SANTA CLARA VALLEY MODEL UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE XXXVII
Topic Synopsis #1: Civil Unrest in Burma
I. Historical Summary
Burma’s short modern history has been filled with political unrest. Starting with independence from the United Kingdom in 1948, three main groups have emerged on the political scene. First and foremost, the military has been a major dominating force in Burma’s political history since a military coup in 1962 overthrew Burma’s last democracy. A National Convention has served as Burma’s legislative arm though de-facto authority stems from the military junta. Another important group in Burma’s political history has been the activism of its Buddhist monks, who hold a special place in Burma’s independence movement. The monks have made demands on behalf of the economic and social plight of a majority of the country’s impoverished population. A third force in Burmese politics is a group of educated democrats. This includes Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace prize winner and one of the leaders of the democracy movement. These three groups are instrumental in achieving political and military stability in Burma.
There have been frequent violations of human rights by the military-regime. One such violation is the recruitment of Burmese children to fight armed conflicts despite agreements to protect children's rights. The military government has also closed down school and has taken violent reaction towards student groups that have organized and opposed the government for its violations. In addition to imprisonment, women have also been the victim of sexual violation by the military remote areas such as homes of ethnic group. The National Convention has denied basic rights to its citizens by its refusal to draft a constitution despite a 10-year old promise to do so. The military junta has thus far obstructed any effort for foreign diplomats to engage in peaceful resolution and has scorned any activist organization within the national border.
II. UN Action
Starting in the summer of 2007, large-scale civil unrest re-ignited demands for democracy in Burma. What started as a series of limited protests of the impoverished has become a loosely organized but widespread movement against military rule. The government has responded with brutal retaliation. Efforts to test Burma's willingness to live up to its pledge to work with the world body have not been successful. U.N. Special Envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, was originally scheduled to deliver a formal briefing on his efforts to resolve the crisis at a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and other Asian leaders. But that briefing was called off amid opposition from Burma, which is a member of ASEAN.
United Nations action has been limited by the internal divisions of the Security Council. The topic of Myanmar was introduced in September 26, 2006[1]. Areas that were highlighted include: 1. Dissident prisoner releases, 2. Democratization, 3. Human rights, and 4. Greater access for humanitarian organizations. Additionally, the American government voiced concerns about the resettlement of minority refugees. A resolution aimed at criticizing Burma’s human rights record was vetoed by China and Russia and similarly opposed by South Africa in January of 2007[2]. South Africa’s opposition to Security Council action is important to note because the nation is considered as a leader among the bloc of third-world nations. Its opposition deals mostly with the jurisdiction of the UN Security Council to act on the issue. With regards to the double veto cast by Russia and China, the first since 1972, it highlighted the widening gap between the two nations and the United States on the appropriate steps to take on internal human rights issues. All nations agree that what is happening in Burma is tragic and must be addressed. However, disagreements arise over the extent of action that should take place with regards toward relations with the military junta: a hard-line approach versus an incremental approach.
III. Questions for Committee
In preparation for committee, please prepare a summary of your country’s position on the topic. Additionally, please be prepared to discuss the following questions in committee:
1. Among the three positions on human rights enforcement presented by Russia and China, the United States, and South Africa, where does your nation align their policy, if at all?
2. How can the United Nation continue influencing the Burmese government towards addressing the five topics listed above? What methods should be used in pursuit of these goals (i.e. trade sanctions, peacekeeping operations)?
3. What role should internal and external forces play in the pursuit of the UN’s goals? Specifically, how should the UN approach to the three internal forces within Burma? Other members of ASEAN?
Topic Synopsis #2: Stability in Pakistan
I. Historical Summary
After gaining independence from Great Britain in 1948, Pakistan has experienced significant economic, military and political growth all the while it has remained firmly grounded in Islamic tradition. In fact, many consider Pakistan to be a case study on the success of democratic regimes in the Middle East. Economically, the country’s GDP has grown at a rate of 7% (which is well beyond the global average) in the last five years, and is projected to do so again in 2007. Pakistan’s economic growth is modeled after India’s technology industry’s recent explosion and has resulted in the growth of an enlarging and secular middle-class. Militarily, it is the only military regime that possesses nuclear weapons. After September 11th, Pakistan has received over $4 billion in military aid from the United States to combat terror operations. Aside from its nuclear weapons, Pakistan possesses other advanced weapons that, if they fall into the wrong hands, may be problematic for the international community. Additionally, it is feared that members of the military may be affiliated to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda[3]. Politically, Pakistan has developed an advanced system of political parties like the Pakistan’s People Party led by former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the Muslim League led by former prime minister Awad Sharriff. These are among some of the groups that have been agitating for increased democratic reforms. These demands came to a head in a series of protests in 2007.
The civil unrest in 2007 showed the extent to which Pakistan’s political, military, and social forces are in conflict. Pakistan’s political forces clashed in a series of protests directed at the military leadership. Starting in March of 2007, with the dismissal of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaundry by General Pervez Musharraf, protests among lawyers and judges were ignited throughout the country. Though limited at first these protests grew in size and scope. After Musharraf declared a state of martial law, the military harshly suppressed the public demonstrations and resisted pleas made by the international community. Musharraf justified his actions by saying that the temporary setbacks in democracy were instrumental in maintaining law and order. Though elections were scheduled to take place and Musharraf himself re-elected (and promising to remove his military uniform), the underlying political conflicts as left Pakistan politically volatile as ever. This volatility presents immediate international threats to peace and security.
II. Past UN Action
Action with regards to Pakistan is limited as Pakistan has asserted that its internal political conflicts do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. Indeed, the Charter of the United Nations empowers the Security Council to “recommend” actions to member states in order to ensure peaceful settlement of disputes (Chapter 6). These actions are not binding to UN member states. Additionally, the Security Council can take actions to respond to threats or breaches to the peace, and any acts of aggression (Chapter 7). Actions falling under chapter seven are binding to all UN member states. For this reason, any possible UN action must be limited to areas of direct international conflict and/or if Pakistan (and other interested nations) agree that such international conflicts exist[4].
There are two main areas in which the UN has historically taken action and which present immediate international consequences. The first such issue is Pakistan’s nuclear stockpiles. Since Pakistan is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is not directly responsive to the IAEA (Pakistan steadfastly refuses to sign the accord unless India does so). This means that not all of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities are under IAEA safeguards. The second such issue is the historically disputed territory of Kashmir. At present, the territory is claimed by three nations: India, Pakistan, and China. In practice, India administers a majority of the region despite that fact that many of the population are against it (Kashmir is overwhelmingly Muslim). The UN has passed resolutions on the matter critical of both sides and calling for a plebiscite among the Kashmiri.
III. Question to Consider
Pakistan has asserted its own national sovereignty to deal with its internal political conflicts. Based on the role of the Security Council and the direct international implications of these crises, what is the best approach that the UN can take to address these concerns? Please keep in mind the two areas in which the UN has historically taken part: nuclear weapons, and the territory of Kashmir.
[1] Boustany, Nora. “U.N. Security Council Takes Up Discussion of Rights in Burma”. Washington Post. 30 Sept. 2006, sec. A: A12.
[2] Lynch, Colum. “Russia, China Veto Resolution on Burma; Security Council Action Blocks U.S. Human Rights Effort.” Washington Post. 13 Jan. 2007, sec: A: A12.
[3]“Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal Under Scrutiny.” The Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Host Jim Lehrer. Macneil/Lehrer Productions. 13 Nov. 2007.
[4] http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html