Dear Delegates,
Hello and welcome to the Special Political and Decolonization Committee of the 2006 Washington State Model United Nations (WASMUN) Conference. My name is Kiran Dyamenahalli and I will be your chair. I am in my second year at the University of Washington and am majoring in Bioengineering with a minor in Medical History and Ethics. You may justifiably wonder what those fields have to do with the United Nations; the short answer is not very much. However, I have always had a keen interest in international relations and diplomacy and have been involved in Model UN for more than five years. I was initially exposed to MUN at the first WASMUN conference where I served as the Chinese delegate in the United Nations Development Program. That conference sparked my interest in the program and I involved myself in each subsequent conference as a delegate, NGO and eventually as a moderator. While in high school, I attended several conferences outside of the state including those at UC Berkeley, UC Irvine, and the NAIMUN conference in Washington DC. This year, I had the chance to chair a committee and immediately set SPD as my top choice due to the relevance of the topics it covered. This is explained further in the Conclusion section, where I attempt to outline the nature of each conflict and of UN involvement.
SPD is a General Assembly (GA) committee and, as such, it is one of the largest at the conference. Many of you may not have much experience speaking in front of such a large audience. My advice to you is to simply know your stuff. Confidence can go a long way in making a successful argument. In addition to this, make use of time in caucus; this is often the best way to let others hear your policy in large committees. In order to make this conference a success, effort is required on both ends. Please arrive on the first day with some fresh and concrete ideas to address each topic and a genuine desire to solve each problem, at least on some level. Remember, once you walk into that conference hall, you are a real delegate!
These topic synopses should serve as a starting point for your research. With that in mind, when you begin to write your position papers, please do not rely heavily on this document. It focuses mainly on the general background of each topic, while you should try to place them in the context of your own country and the solutions it has proposed. Be aware of initiatives that have not worked in the past and the reasons they failed.
Please feel free to contact me with questions about the conference and the University of Washington. Many of you may be considering the UW as an option for your higher education. If so, please use me and this conference as resources to explore the university. Good luck.
Sincerely,
Kiran Dyamenahalli, Chair
Special Political and Decolonization
- Overview of the Committee
The United Nations was formed as an international organization, allowing for cooperation concerning a wide variety of social, political, legal and economic issues, on October 24th, 1945. It is composed of several distinct, but interdependent committees, one of which is the SPD GA, whose role and power vary greatly. Most committees, including this one, lack the authority to initiate military action or impose sanctions, and instead recommend such action to the Security Council when deemed appropriate. However, the role of committees such as SPD is in no way insignificant. The Security Council is comprised of only five permanent member nations and ten rotating members, and consequently relies on larger committees for broader representation of member states.
SPD, also known as the fourth GA committee, is comparatively new. It was created in August 1993 with the adoption of GA Resolution 47/233. The resolution essentially combined two prior UN committees, the Decolonization Committee and Special Political Committee. The reorganization was made largely in light of the common focus of the two older committees, though the overall role remained the same. SPD is charged with issues of political stability between and within member states. In recent years, it has had an increasing role in dealing with civil conflicts, such as the ongoing violence in Sudan’s Darfur region. However, it must always respect the sovereignty of its member states, initiating action only with the explicit cooperation of the affected nation(s).
It is important to remember these limitations on SPD’s authority. The work done in this committee should reflect the restrictions and focus on taking peaceful steps to solve each problem and making specific recommendations to the Security Council if further intervention is needed.
II. Topic 1: Darfur Crisis
Statement of the problem
This conflict has a long, complicated history, involving access to farm lands and economic resources, cultural, and ideological differences; some of this is outlined in the History section. However, keep in mind that this committee will focus on the current crisis which began in early 2003 with a dramatic rise in violence between Sudanese national forces and rebel groups claiming mistreatment and neglect by the hands of the government. See the Current Crisis section for an outline of the conflict.
History of the conflict
The history of Sudan’s civil war cannot be traced back to a single incident, but has resulted from centuries of animosity between various ethnic groups in the region. Prior to the 1200s, the populace of the Darfur region was primarily characterized by black African farmers. Their groups included the Zaghawa, Fur and Masalit. During the 13th century, Arab groups, collectively known as the Baggara, started to migrate into the region. Their populations were of largely nomadic and pastoral origins. This essential difference sparked tension between the two groups which developed into a complex history of racism and competition over land resources and water. The violence was most severe between the native Fur peoples of Darfur and the Rizeigat Arabs. In addition to competition over land use, the slave trade became a significant element in the rising tensions leading up to the 20th century. The region of Bahr el Ghazal in Southwestern Sudan was inhabited by cattle herders and subsistence farmers known as the Dinka people, and became a focal point for Darfur slave traders. A fierce competition over this local source of slave labor rapidly grew between the Arabs and native Fur peoples, resulting in sporadic bloodshed.
When Sudan was given independence in 1956, the country was left in the hands of an Arab government controlling a predominantly non-Arab populace, resulting in extreme ethnic tension. The reversion to a military dictatorship in 1958, a style of government which has been propagated ever since, commonly created an atmosphere of fear and oppression for the native populations. The direct result was the First Sudanese Civil War, lasting from 1955 to 1972. The war was primarily fought between the Sudanese government situated in Northern Sudan and the peoples of Southern Sudan who demanded regional autonomy. Over 500,000 people died during the course of the war, which ended with the Addis Ababa Accords. However, many non-Arabs believed that the accords were unjust and began a new movement against the Arab government. The civil unrest that resulted led to the declaration of Sharia’s law in Southern Sudan. The forced implementation of Islamic law enraged the non-Muslim populations of the South and started the Second Sudanese Civil War in 1983. This war, widely recognized as the deadliest in Sudan’s history, lasted until January 9th 2005, when the Nairobi Peace Treaty was signed by both sides. However, tensions had been declining steadily until early 2003. The major terms of the treaty were as follows:
-Southern Sudan will receive political autonomy for a period of six years, following a UN-backed vote to determine the future of the region. It is not believed that Southern Sudan will seek a formal separation from the central government.
-Oil revenues will be shared evenly between the two sides.
-Employment in administrative roles will be divided by pre-determined ratios to ensure equal representation.
-The retention of Sharia’s law in Southern Sudan will be decided by its people.
The peace gained by the Nairobi Treaty was not to last. The competition over land and other resources continued and forced many of Sudan’s citizens into extreme poverty. This poverty, combined with the rise in power of two major rebel groups, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), lead to the next major challenge to the government’s authority in. In early 2003, rebels attacked government installations in the Darfur region, starting another round of violence which has lasted until this day. Though there have been victims on both sides, the conflict centralizes around the government-supported Janjaweed militia, which targets non-Arab rebel groups. This has caused many human rights organizations to characterize the conflict as ethnic cleansing. However, numerous experts agree that this is anover-simplification, attributing some of the violence to the much older competition over natural resources between nomadic, Arab cattle-herders and non-Arab farmers. The humanitarian toll has also been significant. Almost 1.5 million refugees have fled the country, many heading to neighboring Chad. Numerous tangible elements including the remoteness of the region and the underdeveloped infrastructure have hindered the peace process and humanitarian relief efforts. More recently, the African Union began mediating talks between the Sudanese government and the two major rebel groups. However, a large faction of the resistance refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the conference. The persistence of violence is seen in the repeated violations of the Ceasefire Agreement signed in N’Djamena on April 8th 2004. Please see the Current Crisis section for a continuation of this renewed conflict.
It is always a good idea to construct a rough timeline before writing your position papers. There are many online sources for Darfur conflict timelines, most spanning the length of the current crisis (early 2003 and onwards). One place to start is the UN’s Darfur response timeline.
Past UN Action
Three major Security Council actions define the role and effectiveness of the UN in Sudan. The first was the establishment of the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS). It consists of approximately 10,000 UN forces and was designed to work with the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS). The goal of the organization is to assess and enforce compliance with the ceasefire agreement, to assist in the disarmament and demobilization of rebel forces and the Janjaweed militia, to facilitate the involvement of human rights workers, and to generally advance the peace process. The second action was to implement a travel ban for the Darfur region and to order an arms embargo on any groups judged to be human rights violators in the conflict. The resolution did not include an oil embargo, due to strong opposition from many member states including China. Thirdly, the Security Council passed a resolution to refer any identified human rights violators to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. This marked the first time the Security Council ever decided to refer violators to the ICC in a resolution. The United Nations has also heavily endorsed the involvement of the African Union (AU) as a mediating body in the conflict, which has established an International Monitoring team and Protection Force to combat regional violence. It stresses the need for the Sudanese government to take the lead in preventing humanitarian disasters and in maintaining law and order without resorting to excessive violence. The UN has repeatedly stated that there can be no military solution to the conflict and that a permanent agreement must be reached between the Sudanese government and the rebel groups, most notably in Security Council resolution 1590 (S/RES/1950). Other actions taken by the UN were designed to closely monitor the rise and fall of tensions in the region. These include the request by the Security Council for the Secretary General Kofi Annan to provide regular briefings on the progress of its peacekeeping forces in Darfur and the appointment of a Special Representative for Sudan.
The following are important Security Council resolutions as identified by the International Crisis Group and other sources.
- 1547 (S/RES/1547) (11 June 2004)
- Created United Nations Advance Mission in Sudan (UNAMIS)
- 1556 (S/RES/1556) (30 July 2004)
- Encouraged continued efforts of AU in conflict
- Called for deployment of more international monitors
- Urged Sudanese government to crack down on Janjaweed militias
- Called for all military supplies of rebel groups to be halted (imposes arms embargo)
- Urged respect of ceasefire
- Extended UNAMIS, first established in resolution 1547
- 1564 (S/RES/1564) (September 2004)
- Extended UNAMIS
- Expressed readiness to back a Comprehensive Peace Agreement
- Demanded cease to violence and cooperation with humanitarian relief
- Called for cooperation with International Commission of Inquiry established by UN Secretary General
- 1590 (S/RES/1950) (24 March 2005)
- Condemned continued violations of ceasefire
- Established United Nations Mission in Sudan (UMIS)
- Military force and civilian police force
- To enforce Comprehensive Peace Agreement and ceasefire
- Liaise with donors
- Promote Human rights
- 1591 (S/RES/1591) (29 March 2005)
- Established Security Council sub-committee to monitor progress in Darfur and provide
status reports
- Extended arms embargo imposed on rebel groups
- Demanded that the Sudanese government halt all “offensive military flights”
- 1593 (S/RES/1593) (31 March 2005)
- Referred situation in Darfur since July 1st 2002 to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
Current crisis
The current situation in Sudan broke out in February 2003 when SLM and JEM rebels started to attack government installations in the Darfur region. Their stated motivations included the systematic favoritism of the predominantly Arab government for nomadic/pastoral cattle herders also of Arab descent. They claimed that land and water distribution was unbalanced and that peaceful efforts of solving the problem had been exhausted. The initial attacks came as a surprise and resulted in heavy losses by the Sudanese government. However, this was followed by a massive counterattack by national military forces and the Janjaweed militias. Refugees that fled the region due to the ensuing violence gave accounts of mass killings, torture, rape and the burning of civilian villages. The better equipped Janjaweed militias routed the opposition, with heavy air support from the military, and continued to seek revenge on civilians of African descent. It was after these events took place that the term Genocide first took hold in the international community relating to the civil war. Since the beginning of the conflict, the Sudanese government has denied any concrete ties to the Janjaweed, condemning their actions publicly on several occasions.
On November 2nd 2004, Sudanese troops raided two major refugee camps, Abu Sharif and Otash, in Darfur. Many inhabitants of the camps were forced to relocate and aid workers were denied access to the areas and those remaining in the original camps. Similar attacks on November 10th led to attacks on government police stations in the town of Tawila in North Darfur; the government then bombed the town.
By July 2005, tensions eased and outbreaks of violence became less frequent. This was attributed to the gradual build-up of peacekeeping forces from the UN and AU. Approximately 3,000 of these troops were stationed in the Darfur region at that time, with numbers rising to around 7,000 in late September.However, this trend was not to last. On September 28th 2005, Arab militia attacked the Aro Sharow refugee camp resulting in 32 deaths. Following this, on October 9th, JEM rebels captured 18 AU peacekeeping troops; however they later released all but a Senegalese team leader and a translator after a rescue team succeeded in negotiating their release. The recent rise in violence, spearheaded by these actions, lead the UN to announce that West Darfur, which contains almost a third of Darfur’s displaced civilians, was too dangerous for the operation of aid workers. It later withdrew non-essential forces from the region.
Proposed solutions
The UN has repeatedly stressed that there can be no military solution to the Darfur conflict. When the long history of violence in Sudan is taken in to consideration, the truth in this statement is immediately seen. Instead, a true solution must involve negotiations between the Sudanese government and all major rebel groups involved in the conflict. Compromises on the part of the government must be made in terms of land and infrastructure allocation. The rebel groups must demilitarize and pursue reform in the political arena. Numerous peace agreements of the past have attempted to integrate government and rebel forces, though limited success at best was achieved in most cases. In 1994, a peace deal was reached between the Hutu and Tutsi leadership, but failed to win popular Hutu support, resulting in genocide. In 1999, Congo established a peace agreement, but fighting continues even today. A government designed to share power was set up in Burundi after years of bitter violence, but rebel groups such as the National Liberation Forces continue to resist.