SalMUN 2009
Welcome to SalMUN 2009 Forum!
First time on the forum? please read the instructions!
In order to post, please login =)
If you already saw this message, you may cancel it.
SalMUN 2009
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
SalMUN 2009

This forum is a lobbying place for MUN delegates to get prepared for the actual SalMUN 2009 Conference in Bahia!

You are not connected. Please login or register

List of possible topics

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

1List of possible topics Empty List of possible topics on September 28th 2009, 18:36


Here are some suggestions for those unsure about their topics, please come talk if there are any questions -- by the way, I will be sending you private messages these days with useful sites and datas, so make sure you check them periodically.

Amanda: please remind me to show you the resolution
Morales, Rodrigo, Paulo and Lucas: you are good to go so start researching!
Victoria: we still need to expand on your topic
Chico: lets meet to clear the question of
Jaap: try choosing from this list, if not, we can discuss other possibilities tomorrow
Juracy: we gotta think of how to write a resolution on R2P or will you keep the nuclear?
Leo: I have a resolution to show you!

Responsibility to protect (R2P)
•Controversial UN foreign policy: what happened when intervening in Kosovo and when not intervening in Rwanda
•Issue dealing with sovereignty and “humanitarian intervention
•Preservation of human rights and international principles or imperialism?

Attaining sustainable peace in Sudan
•How to resolve the Darfur crisis (short and long term solutions)
•Trialing of Omar al-Bashir by the International Court of Justice for war crimes?
Arms trade in Africa – question China, Russia, and the U.S.

Rethinking transnational counterterrorism
•War on Terror; current situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan
•How to deal with the Taliban and the al-Qaeda?
•Global security framework to limit weapons trade in M.E. and Asia

Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty
•Dealing with North Korea as a nuclear threat: sanctions, talks, military invasion
•Iran’s nuclear energy program
•Establishment of a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in the Middle-East

Israeli-Palestinian conflict
•The Israeli separation wall
•Illegal Jewish settlements in the territory of West Bank
Right to return of Palestinian refugees?

The issue of piracy off the coast of Somalia
•How to deal with the insurgent groups and unify the country’s government?
•Methods of addressing the piracy issue; containing illegal activities
•Ethiopia’s role as neighboring country and involvement in civil wars

Back-up topics:
The future of Tibet and ensuring the rights of the Tibetans
The situation in Iran: the country’s re-elections

2List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on September 30th 2009, 19:35


Security Council delegates, please post your chosen topic and question of in this section, and remember that you must post at least two relevant topics and/or replies per week, so get your typing fingers working!

Sincerely yours,
SC chair

3List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 1st 2009, 11:30


Establishing an international protocol for missle defense systems...

what about this topic bibi?
since in the UN they had a conflict
on this topic, between Russia and USA...
I think this could bring a good debate
finally... for each year that it has been
uesd it was not well discussed...
but after this UN it can make an interesting

(I Discussed It With Garrett, She Liked It, What Do You Think?)

4List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 1st 2009, 19:26


Hey Russia!
Not only do I think that this is an interesting topic to be discussed, but I also appreciate the fact that being an "international protocol" it will involve the positions of every country within the Security Council. So yes, you have my absolute approval of your question of, and so as to start you going, I found a couple of sites that might be interesting.

The following one is specifically about Russia and the "past, present and future" of its missile defense system, stressing emphasis on the military and economic perspective of maintaining an arsenal of long-ranged weapons. This site mentions the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and you should also take a look at the 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT) signed by Russian President Putin and former American President Bush:

Here is a site with a list of treaties signed by Russia (some in conjunction with the USA) and a couple of bilateral agreements you should take a look at:

Good working!

5List of possible topics Empty south korea's resolution on October 3rd 2009, 23:11


hey bibi,
while my resolution will be about North Korea's nuclear weapons issue, do you think i could still increment solutions for North Korea's misplacement of aid from the individual recipients to the government? i think thats also a really important ongoing issue that the opressed North Korean citizen's have to unfairly live with...

6List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 3rd 2009, 23:26


Hello there South Korea! Yeah, my only issue with this is that if your question of will be about "measures to halth North Korea's nuclear weapons program" then I don't see exactly how that clause would relate to the rest of the resolution. Do you see what I mean? In simple terms, it would be rather odd that a resolution dealing with apples would have a clause on oranges. That was a lame example... Anyway, I do think, however, that this is an important aspect that should be dealt with, we just have to think of how this fits into your question of as a whole. Nonetheless, I feel like the nuclear program deal is such a HUGE topic that one could write a ten-page resolution about it, so there is a whole lot to consider/think about, which leaves almost no space for the "other problems". Plus, I don't think Kim Young II would appreciate that... as if he appreciated anything at all, but still.

I found this interesting site about North Korea's violations of international treaties and multilateral agreements on its nuclear program, please take a look, I know you will find this very much useful:

7List of possible topics Empty NK's Possible Resolution on October 4th 2009, 11:18


Threatened by USA's constant military vigilance with over 70 KH-11 satelites and diverse high altitude military planes, North Korea feels the need of acquiring enough military equipment to engage in a MAD deterrence.
For that means the delegation of North Korea proposes to strike resolutions 1874 and 1718 of the Security Council; which create an unecessary military embargo on our nation and, in addition, to be included as one of the nations permited to acquire "nuclear" equipment, through the NPT, in exchange of the signing of this treaty.

8List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 4th 2009, 20:53


hey bibi, you already know my topic because you helped me with it, but to be clean it's war of terrorism, except instead of just dealing with the Hamas, it will be dealing with international terrorism..

9List of possible topics Empty topic question on October 4th 2009, 21:02

this is about hamas and fatah, BUT how can UN prevent people from electing terrorists without violating their rights, and how can the UN lable certain groups as terrorists without getting killed? will that be in the resolution you will show me?

10List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 12th 2009, 00:17


Is the delegate of North Korea now considering to allow IAEA inspectons as part of signing the NPT treaty? because in the past, as you know NK abstained from receiving IAEA surveillance...

11List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 12th 2009, 09:52


Paulo: If your resolution proposes to accept North Korea's nuclear weapons program as legitimate, while still being a part of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty, wouldn't this violate the clauses of such consentual arrangement? Moreover, would there be some sort of eligibility process through which other countries could require the same treatment under the NPT that would be given to North Korea? Wouldn't this disregard the whole "nuclear proliferation prevention" pursuit set by this treaty?

Amanda: Your question poses a political controversy that the international community hasn't been able to solve, yet. Nonetheless, Israel could suggest a synthesized definition of terrorism and, based on such, regard any group that falls in such category as a threat to international security and peace. Measures would be taken accordingly, such as prosecuting, condemning and punishing individuals accounted guilty for actively participating in terrorist activities with such factions.

Andrea: Go beyond. Question if North Korea is willing to abide to every clause and commitment set forth by the NPT, one of which includes the acceptance of IAEA inspections. Plus, how can the global community be sure that North Korea won't threaten to withdraw, as it did in 1993, and then recede entirely from the treaty, as it did in 2003? What will change, if anything, in relation to the guidelines of the NPT? Can any other country also pursue nuclear weapons? What's the point, then?

Keep working!

12List of possible topics Empty Response on October 14th 2009, 17:26


The nation of North Korea does not believe in the very essence of this flobbed treaty (NPT). And for those who are still illuded by this treaty this delegation recomends the observation, to begin, of the fourth article. In this portion of the accord all nations are authorized to "develop research, production and use of nuclear"; this unrealistic idea fails to perform realistically as it makes nations capable of acquiring nuclear power under false pretenses giving little or no time for a proper response after the discovery of the real goals.
Acknownledging the above arguments the nation of North Korea believes that the treaty has to be adapted to permit the entrance of new nations as nuclear powers maintaining only its main goal of hindering the acess to nuclear weapons of illicit groups and informal organizations. That might use such atrocious creations for purposes other than self defense.
As the nation of NK has already proved its trustworthiness to all its allies and the planet, the legalization of its weapons should be made without further stuttering.
Delegate of NK: Paulo Carvalho

13List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 14th 2009, 18:54


NKorea_PauloC wrote:Bibi,
As the nation of NK has already proved its trustworthiness to all its allies and the planet, the legalization of its weapons should be made without further stuttering.
Delegate of NK: Paulo Carvalho
Delegate of North Korea, was this response meant as a joke?
Because as far as the entire world can see, North Korea has NOT proven ANY trustworthiness. How can any nation trust a country that has threatened to bomb three others?

How can the NPT be adapted to allow for more countries to possess nuclear weapons when countries like yours propose to strike other countries? How can the UN and the IAEA allow nuclear proliferation when a country such as Iran proposes to "wipe Israel off the map?"

The sole purpose of the NPT is to protect the world from the fears and dangers of nuclear weapons. If all nations were allowed to possess nuclear weapons, the world would engage in a nuclear arms race, to see who can become the most powerful by obtaining the most nuclear weapons, thereby depleting the world's uranium resources, not allowing for nuclear energy.

However, the delegate states a valid point, which is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by illicit organizations. However, if the NPT permitted more nations to have nuclear weapons, the availability of the same for terrorist groups and illicit groups would also increase.
Therefore, the delegate of the USA agrees that a revision of the NPT to monitor the use of fissile materials and whatnot is debatable and should be taken into consideration.

14List of possible topics Empty Flabbergasted by USA! on October 14th 2009, 19:16


Has the delegate of USA ever stopped to wonder why Israel is still on the map and why the three countries your delegation accuses my nation of "wanting to bomb" are still intact? That occurs for a simple reason: No nation wants to engage in nuclear war. Now, the inevitable question: why acquire nukes then? The answer is a word; "deterrence". Threatened by your nations preemptives based only upon dogmatic "ifs" other countries are forced to engage in a MAD deterrence concept created by your own nation.

How can the delegate accuse my nation of not being trustoworthy!? The only country in the globe that has proven to fail in such criteria is yours. Disagree? Check with Iraq, Iran, Vietnã and they are the leaving proof of the unecessary wars your nation has engaged in your uncontrolled seek for power.

"Nuclear arms race": Delegate you seem to quote in your speech the very "Cold War" your nation engaged a few years back which ended, not only without a conflict, but with hundreds of thousands sickened by radiation of your multiple nuclear tests. Tests which my nation now tries to conduct in a safe and lessened scale but is repressed by your biased statements.

That being said the delegation of North Korea hopes to be able to resume with its normal opperation legally after the passing of my delegation proposition through the security council which luckily won't suffer from USA's incongruous dominance over global autonomy and security.

15List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 14th 2009, 20:50


1. Israel is still on the map because Iran does not officially possess nuclear weapons.

2. The delegate mentioned the Cold War and its negative effects. However, does the delegate honestly believe that encouraging (or not discouraging) nuclear proliferation won't result in ANOTHER Cold War? This race for arms will remain safe until one country with one less-than-rational ruler gives the first blow. Furthermore, such an arms race will deplete countries' financial stockpile and the world's uranium reserves, making nuclear energy an impossibility. Furthermore, the money spent on arms research could be used for other more useful purposes, such as human rights and quality of life.

3. As the delegate wishes to draw more specific examples to the table, so be it: in Vietnam, the US's participation was merely diplomatic until the 1960s, when it started escalating. However, the US only deployed combat troops in Vietnam in 1965, 6 years after the start of the war. In Iraq, what was occuring was a breach of international law, and thus, intervention was a necessary evil.

16List of possible topics Empty Destroyed Hopes on October 15th 2009, 07:22


1. Does the delegate actually believe that Iran has not yet acquired nuclear weapons?!

2. The delegation of North Korea does not propose to give unlimited access to all nations to nuclear weapons; quite the contrary, we want to allow nations that have been proven trustworthy to acquire them after apropriate dealing and negotiation.

3. I thought there was still hope for change in your nation, delegate, but it seems not. The delegate still insists on affirming that the war on Iraq has a logical mounting when really it was just a large scale mistake commited by your nation or a desperate move for oil...

It seems delegate that your nation supports this treaty just for its offers towards you as the world's greatest supplier of nuclear material!

17List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 15th 2009, 15:52


how is the delegate of NK going to assure that the nations are "trustworthy"? are you going to create a set of standards? if so, will this grant access of nuclear weapons to YOUR country as well?

18List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 15th 2009, 16:39


Iran does not OFFICIALLY possess nuclear weapons. Even though it has shown some non-compliance to the IAEA, nuclear weapons in Iran have not been discovered. And it is the NPT that keeps Iran from blowing Israel off the map. Does the delegate of North Korea really want to see a nuclear war in the Middle East, or any other part of the world?

How are nations going to be deemed trustworthy? Remember, delegate, governments change and so does the trustworthiness of a nation. Should, then, nuclear weapons be permitted or prohibited from leader to leader? Better just to prohibit them.

And this is not just an effort from the United States to remain a superpower and a leading force in nuclear material! This treaty maintains a balance in the world! Every treaty may have its flaws, but this treaty is necessary if we do not wish to see a nuclear war eclode!

Delegate, remember World War I: the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente were both created to ensure the safety of the nations involved in the case of an attack. The entire system was created to protect the interest of the nations in the alliance; however, this system resulted in a full-scale war when the "first blood" was drawn in Serbia... the same case would be with nuclear weapons if all nations acquired arms for defense. When the bomb is ignited, there is no escape.

19List of possible topics Empty The real issue... on October 15th 2009, 17:13


Delegate of USA,

It seems that the real issue resides in two main criteria: The validity of the NPT and the criteria for determining the trustworthiness of nations.

The delegate of NK does not consider the NPT as an effective measure to hault the nuclear proliferation for nothing can be done to nations that fail to ratify the treaty or rejects membership. Even nations that ratify the treaty have the possibility of developing nuclear weapons simply by abusing of the false sense of security offered by such accord.

Regarding the second point (trustworthiness): It can become a very complex job to deem a nations trustworthiness but again how can the already nuclear powers be checked for this criteria? Only in the past 8 years your president has decided to actively engage in over three wars! How can you be deemed trustworthy?! Especially as your nation is the only to have ever abused of the destructive power of nuclear weapons even knowing it was unecessaary!

Delegate of Israel, of course my country will be permited to acquire nuclear weapons as this is the very essence of the debate! Regarding the setting of standards; yes, they may be previously set but their definition goes much beyond that of the security council so it a criteria that has to be debated after the approval of my resolution...

20List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 15th 2009, 18:34


NKorea_PauloC wrote:Delegate of USA,

It seems that the real issue resides in two main criteria: The validity of the NPT and the criteria for determining the trustworthiness of nations.

There, the delegate agrees with you (amazing as it seems). It is a debatable question, the trustworthiness of nations and needs to be evaluated with care.

Delegate, you flabbergast me with your accusations of untrustworthiness. The United States, over the last few months/years, has been demonstrating nothing but compliance to the UN and willingness to solve the world's issues. Our very own President surprised everyone by presenting himself at the UN conference, something that had never been done by any US President.

Your nation, however, over the last few months/years, has been threatening other nations and performing nuclear tests that are placing the UN and the world's nations in a state of alarm. You have provided nothing but trouble, and THAT is untrustworthiness.

21List of possible topics Empty Repointing on October 15th 2009, 18:53



Just because your country has flakly supported the UN in the past eight months (not years!) it does not erase your past of overpowering and opression to the weaker nations!

Furthermore delegate, our nation has not in any way appeared to the world as a threat until the USA catechized the global community with your former president's talks of "axis of evil".

Delegate, just as we are testing nuclear equipment today, your nation and many others have done in the past but in much larger scale and with much greater consequences!

"Iran does not OFFICIALLY possess nuclear weapons" USA_Lucas

Does the delegate actually believe that Iran does not posses nuclear weapons? Pakistan?!

22List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 15th 2009, 19:22


Delegate, the question of whether or not the delegate of the USA believes that Iran does not have nuclear weapons is out of the question. The link has been found between Iran and Pakistan, and yes, Iran has been somehow non-compliant with the IAEA inspections.

The question here is that, being a signatory of the NPT, if Iran does have nuclear weapons, it is restrained and is disencouraged to come forward and use them. The NPT actually holds the world in balance and impedes a nuclear war from happening. The delegate of the United States believed that, like all other treaties, it is flawed, and can undergo revision, but not that which the North Korean delegate specifies.

23List of possible topics Empty Problems have to be resolved... on October 15th 2009, 21:04


The delegate of USA has repeatedly especified that the NPT holds diverse flaws but yet ignores NK's proposals for change: What does the delegate suggest as a solution for this problem?

The delegate has also asserted that "If Iran does have nuclear weapons, it is restrained and discouraged (...) use them", so basically the delegate wouldn't have any imparse with my state if it produced nuclear weapons after ratification of the treaty?!

24List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 15th 2009, 23:19


The delegate fails to see my point. What I mean about Iran is that if Iran has nuclear weapons, they are secret and officially unknown to the international community. Therefore, being a signatory member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran is disencouraged to use these theoretical nuclear weapons.

In North Korea's case, North Korea officially possesses nuclear weapons, as Kim-Jong Il demonstrated in so surprising and alarming a form. Producing nuclear weapons after ratifying the treaty is just controversial and makes no sense whatsoever.

What the delegate of the United States suggests as a solution for the problem (revising the NPT) is creating a better form of inspection and fissile material control - in the least indirectly. However, for this to occur, all signatory nations of the NPT must comply fully and abide by its guidelines.

25List of possible topics Empty Re: List of possible topics on October 15th 2009, 23:28


And so as to not be left out here:

The United States of America's question of is the following:
Question of: Effective measures to control or eliminate the small arms trade in Africa.

However, I will also write another resolution, on the question of the NPT and North Korea's nuclear program, but will only have it ready to be able to merge with another resolution. So any countries writing resolutions on North Korea or the NPT (preferrably my allies) please contact me so that we can brainstorm ideas.

Sponsored content

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum