CoMUN 2015

UNITED NATIONS PEACE BUILDING TASK FORCE

STUDY GUIDE

INTRODUCTION

World peace is no longer a constant in our lives. Today, it will take merely a few hours

for our world to dissolve in chaos and anarchy; for nations are rapidly strengthening

their military resources and their digital prowess. At the root of this precariousness, are

issues such as the claim over disputed territories, which in turn influence the stability of

the nations concerned. Concurrently technology is constantly being used at militarized

standards and can be just as lethal as any piece of ammunition.

Welcome delegates, to the United Nations Peace Building Task Force, where the future

of world peace, rests in your hands.

AGENDAE:

1. Peace building in disputed territories with special reference to the

India-Pakistan and Indo-China regions;

2. Development in the field of Information and Technology as a threat

to International Security.

Note:

1. The United Nations Peace Building Task Force is a double delegation committee.

2. The United Nations Peace Building Task Force is a committee envisioned by the

Executive Board of Cottons Model United Nations 2015. Hence, no prior records of

this committee will be found.

LETTER FROM THE CO-CHAIRPERSONS

Dear Delegates,

We cordially welcome you to the United Nations Peace Building Task Force. It is a

CoMUN 2015 exclusive and unique committee, which deals with issues pertaining to

International Security and effective Peace Building.

Delegates, it should be noted that this committee follows the mandate of the

Disarmament and International Security (DISEC) committee. We, as your co-

chairpersons, expect the best of debate in this committee, straight-forward, innovative

and direct points, and effective and implementable solutions. Moreover, as delegates

representing various countries, diplomacy in every affair is highly appreciated.

This study guide serves as the basis for kickstarting your research and form its basis.

Here at CoMUN, we believe it’s quality, and not quantity, that matters when doing your

research. Hence, use this as your foundation and continue building.

We look forward to seeing you at CoMUN 2015, at the UNPBTF.

Sincerely,

Aritra Chatterjee & Rohan Sabharwal.

(Co-Chairpersons.)

*Delegates, please note that that committee requires the handing in of position papers

in order to be acknowledged for delegate placements. A single page position paper, per

agenda, is the requisite. The deadline is the 30th of July. Send in your position papers,

either by mail to unpbtfcomun2015@gmail.com, or a hard copy to be handed to any of

the chairs, before roll call.

Contact details:

Aritra Chatterjee(Chairperson): 9986387505, archchatter@gmail.com.

Rohan Sabharwal(Chairperson): 9980145064, ronsabby@gmail.com.

Shervil Adappa(Vice-Chairperson): 8904003535, sherviladappa@gmail.com.

Topic Area A: Peace building in disputed territories with special reference to the India-

Pakistan and Indo-China regions.

Disputed borders are not only the causes of the past and current issues The Indo-Pak Conflict

but are also a breeding ground for future strains in relationships. There are many who believe

that resolving the India-China-Pakistan border conflict will lead to overall peace in South Asia.

To tackle this problem and to find a viable solution we must go to the issue’s roots. With

portions under the administration of China (Aksai Chin), India (Jammu and Kashmir) and

Pakistan (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas), the territorial dispute over Kashmir is one of the

longest-standing disputes yet to find a solution. The prime concerns regarding this trilateral

border conflict are the hostilities between the three nationalities, cross border troubles, water

disputes, issues of mutual recognition, security and a resolution to the refugee problem.

India-Pakistan border dispute

The controversial partition of the British Indian Empire, which established the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India on 14 August 1947, remains one of the chief reasons of disorder in the Indian subcontinent. The partition was made after the declaration of independence of both states and the responsibility for keeping order in the land and safeguarding the lives of minorities on both sides was given to the two new independent states.

A brief timeline for further research:

The timeline:

1947

British India is partitioned to form two new independent nations of India and Pakistan. In

October, Lashkar tribes begin to revolt against the rule of Hari Singh, and cause internal turmoil

in Kashmir. This is followed by the mobilization of the Pakistani army on 20th October. 6 days

later Hari Singh signs the Instrument of Accession and appeals to India for military assistance.

1948

The ISI is formed in Pakistan by General Robert Cawthome.

The war continues in Kashmir, and India raises the issue in the UNSC in

January. Resolution 39 was passed in the UNSC. Resolution 47 was passed in the UNSC, in

April.

September saw the death of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the Governor General of Pakistan. He was

succeeded by Khwaja Nazimuddin.

1949

In January, the UN arranges a ceasefire in Kashmir, the war stops subsequently.

The Karachi Agreement is signed in July, between India and Pakistan, which demarcated the

ceasefire line, and led to the deployment of the UNMOGIP.

Furthermore, a referendum was strongly recommended by the UN.

1950

India officially becomes a federal republic by adopting the Indian Constitution in January. It is

important to note that Article 370 was already part of the Indian Constitution.

1951

UNSC adopts resolution 91 in March.

Elections take place in the state Jammu and Kashmir to form the constituent assembly of the

state. Sheikh Abdullah wins, unopposed and is sworn in as Prime Minister of Kashmir under

Hari Singh.

In Pakistan Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan is assassinated. Khwaja Nazimuddin succeeds him

as the new Prime Minister, while Malik Ghulam Mohammed becomes the new Governor

General.

1952

Congress wins the very first general elections held in India during the course of late 1951, and

early 1952. Sheikh Abdullah signs the Delhi Agreement, and adopts a policy of Kashmiri self-

determination.

1953

Governments of India and Pakistan agree to appoint a plebiscite administrator by the end of

April, 1954.

Sheikh Abdullah is charged with sedition by Hari Singh and is removed from his office. He is

succeeded by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed who was strongly in favour of accession to India.

1954

The Trombay Atomic Energy Establishment was set up in India, the first of its kind.

Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly ratifies the Instrument of Accession in February.

Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement was signed between the United States of

America and Pakistan in May, which marked the beginning of bilateral relations between these

two nations.

In July, Nehru demanded revisions of the maps of India, showing definite boundaries on all

frontiers.

1956

Pakistan is constitutionally declared to be an Islamic Republic. And the States reorganization act

is passed in India.

In September Hussain Shahid Suhrawardy becomes the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

1956-57

Jammu and Kashmir state constituent assembly adopts a constitution declaring the state to be

an integral part of the Indian Union.

1957

There is a split in the National Conference in Kashmir and a few leaders form the Democratic

National Conference

1958

Balochistani rebels in Pakistan undertake guerrilla warfare against the Pakistani Military, which

subsequently results in greater representation of tribals in the Pakistani government. Ayub

Khan, the Military General, organizes a bloodless coup d’état and comes to power, by deposing

Sikandar Mirza. He serves as the second President of Pakistan, but more importantly as the first

martial law administrator, in a long list.

Meanwhile, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act is formulated by the Indian legislature.

1960

Ayub Khan officially becomes the democratically elected President of Pakistan.

The Indus Waters Treaty is then signed between Nehru and Ayub Khan.

1962

Ayub Khan adopts a new constitution in Pakistan.

The Sino-Indian war breaks out between China and India in October.

The UN then arranges a ceasefire to end the war.

1963

Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan, Swaran Singh and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto engage in

bilateral negotiations over the Kashmir issue.

Pakistani Army increases its presence in rebel held regions of Balochistan.

Trans Karakoram Agreement is signed between Pakistan and China.

1964

Pakistan refers the Kashmir dispute to the UN Security Council, due to the failure of the 1963

peace talks.

1965

India and Pakistan fight their second war.

Ayub Khan is re-elected as Pakistani President.

Resolution 209 and 210 are passed by the UNSC.

1966

Tashkent Agreement was signed between Lal Bahadur Shastri and Ayub Khan.

Indira Gandhi, succeeds Lal Bahadur Shastri as Prime Minister, after his mysterious death in

Uzbekistan

Kashmiri Nationalists form the Plebiscite Front with an armed faction called the Jammu and

Kashmir National Liberation Front.

1968

The RAW is formed in India, as the chief external intelligence wing.

1969

Ayub Khan resigns as the head of state and is succeeded by General Yahya Khan.

Yahya Khan undertakes legal measures to consider Balochistan as the fourth administrative

province of Pakistan.

1970

The province of East Pakistan is devastated by a cyclone, 0.2 million people were killed.

The very first Pakistani General Elections were conducted in Pakistan

1971

An Indian Airlines plane is hijacked, and India prevents all Pakistani airplanes from flying over

Indian airspace, and all international flights between India and Pakistan were suspended.

The Pakistani Army begins Operation Searchlight, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was arrested.

The Soviet Union signs a treaty of friendship with India.

Pakistani army carries out strikes against Indian air fields in the North-West.

This is considered by India as an act of war. This is followed by India‘s declaration of War.

The independent country of Bangladesh is formed on the 6th of December, 1971.

UNSC adopted resolution 307, to call for a durable ceasefire. Yahya Khan resigns, and is

succeeded by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto as President.

1972

The Shimla Agreement is signed between Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Indira

Gandhi.

1973

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto enforces a new constitution in Pakistan, bringing an end to martial law and

giving the parliament the authority to elect the President and Prime Minister. Zulfiqar, then

resigns as President and takes the office of Prime Minister.

However, Bhutto then imposes martial law on Balochistan.

1974

Sheikh Abdullah comes to power as the Chief Minister of Kashmir. After an arrangement with

Indira Gandhi, the Kashmiri state government affirms that the state "is a constituent unit of the

Union of India". Pakistan however rejects the accord with the Indian government. India carries

out its nuclear tests, codenamed Operation Smiling Buddha.

1975

Indira is accused of electoral malpractices, and faces stiff criticism from the Opposition. She

then declares a state of national emergency.

1977

For the first time, the Congress lost in the Indian general elections to the Janata Dal.

A gentlemen‘s agreement was signed between India and Pakistan that both armies would retreat

from the borders during the winter months of September to April.

1978

General Zia ul Haq takes power in Pakistan as President and imposes martial law in the country.

1979

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was charged with murdering a rival politician, and hanged.

1980

US pledges military assistance to Pakistan, after the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.

1984

The Indian Army seizes control of the Siachen Glacier, which was not properly demarcated by

the LoC, violating the gentleman‘s agreement. This sparked armed response from the Pakistani

Military.

Operation Blue Star is carried out by the Indian Army against Sikh Militants who seized the

Golden Temple. These militants were advocates of freedom of Khalistan from the Indian Union.

Indira Gandhi is then assassinated by a Sikh body guard. She is succeeded by her son Rajiv

Gandhi.

1985

Zia ul Haq lifted the martial law over Pakistan.

1986

Benazir Bhutto, the daughter of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto returned to Pakistan from exile and led a

campaign with the Pakistani Peoples’ Party for fresh elections.

1987

Jammu and Kashmir state elections are considered by local political parties to be rigged. After

the victory of Sheikh Abdullah and the separatist movement in

Kashmir is led by the Jammu and Kashmir liberation front.

India also, at this point in time, deploys troops to Sri Lanka due to the ethnic conflict in the

region.

1988

General Zia ul Haq dies in a mysterious air crash, along with the US Ambassador to Pakistan,

and a top Pakistani army official. Ghulam Ishaq Khan takes over as acting president, and is later

elected to the post.

Benazir Bhutto becomes the first woman prime minister of Pakistan, after the Pakistani

Peoples‘Party emerges victorious the general elections.

1989

Congress loses the 1989 elections and the Janata Party comes to power in India.

1990

Armed insurgency in Kashmir escalates after the killing of demonstrators by the Indian army.

This led to what is termed as the exodus‘of Hindu Pundits from Kashmir. India, then officially

imposes the AFSPA on the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

In Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif came to power as Prime Minister.

Benazir Bhutto is removed from power and her government is dismantled due to charges of

incompetence.

1991

Rajiv Gandhi is assassinated, Tamil terrorist group LTTE claims responsibility for the

assassination.

1992

Hindu extremists in Uttar Pradesh destroy the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. This gives rise to

widespread communal tensions all across India.

A joint declaration was signed in Delhi, prohibiting the usage of nuclear weapons.

1993

Benazir Bhutto is re-elected as Pakistani Prime Minister after the resignation of Nawaz Sharif.

The Mumbai blasts were seen as a major incident of terrorism, with 13 bomb blasts occurring all

over the city. This was later proven to have been perpetrated by Dawood Ibrahim.

1995

Two US diplomats were killed in Pakistan.

1996

The Bhutto government was again dismissed, this time on charges of corruption.

In India, the Congress suffers their worst ever defeat, with the Bharatiya Janata Party emerging

as the single largest political party.

1997

Nawaz Sharif returns to power after the Pakistani Muslim League wins the general elections in

Pakistan.

1998

Atal Behari Vajpayee comes to power as Prime Minister of India.

Pervez Musharraf is made the Chief of Pakistani Armed Forces.

Both India and Pakistan carry out numerous nuclear tests, and face international criticism.

1999

Vajpayee makes a historic visit to Lahore, via bus. Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif sign the bilateral

Lahore Declaration.

Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari are charged with corruption and given jail

sentences.

India and Pakistan then fight another war on the icy heights around Kargil, in Indian

administered Kashmir after Pakistani infiltration across the LoC.

The war is ended by US intervention, led by Bill Clinton, on an appeal from Nawaz Sharif.

Nawaz Sharif is removed from power and Pervez Musharraf imposes martial law by abrogating

the constitution.

In December, Taliban terrorists carry out the hijack of IC-814.

2000

Nawaz Sharif is exiled to Saudi Arabia, after being sentenced with life imprisonment.

Tensions are high along the Line of Control, especially after the recent military coup, in

Pakistan, led by General Pervez Musharraf, who declared himself as the new head of the

government.

2001

Pakistani President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee agree to meet

for a two-day summit in Agra, to reach a consensus on Kashmir.

The summit fails to bear any fruit.

Later that year, on the 13th of December, an armed attack is carried out on the Indian

parliament. This increases the hostilities between the two nations.

2002

Both India and Pakistan start amassing their troops along the borders. This standoff continues

till October, and is finally resolved because of the intervention from the United Nations.

2003

A ceasefire is mediated by the UN General Assembly. Both countries decide to move their troops

from the border.

2004

This year marks the beginning of the Composite Dialogue process, which had been conceived by

I.K. Gujral back in 1997. This eliminates focus on terrorism, by combining it with other agendas.

2006

Newly elected Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh decides to redeploy 5000 troops from

Kashmir as a gesture of good faith.

Later that year, an institutional anti-terrorism mechanism is put into place. This was the result

of a joint collaboration between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh.

2008

India and Pakistan enter into a $7.6 billion pipeline project along with Turkmenistan and

Afghanistan. There is the commencement of trade routes from India to Pakistan.

In July, the Indian embassy in Kabul is bombed. The Indian government blames the Inter-

Services Intelligence (ISI) of Pakistan for perpetrating the attack.

On the 26th of November, armed combatants open fire on civilian areas in Mumbai, India. An

estimated 160 people were killed in a 3-day siege of the Taj Hotel.

India breaks off all talks with Pakistan.

2009

Although Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan

Singh decide to hold future bilateral talks, Prime Minister Singh remains adamant that the

Composite Dialogue Process be ceased.

In August, India gives Pakistan a new dossier of evidence regarding the Mumbai attacks, asking

it to prosecute Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the head of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, an Islamic charity with

ties to the LeT.

2011

Omar Abdullah, chief minister of Kashmir announces an amnesty for the 1,200 young men who

threw stones at security forces during the anti-government protests in the Kashmir Valley the

previous year.

Indian State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) confirms presence of more than 2,000

unidentified bodies in unmarked graves near the Line of Control.

Activists say many may be people who disappeared after being arrested by security forces.

Foreign secretaries of the two countries meet in Nepal and decide to resume peace-talks.

2012

Chief Minister Omar Abdullah releases an official statement in which he says that it would be a

grave fallacy to repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).

2013

The Prime Ministers of the two countries meet in New York, during a UN General Assembly

session and decide to mutually retreat troops and ease tensions across the border.

2014

In May, Narendra Modi is elected as the new Prime Minister of India. Pakistan releases 151

fishermen from its jails as a gesture of goodwill.

The Pakistani and Indian Prime Ministers hold a bilateral talk on the 27th of May, in which both

countries promised to make a marked effort to bolster relations.

In October, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif makes a statement in the General Assembly. He said

that Pakistan cannot draw a veil on Kashmir, to which he earned strong criticism from Prime

Minister Modi, who condemned him for internationalizing the issue.

The Jammu and Kashmir State Legislative Elections were held from the 25th of November to

the 20th of December, and registered more than a 65% voter turn-out.

December witnessed several terror attacks in the Kashmir valley, as militants stormed security

camps.

The relationship between the two countries remained shaky, and the firing across the LoC

continued.

India-China Border Dispute:

On assuming power, the People‘s Republic of China (PRC) renounced all prior foreign agreements as unequal treaties imposed upon it during the "century of humiliation" and demanded renegotiation of all borders. The Sino-India border remains the only major territorial dispute, other than South China Sea disputes, that China has not resolved. China‘s growing assertiveness in its territorial claims, especially on Arunachal Pradesh, and its relentless development of infrastructure in Tibet will shape the prospects of Sino-India relations.

The territory stretching from the jungles of northern Myanmar, westward to the Karakoram Range, and northward to the edge of the Tibetan plateau can be seen as a single geopolitical system referred to as the Himalayan-Tibetan massif. The ruggedness of this terrain makes movement of men and materiel extremely difficult, thus preventing Indian and Chinese civilizations from intermingling or projecting military power in these remote areas effectively. Not until 1962 did the Chinese and Indian armies fight each other over these desolate heights, thus altering the geopolitics of the region significantly.

The McMahon Line boundary dispute is at the heart of relations between China and India. China has land and sea boundary issues with 14 neighbors, mostly for historical reasons. The Chinese have two major claims on what India deems its own territory. One claim, in the western sector, is on Aksai Chin in the northeastern section of Ladakh District in Jammu and Kashmir. The other claim is in the eastern sector over a region included in the British-designated North-East Frontier Agency, the disputed part of which India renamed Arunachal Pradesh and made a state. In the fight over these areas in 1962, the well-trained and well-armed troops of the Chinese People's Liberation Army overpowered the ill-equipped Indian troops, who had not been properly acclimatized to fighting at high altitudes.

In the early 20th Century Britain sought to advance its line of control and establish buffer zones around its colony in South Asia. In 1913-1914 representatives of China, Tibet and Britain negotiated a treaty in India: the Simla Convention. Sir Henry McMahon, the foreign secretary of British India at the time, drew up the 550 mile (890 km) McMahon Line as the border between British India and Tibet during the Simla Conference. The so-called McMahon Line, drawn primarily on the highest watershed principle, demarcated what had previously been unclaimed or undefined borders between Britain and Tibet. The McMahon line moved British control substantially northwards. The Tibetan and British representatives at the conference agreed to the line, which ceded Tawang and other Tibetan areas to the imperial British Empire. However the Chinese representative refused to accept the line. Peking claimed territory in this far north down to the border of the plain of Assam.

The land is mostly mountainous with Himalayan ranges along the northern borders criss-crossed with mountain ranges running north-south. These divide the state into five river valleys: the Kameng, the Subansiri, the Siang, the Lohit and the Tirap. High mountains and dense forests have prevented intercommunication between tribes living in different river valleys. The geographical isolation thus imposed has led different tribes to elove their own dialects and grow with their distinct identities. Nature has endowed the Arunachal people with a deep sense of beauty which finds delightful expression in their songs, dances and crafts.

A slow forward move towards the McMahon Line was begun on the ground, to establish a new de facto boundary. The McMahon Line was then forgotten until about 1935 when the British government decided to publish the documents in the 1937 edition of Aitchison's Collection of

Treaties. The NEFA (North East Frontier Agency) was created in 1954. On 7 November 1959, Chou En-lai proposed that both sides should withdraw their troops twenty kilometers from the McMahon line. The issue was quiet during the decade of cordial Sino-Indian relations, but erupted again during the Sino-Indian War of 1962. During the 1962 war, the PRC captured most of the NEFA. However, China soon declared victory and voluntarily withdrew back to the McMahon Line.

China is in occupation of approximately 38,000 sq. kms of Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir. In addition, under the so-called China-Pakistan "Boundary Agreement" of 1963, Pakistan ceded 5,180 sq. kms. of Indian territory in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir to China. China claims approximately 90,000 sq. kms. of Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh and about 2000 sq. kms. in the Middle Sector of the India-China boundary. Beijing has stated that it does not recognise Arunachal Pradesh.

The border between China and India has never been officially delimited. China's position on the eastern part of the border between the two countries is consistent. Not a single Chinese government recognizes the "illegal" McMahon Line. For China, the McMahon Line, stands as a symbol of imperialist aggression on the country. The so-called "Arunachal Pradesh" dispute is China's most intractable border issue. Because the gap between the positions of China and India is wide, it is difficult for both nations to reach consensus. The area of this disputed region is three times that of Taiwan, six times that of Beijing and ten times that of the Malvenas islands, disputed by Britain and Argentina. It is flat and rich in water and forest resources.

Arunachal Pradesh is the only issue which has a potential for conflict between India and China. If ever India and China go to war one day, it will be on this issue. India considers recurring Sino-Indian border clashes a potential threat to its security. Since the war, each side continued to improve its military and logistics capabilities in the disputed regions. China has continued its occupation of the Aksai Chin area, through which it built a strategic highway linking Xizang and Xinjiang autonomous regions. China had a vital military interest in maintaining control over this region, whereas India's primary interest lay in Arunachal Pradesh, its state in the northeast bordering Xizang Autonomous Region.

Barring an armed clash at Nathu La in eastern Sikkim in 1967, the border between India and China (Tibet) - and specifically the ill-defined Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Ladakh/Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh - had remained free of any major incidents through the 1970s and the early 1980s. While relations between the two countries remained cool,, official statements from Beijing and New Delhi professed a desire to solve the border tangle peacefully through mutual consultations. Beginning in December 1981, officials from both countries held yearly talks on the border issue.

With the improvement of logistics on the Indian side, the Indian Army sought to reinforce and strengthen forward areas in Arunachal Pradesh in the early 1980s. Patrols resumed in 1981 and by the summer of 1984 India had established an observation post on the bank of the Sumdorong Chu [referred to as Sangduoluo He in the Chinese media].

In July 1986 there were reports in the Indian media of Chinese incursions into the Sumdorong Chu [S-C] rivervalley in Arunachal Pradesh. By September-October, a brigade of the Indian Army 5 Mountain Division was airlifted to Zimithang, a helipad very close to the S-C valley. Referred to as Operation Falcon, this involved the occupation of ridges overlooking the S-C valley, including Langrola and the Hathung La ridge across the Namka Chu rivulet.

This was followed by reports of large-scale troop movements on both sides of the border in early 1987, and grave concerns about a possible military clash over the border. In February 1987, India established the so-called Arunachal Pradesh in its ["illegally occupied"] Chinese-claimed territories south of the McMahon Line. The Chinese side made solemn statements on many occasions that China never recognizes the "illegal" McMahon Line and the "so-called" Arunachal Pradesh. After these events, and India's conversion of Arunachal Pradesh from union territory to state, tensions between China and India escalated. Both sides moved to reinforce their capabilities in the area, but neither ruled out further negotiations of their dispute.

China, which had always maintained a large military presence in Tibet, was said to have moved in 20,000 troops from the"53rd Army Corps in Chengdu and the 13th Army in Lanzhou by early 1987, along with heavy artillery and helicopters. By early April, it had moved 8 divisions to eastern Tibet as a prelude to possible belligerent action. Reinforcements on the Indian side began with Operation Falcon in late 1986, and continued through early 1987 under Exercise Chequerboard. This massive air-land exercise involved 10 Divisions of the Indian Army and several squadrons of the IAF. The Indian Army moved 3 divisions to positions around Wangdung, where they were supplied solely by air. These reinforcements were over and above the 50,000 troops already present across Arunachal Pradesh.

Although India enjoyed air superiority in 1987, rough parity on the ground existed between the two military forces, which had a combined total of nearly 400,000 troops near the border. The Indian Army deployed eleven divisions in the region, backed up by paramilitary forces, whereas the PLA had fifteen divisions available for operations on the border. Most observers believe that the mountainous terrain, high-altitude climate, and concomitant logistic difficulties made it unlikely that a protracted or largest scale conflict would erupt on the Sino-Indian border.

That the Sino-Indian border has not suffered any major disruptions since 1986, as compared to the incessant firing incidents and infiltration on the Indo-Pak borders, made the Sino-Indian border an example of good neighborly relations.

In December 1988, Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi visited China. The Prime Ministers of the two countries agreed to settle the boundary questions through the guiding principle of "Mutual Understanding and Accommodation and Mutual Adjustment". Agreement also reached that while seeking for the mutually acceptable solution to the boundary questions, the two countries should develop their relations in other fields and make efforts to create the atmosphere and conditions conducive to the settlement of the boundary questions. The two sides agreed to establish a Joint Working Group (JWG) on the boundary questions at the Vice-Foreign Ministerial level.

An Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas was signed on 7 September 1993. After more than thirty years of border tension and stalemate, high-level bilateral talks were held in New Delhi starting in February 1994 to foster "confidence-building measures" between the defense forces of India and China, and a new period of better relations began. In November 1995, the two sides dismantled the guard posts in close proximity to each other along the borderline in Wangdong area, making the situation in the border areas more stable. During President Jiang Zemin's visit to India at the end of November 1996, the Governments of China and India signed the Agreement on Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field along the Line of Actual Control in the China-India Border Areas, which is an important step for the building of mutual trust between the two countries. These Agreements provide an institutional framework for the maintenance of peace and tranquility in the border areas.

Though lot had been done during the Sino-Indian official border talks, with number of border related CSBMs put in place, the border issue remains mired in various bilateral and domestic compulsions and contradictions on both sides. Border 'encounters' between India and China are not rare and arise from the very real disagreements that exist between the two sides in demarcating the LCA on the ground. Such incidents have usually been handled, not in full media glare, but by the two sides discreetly withdrawing to their earlier positions.

The two sides withdrew sentries along the eastern section that were considered to be too close to each other. During early 1990s, India unilaterally withdrew about 35,000 troops from its eastern sector. On the other hand, the PLA maintains a force between 180,000 and 300,000 soldiers and has directly ruled Tibet from 1950 to 1976, and indirectly thereafter. Tibet today is connected to other military regions through four-lane highways and strategic roads. And Beijing's capability to airlift troops from its other neighboring military regions has advanced very far from its comparative inability to use air force in 1962.

During the Indian Prime Minister's visit to China in June 2003 India and China signed a Memorandum on Expanding Border Trade, which adds Nathula as another pass on the India-China border for conducting border trade. The Indian side has agreed to designate Changgu of Sikkim state as the venue for border trade market, while the Chinese side has agreed to designate Renqinggang of the Tibet Autonomous Region as the venue for border trade market.

During Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to India in April 2005, the two sides signed an agreement on political settlement of the boundary issue, setting guidelines and principles. In the agreement, China and India affirmed their readiness to seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable solution to the boundary issue through equal and friendly negotiations.

India after 1962 adopted a policy to not develop the border areas. The idea was that if India developed the border areas, the Chinese can easily use these facilities in the event of a war. This policy had changed by 2008. To redress the situation arising out of poor road connectivity which has hampered the operational capability of the Border Guarding Forces deployed along the India-China border, the Government has decided to undertake phase-wise construction of 27 road links totaling 608 Km in the border areas along the India-China border in the States of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh at an estimated cost of Rs.912.00 crores. The work of construction of 2 roads in Arunachal Pradesh has started. The construction of these roads was expected to start during 2008-09.

The two sides have differences in perception of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the India-China border areas. Both sides carry out patrolling activity in the India-China border areas. Transgressions of the LAC are taken up through diplomatic channels and at Border Personnel Meetings/Flag Meetings. India and China seek a fair, reasonable and mutually acceptable settlement of the boundary question through peaceful consultations.

Chinese President Hu Jintao met with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Sanya City, south China's Hainan Province, on April 13, 2011. Hu said China is willing to further push forward negotiations on border issues on the basis of peace and friendliness, equal consultation, mutual respect and understanding. The two sides should consider setting up a consultation and coordination mechanism on border issues so as to achieve consensus as soon as possible and to better maintain peace and stability at the border regions before the issues are solved.

China wants India to put behind the 1962 war as an "unfortunate" thing of the past and that the two countries should strengthen their military ties including formalizing a border management

pact under which their troops will not fire at each other. The Chinese assessment was conveyed to the Indian defence ministry team which visited Beijing on 14-15 January 2013 for the third round of the annual defense dialogue between the two countries.

Border tensions between China and India flared after New Delhi claimed a contingent of 30 to 50 PLA soldiers crossed about 12 miles beyond the Line of Actual Control between the two countries on 15 April 2012 and stayed there for three weeks. According to New Delhi, PLA soldiers frequently conduct border incursions (more than 600 times over the last three years) but do not usually cross more than a few miles over the Line of Actual Control nor stay there longer than several hours.

Beijing denied Chinese troops had crossed into Indian territory. A Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said, ‘‘China has always acted in strict compliance with relevant agreements and protocols between the two countries on maintaining peace and tranquility in the Line of Actual Control area along the border . . . Chinese patrol troops have never crossed the line.’’ Chinese Premier Li Keqiang attempted to downplay the incident and the risk of conflict. During a state visit to India, he insisted that ‘‘a few clouds in the sky cannot shut out the brilliant rays of our friendship.’’ Premier Li did not directly address the alleged Chinese incursion, though he said ‘‘both sides believe we need to improve various border-related mechanisms that we have put into place and make them more efficient, and we need to appropriately manage and resolve our differences.’’

President Xi Jinping met Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the BRICS Summit in Durban, South Africa, 29 March 2013. Xi urged both sides to use special representatives to strive for a fair, rational framework that can lead to a solution to the border issue as soon as possible. India will abide by political guidelines set by both sides and seek a solution to the border issue with a commitment to safeguarding peace, Singh said. Since 2003, more than a dozen rounds of talks had been launched to resolve the border disputes. But ties have still been occasionally strained by the issue and overshadowed by closer India-US relations amid Washington's accelerating Asia "pivot" policy.

Beijing and New Delhi resolved the April border impasse in May after a series of talks and agreed to pursue a formal agreement to build trust and confidence between the border troops. The two sides signed the agreement during the Indian prime minister’s trip to China in October 2013. China and India concluded a border defense cooperation pact 24 October 2013, making it a highlight of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to the Asian neighbor. The Indian Express newspaper said the pact also puts no restrictions on India developing border infrastructure or enhancing military capabilities along the border. It quoted India's Ambassador to China S. Jai Shanker as saying: "This principle allows both countries to take appropriate measures according to their own security needs."

Nevertheless, the potential for periodic low-level confrontations between border patrols to escalate likely will persist. Indian media have reported several additional albeit briefer incursions by Chinese troops since the April standoff. Furthermore, both China and India continue to boost their militaries’ capabilities on the border, adding to mutual suspicion. This has left both sides sensitive to each other’s border activities and disposed toward worst-case perceptions of the other sides’ intentions and activities. Ely Ratner and Alexander Sullivan of the Center for a New American Security, warn: ‘‘more intense strategic competition between India and China would reverberate throughout the continent, exacerbating tensions in Central Asia, the Indian Ocean, and Southeast Asia. Disruptions to the Asian engine of economic growth caused by these tensions could debilitate the global economy.’’

Chinese troops entered disputed territory along the Sino-Indian border, Indian media sources reported, claiming it's not the first time China has made an incursion into the Indian border region. "Chinese troops are reported to have entered 25 to 30km deep into Indian Territory in Burtse area in Ladakh where they had pitched their tents last year that had led to a tense three-week standoff," The Times of India reported on 18 August 2014. Citing official sources, the media outlet notes that troops from the People's Liberation Army were spotted on Monday near the 'New Patrol base' post in Ladakh's Burtse area. According to these sources, the PLA has crossed a de-facto border known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and moved deeper into Indian-held territory. The PLA reportedly carried flags reading "this is Chinese territory, go back" in their hands.

India Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged visiting Chinese President Xi Jinping to resolve a boundary dispute after holding talks in New Delhi 18 September 2014 that lasted much longer than the stipulated 90 minutes. Modi said he had raised serious concerns over the issue with Chinese President Xi Jinping. He said the boundary dispute must be resolved soon. The Indian leader said they were clear that peace on the border has to be the foundation of the trust and relationship between the two nations. Modi called for an early clarification of the “line of actual control” which presently separates the two countries. He said if this happened “we can realize the potential of our relations." Xi’s visit to India took place as troops from both countries were engaged in a border standoff in the Ladakh region - one of their worst in recent years. The Chinese leader played down the tensions, attributing such incidents to their undemarcated border.

India's foreign minister said 26 September 2014 that India and China had resolved a tense, two-week military border standoff in the northern Himalayan region. Sushma Swaraj said after meeting with Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in New York that Chinese troops would begin withdrawing Friday 26 September 2014 and would be finished by Tuesday. She described the resolution as a "big accomplishment." Hundreds of Chinese troops moved into a territory claimed by India, sparking the standoff on the remote mountainous frontier of Ladakh. India said the Chinese troops wanted to extend a road they were building on their side of the border into territory claimed by India. China agreed not to extend the road into the disputed territory. In return, India agreed to demolish a recently built observation hut.

Questions A Resolution Must Answer:

1. What measures should be taken to prevent territorial disputes from surfacing?

Should regional bodies be looked upon to help prevent such territorial disputes

from rising? Should a third party interfere in such disputes?

2. What are the main reasons for the increasing violence in the Kashmir region?

How have previous measures taken by India, China and Pakistan, with regard to

Kashmir, failed? Is a three state solution the only viable step that can be taken to

solve the dispute over Kashmir, and if so, how is the state to be divided?

3. What effective steps can be taken to stop the acts of anti-state activists present in

the region?

4. What is to be done to address the issue of refugees?

5. What steps should be taken with regard to the Line of Control?

6. How do we bring about long-lasting peace in the region?

7. How do we ensure peaceful negotiations between nations on disputes such as

this?

8. What can the member nations of the UN do to prevent the loss of lives of the

innocents living near the borders?

Topic Area B - Development in the field of Information and Technology as a threat to

International Security.

Introduction

Existing and potential threats in the sphere of information security are among the most serious challenges of the twenty-first century. Threats emanate from a wide variety of sources and manifest themselves in disruptive activities that target individuals, businesses, national infrastructure and Governments alike. Their effects carry significant risk for public safety, the security of nations and the stability of the globally linked international community as a whole. The growing use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) in critical infrastructure creates new vulnerabilities and opportunities for disruption. Because of the complex interconnectivity of telecommunications and the Internet, any ICT device can be the source or target of increasingly sophisticated misuse. Since ICTs are inherently dual-use in nature, the same technologies that support robust e-commerce can also be used to threaten international peace and national security. HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM The case of Developments in Information and Telecommunications Technology in the Context of International Security is of high relevance in the current global scenario. It is pertinent that information does not fall into the wrong hands of those who may use it to achieve malicious objectives. Certain technologies are also being used for offensive action against state or private assets, which some claim to cross the line into warfare. We face multi-faceted challenges when dealing with the international security concerns. There are rising concerns from different groups regarding the security of their data as well as the maintenance of international peace and security in the wake of recent technological advancements. Michele Markoff, Deputy Coordinator for Cyber Issues, Office of the Secretary of State, on 30th October 2013 in New York, at the First Committee Thematic Discussion on Other Disarmament Issues and International Security, “States must unite in the common goal of preserving and enhancing the benefits of information technologies by assuring their security and integrity, while also maintaining an environment that promotes efficiency, innovation, economic prosperity, free trade, and respect for human rights.”

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Delegates are reminded that the mandate of UNPBTF is to consider the aspects of the question that pertain to international peace and security—not, for example, the management of international telecommunication which is a debate under the mandate of the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU). As the technology advances at leaps and bounds, it has become even more important to secure our private information and preventing it from falling into the wrong hands. Economic development and security enhancement is dependent on development in

telecommunications and information technology. Ensuring security is paramount in today’s times. Technology itself can also present particular challenges to policymaking for making systems and states more secure because it is ever changing and developing with newer avenues in science being explored and older methodologies being discarded. These methodologies also need to be consistent with the need to preserve the free flow of information. Interception of information has greatly helped governments in countering crime but has also raised concern about the legitimacy of such searches and the breach of privacy of the public. Through such issues, individual liability and state liability have been put to question. Development in telecommunications and information technology for enhancing the security has engaged the international community at several different levels. Many countries are working towards enhancing their cyber security capabilities. The Islamic Republic of Iran has coordinated its cyber capabilities within the military by Passive Defense Organization. An Iranian military commander stated that Iran has the second largest cyber army in the world. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard is in charge of the cyber warfare unit whose budget amounts to $ 76m. The People’s Republic of China’s 2004 White Paper on National Defense stated that “Informationalization has become the key factor in enhancing the war-fighting capability of the armed forces.” CURRENT SITUATION Past Treaties and Resolutions Since 2004, Groups of Governmental Experts (GGE) have reported to the UN General Assembly DISEC Committee on developments in information and telecommunications in the context of international security, examining the potential as well as existing threats from cyber sphere and finding possible cooperative measures to address them. The first GGE was unable to reach consensus of its final report. The second GGE however issued a report in July 2010, A/65/201. The report, among other things, recommends “Confidence-building, stability and risk reduction measures to address the implications of State use of ICTs, including exchanges of national views on the use of ICTs in conflict.” In 2011, the General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution calling for a follow-up of the findings of the second GGE, A/Res/66/24. This third GGE took into account the findings and recommendations contained in the report and began their work in 2012. They submitted their report in June 2013, A/68/98* during the sixty-eighth session of the General Assembly. The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) published a preliminary assessment in 2012 on Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare and reviewed, using open-source data, how the member states on the UN dealt with cyber security, whether they have a military command or doctrine for such activities and whether they have a plan to acquire offensive cyber capabilities. According to this report, only 33 member states include cyber warfare in their military planning and organization. Additionally, the majority of states have severe weaknesses in important infrastructure systems which are at risk from cyberattack, including water, energy, and financial systems. An attack to national infrastructure could cause severe harm to a country’s citizens and economic health. Computer emergency response teams (CERT) are present in various countries which provide security services to government and corporate sectors to protect their data from internal and external threats and also

prevent, detect and recover computer security incidents. CERT/CC was first formed at Carnegie Mellon University under a US government act and has now licensed other teams around the world. Russian Federation’s Convention on International Information Security sought to regulate the activity of governments to ensure international information security and “to act against the use of information and communication technology to violate international peace and security” and also “guarantee the free exchange of technology and information, while maintaining respect for sovereignty of States and their existing political, historical and cultural specificities”. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has given Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks for its member states to promote “a culture of security” and its lays down guidelines to conduct risk assessment, adequate security design and implementation, adequate security management and reassessment. OECD has also given Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. Penetration of Communication Systems and prevention of possible terrorist activities Often successful security breaches have been made into terrorist networks and the dangers of potential physical and cyber-attacks averted. Hacking into enemy servers has led to acquisition of vital information and location. Britain’s MI6 reportedly infiltrated a website belonging to Al Qaeda and replaced the recipe to make bombs with the recipe to make cupcakes. Terrorist groups are responding by increasing their cyber capabilities, increasing the risk of an attack against state targets.

CYBER WARFARE In a world dominated by technological growth and advancement, attack on information systems has become a legitimate cause of concern for security. With the increasing importance of cyberspace, a number of risks have become concurrent which not only jeopardizes the benefits that cyberspace can offer but also pose a threat to the national security of a country. Cyber warfare may include attempts to access, damage, undermine and sabotage another nation, organization’s information through metadata acquisition, computer viruses, denial of service attacks. Espionage is seen as a major threat that must be redeemed. These treats are multi polar in nature and can be motivated from several directions and they may include nation states, non-state actors, proxies, intelligence agencies. It must be noted that these attack may also be politically, socially or religiously motivated. The internet is also becoming a tool for military activities and cyber security has become more central to national and international security. More advance methods of cryptography are being explored and enacted. Protection of data has become more important for international security than ever before. With the betterment in telecommunications and information processing, hackers are also benefitting which makes it imperative to manage cyber-attack, and marshalling of an appropriate response to it. Cybercriminals route their communications through a variety of jurisdictions to avoid the detection of their crimes and identities. Cyber

counterintelligence is important in keeping sensitive information safe and preventing subversion and sabotage. Another rising trend is the perpetuation of cyber attacks by nationalist groups, such as when Israeli hackers organized together to launch an attack against Palestine in October 2000 during a period of conflict. DOS attacks were launched on computers owned by Palestinian resistance organizations (Hamas) and Lebanese resistance organizations (Hezbullah). Anti-Israel hackers responded by crashing several Israeli web sites by flooding them with bogus traffic. In March 2013, South Korea’s cyberspace came under a wave of cyber-attacks. Information systems of major broadcasting corporations and banks were hacked. According to an estimate, it cost South Korea £500m. The European Defense Agency (EDA) is progressing towards a more consistent level of cyber defense capability across the European Union. CASE STUDY: NSA PRISM The pertinence of the issue of privacy was highlighted in the PRISM surveillance program and the events that followed. PRISM (or SIGAD US-984XN as it is officially called) is a clandestine electronic surveillance data mining program that has been in operation since its inception in 2007. It is operated by the United States National Security Agency (NSA). Through PRISM, the NSA is able to access public email, phone calls, instant messages, photos and other communications without the individual’s knowledge and permission. Given the exponential development and innovation in technology, serious concerns have risen about the level of intervention state surveillance is causing in the individual’s life. Relevant Documents and Conventions The American Convention on Human Rights (also known as the Act of San Jose), signed at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, San Josi, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969, Article 11(2); Right to Privacy: No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence…” The European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8(2): “There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA, 1978) prescribes procedures for the electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information The Code of Laws of the United States of America, Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1: Electronic Surveillance The questions remain: How much personal information and private correspondence should the government be allowed to access? How can cyber-crime be countered through telecommunication checks without breaching the individual’s right to privacy?

What suspected cases qualify in validity to be serious enough to violate an individual’s right to privacy? MAJOR COUNTRY POSITIONS United States, United Kingdom, and France: The United States has significant cyber warfare capabilities; recent allegations have also highlighted its controversial practice of intercepting civilian communications (collected from NATO partners and other allies). It has come under significant international pressure from some of its allies after allegations that it tapped the communications of several word leaders. It has vigorously defended the National Security Agency as an important aspect of its national defense plan, raising questions about whether it is ultimately about security from foreign threats or internal security. Allies including the U.K. and France have some of the most advanced cyber-warfare capabilities, and have followed the lead of the US in collecting information. China: relations between the United States and China are harmed by their disagreements over information technology. U.S. government departments have identified China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) as the source of cyberattacks against the US government and key private companies. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (members include primarily China and Russia) defines cyberwar to include dissemination of information “harmful to the spiritual, moral and cultural spheres of other states”. In September 2011, these countries proposed to the UN Secretary General a document called “International code of conduct for information security”. The approach was not endorsed by most western countries as it entailed too many hints on political censorship of the internet. Russia: Russia co-sponsored a resolution to give states a greater role in governing the role of the internet at a meeting of the International Telecommunication Union in April 2013, joined by China, North Korea and Iran. This was rejected by the United States and other NATO allies causing some friction. Russia’s decision to give asylum to Edward Snowden has also worsened relations with the United States over cyber security issues. Brazil and Developing Countries: As an emerging ‘BRIC’ economy, Brazil has become something of a spokesman for the concerns of developing countries when it comes to cyber threats. The revelation that the United States may have tapped the phone of the Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff was met with anger in Brazil and in other world capitals, and calls were made for states to limit their online data collection activities or risk breaching international conventions on proper targets of espionage.

Questions A Resolution Must Answer:

1. What constitutes a cyber-attack, cyber espionage, and hacking? How should these actions be responded to? When does the use of information technology constitute an act of aggression? What sort of measures need to be taken to counteract such acts?

2. What principles can guide an international agreement on the limitations of the use of information technology for the sake of maintaining international peace and security?

3. What role should existing bodies, such as the United Nations Security Council have in determining the responsibility for destabilizing cyber-attacks?

4. How should member states respond to the potential threat from non-state actors that acquire offensive cyber technology?

5. What differentiates a country’s need to access information concerning its own security, to it infringing upon its own citizens’ rights?