TFI Chair Letter - UNAR

UNAR 2017 Committee on Territories and Foreign Intervention

Committee Overview Status of Somaliland Northwest Passage

Fresh Water Conflicts in Asia Lake Malawi Border Dispute

Committee Description Welcome to TFI at UNAR 2017! As the Committee on Territories and Foreign Intervention, we will be dealing with border disputes, unrecognized territories, and the issue of national sovereignty. Please remember that, as with all committees at UNAR, TFI will run a Harvard-style debate, meaning no pre-written resolutions are allowed. We look forward to seeing you at the conference! Delegates should consider coming prepared with at least one position paper. This will make them eligible for awards at the conclusion of the conference. Note that while it is admirable to strive for an award, participants of the Committee on Territories and Foreign Intervention are reminded that the purpose of this committee is to come up with real solutions for global issues, and so delegates should focus on collaboration in order to do so effectively.

Chairs

Evan Allen [email protected]

Niels Rasmussen [email protected]

Hello delegates, my name is Niels Rasmussen, and I can’t wait to be your TFI chair! This is my second time chairing but my fourth year participating in Model UN. I am a senior at Pittsford Mendon High School, and I love playing tennis, creative writing, and analyzing rap. As Evan said, ask us any questions you have.

Hello delegates, my name is Evan Allen, and I’m pumped to be chairing TFI at UNAR 2017. This is my fourth year in Model UN and my fourth time chairing. I am a senior at Pittsford-Sutherland, and outside of MUN I spend most of my time swimming, singing, or eating, not necessarily in that order. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me or Niels, and we will answer as soon as possible.



Topic One: Status of Somaliland Since the beginning of the civil war in 1991, the nation of Somalia has been without a stable central government. Much of the southern part of the country was engulfed in violence for over two decades; the story is familiar: radical terrorists, rampant piracy, and the random application of sharia law wherever it was seen fit. However, in May of 1991, the northwestern portion of Somalia largely protected itself from this fate when a conference of member of the Somali National Movement at Burao unilaterally declared the independence of the region, which they called Somaliland. Since then, the region has been governed by democratically elected governments, and has maintained a remarkable level of stability considering the turbulent nature of the region. The area is de facto independent from Somalia.

Even the new transitional government holds no sway here. The government of Somaliland, headquartered in Hargeisa, argues that they have enforced order in the region for years, with no help from the central government, and thus their

independence should be recognized. However, as of January 2016, the nation of Somaliland remains completely unrecognized by any UN member-state or international organization, though several nations, , maintain informal relations. Though the situation is currently nonviolent, it is uncertain whether it will remain that way in the future. There are two options concerning the fate of Somaliland. It can either be internationally recognized as an independent nation, potentially jeopardizing the tentative stability in Somalia, or it could be reintegrated into Somalia as a whole, going against the wishes of many of Somaliland’s citizens. As Somalia is both a sovereign nation claiming Somaliland as part of its territory, and a UN member state, its support would be crucial for recognition of Somaliland. The African Union is another entity with a stake in the matter; a newly independent Somaliland would be eligible for AU membership, and accepting un- or partially-recognized member states is not unprecedented for the AU, as evidenced by the membership of the Sahrawi Arab Republic. In the end, it will be up to the committee to decide the extent to which, and the manner in which, the UN should intervene in this volatile situation. To what extent, if any, should the UN be involved in the recognition of breakaway states, specifically Somaliland? In what situations does the right to self-determination apply? When is it more prudent to strive for separation rather than unity?

Sources: BBC News Article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/africa/7365002.stm BBC Somaliland Profile: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14115069 CNN Article: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/africa/conversation-somaliland-mpa/ Somaliland Government Website: http://somalilandgov.com/


Topic Two: Status of Somaliland Due to global warming and the melting of the polar icecaps,

new shipping routes have opened in the Canadian Arctic. They are known as the Northwest Passages, based on the historic legend of a waterway connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific. The Passage is important to shipping companies across the world because it shortens the distance from Europe to East Asia. This distance is usually reached via the Panama Canal; the use of the Passage conserves almost 4000 km. However, disputes have arisen over the sovereignty of the waters in the Passage. Canada claims the route as part of its territorial waters, and thus asserts that its own maritime laws be applied to commerce through the Passage. Meanwhile, the international community, especially the United States and the European Union, claims that the strait is international waters, and international law should be applied. The basis of the debate is over who gets control over the area. Canada believes that it should have the right to regulate trade through the Passage. The entire route is well within Canada’s territorial waters, solidifying Canada’s claim to the region. However, an American ship, the SS Manhattan, incited the debate in 1969 when it was ordered by the US government to purposely avoid seeking Canadian approval for a voyage through the Northwest Passage to the oilfields in the Alaskan North Slope. Since then, the area has been a hot topic in US-Canada relations, as various countries have sided with the US against Canada’s claims, and the Canadian military has upped their presence in the region in response. Both sides have important stakes in the matter. Canada seeks to profit off control of the Passage. However, it is also interested in environmental protection in the region. The ability to regulate ship traffic also grants the ability to regulate pollution and habitat destruction of the fragile Arctic biome. Furthermore, when facing a militaristic Russian Federation across the Arctic Ocean, it could be important for the Passage to be controlled by Canada, preventing the Russians from transporting military vessels through the area. At the same time, it is in the best interest of the international community for the passage to be considered international waters. This would allow shipping companies to send their vessels through the strait without seeking the approval of Canadian authorities, greatly increasing the potential traffic volume, with a correlated increase in profits. It is up to the committee to propose a solution to this dispute. Delegates should keep in mind the environmental and security consequences that come with an open waterway, but also remember that the maintenance of free trade is an important value to the UN. How should maritime law be interpreted in this dispute, as it is applied to territorial waters and international straits? Which is more important when negotiating commerce treaties: environmental protection or free trade? At what point do the interests of sovereign nations overpower the interests of commercial entities within a nation?

Sources:

American University Case Study: http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/northwest-passage.htm Centre for Research on Globalization Article: http://www.globalresearch.ca/northwest-passage-trump-card-for-us-arctic-policy/5560748 Wall Street Journal Article: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-arctic-front-in-the-battle-to-contain-russia-1457478393NOAA Page on Environmental Issues: http://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_arctic_shipping.html


Topic Three: Fresh Water Conflicts in Asia While disputes between China, Vietnam, Malaysia, and

the Philippines over the South China Sea have been at the forefront of the public eye, there is another issue in Asia that is potentially far more important: the lack of fresh water. With its enormous population, it is somewhat unsurprising that Asia has the lowest amount of fresh water per capita of any continent; recent droughts have exacerbated this problem by causing crop failures and electricity shortages. MIT research last year concluded that Asia runs an extremely

high risk of becoming severely "water-stressed," and that by 2050 almost 1 billion more people than today could be victims of freshwater shortages. Freshwater is an integral resource for agriculture and energy. The growing population and the industrial expansion in Asia are certainly detrimental to the situation. Freshwater is a pressing territorial issue because a major supply of freshwater in Asia comes from transnational rivers. These are rivers that extend across more than one country’s borders; they are not contained within a single nation. Traditionally, this water can be harvested by many nations, but with the foreboding predictions of shortages in the future, some nations are attempting to keep the freshwater within their own borders. In particular, China has been making efforts to reengineer the flow of rivers along its borders, and has been using dams to try and stop the flow of fresh water altogether to other nations. Within China, there are 110 transnational rivers, and in total they flow into 18 other countries. A large portion of these freshwater sources lie in Tibet, and China has begun major dam construction projects in this region (China already has the most dams of any country). The effects of these actions can been seen in shrinking rivers and other bodies of water in Kazakstan and Russia, and it can be expected that there will be great impacts in southern Asia. Nations like Laos are also engaging in diverting rivers and constructing dams to support their hydropower industries. As the population grows and more countries become involved in this issue, tensions will only rise, threatening the peace in Asia. How can the international community respond to a nation's actions within its own borders that strongly affect other nations? How can we solve the disputes over these transnational rivers without harming the economies of nations involved? As the population of the entire world continues to grow, how can apply our solutions to this issue to fresh water disputes that may arise in any part of the world?

Sources:

MIT News Article: http://news.mit.edu/2016/water-problems-asia-0330 The National Article: http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/asias-next-major-conflict-will-be-over-fresh-water Japan Times Article: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/12/18/commentary/world-commentary/asias-fight-fresh-water/#.WG26NLGZN0s Today Online Article: http://www.todayonline.com/world/water-war-asia


Topic Four: Lake Malawi Border Dispute

Since the 1960s, when Malawi and Tanzania gained independence, the African Great Lake of Lake Malawi (known in Tanzania as Lake Nyasa) has been subject to border disputes between the two nations. Originally, this problem did not attract much attention. Even though Malawi and Tanzania have debated the territorial claims to the lake for decades, figuring out a solution was often put aside; both these countries have had to deal with far more pressing issues that developing, new nations tend to face. However, recent discoveries of oil and gas in the lake have served to heighten tensions. Tanzania is pushing for a new map that depicts the border between the two countries running through the middle of the lake, while Malawi maintains that the entire lake is its territory. This territorial dispute is now at the center of attention, so much so that Malawi itself has asked the United Nations for help in solving it. Part of the issue stems from the fact that foreign oil and gas companies wish to utilize the natural resources of the lake, but doing so requires permits from the nation to which the lake belongs. In 2012, Malawi gave approval to Surestream, allowing the British oil company to work in the area and harvest oil. However, this sparked further debate over whether or not granting licenses and permits to foreign companies falls under the Malawian government's jurisdiction—unsurprisingly Tanzania argued that the Malawian government had no such right. For developing nations like Malawi and Tanzania, the economic benefits of the oil and gas are tremendous. Some bilateral measures have been taken on a regional level to solve the dispute, such as the two nations accepting mediate from the Forum of Former African Heads of State and Government. However, these measures may not be enough, so the United Nations and perhaps the International Court of Justice may have to play a role in the matter. Incidents of violence break out more frequently along the border, and, although the two nations seem to be responding quickly to the occurrences, a long term solution is needed. How can we solve this dispute without damaging the growing economies of these two countries? Can the United Nations develop a solution that involves both the regional and international communities? What guidelines can be developed for future situations where new energy resources are found in disputed territories?

Sources:

All Africa Article: http://allafrica.com/stories/201612050108.html World Politics Review Article: http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/14024/malawi-tanzania-border-dispute-flares-up-over-potential-oil-discovery Ventures Africa Report: http://venturesafrica.com/malawi-tanzania-lake-border-dispute-why-the-un-should-rule-in-favour-of-malawi/ Nyasa Times Songwe River Article: http://www.nyasatimes.com/malawi-tanzania-sign-mou-songwe-river-basin-development-program/

TFI Chair Letter - UNAR

Documents

Transcript of TFI Chair Letter - UNAR