OP-ED: Plagiarizing History

By: Ash K. Srivastava [xe/xyr]

Rewriting history? More like plagiarizing history. The MUNUM UNSC has unified behind two resolutions: 1.0 and 1.1. Unfortunately, these resolutions repeat the same mistakes that the official UNSC made in 1992. Not only do these create “safe zones,” which made Bosniak Muslims “sitting ducks” (Crosby) during the war, they also name Serbians as “ethnic minorities that face threats of ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian conflict” (Resolution 1.0), even though the MUNUM UNSC received a report that Serbians were “rounding up Bosniaks within the Bosnian region...on top of their censorship and looking at [Bosniaks’] passports and roadblocks” from one of the MUNUM UNSC Chairs during Committee Session 2.  It also clearly states that “the framework of [peacekeeping] operations shall not apply to weapons and military equipment” (Resolution 1.1), meaning that no action is being taken regarding Serbian arm stockpiling, which proved fatal to defenseless Bosniaks and UN peacekeeping forces in the 1990s. The resolutions also give UNSC members the power to appoint officials in crucial positions to rebuild the country, including “a committee of nations... [to] facilitate negotiations” (Resolution 1.0) about government structure. This could prove disastrous, as the system that the United States, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, and the European Union helped negotiate through the Dayton Accords in 1995 has left Bosnia and Herzegovina in tatters, stuck between three presidents and with 18.56% of their population (The Borgen Project) living in poverty. Lastly, Resolution 1.0 recommends having citizens report any violence through peacekeepers, which did not work for cases of sexual assault in the 1990s because peacekeepers perpetrated and enabled Serbians to pursue severe sexual abuse of women and children during the Bosnian mission. These resolutions do not ensure the success of the MUNUM UNSC in creating better solutions than the ones implemented by the official UNSC in the 1990s.

It also seems that the MUNUM UNSC has resolved the debate about using the phrase “ethnic cleansing,” with Resolution 1.0 defining ethnic cleansing in the first clause, garnering US support. The situation continues to evolve and we will keep you posted.

Works Cited:

Crosby, Alan. “Explainer: The ‘Very Bad History’ of Safe Zones.” RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, 5 May 2017, www.rferl.org/a/syria-safe-zone-explainer-srebrenica/28468420.html.

The Borgen Project. “Top 10 Facts about Poverty in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” The Borgen Project, 14 Aug. 2018, borgenproject.org/facts-about-poverty-in-bosnia-and-herzegovina/#:~:text=Despite%20its%20small%20size%2C%20however.

Westendorf, Jasmine-Kim, and Louise Searle. “Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Peace Operations: Trends, Policy Responses and Future Directions.” International Affairs, vol. 93, no. 2, 1 Mar. 2017, pp. 365–387, academic.oup.com/ia/article/93/2/365/2982811, 10.1093/ia/iix001.

19(007)9

By: Jane Swartz

Taking a step back into history, the 1979 UN Security Council is currently tackling the Iranian Revolution. Several directives have come into play already, including one sponsored by France. The directive calls for Khomeini, a religious exile who has recently returned to take control of the instability in Iran, to abide by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the implementation of an unarmed observing force to gather intelligence on the state of human rights in the currently rioting country. 

This brings up several issues with other P-5 nations, specifically among China. The delegate constantly reminded the council of the almost guaranteed possibility of a violent reaction if the United Nations became too present in Iran. Current struggles in Iran are due to a power struggle after the Shah fled the country and abandoned the government. A main issue Iranian citizens had with the Shah’s government was his involvement with the Western world, to which Khomeini is extremely opposed and has recently rejected United Nations meddling in the country. China, among with other members, feels as though the presence of this observant force in Iran could provoke further riots and violent actions against the United Nations, and that this directive is very Western-centric. 

France has remained stable with their directive, even in the face of a possible veto. As they put it, it is “testing the waters” to see how involved the United Nations can be in the country and how involved they need to be, especially with no government for them to ask if they are welcome. A fail-safe is included in the directive, which calls for a reevaluation of human rights in Iran every thirty days or in the event of an attack of the force’s housing or the murder of a member of the force. 

Several other ideas have been bouncing around the room, although France’s directive took up most of the debate floor. On Friday, both Japan and Norway attempted to draw attention to the economic issues also present in Iran. The nation has a significant role in the production of oil and a founding member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, along with Kuwait, also in the room. Political instability caused a stall of oil exportation, taking peak daily production from 6.5 million barrels per day to just 250,000 shortly before the Security Council began their session, causing oil prices in the global market to skyrocket.These possibilities have not been explored to the fullest extent yet, but are expected to later in the weekend. 

The United Kingdom addressed France’s directive, with a suggestion that many seemed to agree with. This observant force which France wants to bring in would be public, allowing for public reaction and hostility. Discussions of sending in a spy came up in an unmoderated caucus with the U.K. and U.S.A., both in favor of one Bond. James Bond.