Position paper for Historical Security Council of 1973
|Topic:||The Situation in Southern Rhodesia|
|Southern Rhodesia is on the precipice of independence and full autonomy from the United
Kingdom. The minority-lead government has taken control in Southern Rhodesia and actively
uses their power to continue the cycle of apartheid. Our country, though supporting the
Southern Rhodesian government in the past, condemns the racist actions of the current regime.
Our country is actively working towards ending our own racial tension and in doing so wish to
help Southern Rhodesia tackle these issues.
To combat our own racial discrimination, the Commonwealth of Australia has barred any racially discriminatory sports teams from competing in an effort to subdue our history of racism as well as abolish the “White Autralian Policy.” Our country is steadfast in our efforts to reduce racial discrimination in Southern Rhodesia and to create a government that is truly representative of all races in Southern Rhodesia. To combat this, the Commonwealth of Australia is in support of sanctions against any country that continue the toxic policy of apartheid. Our country believes that to begin the steps of racial equality, there must be active communication between white and black Southern Rhodesians.
|Topic:||The Situation in the Middle East|
|After years of conflict in the Middle East, the prospect brokering peace seems to be inflating.
Despite the continuation of gridlock, both Israel and Egypt have expressed interest in a ceasefire,
therefore The Commonwealth of Australia firmly believes that mediating peace negotiations is a
necessity. In these negotiations, it is critical that Iserali occupations of holy land remain intact
The Commonwealth of Australia is calling for the intervention of the United Nations Security Council in Egypt and Israel peace negotiations. The two countries are currently in gridlock as Egypt refuses to negotiate until Israel withdraws to the pre-1967 borders. Without intervention, the country's positions will remain firm, unable to communicate or work with one another. UN mediation in peace talks and the dismantling of peace preventive concerns is critical to the success of ceasefires and conflict prevention in the Middle East.
|Topic:||The Situation in Cyprus|
| The conflicts between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities in Cyprus are at
great risk of escalation and in desperate need of mediation. Currently, the United Nations
Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) has a mandate to work alongside the United Kingdom
to mediate these conflicts and broker peace. In line with the agreement the United Kingdom
signed after Cyprus gained independence, they are required to mediate violence and protect the
power sharing agreements between the two communities, therefore, even if the UNFICYP’s
mandate expires and they withdraw, the United Kingdom is required to continue serving in
Cyprus. Without the aid of the UNFICYP, the conflict would escalate and peace would be
impossible to restore as the situation would be difficult for the United Kingdom to handle on its
own. This, if left unattended by the UNFICYP, could turn into a major crisis.
To avoid this, the Commonwealth of Australia believes that the UNFICYP’s mandate needs to be extended to help the United Kingdom mediate conflict between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot Communities. Meditation is absolutely necessary in the enforcement of peace, therefore extending the UNFICYP’S mandate is critical.
|Topic:||Situation in Southern Rhodesia|
|Since the White minority government in Southern Rhodesia declared its independence in 1965,
Austria has maintained the belief that the regime should not be recognized by any Member State
as legitimate. In compliance with the mandatory sanction imposed in Resolution 232 (1966),
Austria vowed to halt all imports of tobacco and tobacco products from Southern Rhodesia and
halt all exports of military equipment into Southern Rhodesia. The Austrian government also
passed the Foreign Trade Law of 1968 which allows us to easily uphold the economic and
military sanctions outlined in Resolution 232 (1966) and Resolution 253 (1968). As a permanently
neutral member to the United Nations, Austria seeks to find a peaceful solution for all people of
Southern Rhodesia. Austria applauds the work done by the United Kingdom as they continue to
negotiate with Southern Rhodesian officials; however, we want to ensure that any negotiations
regarding the future of Southern Rhodesia will be discussed with members of the majority
Austria is interested in pursuing solutions that weaken the chance of violence and protect the human rights of all those involved in this crisis. Austria firmly believes that all people have the right to self-determination, a value clearly established in Article I of the UN Charter. Moreover, Austria wants to remind Member States of their obligations to uphold the UN Charter, including, inter alia, the commitment to resolve situations peacefully and to promote and encourage human rights. Austria is discouraged by the actions of some Member States, mainly Portugal and South Africa, regarding their continued non-compliance with the economic and military sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. We firmly support Resolution 277 (1970), and emphasize the responsibility of all Member States to thoroughly comply with all Council resolutions. Finally, Austria believes that the Council must establish a process to provide international financial assistance to States directly harmed by the economic sanctions imposed on Southern Rhodesia, namely Zambia.
|Topic:||Situation in the Middle East|
|Austria firmly believes that the only solution to the Situation in the Middle East is a solution that
is based upon the coexistence of Jewish and Arab peoples of the region. Since 1967, Austria has
maintained its belief that Israel must immediately withdraw from all occupied territories, and
return within the borders as proscribed in Resolution 242 (1967). Importantly, Austria stresses
that all states in the Middle East, including both Israel and Palestine, deserve to live free from
threats or acts of aggression, and instead live in peace and security. Consequently, Austria firmly
believes that a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East will not manifest without
addressing and ideally solving the problem of Palestine. Without establishing a just and humane
solution regarding the question of Palestine, all other endeavors to negotiate peace treaties in
the Middle East are doomed to fail as the root cause of the ensuing instability is left
Austria is heartened by the Egyptian and Israeli governments’ commitment to the ceasefire established in Resolution 242 and the Rogers Plan. Austria believes it is imperative to build on the peace initiatives undertaken by the United Nations Security Council and the United States in order to secure the universally desired peace and security in the Middle East region. To do this, the Council must work to first establish a baseline of temporary peace in the region, focusing primarily on the cessation of all military operations in the region. Moreover, Austria believes that any and all resolutions pursued must uphold the values outlined in the UN Charter, including, inter alia, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war, the political independence of every State in the area, and the right of all peoples to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. Austria will support resolutions that demand the immediate withdrawal of forces by Israel in the occupied territories as described in Resolution 242, as well as any resolution that seeks to further the compliance of related states with previous related resolutions.
|Topic:||Situation in Cyprus|
|Heeding the statements made by the Secretary General to the Council in 1972, Austria firmly
believes that the Security Council should extend the mandate of the UNFICYP indefinitely, until
the Secretary-General deems the peacekeeping mission to be unnecessary. Austria trusts the
Secretary-General’s conclusion that though both parties in Cyprus have continued to generally
comply with the 1963 brokered ceasefire, little progress has been made that demonstrates any
normalization of relations between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and their related governmental
counterparts. Moreover, Austria similarly supports the Secretary General’s decision that
reactivating inter-communal talks is the best strategy available to achieve a successful and
acceptable solution to the parties involved. Furthermore, Austria believes that all resolutions
pursued should be predicated on the desire to establish an independent, sovereign and unified
Cyprus. Austria has demonstrated our commitment to this goal by providing several of our own
contingents and financial assistance to the peacekeeping mission in Cyprus.
While Austria acknowledges and sympathizes with the desire expressed by other Council Members to uphold the interterritorial integrity and sovereignty of Cyprus by allowing them to peacefully reach conclusions regarding the political status of their government without the interference of external forces, Austria feels that a decision to extend the mandate of UNFICYP would not violate these values due to the unanimous agreement of all parties involved, including both Turkish and Greek Cypriot representatives, that the UNFICYP’s mandate should be extended. Austria shares the hopes of the international community that the lack of an escalation of violence in Cyprus demonstrates progress towards restoring peace and security to the region; however, Austria firmly believes that the decision to terminate the UNFICYP would be premature, as there is little evidence to suggest that peace would continue without the presence of UN peacekeeping forces.
|Topic:||The Situation in Viet-Nam|
|The People’s Republic of China is concerned about the continued aggression displayed by the Republic of Viet-Nam with the assistance of other participating countries. China is committed to supporting the continued removal of foreign troops in the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam as well as the Republic of Viet-Nam. China is encouraging the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam’s execution of The Paris Peace Accords so that a swift withdrawal from South Viet-Nam can be made by foreign parties involved. China is also calling for the swift removal of third parties from the area in order to respect national sovereignty of all affected parties. China is calling for the respect of national independence and self preservation for the Democratic Republic of Viet- Nam. China is willing to discuss solutions to bring peace to Indochina and self determination for the people of Indochina. China is in support of a mutual ceasefire by all affected parties in reference to Indochina to be able to pursue peace and self governance by the people of Indochina.|
|Topic:||Admission of New Members|
|The People’s Republic of China is opposed to the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations on the grounds that they have not enacted Resolution 307. Until China sees that this resolution has been adopted by the country aforementioned their application for membership will be denied. China firmly believes that in order to consider the membership of countries there should be an adherence to resolutions already made by the United Nations body. China firmly believes that all countries that are seeking membership should follow the criteria set forth by this body.|
|The provocative actions of the illegal regime in Southern Rhodesia are condemned, and France will continue to aid our former colonies and those of our allies in their transition from colonial states to democratic nations. We call upon the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain to take action and ensure that the armed forces of South Africa withdraw from South Rhodesia and the Zambian border. France supports the people of Zambia, which is why we have adopted Resolution 333 and will condemn any country that trades or aids the illegal government of Southern Rhodesia. We will continue our economic sanctions against Southern Rhodesia and condemn its racist government. As the previous sanctions and resolutions by the General Assembly have done little to dissuade South Africa and South Rhodesia, we encourage the U.N. to take further action.|
|France remains committed to working to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in the Middle East that is satisfactory for all parties involved. We abstained from Resolution 344 due to reservations about the Peace Conference being extraneous to the Security Council itself and that the Secretary General needed a clear and direct mandate on which to act, instead of merely being a facilitator and observer of the conference. France is deeply concerned over the loss of innocent civilians in this ongoing conflict and condemn acts of violence by both the state of Israel and the PLO. We encourage both Israel and Egypt to continue their policy of following the guidelines of the ceasefire outlined in the Rogers Plan. We hope neighboring Arabic states will resume diplomatic action with Israel to help create a safer and more stable Middle East region.|
|The ending of war in Vietnam has been a long-standing goal, and France supports any peace talks between the United States and the North Vietnamese government. The French government will continue to host North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the United States in peace talks in Paris in hope that the loss of life may end in Vietnam. We have been critical of the United States’ involvement in Vietnam in the past, and are pleased that a settlement has occurred with the signing of the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. We support the withdrawal of United States and their allies from South Vietnam, and support the ability of the people of Vietnam to self-determine their government without outside interference. The United States have assured us for several years that they are committed to withdrawal from Vietnam, and we are pleased that they have formally agreed to do so. Due to our past involvement in Vietnam, and our economic interests in Cambodia, the resolution of all conflicts in the region is a major priority for France.|
|Topic:||The Conflict in the Middle East|
|The Republic of India has watched, with great concern, as the situation in the Middle East
devolved. We have watched as a land with people, was given to a people without a land. Since
then there has been only conflict between the people of Palestine and the people of Israel. The
Palestinians have lost their autonomy, self-determination, and are losing their homes.
Repeatedly, the United Nations has condemned the violence in Palestine. It was just a few years ago, 1967 to be exact, that Resolution 242 was voted on and passed by this body. In that resolution, Israeli forces were expected to withdraw from occupied territories, and the United Nations reaffirmed that every state ought to have political independence and the ability to live in peace. Yet this has not occurred. As the years continue, the violence continues. This last year, the Security Council condemned Israel in Resolutions 313, 316, and 317.
The citizens of India know what it is like to be colonized, especially, the experience of British colonization. Therefore, we emphasize and support Palestine in their struggle. While we agree that the displaced Jews of Europe are a problem that must be dealt with swiftly, placing them in the land of the Palestinians is not the answer. The people of the land must govern themselves, otherwise, there will only be conflict. As has been proven with the extreme reaction of Israel in the Six Day War of 1967. Let us, as an international body, recognize that mutual respect and a solution that does not require constant enforcement is needed to end the conflict in the Middle East. We stand by the goal of an independent Arab state for the people of Palestine. Though there is no reason that areas of the Jewish majority cannot have wide powers of autonomy. Palestinians deserve an autonomous state that is governed by its own people and within its own laws. The Republic of India agrees that Jewish people deserve a home, however, if jews want that home to be in Palestine, that home will be within an Arab state. That will bring peace.
|Topic:||Conflict in Viet-Nam|
| The Republic of India has witnessed the conflict in Viet Nam over the past two decades. We
have seen the impacts of western interference in states like Viet Nam. This interference
effectively renders the state unable to make choices for their own people. Thus, we support
the ending of that intervention and all violence in Southeast Asia.
India is proud to support the Paris Peace Accords and its ending of the Viet Nam war. The signing of these Accords on the 27th of January in this year is a step towards ending this western intervention into former colonial states in Southeast Asia. We must no longer allow these overbearing powers to create conflict and disrupt the peace.
We have always strongly opposed the involvement of the United States in the conflict occurring between North and South Viet Nam. Thus, the withdrawal of the United States from Viet Nam is a step in the right direction to keeping the peace. We must continue to fight to keep the peace and strengthen the countries of Southeast Asian countries. Let us, as an international body, continue this fight and recognize that these countries are not to be simplified as pawns of the west.
|Topic:||On the Situation in the Middle East|
|The war between Israel and Egypt is one that touches every country and the subsequent situation in the Middle East is one which will have permanent repercussions. As a supporter of the Palestinians, Indonesia does not agree with the United States veto of the amendment condemning the Israeli attacks and stands instead with the Soviet Union and China’s decision to veto the amendment condemning the Palestinian Liberation Organizations attacks. Indonesia will refuse to recognize Israel as a sovereign power until they come to a reasonable agreement with Egypt and the PLO. Through proper condemnation of truly wrong acts, the United Nations can set a precedent that protects the states involved in each conflict. Similarly, through proper peace talks, nations can humbly admit what they have done wrong and learn to exist and collaborate together. Indonesia appreciates and supports the efforts of the United Nations to mediate the situation.|
|Topic:||On the Situation in Vietnam|
As a founding member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), our stance on the situation in Vietnam is, and will continue to be, the pursuit of peaceful relationships and freedom from conflict in the region. The nation of Indonesia is committed to guaranteeing the ending of the war, the maintenance of peace in Vietnam, and to contribute to and guarantee peace in Southeast Asia. To ensure the blossoming trust between and among nations, and as a member of the International Commission of Control and Supervision, we pledge ourselves to the supervision of the cease-fire, the withdrawal of troops, the dismantlement of military bases and activity at ports of entry and the return of captured military personnel and foreign civilians. This will ensure stability in Vietnam and contribute to the preservation of lasting peace in Southeast Asia.
Moreover, we wish to stress the need for the full cooperation of the international community in respecting Vietnamese people's fundamental national rights and the South Vietnamese people's right to self-determination. We must dedicate ourselves to a healing and peace that not only ends the war in Southeast Asia but contributes to the prospects of peace in the whole world. This vision of peace is contingent on adherence to and respect for the agreement's provisions by all involved parties. Peace processes do not end when a peace agreement has been signed or an election held. To sustain peace, political vigilance is needed. Strong support for reconciliation and enthusiastic cooperation among all nations is critical to expedite the peace process in Southeast Asia and prevent relapse into conflict.
|The year 1973 has provided the United Nations Security Council with many topics of discussion. The most pressing subject will be the Cold War between the United States and The Soviet Union. Although not a declared war between the nations, the ideological war between Democracy and Communism has come to a peak with the United States and the Nixon administration leaving Vietnam slowly. This makes smaller international players all the more important because they may be the battleground of the next international crisis. With the potential of new battlegrounds dividing the Security Council’s Permanent Five members, it is increasingly important that they keep ahold of their allies on both sides. International waterways also contribute to consumption of goods by countries and their trading partners and are the lifeline of the future of the world. Without good regulations and protections, host countries may be swayed from one ally to the next if negotiation does not end in a mutual agreement for both sides. With regard to the Canal, it is important to keep it in the hands of the Panamanians, who have always been truly objective when governing international trade. Guarding the Canal so that no one power controls this valuable resource is one of the most pressing issues for the world. As tension in Cyprus is on a decline between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, peacekeeping forces leaving the island is a possibility. The Security Council stated in Resolution 324 that by 15 June, 1973 the expectation is that there will be significant progress made towards a final decision over the conflict. Namibia also continues its quest for independence from South Africa. As outlined in Resolution 323, the Security Council will continue to reiterate the Sovereign immunity and self determination of Namibia. Under Resolution 310, the Security Council strongly condemns the occupation of South Africa in Namibia and declares a willingness to react if South Africa does not start acknowledging their sovereignty. The Secretary General is to report on the implementation of Resolution 323 no later than 30 April, 1973. Entering 1973, the Security Council faces countries’ ignorance towards the Declaration of Human Rights policies. In Resolution 311, the United Nations expressed its growing concern towards South African Apartheid. With Resolution 312, Portugal was called upon to grant Mozambique, Guinea, and Angola their right to sovereignly govern their countries after Portugal’s continued ignorance towards Resolution 1514. If power is not transferred to freely elected government institutions, then the Security Council must take action to alleviate Portuguese military pressure. One of the most contentious issues is rising tension in the Middle East between Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon. With the adoption of Resolutions 313 and 316 being ignored by the Israeli Government and abducting territories from Lebanon, the Security Council urges the immediate return of territories to Lebanon under Resolution 317. If Israel declines to return the territory, tension between the Permanent Five Security Council members may make the Middle East a topic of upmost importance for the 1973 Security Council.|
|Topic:||Situation in Southern Rhodesia|
|We recognize the legitimacy of the struggle of the Black citizens of Southern Rhodesia to secure
their governmental rights that were taken from them by the White settlers. As such, we choose
to refrain from rendering any assistance to this racist regime. For over two decades, white
settlers have taken part in authoritarian rule and have contributed to the exploitation and
oppression of Black citizens. Their deserved rights are set forth in the United Nations Charter
and are in conformity with the objectives of General Assembly resolution 1514 which declares
“The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a
denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an
impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation”.
The United Nations has enforced urgent and effective measures to bring an end to the illegal rebellion. In response to Rhodesian Leader Ian Smith’s call for the Unilateral Declaration of Independence, we stand with the United Nations decision to condemn the recognition of the unlawful independence of Southern Rhodesia. Promoting their independence would only further the rule of the white settlers and further prevent the Black majority’s rights to self- determination.
We support the use of meaningful embargoes held against the Rhodesian ports by the United Nations and attest to boycotting imports of all commodities and products originating in Southern Rhodesia. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter states, “ All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. By accepting all possible measures to prevent any form of beneficiary communications with the Southern Rhodesian government, we hope to eradicate the hateful government that is negatively impacting the majority of its citizens.
|Topic:||The Situation in the Middle East|
|We believe that the situation in the Middle East is one in which a resolution must be found. It
has come to our attention that Israel has refused to concede the territory and lands that it had
acquired in the 1967 war. Whether for a purpose of security or for pure colonial conquest we
believe that their refusal to concede the lands has led to the further instability in the Middle
East. The United Nations had drafted resolution 242 in 1967 in the hopes of establishing and
maintaining peace between Israel, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon.
Today we will reaffirm resolution 242 and request that Israel abide by the resolution. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). A nongovernmental organization with no home state has migrated across multiple borders and in retaliation to Israel has conducted multiple attacks. This has resulted in Israel attacking and occupying nations like Lebanon where the PLO resides. We recognize the need to establish security however, many of these attacks have been indiscriminate and have violated state borders. Not only has the PLO been attacked but so have innocent civilians. A travesty to the world to say the least. We hereby, further condemn these actions as we did in resolutions 313, 316, and 317.
We recognize the new political climate that has recently arisen, and we request that Israel along with the other parties involved in the matter press for a solution. A solution that will end the needless suffering of innocent people.
|Topic:||Situation in Cyprus|
|We recognize that the conflict in Cyprus amongst the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot
communities is likely to threaten international peace and security. During the 1950s struggle for
independence from Britain, both the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots had a different vision
of what the future should hold for Cyprus. The main objective of the Turkish Cypriots was
taksim (partition), which would compel Cyprus to become two separate states. The Greek
Cypriots sought enosis (union), which would cause Cyprus to become a Greek island. These
divergent visions of the future created rising tensions in Cyprus. In accordance with the Charter
of the United Nation, we as the delegate of Peru have refrained from favoring any party or
present any threat likely to worsen the situation in the sovereign Republic of Cyprus, or to
endanger international peace.
A crucial task for the government of Cyprus is to restore law and order by taking all measures necessary to stop the violence and bloodshed among its citizens. We stand with United Nations Resolution 186, which “Recommends that the stationing of the Force shall be for a period of three months, ail costs pertaining to it being met, in a manner to be agreed upon by them, by the Governments providing the contingents and by the Government of Cyprus,” and thereby encourage the presence of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus. The Force since its existence has maintained a buffer zone needed to prevent the recurrence of intercommunal violence between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots and is yet to facilitate a return to normal conditions. We hope by extending its stationing, there will be sufficient progress, perhaps enough to withdraw the Force in the near future and attain peace.
|Topic:||Situation in Cyprus|
|In 1960 Cyprus gained its independence from the United Kingdom. A power sharing agreement between two communities was written into the constitution in recognition of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities on the island. Greece, Turkey, the Cypriot government, and the United Kingdom, which maintained sovereign military bases on the island, signed multilateral agreements to guarantee the constitution and to work to restore it in the event of a breach. To prevent revanchist claims or separatist movements, the constitution expressly forbade the partitioning of Cyprus, or entering into a union with another country. The Greek Cypriot President, Archbishop Makarios, proposed amending many of the power sharing agreements written into the constitution, claiming the existing structure of the power sharing agreements made government impossible in late 1963. The smaller Turkish Cypriot community in the north of the island saw this move as threatening their rights, and violence broke out between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities. Through their treaty with Cyprus, the United Kingdom dispatched troops to the island to maintain order and prevent a conflict between Greek and Turkish troops stationed on the island under the treaty. In recognition of the potential for escalation, the parties referred the issue to the United Nations. On 4 March 1964, in Resolution 186, the Security Council authorized the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) to prevent a recurrence of fighting and contribute to the maintenance and restoration of law and order. In its time on the island, UNFICYP has mostly served as observers, negotiators and mediators preventing and deescalating communal conflict. Due to the unresolved political disputes and the potential for escalation if UNFICYP personnel were withdrawn, but UNFICYP has been repeatedly extended since 1964. The Security Council passed Resolution 324 on 12 December 1972, and extended UNFICYP’s mandate to 15 June, 1973 in response to a report from the Secretary-General.|
|Topic:||Arab-Israeli Conflict in Occupied Territories|
|We firmly believe that a solution must be found in order to stop the fighting and countless lives that have been lost due to the conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian people. Since the adoption of Security Council Resolution 242 on 22nd November, 1967 an agreement to settle this dispute has been reached, and it now a part of the world community’s responsibility to see that such an agreement comes to fruition. Despite this and the passing of Security Council Resolution 338 in 1973, the fighting between these two countries has only continued, most notably due to Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the following resistance of the Intifada.On 20th April 1983, we, in a majority vote excluding Israel and the United States of America,adopted General Assembly Resolution 43/233 on the question of Palestine. Within this resolution the atrocities that Israel had committed against the Palestinian people were condemned and Israel was called to desist in its policies which directly violated the Geneva Convention, these reprehensible actions are bound to have grave consequences for the endeavors to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the MIddle East. We also stress the urgent need to expedite the convening of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East, in order to conform with the provisions of General Assembly resolution 43/176 of 15th December 1988. With the recently adopted Convention on the Right of the Child, attention must also be turned towards those who are casualties in this conflict due to no fault of their own. We must urge the world community to provide protection for the vulnerable and defenseless. While also urging the parties that are directly involved to make their priority the safety of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.|
|Topic:||The Situation in Southern Rhodesia|
|Southern Rhodesia is currently known as Zimbabwe. It was known as Southern Rhodesia from 1965-79. Southern Rhodesia was similar to South Africa with a 95% black majority country but had a policy of white supremacy where 5% of population held positions of power. Due to UN economic sanctions concerning S. Rhodesia’s policy, trade with Zambia was negatively impacted, which started conflict between S. Rhodesia and Zambia. Southern Rhodesia was trying to preserve a white-minority rule in a state that was 95% Black and had a Legislative Assembly built of 50 members that were always white and 15 members that were always black. The regime of Southern Rhodesia earned its illegality through its attempt to issue a Declaration of Independence in 1965 that would further enable the white minority rule, which was declared illegal by the Security Council and led to the illegality of the oppressive rule of the Southern Rhodesia regime. Southern Rhodesia had 4,000 troops from apartheid South Africa aid their troops in committing “violations against the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Zambia, according to a letter from the representative of Zambia. Over the period of seven years, the UN had passed seven resolutions that when broken down resulted in two major types of actions. The first was to condemn specific acts of S. Rhodesia and states ignoring resolutions. For example, the first resolution condemned the usurpation of power by a racist minority, and the sixth resolution condemned the refusal of South Africa and Portugal to cooperate with the sanctions against S Rhodesia. The second type was to call states to implement specific sanctions. For example, the second resolution called for Portugal and the United Kingdom to cease oil trade with S. Rhodesia, and the seventh called upon all states cooperate fully with Security Council and provide necessary assistance.|
|Topic:||The Situation in Viet-Nam:|
|Though the US was considered an ally of Yugoslavia at the time the relationship was already on
thin ice. They were only allies because Yugoslavia had broken away from the Soviet Union, but
the two countries were not exactly supportive of each other. So, on the surface one might
assume that Yugoslavia would’ve sided with the US during the fighting but that wasn’t exactly
the case. The Yugoslavia press was not doing the US’s public image much good with the articles
they were releasing. The Yugoslavia press was painting the US as the bad guy for their actions
in Vietnam. Yugoslavia was together with Vietnam in the Non-Aligned movement. They also had
a bilateral agreement formed in 1957 before the first battle two years later. There was a
movement across the world at the time of students protesting the war in Vietnam and
Yugoslavia was one of those countries.
|Topic:||Admission of New Members:|
|Yugoslavia has no direct ties to the United Arab Emirates. Not all of Yugoslavia supported them but one portion did, within Yugoslavia Serbia immediately allied itself with Bangladesh after they gained independence in 1971. Yugoslavia had a foreign and Bilateral relationship with the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) there was no reason for them to deny them entry to the UN. As for their relations with the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany), during the cold war period they dealt with each other heavily economically. They almost strictly operated together on an economic level.|
|Topic:||Situation in SOUTHERN RHODESIA and Situation in VIET-NAM|
|As the situation unfolding in Southern Rhodesia is not far from the borders of the
Democratic Republic of Sudan, it is of vast importance that the situation resolves itself in a
way that is to the betterment of not just the people of Southern Rhodesia, but to the
people of the Democratic Republic of Sudan as well. The attempts of the Rhodesian elite,
led by Prime Minister Ian Smith, to create a new segregationist government in order to
circumvent the “No Independence Before Majority Rule” (NIBMAR) of the United Kingdom
circumvents the decolonization processes that are paramount to the success of the
African continent in the aftermath of imperialism.
The minority-regime rule enacted by the would-be secessionist government endangers
not only the democratic rule of law in Rhodesia for black citizens, but the rights of all
indigenous peoples of Africa, and shows a remarkable backslide towards the days of
colonialism and imperialism by European powers. Furthermore, the creation of such a
regime has a negative effect on the surrounding countries, many of whom depend on
reciprocal trading with their sub-Saharan African neighbors. While the 1968 UN Trade
Embargo against the false government of Southern Rhodesia helped to lay the grounds
for an effective embargo, its inability to effectively prevent nations such as South Africa
and Portugal from essentially ignoring the provisions of the blockade makes it a weak and
ineffectual means of attempting to apply pressure on South Rhodesia. As seen in the
years since 1968, both the United Kingdom and the United States have began to push
more openly and broadly for public support towards Southern Rhodesia, continuing to
trade with the regime in blatant disregard for the lives and rights of those who suffer
under the apartheid regime.
As an African nation that has itself suffered under the yoke of unjust imperialism, the
Democratic Republic of Sudan sees no choice but to do its part in maintaining or
increasing the international pressure against Southern Rhodesia, with the ultimate goal of
attaining majority rule for its people. In achieving this goal, it is important to find and
identify the root cause of the failure of the 1968 UN Trade Embargo to significantly apply
international and economic pressure on the Southern Rhodesian regime: the ability of
developed and politically influential nations such as the United Kingdom and the United
States to continue to trade high-value materials and goods, such as oil and chrome, will
forever stunt any meaningful effort to support a solution. Furthermore, the United
Kingdoms’ vetoing of the resolution by African member states to apply stronger economic
pressures cannot be ignored, and if any solution is to be found, it will have to be done
with the good will of the United States and United Kingdom.
While the Democratic Republic of Sudan doesn’t have a geopolitical interest in the going- ons or outcome of the current conflict in Viet-nam, it has a duty to people of all nations and creeds to resist the historical trends of imperialism by Western powers, and as such, supports the nation of North Vietnam in its struggle against the United States and its allies. That being said, the main objective that the Democratic Republic of Sudan wishes to see obtained is the continuation of the current ceasefire, and that the terms set out by the Paris Peace Accords are maintained. While a ceasefire is a preferable alternative to violent conflict in any country, the separation of Vietnam into North and South is an international travesty, and one that the Democratic Republic of Sudan wishes is amended; if not by diplomatic means, than by any means available to the government of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The continued meddling of the United States in the affairs of developing countries, either in Africa, Southeast Asia, or Central and South Americashows a continuing and blatant disregard for one of the most fundamental principles of the United Nations and diplomatic institutions as a whole: that the sovereignty of states is vital to a properly functioning international system. As a result of this, while the Democratic Republic of Sudan believes that the Paris Peace Accords is an excellent step in the right direction, it doubts the ability of the United States and its allies to abide by the troop withdrawals outlined in the accords. Furthermore, the ceasefire laid out for the remaining parties, those being the indigenous armies of the involved nations seams held together only by a thread, and we believe that it is likely, if not predetermined, that conflict will erupt once more in Viet-nam. If this is to happen, the Democratic Republic of Sudan remains seized of the need for the United States’ involvement in this conflict to be terminated, both in the deployment of active military personnel, and through the use of military, economic, or strategic support to the government of South Vietnam. Any breach of such can and should be viewed as a flagrant violation of the terms of the Paris Peace Accords.
|Topic:||Situation in MIDDLE EAST and Situation in NAMIBIA|
|While the Democratic Republic of Sudan doesn’t have a geopolitical interest in the going- ons or outcome of the current conflict in Viet-nam, it has a duty to people of all nations and creeds to resist the historical trends of imperialism by Western powers, and as such, supports the nation of North Vietnam in its struggle against the United States and its allies. That being said, the main objective that the Democratic Republic of Sudan wishes to see obtained is the continuation of the current ceasefire, and that the terms set out by the Paris Peace Accords are maintained. While a ceasefire is a preferable alternative to violent conflict in any country, the separation of Vietnam into North and South is an international travesty, and one that the Democratic Republic of Sudan wishes is amended; if not by diplomatic means, than by any means available to the government of North Vietnam and the Viet Cong. The continued meddling of the United States in the affairs of developing countries, either in Africa, Southeast Asia, or Central and South Americashows a continuing and blatant disregard for one of the most fundamental principles of the United Nations and diplomatic institutions as a whole: that the sovereignty of states is vital to a properly functioning international system. As a result of this, while the Democratic Republic of Sudan believes that the Paris Peace Accords is an excellent step in the right direction, it doubts the ability of the United States and its allies to abide by the troop withdrawals outlined in the accords. Furthermore, the ceasefire laid out for the remaining parties, those being the indigenous armies of the involved nations seams held together only by a thread, and we believe that it is likely, if not predetermined, that conflict will erupt once more in Viet-nam. If this is to happen, the Democratic Republic of Sudan remains seized of the need for the United States’ involvement in this conflict to be terminated, both in the deployment of active military personnel, and through the use of military, economic, or strategic support to the government of South Vietnam. Any breach of such can and should be viewed as a flagrant violation of the terms of the Paris Peace Accords.|
|Topic:||ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBER STATES and Situation in CYPRUS|
|On the topic of the continuing tensions in the Middle East especially between those of Israel and the Arab League, Sudan stands firmly with its Arabic brothers. Sudan has been a long- term member of the Arab league since 1956 and has no desire to leave the pact. The 1967 signing of the Khartoum Resolution in our very capital should show our strength of will see the Palestinian people have the ability to have their own nation in their sovereign lands. We do not recognize the state of Israel in its conquest of the region and continuously do not recognize it, negotiate with it, or desire any relations with them. Sudan has been a haven for displaced Palestinian refugees and will continue to accept more and more Palestinian people for as long as the crisis continues. We have fully recognized the State of Palestine and will continue to have a Palestinian embassy in Khartoum. We will support Egypt in its continued resistance to further Israeli imperialism and balk at the continued aid of western powers to Israel. We further support the PLO in Lebanon in their ongoing struggle against the Israeli army and ask the Security Council to officially condemn the attacks by Israel on sovereign Lebanese land.|
|Country:||United States of America|
|The world is in a state of high tension and conflict at this time, causing damage to various
peoples and leaving all with an uncertain future. In the Middle East, there are tensions
among many states regarding the unsuccessful implementation of the two-state plan that
has resulted in conflict between the state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation
Organization (PLO), as well as other Arab nations. While the United States of America is a
steady ally of Israel and supports their statehood, the United States of America also wishes
to see stability within the Middle East region between Israel and their neighbors. For this
peace to come about one day, the United States would like to once again affirm the United
Nations Security Council Resolution S/RES/242 as a key document in working towards peace.
The United States of America would also like to emphasize that peace cannot be achieved
without the main parties involved being brought into conversation with each other to find
common ground for the future.
In other parts of the world where conflict is present, or has recently ended, some international oversight should be considered so that any peace made can be sure to be a stable and lasting one, as in the case of Viet-Nam. Having recently come to an agreement to end the United States of America’s involvement in the war, it is the hope of the United States that all parties that participated in the Paris Peace Accords will follow them seriously and work towards ending fighting in Viet-Nam. However, after any serious conflict, there are always obstacles on the path to building peace and it is the United States’ concern that conflict may once again re-ignite in the area. To help ensure lasting stability, the United States would favor instituting international oversight to safeguard the future of the area, while also respecting the importance of Viet-Nam’s independence and national sovereignty.
Back to the list of committees