THE SPECIAL POLITICAL AND DECOLONIZATION COMMITTEE

Study Guide

Topic A: Revitalization of the Gaza Strip

Revitalizing the Gaza Strip EconomyThe United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which was created in December 1949 under the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL), is a human development and relief agency that was formed in order to provide jobs and direct relief for the Palestinians, who fled/were expelled from their homes. There are eight UNRWA-administered camps in the Gaza Strip. An estimated 1.1 million Palestinians out of Gaza’s 1.5 million population are refugees who are registered with UNRWA. This population suffers from the current Egyptian-Israeli embargo against Gaza has caused severe economic decline in Gaza. Gaza's goods and utilities are mainly imported from Israel under strict conditions designed to ensure there is no movement of illegal material or goods with a military purpose. Economic and infrastructure development in the region would greatly aid the refugees by providing stable jobs and improving quality of life. The UNRWA currently has a microfinance department providing sustainable income-generation opportunities for Palestine refugees. It extends credit and complementary financial services to households, entrepreneurs and small-business owners. However, there is a growing concern about the significant reduction in the total resources for UNRWA over the past ten years while its overall workload and responsibilities have continued to increase. There is funding shortfall, and UNRWA has issued an Emergency Appeal seeking USD 366.6 million for its 2015 emergency operations in Gaza, including USD 68.6 million for emergency cash-for-work. How can UNRWA revitalize the Gaza Strip Economy in the midst of funding shortage?

Decolonization of Palestine:One of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee’s particular focuses has been issues related to Palestinian refugees and human rights. Since the dismantling of the UN’s trusteeship system following the granting of independence to all trust territories, issues related to the now very limited number of non-self-governing territories have become the responsibility of SPECPOL.“Palestine” refers to the partially recognized de jure sovereign state (sovereign by law but not in practice) which declared independence in 1988 as a government-in-exile claiming the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Jerusalem as their capital. Following the Six-Day War in 1967, most of the areas claimed

by the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel. Since 1994, the Palestinian authority has exercised limited control over these territories.These various conflicts have created mass refugee crises. The 1948 Palestine War resulted in the displacement of nearly 80% of Palestine Arabs from the territories that became Israel. During Israeli Defence Force operations to expel Arab forces, many expulsions and massacres occurred and more Arabs fled, fearing atrocities. During the Six Day War in 1967, roughly 300k Palestinians either fled or were expelled from the newly Israeli territories. A further Palestinian exodus occurred during the Gulf War, when mostly Jordanian Palestinians fled Kuwait. The ongoing Syrian Civil War has displaced over 235,000 Palestinians along with over 2 million Syrians, though Palestinian refugees are reportedly often placed in separate camps under much stricter conditions. More than 4.6 million Palestinians became refugees and today, their descendants live in refugee camps located in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon.

Towards a Major Crisis in Gaza:Totaling 146 square miles, the Gaza Strip is a small Palestinian territory located along the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and Israel. Despite its small size geographically, Gaza is one of the top 40 most densely populated places on the planet, with a population of 1.76 million. The wars fought over the creation of Israel an disputes over its boundaries are largely responsible for responsible for creating a refugee crisis, but their context and political motivations must be understood.The Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt from 1948 to 1967. Starting from 1967, Israeli troops were stationed in Gaza in hopes of utilizing the territory for negotiation.

1948 ConflictsIn May of 1948, the establishment of a Jewish state was declared. The Arab countries immediately declared war on the new State of Israel, to free Palestine and hand it back over to what it deemed its rightful rulers. The 1948 Palestine War and the First Arab-Israeli War which arguably began the Arab-Israeli Conflict were some of the largest generators of Palestinian refugees, as nearly 80% of the Palestinian population was displaced. This became known as the Palestinian Exodus, or “Nakba” (Arabic for ‘catastrophe’ or ‘cataclysm’). It has since been described by some as an act of ethnic cleansing, and many parallels have been drawn with the Jewish exodus from Arab Countries. Palestinians fled for a number of reasons, though the causes are a subject to debate between Arabs and Israelis. Factors include Israeli military advances, massacres by Zionist militias, Arab evacuation orders, voluntary leaving of the wealthier classes, collapses in local leadership, and expulsion by Israeli authorities. Numerous refugee camps were established in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and the West Bank provide assistance for these people. Descendants of these original refugees are also eligible to register for assistance, as the ongoing instability and uncertain destiny of the territories affected had such long term impact. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) handled the majority of this project, as an organ of the UN specifically created to aid those displaced by the Arab-Israeli Wars. Its original budget was $600 million annually in 1949, but it has remained active and is the only UN agency specifically dedicated to helping refugees from a specific region or conflict. It operates separately (but often with assistance) from the UNHCR. The 1949 armistice established separation lines, putting Transjordan in control of the West Bank, Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip, and Syria in control of the Himmah region, leaving the

State of Israel in control of some areas which had been designated as Arab under the Partition plan. During the Arab-Israeli War, the All-Palestine Government was established to rule the entirety of the former Mandatory Palestine, though its effective jurisdiction was the Gaza Strip. The government was under official Egyptian protection, but had little executive power and was mostly symbolic. As such, its importance declined despite being regarded as arguably the first attempt at creating an independent Palestine.

The Sixty-Day WarThe event which most drastically changed the map of Israel and Palestine was the Six-Day War in June of 1967. Defending itself from external attacks, Israeli forces seized the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. At this point, the United States government became more actively involved in Israeli affairs and attempted to assist in settlement negotiations. The impact of this short conflict was massive – it demonstrated that Israel was a military and strategic power to be reckoned with, stirring Zionist sentiment across the world. There was also a great deal of religious significance – Jews now had increased access to their holy sites, which had been poorly maintained and sometimes desecrated under Arab control. Israel granted each religious group administration over their own holy sites. However, this victory also resulted in mass persecution of Jews across Arab countries and a series of anti-Semitic purges in Communist States. Attempts at settlements after the Six-Day war were complicated, as the Government of Israel voted to Return the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria in return for peace (a decision which did not include the Gaza Strip and left a number of ambiguities), but this offer was meant to conveyed to the Arab nations by the U.S., which either confused the issue or never happened. As a result the majority of the Soviet Bloc broke off relations with Israel, and Egypt and Jordan refused to negotiate. This was a major setback to cooperation and stability. 1/3 of the 1 million Palestinians in the West Bank fled to Jordan, and 80,000 Syrians left the Golan Heights. More recent research suggests the real numbers were much higher.

Hamas Formation and the Conflict Continues

The following year, members of the Arab League declared the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO)

to be the legitimate representative of the Palestinian People. In 1978 Israel and Egypt made peace at the

Camp David Accords, facilitated by the U.S., and withdrew from the Sinai in 1982. Eventually, Jordan and

Egypt withdrew their claims over the West Bank and Gaza. This began Israel’s settlement efforts to

secure these newly acquired territories, which are an ongoing source of conflict. Jordan’s eventual

withdrawal of claims over the West Bank granted the PLO responsibility as the Provisional Government

of an independent Palestine.

Under the Oslo Accords signed in 1994, the PLO gained authority over more territory, including strategic

cities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian National Authority (PNA or PA) was

established as an administrative body. In 2005, the PNA gained full control over Gaza as a result of the

implementation of Israel’s unilateral disengagement plan. Despite this progress, the West Bank and

Gaza are still considered occupied territories by the international community.

After Israel withdrew from its positions in Gaza in 2005, Hamas, a Palestinian Islamist organization, became the dominant political movement and took control of the region in a 2007 struggle for political power. Further conflicts between the Hamas and Fatah parties have created more violence, particularly in 2007 in Gaza. An agreement between the parties in 2014 created the “Unity Government”, which is led by president Mahmoud Abbas and has received increased international support. Israel views Hamas as a terrorist organization, and condemned the government. Hamas declared the government ended after six months, but Fatah denied the claim and says the government in still in force. As such, the present administration of Palestine is again split and uncertain. Gaza BlockadeIn response to the Hamas takeover, Israel and Egypt imposed an economic blockade on Gaza. The blockade of the Gaza Strip refers to a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt from 2007 to present. After the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip by Israel, in 2006, Hamas won the Palestinian legislative election, triggering the 2006–07 economic sanctions against the Palestinian National Authority by Israel and the Quartet on the Middle East after Hamas refused to quit violence, respect previous agreements and recognize Israel. Hamas and other militant groups continued to fire Qassam rockets across the border into Israel. According to Israel, between the Hamas takeover and the end of January 2008, 697 rockets and 822 mortar bombs were fired at Israeli towns. In response, Israel targeted Qassam launchers and military targets and declared the Gaza Strip a hostile entity. In January 2008, Israel curtailed travel from Gaza, the entry of goods, and cut fuel supplies, resulting in power shortages. This brought charges that Israel was inflicting collective punishment on the Gaza population, leading to international condemnation. Despite multiple reports from within the Strip that food and other essentials were in short supply, Israel said that Gaza had enough food and energy supplies for weeks. Although Israel allows in limited quantities of medical humanitarian aid but Israel also claims that the blockade is necessary to limit Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip on its cities and to prevent Hamas from obtaining other weapons. The closures intensified poverty among Gaza’s residents and the cumulative losses to industry in Gaza reached $23 million at the time.Since then, the violence and confrontation with Israel has permeated the population. A series of conflicts have continued, with the escalation in violence between Gaza and Israel in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and in 2014 with the 50-day Gaza War.

Today, Israel continues its blockade of Gaza, entering its 9th year in December 2015. As a bordering country, Israel maintains control of most of Gaza's borders and coastal territory. Although there is a border post with Egypt, Gaza's goods and utilities are mainly imported from Israel under restrictive measures designed to ensure that no material or goods with a military purpose slips into the region. This tight land and sea blockade continues to have a crippling effect to Gaza’s economy, as access to markets and people’s movement to and from the Gaza Strip remain severely restricted. Importing and exporting from Gaza is very difficult. The economy and its capacity to create jobs have also been devastated.

2008 Gaza WarOn 27 December 2008, Israeli F-16 fighters launched a series of air strikes against targets in Gaza following the breakdown of a temporary truce between Israel and Hamas. And after this 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict implied a more adverse affect upon the Gaza civilian and the millions of refugee inhabitants.

The Refugee Crisis and Human Rights Violation in Gaza:The committee needs to address the current humanitarian and security crisis in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), mainly in Gaza, where Israeli military actions have led to the killing of Palestinian civilians, as well as periodic shortages of food, fuel, electricity, water and medicine, and Palestinian armed groups have committed serious violations of international humanitarian law. The council should address abuses by both sides to the conflict. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), in May and June 2006, 87 Palestinians were killed in Gaza and almost 300 injured, mostly from Israeli fire but also due to clashes between Palestinian armed groups and individuals. Many of those killed in June were Palestinian civilians, who died during Israeli air force “targeted killings,” which either missed their targets entirely or caused significant civilian casualties. During this period, Palestinian groups have indiscriminately fired numerous Qassam rockets at Israeli towns.UNRWA has condemned the acts of the Israeli government throughout the years of conflicts in the Gaza Strip. Israeli forces have carried out many attacks in the region as they have waged war with Hamas and other militant organizations in the Arab states. However, such attacks have led to infrastructure destruction for Gaza’s refugees, such as the destruction of UNRWA schools, leading the Agency to express strong dissenting opinions over specific acts.

UNRWAAs a result of all the violation taking place, The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) opened registration to these refugees and their descendants. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency formed for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is a human development and relief Agency under the Special Political and Decolonization Committee, that was formed in order to provide jobs and direct relief for the Palestinians, who fled/were expelled from their homes. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV) established UNRWA in 1949 following the 1948Arab-Israeli conflict and the Agency began operations on May 1, 1950. As the only Agency dedicated to helping refugees from a specific region or conflict, UNRWA is headquartered partially in the Gaza Strip.UNRWA’s initial mandate was to provide “direct relief and works programs” to Palestine refugees, in order to “prevent conditions of starvation and distress… and to further conditions of peace and stability”. In response to developments in the region, the General Assembly extends and expands the UNRWA mandate every three years. Nevertheless, the fundamental idea behind UNRWA remains the

same; the Agency exists to protect and assist Palestine refugees, “seeking to help them achieve their full potential in human development”. The UNRWA mandate is voted on and approved by the UN General Assembly, and most recently the General Assembly voted to extend UNRWA's mandate until June 30, 2017.

Currently, there is almost 12,500 UNRWA staff in Gaza, and the Agency manages 252 schools, 21 health centers, 16 relief and social services offices, and 12 food distribution centers. The number of refugees relying on UNRWA for food aid has increased from less than 80,000 in 2000 to almost 868,000. There are also eight UNRWA-administeredcamps in the Gaza Strip. An estimated 1.26 million Palestinians out of Gaza’s 1.76 million population are refugees who are registered with UNRWA. This population suffers from severe economic decline.

The median age in Gaza is 18. However, the current market conditions in Gaza are not able to offer jobs— there is no future for the youth in a failing economy. After the 2014 conflict, Gaza’s exports practically disappeared, and the manufacturing sector shrunk by about 60 percent.UNRWA currently has a micro- finance department providing sustainable income-generation opportunities for Palestine refugees. It extends credit and complementary financial services to households, entrepreneurs and small-business owners. Three micro-finance offices are located in the region, and even through difficult political and operational circumstances, UNRWA's micro-finance department has remained committed to helping the people of Gaza access credit and loans that enable them to develop or expand business, build household assets, or fund their basic consumption, education and healthcare needs.

Nevertheless, there is an increasing significant reduction in UNRWA’s total resources over the past ten years. UNRWA is funded almost entirely by voluntary donor contributions, and financial support has not kept pace with the Agency’s increased workload and responsibilities. As a result, the UNRWA General Fund, which supports UNRWA’s core services and most staffing costs, operates with a large deficit of $101 million. UNRWA emergency programs and projects also operate with large deficits, but are funded through separate funding portals. There is severe funding shortfall, which has forced UNRWA to issue an Emergency Appeal seeking USD 366.6 million for its 2015 emergency operations in Gaza,including USD 68.6 million for emergency cash-for-work.

In the foreword of the Appeal, UNRWA Commissioner-General Pierre Krähenbühl writes, “This document is the result of political failure – the failure of the international community to address the underlying causes of the conflict in the occupied Palestinian territory, namely the blockade of Gaza, the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory and the lack of a just and durable solution for over five million Palestine refugees... We have a collective moral obligation to the Palestine refugees at a time when the denial of their economic, political, social and cultural rights is having profound and widespread humanitarian consequences.”

The Economic Crisis in Gaza:

Gaza’s population of 1.5 million is currently facing significant hardships due to the Israeli blockade on Gaza’s few crossing points, Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s only electric plant and Israel’s withholding of Palestinian tax revenues, coupled with international donor aid cuts after the swearing-in of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority in March 2006. As a result, for the fifth month in a row, the Palestinian Authority has been unable to pay most salaries to its approximately 160,000 civil servants.

Even though Israel unilaterally withdrew its troops and settlements from Gaza in 2005, it continues to have obligations as an occupying power in Gaza under the Fourth Geneva Convention because of its almost complete control over Gaza’s borders, sea and air space, tax revenue, utilities, population registry, and the internal economy of Gaza. At a minimum, Israel continues to be responsible for the basic welfare of the Palestinian population in Gaza.

The economy of the Gaza Strip is severely hampered by Egypt and Israel's almost total blockade, the high population density, limited land access, strict internal and external security controls, the effects of Israeli military operations, and restrictions on labor and trade access across the border. Per capita income (PPP) was estimated at US$3,100 in 2009, a position of 164th in the world. Seventy percent of the population is below the poverty line according to a 2009 estimate.

GAZA, Palestinian Territories — In response to economic blockades and shortage of resources the people of Gaza developed a unique tunnel economy. This alternate economy has long been a lifeline for the people of Gaza.

Approximately 60 percent of Gazan residents are food insecure, 95 percent of local water is not safe to consume and unemployment continues to rise above 30 percent. Following the introduction of the blockade in 2007, smuggling tunnels provided approximately 15,000 Gazans with jobs at their peak employment and offered tens of thousands more people with employment connected to the operation of the tunnels, such as truck drivers and engineers. Many people’s needs were also met by supplying the construction materials necessary to build the tunnels.

Bloc Positions:Europe

The European Union (EU) has demonstrated support for the UNRWA, signing a joint declaration for the period 2014 to 2016. Under the agreement, the EU contribution to the UNRWA General Fund will amount to about $335 million. The EU has been providing support to the UNRWA regular budget, special projects and emergency appeals since 1971. Between 2007 and 2013, the EU provided more than $1.3 billion in support to the Agency. The EU has a donor ranking of two.

The United States

The United States is the largestbi-lateral and highest ranked donor to the UNRWA and recently

announced a $20 million donation to the Agency. The United States has now contributed more than

$183 million to UNRWA towards its 2015 appeals, including $80 million to the General Fund for core services, $38 million for the UNRWA emergency response in Gaza, more than $63 million for the emergency response in Syria and $2 million for relief work in Lebanon.

Final thoughts

The conflicts that have engulfed the region, though often localized, have frequently been of international significance and have been incredibly divisive of foreign policies between states globally. The politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict are frequently controversial and in the past, compromise has been very difficult. The United Nations also needs to fully acknowledge its role in the conflict through the League Mandate, Partition Plan, and subsequent attempts at facilitating negotiation. In studying this further, be sure to check the bias of sources – numbers of refugees in particular vary wildly in estimates – and understand your country’s role in or position on the various developments. This topic seeks to separate out the very human consequences faced by refugees, to provide genuine assistance to the people affected, and seek a long term solution.

Questions to Consider:

1. What economic policies can be implemented in Gaza by Hamas, UNRWA, or the Palestinian Authority to revitalize the economy?

2. What are alternative methods UNRWA can utilize to revive the Gaza Strip economy in the midst of funding shortage?

3. What methods are available for UNRWA to gather more monetary funds to devote to its cause in the Gaza Strip?

Topic B: Protecting Threatened Minority Cultures

INTRODUCTION

Often called tribal or native peoples, indigenous populations make up nearly 5% of the world, belonging to more than 5,000 different groups across 90 countries.9 With a population of more than 260 million on the Asian continent alone, these indigenous peoples face discrimination, loss of land and natural resources, and violent repression.10 They tend to have small populations relative to the dominant culture of their residing country and usually have their own language. They practice distinctive cultural traditions unique to the tribe, contributing to their self-identity as indigenous, and therefore distinguishing themselves from the dominant populations and cultures. To this day, indigenous peoples continue to face serious threats to their basic existence due to systematic government policies. In many regions of the world, they rank highest on numerous underdevelopment indicators such as the proportion of people in jail, illiteracy rates, and unemployment rates. They face a great amount of discrimination, especially in schools and the workplace; often they are not even allowed to study or use their own language in these environments. Repeatedly, national and local governments around the globe have a displayed a clear and utter lack of respect for indigenous values, traditions, and human rights.11 Facing this discrimination are a number of indigenous populations in Asia which go by a variety of names, including, “hill tribes” (Thailand), “scheduled tribes” (India), “numerically small peoples of the North” (Siberia), “national minorities” (China), “cultural minorities” (Philippines), “isolated and alien peoples” (Indonesia), “aboriginal tribes” (Taiwan), aborigines” (Malaysia), and “natives” (Borneo).12 Indigenous peoples want to be recognized for who they are: distinct groups with their own unique cultures. They also want the governments of the countries in which they live to respect their ability to determine their own destinies, and SPECPOL must focus upon this matter. Lastly, indigenous peoples want to enjoy the same rights as all other citizens without discrimination or disruption of their lifestyle. However, because they are seeking self-determination and representation as a legal population, the indigenous must be part of the decision-making process when it comes to their education, healthcare, land ownership, and economic development.This Special Political and Decolonization Committee seeks to establish the legitimacy of the minority groups seeking independence or official recognition by a government or state, protect the rights of these peoples, and evaluate how best to prevent, resolve, and recover from civil conflict in the scope of both the region at war and the international community.

Problems Faced by Minority CulturesDespite provisions established in the two UN resolutions, indigenous land ownership has not been granted nor secured in most parts of Southeast Asia. The states in this region have generally reacted in three distinct ways to the concept of indigenous land ownership: not recognizing ownership by an indigenous individual; providing limited protection for indigenous land rights; or providing strong protection for indigenous land rights. Along with facing issues of land rights, indigenous peoples have

lower levels of educational achievement and higher dropout rates than other segments of the population. This pattern is due to lack of education programs in indigenous languages, culturally inappropriate curriculum, distance of schools from indigenous communities, and inadequate accommodations. The indigenous populations, are vulnerable to forced relocation with both governments and the international community struggling to understand and respond to the problem. Human trafficking has slowly also been recognized as one of the most expansive and challenging human rights issues affecting today’s global community.

However, the relationship between minorities and their lands is absolutely meaningful: we mostly talk about people that substantiate their subsistence in their relations with the natural resources surrounding them. Economy and culture(including physical and spiritual stability) have a direct link with ancestral lands, so close that deprive people of their access may nullify any tentative of autonomous survival.

Past UN Actions for Minority Rights’ ProtectionUnited Nations has focused upon several provisions on human rights, including Article 1 (3), which identifies as one of the purposes of the United Nations the achievement of international cooperation “in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. In 1948, the General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which articulated the content of human rights in much greater detail and remains one of the most important international human rights documents: its anti-discrimination provisions and other articles are of central importance also for persons belonging to minorities. While the General Assembly was unable to agree on any formulation in the Declaration concerning minority rights per se, it did note that the United Nations “cannot remain indifferent to the fate of minorities”. It added, in the same resolution that proclaimed the Universal Declaration, that it was “difficult to adopt a uniform solution for this complex and delicate question [of minorities], which has special aspects in each State in which it arises.”While many argued that issues related to minorities would be best addressed through a combination of respect for individual human rights and the growing attention being paid to the right of colonial territories to self-determination, the United Nations did address minority issues in a number of specific cases. For example, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide prohibits the destruction of “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”. In 1947, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was created as a sub-body of the Commission on Human Rights and an influential study on that issue prepared for the Sub-Commission by Special Rapporteur Francesco Capotorti was published in 1979.4 In the 1960s, three important treaties were adopted that also addressed minority rights. In 1960, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted the Convention against Discrimination in Education, which recognized the right of minority group members to carry out their own educational activities, including establishing their own schools and teaching their own language. In 1965, the United Nations adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which prohibits any distinction “based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”. In 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights included in article 27 a specific

provision concerned with minorities, a principal legal tool to advance minority rights. The Convention and the Covenant are discussed more fully in chapter V. While these developments were important, advancing the protection of minority rights received more attention as the cold war ended. The importance of minority rights and their contribution to the stability of States was increasingly recognized in the work of international institutions, including in Central and Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. In Europe, an important breakthrough came in 1990, when a review meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (now the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), see chap. XIII) adopted a declaration on human rights, democracy, the rule of law and minority rights. This so-called Copenhagen Document commits the (now) 56 participating States of OSCE to a wide range of minority rights. Although the Copenhagen Document is a political declaration, its impact has been significant and it helped to pave the way for the legally binding Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1994. These and other initiatives of the Council of Europe and OSCE are discussed in chapters XII and XIII respectively. At the United Nations, a declaration on minority rights was under discussion for over a decade before the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (Minorities Declaration) in 1992 (see annex I). The Minorities Declaration contains progressive language, including as regards minority participation in the political and economic life of the State. In addition, the preamble recognizes that protecting minority rights will “contribute to the political and social stability of States in which they live” and, in turn, “contribute to the strengthening of friendship and cooperation among peoples and States”. Among its more noteworthy substantive provisions are: Article 1 1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity. [...]

Article 2 [...] 2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life. 3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation. [...]

Article 4 [...] 2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards. [...]

In 1995, the Commission on Human Rights authorized the Sub-Commission to establish a fivemember working group to “[r]eview the promotion and practical realization” of the Declaration, “[e]xamine possible solutions to problems involving minorities ... [and recommend] further measures, as

appropriate, for the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities”. The Working Group on Minorities held 12 sessions between 1995 and 2006 and provided a venue for representatives of minorities to raise issues within the United Nations and enter into dialogue directly with States. The Working Group achieved a great deal, not only in conceptualizing the rights of persons belonging to minorities but also by establishing good practices and other measures to promote and protect minorities.In 2005 the Working Group adopted the Commentary on the Declaration (see annex I). The position of Independent Expert on minority issues was created by the Commission on Human Rights in 2005. Further to the creation of the Human Rights Council in 2006, the Forum on Minority Issues was established in 2007. The work of the Independent Expert and other special procedures is discussed in greater detail in chapter IV, and the Forum in chapter III. The United Nations has further contributed to developing standards for the protection of minorities with the adoption of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief; the appointment of special rapporteurs by the Commission on Human Rights in the 1980s to consider aspects of religious intolerance and discrimination; and a 1993 report by the Sub-Commission on “the possible ways and means of facilitating the peaceful and constructive solution of problems involving minorities”. In 2001, the United Nations Secretary-General appointed a Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, who seeks and receives information related to his or her mandate, particularly early-warning information. States Members of the United Nations adopted the 2005 World Summit Outcome, which notes that “the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities contribute to political and social stability and peace and enrich the cultural diversity and heritage of society”. It is also important to note that, in addition to the development of minority rights, the United Nations has actively pursued distinct work on the human rights of indigenous peoples. This work culminated in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a landmark document drafted with strong input from representatives of indigenous peoples and adopted by the General Assembly in September 2007. The 2001 Durban World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (Durban Conference) and the Durban Review Conference held in 2009 reaffirmed non-discrimination as a core human rights principle and recommended various measures towards securing additional protection against racism. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action proposes concrete actions to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; addresses a wide range of issues; and contains farreaching recommendations and practical measures regarding various groups which suffer from discrimination. Specific recommendations are formulated to combat discrimination against Africans and people of African descent, Asians and persons of Asian descent, indigenous peoples, migrants, refugees, minorities, Roma and other groups.Several recommendations are made towards equal treatment of minorities and their enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms without discrimination of any kind. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action recognizes that victims often suffer from multiple or aggravated forms of discrimination based on sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, social origin, property, birth or other status. The Durban Review Conference provided an opportunity to assess and accelerate progress on the implementation of measures adopted under the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Its Outcome Document essentially reaffirms the commitments contained in the Durban Declaration and

Programme of Action. Two intergovernmental mechanisms and two expert mechanisms were subsequently created: the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, the Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards, the Independent Eminent Experts’ Group and the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent. The last is discussed more fully in chapter IV. Throughout the above developments, a persistent challenge for minority advocates within the United Nations and other intergovernmental bodies has been the lack of agreement on just what a “minority” is. The difficulties in arriving at an agreed definition have at times overshadowed substantive consideration of minority rights, and the adoption of the Minorities Declaration became possible only after a decision was taken to proceed without defining the persons to whom it would apply. One of the most widely cited definitions is that proposed by Special Rapporteur Francesco Capotorti. In his 1979 report, he defined a minority as “[a] group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members – being nationals of the State – possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language”.

Current Status

Case Study: Indonesia & Political Corruption

Currently, Indonesia is a signatory to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Government officials argue, however, that the concept of indigenous peoples is not applicable to Indonesia’s situation, as almost all Indonesians (with the exception of the ethnic Chinese) are indigenous and thus entitled to the same rights. Consequently, the government has recently rejected calls for special treatment for groups identifying themselves as indigenous, thus making it more difficult for these indigenous peoples to access education, employment, and equal treatment.

The national indigenous populations’ organization, Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara (AMAN), estimates that there exist between 30 and 40 million total indigenous peoples in Indonesia. In addition, between 1.2 and 6 million people in Indonesia are classified as “suku suku terasing” or “masyrakat terasing,” meaning “isolated or alien tribes,” by the Department of Social Affairs and the Department of Agriculture. These groups are geographically isolated and are stationed in customary law communities, which are societies that focus more on collective rights. Officially declared as underdeveloped by the Suharto government, these populations endured forced resettlement, reeducation, and the banning of communal and ceremonial goods and practices up until Suharto was driven from office in 1998. However, although this repressive regime has ended, the political leaders have yet to revise the country’s assimilationist policy, resulting in a vigorous social movement of over 100 million Indonesians to consider themselves to be “masyrakat adat,” or people governed by custom. These populations claim rights to the collective ownership of their lands, a form of tenure ambiguously recognized in Indonesian law.

Despite the large number of indigenous peoples living in the country and the government’s failure to update policies regarding their rights, Indonesia has placed a great amount of focus on legal reforms and establishing anti-corruption policies for its political sector. Indonesia should thus be used as a model for how other countries with similar corruption issues can also improve; by placing more attention on these policies, countries can begin to witness improvements in the fair treatment of indigenous populations. For example, The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was established in Indonesia in 2004 to investigate, charge and prosecute corruption, as well as establish law enforcement tools and prosecutorial power. It can intercept communications, examine bank and tax records, freeze assets, and arrest and prosecute a suspect in a court where it has the power to appoint judges. By holding the government officials accountable to their actions, the country can be governed more efficiently, thus improving the lives of the country’s inhabitants, and especially those of its indigenous populations. While the KPK has brought out high-profile political cases into the public arena, the Commission lacks the financial resources to investigate more than a couple of cases every year. In addition, despite having KPK launch large numbers of investigations into the oil palm sectors, elected officials are still receiving bribes in order to amass the funds necessary to run for office. Reform of Indonesia’s election laws is still necessary so that political parties and their candidates can access fairly run trials without relying on illicit funding. Without removing the incentives for political corruption, Indonesia’s forests and the indigenous populations that inhabit them will continue to suffer, not only as their land is taken but also as their rights are blatantly ignored.

Case Study: Philippines & Lack of Law Enforcement

The Philippines is home to an estimated fourteen to seventeen million indigenous peoples who belong to over 100 ethnic-linguistic groups, mainly concentrated in the islands of Luzon and Mindano. The Philippine Constitution mandates State recognition, protection, promotion, and fulfillment of the rights of indigenous peoples, something that is often ignored in other state legislations. In addition, the government has accepted that the international legal concept of “indigenous” truthfully applies to their marginalized ethnic groups, which are now referred to as “indigenous cultural communities” in order to not only recognize their unique cultural identity, but also to present them to the rest of the Philippines in a more positive light. However, despite these legal efforts from the Filipino government, these indigenous populations remain among the poorest factions of society. The indigenous populations of the Philippines live in geographically isolated areas with a lack of access to basic social services, economic activities, or political participation. Furthermore, the country’s commercially valuable natural resources are concentrated in these areas, making them continuously vulnerable to development aggression from both private and public industries. It is clear that government authorities are continuing to neglect their rights and take over indigenous land for economic development.

The Filipino government is unable to provide the country’s indigenous people with protections because although there exists the necessary laws and legislations, they are not enforced. This is a prevalent issue not only in the Philippines but also throughout the region and therefore must be addressed by SPECPOL. For example, the Philippines recognizes the Republic Act 8371, a Filipino law also known as the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), which calls for states to respect indigenous peoples’ cultural

integrity and their right to develop land as they please. Yet there exists a great amount of criticism of the law itself within the Philippines, resulting in its minimal implementation or enforcement. Furthermore, the Philippines’ government has not yet ratified the ILO Convention 169, demonstrating little effort to better the lives of the state’s indigenous population. However, with the help of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Philippines has undertaken over 30 projects and assisted 28 distinct ethno-linguistic groups in twelve regions and 21 province; these projects focus on improving the capacity of government agencies and bettering indigenous representation in the political sector. Through training on basic paralegal skills, gender sensitivity, community organizing, and project development and management, dozens of indigenous leaders and governmental staff have contributed to the integration of tribal and customary laws with national legal processes.

As a stipulation of international and UN aid, the government has recently made effort to strengthen its political bodies. Such improvement can be seen with the May 2013 elections, which saw a significant increase in indigenous participation, not only as voters, but also as election monitors and advocates. A year before, various organizations throughout the Philippines launched pilot registration activities in multiple regions of the country, allowing over 10,817 individuals to register for the first time. However, a rise in vote buying, coercion, and discrimination continues to pose as challenges to the political participation of indigenous groups, as they continue to face three major setbacks to voting: their illiteracy, lack of physical access to registration and voting sites, and some of the populations’ current status as a minority. The lack of certain basic rights for the indigenous Filipino population illustrates the evident discrimination that continues to exist in the region, despite slight advancements in their voting abilities.

The situation in the Philippines proves that simply passing laws to protect indigenous rights within a country is not enough, and that there must be more accountability and further oversight in order to ensure that the rights of these individuals are actually being promoted. There are a number of reasons for why existing legislation is not upheld, including because governments are either unwilling or unable to carry out measures. Consequently, SPECPOL must focus on these two causes for issue and tailor its resolutions accordingly. For example, instead of just suggesting the signing of legislations and protocols, this committee should work with governments to find ways to actually enforce its previous efforts.

Case Study: Malaysia & Land Rights

Based on the UN working definition, the federal constitution, and state laws, Malaysia’s indigenous populations are considered to include the aborigines of Peninsular Malaysia, known as the Orang Asli, and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak.The majority of these populations continue to live in rural and remote areas and survive by hunting and gathering, fishing, farming, and trading forest products. Currently, some work as peasants and laborers as land development projects and government programs have been implemented throughout the rural and farm areas of the country.

The Malaysian government has made their opinion on the rights of Malaysia’s indigenous communities shockingly clear, as they confirmed they will not comply with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples or ensure that Native Customary Rights (NCR) are protected. Thus, the government

has ultimately disregarded the rights of its indigenous communities altogether. Furthermore, they have rejected various recommendations made by the governments of Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, which include allowing visits to Malaysia by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, establishing an independent Commission to ensure laws and policies, and creating an independent body to investigate land and territory disputes. This lack of land rights are stated under Malaysia’s Aboriginal Peoples Act of 1954, which permits the indigenous populations to live on designated land not as owners, but as “at-will tenants” without possession of land rights, ultimately enabling the government to seize the land as they please without payment of compensation. In October of 2013, the Kuantan High Court of Malaysia ruled that a group of Orang Asli did not have rights to land beyond what was stated under the 1954 Act, and resulted in the destruction of the Kampung Mengkapur village.

The Penan, an indigenous community of Sarawak populations, uses native customary rights to claim land ownership, passing down its land from one generation to another. However, this did not refrain the logging companies from harassing and threatening the Penan leaders and land-rights activists. In response, the Sarawak Penan Association urged the state government to outline the Penan land boundaries and revoke the companies’ timber licenses that overlapped their land. However, in November 2013, the Malaysian police arrested ten protestors in Murum who staged week-long blockades in protest to the Sarawak government’s plan to forcefully relocate them in order to continue their construction of a hydroelectric dam that is flooding villages and has already displaced thousands. This state-sponsored arrest demonstrates the government’s lack of respect for the indigenous and their right to own land, as well as their general lack of effort to preserve the lives of the indigenous populations.

Overall, the situation in Malaysia specifically exemplifies the lack of recognition of indigenous peoples as citizens and instead views them as undeserving of basic rights, as Malaysia refuses to comply with the UN’s standard of treatment of indigenous populations. SPECPOL must find ways to encourage this country and others that share this position to accept UN standards, and prove that it will ultimately only benefit the international community and the survival of all of the region’s inhabitants. By analyzing Malaysia’s current status, delegates will be able to identify why Malaysia’s current laws have failed to adequately protect its indigenous people.

Delegates may research more upon the current involvement of the committee for protecting minority community rights’ and the minority communities where the committee’s interference is necessary.

Bloc Analysis

These blocs are divided into regions based on geographic location, as well as their governments’ political view on and current situation regarding indigenous populations. Some regions recognize indigenous peoples as citizens and grant them the same human rights as all other inhabitants of their country. However, some other states are severely unstable and extremely politically corrupt, inhibiting them from being able to properly implement their legislation and other agreements regarding the basic human rights of all individuals, including indigenous populations. Many countries around the world are

facing similar situations to that of Southeast Asia, including poverty, political instability, and inability to support all of their inhabitants. The issues of lack of access to land, education, and employment in other regions can help in developing solutions for Southeast Asia specifically by analyzing what has been done to address and implement these populations’ political and human rights.

Africa

The situation of indigenous peoples in Africa is extremely serious, as the continent continues to deal with issues of bad governance, corruption, violence, and poverty. Only a few African states have so far recognized the existence of indigenous peoples. However, this situation is gradually improving, and multiple central African countries have begun accepting aid from external organizations to improve the lives of these indigenous populations. Except for the Republic of Congo, no countries in Africa have national legislation that acknowledge and provide for the protection of indigenous peoples’ rights. The Congolese law for the promotion of protection of indigenous human rights is the first of its kind, and many countries have used it as a source of inspiration. For example, Kenya adopted a new constitution in 2010 providing for considerable decentralization and the recognition of historically marginalized groups to which indigenous peoples belong.

Overall, indigenous peoples in Africa are poorly represented in decision-making and political bodies at both the local and national level, similar to the situation in Southeast Asia. This causes further difficulties for the indigenous populations to advocate for their cause and determine their own future development. Most African states follow European-oriented modernization strategies that completely disregard indigenous traditional African sectors, which are the economies in most need of supportive policies. Furthermore, African indigenous populations are also victims to violent conflict and land dispossession, similar to the forced relocation that exists in Asia, leading to severe impoverishment, as legal frameworks promoting and protecting their rights are weak or nonexistent.

Delegates representing the states of this bloc should acknowledge the various political and economic factors that inhibit the successful passing and enforcing of legislation promoting and recognizing the rights of the indigenous populations. Countries in this bloc should consider how their situation is similar to that of Southeast Asia. By analyzing the weak political systems of their own states, delegates can understand what needs to be done in Southeast Asia in order for the indigenous to be recognized. While these countries lack proper adoption of international measures, national legislation, and accountability with regards to recognition of indigenous rights, the delegates representing these countries should research their own country’s position to further provide solutions for the indigenous populations of the world.

Middle East

Several countries face indigenous disputes which have further led to worsening refugee and displaced persons situations. Seeing as entire country populations of this region are made up of various ethnicities, there exists a significant amount of racial and religious prejudice throughout the Middle East. However, they do not have what is internationally considered as “indigenous” populations, but rather

are categorized as minority groups. Furthermore, land disputes are at their highest point in history due to the rise of political conflict. For instance, the population of Iran includes a large number of ethnic and linguistic minorities; namely the Ahwaz Arab, Azeri Turk, Kurdish and Baloch peoples. While abuses by the government against journalists and members of the political opposition are widely seen in the media, the severity and pervasiveness of attacks against Iran’s minority populations tend to receive significantly less public attention. All of these groups face economic marginalization, political repression and denial of even the most basic of cultural rights by the Iranian government.

The Delegates representing countries of this bloc should look at similarities with the political corruption in both the other countries facing indigenous disputes and the Middle East. By analyzing post-conflict recovery, especially the efforts that were done politically, recommendations can be made to the countries for how to properly address political and human rights issues. In addition, delegates can draw on solutions from ways that the Middle Eastern states have dealt with the culturally varying populations, especially regarding land disputes and political procedures.

Latin America

Although the Latin American bloc has a great amount of diversity, the indigenous populations here possess strong attachments to their traditional territories located in rural areas. However, new intergovernmental trade agreements with the economic powers of more developed countries facilitate the dispossession of indigenous land and resources. The increasing investment capacity of national governments and other businesses is directed towards the economic control of vast areas traditionally and previously owned by indigenous peoples. While some countries in the region have ratified Convention 169 of the ILO, Latin America has seen very little effective application of some of the measures. On the other hand, in some countries of the region, representatives of indigenous peoples have been able to successfully position themselves within the political structures of national and local governments.

Bolivia, for example, has the highest percentage of indigenous peoples in Latin America, with 62% of its population in 2006 being considered indigenous. In order to accommodate this large portion of its population that government has made large gains recently in providing for their rights, Bolivia has ratified Convention No. 169, passed its own Constitution that recognizes indigenous peoples’ right to representation in politics as well as their right to land, and declared the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as national law. These achievements did not come easily for the indigenous peoples, as they fought actively and rigorously for their rights against some government resistance. Yet they represent a major milestone for these peoples and furthermore demonstrate the power of indigenous activism. However, Bolivia and other countries in Latin America have faced challenges in the effective implementation of these policies. While the government has accepted UN and ILO training programs in attempts to enforce legislation, Bolivia’s indigenous peoples still remain without proper land ownership and without access to education, employment, and political procedures.

The countries of this region need to find ways to successfully implement the indigenous peoples’ right to effectively participate in political decision-making processes that ultimately affect the lives, resources,

and rights of the populations. As they are also in the midst of drafting legislation and constitutions, the countries of Latin America must assist other countries in finding ways to not only address the rights of the indigenous peoples, but most importantly, to also implement and enforce them.

Europe

The European Union (EU) has established clear policies for supporting indigenous populations around the globe. Along with other members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and Spain, the EU laid the groundwork for a comprehensive policy with the Development Council Resolution from 30 November 1998.99 This resolution reflects their strong desire to create and build partnerships with indigenous communities, as well as the integration of these communities into both national and international policies and programs.

In summary, the European countries can use their development strategies as well as their successful implementation of legislation as a model for the other states, where governments are unable to effectively implement what has already been agreed upon, both nationally and internationally. When searching for solutions for the situation of countries lacking in minority protection, the members of the EU must keep in mind how they have already established its policies and laws. However, it should focus even more on ways to provide equal access to education and employment opportunities, as well as representation, to the indigenous populations. Until these rights are recognized, majority populations will continue to dominate both the political and economic sectors of those countries, without giving a voice to the indigenous peoples.

Committee’s Mission

While there are numerous aspects to the topic, the situation of indigenous populations in the world has developed into more of a human rights controversy than just an economic problem. As a body represented by the international community, SPECPOL must address the current suffering of the indigenous as in need of immediate attention. By analyzing the existing conventions, protocols, and declarations passed by the UN, this committee can establish innovative solutions and take cooperative actions to grant these indigenous populations the human rights they deserve and need to survive. Secession will also grant the minority group full sovereignty and autonomy, it also presents political, economic, and social perils that threaten the success of the new state and the security and stability of the region.

The greatest difficulty regarding this topic is the disregard for the indigenous populations by this region’s governments as well as the political instability that is on the rise throughout the world. Until strong politics can be established and enforced, citizenship capability and human rights cannot be granted to the indigenous, resulting in the blatant disregard and discrimination of their lands, religions, and lifestyles. Before simply passing stricter police-related monitoring and legislation, the political bodies must first work to limit internal corruption so that the law can be more properly implemented and obeyed.

Furthermore, without proper and fair access to participation and legal hearings, the indigenous peoples will continue to suffer from lack of natural human rights. Delegates should consider ways that this committee can promote better awareness of the rights of these populations, so that they can more effectively advocate for their already-granted rights. Furthermore, it is crucial to consider the interests, sovereignty, and cultures of the individual states, in order to come to a united consensus regarding indigenous peoples’ rights. Therefore, SPECPOL shall uphold the responsibility in addressing and solving the political reasoning behind the suffering of these minority populations and the effects it has on a global scale.