FIRST COMMITTEE

GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Disarmament and International Security Committee

The Disarmament and International Security Committee deals with disarmament and related international security questions. The following three issues will be discussed during the conference:

Reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

With the new START treaty between the United States and Russia signed on the 8th of April 2010 and the Nuclear Security Summit, held on April 12th and 13th, 2010, there seem to be positive developments in the struggle against nuclear weapons. But still, there is a lot of tension and debate on the topic. The Prime Minister of Israel cancelled his trip to this last summit, and Iran was not even invited and held its own non-proliferation conference on April 17th and 18th, 2010.

Therefore, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, with the aim of preventing the use of nuclear weapons and ensuring the peaceful usage of the nuclear energy, has still not been signed by four sovereign nations recognised by the United Nations. India and Pakistan openly admit to having nuclear weapons; Israel neither denies nor confirms it; and North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003. France, China and Britain are also known to have nuclear weapons, and many nations believe Iran’s uranium enrichment programme is intended to make the material needed for nuclear weapons.

Given the tension and the debate on the topic, is it possible to revise and renew the Non-Proliferation Treaty to ensure that it is signed and implemented by all UN member states? Is it feasible to maintain the notion of nuclear-weapon states or do they block the disarmament process? How can the treaty take into account the protests of the non-signatory members? What can be done in order to improve the withdrawal process or to prevent the signatories from withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Reduction of military budgets
The less weapons there are available, the less war in the world. That is the idea. But is it true? Is the availability of items to scare, harm or even kill each other not inherent to mankind? The General Assembly promotes the reduction of the arms race and military expenditures. They are a heavy burden for the economies of all nations and have harmful effects on world peace and security. Some say the reduction of military expenditures as a result of the progress in disarmament negotiations have favourable consequences on the world economic and financial situation. Some countries are developing and have millions of people in extreme poverty and hunger, but their governments still spend millions of dollars every year buying new weapons. The resources released through the reduction of military expenditures could be reallocated to the economic and social development of all states and people, particularly for the benefit of the developing countries. Some say it would even improve international security and cooperation among countries.

Since 1980, the United Nations Instrument for Reporting Military Expenditures standardised the reporting of military expenditures. It obliges member states to report annually their military expenditures of the latest fiscal year for which data is available. In order to make this system work, broad participation from all the members of the UN is needed. But is this the best way to establish a world without arms? And, is reducing military expenditures a suitable practice to achieve more stability and peace? Does the economy depend on the defence industry? Would the world benefit from freeing global resources currently bound to the military? Is this the best way for the UN to achieve a weapon free world?

Militarisation of the Arctic: the battle for newly found oil and gas
The Arctic area is generally described as a region around the geographic North Pole of the Earth that includes the Arctic Ocean and parts of Canada, the Russian Federation, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Iceland and the United States (Alaska). Under international law, no country currently owns the Arctic. Still it is one of the most vividly politically contested areas in the modern world. Because of the recent retreat of Arctic ice, there will be, in the near future, reservoirs of oil, gas, fish and minerals accessible. Also, because of the meltdown, new shipping routes, which are considerably shorter than the current ones will open. Therefore, not only are the states bordering the Arctic Ocean interested, but also other prestigious actors on the international scene, like the United Kingdom and Germany. They are fighting an increasingly fierce battle for territorial rights and exploration possibilities; often described as a New Cold War.
The 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, by which a country gains extraction and drilling rights to a 200-mile economic zone beyond its land borders , has to avoid conflicts. But, with the potential value of the North Pole and the surrounding area, and the militarisation of the region, this now seems terribly out of date. What should the UN do about this difficult area?