Committee: Experienced Disarmament
Topic #1: Russia and the Issue of Western Missile Placement
By
Albert Einstein
Committee Background:The goal of the committee is to seek a general disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction be it nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. The committee also deals with conventional weapons that are used in most modern conflicts such as small arms and land mines. The committee promotes dialogue and transparency as well as regional development. It also organizes multilateral conferences on pertinent issues in hopes of finding solutions. This committee reports to the General Assembly of the United Nation
Statement of the Problem:
As most people know the relationship between the United States and Russia has been anything but smooth, both past and present. Recently, there has been a provocation in relations that were becoming peaceful. The United States, fearing the threat of proliferation of nuclear weapons, by their adversary Iran as well as various terrorist organizations, has decided to set up an anti-ballistic missile system in Poland and a radar system based in the Czech Republic. However, the proximity of these nations to Russia has aggravated tensions between Russia and the United States. The below map that was taken out of a Siberian newspaper demonstrates the threat to Russia.
What makes this problem even more eminent is that Russia, being an energy superpower, is using large amounts of its energy revenue to expand its nuclear arsenal. Also as of June 28, 2007 Russia has begun a mass production of Topol-M strategic missiles. To further complicate things Russian president Vladimir Putin is suspending Moscow’s participation in the Soviet-era Conventional Forces in Europe treaty (CFE) which imposes limits on troop deployment across the continent. This creates a lot of tension in Russian/European relations. In order to try and resolve issues Russia has tried to suggest the placement of these systems in parts of the former USSR such as countries like Azerbaijan but this is not to the liking of the United States. The United States feels that the current proposed positions for placement of these systems are the most strategic and it is important to national security that these stations be put up so that the various threatening situations can be completely monitored. In Russian defense, Putin said “neither terrorists, whom they are preparing to, defend against, nor Iran, nor North Korea has such a system, to talk of terrorists is simply hilarious. They use other methods." The Topol-M is known to NATO as the SS-27 and is a three-stage intercontinental ballistic missile with a range of 10,000km which can be deployed on both stationary and mobile launch platforms. Russia believes that these missiles are too hard to monitor and too technologically advanced to be deployed by terrorists. The question at hand is thus, how does a nation prevent against nuclear threats and not threaten other nation’s national sovereignty (while also bearing in mind the goal of this committee is disarmament).
History of the Problem:
The history of the United States and Russia (or the former USSR) has been long and complicated in the 21st century (most of us remember the Cold War). The ideologies of communism and democracy clashed so greatly leading to a détente and system of alliances which created a new system of world order after the Second World War. With the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of communism the relations between the two nations began to improve but only marginally. As the United States dominated as a world superpower and prospered economically, Russia had to create a new democratic system and struggled with problems of corruption and primitive accumulation. Russia has only recently regained its position as a major world power due to vast energy revenues. Russia tried to improve its situation and its trading ties with other countries by its joining of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which had historically countered the Soviet threat of the Warsaw Pact. However, the problem at hand is starting to revive Cold-war tensions and fuel a new and fast-growing arms race between Russia and other western nations. The echoes of the Cold-war are imminent, some leading scholars and politicians have compared the current situation of US anti-missile deployment to the stationing of Pershing II ballistic nuclear missiles in West Germany in the 1980s. To add to the current problem, Russia/US relations are already tensioned over the issue of independence in Kosovo. (This is another situation that one should keep in mind when debating on this topic.) For more information on history it is wise to research some Cold-war history. There are links to web-sites with this information at the end of this study guide.
Past UN (Committees) Actions:
“The danger of the use of nuclear weapons today is as high as at any time during the cold war” due to “a failure of political will to advance on the disarmament and non-proliferation agenda” (Pakistan’s Representative to the disarmament committee) Due to an escalated threat of an arms race and a repeat of the Cold War, the committee on disarmament is taking this issue with the utmost severity. In April of 2007 the committee met for its annual three week substantive session. Unfortunately, as noted by the Secretary General of the disarmament committee “The failure of the 2005 NPT Review Conference, the impasse in the Conference on Disarmament and the disappointing outcome of the 2006 Small Arms Review Conference all point to a disheartening trend. Unfortunately, we seem to be in a rut, where setbacks in the field of disarmament have become the norm, not an exception.” He told the committee that an approach to eliminate the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction can only come about by multilateral and collective means. Throughout this session the committee tried to revive attention to various treaties related to this issue, such as the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which has been around for 10 years but not yet entered into force due to a lack of the necessary ratifications.
The disarmament committee is also working hard preparing the 2010 Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Review Conference.
Proposed Solutions:
The goal of this committee is to obtain a general disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. The problem is that by placing these stations in Poland and the Czech Republic may be fuelling another arms race between the United States and Russia. A solution must be found that does not make Russia feel threatened or they will probably not stop expanding their nuclear arsenal. It also must address that if stations are not put in these Eastern European nations are we at a greater risk of attack by terrorists or rogue states. By putting these stations in Europe will it lead to greater disarmament or will it fuel an arms race? Keep in mind that there are various non-proliferation treaties that are remnants of the Cold-war that will soon expire and there will be few rules that nations will have to adhere to in terms of WMDs. If nations propose a renewal of old treaties, how will they expect to get the major players in this conflict to ratify these treaties? Conferences and treaties have been the typical responses to conflicts dealing with nuclear proliferation so make sure you are familiar with these and that a possible solution at this debate does not overlap with an existing solution.
Questions a Resolution Must Answer:
How will this resolution lead to greater disarmament?
Will this prevent an arms-race from occurring?
Bloc Positions:
Eastern Bloc: Somewhat divided on this issue considering this is where (geographically) the problem is occurring. We obviously know Russia’s stance on the issue. However Poland and the Czech Republic (and countries with close economic ties to these nations) would agree more with the Western stance.
African Bloc: Do not have too much of a stake in this issue. However depending on the nation they may be more inclined to agree with their trading partners or be proponents of national sovereignty.
Arab Bloc: Would most likely side with the Russians if it means less intrusion into what is going on in the Arab world.
Asian Bloc: Once again this would be determined by economic and political alliances. Countries like China may agree with Russia in order to protect their own national sovereignty but countries that are big trade partners with the United States would probably agree with the West.
Latin American Bloc: Also somewhat removed from the situation but rely on the foreign policy of your country as well as political alliances and trading partners to determine where your country sits on this issue.
Western Bloc: Would take the opposite stance as Russia, however to what degree is dependent on what country you are representing. Germany for example agrees with the United States but also is sympathetic to the objections of Russia.
Some questions and suggestions to guide your research:
What is your countries interest with either Russia or the United States? (economic, geographic, political etc..)?
Will your country serve to gain from these stations being introduced in Eastern Europe?
Is your nation a big proponent of national sovereignty?
Is your country in danger of threats of nuclear weapons or terrorist attacks?
What are other alternatives that would allow both sides to be appeased?
Seeing that this conflict draws a lot of parallels to the Cold War, what is the history of your country in regards to that conflict and does this affect your policy on this issue?
What would your country be willing to contribute to this initiative or other solutions?
Web resources: a list of links:
www.disarmament.un.org (pay special attention to the last substantive session of the committee in order to better learn where your country stands on the issue)
www.spacewar.com
www.usinfo.state.gov (this site has various resources on the issue, however it is more helpful for countries siding with the Western view because it’s an American site)
www.missilethreat.com
www.wmdinsights.com
www.globalsecurity.org
www.siberianlight.net (A Russian newspaper that explains that sympathizes with Russian concerns on the issue)
www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org
www.nato.int (If you are a NATO country you may be able to find policy information in regard to the issue on this site)
www.coldwar.org (This site is helpful to learn a bit about the general history of the Cold-war)
www.nti.org
Further Recommended Reading:
It would be a good idea to research information on not only what is being done now in terms of treaties and conferences but also the more “historic” treaties from the Cold-war period and how they relate to the issue.
Good luck with the debate delegates!