APPROVED [GA] Resolution on Peacekeeping

Joe · Mar 31, 2020

David Nguyen, listening intently on his headset, nodded along to Ambassador Albright's words. He was quite a big fan of her work, having studied her dissertation while pursuing his undergraduate degree. Nguyen leaned forward and tapped the button with his finger, signalling to the Secretary General of the General Assembly that he wished to speak.

Flying Damascas · Mar 31, 2020

Belgium's representative would listen intently to Albright's words, noting the potential such a doctrine as peacekeeping would have in bringing stability and safeguarding the economic interests of the developing world against imperial state actors and oppurtunistic revolutionaries seeking to disturb the existing social order in countries captivated by the promises of growth and future prosperity. In addition to these thoughts he would note that the balance of power requires an impartial body of non aligned countries to act as administrative personnel and exercise their mandated authority in a manner that neither jeopardizes national sovereignty nor alienates the great powers but acts as a committee of dispute resolution ensuring the best interests of all groups.

Connor · Mar 31, 2020

Marc leans into the microphone, tapping it to draw the attention of the chamber "Whilst this resolution appears great in practice, it is not clearly defined who, what, where, when and how the decision for peacekeeping to be necessary is made. It needs to be concise and the decision of the majority of member states before peacekeeping forces can be permitted for deployment, otherwise we will reach a point where any disagreement will result in the disregard of sovereign territory and domestic law."

Suvorov · Apr 1, 2020

Kiyotaka pressed his button to speak as well, "We are of a similar mind as the honorable member from Sweden. The premise of this resolution is admirable but this resolution could be a form of imperialist power projection under the guise of preventing it. Also, what peacekeeping means is also not clearly defined. A simple majority of members of this assembly would have the sole legal authority of declaring how, where, and against whom "peacekeeping forces" are legitimately deployed. This would grant immense power to a simple majority voting bloc.

As a hypothetical, and possibly real situation: India, China, and Pakistan have long debated the ownership of the Kashmir region. The population of the region is majority Muslim. Neither India nor Pakistan acknowledge the territories held by the other. There is an issue in the India regions and the locals ask the Pakistanis for aid. Both nations claim the territory and the local population asks for intervention. A war breaks out between India and Pakistan. Let us say that through India's might of commerce, they have good relations with 51% of the nations of this body - a situation similar to the cold war we just went through - and this cadre of 51% of the world declare Pakistan to be the aggressors and send peacekeeping forces.

Would these forces be deployed against the Pakistanis? The Indians? Would they fortify outside strategic towns and prevent the armies from claiming them? If it was the latter, it would effectively ensure that whoever held the city would hold it forever and the "peacekeepers" would be agents of the army that held the town. If they wouldn't interfere with the progress of the force of arms, would they attack a side that threatened civilian lives? That would be unworkable.

A final possibility that comes to mind would be that peacekeepers are deployed to a warzone but limit their activities to establishing and protecting refugee camps which would accept civilians fleeing from the warzone. This final possibility seems to be the one sought by our understanding of the purpose of this resolution but the resolution itself is so vague as to allow "peacekeepers" to be enforcers of the political will of a simple majority of states.

We ask that any resolution contain:

1) A triggering clause which requires a supermajority to pass, from 70-80% of this body to pass. The triggering clause would contain language which stated what grounds would enable a vote: such as a level of civilian casualties, a finding of intentional targeting.

2) A defined role for what peacekeepers would be able to do. We suggest that peacekeeping forces be limited to either 1: Preventing either side from making any military moves and enforcing a status quo until a diplomatic solution has been reached; or two, simply deployed to protect civilians through camps. With a supermajority requirement, it is less likely that peacekeepers would be de facto agents of one side versus another.

Thank you."

Flying Damascas · Apr 2, 2020

The Representative of The Kingdom of Belgium would lightly tap his button to speak.

"It is understandable, that certain nations may express their undo hesitation with respect to participation in peacekeeping operations. There's no compulsion on the part of this assembly and its members to strangle national sovereignty or force the hands of those in the third world who may in relation to the recent past reject the notion of peacekeeping as matter of necessity not on the basis that it is inherently problematic but because such a force if unaccounted for could risk jeopardizing regional stability while provoking the gross ire and dismay of our hosts abroad. We ask that a board of directors and liasons be established to facilitate the improved communication between those engaged in peacekeeping operations and those in power in the host nation. Furthermore, we are inclined to request the voluntary collection of funds to be placed in a trust fund under the oversight of the GA. "

Strix · Apr 2, 2020

"First and foremost, I would agree with the Japanese sentiment, and would kindly like to hear further discussion on the topics opened by them, with all due respect. Belgium also presents a solid point as well, although I would like to put in my share of perspective, if I may."

The Representative would share after the Belgians, seeing that no one was replying in the moment. He would gather the notes and the draft of the revolution on one hand, and proceed to speak some more.

"I would like to introduce the concern that this resolution would result in an... for a lack of a better phrase, 'abuse of power' wherein the GA would openly endorse conflict by supporting one or another side. Along with the Japanese suggestion, we would like to ask that the author would kindly expand on the role of this peacekeeping force. In retrospect, the role of peacekeeping should focus on the civilian side, supporting affected people through protection against aggression from either side, and perhaps through humanitarian efforts."

He would take a sip from his bottle of water before continuing.

"I would also like to stand alongside Belgium's suggestion in implementing a board of directors, along with a requirement for the aforementioned positions of said directors, force commanders, unit commanders, and that these positions should be openly announced to the GA for transparency. Finally, I would like to hold an inquiry regarding 'The Member State' as mentioned in Article VI, section c. What does this member state refer to? I am merely asking for clarification."

Dutchy · Apr 2, 2020

[Secretary General Clark Stone]

"I'd like to inform the Assembly that every delegate has the right to submit an amendment with the changes that are being discussed. Please ensure that any amendments are written in the proper legal language and match the document structure."

Official Amendment Form

Code:

[TABLE=center][TR][TD][CENTER][img2=100]https://image.ibb.co/g1paue/Global_Assembly_Logo.png[/img2]
[B]THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY [/B][/CENTER][/TD][TD][CENTER][B][SIZE=4]RESOLUTION AMENDMENT FORM[/SIZE][/B]
[COLOR=#026EB4][b]THE ASSEMBLY[/b][/color][/CENTER]
[/TD][/TR][/TABLE][TABLE][TR][TD]
AMENDMENT TEXT
[/TD][/TR][/TABLE]

"In response to the request of clarification by the Portuguese Representative, Article VI, section c refers to the deployment of commanding officers from each national force. If the Portuguese government were to deploy a participating force then they, the 'Member State', would be responsible for assigning a commander for their force. In order to avoid further miscommunication I shall have it renamed to 'Participating State'."

@Strix

John · Apr 2, 2020

"I'd like to address the concern of.. 'picking sides' for want of a better phrase. At no point does the proposed resolution or anything that I have said indicate that this will be used to pick sides. It is the absolute opposite. Let me give an example, expanding on the Japanese example. The region of Kashmir, yes it is rife with trouble. However if the Global Assembly were to order the use of a peacekeeping force in the region, it would not be to side with one country or the other. It would be to stop the fighting from both sides, it would be there to make sure kids get access to education, it would be there to disarm explosives that could cause the deaths of civilians.

I once again say this, there is nothing in the resolution that says we will pick sides"

Suvorov · Apr 2, 2020

Kiyotaka once again pressed the microphone, "To the honorable American representative: You are correct. Nothing in the resolution outright says this affirmatively, however, as we all know, the actual application or impact of a law is not typically directly written into it. The possibility for abuse is simply possible by the language of this Resolution. For example, in American history there were laws that stated to vote one must pass a literally test or pay a poll tax or some other step prior to being permitted to vote. The language of these bills was simple and clear. However, the purpose and impact of these laws, despite not being written into the laws, was voter suppression of the African-American vote.

We cannot approve resolutions based solely on their language, but how these laws could be abused or poorly impact the world must be paramount in our mind.

We agree with the sentiment of the resolution but the power of 51% of this assembly to "pick sides" or otherwise impose their will is possible given the voting requirements of the assembly to pass resolutions by simple majority. If this Resolution had triggering requirements and required a supermajority, the possibility to abuse the noble ideals of this resolution would be mitigated to a degree."

Flying Damascas · Apr 2, 2020

The Belgian representative would take a sip of water, clear his throat, and then light tap his button to speak:

"Let us remember, that what is at stake is the fusion of cordination, preparation, transparency, and disipline. Without these I fret that we may be overcome by hostile belligerents or overwhelmed by civilians seeking refuge in a series of armed confrontations with those intent on disturbing the peace and upsetting the balance of power. However, before we can do any of these things we need to examine past attempts at peacekeeping operations and analyse their successes and failures. "

Dutchy · Apr 10, 2020

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY

RESOLUTION AMENDMENT FORM
THE ASSEMBLY

[AMENDMENT]: #0001
[AUTHOR]: Secretary General Clark Stone
[TOPIC OF DISCUSSION]: Resolution on Peacekeeping

The Secretariat calls for the amendment of Article 3 in order to allow the Assembly to define the mandate of any peacekeeping operation prior to its deployment:

Article 3.
1. For the establishment of operations, the Assembly must pass a resolution defining the mandate the Secretariat it to be granted.
2. Such a mandate must define the parameters of the operation.

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY

RESOLUTION AMENDMENT FORM
THE ASSEMBLY

[AMENDMENT]: #0002
[AUTHOR]: Secretary General Clark Stone
[TOPIC OF DISCUSSION]: Resolution on Peacekeeping

The Secretariat calls for the addition of an article to define the manner in which peacekeeping operations will be conducted. If a state calls for the deployment of a peacekeeping operation to assist with its own forces against a non-state actor then it is essential that all necessary permissions for deployment have been negotiated. In the event a peacekeeping operation is mandated in a state vs state conflict, then prior to any deployment the Secretariat must negotiate a peacekeeping agreement with both parties to ensure that the peacekeeping operation can conduct its mandate with full neutrality and to safeguard the peacekeeping forces:

Article #.
1. Prior to the deployment of a peacekeeping force, the Secretariat must have met the following conditions:

a. If it is a state vs non-state conflict:

i. Have obtained the necessary permissions from the state to which a force is being deployed.

a. If it is a state vs state conflict:

i. Have negotiated and ratified an agreement with all parties to ensure the neutrality of the peacekeeping operation.

ii. Have obtained the necessary permissions from the state(s) to which a force is being deployed.

Dutchy · Apr 10, 2020

[Secretary General Clark Stone]

"With the debate having run its course I have submitted two amendments based on the statements presented by various delegations, prior to any vote on the amendments I wish to offer all parties the opportunity to debate these amendments. If any other parties with to submit amendments this is still possible."

Suvorov · Apr 11, 2020

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY

RESOLUTION AMENDMENT FORM
THE ASSEMBLY

ARTICLE III (AMENDED)

1. The Assembly must pass a peacekeeping resolution defining the mandate of the Peacekeeping forces before any Peacekeepers may be deployed under this Resolution.
2. For the assembly to pass a peacekeeping resolution, one of the following triggering conditions must be met:

a. A super majority of delegates vote in favor of the resolution.

I. A super majority is defined as 70% or greater of the voting delegates.

b. A state involved in the conflict requests peacekeeping forces and the conflict is between the state and non-state actors.

c. All states in conflict against one another request peacekeeping forces and:

I. All state actors have negotiated and ratified an agreement with all parties to ensure the neutrality of the peacekeeping operation.

II. The Assembly has obtained the necessary permissions from the state(s) to which a peacekeeping force is being deployed.

ARTICLE VII (ADDED)

1. Peacekeepers deployed under a mandate stemming from this resolution are limited in their capacity to act in the conflict in the following ways:

a. Peacekeeping forces are deployed strictly to protect innocent lives from being lost in war. They are not to take a side in the conflict. The outcome of the conflict is not the concern of Peacekeepers.

b. Peacekeepers will designate "Safe Zones" under their protection where civilians may live without fear of military attack. Peacekeepers are not to leave the Safe Zones unless it is to move to another Safe Zone or take an otherwise authorized action.

c. Peacekeepers may only use lethal force if the Peacekeepers, civilians under their protection, or the Safe Zones are under direct attack from outside forces.

d. If an actor involved in a conflict is deemed to be directly and intentionally targeting civilians, Peacekeepers are authorized to take lethal actions against the actor to prevent further targeting of civilians lives.

e. Peacekeepers are authorized to rescue and escort civilians trapped inside of conflict zones. Conflicting forces must allow Peacekeepers to remove endangered civilians, otherwise Peacekeepers have limited authority to use necessary force to rescue trapped civilians.

f. Peacekeepers will not prevent conflicting forces from moving through Safe Zones provided that the forces in conflict do no remain in the Safe Zone.

g. If conflicting forces are deemed to be using Peacekeepers or Safe Zones as "shields" in a way that threatens the safety of a Safe Zone, the Peacekeeping forces are authorized to use force to remove the conflicting force that is attempting to use the Peacekeepers as a shield.

2. If the assembly, by an 80% majority, designate one actor in a conflict as imminently hostile to the interests of peace, security, and the rule of law, Peacekeepers may be granted a broad mandate to destroy the designated actor.

a. If Peacekeepers act under this clause to destroy a designated actor, the Peacekeepers must remove their Peacekeeping insignia and fight under the banners of their home countries or some other chosen banner besides that of the Global Assembly.

"We propose these amendments because we do not wish to de-claw the potential power of a peacekeeping force. Additionally, we do not want to only limit the deployment of peacekeepers to countries that ask for them. If the majority of the assembled nations decide that action is necessary to defend innocent lives, we must provide a legal means of doing so. With these provisions, even actors that are opposed to peacekeepers will see that they are there solely to protect innocents and not to get involved in the conflict.

We do not believe that besieging innocent people should be a factor in modern warfare and so we wish for Peacekeepers to have the capability to rescue trapped civilians. These provisions properly limit yet arm Peacekeepers to protect civilians."

Dutchy · Apr 17, 2020

[Secretary General Clark Stone]

"With the debate having drawn to a close we will initiate the voting process, as the amendment submitted by the Japanese delegation includes and expands upon the amendments submitted by the Secretariat, I will therefore retract amendments #0001 and #0002. Therefore we will be voting on amendment #0003 at this time, details of this amendment can be found in this session's transcripts, however a copy has also been provided."

THE GLOBAL ASSEMBLY

RESOLUTION AMENDMENT FORM
THE ASSEMBLY

[AMENDMENT]: #0003
[AUTHOR]: Representative Kiyotaka Akasaka
[TOPIC OF DISCUSSION]: Resolution on Peacekeeping

ARTICLE III (AMENDED)

1. The Assembly must pass a peacekeeping resolution defining the mandate of the Peacekeeping forces before any Peacekeepers may be deployed under this Resolution.
2. For the assembly to pass a peacekeeping resolution, one of the following triggering conditions must be met: