From the Desk of President of General Assembly

CIMUN Delegates,

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister and the leader of Pakistan People’s Party, Benazir Bhutto, was assasinated at an election rally in Rawalpindi. The attack was carried out by a suicide bomber on a motorcylcle and is believed to have killed at least 22 other people and injured many more. The attack comes only a few days before the January 8 election. President Musharraf has condemned the attacks and put the paramilitary forces on “red alert.”

More information about the attack and current situation in Pakistan can be found here.

SAARC Delegates at CIMUN 2007

RE: South Asian Free Trade Area

Fellow Delegates,

At the fourth annual CIMUN conference, one of your topic deals with facilitation of trade and information technology among SAARC members. The South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) Agreement is one of the primary documents that dictates and outlines the procedures and guidelines to facilitate trade among SAARC membership. The SAFTA Agreement was drafted at the 12th Annual SAARC summit in Islamabad in 2004, and went into effect on January 1, 2006. One of the major agreement at the Islamabad summit was a put in place necessary infrastructure in a phased manner that would eventually lead to the formation of the South Asian Economic Union (SAEU). SAARCFINANCE was assigned the responsibility of study and make recommendations that would eventually lead to formation of SAEU.

The copy of the SAFTA agreeement can be found here.

The structure and objectives of SAARcFINANCE can be found here.

Desk of President of General Assembly

CIMUN Delegates

Below is an link to an article from the International Herald Tribune that gives an nice overview of United Nation’s involvement in Myanmar since the pro-democracy movement of 1988.

For more information please click here for the article.

For Immediate Release

CIMUN Delegates,

Here is a link to a good article about the crisis in Myanmar and action, or lack thereof, of major powers within the region.

Click on this link here

RTE News (Ireland)

Monday, 17 September 2007 14:36

Link

US security contractor Blackwater has been banned from operating in Iraq, after eight civilians were killed in Baghdad yesterday.

Blackwater offers personal security to US officials working in Iraq, and is one of the better known firms involved in what critics call the privatization of the war in Iraq.

Yesterday, a US diplomatic convoy came under fire in the Iraqi capital’s western al-Yarmukh neighborhood.

Blackwater members accompanying the convoy returned fire, leaving nine people dead, one of whom was an Iraqi police officer.

All of the other fatalities were civilian bystanders.

<update>
Guards’ Shots Not Provoked, Iraq Concludes
<update>

Iraqi Brigadier-General, Abdul-Karim Khalaf, confirmed that a mortar had landed close to the convoy and said the US firm had ‘opened fire randomly at citizens’.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has strongly condemned the company’s actions and denounced what he called the criminal response of the US contractors.

And today Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani issued an order to cancel Blackwater’s licence and prohibit the company from operating anywhere in Iraq.

Mr Bolani also confirmed that a criminal investigation had been launched following the incident.

A US embassy official only said that security vehicles of the ‘Department of State’ were involved in an incident near al-Nissur Square.

Blackwater representatives were not immediately available for comment.

Thousands of private security contractors, many of them US and European, have worked in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Following a number of similar incidents in recent years, foreign private security firms have been accused of operating outside the law with little or no accountability either to the Iraqi government or US military forces.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atwvhhHXZtGs&refer=home

Russian President Vladimir Putin unexpectedly replaced his prime minister, naming a little-known financial regulator to the post and setting off speculation over how he intends to wield power after leaving office next year.

Putin nominated Viktor Zubkov, the head of the Russian agency that monitors money laundering, to replace Mikhail Fradkov, who resigned today in Moscow along with his government. Zubkov, 65, worked for Putin in the St. Petersburg mayor’s office in the 1990s.

While Putin has vowed to step down when his term ends next March, the Zubkov appointment may be a signal that he plans to ride his popularity among voters to stage a later comeback. Zubkov’s age and loyalty means he doesn’t pose the same potential threat to Putin as younger rivals do.

“Zubkov is almost completely unknown and not a young man,” Ron Smith, chief strategist of Moscow’s Alfa Bank, said in an interview. “This appointment lends credence to the theory that the next president could be a one-term placeholder before the return of Mr. Putin.”

Another possibility is that Putin, 54, intends to use Zubkov to keep the prime minister’s seat filled as he decides on anointing someone else to succeed him. Sergei Ivanov, 54, and Dmitry Medvedev, 41, both first deputy prime ministers under Fradkov, have most often been named in local media as likely successors.

Moscow’s Micex stock index fell for the first time in three days, dropping 0.8 percent.

`Uncertainty’

“The market dropped in reaction to uncertainty,” Alexander Goncharuk, head of AFK Sistema, a telecommunications- to-oil holding, said in a telephone interview. “Fradkov’s government was associated with stability, now the market needs a quick signal there will be new stability.”

Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin in March called Zubkov “undoubtedly legendary” for creating a system to fight money laundering “from the ground up.” Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov, head of the pro-Putin United Russia party that dominates the lower house of parliament, said today that as Russia’s chief financial monitor since 2001, Zubkov “is practically in charge of the state’s finances.”

The Duma may vote to approve Zubkov as prime minister as early as Sept. 14, Gryzlov said on state television.

`Sure of Himself’

Zubkov’s nomination was “totally unexpected,” said Olga Khrystanovskaya, a Moscow-based analyst who monitors Russian politics. “This means that Putin feels totally sure of himself.”

“It’s important only that Putin knows him, not the rest of the country,” said Georgy Satarov, head of Moscow-based corruption watchdog Indem.

Zubkov may remain as prime minister in the next administration “as a guarantor of stability when the nuclear suitcase is passed from one hand to another,” Satarov said.

Stanislav Belkovsky, a former Kremlin adviser who heads the Moscow-based Institute for National Strategy, said Zubkov is the only member of the “St. Petersburg team” that runs the country whom Putin considers a teacher, not a pupil.

“It doesn’t matter that Zubkov isn’t well known,” Belkovsky said by phone. “Putin can psychologically trust him, and it shows that the president’s pupils have disappointed him.”

When the two men worked together in St. Petersburg, Putin would address Zubkov using the formal “you” in Russian, while Zubkov would use the informal “you” with Putin, Belkovsky said.

St. Petersburg Link

Zubkov was the founder of a dacha, or vacation house, development outside St. Petersburg that included Putin, OAO Russian Railways chief Vladimir Yakunin and banker Yury Kovalchuk, according to Belkovsky. Zubkov is also the father-in- law of Anatoly Serdyukov, who replaced Ivanov as defense minister in February.

Putin, a former KGB agent, himself was catapulted to power in August 1999, when former President Boris Yeltsin made him his fifth prime minister in 17 months. Putin, who had been head of the Federal Security Service, became acting president when Yeltsin resigned on Dec. 31, vaulting him to the presidency three months later.

Putin last dismissed the government in February 2004, three weeks before the previous presidential elections. He replaced Mikhail Kasyanov with Fradkov, who was Russia’s envoy to the European Union.

`Good Mood’

Finance Minister Kudrin, viewed by analysts as one of the few liberals left in the government, told reporters there was a “good mood” among ministers, who joked at a meeting today about how many times the Cabinet had already been reshuffled.

In accepting Fradkov’s resignation, Putin said “we need to prepare the country for the time after the parliamentary election and after the presidential election.” Putin later was shown on state television in the Volga River town of Cheboksary, 580 kilometers (360 miles) east of Moscow, touring a school and inspecting a school bus.

Masha Lipman of the Carnegie Moscow Center said politics, not the performance of the government, led to Putin’s decision to dissolve parliament.

“It’s obvious this has to do with the configuration of power before the presidential elections and the self- perpetuation of the ruling elite, not the performance of the Cabinet,” Lipman said.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow told reporters today that Putin’s decision to dissolve the government is “internal Russian politics.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Bradley Cook in Moscow at bcook7@bloomberg.net ; Lucian Kim in Moscow at lkim3@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: September 12, 2007 14:45 EDT

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070816/71949222.html

BISHKEK, August 16 (RIA Novosti) - Russia sees no threat emanating from Iran, the “rogue state” the United States is building its missile shield in Europe against, the Russian foreign minister said Thursday.

The U.S. announced in January plans to place a radar and a host of interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic to fend off what Washington sees as a growing missile threat from “rogue states,” including Iran.

“In analyzing the Iranian leader’s statement and the quite precise information at our disposal, we can see no such long-term threat,” Sergei Lavrov told the media on the sidelines of a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) underway in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said earlier Thursday that the deployment of a U.S. missile shield in Europe threatened not only Iran but also the whole of Eurasia.

Asked when Russian and U.S. experts would hold a second round of consultations on the proposed U.S. missile shield, the minister said: “In September.”

Lavrov also said that although Russia and China had not yet considered cooperation in missile defense, the two countries “share a vision of how to provide security.” “We and China are analyzing the U.S. global missile defense plans targeting Europe and the East,” the diplomat said.

The SCO, a regional group largely seen as a counterweight to U.S. influence in Asia, comprises Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and has Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia as observers.

African Union (AU) chairman Alpha Oumar Konare says enough African troops have been promised to a Sudan peacekeeping force for no outside help to be needed.

He said African countries can provide the 26,000 peacekeepers needed for the combined AU-United Nations force. The AU already has 7,000 troops in Darfur.

The UN had expected to call on Asian troops. Critics say Africa lacks enough trained troops for an effective force.

Sudan’s government has long opposed the involvement of non-African soldiers.

Viable plan?

Speaking after talks in Khartoum with the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, Mr Konare said: “I can confirm today that we have received sufficient commitments from African countries that we will not have to resort to non-African forces.”

He added that the “ball is now in the court of the UN” to provide funding for the force.

Mr Bashir, who has long argued that a UN-backed force would be a violation of Sudan’s sovereignty and could worsen the situation there, backed Mr Konare’s plan.

“(We) support the AU force, which consolidates the efforts of the Sudanese government to ensure security, peace and stability in Darfur,” he said after their meeting.

Mr Konare did not give a breakdown of the countries offering to supply more personnel, leading correspondents to question the viability of an all-African force.

The BBC’s Africa editor, David Bamford, said it was unclear where so many African troops would come from.

Our correspondent questioned whether African nations would have the political commitment to stand alone against the forces seeking to continue to disrupt lives in Darfur.

Deadline looming

Mr Konare’s announcement came just days after the UN published a list of Asian countries it said had already committed troops and police officers to a Darfur force.

UN officials said the joint AU-UN force would be “predominantly African”, but confirmed that countries including Indonesia, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh had pledged personnel.

According to a UN resolution, the composition of the force must be decided by 30 August.

At least 200,000 people are believed to have died and more than two million have been left homeless in Darfur since fighting broke out in 2003.

Sudan’s Arab government, and the pro-government Janjaweed militias, are accused of war crimes against the region’s black African population - although the UN has stopped short of calling it genocide.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/news/2003/07/03-07-19.shtml

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.

Q: But the inspectors didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That’s because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that’s why we invaded Iraq?

A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?

A: That’s because the weapons are so well hidden. Don’t worry, we’ll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?

A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I’m confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn’t they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?

A: Well, obviously they didn’t want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn’t make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?

A: It’s a different culture. It’s not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don’t know about you, but I don’t think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.

A: Well, you know, it doesn’t matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?

A: Even if Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?

A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?

A: Don’t go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it’s a good country, even if that country tortures people?

A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?

A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn’t that exactly what happens in China?

A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What’s the difference between China and Iraq?

A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba’ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn’t you once tell me Communists were bad?

A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?

A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?

A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?

A: I told you, China’s a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn’t a good economic competitor?

A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn’t that help the Cubans become capitalists?

A: Don’t be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn’t think I was being one.

A: Well, anyway, they also don’t have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?

A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he’s not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What’s a military coup?

A: That’s when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn’t the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?

A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?

A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn’t you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?

A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?

A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?

A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men, fifteen of them Saudi Arabians, hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?

A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren’t the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people’s heads and hands?

A: Yes, that’s exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people’s heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn’t the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?

A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?

A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?

A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people’s heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people’s heads and hands off for other reasons?

A: Yes. It’s OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people’s hands for growing flowers, but it’s cruel if they cut off people’s hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don’t they also cut off people’s hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?

A: That’s different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don’t Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?

A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What’s the difference?

A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman’s body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.

A: Now, don’t go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.

A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?

A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?

A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.

A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?

A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?

A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we’re mad at them now. We’re also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn’t help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?

A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn’t do what we want them to do?

A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn’t Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn’t that when he gassed the Kurds?

A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?

A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?

A: Sometimes that’s true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?

A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America’s side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?

A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?

A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you’re saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?

A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Available here at the International Herald Tribune

MANILA, Philippines: The U.S. dismissed suggestions that its commitment to Asia is waning. Russia said it wants to get more involved in the region. So did China, and everyone agreed that nuclear weapons should be kept out.

Wednesday was the day for intense discussions on the sidelines of Asia’s biggest security meeting, and foreign ministers got a chance to advance their countries’ agendas on everything from security and terrorism to economic development and free trade.

At the center was the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations, host of the annual ASEAN Regional Forum, which held bilateral meetings with the United States, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Some delegates expressed disappointment that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled her attendance to travel to the Middle East.

But Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, who took her place, said the U.S. “considers its relations with ASEAN as a critical component of its dealings with East Asia as a whole.”

“Our engagement in this part of the world is strong, and we are committed to deepening our ties even further in the time ahead,” he said.

Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeoh shrugged off suggestions that Rice’s absence was a slight to the region while adding that U.S. engagement in critical.

“These are challenging times that we live in, and U.S. leadership is critical,” he said. “The ASEAN-U.S. relationship is a key pillar in the regional architecture. For ASEAN, this partnership is crucial for the balance of the evolving geopolitical structure.”

ASEAN is trying to bolster its collective clout as other countries seek better relations and trade in a region seen as full of potential investment and sales opportunities. Started 40 years ago as a bulwark against communism, the group is finally drafting a charter as it is tries to evolve into an economic force capable of competing shoulder-to-shoulder with other blocs like the EU.

At the same time, it is trying to ensure that it maintains internal unity despite wide disparities among its members in economic development and political systems and doesn’t lose control over the ARF, the security grouping it formed that has since expanded to 27 participants.

Russia was among those making a pitch for more cooperation.

“This is certainly an upgrade of the attention on the part of the Russian government,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he told the group. “We would like to instruct our senior officials and not-so-senior officials who could deal with Russia-ASEAN relations to work in a more intense mode.”

He said they had decided on key areas of cooperation, including science and technology, energy, disaster prevention and anti-terrorism.

Not everyone was happy about increased economic integration. Riot police used shields and batons to turn back a group of about 100 protesters who tried to approach the meeting site, claiming free-trade deals and other agreements are deepening the rich-poor divide and only benefiting prosperous countries. Some carried banners against Negroponte.

ARF members have agreed to create a new group to help prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong said.

M.C. Abad, an ARF official, said North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is among the areas the new group can examine as officials try to maintain momentum after the North shut down its Yongbyon reactor.

ARF earlier vowed to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency and other watchdogs to strengthen international nuclear and chemical safeguards and boost ARF members’ national mechanisms against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Thailand said it backs an ASEAN proposal to include a ban on unconstitutional regime changes in the charter despite a recent military coup. The bloodless coup that ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra last Sept. 19 has been seen as one of the recent setbacks to the march of democracy in the region.

“We have had glitches, we have had some difficulties on this road to democracy,” Thai Foreign Minister Nitya Pibulsonggram said. “But you will notice, please, that every time there has been a change, we’ve always come back to the same path.”

ASEAN also signed an accord with Australia to bolster economic and security ties, which were at one time strained over Canberra’s aggressive anti-terror stance.

ASEAN consists of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.