Axel Model United Nations: 2014

Tuesday 25 November 2014

Meet Your Chairs

CHAIRS OF HISTORIC SECURITY COUNCIL

KARAN RAJ

LALHMINGMOI INFIMATE

CHAIRS OF SPECIAL CONFERENCE

SANJUKTA CHOUDHURY

VAIBAV GARG

CHAIRS OF DISARMAMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

SIDDHARTH KAR

NAINA GUPTA

CHAIRS OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

APOORVA PRAKASH

AVEEVA SAIKIA

Topic Guide for Human Rights Council

AXEL MODEL UNITED NATIONS

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL (HRC)

TOPIC: WOMEN RIGHTS IN ARAB NATIONS

Women in the Arab world, as in other areas of the world, have throughout history experienced discrimination and have been subject to restrictions of their freedoms and rights. Some of these practices are based on religious beliefs, but many of the limitations are cultural and emanate from tradition as well as religion. These main constraints that create an obstacle towards women's rights and liberties are reflected in laws dealing with criminal justice, economy, education and healthcare.^[

Politics[edit]

There have been many highly respected female leaders in Muslim history, such as Shajar al-Durr (13th century) in Egypt, Queen Orpha (d. 1090) in Yemen and Razia Sultana (13th century) in Dehli. In the modern era there have also been examples of female leadership in Muslim countries, such as in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Turkey. However, in Arabic-speaking countries no woman has ever been head of state, although many Arabs remarked on the presence of women such as Jehan Al Sadat, the wife of Anwar El Sadat in Egypt, and Wassila Bourguiba, the wife of Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia, who have strongly influenced their husbands in their dealings with matters of state.^[38] Many Arab countries allow women to vote in national elections. The first female Member of Parliament in the Arab world was Rawya Ateya, who was elected in Egypt in 1957.^[39] Some countries granted the female franchise in their constitutions following independence, while some extended the franchise to women in later constitutional amendments.^{[40][41][42][43][44]}

Arab women are under-represented in parliaments in Arab states, although they are gaining more equal representation as Arab states liberalise their political systems. In 2005, the International Parliamentary Union said that 6.5 per cent of MPs in the Arab world were women, compared with 3.5 per cent in 2000. In Tunisia, nearly 23 per cent of members of parliament were women. However, the Arab country with the largest parliament, Egypt, had only around four per cent female representation in parliament.^[45] Algeria has the largest female representation in parliament with 32 per cent.^[46][47]

In the UAE, in 2006 women stood for election for the first time in the country's history. Although just one female candidate - from Abu Dhabi - was directly elected, the government appointed a further eight women to the 40-seat federal legislature, giving women a 22.5 per cent share of the seats, far higher than the world average of 17.0 per cent. [2]

The role of women in politics in Arab societies is largely determined by the will of these countries' leaderships to support female representation and cultural attitudes towards women's involvement in public life. Dr Rola Dashti, a female candidate in Kuwait's 2006 parliamentary elections, claimed that "the negative cultural and media attitude towards women in politics" was one of the main reasons why no women were elected. She also pointed to "ideological differences", with conservatives and extremist Islamists opposing female participation in political life and discouraging women from voting for a woman. She also cited malicious gossip, attacks on the banners and publications of female candidates, lack of training and corruption as barriers to electing female MPs. [3] In contrast, one of UAE's female MPs, Najla al Awadhi, claimed that "women's advancement is a national issue and we have a leadership that understands that and wants them to have their rights." [4]

Women's right to vote in the Arab world[edit]

Women were granted the right to vote on a universal and equal basis in Lebanon in 1952,^[48] Syria (to vote) in 1949 ^[49] (Restrictions or conditions lifted) in 1953,^[50] Egypt in 1956,^[51] Tunisia in 1959,^[52] Mauritania in 1961,^[53] Algeria in 1962,^[54] Morocco in 1963,^[55] Libya ^[56] and Sudan in 1964,^[57] Yemen in 1967 ^[49] (full right) in 1970,^[58] Bahrain in 1973,^[59] Jordan in 1974,^[60] Iraq (full right) 1980, ^[59] Kuwait in 1985^[61] (later removed and re-granted in 2005) and Oman in 1994.^[62] Saudi Arabia announced that it would give women the right to vote in 2015.^[63]

Economic role[edit]

In some of the wealthier Arab countries such as UAE, the number of women business owners is growing rapidly and adding to the economic development of the country. Many of these women work with family businesses and are encouraged to work and study outside of the home.^[64] Arab women are estimated to have $40 billion of personal wealth at their disposal, with Qatari families being among the richest in the world.^[65]

Education[edit]

Since Islam encouraged equality between the sexes, Islam has also encouraged equality in education. In all Arab countries, girls, just like boys, usually get their full education in highschool and even move onto getting a Graduate diploma, and this has been going on for a long time after the 1960s.

Travel[edit]

Women have varying degrees of difficulty moving freely in Arab countries. Some nations prohibit women from ever traveling alone, while in others women can travel freely but experience a greater risk of sexual harassment or assault than they would in Western countries.

Women have the right to drive in all Arab countries except Saudi Arabia.^[66] In Jordan, travel restrictions on women were lifted in 2003.^[67] "Jordanian law provides citizens the right to travel freely within the country and abroad except in designated military areas. Unlike Jordan's previous law (No. 2 of 1969), the current Provisional Passport Law (No. 5 of 2003) does not require women to seek permission from their male guardians or husbands in order to renew or obtain a passport." In Yemen, women must obtain approval from a husband or father to get an exit visa to leave the country, and a woman may not take her children with her without their father's permission, regardless of whether or not the father has custody.^[68] The ability of women to travel or move freely within Saudi Arabia is severely restricted. However, in 2008 a new law went into effect requiring men who marry non-Saudi women to allow their wife and any children born to her to travel freely in and out of Saudi Arabia.

From Jordan to the United Arab Emirates, a look at women's rights across the Arab world on the occasion of International Women's Day.

Jordan

Women can travel freely without permission from their husbands or male relatives. They hold public posts and female pilots, police officers and soldiers. Recently, Jordan's parliament passed a law that allows Jordanian women married to foreigners to pass on their nationality to their children. However, domestic violence and "honor killings" still happen.

Saudi Arabia

King Abdullah has granted women the right to vote and run in the 2015 municipal elections. The king also appoints 30 women to the top advisory body, the Shura Council. The body cannot legislate and its male-dominated chamber has so far not taken up a request by three female members to discuss the issue of allowing women to drive. The Saudi government also has rolled out a law penalizing domestic abuse, including neglect. The law does not address the guardianship system that grants male family members authority over their female relatives.

United Arab Emirates

Mothers can now pass their citizenship on to their children — giving them access to generous social services and stable government jobs. The UAE is among the most socially liberal of the Gulf states and authorities have made an effort to hire women to prominent government roles. However, traditional attitudes toward women have run up against the country's modern image. A 24-year-old Norwegian woman was sentenced to 16 months in prison last year for having sex out of marriage and on alcohol charges after she claimed she was raped by a co-worker. She and her alleged attacker, who was jailed on similar charges, were later pardoned after an international outcry.

Kuwait

Women earned the right to vote for the first time in 2005, and in 2009, four women won seats in parliament. As in nearby Qatar, they aren't able to convey citizenship to their children. Those born to Kuwaiti mothers do get the same benefits as Kuwaiti citizens up until they're 21. That includes free education, health care, and monetary benefits. Unlike in neighboring Saudi Arabia, women can drive and travel on their own. They aren't required to cover their heads, though expectations of modest dress remain as in other Gulf countries.

Iraq

There are no laws focusing on domestic violence against women. The country's 2005 constitution states that a quarter of parliament seats and government positions must go to women. This later was extended to provincial and local councils. But with the growing power of the religious institutions, women in some areas have been forced to put on veils and abaya — the long, loose black cloak that covers the body from shoulders to feet.

Syria

Women are members of parliament, Cabinet ministers and one of the country's vice presidents. The Syrian nine-member government delegation that went to peace talks earlier this year over its civil war included two women. In northeastern Syria, the Al-Qaida-breakaway group called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant forced women in areas under its control to cover their bodies, including hands and faces. In other rebel-held areas, where less radical Islamic groups are in control, most women wear the Islamic veil.

The Palestinian Territories

Twenty-six women were slain by relatives in the West Bank and Gaza in 2013, twice as many as the year before, according to official figures. The rise stems from mounting economic difficulties in the Palestinian territories, compounded by ongoing leniency for those killing in the name of "family honor" and social acceptance of violence against women. Activists have urged Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to repeal sections of a penal code that allows for short sentences for the perpetrators.

ON AN average day a woman walking down a street in Cairo can expect catcalls. On a bad day she may get persistent unwanted telephone calls, be flashed at or groped. Sexual harassment is so rife that almost every woman in Egypt has experienced it, according to a UN report released earlier this year. And it is getting worse. In a ten-day period this summer, Operation Anti-Sexual Harassment, a local organisation, recorded 186 cases. And rape, judging by an array of reports, has become more frequent.

In the 1950s and 1960s women began to make slow but steady strides in parts of the Arab world, such as Syria and Egypt. Even parts of the conservative Gulf began more recently to follow suit. In several Gulf countries female students now outnumber males at university. Across the region, more women are working. Saudi Arabia, where they must cover themselves in public, cannot drive cars and must remain under male “guardianship”, looks more like the exception than the norm.

But the turbulence of the Arab spring appears to have slowed or even reversed progress. Saferworld, a London-based research group, notes that women in such places as Egypt, Libya and Yemen have found it hard to have their rights upheld. Threats against politically active women have increased. Female representation amid the turmoil has not noticeably risen. In Egypt it has plunged. In a survey of 22 Arab countries recently conducted by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, Egypt came bottom, rather controversially two rungs below even Saudi Arabia.

The rise of Islamist influence is partly to blame. Religious laws, allowing men to have four wives and to inherit twice as much as a woman, have in the past been curtailed as governments embrace more secular norms. But devout preachers have sought to reinstate restrictions. Syrians fear a resurgence of conservative laws if rebels linked to al-Qaeda, who are growing in strength, take over. “They tell my wife not to wear trousers and to cover entirely,” says Muhammad, a fighter from Latakia province on Syria’s coast. “But that is not our culture.”

Even in places where governments are relatively progressive on social issues, old-fashioned attitudes die hard. A recent survey of 850 people in Jordan’s capital, Amman, found that nearly half of teenaged boys and 20% of girls of the same age thought “honour killings” of women deemed to have flouted sexual norms could be justified. Many people uphold Islamic traditions to define themselves against the West, says Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch, a lobby group based in New York.

Governments often do little to protect women. Women often speak of harassment by soldiers and police. A constitutional amendment to set a minimum age for marriage in Yemen, where child brides are standard, is still being argued over. The authorities in Egypt rarely act even when painstaking documentation of violence against women is presented, says Mariam Kirollos, a human-rights activist. In brighter spots such as Lebanon, personal freedoms in Beirut, the capital, such as a woman’s right to work and to wear and drink what she likes, are jealously guarded. Yet even there, legal protection for women—against domestic violence, for instance—is often absent. As in many other Arab countries, a woman married to a foreigner cannot pass her Lebanese nationality on to her children.

In the past, dictators tended to take ownership of the women’s rights issue to impress the West. When they fell, grassroots groups had to start from scratch. Over time this may lead to punchier and more genuine movements. In Egypt a group has launched an initiative called Harassmap that uses crowdsourcing to track assaults and encourage women to report them. In Saudi Arabia women are posting films of themselves behind the wheel on YouTube. Lebanese women are calling for a law against domestic violence. And women’s groups across the region are linking up on the internet. “There are so many movements on the ground”, says Ms Kirollos, “that things will change.”

Topic Guide for DISEC

AXMUN III

Background Notes

DISEC

Contents of background

Notes:

Introduction

Historical background

Current Situation

Key block positions on Syria

Humanitarian crisis in Syria

Responsibility to protect

Bibliography

Committee: Disarmament & Security

Topic: Genocide attacks in the Syrian realm

Student Officers: Siddharth & Naina

Introduction:

Since the beginning of March 2011, the stability of the Syrian Arab Republic has degenerated at an alarming rate. The conflict raging in Syria is perhaps one of the most hostile and prolonged episodes of the Arab Spring. While some look upon the violence as an increasingly savage and bitter civil war others have scathingly termed it as brutal genocide. A recent UN study revealed that Syria has been the site of “a total of 59648 unique recordings of killings between March 2011 and November 2012,” .The main combatants in the civil war are rebel forces, which began fighting as a means to oust the current regime, and the government, led by Bashar al-Assad. The General Assembly of the United Nations and the Security Council have passed resolutions condemning the violence in Syria. However, these resolutions have had little impact on the fighting and has practically failed to mitigate much of the sufferings of the people.

The crisis has mushroomed into a regional crisis with severe implications for global peace and security. Regional powers are supplying weapons and other support to both sides, with Iran notably backing the Assad regime and the Gulf States providing arms to the opposition. Sectarian violence related to the conflict has been seen in Lebanon & Iraq and millions of refugees have fled into neighbouring countries. Appeals for international aid have increased as the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) in September 2013 estimated that over 2 million Syrians have been rendered refugees, up from 230000 just one year before. On August 21, 2013, the crisis took on a dangerous new dimension with a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian regime that killed over 1400 people according to a U.S. intelligence report. The debate over how to respond to the attacks has deeply divided the international community and continued to play out as the United States of America appears ready to carry out limited missile attacks and also the countries like Turkey and Iran have become key players as the conflict has expanded beyond the territorial boundaries.

Historical background:

Syria was established as a state after World WAR 1 when France and the Great Britain divided up the southern sections of the Ottoman Empire to benefit their imperial goals. The Europe drawn political boundaries in the Middle East did not recognize the locations of various ethnic or religious groups. The new French Mandate (colony) Syria included Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Alawites and the Christians.

In 1971 Hafez al-Assad took power, beginning authoritarian rule of a supposed republic. During this rule, the Muslim Brotherhood, a fundamentalist Muslim group led an insurgency against the government which he suppressed violently, killing between 10000and 25000 people including civilians. This event was called the Hama Massacre because it occurred in the city of Hama.

Shortly after Bashar al-Assad’s election in 2000, there was a brief ”Damascus Spring” in which Syrians were encouraged to discuss and debate political and social issues in private residences called salons but this movement was suppressed in September 2001 including the arrests of activists.

Current Situation:

Syria had experienced high unemployment, corruption and political repression due to the break down in March, 2011 in Daara. One of the main demands of the Syrian protestors was the release of political prisoners. The military response caused the peaceful protests into violent riots which lasted for days on end, due to which, global leaders had called for al-Assad to follow the leads of Hosni and end the state of emergency.

Al-Assad promised to listen to his people, and ended the state of emergency. However, four days later the Syrian regime sent thousands of troops into Daara for a wide-scale crackdown. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported Syria to the UN Security Council over its alleged convert nuclear reactor programme.

The Syrian government continued to arrest thousands of protestors and has killed over 5000 civillians. Multiple crimes against humanity have been reported, including illegal detainment of protestors.

Key block positions on Syria:

The United States and many other Western nations have increased sanctions on Syria, in an attempt to put pressure on al-Assad’s regime. However, the Security Council has not been persuaded to do the same as China & Russia had, by August, 2012.

Turkey was directly attacked by the Syrian government in June, 2012, after a Turkish fighter plane that was flying through the Syrian airspace was shot down dead with zero warning by the Syrian authorities. Due to this Turkey return fired on the Syrian by capturing the plane which was allegedly carrying weapons from Russia to Syria.

Arab league led a failed attempt to monitor the conflict in Syria. Saudi Arabia & Qatar in their pro Sunni strategy are leading efforts to isolate the Syrian government and to fund the Syrian rebel army.

Humanitarian Crisis in Syria:

· Violations of the right to life;

· Violations of the right to peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of expression;

· Arbitrary detention and violations of the right to a fair trial;

· Torture of minors and women;

· Violation of child rights;

· Violations of the right to freedom of movement;

· Violations of economic and social rights;

· Food and water shortages;

· Agricultural sector;

· Refugees.

Responsibility to protect:

The Responsibility to Protect is an important, but recent UN principle enacted by the heads of governments at the 2005 World Summit. R2P implies that governments should protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. When governments cannot or will not meet their R2P obligations, the international community can use military force to protect that government’s population and potentially overthrow offending regimes, as witnessed recently in both the Ivory Coast & Libya.

Bibliography:

1. “ Syria’s ruling Alawite sect “, New York Times, Robert Mackay, 14 July 2011

2. “Syria’s guilty men”, Human Rights Watch

3. “turkey turns on Syria’s Assad”, World Politics Review

4. www.un.org/story/Syria.

Monday 24 November 2014

Topic Guide for Special Conference

SPC-Axmun III

Crisis in Crimean Peninsula

For the first time after the events in the Balkans at the end of the last

century, Europe is facing a serious crisis in its territories. The situation in

Ukraine and especially in Crimea and the eastern regions of the country is a

charged powder keg ready to blow, from one moment to another. The

international community and especially the United Nations, needs to find a

way to normalize the situation in an area which is crucial for the European

Union as well as for several other nations. This geopolitical area is

fundamental for ensuring peace and security, economic wellbeing and most

of all, energy security. The issues in the country span a variety and all of

them need a feasible short term solution that will lead to a long term new

stability. It is necessary to consider the different aspirations of the citizens

who to move eastwards or westwards; it is crucial to secure an

internationally recognized and a legitimate government; it is fundamental to

avoid military fights in the Crimean peninsula in order to not to drive a wider

armed conflict. International laws and treaties have to be considered in order

to understand if we are facing a process of auto determination of a

population or if we have to suppress an act of international aggression. What

is clear is that the United Nations Security Council has to find concrete

solutions in order to not let the situation degenerate into a bloody conflict

that will affect too many people.

The risk of falling into a new “Cold War” situation is extremely high, we are

living in times in which the energy strategies and the political influences in

certain areas are the engine of new international relations, but it is the

precise duty of this UN body to ensure a strong respect of the international

rules in order to not let the world walk in the direction of a “dog eat dog”

power system.

RECENT HISTORY

The following two parts of this study guide (b and c) will only be a neutral and

short overview of the facts that lead to the actual situation, in order to not

influence the further research that each delegate is expected to conduct to

better understand the topic. The critical issues and the problems will be

discussed briefly in the last part.

Although there is no limit to Ukraine’s historical biography, the background

guide will only be a brief summary of the recent history and a description of

the events of the last months, in order to better understand where the roots

of this crisis stands, leaving a deeper research of the ancient history of the

country to each delegate.

December 1991 was a period which saw Ukraine blessed by an

independence backed by more than 90% of its citizens. The first elected

president Leonid Kravchuk, in charge since 1994, had attempted to

strengthen Ukraine’s identity as an independent nation. He was defeated by

Leonid Kuchma in 1994, who also went on to win the 1999 elections. Kuchma

adopted a multi-vector policy and built closer relations with Russia. Since

gaining independence Ukraine has struggled to build democratic and

accountable state institutions. During these first 13 years the citizens faced

many problems, from hyperinflation and economic mismanagement to

corruption and human rights abuses. As the 2004 presidential elections

approached, a growing dissatisfaction existed among Ukrainians.

Two candidates presented themselves at the elections and prior to the voting

procedure it was not clear which candidate enjoyed greater support. One

was Viktor Yushenko, the “opposition candidate” and the second one was a

name that we are going to face again in the next pages, Viktor Yanukovych,

the “establishment candidate”. Yushenko despite pressures against his

campaign, secured a narrow lead after the first round, but not enough votes

to win outright. In the second round electoral fraud materially affected the

outcome but Yanukovych was declared the winner by the commission. After

the announcement of the result, the 22nd of November was the first day of

the so called Orange Revolution, where massive and non-violent protests

took place and a political crisis sprung out. After this, on 3 December, the

Supreme Court took the issue out of the political realm, when it ordered that

the second round be repeated on 26 December. On 10 January 2005 the

Central Election Commission officially declared that Yushenko had won the

repeat election with a margin of almost 8%. The revolution created high

expectations that Ukraine would break with semi-authoritarian and oligarchic

rule and start to construct a genuinely democratic state. Nevertheless from

late 2005 Ukraine always looked in a power crisis; the common people lost

interest in politics and patience with a political class which appeared more

interested in its own business than in delivering stability and prosperity,

revealing themselves as immature and often corrupted. In the years that

separate the Orange Revolution from today, due to the energy crisis and the

world economic downturn, most citizens were concerned mostly with their

deteriorating living conditions. The main legacy of the revolution may be that

because it happened once it could happen again if the political elites do not

become more accountable to their citizens, and this is exactly what

happened after the Vilnius meeting.

OVERVIEW OF THE UKRAINIAN

CRISIS AND ITS TWO FACES

The situation that we are facing now could be divided in two different parts,

the “National” one, and (Crimea Crisis), the “International” one. Dividing this

into two movements will help us better understand where and when the

international community should intervene. The first part “officially” started

after the stepping back of Yanukovych. The first mass protests were pacific,

similar to the Orange revolution, but as it was easy to predict, violence

succeeded the protests. The months of December, January and February

were characterized by explosions of violence between the protesters and the

police, which ended in some cases with death causalities, and short

“ceasefire” moments. Russian president Vladimir Putin promised a huge

financial help to Yanukovych, leaving the citizens divided between those who

were still supporting the government and those who were for a radical

change and pushing for more protests in order to remove the government.

The symbolic place of the manifestation was Maidan Square, a place which

garnered international fame and with the eyes of the world constantly on

what was happening there. Despite the international attention and

pressures, all the struggle was consumed inside the country, between

citizens that belonged to different ideas and between the official forces and

the participants of the manifestations, hence making it a “National” phase.

This phase ended with the liberation of Yulia Tymoshenko and the fleeing of

president Yanukovych. With a transition government ruling the country, the

situation switched from a “National” to an “International” one.

On the 27th of February 2014, armed forces without on their uniforms

entered in the Crimean city of Simferopol, got into the building of the

Supreme Council of Crimea and exposed a Russian Flag. From that moment

the escalation of the Crisis was very quick, Crimea was an autonomous

region of Ukraine, with a majority of Russian speaking citizens and with

enormous strategic importance for the Russian government because of the

naval bases and access to Black Sea. Citing the need of protecting Russian

citizens in Crimea, Russian president authorized his official military forces

and in only a few days, supported by a wide portion of the inhabitants and

also by some members of the Ukrainian Army, all the “hot spots” of the

peninsula like airports, harbors, military bases, TV stations, were brought

under control of the Russian forces. The Crimean parliament decided to hold

a referendum that took place on the 16th of March, and thanks to a

unanimous consensus of the voters, on the 17th of March, Crimea declared

its independence from Ukraine. Pushing the ongoing situation, The U.N

Security Council failed while trying to pass a resolution about the “invasion”

and the referendum, driven by the veto power used by the Russian

Delegation. On the 27th of March the U.N General Assembly voted in favor of

GA/11493, a resolution that calls upon states not to recognize political

changes in the Crimea Region.

Ukraine is one of the countries inside the Eastern Partnership program,

founded in 2008, along with Moldova, Georgia, Belarus, Azerbaijan and

Armenia. This program was created in order to enforce the trading situation

and the economic situation of these counties, placed in strategic positions for

the European ones, to give them stability and to help in their growing

process. This was only the first step, in fact the second one was supposed to be the signing of an association agreement with the European Union that

would lead to an even closer partnership with the goal of the creation of

common standards with the European countries in both economic and social

fields. Ukraine was the first country that started to work to accomplish this

integration process, since early 2009 and this was very well considered by all

those citizens who wanted to finally distance themselves from the former

Soviet Union state of mind and appreciate the European system, seeing it as

a successful model of development for the Ukrainian future. After years of

preparation, the moment of the Association agreement signing was

supposed to be the Meeting held in Vilnius, 28-29 of November 2013.

Ukraine was facing the concrete possibility of an economic default and the

sign was seen as the only way to get out of this, thanks to a financial plan and

the cancellation of all the custom duties for the goods that would be moved

in and out. President Yanukovych on the date of 21 November interrupted

the process that would have led to the sign, probably after Russian

pressures, and this was the “casus belli” that made the situation collapse and

led us to the actual scenario.