Letter from Director

Honorable delegates
It is an honor for me to serve you as Director in the 4th SDC (Short Diplomatic Course). Well it
is obvious that being a director will not be an easy task to any roles MUN ever offered. Basically
the person who elected to be a Director is required to have the capability in analyzing the whole
simulation and directing the delegates at the same time. My name is Muhammad Arief, when I
got myself in this super extraordinary position, I promised to my teammate in conference that I
will make this event exciting and amazing. And of course to achieve that goal, I need spectacular
partners. I will be accompanied: Ivena Ersandi as my moderator, and Rafiqa Meidina as my
rapporteur.
In the 4th SDC, we are aiming to improve and to strengthen the knowledge about MUN to the
new members. So in this SDC we will choose a serious topic that will trigger the new members
to think more critic and can give a great argument. I hope this program can I hope this program
can bring images of what is it looks like when doing a simulation of UN Conference and develop
the understanding regarding MUN itself. This time, we will adopt The Disarmament and
International Security Committee, also known as the First Committee of the General Assembly
of the United Nations, and for the topic we choose Safeguarding Nuclear Material and
developments in Information and Telecommunications Technology in the context of
International Security.
I knew that those topics are super difficult, but I do believe that all delegates can overcome this
obstacle and can have a productive and fruitful debate in the sessions. At last, I wish you all good
luck and I hope that you find MUN is exciting and attracting, as you feel attracted to join other
MUNs, not only the national but also international after this program.Please feel free to e-mail
me to questions you might have. I am certainly looking forward to an exciting debate. See you at
the chambers delegates!
Yours truly
Muhammad Arief
Director, GA
aif.ayib08@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The General Assembly of the United Nations is the main council of this global governance
organization that upholds all of worlds discrete concerns towards a betterment of humankind
livelihood. It is composed of representatives of all member states, each of which has one vote.
Decisions on important questions, such as those on peace and security, admission of new
members and budgetary matters and etc. Due to the enormity of questions, it is called upon to
consider the General Assembly is disentangled into six Main Committees in principle to seek the
possibility possible to harmonize various approaches of the member states on discussing and
producing the resolutions in each committee by certain approaches.
In this SDC 2015, the General Assembly will adopt The Disarmament and International Security
Committee, also known as the First Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The Disarmament and International Security Committee was established in 1993. It is the First
and one of the main committees of the General Assembly. The role of DISEC is outlined in
Chapter IV, Article 11 of the United Nations Charter which states, The General Assembly may
consider the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and
security, including the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments and
may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security

Council or to both. As per this article, the mandate of DISEC is highlighted as, to promote the
establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for
armaments of the world's human and economic resources.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY DISAMARMENT AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL STUDY GUIDE
Topic Area A: Safeguarding Nuclear Materials
Introduction to Topic
The branch of science often referred to as nuclear physics and the corresponding issue of nuclear
energy trace back to the turn of the 20th century, when the first discoveries in atomic radiation,
atomic change, and nuclear fission were made. Ionizing radiation was discovered by Wilhelm
Rontgen in 1895, and was later investigated and developed by scientists such as Marie CurieSklodowska, Henri Becquerel, Ernest Rutherford, Niels Bohr, Enrico Fermi, and Albert Einstein,
among many others. By 1939, it was clear that fission not only released a lot of energy but that it
also produced additional neutrons which could cause fission in other uranium nuclei and possibly
a self-sustaining chain reaction leading to an enormous release of energy.97 This realization
sparked activity in many laboratories, and the final piece that made the idea of a fission bomb a
plausible project was added in 1939 by Francis Perrin.
This concept of the critical mass of uranium required to produce a self-sustaining release of
energy. some countries, especially Britain, Germany, Russia and the United States, began
pressuring their governments to make use of this immense strategic opportunity, quoting as in
the Frisch-Peierls Memorandum to the British government that an amount of about 5 kg of pure
U-235 could make a very powerful atomic bomb equivalent to several thousand tons of dynamite.
98. As further discoveries were made that provided evidence proving the enormous potential of
the nuclear design and that achieved further advancements in regards to conceptualizing the
process of construction of a nuclear bomb, the project began attracting the attention of the
American government. What eventually swayed the cabinet of President Roosevelt to the idea of
pursuing a nuclear weapons program was a popular suspicion that Nazi Germany was conducting
one too. The final decision was made after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and America
entered the war directly in December 1941.

The Manhattan Project

The result of the Anglo-American scientific cooperation in the nuclear field was the Manhattan
Project, established under the supervision of the United States Army. Full-scale reactors were
constructed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, together with heavy water plants designed to
fabricate neutron moderators for the chain reaction process. A team led by Robert Oppenheimer
worked at Los Alamos in New Mexico on the design and construction of both uranium and
plutonium bombs and this huge effort yielded successful results in mid-1945 when the first
nuclear bomb was finished and tested. The military aspect of the program was soon effectuated;
in August 1945 both the uranium and the plutonium bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, respectively. It became clear that a line in the military technology was crossed and that
from then on, there was no return. In 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first nuclear bomb, based
largely on the Nagasaki one, and a slow but persistent process of nuclear proliferation was
initiated. Subsequent countries the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North
Korea have since produced and tested nuclear weapons of their own.
Nuclear Energy Production
The first nuclear reactor to produce electricity, albeit a trivial amount, was the small
Experimental Breeder reactor (EBR-1) in Idaho, in the United States, which began operating in
December 1951.102 In 1953 President Eisenhower proposed his Atoms for Peace program,
which reoriented significant research effort towards electricity generation and set the course for
civil nuclear energy development in the United States.103 The first commercial nuclear reactors
started operating in the 1960s in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and in
the Soviet Union. After a period of stagnation in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the new century
brought a revival of prospects for nuclear power, due to several reasons: the realized scale of
projected increased electricity demand worldwide, the awareness of the importance of energy
independence and the growing concern about carbon emissions and global warming.104
Nuclear Terrorism
The threat of nuclear terrorism has existed for several decades, but it seems to have significantly
escalated in recent years. This is due to several factors, which can be divided into two groups: on
the and on the demand side. On the supply side, it is obvious that nuclear technology isbeing

constantly spread around the world, even in view of the numerous anti-proliferation efforts by
the internationalcommunity. Apart from the original five nuclear powers from the NonProliferation Treaty: United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France and China,
several other countries, including India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, have either confirmed the
fact of having developed nuclear weapons, or are widely believed to have done so.
The greater number of countries with nuclear arsenals is not the direct reason for the increased
nuclear terrorism risk, but the levels of protection of these weapons and their related materials as
well as the attitudes of some governments towards international terrorism pose significant threats
to the international security. To mention only a few examples, Russia continues to deploy several
of its most portable nuclear weapons on its front lines, where their security is severely reduced;
these weapons are considered as the most attractive to terrorists, according to Senators Richard
Lugar and Sam Nunn, authors of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. Furthermore, new
investigations have revealed unauthorized sales of sensitive nuclear technology by Pakistani
nuclear scientists supportive of fundamentalist ideology, which raises doubts about the security
of this countrys nuclear arsenal.
Nuclear materials that could potentially be used in fabricating a nuclear bomb are even a greater
cause of concern. Hundreds of tons of highly enriched uranium and plutonium in Russia and
some former Soviet Republics have astoundingly little or no protection, making them easy
targets for extremely well organized and determined terrorists. Several reactors throughout the
world still use highly enriched, weapons-usable uranium, very attractive to the nuclear terrorists;
even some fissile material stocks stored in the United States, under seemingly much greater
security measures, may be vulnerable to terrorist attacks because of numerous proven flaws in
their protection.Naturally, the most significant threat to international nuclear security.
The Nature of the Threat
The crucial reason for protecting nuclear materials is the threat of their usage in conducting
terrorist attacks. Nowadays, terrorist organizations are extremely well organized and effectively
financed, which opens completely new, appalling possibilities of operation. Nuclear terrorism is
commonly being defined by diving it into four faces:
A theft and detonation of a ready-made nuclear weapon (INW Intact Nuclear Weapon),

 A theft or purchase of fissile material and the subsequent fabrication and detonation of a
crude nuclear weapon (IND Improvised Nuclear Device),
An acquisition of nuclear materials leading to the fabrication and detonation of a dirty
bomb (RDD Radiological Dispersion Device or RED - Radiation Emission Device),
An attack on a nuclear facility, with the sole intention of causing a release of large
amounts of radioactivity.
The fourth method does not require any nuclear acquisition by terrorists and resembles
conventional terrorism both in its methods and related measures of prevention. Dirty bombs
conventional explosives coupled with radioactive materials also resemble conventional arms
rather than nuclear weapons in the requirements of their fabrication, delivery and detonation in
the target area. Naturally, they include nuclear materials, but these are only radioactive materials
that have no fission potential anymore and can only serve dispersing dangerous radiation and no
nuclear energy in the target area. The level of protection of these materials is quite different from
the usual security standard of fissile materials in respective countries; furthermore, the methods
of acquisition and detonation of such bombs would be significantly different.
There are four general key stages of a nuclear terrorist attack. Each stage is simultaneously a
condition that must be fulfilled for the act to be performed; should any link in the chain be
spoiled, the whole plan would be unsuccessful:
(1) A terrorist extreme group with sufficient resources human, financial and other must be
formed,and it must decide to engage in an act of nuclear terrorism.
(2) The group must obtain a nuclear weapon or fissile material or other radioactive material and
adapt it for its specific purposes: bypass any safeguards in an INW; fabricate an IND or an RDD.
(3) The terrorists must deliver the weapon to its desired target.
(4) The weapon must be detonated
Nuclear weapons are based on the process commonly known as the chain reaction. When a
neutron is projected into a uranium nucleus, one of the three possible results can be observed: it
will be absorbed, scattered, or will induce fission. The latter situation initiates a chain reaction,
by splitting the nucleus into smaller pieces and releasing new neutrons and energy these

neutrons induce subsequent fissions, and as a result, additional releases of energy. This energy
release can constitute an explosion. Two additional crucial things need to be added to this
description. First, neutrons that strike different isotopes of uranium have different probabilities of
inducing fissions those that hit U-235 are much more likely to do so than those that strike U238, which can additionally be captured by U-238 and disappear completely. Therefore, using
the former isotope of uranium is much more efficient in sustaining the chain reaction for this
reason, uranium with large fractions of U-235 is called highly-enriched and is generally
considered weapons-grade.

***********

Current Situation
Nuclear Weapons
The accumulated threat posed by the estimated 27,000 nuclear weapons in the United States,
Russia, and the other Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear weapons states, merits worldwide concern.
It is common to divide the process of proliferation of nuclear weapons into three waves of
increasing level of threat. The first one, consisting of the United Kingdom, France, and China is
often considered tolerable as the original group of five nuclear weapon states, including also the
United States and Russia, is characterized by stable political systems. According to this view, the
second wave was already undesirable, because nuclear weapons were acquired by India, Pakistan
and, probably, Israel countries that claim that they are seriously endangered by terrorist acts
and which might find it difficult to effectively protect their arsenals. These states could not be
held responsible for violating the Non- Proliferation Treaty because they had never been parties
to it. The third wave of proliferation, which included Iraq. Iran, Libya, and North Korea is
commonly seen as a mortal danger and has met with a much more forceful reaction by the
international community. In addition to these, any country that currently possesses nuclear
enrichment facilities is technically able to produce materials that could be used in the production
of weapons if intercepted by terrorists this issue concerns for example Japan and Brazil. It
seems unjustified, however, to suggest that nuclear weapons in possession of some states pose no

threat, while in the hands of others they place the world in mortal jeopardy: governments change
and all of them can act either sensibly or irresponsibly, and levels of protection of nuclear
arsenals vary. Ultimately, while existing nuclear arsenals and stockpiles of fissile material
represent the most immediate concern, the spread of nuclear weapons and material has increased
the probability of terrorists acquiring or constructing a nuclear device.

*************
Past UN Actions
The Non-Proliferation Treaty
Adopted in 1970, the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone of the global nonproliferation regime. The treaty was based on the common understanding by many countries that
more fingers on nuclear triggers would results in a more dangerous world and, therefore, it was
beneficialfor all states to reduce the nuclear threat by restricting access to military nuclear
technologies. The original deal involved a resolution by non-nuclear weapon states not to pursue
military nuclear program, and a commitment by the five nuclear states USA, Russia, United
Kingdom, France, and China to conduct nuclear disarmament.These states were chosen based
on the credential that they acquired nuclear facilities before 1970s. All parties also agreed to
share peaceful nuclear technologies between themselves to facilitate non-military uses of nuclear
power. Further provisions ensured that parties to the agreement entered into safeguard
commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency and promised to exercise control over
their nuclear-related exports: the Safeguards Agreement.The NPT was indefinitely extended in
1995, following decisions on its principles and objectives for non-proliferation and disarmament,
and a resolution to strengthen its review process. At present, only four countries in the world are
not parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan.
Despite its wide international appeal, the Non-Proliferation Treaty suffers from four general
groups of problems that hinder its proper role. In fact, the NPT is the weakest of all international
agreements concerning weapons of mass destruction in regards to its provisions about
implementation.

**********
Bloc and Country Stances
North Korea
North Korea acceded to the NPT in 1985, and in 1992 its long-delayed safeguards agreement
with the IAEA entered into force and IAEA inspections started. In North Korea and its southern
neighbor agreed not to develop nuclear weapons and not to possess uranium enrichment facilities.
A few years later, IAEAs safeguard inspections revealed that North Korea must have produced
more plutonium than it had declared, which prompted North Korea to announce its intent to
withdraw from the NPT.In 1994, after US-organized negotiations, North Korea signed an Agreed
Framework declaring a freeze to its nuclear program, an acceptance of IAEAs inspectors and
rejoining the NPT. By 2005, however, it became clear that North Korea had been secretly
developing its nuclear capabilities, which was confirmed when the countrys government
claimed being in possession of nuclear weapons.
Iran
Iran has a long-standing tradition of developing its nuclear capability by enriching uranium
without reporting this activity to the IAEA. Irans government firmly asserts that its efforts are
intended only to give the country an indigenous source of low-enriched uranium fuel for its
planned nuclear power plants, and rejects any accusations that Iran intends to use these
capabilities to produce highly-enriched uranium to develop nuclear weapons.203 The Iranian
government believes that concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation are pretextual, and
international calls for suspension of enrichment are simply intended to ultimately deprive Iran of
the right to have an independent nuclear technology, and thus maintains that its right to peaceful
nuclear technology is inalienable. Iran is likely to object to any attempts to prevent it from
possessing enrichment plants of its own, stating that it cannot simply trust the United States or
Europe to provide Iran with nuclear energy fuel.

Russia
Since its political transformations after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has
been extensively involved in securing the former-Soviet nuclear arsenals and material to prevent
undesirable individuals from getting access to them, for example through its active support of the
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program from 1992. It was the government of
president Yeltsin that proposed a treaty to prevent rogue terrorists from getting their hands on
nuclear material from insecure facilities spread across the former Soviet Union, which resulted in
the adoption of the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism by the General
Assembly seven years later. The Russian Delegation to the United Nations was also one of main
authors of several international agreements on preventing nuclear terrorism, such as the Global
Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism.

Arab League
All member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference are committed to responding to
the Iranian nuclear program by preaching full respect for equal and inalienable rights for all
nations to explore modern technologies including nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Question a Resolution Must Answer (Qarmas)

1. How can member states strengthen cooperation and collaboration to reduce the global
concern over nuclear materials?
2. What international standards should be adopted/ reformed by the United Nations to assist
member states in protecting their nuclear arsenals and stockpiles of nuclear materials?
3. Should any international schemes be established under the aegis of the United Nations to
provide member states with an opportunity to buy nuclear fuel and to discourage
individual enrichment programs?
4. What additional measures can be adopted to secure the world cargo shipping in regards to
nuclear safety?

Topic Area B: Developments in Information and Telecommunications

Technology in the Context of International Security
Introduction to Topic
The case of Developments in Information and TelecommunicationsTechnology in the Context of
International Security is of high relevance in thecurrent global scenario. It is pertinent that
information does not fall into thewrong hands of those who may use it to achieve malicious
objectives. Certaintechnologies are also being used for offensive action against state or
privateassets, which some claim to cross the line into warfare. We face multi-facetedchallenges
when dealing with the international security concerns. There are risingconcerns from different
groups regarding the security of their data as well as themaintenance of international peace and
security in the wake of recent technological advancements. Michele Markoff, Deputy
Coordinator for Cyber Issues, Office of the Secretary ofState, on 30th October 2013 in New
York, at the First Committee ThematicDiscussion on Other Disarmament Issues and
International Security, States mustunite in the common goal of preserving and enhancing the
benefits of informationtechnologies by assuring their security and integrity, while also
maintaining anenvironment that promotes efficiency, innovation, economic prosperity, freetrade,
and respect for human rights.
As the technology advances at leaps and bounds, it has become even moreimportant to secure
our private information and preventing it from falling into thewrong hands. Economic
development and security enhancement is dependent ondevelopment in telecommunications and
information technology. Ensuringsecurity is paramount in todays times. Technology itself can
also present particularchallenges to policymaking for making systems and states more secure
because itis ever changing and developing with newer avenues in science being explored
andolder methodologies being discarded. These methodologies also need to beconsistent with the
need to preserve the free flow of information. Interception ofinformation has greatly helped
governments in countering crime but has alsoraised concern about the legitimacy of such
searches and the breach of privacy ofthe public. Through such issues, individual liability and
state liability have been putto question.

Development in telecommunications and information technology for enhancing the security has
engaged the international community at severaldifferent levels.Many countries are working
towards enhancing their cyber security capabilities.The Islamic Republic of Iran has coordinated
its cyber capabilities within themilitary by Passive Defense Organization. An Iranian military
commander statedthat Iran has the second largest cyber army in the world. The Islamic
RevolutionaryGuard is in charge of the cyber warfare unit whose budget amounts to $ 76m.
ThePeoples Republic of Chinas 2004 White Paper on National Defense stated that Information
alization has become the key factor in enhancing the war-fightingcapability of the armed forces.

Current Situation
Past Treaties and Resolution
Since 2004, Groups of Governmental Experts (GGE) have reported to the UN
General Assembly DISEC Committee on developments in information andtelecommunications
in the context of international security, examining thepotential as well as existing threats from
cyber sphere and finding possiblecooperative measures to address them. The first GGE was
unable to reachconsensus of its final report. The second GGE however issued a report in July
2010, the report, among other things, recommends Confidence-building,stability and risk
reduction measures to address the implications of State use ofICTs, including exchanges of
national views on the use of ICTs in conflict. In 2011,the General Assembly unanimously
passed a resolution calling for a follow-up ofthe findings of the second GGE, A/Res/66/24. This
third GGE took into account thefindings and recommendations contained in the report and began
their work in2012. They submitted their report in June 2013, A/68/98* during the sixtyeighthsession of the General Assembly.
The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) publisheda preliminary
assessment in 2012 on Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare andreviewed, using open-source data,
how the member states on the UN dealt withcyber security, whether they have a military
command or doctrine for suchactivities and whether they have a plan to acquire offensive cyber
capabilities.According to this report, only 33 member states include cyber warfare in
theirmilitary planning and organization. Additionally, the majority of states have

severeweaknesses in important infrastructure systems which are at risk from Cyber

Attack,including water, energy, and financial systems. An attack to national infrastructurecould
cause severe harm to a countrys citizens and economic health.
Computer emergency response teams (CERT) are present in variouscountries which provide
security services to government and corporate sectors toprotect their data from internal and
external threats and also prevent, detect andrecover computer security incidents. CERT/CC was
first formed at Carnegie MellonUniversity under a US government act and has now licensed
other teams aroundthe world.Russian Federations Convention on International Information
Securitysought

to

regulate

the

activity

of

governments

to

ensure

international

informationsecurity and to act against the use of information and communication technologyto
violate international peace and security and also guarantee the free exchangeof technology and
information, while maintaining respect for sovereignty of Statesand their existing political,
historical and cultural specificities.
Penetration of Communication Systems and prevention of possible terrorist
Activities
Often successful security breaches have been made into terrorist networksand the dangers of
potential physical and Cyber Attacks averted. Hacking intoenemy servers has led to acquisition
of vital information and location. Britains MI6reportedly infiltrated a website belonging to Al
Qaeda and replaced the recipe tomake bombs with the recipe to make cupcakes. Terrorist groups
are responding byincreasing their cyber capabilities, increasing the risk of an attack against
statetargets.

CYBER WARFARE
In a world dominated by technological growth and advancement, attack oninformation systems
has become a legitimate cause of concern for security. Withthe increasing importance of
cyberspace, a number of risks have becomeconcurrent which not only jeopardizes the benefits
that cyberspace can offer butalso pose a threat to the national security of a country. Cyber
warfare may includeattempts to access, damage, undermine and sabotage another

nation,organizations information through metadata acquisition, computer viruses, denialof

service attacks. Espionage is seen as a major threat that must be redeemed.These treats are multi
polar in nature and can be motivated from several directionsand they may include nation states,
non-state actors, proxies, intelligenceagencies. It must be noted that these attack may also be
politically, socially orreligiously motivated. The internet is also becoming a tool for military
activitiesand cyber security has become more central to national and international security.More
advance methods of cryptography are being explored and enacted.Protection of data has become
more important for international security than ever.
According to European cyber security expert Sandro Gaycken, offensive operations can, seen
from a long-term perspective, can potentially crippleeconomies, change political views, instigate
conflicts among or within states andalso equalize technological capacities of nations.With the
betterment in telecommunications and information processing,hackers are also benefitting which
makes it imperative to manage Cyber Attack,and marshalling of an appropriate response to it.
Cybercriminals route theircommunications through a variety of jurisdictions to avoid the
detection of theircrimes and identities. Cyber counterintelligence is important in keeping
sensitiveinformation safe and preventing subversion and sabotage. Another rising trend is the
perpetuation of Cyber Attacks by nationalist groups, such as when Israeli hackers organize
together to launch an attack against Palestine in October 2000 during a period of conflict. DOS
attacks were launched on computers owned byPalestinian resistance organizations (Hamas) and
Lebanese resistance organizations (Hezbullah). Anti-Israel hackers responded by crashing
several Israeliweb sites by flooding them with bogus traffic.

Bloc and Country Stances

United States, UK, and France
United States, United Kingdom, and France: The United States has significantcyber warfare
capabilities; recent allegations have also highlighted its controversial practice of intercepting
civilian communications (collected fromNATO partners and other allies). It has come under
significant internationalpressure from some of its allies after allegations that it tapped
thecommunications of several word leaders. It has vigorously defended the NationalSecurity

Agency as an important aspect of its national defense plan, raisingquestions about whether it is
ultimately about security from foreign threats orinternal security. Allies including the U.K. and
France have some of the mostadvanced cyber-warfare capabilities, and have followed the lead of
the US incollecting information. See also relations with China and Russia below.

China
The relations between the United States and China are harmed by theirdisagreements over
information technology. U.S. government departments haveidentified Chinas Peoples
Liberation Army (PLA) as the source of Cyber Attacksagainst the US government and key
private companies. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (members include primarily China
and Russia) defines cyberwar toinclude dissemination of information harmful to the spiritual,
moral and culturalspheres of other states. In September 2011, these countries proposed to the
UN13Secretary General a document called International code of conduct forinformation
security. The approach was not endorsed by most western countriesas it entailed too many hints
on political censorship of the internet.
Russia
Russia co-sponsored a resolution to give states a greater role in governingthe role of the internet
at a meeting of the International Telecommunication Unionin April 2013, joined by China, North
Korea and Iran. This was rejected by theUnited States and other NATO allies causing some
friction. Russias decision to giveasylum to Edward Snowden has also worsened relations with
the United Statesover cyber security issues.
Brazil and Developing Countries
As an emerging BRIC economy, Brazil hasbecome something of a spokesman for the concerns
of developing countries whenit comes to cyber threats. The revelation that the United States may
have tappedthe phone of the Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff was met with anger in Braziland
in other world capitals, and calls were made for states to limit their online datacollection
activities or risk breaching international conventions on proper targets of espionage.

Question a Resolution Must Answer

1. What constitutes a cyber-attack, cyber espionage, and hacking? How should these actions
be responded to? When does the use of information technology constitute an act of
aggression?
2. What principles can guide an international agreement on the limitations of these
information technology for the sake of maintaining international peace and security?
3. What role should existing bodies, such as the United Nations Security Council have in
determining the responsibility for destabilizing Cyber Attacks?
4. How should member states respond to the potential threat from non-state actors that
acquire offensive cyber technology?