Mark A



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

kud@u.washington.edu

I. 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 an over-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.

The peace agreement reached between the Sudanese government and the People’s Liberation Army in January 2005 set a six year transition period for the integration of rebel forces and the establishment of a Southern government with sufficient autonomy. Though the agreement failed to include other rebel groups fighting in Western Sudan, the compromises it included are the best indication of what a general solution will look like. An autonomous government under the central government is a fundamental demand of the rebels and must be incorporated into any final agreement. In turn, the government has demanded that all independent military groups be dissolved or incorporated into the state army in the interests of peace. Additionally, symbolic acts such as changing the country’s printed money to reflect its diversity have been pursued. They have been roundly praised. Acts of goodwill such as this may go a long way in bridging the cultural animosity. Other issues include the prominence of Islamic law, land distribution, and the language difference between the North and South. The North primarily speaks Arabic, while the South speaks English. A vote by the South’s population concerning their desire to split form the Sudanese government completely is also expected after the six year term.

Humanitarian perspective

The Darfur conflict drew relatively little attention from the world until human rights groups began to define it as genocide. The visibly heinous crimes committed by the Janjaweed, widely believed to be supported by the Sudanese government, include rape, torture and murder. The label of genocide was echoed by the United States government, notably in Congress and in speeches by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. Again, on July 23rd 2004, the US Congress passed a resolution identifying the conflict as Genocide and calling on President George W. Bush to take steps to assuage the violence. Though the UN itself has not recognized the conflict as genocide, it named Sudan’s civil war the world’s foremost humanitarian crisis, until the Indian Ocean earthquake in late 2004. Such recognition drew light on the multifaceted nature of Sudan’s humanitarian crisis. The International Crisis Group estimates that 5,000 people, most of whom are civilians, are dying each month due to the escalating violence. These deaths have been attributed to both the actual fighting and the resulting starvation and disease. In addition to the staggering death toll, over a million refugees have fled the country to neighboring Chad. Many refugee camps are overflowing and cannot provide adequate medical aid, food and water for their inhabitants. Continued fighting along much of the Sudanese border, 600km of which is home to many of the refugees, has discouraged the efforts of aid workers and halted the delivery of food packages. Relief agencies are especially pressed during the wet season, when access to the region by land is restricted. The continued influx of refugees has concerned greatly Chad’s government, which is fearful that the conflict will cross the border. Early signs of this were seen in April 2004 when Chad’s government forces clashed with Janjaweed fighters who were pursuing refugees across Sudan’s Easter border. The population of Chad’s Eastern border is very similar demographically to the Darfur region of Sudan.

Topic-specific links

Global Policy Forum on Sudan -

Wikipedia on Darfur -

National Public Radio (NPR) on Darfur -

International Crisis Group: Darfur -

Darfur Peace and Development Organization -

BBC “In Depth” on Sudan -

III. Topic 2: Kashmir Conflict

Statement of the problem

The remote region of Jammu and Kashmir shares borders with India, Pakistan and China. All three countries have made a claim for the land, which is currently divided between all three. The primary conflict rests between India and Pakistan and involves a complex mix of historical debate, religious intolerance and political rivalry. The tension that has resulted from the contested land has caused numerous wars, terrorist attacks and remains unresolved to this day. The goal of this committee will be to propose unique solutions to solve the long-standing conflict.

History of the conflict

Today’s conflict can be traced back to the end of British rule in India in 1947, when the subcontinent was split up into two states: India and Pakistan, mostly in view of the demarcation between areas of Muslim majority and those of Hindu majority. The rulers of the 565 princely states, whose lands supported over 99 million people, were required to give up their land to either India or Pakistan. While most acceded to either state with relatively little tension, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, whose state was situated to the North of India, between the two regional powers, could not immediately decide. He was Hindu, but his population was predominantly Muslim. However, in 1947, tribesmen from Pakistan’s Northwest border invaded Kashmir, sparking several similar uprising within the state. Fearful of the growing unrest, Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India on the condition that military aid would arrive promptly in the region to diffuse tensions and drive back the insurgents. According to the terms of this Instrument of Accession, India’s authority extended to external affairs, defense and communications. Directly after, however, Pakistani officials denounced the act, identifying it as unlawful and invalid due to the Maharaja’s apparent lack of control of own country at the time.

While the accession remains to this day a contested issue, numerous other conflicting justifications for each side’s right to the region of Jammu and Kashmir have emerged. The Indian government soon took the stance that the Pakistani leadership, largely in the hands of the military, was sustaining the Muslim insurgents through military and strategic support. The Pakistani government maintains that it only provides moral support to militants acting in Kashmir.

As you have undoubtedly realized, the history of this dispute over Kashmir is long complex. Here is a brief timeline of developments in relations between India, Pakistan and China to help put everything into perspective:

- August 1947: India and Pakistan gain freedom from British rule

- October 1947: Maharajah Hari Singh, Hindu ruler of Kashmir, accedes to India. War breaks out when Pakistan contests the decision.

- January 1949: UN Security Council orders ceasefire and calls for plebiscite election

- October 1964: China detonates its first nuclear device

- September 1965: India and Pakistan go to war again over Kashmir until UN establishes ceasefire

- December 1971: India and Pakistan go to war over East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh). Conflict ends when Pakistani troops surrender.

- July 1972: Simla Agreement signed between Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Course set for bilateral agreements.

- May 1974: India tests first nuclear device

- December 1988: Summit held for India and China to establish Joint Working Group (JWG) to settle border dispute and set up annual exchange of diplomats

- January 1990: Indian troops fire on Protesters countering India’s crackdown on separatism in Kashmir. Leads to decade of violence between Indian forces and Pakistani-backed militants

- May 1998: India and Pakistan hold five and six nuclear tests, respectively. Arms race escalates.

- February 1999: Lahore Peace Declaration signed between Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Prime Minister Nawax Sharif

- May 1999: Indian forces attack infiltrators in Kargil, nearly starting war.

- December 2001: Indian government suspects Pakistan-backed Kashmiri militants in attack on Indian parliament. Diplomatic relations with Pakistan suspended.

- January 2002: India and Pakistan start massive troop build-up along border in Kashmir

- July 2003: Relations start to improve; transportation links between two countries restored. Ceasefire initiated by Pakistani Prime Minister accepted.

- January 2004: Vajpayee and Musharraf meet during SAARC summit; pledge to conduct dialogue to end violence.

- October 2005: Bombings in Delhi kill 61. Pakistani militant group Islamic Inquilab Mahaz claims responsibility

Past UN Action

The United Nations first became involved in the conflict in 1948. New Delhi, acting under article 35 of the UN Charter which provided for any member nation to bring up an issue involving regional instability, filed a complaint to the UN Security Council about the “raiders” frequently entering Indian-administered Kashmir. That year, delegates representing India and Pakistan spoke before the Security Council several times in order to give the council an understanding of the history and context of the conflict. From 1948 to 1971, the United Nations passed 27 resolutions calling for an end to hostilities, infiltrations by militant groups, and the ability for the Kashmiri people to determine their own path. The last point would supposedly come in the form of a plebiscite election, upon the realization of the Indian demand that all Pakistan-backed militant groups be removed from the area. In addition, two UN groups were formed, the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate the conflict for further review, and the United Nations Military Observer group (UNMOGIP) to monitor the Line of Control established in 1949. Since then, a host of predominantly Muslim Kashmiri protest groups have arisen, most notably the pro-independence Jammu-Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) and the militant alliance known as the United Jihad Council (UJC). India and Pakistan have both attempted to contain the influx of terrorist groups and solidify their positions, respectively, by amassing troops along the Line of Control. This contributes to numerous border-skirmishes which are a source of constant concern for the international community. The development and testing of both countries’ nuclear weapons in the late twentieth century added to this anxiety.

While the United Nations has tried to assert itself in the conflict, neither party seems to be yielding. Most resolutions call for bilateral talks to be held between India and Pakistan in order to establish the groundwork for a plebiscite election for the Kashmiri people, but India maintains that this cannot happen until all militants have crossed back over the Jammu and Kashmir border. The main success of its mediation has been the lowering of direct clashes between armed soldiers, accomplished by the Line of Control and the constant monitoring of the UNMOGIP. However, the organization has always been limited to this role of crisis response.

Proposed solutions

Remaining solutions to the conflict are few and far between. Most historians place solutions into two camps, those that advocate independence and those that advocate accession to Pakistan, India, or both (joint sovereignty). Many argue that the latter group can be ruled out due to the likeliness that the current 50-year old tensions will continue well into the future, making a denial of either side their perceived right to all of Jammu and Kashmir impossible. Both countries continue to assert their sovereign right to the land. In fact, both governments often speak domestically about obtaining the “other half” of Kashmir. Though this is most often an effort to win popular domestic support, it reflects the deeply held beliefs that Indian and Pakistani citizens have concerning Kashmir. On the other hand, hope still exists for an end to tensions. On June 10th 2002, India and Pakistan began to withdraw their amassed troops from the LOC. This event was the result of months of diplomatic efforts by both countries and the United Nations. Since then, relations have thawed and signs of economic and political cooperation are emerging. On a number of occasions, India has announced its willingness to make the UN monitored Line of Control a permanent border in front of the international community. The official position of the Pakistani government is still grounded in a UN sponsored plebiscite election for the Kashmiri people, though acts of terrorism by Pakistan-based militants have continued to the present day. However, diplomatic talks between the two nations have yielded observations that Pakistan may be willing to accept a land partition if “Azad” Kashmir is extended into the Kashmir Valley. If a plebiscite election is eventually held, the third option of total Kashmiri independence may reappear as an option. Still others have suggested appointing a neutral third party state as an arbitrator. Their reasoning is that an amiable third party moderator-nation, within the region of conflict, may prove to be more effective than the UN itself. Such moderators would be able to understand, due to their proximity to the conflict, the numerous domestic pressures which act on leaders during times of war, as well as the religious and cultural value system of the disputing parties. In a sense, the enormous resources of the United Nations could be used to train a neutral third party which would be more suitable as a moderator.

Humanitarian perspective

Perhaps the former Pakistani delegate to the United Nations, Sir Zafrulla, best summed up the dilemma presented by the India-Pakistan conflict when he said that “grave issues were at stake and a fuller presentation of the background was necessary for an understanding of the problem - the ‘human background’ more than the legal, constitutional, or political.” This “human background” constituted an essential part of the dispute over Kashmir, making it more than an economic claim for land. The people of the Jammu and Kashmir region have suffered greatly over the years due to the fighting of two regional powers. In following with numerous UN resolutions calling for a referendum, the Kashmiri people deserve an end to the violence and the ability to vote for the future of their land. The earthquake in Pakistan-administered Kashmir in October 2005 killed over 80,000 people and left many more homeless and in dire need of food and water. Thankfully, both countries temporarily put aside their differences and agreed to

cooperate in the disaster relief effort. India and Pakistan are currently undergoing negotiations to open up a road through Kashmir to facilitate the flow of relief supplies. However many have questioned the response. They argue that the reaction to the disaster was hurt by the lack of existing transportation and communication infrastructure, which would have normally been in place.

Topic-specific links

BBC Q&A: Kashmir Dispute -

BBC “In Depth” on Kashmir -

Yahoo! News: Kashmir coverage -

Stimson Center -

Human Rights Watch -

Jammu & Kashmir Government site -

Indian Ministry of Home Affairs on Kashmir -

Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Kashmir -

CNN Kashmir coverage -

Wikipedia: History of Kashmir dispute -

International Crisis Group -

US Institute of Peace: Kashmir web links -

BBC Historical Timeline of Kashmir -

IV. Concluding remarks

The study of peace and conflict is essential to our current understanding of the world, for the prospect of war, whether in the form of a large-scale conflict or confined clashes, has constantly shaped foreign policy and world affairs, translating into the economic, social and cultural spheres. However, there are certain conflicts that break loose of chronological and nationalistic boundaries and take on identities of their own, being molded by forces of cultural and ideological significance. The India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir and the Darfur conflict are two examples of these struggles. They find relevance in the fact that no seemingly viable solution has yet been proposed after decades of rising and receding tension. Consequently, they act as a modern day test to diplomacy and international institutions such as the United Nations in their mission of maintaining peace through careful arbitration.

The United Nations, since its conception, has been limited to acting only on territory where it is authorized to be and lacks the authority to fully engage conflicting parties without their approval. Economic sanctions, though powerful tools, are rarely used due to the damage they inflict upon the economies in question. They often hurt the civilians more than the militants. Sanctions have also been ruled out as a possible motivator in the India-Pakistan dispute due to the uncertainty of which side is correct in its claim to Kashmir. It remains the sole responsibility of India and Pakistan, therefore, to find a viable solution to the problem. In Sudan, the situation is no less complex. While economic sanctions have been considered in order to put muscle behind the UN’s ceasefire order, the probability of this occurring remains slim. Ultimately, the United Nations has been successful as an arbitrator only to the extent that it lessened immediate crises such as Kashmiri crisis of 1948 and has helped to avoid major battles along the Line of Control. In a broader context, the far-reaching roots of both conflicts, similar to those in the Israeli-Palestine situation, highlight the inherent inability of the United Nations to authoritatively work towards a solution without the full cooperation of the concerned parties.

What the structured response of the United Nations is often unable to take into account is the resilience and emotional connection of those in the battle to what Kashmir or Darfur represent. These struggles are not detached from those who were fighting within it, for many are simultaneously fighting for the expression of their religious and ethnic identity. It is very unfortunate that a part of an ethnic identity can be forged from hatred, but more unfortunate that the international community is ill-equipped to deal with these root causes. However, the United Nations remains the world’s most effective institution in identifying and halting immediate violence among its member nations. Its shortcomings represent areas that only the involved countries can deal with.

V. Research section

Tips for Research

- Watch out for biased news sources. With the importance of both topics in the news today, it is not difficult to find impartial articles from highly respected news organizations. However, the emotionally charged nature of all conflicts often leads to highly opinionated pieces. Do not use such sources in your research, unless they express the official opinion of your country. Other countries can use them to understand the nature of each side’s argument.

- Please do not simply copy the contents of these synopses when writing your position papers. Use it instead as a guide to direct your own research. Remember, WASMUN has a no-tolerance policy for plagiarism. However, I am confident that you will all make the minimum effort necessary to avoid this.

- When beginning your research, start off with websites and books which provide a general overview of the problem. After you have gained a sufficient grasp of the topic, move on to more recent journal articles which include more detailed and current accounts of the developments.

- When you begin to write your position papers and formulate ideas for solutions, keep these questions in mind:

o What actions have been successful and unsuccessful in the past?

o What proposals have proven to be unacceptable by any of the involved parties?

o How can the situation be improved using the existing relief and diplomatic infrastructure?

o Has the conflict changed through time?

If you run into problems researching, you may contact me or Alex Basl, the USG of Research and Advisor Training at usgrat@.

Links

NGOs:

Amnesty International –

Human Rights Watch –

United Nations:

UN –

UN News Centre –

Special Political and Decolonization Committee -

General Links

CIA World Factbook –

Google Scholar -

Wikipedia -

ProQuest -

Journals and Newspapers

The Wall Street Journal –

New York Times -

Christian Science Monitor -

Washington Post -

Los Angeles Times -

London Times -

Boston Globe -

The Economist -

Foreign Affairs -

Note: Many of these newspapers and journals can only be accessed by first creating an account with a unique username and password. However, they are free of cost and highly recommended. Many research databases and subscription-only resources can be accessed through the University of Washington for those living in the area.

Selected Annotated Bibliography

Topic 1

Crisis in Darfur. International Crisis Group. 20 October 2005

The International Crisis Group website on the Darfur conflict proved to be one of the most useful websites I found. It included links to important UN documents, including Security Council resolutions, and numerous reports by organizations and people relevant to the topic. The information on the site was not biased, but heavily pursued areas of focus of a traditional NGO. These included sections on humanitarian relief and ways of getting involved in the peace process.

Darfur Conflict. 10 November 2005. Wikipedia. 20 October 2005

Wikipedia is an extensive, free online encyclopedia. It often provides detailed accounts of historical issues, such as the Darfur dispute, and organizes its information in hyperlinks embedded in the text. However, the documents are written collaboratively by volunteers. This means that the content can be revised by almost anyone. When using Wikipedia, facts must be checked through the cited primary documents. Overall, this website was extremely helpful in placing the entire conflict into perspective and was a good starting point for my research.

Darfur Peace and Development. Darfur Peace and Development Organization. 20 October 2005

DPADO is a non-profit organization based in Sudan. Its goal is to promote peace, stability and sustainable economic development in the Darfur region. The site is focused on this organization’s activities in Darfur and is consequently not useful as a general research site. The site is also highly opinionated. Most links to news and reports are written by the organization from an NGO’s perspective.

Sudan: A Nation Divided. 4 October 2005. BBC. 20 October 2005

BBC is a world-renowned for its credibility and neutrality as a news source. Its online articles are extended by personal accounts taken from refugees, political leaders and others in the Darfur region. This website also contains links numerous other information resources BBC offers on Sudan’s civil war.

Sudan. Global Policy Forum. 20 October 2005

The Global Policy Forum’s primary goal is to monitor and analyze the role of the United Nations in global policy. Because of this, its website is especially useful for researching the role of the UN in the crisis. The suggestions it makes with regard to possible improvements to the UN’s response, could help delegates to write the Solutions section of their position papers.

Topic 2

Ayesha, Ray. “India-Pakistan in War and Peace.” The Journal of Asian Studies 63

(2004): 216-218. ProQuest Database 17 Nov. 2004

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download