Name of the committee: North

Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO) Authors: Kareem Mansour, Gabriela

Cortes, Juan Sebastián Gómez

Time for Opening Speech: 90sec (1:30)

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance of both European and American democracies founded after the culmination of World War II in 1949. This, to strengthen international ties as between members and serve as counterbalance to the Soviet Union in such time. Currently, the organization counts with 28 members. Their main objective is to guarantee security of its members through political and military means. They have the authority and benefit to draft valid treaties, accuse, charge and prosecute other states for specific reasons, utilize soft power as a diplomatic approach and impose embargoes. The organization promotes democratic values and enables members to consult and cooperate with each other on defence and security related issues. Problems should be peacefully resolved according to the politics of the organization. In case of a failure, it has the military power to undertake crisis management operations under certain circumstances. An attack on one or more members is considered an attack against all. Named as the principle of collective defence, is a unique and enduring principle that binds all members together. This is enshrined in the Article 5 of the Washington Treaty which was first invoked in the 9/11 terrorist attack. Their working

structure counts with both diplomatic members and advanced officials in military matters such as command operations and nuclear planning, as well as the representation of the Secretary General. Although NATO has bears much political and military power, it is imperative to manage it sensibly.

TOPIC A: CYBER DEFENCE & THE FUTURE

OF CYBER WARFARE

Cyber Warfare is defined as “the use of

computarized technology aimed at the

disruption of state or organizational

functioning and activities, especially the

deliberate attacking of information

systems for political strategic or military

purposes”. As the literary name indicates,

Cyber Defence is the action or efforts to

undermine the attacks carried out against

any type of governmental or

organizational infrastructure.

With the world’s increasing reliance on

technology and web-based services, the

threat of cyber-attacks is becoming an

increasingly concerning topic.

Cyber-attacks take many forms, and as

cyber-attacks become increasingly

sophisticated, NATO is advancing its

efforts to confront a wide range of cyber

threats on a daily basis. Depending on

their severity, cyber-attacks can range

from simple spyware installations to

entire campaigns in forms of organized

cyber warfare or cyber terrorism,

designed to disrupt key infrastructure of

entire nations. The protection of the

Alliance's communications and

information systems (CIS) is becoming an

increasingly urgent task. Thus, cyber

defence stands as a core component of

NATO’s task of collective defence.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The first use of Cyber Warfare dates back

to 1988, when The Morris Worm felony

was distributed through the internet,

which exploited vulnerabilities across the

internet such as guessing weak

passwords, and accessing emails. As a

result, The Morris Worm lead the path to

the first conviction under the U.S 1986

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Deemed

as the “Great Worm” it had devastating

effects on the Internet at that time; both

in overall system downtime and in

psychological impact on the perception of

security and reliability of the Internet.

Since then, various states and

organizations have been affected by the

misleading use cyber warfare. The

governments of Estonia, Georgia, Canada

as well as the US Secretary of Defence just

to name a few, have all been victims of

cyber warfare in recent years. The first

two cases have been blamed on foreign

governments, rather than individuals.

Other political entities such as the US

Democratic National Committee (DNC)

and the Republican National Committee

(RNC) have also been the victims of cyber

warfare.

It is around 2005 that the cyberattacks

started to boom in quantity, both

conducted by states, individuals, and by

corporations. These attacks continue

today, and have increased in

sophistication and quantity, with China

currently being the leader of alleged

cyberattacks conducted, closely followed

by Russia and the U.S. Nevertheless, in

2003 something called “botnet farms”,

began to emerge.

Botnet farms were computers infected by

“worm” viruses, which were designed to

further spread the virus and infect more

computers and networks, without the

computer owner’s awareness of the

security breach. The spread of botnet

farms has led the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI) to carry out an

operation to track down and destroy the

farms (computers where the virus

originated from), and to detain the

perpetrators, considering the mission as

tough as counter-terrorism. It is the same

year that a botnet attack was detected on

eBay, one of the world’s largest consumer

services on the internet.

Just as importantly there have also been

serious incidents of hacking that have had

the potential to have devastating

consequences, with the potential for

destruction and military disasters. This

can first be seen in 2006 when NASA was

forced to block emails with any

attachments during shuttle launches,

fearing that hackers would be able to take

control of the spacecraft remotely. In

theory this could turn a space shuttle into

a missile. This not only causing a domestic

security hazard, but one that could

escalate to a global security issue in a

matter of clicks.

Hereby, the latest and most known case

of a cyber attack was aimed at the

exposing of the inner workings of the DNC

as well as private speeches and emails of

presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, to

name the most commonly known recent

case came about as the result of hacking,

in an attempt to influence the 2016 US

Presidential Election. (Alleged to Russia)

CAUSES

The Question of Cyber Warfare is an issue

which has become increasingly important

in recent times due to the increased use

of technology by the world’s population,

and therefore the world’s governments.

However, as it is such a new and emerging

topic, there are far fewer restrictions to it

than something such as nuclear

proliferation.

Cyber Warfare could be described as

conflict on the Internet through politically

motivated attacks for or on information

systems in order to gain or destroy

information on something or someone.

The effects of a cyber-attack can range

from the disabling of a website or service

through to the crippling of a financial

service or the leakage of classified data.

The main causes behind the Cyber

Warfare felony are categorized into the

following recognized felonies, by the

Tallinn Manual on cyber security;

a). Politically motivated attacks in

order to gain information or affect

something to sway it in the desired

direction. This is generally the most

dangerous type of attack as it could have

profound political effects, such as the

collapse of the relationship between two

countries or the leaking of classified

military data, which then may result in

clear political and military aims.

b). Challenging motivated attacks

which are carried out simply by someone

who has decided to hack into a database

or organization for fun or to show

weakness in a system. They are not

particularly interested in any information

they might find but simply want to be

challenged by trying to get past the

security systems of whatever they are

hacking into. This can still, however, have

effects much like the first type of attack as

it still allows people access to information

which they aren’t meant to have access

to. In turn, this may lead to this

information being uploaded onto the

public domain.

Furthermore, it is important to recall that

the history of hacking also includes the

use of corporate espionage, designed to

weaken rival companies, often this has

been allegedly state sponsored, behind an

evident economic interest.

REPERCUSSIONS

Retrieved from:

(http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2017/10/18/the-navys

-cybersecurity-focus/)

Cyber warfare is a matter of concern for

many governments, and will continue to

be if no effective action is taken. In world

where societies has become

ever-increasingly dependent upon

technology, more specifically, computers

to conduct personal and business

transactions and communications, solving

this issue is a matter of urgency to assure

security worldwide. The use of cyber

warfare has been on the rise in recent

years, but this hasn’t been met with a rise

of international efforts to fight it. This not

only has devastating consequences on

enterprises and governments but in

civilians. The dynamic and constantly

evolving nature of computing technology

ensures that cyber defences will never be

easy to maintain. The intangible nature of

cyberspace can make the calculation of

victory, defeat, and battle damage a

highly subjective undertaking.

Cyber warfare has had serious

repercussions, even forcing a NATO

Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of

Excellence, which launched a major

research project in late 2009 to examine

the public international law governing

cyber warfare. Twenty world class

academics and legal practitioners deemed

as (the “International Group of Experts”)

spent the next three years drafting the

Tallinn Manual on the International Law

Applicable to Cyber Warfare, (Annexed to

this guide) for which the author served as

project director. In light of the relative

infancy of cyber operations and paucity of

state practice, the Experts agreed to

confine themselves to the lex lata (Law

terminology to define Law as it is -in a

current state-); and, lex ferenda (Law

terminology to define future Law projects,

-To be adopted laws-) was strictly off

limits, as was speculation regarding the

likely development of the law which

would serve as a tool to prosecute states

carrying out malicious attacks through

cybernetic means to target any enterprise

or government an international offence,

an individual or government could face

prosecution for.

All political and military conflicts now

have a cyber dimension, whose size and

impact are difficult to predict. Attackers

have at their disposal a wide variety of

effective cyber warfare strategies and

tactics. Above all, the Internet is

vulnerable to attack. Further, its

amplifying power means that future

victories in cyberspace could translate

into victories on the ground. Both state

and non-state actors enjoy a high return

on investment in cyber tactics, which

range from the placement of carefully

crafted propaganda to the manipulation

of an adversary's critical infrastructure.

The issue of cyber warfare often gets

blurred into other ongoing political,

military and economic rivalries and

disputes, making it harder to police on an

international level, as the world becomes

increasingly polarized. However, there is

still great potential for agreements to

protect against and combat cyber

warfare.

Retrieved from: Retrieved From: NATO Files/

(Cyberspace and the Changing Nature of Warfare)

Figure describing how the 2007 attack on Estonia

appeared in the cyberspace.

Cyber Defence & The Future Of Cyber

Warfare Nowadays

Since cyber defence raised red flags to

those governments targeted, it has

become a reality for the whole

international community that the use of

technology, apart from dominating the

world and serving societies as an asset, is

also a very vulnerable tool that is prone to

suffer deliberate attacks which can have

society’s productiveness at a standstill.

CURRENT SITUATION

International actions:

Tallinn Manual on the International Law

Applicable to Cyber Warfare & NATO

CCDCOE

The Tallinn Manual is the most

comprehensive analysis that has been

drafted on how international law applies

to cyberspace. It is the theoretical

framework for the NATO Cooperative

Cyber Defence Centre Of Excellence

hereby, (CCDCOE), a NATO-accredited

knowledge hub, research institution, and

training and exercise facility. The

Tallinn-based international military

organization focuses on interdisciplinary

applied research, consultations, trainings

and exercises in the field of cyber security.

The Centre organizes the world's largest

and most complex international technical

cyber defence exercise Locked Shields and

the annual conference on cyber conflict,

CyCon. The Centre is a multinational and

interdisciplinary hub of cyber defence

expertise. However. despite the well

rounded organization, few cases have met

the requirements for criminal

prosecutions, even fewer have been

convicted and far too many attacks are

being carried out at both small and big

scales daily. NATO CCDCOE, supports its

member nations and NATO with cyber

defence expertise in the fields of

technology, strategy, operations, and law.

The Centre is staffed and financed by its

sponsoring nations and contributing

participants. Belgium, the Czech Republic,

Estonia, France, Germany, Greece,

Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the

Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Spain,

Turkey, the United Kingdom and the

United States are signed on as Sponsoring

Nations of the NATO Cooperative Cyber

Defence Centre of Excellence. Austria and

Finland have become Contributing

Participants, Sweden has applied for

membership in the same format, a status

eligible for non-NATO countries.

Study cases:

The U.S & China 2001; Patriotic Hacking

Cases

The world's biggest superpowers, The U.S

and China have had their clashes through

cyber warfare, The Federal Bureau Of

Investigation’s (FBI) subdivision on

National Infrastructure Protection (NIPC),

on April, 2001 released advisory 01-009

stating that: “Citing recent events

between the United States and the

People's Republic of China (PRC),

malicious hackers have escalated web

page defacements over the Internet. This

communication is to advise network

administrators of the potential for

increased hacker activity directed at U.S.

systems ... Chinese hackers have publicly

discussed increasing their activity during

this period, which coincides with dates of

historic significance in the PRC…”. This

event unfolded after tensions had risen

between the two nations following the

U.S bombing of the Chinese embassy in

Belgrade, Serbia in 1999, and after a U.S

Navy plane collided in mid air with a

Chinese fighter jet over the South China

Sea in 2001. Hackers on both sides of the

Pacific, such as China Eagle Alliance and

PoizonB0x, began wide-scale website

defacement, and built hacker portals with

titles such as “USA Kill” and “China Killer”.

When the cyber skirmishes were over,

both sides claimed defacements and DoSs

in the thousands. The FBI investigated a

Honker Union of China (HUC), 17-day hack

of a California electric power grid test

network that began on April 25th. The

case was widely dismissed as media hype

at the time, but the CIA informed industry

leaders in 2007 that not only is a tangible

hacker threat to such critical

infrastructure possible, it in fact has

already happened. On the anniversary of

this cyber war, as businesses were bracing

for another round of hacking, the Chinese

government is said to have successfully

called for a stand-down at the last minute,

suggesting that Chinese hackers may

share a greater degree of coordination

than their American counterparts. This

event sparked outrage in the international

community as it was one the first

appetizers for the world on how

devastating cyber warfare could be.

ORIENTATION AND OBJECTIVE OF THE

COMMITTEE

NATO, being a fundamental committee

for world peace is expected to come up

with a comprehensive solution to the

topic, where a new legal framework is

drafted and by working together with

fellow organizations such as the UN, and

both the International Criminal Court and

the International Court of Justice to

ensure a proper prosecution to those who

attempt to tamper with international

peace and stability through means such as

technology which are fundamental for the

modern day society. While there will be

no presence of any court whatsoever to

rule on whether a legal framework is

applicable or not, delegates should find a

consensus agreement to find a way in

which cyber attacks can be prevented

with two different types of measures: The

first type intending to prevent states from

carrying out cyber attacks and the second

type being measures to increase security

of the networks which have the highest

risk of being attacked. Most states have

laws regulating computer crimes done by

individuals or non-state actors to

hopefully prevent any cyber attacks but

other states are not bound to any rules

yet. They would only have to be aware of

the reaction of the attacked country. An

internationally agreed list of computer

crimes or rules should therefore be

established, maybe in combination with

an organization monitoring the

cyberspace, with large and serious

consequences against states violating

these rules. A proper framework should

evaluate the current Tallinn Manual on

the International Law Applicable to Cyber

Warfare and a structural reform to the

NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre

Of Excellence given the demand to solve

this problem immediately, as it is

currently a sub-partner of NATO but it

should be an intra-organization. In order

to stay ahead of the ever-changing fields

of cyber security, this committee should

further evaluate if wether the cyber

defence policies adopted by NATO in

2011, have been effective, and in the case

where flaws are found, a re-drafting of

these should be done.

GUIDING QUESTIONS

1. Considering the continues

breaches in cybersecurity, what

legal definitions and spectrum

should cover terms such as cyber

warfare, cyber crimes, and cyber

attacks?

The current legal definitions

should be consulted and these

should either modify or update

those definitions.

2. What responsibilities should be

shared among the international

community to prevent further

inter-state aggressions? Should

sanctions be considered in

committees such as the UNSC?

3. What measures should be taken to

counter, prevent, or decrease the

sophisticated cyber attacks that

are increasing constantly from

state to state?

The current handbook and

projects should be consulted to

contextualise this question.

4. How can security be increased

without violating the privacy of

citizens? What measures can be

taken to ensure the right to

personal privacy?

SOURCES

Ophardt JA. Cyber warfare and the crime

of aggression: The need for individual

accountability on tomorrow's battlefield.

Duke L. & Tech. Rev.. 2010:

NATO. (2018). Cyber defence. Retrieved

from

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topi

cs_78170.htm

Defence Cyber Command. (2018).

Retrieved from

https://english.defensie.nl/topics/cyber-s

ecurity/cyber-command

Cyber Warfare. (2018). Retrieved from

https://www.rand.org/topics/cyber-warfa

re.html

Nicholson, A., Webber, S., Dyer, S., Patel,

T., & Janicke, H. (2012). SCADA security in

the light of Cyber-Warfare. Computers &

Security, 31(4), 418-436.

SUPPORT LINKS

https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/consequenc

es-cyber-attacks

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hu

aiqing_Wang/publication/277422914_Cyb

er_warfare/links/558bd6c208aebb816aeb

83c7/Cyber-warfare.pdf

Jensen, Eric Talbot. "Cyber warfare and

precautions against the effects of

attacks." Tex. L. Rev. 88 (2009): 1533.

The Tallinn Manual On Cyber Security

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/

13600/cyberwarfare

http://www.itpro.co.uk/security/28170/w

hat-is-cyber-warfare

TOPIC B: NATO’S RESPONSIBILITY IN

THE CRIMEAN CRISIS AFTER

DENYING UKRAINE WITH

MEMBERSHIP AND THE

EVALUATION OF ACTIONS TAKEN

UNTIL NOW

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The eastern European country

Ukraine, formerly part of the Soviet

Union until 1991, sits between the

European Union and Russia both

literally and politically. The conflict

initiated back in November 2013. The

Ukrainian president at that time,

Viktor Yanukovych, rejected a trade

and association deal with the

European Union in order to build

stronger ties with Russia. This

movement led thousands of

Ukrainians to make massive protests,

they believed a new deal would

enhance the country’s actual

economy and aid Ukraine's financial

future. By 2014 the manifestations

turned into deadly events, leading to

the deaths of at least 70 Ukrainians

in February of said year. In light of

this events, as the people ousted the

current leader, former prime

minister Yulia Tymoshenko was being

released from jail (after a seven year

sentence for alleged abuse of

power). Tymoshenko is well known

for her vision of “Ukraine in the

future as a member of the European

Union and a fully fledged member of

NATO”. Hence, relations between

her and Russia are not sympathetic.

The revolt is commonly known as the

Ukrainian Civil War or the War in

Donbass. Politicians ultimately

removed Yanukovych from power

and with a new presidential election,

Petro Poroshenko, who indeed

supported the protests, was elected

in may. In light of this events, Russia

took advantage of the chaos and

sent its military to invade Crimea, a

rich area in oil and gas. A month later

pro-separatist groups seized the

cities of Luhansk and Donetsk and

declared them independent from

Ukraine. One must bear in mind that,

Ukraine is divided between an

eastern region which is rich with

cultural ties to Russia and what is left

of the country purely identified as

Ukranians and nothing else. As pro

EU protests winded down, pro

Russian protests broke in Crimea.

Retrieved from BBC

Politicians then put up to a vote whether

the state should separate from Ukraine.

According to officials more than

90% of the people wanted to abandon

Ukraine. Crimean history represents the

Russian ethnicity of the people therefore

the desire to make part of their culture.

Retrieved from BBC

Russian head of state Vladimir Putin

officially announced that Crimea was now

theirs. Eventually, the international

community renounced said statement and

NATO called this a “so-called referendum

called at gunpoint”. As a consequence, the

US and EU imposed several sanctions. On

military matters, Russia is fueling the

separatists groups in the Crimean area

while the Ukranian are forced to devote

their resources to its defense. Both are

neglecting the ceasefire violations they are

committing to. The separatist Ukrainian

rebels in the LPR (Luhansk People’s

Republic) and DPR (Donetsk People’s

Republic) have funding, weapons and the

assurance of the massive Russian military

behind them. Which, is in constant denial

of such intense finance, notwithstanding

the awareness of the whole international

community. On the Ukrainian position,

forces are a mix of Ukrainian army soldiers

and volunteer militias, which are funded

by the Ukrainian oligarchs and members

of the parliament. Yulia Tymoshenko,

Viktor Yanukovych, Petro Poroshenko

(current president) and Leonid

Chernovetsky (former mayor of the capital

Kiev) are some of the political influencers.

Others are Rinat Akhmetov (wealthiest

man in Ukraine and founder of the System

Capital Management), Viktor Pinchuk (the

son-in-law of ex-president Leonid Kuchma

who controls much of the nation's media)

and Dmytro Firtash, the most important

figure in the vital gas industry.

Now, Ukraine applied to the NATO in

2008 with the NATO MAP (Membership

Action Plan). However, former president

Viktor Yanukovych wished to maintain the

country non-aligned therefore the project

was put aside. Nevertheless, when the

new government was appointed, joining

the NATO became a top priority. The

organization has not granted membership

to the state. As the crisis worsens, joining

Nato has gained popularity based on a poll

made in December of 2017 stating that

73% of citizens were in favour. Russia has

explicitly declared full opposition to the

membership and expresses continuous

support on the annexation of Crimea.

CAUSES

Fragility and Isolation of the Ukraine

The Ukrainian State, in addition to an

unsatisfied community, they endure a

political leadership that weakens the

nation. The ruling powers failed to state

power democratically and showed a lack

of interest towards investing in the

development of their own. Shatterable

attempts to join international alliances

were commonly done. Over the past 25

years the international community has

seen an effort on constructing a new state

and failed attempts to transition into a

democratic, stable economy. As the state

transitioned, the wholesale of national

assets was privatized into the hands of a

very narrow yet powerful class named the

oligarchs. Old stalinist bureaucracy was

never removed from power and made its

way into the private industry. Thus, the

present crisis is, in the first instance,

attributable to the failure of a newly

independent state to meet the mass

expectations on which it was founded.

Through no total fault of their own, as

they have been denied entry to them, the

state has failed to incorporate in any

international cooperation such as the

Euro-Atlantic alliance or Russia-led

alliance with major non-NATO allies.

Sustained isolation from integration

projects, makes the state vulnerable to

shift of the organization of foreign power

and depending on big powers of the

region. The country’s initial strategy to

isolate both Western powers and Russian

influence deteriorated due to the leaders

inability to maintain a stable economy.

The following office (Viktor Yushchenko

2005-2010) opened relations with Russia

and Western investors in order to receive

contributions in their financial condition.

None presented much improvement and

demonstrated pure interest in exploiting

and manipulating Ukranian resources for

their own benefit. Hence, international

relationships remained poor, leaving the

Ukrainian state in a legal, political and

social grey-zone defenseless and exposed.

Restoration of Russian imperialism

Throughout the 1990’s, European powers

took it upon them to group Central

European and Baltic states into

organizations such as the EU and NATO,

segregating Russia, Ukraine and Belarus

from these integration projects.

Therefore, president Putin, determined to

rebuild Russian economy, transitioned

into an internationally competitive status.

Until this present day, Russian’s power

position in Eurasia consists of the

provision of military security to countries

in exchange for their alignment with

Russian foreign policy, and their access to

Russian markets in exchange for the

removal of barriers against Russian capital

penetrating their national economies.

Therefore, this state of supremacy grants

them passage to provoke a crisis of large

scale magnitude pointing towards weak

states such as Ukraine to benefit off it. As

a result, Russian power and influence at a

global scale poses as a powerful

competence to the international

community who will perhaps, by many

means, charge the Russian State with

certain penalties.

Ukrainian External Debt

On other overlooked causes, there is the

external debt Ukraine has beared with for

a long time. Their state debt, including

state guaranteed private sector is of

almost $73bn, 65.6% of the total GDP. The

country’s gross external debt, which

included that of the private sector, was

double that amount at $142.5bn. Former

Prime Minister had taken $3.4 bn in IMF

special drawing rights (stand by loan) in

August 2008 to bail out the country’s

banks and repay sovereign debt for

Russian gas imports. Debt repayment

became an increasingly heavy burden on

the state budget, at the end of 2014

accounting for 40% of total expenditures.

For both the West and Russia, Ukraine’s

indebtedness provided a handy lever to

influence its government. The IMF was

the arbiter of its creditworthiness and so

its gatekeeper to international capital

markets. It tried to impose its conditions

on the government to decrease state

ownership of public utilities, and to

withdraw subsidies on the cost of

supplying them to households, communal

services and to businesses.

REPERCUSSIONS

Sanctions imposed on the Russian

Federation

The illegal annexation of Crimea impulsed

the international community, specifically

the European Union, the United States,

Canada, and their Allies to enact sanction

in a coordinated manner on July 2014.

Which, were further strengthened in

September of the same year. EU sanctions,

which have been due to lapse in July 2015,

were extended to January 2016. American

and Canadian sanctions are open-ended,

no predetermined limit.. The economic

penalties consisted on three different

targets. The first restricts access to the

Western financial markets and services for

designated Russian state-owned

enterprises in the banking, energy and

defense sectors. The second places an

embargo on exports to Russia of

designated high-technology oil exploration

and product equipment. The third is an

embargo on exports to Russia of

designated military and dual use of goods.

In defensive, the Federation imposed a

ban on food imports from Western

nations in August 2014, which remain in

place. The effectiveness of this sanctions

are evidenced on the Russian economy.

Generally assessed, they have

assisted on aggravating their ongoing

macroeconomic challenges, specifically on

the pronounced fall in oil prices in the end

of 2014. Financially, the government was

forced to reorganize and extract foreign

exchange reserves to shore up the

sanction entities. Nevertheless, these

penalties had painful consequences on

their own initiators. Directly by Western

exports of

oil-producing equipment and of military

and dual-use goods which are now

freezed. Directly by Russia’s food imports

ban, and indirectly due to the lower

exchange rate, which lead to much lower

demands for imports.

Civilian casualties

Referring to the multiple events

mentioned above. When conflict broke

off between separatist forces and

Ukrainian military, more than 10,300

civilians we killed and 24,000 injures since

2014. The Malaysian airline MH17 that

was shot down by Ukrainian rebel

separatists with Russian army

ground-to-air missiles in 2014, killed 298

passengers on board. The cyberattacks

exposed 225,000 people in December

2015, which were was made by Russian

hackers. The attacks occured before and

during the attack and seizure of Ukrainian

ships and sailors on November 25, a

private intelligence firm announced that

week. The attacks appeared to be aimed

at stealing information that would have

been relevant to planning the operation.

An estimate of 1.5 million people have

been internally displaced.

Economical alterations

For Crimea, the urgent problem is how to

finance the huge local budget deficit,

estimated at $1 billion. According to

preliminary announcements, Russian

economic aid for Crimea is expected to

amount to at least $2.2 billion annually.

This without including the expectations

mentioned in the referendum. Along

investing on various sectors, Russia is

attempting to cut loose any financial ties

Crimea has with Ukraine. Bear in mind

that the Russian state wishes to install a

border infrastructure and ensure the

defense of the borders; as well as the

demarcation of new borders, including

maritime borders, and the division of

territorial waters to regulate access to

and ownership of the continental sea

centre shelf.

Retrieved from Ministry of Defense of Ukraine

Mobilization of armed

forces

Retrieved from Ministry of Defense of Ukraine

CURRENT

ACTIONS

International Actions

Mainly, the organization with most

influence on the crisis is NATO. Both their

denial of membership to Ukraine and the

lack of interest by the state, limits actions

that the organization could take in order

to prevent the attack by Russia. Hence,

countries from

the EU and the US have imposed the

economic sanctions mentioned above. Still

NATO has officially declared its opposition

to Russian actions. On matters of treaties,

the countries directly involved wrote the

Minsk Protocol and the Minsk II. The

Minsk Protocol attempts to halt

disturbance in the Donbass region as it

was dealt with the Russian separatist

groups and the new republics. It

implemented a ceasefire that clearly did

not work. The conflict in Donbass is still

occuring. The Minsk II is supposed to be a

revival of the protocol and wishes to reach

the long dreamed peace.

ORIENTATION AND OBJECTIVE OF THE

COMMITTEE

Guided by the objectives and aims of the

NATO, delegates must evaluate the

influence the organization has over the

crisis and the possible outcomes if the

Ukrainian state indeed made part of it.

There shall not be any intentions to

engage in violent encounters or maintain

the rivalry as it is. Delegates must decide

whether or not to hold the NATO

accountable for their actions and evaluate

the results of them. Delegates who make

part of the organization can intensify the

sanctions that have been imposed and, as

members, shall defend the measures

taken by the NATO. Assess which actions

have resulted in negative outcomes and

what must be done in future occasions to

prevent a similar event. The debate ought

to meet these expectations and must

revolve around them. Others who do not

make part of and believe the organization

has had a lack of involvement, shall

proceed to diminish the actions. Delegates

must bear in mind the consequences of

siding with the organization and the

economical issues they might face when

taking critical decisions. All delegates must

know and understand what the MAP is

and if wished, propose to rewrite and

intensify the poor proposal drafted years

before by the Ukrainian state. It is not

advisable to involve any external organs or

committees such as the International

Court of Justice or similar as the purpose

of the committee is to analyze and

evaluate the actions that have been taken

through the years and judge the NATO

itself. The idea is not to solve the crisis as a

matter of urgency but to assess the

responsibility that falls upon the

organization and the changes that it will

undergo to solve this and future

like-situations.

ORIENTATION QUESTIONS

1. Is your delegation member of the

NATO or the EU?

2. Is your delegation directly or

indirectly affected by Ukrainian or

Russian economy?

3. Has your delegation committed

any similar annexations?

4. Has your delegation been denied a

membership to the NATO?

5. Would the membership of Ukraine

in NATO affect either positively or

negatively the crisis?

6. How diplomatic are your

delegation relations with the

NATO?

7. Does your delegation rely on any

country or countries member of

the NATO or EU?

8. Is your country socially,

economically and/or politically

dependent of the Russian

Federation?

SOURCES

The consequences of the annexation of

Crimea. (2018). Retrieved from

https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/a

nalyses/

2014-03-19/consequences-annexation-cri

mea

MH17 — What Happened?. (2018).

Retrieved from

https://lifeinua.info/war-news-from-ukrai

ne/

The causes of Ukrainian crisis. (2018).

Retrieved from

https://commons.com.ua/en/prichini-ukra

yinskoyi -krizi

TOPIC C: UNITED STATES CONDITIONED

MILITARY AID TO NATO BASED ON

PERCENTAGE OF THE GDP SPENT ON

DEFENSE

From Ronald Reagan’s to Obama’s

administration, US presidents have been

consistent on asking for more

commitment from NATO members.

However, Donald Trump is determined to

make all NATO members accomplish their

obligations established In 2006, were

NATO Defence Ministers agreed to

commit a minimum of two per cent of

their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to

spending on defence. After the 2018

Brussels Summit, tension arose between

NATO members to an extent that the

alliance could dismantle. When referring

to article 5, president trump did not

commit his military, as was tradition of US

presidents since first NATO summit in the

administration of Harry Truman. This has

opened a blanket of doubts from NATO

members, as the United States are

obligated by article 5 to take actions if a

NATO member is attacked, however, for

the first time in more than 60 years they

are no longer obligated to take military

actions.This is a particular issue to the

Baltic states, as only Estonia currently

spends the 2% of their GDP on National

defense, while they are all having

“nightmares” with the T-72 Russian tanks

spotted near Russia’s Baltic frontier last

fall. The dismantling of the “credible

commitment” will have disastrous

consequences in matters of diplomacy

and geopolitics.

In March 26 2016 President Trump said

“I’ll tell you the problems I have with

NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. NATO

is unfair, economically, to us, to the United

States. Because it really helps them more

so than the United States, and we pay a

disproportionate share. So NATO is

something that at the time was excellent.

Today, it has to be changed to include

well, I have two problems with NATO. No.

2, it’s obsolete”. The government of the

United States is determined to take

contending actions to increase the

expenditure of Europe in NATO, and

decrease theirs at all cost, because Trump

is looking to finance war against

terrorism, since in the same interview he

acknowledged “I think NATO is obsolete,

because right now we don’t have

somebody looking at terror, and we

should be looking at terror. And you may

want to add and subtract from NATO in

terms of countries. But we have to be

looking at terror, because terror today is

the big threat”. The United States found

their new Soviet Union and is looking to

repeat NATO’s history in order to defeat

it. while the future of NATO remains

uncertain.

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,

Retrieved from NATO.int

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

After the end of WW2, the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization took its first steps. It

was conceived in 1949 with an

unmistakable mission, restrain, stop and if

needed, defeat the Soviet Union.

The year is 1949, the Cold War has quite

recently begun and there was an

atmosphere of tension. The Berlin

blockade had all ready taken place, and

the Czech communist party had

completely taken control with a coup

d'état. A war would have been everything

but unexpected. The government of the

United States was the most interested in

maintaining NATO, since European

countries where spending historical

amounts of money in defense, taking into

account the Soviet nuclear threat was in

their backyard. Relationships between

Europe and North America could not be

better, the goal was clear, and they were

all fighting to achieve it, Their Military

equipment and strategy was bewilderingly

synchronized to an extend that all NATO

countries could mobilize troops at any

minute if necessary. Everyone had a clear

exegesis of article five.

However, there was a drastic change in

1991. The fall of the Soviet Union left

NATO with no clear purpose, their main

enemy had suddenly disappeared, and

there was no clear reason to keep with

the alliance.

But against all odds after the

dismantlement of the Soviet Union, the

Organization begun to play a more active

role. Interventions during the Bosnian

war, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya,

control over the Baltic Sea, piracy in the

Indian Ocean and recently support for the

war against ISIS, clarified that NATO is a

21st century alliance. The recent conflict

has been far away from home and there

has been a perception that the robust

army of the US could deal with it almost

alone. While Europe’s expenditure on

defense has decreased.

CAUSES

Tension among The United States and

Europe raised in recent years. The

discrepancies are numerous, varied and

increasing. The United States and the

European Union have mutually imposed

trade sanctions among them: in June 2018

the United States imposed 25% duty on

European steel and a 10% duty on

European aluminium while the E.U Tariffs

has been imposed on U.S products such as

bourbon whiskey, motorcycles and orange

juice. On the other hand, European

countries are desperately trying to save

the nuclear agreement with Iran that

Washington has abandoned, while the EU

remains faithful to the Paris agreement

that Trump already rejected.

Besides the United States, most members

of NATO are not prepared for a harsh

conflict, European armies are full of

operational issues. Europe’s spending in

defense is not having a sustainable

traceability, the great amount spent is not

giving adequate results. In 2017 a study

made by the firm McKinsey revealed that

almost 60% of Germany’s euro fighter and

tornado fighter aircraft are useless, and

80% of their most modern helicopters

were not ready for combat, while no

submarine, neither the transport airplanes

are operational due to a lack of

maintenance, updates and supplies,

despite having a military budget of 42.9

billion euros. This issue is constant all

around Europe. For example during the

war in Libya, just 3 weeks after the start of

the war, the European forces ran out of

precise artillery. Meanwhile the countries

that indeed spend their 2% GDP are even

less prepared for conflict, like Greece, that

uses 41% of that 2% GDP to pay for

military pensions. This issue has worsened

since the end of the Cold War, the GDP

percentage expenditure of Europe in

defense has gone from more than 3% to

less than 1.5%.

The uncertainty of the response that the

United States will have in an eventual

violation of article 5, has created

ambiguity in Russian territorial ambition

detainment. Russia kidnapped an Estonian

security officer in 2015, sent Russian

warships into Latvian waters 40 times in

2014, and more recently has been

repeatedly buzzing their airspace with

Russian jets. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania

are former Soviet republic and Russian

Empire territories, and are full of panic of

becoming the next Ukraine. They are

leaving all their hope in their NATO

membership.

Defense expenditure of NATO countries, retrieved

from Forbes.

REPERCUSSIONS

NATO is the most powerful military

alliance to have ever existed. However,

it’s solidity has Evolved in instability. Most

NATO countries rely on the United States

Army, specially on their nuclear arsenal,

to ensure and maintain their sovereignty.

With out that nuclear alliance it is not

crazy to think that new countries will

desire to have nuclear power, provoking a

higher tension than the one experienced

in the Cuban missile crisis. This this

phenomenon is known as nuclear

proliferation.

NATO brought peace and alliance to

Europe for more than 60 years. A

dismantlement of NATO will leave Europe

vulnerable to foreign powers and to

themselves, a conflict between former

NATO members likely Greece and Turkey

will result in a mayor European conflict,

since the Poor relationship between

Tsipras and Erdogan arose a Greco-Turkish

tension only seen in the military conflict

over the Greek islet Imia in 1996, were the

United States stepped in to avert disaster.

Although this could also happen with the

current situation, the government of the

United States stipulated that the

fulfillment of Article 5 depends upon the

country been attacked pay their

obligations or not, This sends a signal

specially to Russia as just 5 of the 29

members pay their obligations. This

challenges Russia to see if countries like

The U.S, United Kingdom or France will

sacrifice national soldiers to defend

smaller nations.

This is specially important for the Baltic

states, whose celebration of 100 years

independence is being bitter by the

Russian missiles tests performed the 4 of

April, 2018 in the Baltic Sea near the

NATO’S territorial waters a day after

Trump's visit to the Baltic states. Russia is

testing the reaction of the U.S and NATO

members to a possible new annexation,

such as Crimea’s, in the end Russia may

have the same excuse that they used for

Ukraine’s and Georgia’s conflict, because

Baltic states have regions were ethnic

Russians live and are treated as secondary

citizens.

The Baltic states have direct military

alliance with more than 30 countries,

making it unlikely for Russia to invade the

Baltic states, unless they want to start

World War 3. Russia is provoking more

tension between NATO members and

taking advantage of the discrepancies and

poor relationships between the U.S and

Europe, to see to what extent NATO is still

unified.

Since Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and

more recently Ukraine, NATO is deeply

concerned of Russia violating the

sovereignty of former Warsaw Pact

countries that are now part or trying to be

part of NATO. For this reason during

Obama’s administration Europe

committed to substantially increase their

military expenditure until reaching 2% of

GDP in 2024, and in doing so, today

Europe is the region of the world where

military expenditure has increased the

most.

In 2015 36,000 troops, 140 aircrafts, and

60 ships of over 30 nations performed the

largest military action of the decade. The

Spearhead Force was created: an

immediate action force of 5000 soldiers

able to deploy anywhere in the world.

This belongs to a larger rapid action force

of 40000 soldiers with 8 headquarters in

former Soviet territory. In 2017 the United

States made the largest troop

deployment in Europe since the Cold War.

We are not in times of the Cold War, it is

not necessary for countries to spend that

gargantuan amount of currency in their

military, today the big risks don’t involve a

great war, Mutually assured destruction,

globalization and trade have greatly

reduced that risk. Nevertheless if finally

Europe decide to reach the 2% mark, it

will not necessarily have to do with NATO,

the nations will decide individually how

that 2% is being spent, the expenditure

increase will implicitly benefit the alliance,

but NATO cannot guarantee that the

resources are allocative efficiency from

NATO’S point of view.

Preoccupations then arise on the

effectiveness of this percentual objective

as the sole measuring of military might

and capability, because NATO is basing

the military capacities of the allies on a

vague statistic, as it is impossible to

determine the efficiency and capability of

an army with the percentage GDP

spending on defense, since in order to

reach that objective a country could just

increase military salaries, while their

operational issues remain intact. Whether

the country decides to increase or not the

expenditure, this will have an opportunity

cost that will mean that the country

should decrease its expenditure in other

things such as health or education to

finance war.

CURRENT SITUATION

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are arguably

concerned of Russia’s territorial ambition:

they lay their hope on the threat that a

collective response from NATO members

will signify. But the recent determination

of the United States government to aid

only NATO members that are

accomplishing the 2% goal have them

worried. Lithuania and Latvia don’t

accomplish that rule, while there is a

growing uncertainty of the action that the

U.S will have if a conflict in the Baltic’s

arise. This is worsened when Lithuania’s

president claims Russia had just deployed

medium range missiles along their border.

After the crisis in Crimea NATO increased

increased its military exercises in the

Baltic region as a signal to Russia that this

region was protected. But Vladimir Putin

publicly acknowledged that it “is a vital

interest from Russia to protect the ethnic

Russians living in the Baltics”, referencing

the same reason why he decided to

invade Ukraine in the first place.

While Putin is determined to protect his

people in the Baltics, Trump isn't quite

sure. The 21 of July 2016 Trump

acknowledge “Baltic states could only

count in U.S military aid if they fulfill their

obligations us”. This declaration is clearly

aimed to make the Baltic states and all

NATO countries pay their obligations. But

indirectly it may also be an invitation for

Russia to try.

Europe and The USA are imposing each

other tariffs in the commercial war of

steel. The relationships are tremendously

deteriorated since Trump’s entry to the

White House. The refugee crisis has just

increase this tension as President Trump

criticized Angela Merkel for her policy of

welcome refugees, qualifying it as an

“catastrophic error”. The different

approaches to the terrorist threat are

dividing the Atlantic while terrorism is

each time more present in western

society. In the other hand NATO Isn't in its

peak after Brussels summit, were trump

encouraged Europe. This tensions are

entering to the NATO alliance and

separating its members.

ORIENTATION AND OBJECTIVE OF THE

COMMITTEE

During the committee, it is expected from

delegates to fully embrace their countries

positions in order to produce clear and

concise solutions. Developing on this, it is

essential for delegates to strictly follow

their foreign politics in order to have a

deep knowledge of the causes that

provoke tension between the European

Union and the United States and carry out

the topic in an adequate manner. To know

the implications of NATO in the present,

and the consequences and further

repercussions a dismantlement of NATO

will have, before taking any hasty

decision. Delegates must understand all

the economic impacts and the

opportunity cost that reaching a 2%

expenditure in military budget will have

in their country and in the region. Finally

delegates should be aware of the crisis in

the Baltic’s and the position of their

delegation in that matter.

ORIENTATION QUESTIONS

1. Is viable for your country to raise

their GDP expenditure on defense

to 2%? What will be the

opportunity cost?

2. What consequences will the

dismantlement of NATO bring to

the world and specially your

country?

3. What is the position of your

country regarding Donald trump

not compromising its army in the

Brussels summit regarding article

5?

4. What it’s your delegations position

regarding the recent threat

Russia’s actions in the Baltic’s have

arise?

SOURCES

NATO, A. (2018, June 11). Brussels Summit

Declaration issued by the Heads of State

and Government participating in the

meeting of the North Atlantic Council in

Brussels, 11-12 July 2018. Retrieved

December 12, 2018, from

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/offi

cial_texts_156624.htm

NATO D. (2017, June 27). Funding NATO.

Retrieved December 11, 2018, from

https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/top

ics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en

NATO, O. (2011, November 23). A short

history of NATO. Retrieved December 15,

2018, from

https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/decl

assified_139339.htm

SUPPORT LINKS

1. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_

fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/2

0180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pd

f

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=W_KrwW1Knms

3. Donald Trump needs to clarify his

position on NATO before

something scary happens - Vox

4. https://www.washingtonpost.com

/world/europe/as-tensions-with-tr

ump-deepen-europe-wonders-if-a

merica-is-lost-for-good/2018/05/1

8/6f90c56e-587f-11e8-9889-07bcc

1327f4b_story.html?utm_term=.7

b9376a2158d

5. https://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/

12247074/donald-trump-nato-war

6. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0

7/22/us/politics/donald-trump-for

eign-policy-interview.html?action=

click&contentCollection=Politics&

module=RelatedCoverage&region=

Marginalia&pgtype=article

7. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0

3/27/us/politics/donald-trump-tra

nscript.html