Disarmament and International Security Committee

Dear Delegates,

It is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the Disarmament and International Security Committee at Harvard National Model United Nations 2010. My name is Dominik Nieszporowski and I am absolutely thrilled to be your committee director during the four fantastic days that you will spend in Boston next year, debating and meeting from people from different backgrounds and with different points of view. Originally from Warsaw, Poland, I have participated in Model United Nations conferences since high school, both as a delegate or a committee chair at several conferences throughout Europe and North America. Even though my primary areas of interest are focused on business and economics, I have always thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to discuss major world issues with people from other countries that MUN offers. My other passions include international development and public service – I have been particularly involved with programs creating educational opportunities for children in Africa. Sports also play an important role in my life – being brought up as a huge Chelsea London supporter, and having tried almost all major disciplines from rowing to fencing, I settled on regularly practicing tennis and swimming.

At Harvard, I am currently a sophomore in the glorious Kirkland House, concentrating in Applied Mathematics and Economics, with a secondary field in Computer Science and a language citation in Chinese. On campus, I am mostly occupied serving as treasurer of the International Relations Council, and a research assistant at Harvard Business School. I also particularly enjoy being on the board of Woodbridge Society, which promotes the interests of the international community at Harvard. Besides HNMUN, my involvement in MUN at Harvard ranges from being a Director of Business for our high-school conference and traveling with Harvard’s Intercollegiate MUN team.

This year, the committee will be debating two of the most important contemporary issues concerning international security – the threat of nuclear terrorism and the militarization of the Arctic. As you embark on your research into these topics, I hope you will find them both interesting and thought-provoking. While these issues are extremely multi-dimensional and complex, I am sure you will appreciate the subtleties of these problems and that you will come excellently prepared to effectively contribute to discussion and resolution writing during the conference. Please feel free to e-mail me to ask any questions you might have or just to introduce yourself. I am certainly looking forward to an exciting debate and meeting many fantastic people at HNMUN 2010!

Sincerely,

Dominik Nieszporowski
Director, Disarmament and International Security Committee
Harvard National Model United Nations 2010

Topic Area A: Nuclear Terrorism

A 2004 report by Harvard University’s Project on Managing the Atom establishes that a nuclear attack would be among the most difficult types of attacks for terrorists to accomplish, but simultaneously states that a capable and well-organized terrorist group plausibly could make, deliver and detonate at least a crude nuclear bomb capable of incinerating the heart of any major city in the world. The same group, in its earlier report, estimated the effects of detonation of a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb at Grand Central Station in Manhattan on an average workday. In its “conservative” estimation, the group predicts over a half-million immediate victims, hundreds of thousands injured (burned, battered, irradiated), destruction of the entire lower Manhattan, direct costs of over $1 trillion, indirect costs several times that (from loss of value in the stock market to all the myriad changes in the lives of Americans that would follow such a catastrophe), and a worldwide panic and economic chaos if the terrorists claimed to be ready to detonate another bomb in another city. This prospect sounds like a screenplay of a poor apocalyptic science-fiction movie, but the risk is real.

The threat of nuclear terrorism has existed for several decades, but it seems to have significantly escalated in the most recent years. With more countries now having access to the nuclear technology, serious concerns are being raised regarding the level of security of nuclear arsenals and civil storage facilities. In addition to the risks constituted by state-sponsored terrorism, the increased determination of many fundamentalist groups in pursuing their political agenda and the new resources available at their disposal further exacerbate the threat to international security. In view of this escalating threat, it is critical that the Disarmament and International Security Committee presents a comprehensive resolution that would address all of the questions that arise. Does the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty fulfill its role in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons? What is the role of the various United Nations bodies in assisting the member states in safeguarding their nuclear arsenals and weapon-grade materials? In what capacity should nuclear technology be shared with the developing world to ensure its proper use? How can the United Nations assist the member states in their efforts to prevent smuggling of nuclear materials through their borders?

Topic Area B: Militarization of the Arctic

The Arctic region is one of the most vividly politically contested areas in the modern world. Bearing in mind the estimation that the Arctic could hold up to 25 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas reserves and the fact that the global warming makes it easier to explore the region’s potentially valuable natural resources, several major nations are lining up to claim their rights to this territory. This conflict of interests between such world powers as the United States, Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark exerts a pressure on the United Nations to make appropriate decisions. As of now, the only effective international treaty that regulates territorial claims in this region is the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Upon its ratification, a country gains rights to a 200-mile economic zone beyond its land borders, which gives extraction and drilling rights. This Treaty has been signed by Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark, but not by the United States, which together with the European Union officially regard the whole region as international waters.

Faced with Canada’s plans to build two military bases relatively close to the North Pole, Russian long-range strategic bombers frequently flying over the area, which is often shadowed by NATO aircraft, and all surrounding Arctic states expanding their patrols and sending expeditions to find evidence supporting their claims to this territory, the United Nations has to address the issue of military presence in the Arctic. What should be the status of the Arctic and its surrounding waters? Should any nations be allowed to station weapons and military personnel in the region? How should territorial claims be handled by the international community? How to prevent illegal trafficking of weapons as the Arctic waters become more easily navigable?