Dear Special Political Delegates,

*Warning: This is not a funny letter. Unlike others, if I attempt to be humorous, I willmiserably fail. I, Aman Madan, simply can't make a 'funny.'

My name is Aman Madan, and I have the privilege of serving as your committee chairfor the 2013 SHSMUN conference. I'm very pleased to have this opportunity, and I know we'regoing to have a lot of fun together.

I don't want to bore you with insignificant details about my extremely uneventful life,so here's a bit about me: I'm from Chattanooga, and I attend school locally, where I am a junior. Ienjoy playing chess, working for the Democratic Party, (yes – you read that correctly) andlistening to all kinds of music (except country, rap, and indie – I don't even know what that is, andthe list goes on).

Hopefully you will enjoy this year's topics. This year's topics include: The UnitedNations’ role in monitoring elections in post conflict states, the legality and legislation ofdrones, and addressing the conflict in Kashmir. I believe that these topics are highly debatable,and I'm more than convinced that these diverse topics will provide for an engaging committeesession for all delegates.

Furthermore, should any question arise between now and the conference, please feelfree to contact me at any time. My email is specpol@shsmun.org, or if you want to call (and Ihope you do) my number is 423­316­2140. I want to stress that I'm open to any question – thatbeing said, do not hesitate to contact me for anything. I'm really looking forward to thisexperience, and I hope you are too!

Regards,

Aman Madan2013 Special Political and Decolonization Chairspecpol@shsmun.org423­316­2140

About the SPECPOL Committee

The Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL) is the fourth ofthe six General Assembly Main Committees and is commonly referred to as the Fourth Committee. Thecurrent Fourth Committee, created in 1993, is actually a hybrid of two former committees: theDecolonization Committee and the Special Political Committee. The Decolonization Committee, nowknown as SPECPOL, was a vital asset during the 1990’s, which was declared to be the “InternationalDecade for the Eradication of Colonialism The SPECPOL committee has overseen the decolonizationof over eighty countries, and has recognized 15 self­governing territories. Since decolonization isn’t sucha high priority, the committee now deals with issues similar to those of the Disarmament andInternational Security committee, Security Council, and Human Rights Council. SPECPOL doesn’thave the ability to make mandates or infringe on a nation’s sovereignty. The committee can only makesuggestions that the Security Council can look and possibly approve on.

Topic I: The United Nation’s Role in Monitoring Elections in Post­Conflict States

Introduction

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) recognizes that fair elections are a vitalcomponent to nations transitioning into a democratic political system. The United Nations stronglybelieves in the establishment and the preservation of stable states. In the past, the United Nations hasexpressed, through its actions, that the only way to achieve stability in developing regions is establishinga just and sustainable electoral system. Over the years, the United Nations, alongside several otherglobal organizations, have abetted over a hundred nations in achieving a more sustainable electoralprocess. More often than not, the United Nations observes elections and intervenes in nations who arepolitically corrupt or are in the midst of a domestic socio/economic conflict. In these volatile situations,the United Nations is able to alleviate some of the ongoing conflict and slowly restore peace and civilrights by providing logistical and technical support in elections. Throughout the years observation1

missions have proved to further trust and cooperation between the global community and the respectivenation. An element of intervention is overseeing the election itself; however, one of the most essentialaspects of global involvement is ensuring that the respective country take its first step into building asustainable democracy.

History

Since the advent of UN election monitoring missions, the UN has tailored each program basedon the individual needs of the respective country receiving the aid, there is no universal model.2

Historically, most UN election monitoring programs have directly influenced the political and economicsituation in respective states and surrounding regions. In the past twenty years, the UN, through theUNDP, has provided electoral aid to more than a hundred member states. The UNDP’s central goalwhile monitoring an election is to “develop sustainable electoral management capacities, foster inclusiveparticipation in elections, particularly of women and youth and other underrepresented groups, andcoordinate donor support to electoral processes.” During the 20th century, the United Nations observedand organized elections in states such as Korea, Cambodia, Timor­Leste, and South Africa.Immediately after the UN’s creation, the global community began to oversee elections on the Koreanpeninsula, in the hopes that global involvement would result in a unified Korea. Shortly after the3

inception of one of the largest UN election monitoring programs in history, dispute between the United

1 "United Nations Department of Political Affairs ­ Elections." UN News Center. UN, n.d.<http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections>2 "United Nations Department of Political Affairs ­ Types of Assistance." UN News Center.>http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/types_of_assistance>3 "Global Issues at the United Nations." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2013.

States (allied with South Korea) and the USSR (allied with North Korea) dissolved all progress madeby the international community. Not only did UN involvement result in two divided Koreas, but it alsosignificantly attributed to North Korea’s isolation in respect to global involvement. Many historiansbelieved this international endeavor was highly unsuccessful.4

Current Situation

United Nations election monitoring has been a crucial component of global peace keeping andpeace sustainability. As democracy has spread to the world, the roles of elections have changed. TheUN believes that elections in each country are unique and reflect the country’s historical and politicalcharacteristics; therefore, the UN believes that the election process must adhere to the commitmentsand guidelines outlined in the Human Rights Instrument.

An instance the UN was completely in charge of organizing an election in Cambodia in 1992.Before global involvement, Cambodia was emerging from immense social conflict. In the late 1980s, apolitical stalemate between four political factions caused an enormous amount of struggle in Cambodia.With the egress of Vietnamese forces, these political factions were able to negotiate their respectivepolitical objectives. The negotiation process led to two significant results: the establishment of a coalitiongovernment composed of government representatives and members of other political factions, and mostimportantly, a peace agreement between the different political factions, which guaranteed a popularlyelected government. The United Nations endorsed this treaty and immediately established the UnitedNations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC). This department was responsible for monitoringprogress toward piloting fair elections. Due to widespread domestic conflict, the United Nationsstruggled to fully implement the process. However, as the result of the UN’s coordinated effort toorganize an election, more than 90% of the population cast their ballots to elect a Cambodian legislativebody. The head of UNTAC confirmed the elections “free and fair.” Many historians regard this56

endeavor as a stepping stone for Cambodia’s pursuit of democracy; however, many also believe thatglobal efforts in Cambodia were futile. According to the National Democratic Institute, a non­profitorganization working to strengthen democracies around the world, Cambodia’s government has hadlimited transparency. The NDI also reports that the CPP (Cambodian People’s Party) has suppressedopposition and strategically eliminated civil liberties and access to information. Even after global7

4 University of California Press. “Korea in World Politics 1940­1950” Accessable online at<http://books.google.com/books/about/Korea_in_World_Politics_1940_1950.html?id=DjhCAAAAIAAJ>5 "Electoral Assistance. United Nations Peacekeeping." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. Aug. 2013.<http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/electoralassistance.shtml>6 "Cambodia Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013. Web.10 Apr. 2013 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/90520/Cambodia/52491/Cambodia­since­1990>7 "Cambodia." NDI. National Democratic Institute, n.d. Web. 07 Aug. 2013. <http://www.ndi.org/cambodia>

involvement, corruption runs rampant in the country, and many countries, including the United States,are skeptical about the legitimacy of recent electoral results in Cambodia.8

Recently, the UN has been engaged in all corners of the world; in countries such as theDemocratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Liberia, Kyrgyzstan, and Mexico. In recent operations,the UN has shifted its focus from organizing an election to providing technical and logistical support todomestic organizations. In efforts to preserve culture, tradition, and most importantly nationalsovereignty, the UN has empowered local civic groups by providing them with the necessary resourcesto create their own functioning democracy. This effort has proved to be widely successful. In 2010, theUN, alongside the African Union, assisted Sudan in holding elections by simply providing technical andlogistical support. In 2011 and 2012, the United Nations provided rapid support to Tunisia in response9

to a request for technical assistance for their transition. As the Arab Spring progressed, the UNprovided long term electoral support to the Libyan authorities and first constituent assembly. While theUN has catalyzed the path to democracy for many nations, it has also further destabilized the politicalsituation in other countries.

Committee Directive

The United Nations describes the main goal of election monitoring as “support[ing] memberstates in holding periodic, inclusive, and transparent elections that are credible and popularly perceivedas such and establishing nationally sustainable electoral processes.” The central goal of the SPECPOLcommittee is to create comprehensive solutions to further strengthen existing UN election monitoringprograms. This committee should work towards forming resolutions that would do the following: enablecountries to hold fair elections, provide long term electoral sustainability, and ensure domestic tranquility.SPECPOL should focus on evaluating current UN election monitoring programs and their effectiveness.Furthermore, SPECPOL should not only concentrate on ensuring fair elections, but guaranteeing andpreserving civil liberties.

Questions to Consider

1. Is democracy the right solution for every nation?2. Are other political systems legitimate?3. Should countries have to meet a criterion to receive aid?

8 Press, By The Associated. "US Criticizes Cambodia over Rainsy Election Ban." Yahoo! News. Yahoo!, 04 Jan. 2013.Web. 10 Apr. 2013. <http://news.yahoo.com/us­criticizes­cambodia­over­rainsy­election­ban­211112176.html>9 "Sudan." UN News Center. UN, n.d. Web. 07 Aug. 2013.<http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/activities_by_region/africa/sudan>

4. Has your country been the recipient of electoral aid? Furthermore, has global involvementhelped or worsened the situation in your nation?

5. Has your country assisted other nations with holding fair elections?6. Should the UN expand its role in monitoring elections?7. What can the UN do to prevent overstepping cultural traditions?8. What active role can the UN play in monitoring elections while preserving a nation’s

sovereignty?

Suggested Sources

http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections

http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/undpa/main/issues/elections/types_of_assistance

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/issues/electoralassistance.shtml

http://www.ispionline.it/ad/electoral/ISPI%20WP%20­%20Sustainability%20and%20Effectiveness%20of%20Electoral%20Assistance%20­%20The%20Electoral%20Cycle%20Approach.pdf

Topic II: The Legality and Regulation of Drones

Introduction

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS), also known as drones, can be defined as “aircraftscontrolled by ‘pilots’ from the ground.” Drones can be characterized by two basic categories: those thatare used for surveillance purposes and those that are armed with missiles and bombs. Most drones havethe ability to strategically eliminate individuals or high risk targets. Unmanned aerial vehicles havebecome an increasingly popular and effective force because unlike manned aircrafts, drones can stayaloft for several hours. With the extensive use of drones, nations also eliminate the threat posed to their10

armed forces in direct, combative warfare. Because many developed nations lack the manpower andcapabilities required to perform certain military operations in modern warfare, nations use drones toenhance and complement their respective combative, man to man military operations.11

Nations have set few regulations regarding the use of drones, making them extremely popularthrough militaristic eyes, but unpopular through humanitarian eyes. The international community hasstressed that drones for the purpose of surveillance and reconnaissance are acceptable; however, citinginternational humanitarian law, it [the global community] has severely condemned the use of drones instrategically eliminating individuals in foreign lands – this also carries the possibility of infringing onanother country’s sovereignty. Drones have not been constrained by humanitarian law, which has led12

many to believe that the use of drones is unrestricted. There have been many reports of abuse andsevere collateral damage by drones, especially in nations such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.Although drones are used for strategic elimination of an individual, often times, they can cause extremecollateral damage, and actually worsen the situation on the battlefield. Throughout history, the use of13

drones can be described as both tactical and immoral.

History

Contrary to popular belief, drones have been an essential component of warfare for a long time.One of the first recorded use of drones was by the Austrians in 1849. The Austrians launched around

10 Wright, Jim, and Chris Cole. "Drone Wars UK." Drone Wars UK. Peace News, Jan. 2010. Web. 04 May 2013.http://dronewars.net/aboutdrone/11 “I. Unmanned Robots and the Evolution toward FullyAutonomous Weapons." Losing Humanity. Human RightsWatch, 19 Nov. 2012. Web. 04 May 2013.”http://www.hrw.org/reports/2012/11/19/losing­humanity12 “Deen, Thalif. "INTER PRESS SERVICE." IPS – “Drone” a Dirty Word in the U.N. Lexicon. Inter Press Service,n.d. Web. 04 May 2013.”http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/drone­a­dirty­word­in­the­u­n­lexicon/13 Board, The Editorial. "The Trouble With Drones." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Apr. 2013. Web.04 May 2013.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/opinion/the­trouble­with­drones.html?_r=0

200 pilotless balloons with attached bombs against the city of Venice. A few decades later, the UnitedStates essentially imitated these drones during the Civil War for bombing and reconnaissance.14

Although fairly basic, drones were used extensively during World War II and the cold war era—mostlyas radio controlled pilotless aircrafts. At the end of World War II, General Henry H. Arnold made astaggering prediction. He said, “We have just won a war with a lot of heroes flying around in planes.The next war may be fought by airplanes with no men in them at all... Take everything you've learnedabout aviation in war, throw it out of the window, and let's go to work on tomorrow's aviation. It will bedifferent from anything the world has ever seen.”15

Modern day drone warfare transpired for a variety of reasons: as a counter terrorism response,a tactic that wouldn’t endanger flight crews, and costs exponentially less than deploying foot soldiers.The first appearance of the modern drone in the battlefield was during the Bosnian War. For years,16

most nations have used drones for the purpose of survey and monitoring; however, after September 11,2001 the United States heavily increased its reliance on drones as a counter terrorism response. OnFebruary 4, 2002, the United States used an unmanned drone in a targeted killing. The intended targetwas Osama Bin Laden, but in reality, the strike had hit innocent Afghan civilians gathering scrap metal.17

This was considered a major leap forward in respect to drone use. Recently a spokesperson of the UNSecretary General, Ban Ki Moon expressed serious concern regarding the use of armed drones fortargeted killings, “as it raises questions about compliance with the fundamental principle of distinctionbetween combatants and non­combatants.” Policymic reports that for every fifty civilians, one terrorist18

is killed. The New America Foundation estimates that in Pakistan, three thousand people have died19

from drones and that twenty percent of these people were non­militants. What he [Ban Ki Moon] said20

a few months ago still holds true, and the UN is struggling to fix this problem.

Current Situation

14 Shaw, Ian. "History of U.S. Drones." Understanding Empire. Understanding Empire, 2013. Web. 04 May 2013.http://understandingempire.wordpress.com/2­0­a­brief­history­of­u­s­drones/15 "MQ­1 Predator and MQ­9 Reaper Unmanned Aircraft Systems." Air & Space Power Journal, n.d. Web. 14 Aug.2013.http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational/apj­s/2008/4tri08/chambisseng.htm16 Spinetta, Lawrence. "The Rise of Unmanned Aircraft." Historynet.com. N.p., 10 Nov. 2010. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.<http://www.historynet.com/the­rise­of­unmanned­aircraft.htm>.17 Sifton, John. "A Brief History of Drones, by John Sifton." A Survival Plan. A Survival Plan, 2012. Web. 04 May2013. <http://asurvivalplan.com/2013/02/28/a­brief­history­of­drones­by­john­sifton/>.18 “Deen, Thalif. "INTER PRESS SERVICE." IPS – “Drone” a Dirty Word in the U.N. Lexicon. Inter Press Service, n.d.Web. 04 May 2013.”19 Taylor, Robert. "PolicyMic." PolicyMic. N.p., Dec. 2012.<http://www.policymic.com/articles/16949/predator­drone­strikes­50­civilians­are­killed­for­every­1­terrorist­and­the­cia­only­wants­to­up­drone­warfare>.20 Morgenstein, Ben Brumfield and Mark, Saima Mohsin, Salma Abdelaziz, and Bill Mears Contributed to This Report."Drones Killing Innocent Pakistanis, U.N. Official Says."CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 04 May 2013.<http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/world/asia/u­n­drone­objections/index.html>.

In the past decade, there has been active debate regarding the ethicality and legality of drones,especially armed drones, in war situations. Some perceive the use of drones as necessary, and a newforce in war technology, others as the direct infringement of another country’s sovereignty and oftentimes a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Since the advent of contemporary dronetechnology, more than seventy nations have adopted drones as part of their defense budget. Nationssuch as the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Israel, China, and Iran operate armed UAVs;however the extent of China and Iran’s drone programs are relatively unknown.

The panic doesn’t stem from the fact that there is a widespread use of drones; the global fearoriginates from the fact that other nations might begin to use armed drones and point to nations who areusing drones excessively today and say “we learned it from you.” The global community has failed toestablish “clear and demonstrable” rules that would at best create a global standard for distinguishingbetween “legitimate and rogue” uses of armed drones. One drone program that has sparked much21

controversy is the United States’ armed drone offensive against al­Qaeda. Since 2004, the UnitedStates has carried out approximately four hundred drone strikes against Pakistan and Yemen.Opponents of the drone program have raised a number of arguments for the illegality of American dronestrikes against Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

Opponents argue that since the United States is not in a state of war against Pakistan,Afghanistan, or Yemen, drone attacks violate the “territorial sovereignty” of these nations. Moreover,these attacks do not meet the requirements for self­defense under the United Nations Charter. These22

same arguments can also be applied to similar drone programs, such as the United Kingdom andIsrael’s. Recently, Ben Emmerson, a special rapporteur to the United Nations led a panel that placed aspotlight on the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom; the nations that have excessivelyconducted drone attacks. In respect to the United States’ drone offensive in Pakistan, he concluded thatUS drone strikes violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. Emmerson later described the effects of drones on ruralPakistani regions and populations, “These proud and independent people have been self­governing forgenerations, and have a rich tribal history that has been too little understood in the West.” Their tribalstructures have been broken down by the military campaign in FATA and by the use of drones inparticular.” A UN statement later released confirmed that the Pakistani government did not consent to23

the drone strikes. Often times drone strikes can severely displace local populations in regions with hightribal populations such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. Although, there has been a sharp increase

21 Roberts, Kristin. "When the Whole World Has Drones." NationalJournal.com. N.p., 21 Mar. 2013. Web.<http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when­the­whole­world­has­drones­20130321>.22 Orr, Andre C. Unmanned, Unprecedented, and Unresolved: The Status of American Drone Strikes in PakistanUnder International Law.http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/ILJ/upload/Orr­final.pdf23 Charbonneau, Louis. "U.S. Drone Strikes Violate Pakistan's Sovereignty: U.N." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 15 Mar.2013. Web. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/us­un­drones­idUSBRE92E0Y320130315>.

in drone strikes, the United Nations has had little progress in deterring nations from infringing of nationalsovereignty and violating international law.

Apart from condemning aerial drone strikes, the United Nations has not passed anycomprehensive resolutions that would limit or restrict the use of armed drones; however, the reportsubmitted by Ben Emerson to the United Nations did request the Council in Geneva “to declare andimplement national moratoria on at least the testing, production, assembly, transfer, acquisition,deployment and use of LARs until such time as an internationally agreed upon framework on the futureof LARs has been established.”24

Committee Directive

The central goal of the SPECPOL committee is to establish clear guidelines that wouldultimately decrease the dependency nations have on armed drones. First, however, the SPECPOLcommittee should define the role armed drones can play [if any] in accordance with international andhumanitarian law. As result of armed drone strikes, many militant infested nations and their populationshave been severely displaced with no blatant method to eradicate the control stronger nations have ontheir sovereignty. SPECPOL should focus on both preventing drones from violating international lawand protecting nations’ sovereignty from armed drone strikes.

Questions to Consider

1. Has your nation been affected by drones? Furthermore, do you represent a nation thatencourages the use of armed drones? If so, has it been effective for your nation?

2. Has your country responded to the use of drones?3. Has your nation ever used drones, armed or otherwise?4. How has your country changed due to armed drone strikes?5. Does your government view targeted killings as justifiable?6. What should be the extent of limiting armed drone strikes?7. Are the attacks proportional to the threat?

Suggested Sources

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44397#.UYVYzDQ3srV

http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/drone­a­dirty­word­in­the­u­n­lexicon/

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/un­investigates­us/510156a978c90a6ae00001b1

24 "PressTV ­ UN Report Says US Drones Violate Law." Press TV ­ UN Report Says US Drones Violate Law. PressTV,3 May 2013. Web. <http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/301537.html>.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/world/europe/un­panel­to­investigate­rise­in­drone­strikes.html?_r=0

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/aug/03/drone­stocks­by­country

http://www.livingunderdrones.org/wp­content/uploads/2012/09/Stanford_NYU_LIVING_UNDER_DRONES.pdf

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/03/301542/un­calls­for­end­to­use­of­drones/

Topic III: The Situation in Kashmir

Introduction

Many describe Kashmir, a small valley tucked between India and neighboring Pakistan, as themost beautiful place in the world; on the contrary, some will refer to Kashmir today as ‘hell on Earth.’ Inhis book, British civil servant Sir Walter Lawrence described the scenic valley as “an emerald set inpearls, a land of lakes, clear streams, green turf, magnificent trees and mighty mountains – where the airis cool and the water is sweet.” Today, this picture perfect perception of Kashmir has been replaced25

by a much more terrifying one.

The Kashmir valley, nestled between northwest India and Northeast Pakistan, stretches for amere ninety miles and covers roughly 86,000 square miles, making it about the same size as the USstate of Idaho. 60% of its nearly twelve million citizens are Muslims, while the remaining 40% are26

Hindus.24 Kashmir’s economy is primarily dependent on agriculture and local manufacturing. Kashmirexports a wide variety of agricultural products including: apples, barley, cherries, corn, millet, oranges,rice, peaches, pears, saffron, sorghum, vegetables, and wheat. Kashmir is also known for manufacturingproducts such as: handicrafts, rugs, and silk shawls. However, in recent years, the agriculture and27

manufacturing sectors have been severely strained by the ongoing territorial dispute of Kashmir.Pakistan and India both claim sovereignty over Kashmir, and this dispute has resulted in mass casualties,unspeakable human rights violations, and widespread acts of aggression. Since their 1947 partition,Kashmir has been the major source of controversy between India and Pakistan. In fact, the two nationshave fought three wars over Kashmir and have regularly clashed in the surrounding regions.28

Although miniscule in size, the valley of Kashmir has always been a vital location; it’s locationalong the Silk Road increased the area’s importance both historically and geographically. Considered an“earthly paradise” by the Moghul Empire, today Kashmir is the polar opposite.25 Despite the wishes ofMahatma Gandhi, India’s ‘father of independence,’ the Indian subcontinent was divided along religiouslines and two nations emerged: India, a secular state, and Pakistan, an Islamic homeland for Muslims.Depending on their geographical position and the wish of their inhabitants, the roughly five hundred andsixty five states under the British Empire were forced to choose between Pakistan and India. Kashmir,

25 "Kashmir: A Troubled Paradise." PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. July 2013.http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/flash_point/kashmir/background.html26 Tristam, Pierre. "Kashmir." About.com Middle East Issues. About.com, n.d. Web. 01 July 2013.27 Nazim, Mir. "Mir Nazim." Free Kashmir. N.p., 10 Feb. 2010. Web. July 2013.http://mirnazim.org/writings/free­kashmir­an­economic­perspective/28 Joshi, Smita. Kashmir­ History, Current Issues, and a Proposal for a Brighter Future.http://www.stanford.edu/class/e297a/INDIA%20­%20KASHMIR%20­%20PAKISTAN.htm

unfortunately, found itself in the middle.24

History

Until the 1940s, the Indian subcontinent was dominated by foreign powers. India became acolony of Great Britain in the 1700s; however, by the early 20th century, the Indian population came toresent British rule and demanded independence. In India, Mohandas Gandhi’s Hindu non­violentseparatist movement catalyzed the revolution against British oppression; simultaneously the Muslimpopulation started to clamor for not only independence, but for the creation of a separate Islamichomeland. In 1947, the British Empire gave in to those demands which led to the creation of India andPakistan as separate and independent states. The 1947 partition of the Indian subcontinent is regardedas one of the largest migrations in history. Approximately, 3.5 million Hindus and Sikhs fled Pakistan toIndia, and roughly five million Muslims escaped India for their new Islamic homeland: Pakistan.29

To fully comprehend the dispute over Kashmir, one must understand the uneasy relationshipbetween India and its neighbor Pakistan.27 As these two nations solidified their global position postpartition, they fell into dispute over control of several regions; in this case, Kashmir. Depending on itsgeographical location and the will of its inhabitants, each of the five hundred and sixty five states underthe British Empire was forced to ally with either India or Pakistan. While Kashmir boasted a majorityMuslim population, it found itself in the middle geographically. Its Hindu ruler, Maharaja Hari Singhfailed to conduct a formal plebiscite in Kashmir; as a result, there was no formal declaration expressingthe will of the Kashmiri population. By October of 1947, armed tribesman accompanied by members ofthe Pakistani military invaded Kashmir to take control of the region. A frightened Maharaja Hari Singhrequested armed assistance from India; in return for India’s protection of Kashmir, the IndianGovernment demanded that Kashmir accede to India. Fighting on the border continued for anotherthree months until the United Nation arranged a formal ceasefire.24 Furthermore, the United NationsSecurity Council created a ceasefire demarcation through the middle of Kashmir and ordered areferendum through Resolution 47 to debate Kashmir’s accession to India. Resolution 47 also called forobservers in Kashmir and an expansion of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan.30

Decades have passed, and a formal plebiscite has yet to occur.24

Over the next three decades, India and Pakistan went to war, once in 1965 and then in 1971

29 "Kashmir Conflict." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services,20 Aug. 2007. Web. 1 July 2013.http://www.2facts.com/PrintPage.aspx?PIN=i070163030 “UN Security Council Resolution 47, Kashmir." Dec 1969. Council on Foreign Relations. July 2013.http://www.cfr.org/india/un­security­council­resolution­47­kashmir/p9130

with Kashmir being at the center of the conflicts. By 1989, Kashmir’s quest for independence had nowtransformed into a religious war – a violent conflict between Hindus and Muslims, dragging religiousfundamentalists into the struggle. Former Islamic Mujahedeen members who fought against the SovietUnion arrived in the Kashmiri region and assisted in sprouting one of the largest rebel insurgencies thatthe world has ever known: the Islamic insurgency against Indian rule. Since 1989, the Indian governmenthas maintained a position blaming Pakistan for not only indirectly allowing the Islamic insurgency tooccur, but also blatantly assisting rebel fighters with weapons and strategic combat information againstIndia.24 Pakistan counters this position by saying that it is only “providing moral and diplomatic supportfor the freedom struggle in Kashmir.”31

The Indian Armed Forces claim that they are fighting to protect innocent Kashmiris from radicalIslamist terrorist; on the other hand, Kashmiri rebels assert that there fight is purely for defendinginnocent Kashmiris from a ‘murderous Indian army’ and achieving independence. In reality, however,no side is completely innocent. Both the Indian security forces and the armed insurgents have committedunconstitutional, illegal acts of terror. The amount of total fatalities and the infrastructural condition of theKashmir valley are a reflection of the uncontrolled behavior of the Indian Armed Forces and theirinability to suppress local insurgents. World Reporter Anuj Chopra, along with other human rightsmonitors, say that the Indian government unconstitutionally detained approximately six to eight thousandsuspected Muslim Kashmiri militants, creating an environment of resentment and distrust toward theIndian Government. As the result of poor management by the Indian Army, in respect to ethics andbasic combative infrastructure, the insurgency dragged on for more than fifteen years claiming average ofthree lives per day. Total fatalities during the span of the conflict are estimated to be between 50,000and 100,000 civilians. According to Human Rights Watch, approximately 85% of the civilians killed inthe Kashmiri Conflict by militants have been Kashmiri Muslims.24

Current Situation

Since the partition in 1947, India and Pakistan have periodically resumed diplomatic relationsand communication. They also resumed negotiations over the sovereignty of the Kashmiri region withthe United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan facilitating the discussions. Both nations havestayed fixed on their positions regarding Kashmir. India uses a few reasons to justify its sovereignty overKashmir. First, despite Kashmir’s Muslim majority, India points out that it does not accept the “twonation theory” for Kashmir. Furthermore, India claims that Kashmir is an “integral” part of India. The32 33

31 "Pakistani Position on Kashmir." Pakistani Position on Kashmir. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 July 2013.http://www.kashmirlibrary.org/kashmir_timeline/kashmir_chapters/pakistan­position.shtml32 Hardgrave, Robert. "India: The Dilemmas of Diversity", Journal of Democracy, pp. 54–6533 “Ministry of External Affairs, India – Kashmir Issue Meaindia.nic.in. Archived from the original on 16 June 2008.Retrieved 2010­02­02.

most important justification for keeping Kashmir as a state is the Instrument of Accession. On the 25th

of October in 1947, then ruler of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession,thereby legally becoming a part of India. The accession to India is bind by not only India law, but alsoby international law; the accession itself is irrevocable. On the contrary, Pakistan insists Maharaja Hari34

Singh was a tyrannical leader who brutally oppressed his people during the time of accession. In35

addition, Pakistan claims that Indian troops were already in Kashmir before the Instrument of Accessionbecame law, thereby violating the Standstill Agreement, which was designed to maintain peace inKashmir.36

India and Pakistan both possess nuclear weapons which has led many to categorize the linebetween these two nations as the most dangerous border in the world. Although neither country hasused nuclear weapons in combat, erratic outbreaks of violence have severely displaced the Kashmiriregion. Furthermore, the violence has brought Pakistan and India on the brink of war many, many times,worrying the international community about the possibilities of a nuclear war. The Kashmir insurgencyreached its zenith in 2001 when an armed attack on the Indian parliament killed fourteen people. Indiaimmediately blamed Pakistan for its illegal support of terrorist organizations operating in Kashmir.5 India,specifically Home Minister L.K. Advani implied that Pakistan had deliberately worked with terroristorganizations to infiltrate the attack. Mr. Advani went on to say, “we have received some clues aboutyesterday's incident, which shows that a neighboring country, and some terrorist organizations activethere behind it.” The two countries immediately deployed more than a million troops to the border,37

and fears mounted that if a peaceful solution wasn’t reached soon, Pakistan and India would use theirnuclear capabilities, starting a global nuclear war. Pakistan’s foreign minister, Abdul Sattar, describedIndia’s mobilization as “coercive and intimidating.” However, after international pressure mounted,38

Pakistan and India withdrew their troops from the front and the situation slowly diffused. In January of2002, as part of India’s plan to aggressively pressure Islamabad, Army Chief General, S. Padmanabhanwarned that Pakistan would be extensively punished if it launched a nuclear attack against India. Hestated, “let me assure you of one thing as surely as I'm alive. Should a nuclear weapon be used againstIndia, Indian forces, our assets at sea, economic, human or other targets, the perpetrators of that

http://web.archive.org/web/20080616161619/http://meaindia.nic.in/jk/kashmirissue.htm34 "Kashmir: The True Story." Meaindia.nic.in/jk/19jk01.pdf. Ministry of External Affairs: Government of India, n.d.Web. July 2013.http://www.mea.gov.in/Uploads/PublicationDocs/19156_Kashmir_The_True_Story_19­01­2004.pdf35 "Azad Kashmir Regiment." Azad Kashmir Regiment. Pakistan Army, n.d. Web. 01 July 2013.http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/AWPReview/TextContent.aspx?pId=159&rnd=46036 Schofield, Victoria. "Kashmir: The Origins of the Dispute." BBC News. BBC, 16 Jan. 2002. Web. 01 July 2013.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1762146.stm37 Goswami, Arvind. 3 D Deceit, Duplicity & Dissimulation of U.s. Foreign Policy towards India, Pakistan &...[S.l.]: Authorhouse, 2012. Print38 "Military." 2002. Global Security, n.d. Web. 01 July 2013http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kashmir­2002.htm

outrage shall be punished so severely that their continuation thereafter in any form or fray will bedoubtful.” This statement did not relieve the global community of its fears due to Pakistan’s habit ofacting unpredictably. India had essentially promised that if Pakistan mobilized nuclear capabilities, thenIndia would ensure, at any cost, that Pakistan would cease to exist.37 In May of 2002 fears of warmounted once again. Islamist militants carried out a massive attack on an Indian army camp in Kashmir,killing more than thirty soldiers including some wives and children of the soldiers. Following this incident,national security analysts warned that a colossal war that may include nuclear weapons between Indiaand Pakistan was more likely than ever. According to US estimates, a nuclear war between these twonations would kill at least twelve million civilians and severely injure another seven million. Nuclearexperts also worried that if the dispute over Kashmir wasn’t settled diplomatically, the effects of anuclear war would seriously harm surrounding nations.5 The emitted radiation in the atmosphere couldharm several surrounding countries such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and other countries inthe Middle East and East Asia.

Approximately seven months later, the tension between India and Pakistan had waned, but theprospect of peace in the Kashmiri region and the two nations was still considered an unrealistic,idealistic idea. India agreed to pull back troops from the front if, and only if, Pakistan terminated itsblatant support for cross­border terrorism. In August of 2002, Indian officials claimed that Pakistan’ssupport for cross­border terrorism had declined but not ended; as a result, India pledged to neverengage in a dialogue over the dispute of Kashmir until Pakistan ended its support of terroristorganizations such as Lashkar­e­Taiba and Jaish­e­Mohammad.24 On December 18, 2003, thenPakistani president, General Musharraf, said, “Pakistan is ready to drop long­standing demands for theimplementation of U.N. resolutions over Kashmir and meet India ‘halfway’ in a bid for peace.” The39

move was welcomed by India. In January of 2004, Indian Prime Minister, Vajpayee and PakistaniPresident, Pervez Musharraf held direct talks at the 12th SAARC summit in Islamabad. That followingNovember, newly elected Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced that India would reduce itstroops in the Kashmiri valley, thereby alleviating some of the tension in Kashmir and between India andneighboring Pakistan.

Since 2004, talks have been proposed and held by both India and Pakistan but no substantivesolution has ever been reached.37 Out of international pressure, specifically by the United States, theUnited Kingdom, and Russia, the governments of both countries have only “decided to continue tosearch for mutually acceptable options for a peaceful negotiated settlement.”24 Following the 2008attacks in Mumbai, the diplomatic relationship between India and Pakistan significantly deteriorated and

39 18, December. "Pakistan Signals Flexibility in Effort for Kashmir Peace." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 18Dec. 2003. Web. 01 July 2013.http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/18/world/fg­kashmir18

any future hopes of solving the Kashmir issue were not in sight. Today, the Kashmiri region is regardedas disputed territory. Sixty six years have passed since the partition and the political climate remainsincredibly volatile. The people of Kashmir still live in constant state of angst, not knowing how theirtomorrow will look like or what country they will belong to, if any.

Committee Directive

The primary goal of the SPECPOL committee is to find a comprehensive solution to thedisputed region of Kashmir. The debate on this issue should be centered on the sovereignty of Kashmir.Delegates should be informed about Indian and Pakistani claims, but that should not be the entire focusof the debate. A global perspective on this issue is imperative. Determining the future of Kashmir’ssovereignty and creating compromises and negotiations between India and Pakistan that are mutuallybeneficial to both countries should be the focal points during the debate.

Questions to Consider

1. Is your country, in any way, allied with India or Pakistan?2. Does your nation support the claims put forward by India or Pakistan?3. Has your nation even been involved in a territorial dispute, such as Kashmir?4. If so, how did your nation undergo the negotiation process?5. According to the policies of your nation, what would be the ideal result in Kashmir?

Suggested Sources

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399992/A­brief­history­of­the­Kashmir­conflict.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/kashmirtheforgottenconflict/2011/07/2011715143415277754.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/world/asia/indian­officials­advise­preparations­for­possible­war.html?_r=0

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/a­view­of­pakistans­efforts­in­kashmir­from­the­inside

http://www.terraproject.net/en/photographers/michele­borzoni/kashmir­india