2001. http://cns.miis.edu/reports/pdfs/tuckcwc.pdf.
28
Goebel, Greg. "[4.0] A History Of Biological Warfare (2) / CB Terrorism." Vectorsite. Greg Global
Public Domain. http://www.vectorsite.net/twgas_4.html.
29
Tucker, Jonathan B. "The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Challenges and Solutions."
Monterey Institute of International Studies, Apr. 2001. http://cns.miis.edu/reports/pdfs/tuckcwc.pdf.
24
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
warfare, the international community must work to create effective compliance
verification, guarantee full compliance, and ensure universal membership.
A Growing Risk
It is clearly evident that developments in bioweapons have thoroughly evolved in
recent years due to advancements in modern technology, and the number of parties
actively engaged in pursuing bio weaponry for offensive purposes is still a dozen and
growing.30 One of the greatest dangers the international community currently faces is the
threat of biological and chemical weapon use by non-state actors, mainly terrorist and
insurgent groups. The fact that several governments sponsored terrorist groups in past
conflicts by providing the financial backing needed by the insurgency groups further
exacerbates this danger. The governments of Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq are just some of the
recognized nations providing financial backing and refuge to known terrorist groups
while private benefactors in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia also contribute to these groups’
efforts.31 Additionally, it is increasingly hard to prevent the spread of such weapons and
to identify those countries that are stockpiling these chemical agents as weapons because
chemical and biological materials have diverse purposes and are vital to medical research
and protection. 32 Since the infamous anthrax attacks in the United States in 2001,
spending, regarding research on “medical defense” in many countries has dramatically
increased33
Additional problems arise due to the ease in which chemical and biological
weapons can be released. Ballistic missiles, rocket launchers, aircrafts, and manual
dispersion can dispatch chemical and biological weapons. 34 While many methods of
chemical and biological weapons dispersion require the expertise and skill of national
armed forces, there are several methods that require very little manpower and come at a
relatively low financial cost. In total, the relative ease in which bioweapons can be
attained and their ability to affect the masses over large geographic areas in very small
concentrations make them the ideal choice for terrorists groups.
Recent Developments: The Syrian Situation
While the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, Chemical Weapons
Convention of 1993, Ad Hoc Group, the 2006 Sixth Review Conference, and smaller
subsequent conventions may have reduced state supported pursuits of biological agents,
recent years have shown an increase in smaller factions and rogue groups advancing their
own agendas through exploring bio weaponry. After long suspicions of Syria harboring
some of the most advanced chemical weapons in the Middle East, rockets containing the
30
Hilleman, Maurice R. 2002. "Overview: Cause and Prevention in Biowarfare and
Bioterrorism." Vaccine 20 (25): 3055-3067.
31 “Terrorism: Major Terrorist Groups.” 2013. http://www.towson.edu/polsci/ppp/sp97/terror/groups.html.
32 Kerr, Paul Korski. "Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: Status and Trends."
Federation of American Scientists, 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL30699.pdf.
33
Bellamy, R. J., and A. R. Freedman. 2001. "Bioterrorism." QJM 94, No. 4: 227-234.
34
Kerr, Paul Korski. "Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: Status and Trends."
Federation of American Scientists, 20 Feb. 2008. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.Devastation in Syria
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL30699.pdf.
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
chemical sarin hit the suburbs of Damascus, Syria on August 23, 2013 killing hundreds
and injuring thousands.35
UN
investigations
concluded that the rockets did
indeed contain high quality sarin
and, Syria launched the rockets
from areas under governmental
control.
While
Syrian’s
government under President
Bashar
al-Assad
and
the
opposition forces blame each
other for the chemical attack, the
European Union, Arab League,
and United States cite evidence
that points to the Syrian Destruction in Damascus, Syria
Credit:
government’s forces. Much Photo
http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/AP_syria_crisis_lt_130825_1
debate has risen in the 6x9_992.jpg
international community on
whether military action should be taken against Syria, with President Obama currently
appealing to the public and Congress to support drone strikes against Syria despite
wavering criticisms of intelligence reports by the U.N. and United States from members
of Congress. While the international community condemned the attacks, states and
individuals within those states have mixed views on the potential for military
intervention.
On November 1, 2013, Syria met a deadline to disable or render inoperable all of
its declared chemical weapons production and facilities after facing threats of military
intervention from the United States.36 Additionally, the Organisation for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) inspected nearly all of Syria’s production facilities,
certifying the safety of these facilities and verifying their inventories. While peace talks
between Syria and several nations remain ongoing and slow moving, President Bashar alAssad still has access to substantial amounts of conventional weapons. 37 Meanwhile the
current state of the country remains in havoc with news of Israeli attacks on Syrian
military bases alleged to be harboring Russian missiles and outbreaks of polio and other
highly contagious diseases.38
Cause for Immediate Action and Preparedness
Proponents of immediate action in increasing awareness and defense have
expressed interest in a variety of methods to combat rising threats. Some highly advocate
the further development and use of a surveillance system that can chart outbreaks to
“Bodies still being found after alleged Syria chemical attack: opposition.” The Daily Star. Lebanon:
August 22, 2013. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Aug-22/228268-bodies-still-beingfound-after-alleged-syria-chemical-attack-opposition.ashx#axzz2chzutFua
36
Evans, Dominic “Syria meets deadline to destroy chemical production facilities.” October 31, 2013.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/31/us-syria-crisis-chemical-idUSBRE99U08N20131031
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
35
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
reduce fatalities.39 Others, including nonaligned international agents, express interest in
setting an international standard for defense, such as developing vaccines and antibiotics,
and trying to prevent attacks in war and on a domestic front.40 Many express the urgency
in recognizing these ongoing issues and point to the fact that bioweapons are inexpensive
to produce, readily available, possess a large capability to affect masses, and can spread
quickly over large geographic distances. These serve as dangerous advantages for
terrorist groups that are set on inflicting harm. Bioterrorism and the threat of chemical
weapons are escalating crises that pose a great threat to international security and human
lives. Therefore, preparation is key when responding to the threat of biological weapons.
The CDC has implemented thorough guidelines for shipment of specific
pathogens that may be used as bioterrorism agents and NGO’s have invested much
money into research on diminishing the severity of potential chemical attacks.41
Additionally, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the Department of Defense, the
American Red Cross are just a few of the organizations that distribute preparatory
information and actively train individuals and first responders for potential attacks
brought on by biological warfare.42
Questions to Consider
1. How can the UN regulate the manufacturing and development of biological
weapons? Is this even the UN’s responsibility or should this responsibility lie
within the governments of the individual state?
2. How can the UN discern the differences between biological materials that are
potentially terroristic threats and those that are also used in developing vaccines
for medicinal purposes?
3. Are any states currently violating withstanding policies and what actions should
be taken against those who violate international agreements?
4. Should an international agency whose sole purpose is to monitor the development
of biological weapons be created and if so, what are its provisions?
5. What can be done to halt the acquisition of chemical weapons by non-state
actors?
6. What action should be taken against Syria? What measures should be taken to
prevent this event from ever reoccurring?
39
Bravata, Dena M, Kathryn M McDonald, Wendy M Smith, Chara Rydzak, Herbert
Szeto, David L Buckeridge, Corinna Haberland, and Douglas K Owens. June 1 2004. "Systematic Review:
Surveillance Systems for Early Detection of Bioterrorism-Related Diseases." Annals Of Internal Medicine
140, No. 11: 910-922.
40 Ibid.
41
Houston Department of Health and Human Services. “Definition, History, and Threat of Bioterrorism.”
http://www.houstontx.gov/health/OSPHP/Definition%20History%20and%20Threats%20of%20Bioterroris
m.pdf.
42
Ibid.
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
II. Cyber Security
Introduction
The internet is an absolute necessity, an incontrovertible means of
communication, and an infinite source of knowledge in the modern era.
Governments, businesses, institutions, and individuals all make up the global
community of Internet users and rely on it as an
essential feature to accomplish any and all tasks
in today’s world. Cyberspace makes it possible
for international businesses and governments to
quickly and efficiently conduct business,
manage crucial infrastructure, and run social
networks that have become the center of
knowledge communication, and media.43 Global
Internet usage increased from 360 million to
over 2 billion from 2000 to 2010, and its continued expansion makes it a central
focal point of the global economy.44
This vast computer-networking infrastructure is used to control computer
networks, control towers, railroad operations, telephone systems, power supply
stations, and stock exchanges not only on a national level but a global one. Thus,
cyber security has become a heightened issue to all technologically connected
states as well as the institutions and corporations that work within them. The
potential for cyber attacks have dramatically increased in part due to the rising
proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the ease
of information exchange.45 Additionally, the increase of cyberspace operations in
frequency and sophistication and the rise of small group or individuals engaged in
malicious cyber activity creates a very real threat to global security, capturing the
attention of the international community and its realization for collective action.46
Cyber Crime
Cyberspace is described as the “systems and services connected either directly to
or indirectly to the Internet, telecommunications and computer networks.”47 The
growing importance of the protection of cyberspace stems from the ideological notion
that it is the government’s responsibility to protect the life and property of its citizens
as well as to maintain order, all of which pertain to its use.48 Threats to cyber-related
infrastructure and individuals continue to increase annually, with reportedly 431
Department of Defense. “Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.” July 2011. 1-13. PDF.
Ibid.
45
United Nations Department of Ecomic and Social Affairs. “Cybersecurity: A global issue demanding a
global approach. New York, December 2011.
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/ecosoc/cybersecurity-demands-global-approach.html.
46
Dr. Frederick Wamala, The ITU National Cybersecurity Strategy Guide, September 2011. Geneva,
Switzerland. 5-119. PDF.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
43
44
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
million adults victims affected around the world in 2011.49 Therefore, it is not
surprising that cybercrime has now become a profitable market, which “exceeds a
trillion dollars annually in online fraud, identity theft, and lost intellectual property.”50
Cyber crimes also pose a unique threat to international security. As the world’s
web communications have grown, so has the legal scope and understanding of how
cyber crimes are to be considered and prosecuted. Current laws are underwhelming
inadequate, making legal proceedings dense and circuitous. Additionally, the shear
quickness in which cyber attacks can be carried out makes it hard to prevent and even
harder to find those who are behind it.51 Cyber attacks have become so advanced that
even those with the most secure systems are subject to victimization. Some of the
most high-profile companies that were victims to cyber attacks include Google, Sony,
Lockheed Martin, PBS, and Citibank.52 Likely many more attacks a year go
unreported as companies try to maintain a favorable reputation and avoid legal
issues.53
One of the biggest concerns lies in advanced persistent threats (APTs), which are
more malicious in nature, rarely publically disclosed, and largely seek to acquire
secrets and intellectual property.54 The victims of these types of attacks are often high
profile governments, military organizations, and international institutions. Organized
criminals, terrorists, and insurgents have a virtually new offensive domain in which
they can carry out their harmful practices and disrupt government operations. Thus,
cyber security has now evolved into a crucial matter of national security. Also, a huge
risk is posed in the way in which cyber attacks can escalate. What is to prevent
successful hackers from continuing their criminal activity and repeatedly pursuing the
same or even more high profile targets? This escalation would be nothing short of
cyber warfare, and the success of some parties would encourage other insurgents,
creating a harmful trend. Therefore, efforts to secure the World Wide Web against
cyber attacks from hackers, terrorists, private profit-driven groups, or the states
themselves, whether it is for espionage or cyber warfare, are crucial to protecting
international infrastructure.
A Brief History and Notable Breaches
Since the creation of the Internet, there have been those who have sought to
manipulate it for their own personal advantages.55 Even before the development of the
personal computer, computerized phone systems were subject to attacks by those
United Nations Department of Ecomic and Social Affairs. “Cybersecurity: A global issue demanding a
global approach. New York, December 2011.
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/ecosoc/cybersecurity-demands-global-approach.html.
50
Ibid.
51
Dr. Frederick Wamala, The ITU National Cybersecurity Strategy Guide, September 2011. Geneva,
Switzerland. 5-119. PDF.
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
James, Randy. “A Brief History of Cybercrime.” June 1, 2009. TIME Magazine.
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1902073,00.html.
49
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
labeled “phone freaks.”56 These individuals would find loopholes in the system where
they would proceed to make unlimited free phone calls and disrupt the entire
system.57
Cyber warfare essentially dates back to the development of the tapeworm program
in the 1970s by engineer and inventor of the Ethernet, John Shoch.58 The program
was accidentally leaked and released network worms across the globe seeking to gain
information and control.59 These original network worms still partially exist and
evolved into more sophisticated and advanced cyber weapons. This has contributed to
illegal botnets (a network of compromised internet connected computers that can be
controlled by a remote user and is used for malicious purposes) that are specifically
engaged to run malicious attacks.60 However, it was the Morris worm that was the
first recognized to have been a threat. It spread around computers largely in the
United States and slowed computers down to the point where they were ineffectual.61
Hackers in 2006 found wormholes (a vulnerability which opens up a system to worms
that operate or infect a computer system) in Microsoft’s system, which allowed them
to create zombie computers, which remote hackers could control.
The first series of coordinated attacks and APTs (advanced persisted threats), later
called Titan Rain, occurred in 2003 against the United State’s national government
systems and sensitive networks of Lockheed Martin. These attacks that continued for
at least three years are speculated to be of Chinese origin, most likely the result of
Chinese military hackers seeking to gain information on the U.S.62 In April 2007,
Estonia, following a feud with Russia, found its government networks disrupted and
online banking was halted after harassment from unknown foreign entities.63 (See
Figure 2.1 at the end for a list of additional notable breaches in cyber security
composed by NATO Review Magazine.)64
Additionally, in the last decade, there has been an increase in the number of
information leaks. WikiLeaks, an online non-profit international organization whose
self-proclaimed goal is “to bring important news and information to the public” and
serve as an “uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking" has caused
controversy through its release of sensitive information.65 Reactions to the leaks range
from condemnation (mainly from those who the leaks directly relate to) and a global
56
57
Ibid.
Ibid.
58
Fosnock, Craig. Computer Worms: Past, Present, and Future. N.d. East Carolina University.
Ibid.
60
Ramneek, Puri. "Bots &; Botnet: An Overview" (PDF). SANS Institute. August 8, 2013.
61
Nato Review Magazine. “Cyber Timeline.” 2013.
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/Cyber/timeline/EN/.
62
Hall, Kevin. “The 7 Worst Cyberattacks in History (that we know about).” September 22, 2010.
http://www.dvice.com/archives/2010/09/7_of_the_most_d.php.
63 Nato Review Magazine. “Cyber Timeline.” 2013.
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/Cyber/timeline/EN/.
59
64
65
Ibid.
WikiLeaks. “What is WikiLeaks?” 2013. http://wikileaks.ch.
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
financial blockade by major finance companies to praise for increasing transparency
and championing the democratic ideal of free speech. The organization’s leaking of
the Afghan War logs, Guantanamo Bay procedures, Iraq War logs, and Syria files are
some of its most significant leaks. In June 2014, former NSA employee Edward
Snowden leaked classified details of several top-secret United States and British
government mass surveillance programs to the British Paper The Guardian. Like the
WikiLeaks organization, his actions have been the subject of praise while others
condemn him as a traitor who exposed confidential national secrets. The issue of
leaking confidential information raises the question whether this violates international
law, national law, or whether this is an inherent right of free speech.
Past U.N. Action
The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the U.N.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), and the U.N. agency
International Telecommunications Union (ITU) are the leaders in addressing issues of
cyber security and its international protection. These groups have worked to influence
international policy makers, increase international awareness, fight cybercrime, and
increase child online
protection. The ITU was a
leading facilitator of the
World Summit on the
Information Society in
Geneva in 2003 and Tunis
in 2005.66 The ITU, which
is made up of 193 member
nations and 700 private
sector institutions, again
rose to the forefront as the
General Assembly I Meeting on Environment 2007
facilitator of the World
Photo Credit:
Conference on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_meeting_on_environment_at_G
International
eneral_Assembly.jpg
Telecommunications 2012
in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.67 Although the conference was not held to
specifically address cyber crime, it did address international rules for
telecommunications and creation of a global coalition to monitor cyber activity.68
However, only 89 of 152 voting nations signed the amendments to the ITU’s
proposal, with many viewing these proposals as a negative threat to the freedom of
the Internet.
One of the most significant actions taken by the U.N. on cyber security came
on December 21, 2009 when the UN’s General Assembly adopted Resolution 64/211:
World Summit on the Information Society. “Basic Information About WSIS.” 2006.
http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/about.html.
67
ITU “Membership.” 2013. http://www.itu.int/en/about/Pages/default.aspx.
68
Ibid.
66
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
creation of a global culture of cyber security and taking stock of national efforts to
protect critical information infrastructures at their 64th session.69 It suggested each
nation work on protecting vital digital infrastructures, emphasized the cooperation
between governmental and non-governmental organizations, and recommended
initiatives regarding the investigation and prosecution of cyber related attacks.70
Additionally, the U.N.’s significant strides to hosting a cyber weapons convention as
well as the U.N. Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice’s establishment
of an intergovernmental expert group on cyber security in 2010 are just a few of the
necessary first steps to combat the escalating threat of cybercrime.
Questions to Consider
1. What action can be taken to strengthen international infrastructure to secure it
from potential cyber attacks?
2. What can be done to prevent terrorists and insurgent groups from acquiring the
technological means to commit cyber attacks?
3. What can be done to stop the escalation of cyber attacks to all out cyber
warfare?
4. Has your country been a victim of a cyber attack? What means do you have to
thwart future attacks?
5. Should an international agency be created under the U.N. whose sole purpose
is to monitor global cyber security? What would be its provisions?
6. To what extent should corporations, such as WikiLeaks, private groups, and
even individuals that leak confidential information, be punished or if at all?
Does this violate national security or is it a matter of free speech?
7. What defines a malicious cyber attack? Does an international standard for
cyber security need to be written? What clarifications need to be made?
8. Under what conditions is it the UN’s responsibility to regulate member
nations’ use of the Internet without infringing on their national sovereignty?
United Nations General Assembly. “Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 21 December
2009.” http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/211
70
Ibid.
69
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
Figure 2.1*
Time of Occurrence
December 2006
June 2007
October 2007
Summer 2008
August 2008
71Nato
Review Magazine. “Cyber Timeline.” 2013.
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/Cyber/timeline/EN/.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid.
74
Ibid
Description
“NASA was forced to block emails
with attachments before shuttle
launches out of fear they would be
hacked.
Business Week reported that the plans
for the latest US space launch
vehicles were obtained by unknown
foreign intruders.”71
“The US Secretary of Defense’s
unclassified email account was
hacked by unknown foreign intruders
as part of a larger series of attacks to
access and exploit the Pentagon's
networks.”72
“China’s Ministry of State Security
said that foreign hackers, which it
claimed 42% came from Taiwan and
25% from the US, had been stealing
information from Chinese key areas.
In 2006, when the China Aerospace
Science & Industry Corporation
(CASIC) intranet network was
surveyed, spywares were found in the
computers of classified departments
and corporate leaders.”73
“The databases of both Republican
and Democratic presidential
campaigns were hacked and
downloaded by unknown foreign
intruders.”74
“Computer networks in Georgia were
hacked by unknown foreign intruders
around the time that the country was
in conflict with Russia. Graffiti
appeared on Georgian government
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
websites. There was little or no
disruption of services but the hacks
did put political pressure on the
Georgian government and appeared to
be coordinated with Russian military
actions.”75
January 2009
January 2010
October 2010
January 2011
75
Ibid.
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.
76
“Hackers attacked Israel’s internet
infrastructure during the January 2009
military offensive in the Gaza Strip.
The attack, which focused on
government websites, was executed
by at least 5,000,000 computers.
Israeli officials believed the attack
was carried out by a criminal
organisation based in a former Soviet
state, and paid for by Hamas or
Hezbollah.” 76
“A group named the "Iranian Cyber
Army” disrupted the service of the
popular Chinese search engine Baidu.
Users were redirected to a page
showing an Iranian political message.
The same “Iranian Cyber Army” had
hacked into Twitter the previous
December, with a similar message.”77
“Stuxnet, a complex piece of malware
designed to interfere with Siemens
industrial control systems, was
discovered in Iran, Indonesia, and
elsewhere, leading to speculation that
it was a government cyber weapon
aimed at the Iranian nuclear
program”78
“The Canadian government reported a
major cyber attack against its
agencies, including Defense Research
and Development Canada, a research
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
July 2011
October 2012
March 2013
agency for Canada's Department of
National Defense. The attack forced
the Finance Department and Treasury
Board, Canada’s main economic
agencies, to disconnect from the
Internet.”79
“In a speech unveiling the
Department of Defense’s cyber
strategy, the US Deputy Secretary of
Defense mentioned that a defense
contractor was hacked and 24,000
files from the Department of Defense
were stolen.”80
“The Russian firm Kaspersky
discovered a worldwide cyber-attack
dubbed “Red October,” that had been
operating since at least 2007.
Hackers gathered information through
vulnerabilities in Microsoft’s Word
and Excel programs. The primary
targets of the attack appear to be
countries in Eastern Europe, the
former USSR and Central Asia,
although Western Europe and North
America reported victims as well.
The virus collected information from
government embassies, research
firms, military installations, energy
providers, nuclear and other critical
infrastructures.”81
“South Korean financial institutions
had their networks infected in an
incident said to resemble past cyber
efforts by North Korea.”82
*Chart taken directly from Nato Review Magazine. “Cyber Timeline.” 2013.
http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2013/Cyber/timeline/EN/. See website for further information.
79
Ibid.
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
80
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
III. Nuclear Proliferation: Iran and North Korea
Introduction
After the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, the spread of
nuclear weapons and capabilities has been limited to just a few states, namely, the five
permanent members of the Security Council in China, Russia, France, the United
Kingdom, and the United States of America. However, since then, the nations of Israel,
Pakistan, and India have developed their nuclear capabilities and, with the exception of
Israel, have documented nuclear weapons83. In addition to these countries, North Korea
and Iran are seeking to develop their nuclear programs with the hope that they can use
them for peaceful purposes, or, according to other countries, perhaps something more
sinister.8485
North Korea has already produced a nuclear device despite heavy sanctions
imposed upon them by both the United States and UN as a whole. The world perceives
North Korea as a stable but unpredictable nation that might become even more dangerous
with their continued development of a weapons arsenal. The newest “Dear Leader”
possesses one of the world’s largest armies and an increasingly stagnant economy86,
striking a tenuous balance between civilian and military establishments, fostering a fear
in developed countries regarding North Korea’s nuclear program.
Iran is also seeking to create a nuclear weapon and have publicly stated that they
wish to see Israel “wiped off of the map”87. While Iran has said many times that their
nuclear ambitions are purely peaceful in nature, the US and several other major powers
have blocked their attempts at nuclear power through heavy economic sanctions.
However, with a recent change of president, there might be a change in tone in regards to
nuclear negotiations.
Past UN Action
The UN has already placed massive economic sanctions on both Iran and North
Korea, with the former having already successfully detonated a nuclear device in 2009. In
both instances, the UN quickly passed measures condemning their actions88 89. These
actions were consistent with a pattern of North Korean aggression followed by world
condemnation and sanctions. North Korea often took action during periods of political
transition, with the test in 2009 following Kim Jong-Il's stroke and issues surrounding the
Federation of American Scientists “Status of World Nuclear Forces”
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html
84
Nuclear Threat Initiative: “Country Profile: Iran”
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iran/
85
Nuclear Threat Initiative: “Country Profile: North Korea”
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/north-korea/
86
Global Firepower “Active Military Personnel by Country”
http://www.globalfirepower.com/active-military-manpower.asp
87
New York Times “Wipe Israel ‘Off of the Map’ says Iranian”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/26/world/africa/26iht-iran.html?_r=0
88
UNSC Resolution 1874
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9679.doc.htm
89
UNSC Resolution 2094
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2013/sc10934.doc.htm
83
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
naming of his son, Kim Jong-Un, as his successor90. Two tests occurred in 2012, one in
April and another in December, in what is believed to be an attempt for Kim-Jong Un to
consolidate power.91
North Korea’s ally, China, has often hampered UN sanctions against North Korea,
but yet, the most recent round of sanctions was drafted by the United States with
assistance from China, further illustrating North Korea's increasing
isolation in the international community92. In the past, only sanctions
that can be directly attributed to the development of nuclear and
ballistic capabilities passed against North Korea93. China has blocked
stricter sanctions, as they have been hesitant to economically shackle
their neighbor through energy and economic sanctions; however, these
hesitations haven't stopped the United States from both cutting off aid
to the country and increasing sanctions of their own94.
The UN has taken a significantly larger role in sanctions
imposed against Iran. The United States has pushed through stiff
sanctions that severely limit the sale of any items that might be used
for nuclear production. Russia and China, both longtime supporters of
the Iranian government, have begun to back away from Iran as it
became more belligerent and aggressive with their pursuit of nuclear
technology. However, the effect of sanctions are being called into
question as they are increasingly affecting the average citizen and
appear to have little effect on the production capabilities of the
Photo Credit:
government95.
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1
792941.ece/ALTERNATES/s927b/CS37
691523TO-GO-WITH-NKorea1792941.jpg
Iran’s Nuclear Past
In February 2003, Iran revealed their first nuclear development
site, compliant with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, claiming
that the site would only be used for peaceful purposes, but the United States believed that
Iran was using this site as a cover for developing nuclear weapons96. Iran proceeded to
open up these sites to IAEA inspections; however this didn't prevent the UNSC from
passing sanctions. In 2006, the UNSC passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend
all nuclear related activities within two months. This resolution promised increased
Time Magazine “Kim Jong-Il's Death: North Korea Waits for Kim Jong-Un to Consolidate Power”
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2102781,00.html
91
CNN: “Power Consolidation inside North Korea”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/25/world/north-korea-power-consolodation/
92
New York Times “New Sanctions on North Korea Pass in Unified UN Vote”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/world/asia/north-korea-warns-of-pre-emptive-nuclearattack.html?_r=0
93
New York Times “China Looms Over Response to Nuclear Test by North Korea”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/world/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test.html?hp&_r=0
94
Congressional Research Service “Foreign Assistance to North Korea”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf
95
Reuters “Analysis: Harsher US sanctions on Iranian Oil sales may have little effect”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-usa-iran-sanctions-idUSBRE98G1D720130917
96
Global Policy Forum “UN Sanctions Against Iran”
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security-council/index-of-countries-on-the-security-council-agenda/iran.html
90
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
sanctions for non-compliance, and when Iran failed to submit, the sanctions went into full
effect97.
While there have been multiple attempts at negotiations between Iran and the
West, they have previously stalled due to disagreements in the scope and purpose of
Iranian production. Negotiations have also stalled due to a history of conflict between the
United States and Iran. Iranians trace their grievances back to the 1953 CIA sponsored
coup of democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and the CIAinstalled government of the Shah. For the United States, the 1979 capture of the
American embassy in Tehran and holding the embassy workers there for 444 days is still
one of the biggest problems in relations with Iran98.
With the election of a new moderate President in Iran, this may represent a new
direction for negotiations. President Hassan Rouhani has already made significant strides
with the international community by both acknowledging the Holocaust and wishing the
Jews a happy and safe Rosh Hashanah99. Immediately following this, a phone call took
place between the two Presidents and a meeting between the two foreign ministers, these
actions representing a significant improvement in relations between Iran and the United
States100.
North Korea’s Nuclear Past
The North Korean desire for nuclear weapons has existed for far longer in North
Korea than it has in Iran. After North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty in 1993, the global community has been dealing with Korean
ambitions and has largely responded with near unanimous condemnation of their actions.
With missile tests occurring initially in 1993 and continuing every few years afterward,
most recently in 2012, the North Korean government has increasingly cut itself off from
the rest of the world, both willingly and unwillingly101102.
The world saw the assent of Kim Jong-Un to the Presidency after his
father’s death as an opportunity for a potential improvement in relations with the
Koreans103. However, his actions proved otherwise with a drastic increase in weapons
testing and nuclear saber rattling104. North Korea has also begun to pass some of the
97
UNSC Resolution 1747
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc8980.doc.htm
98
United States Institute of Peace “Negotiating with Iran: Questions and Answers”
http://www.usip.org/publications-tools/negotiating-iran/negotiating-iran-questions-and-answers
99
The Guardian “Iranian President tweets Rosh Hashanah Blessing to Jews”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/iranian-president-rosh-hashanah-blessing
100
CNN “It's a three-decade first: Presidents of US, Iran talk directly, if only by phone”
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/27/politics/us-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
101
New York Times “Missile Is Tested by North Koreans”
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/13/world/missile-is-tested-by-north-koreans.html
102
The Guardian “US Warns North Korea of Increased Isolation if Threats Escalate Further”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/29/us-condemns-north-korea-threats
103
Congressional Research Service “Kim Jong-Il's Death: Implications for North Korea's Stability and US
Policy”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42126.pdf
104
New York Times “North Korean Rocket Fails Moments after Liftoff”
UGAMUNC XX
General Assembly, 1st Committee
______________________________________________________________________________________
thresholds needed for launching a nuclear weapon at another state; among them the
ability to launch ICBMs105 and the successful use of domestically produced tools for
nuclear production106. These successful tests have created many problems for the
international community as they are beginning to indicate the sanctions might not have
worked in deterring the North Korean government from pursuing nuclear weapons.
While these gains mark significant strides in the development capacity of
North Korea, they've come at the expense of the citizens of North Korea, with the country
still experiencing famines on a semi-regular basis.
Questions to Consider
1. In a threatening international environment, why should North Korea and Iran be
forced to disarm?
2. With extensive sanctions already in place and pressure on the North Korean and
Iranian governments from all sides, what other measures can the UN take in order
ensure disarmament compliance?
3. If defense and peaceful purposes are the reasons cited for nuclear development,
what approaches should the international community take?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/world/asia/north-korea-launches-rocket-defying-worldwarnings.html?pagewanted=all
105 New York Times “Security Council Condemns North Korea Rocket Launching”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/world/asia/security-council-condemns-north-korea-rocketlaunching.html
106 New York Times “North Korea Learning to Make Crucial Nuclear Parts, Study Finds”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/world/asia/north-korea-learning-to-make-crucial-nuclearparts-study-finds.html?pagewanted=all