SPECPOL by Pranav Kondala

Page 1 of 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENT

PAGE NO

LETTER FROM THE SECTRETARY GENERAL………3

AGENDA 1:SITUATION IN KASHMIR…………………4

AGENDA 2:SITUATION IN FALKLANDS………….....13

REFERENCES…………………………………………….18

Page 2 of 18

LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY GENERAL Dear Delegates, It gives me immense pleasure to welcome you all to the second edition of CBITMUN. I am a third year mechanical engineering student but debate is something I enjoy the most. As student of engineering it tool a tremendous effort for the team of the 2011 conference to ensure that it was such a success. The number of MUNs is growing at a rapid rate in India with the whole nation embracing this concept with open arms and with more and more students involving themselves in MUNs, we could initiate a revolution that would lead to young minds assuming greater responsibility. CBITMUN returns with 7 councils this year which shall ensure high quality debate and a very satisfactory council experience. I take great pride in taking over as the SecretaryGeneral of CBITMUN and my team and I shall ensure that AugustSeptember 2012 is an experience each and every one of you will cherish. Last year we promised an experience, This year we promise a phenomenon

CBIT Model UN 2012 SREEKAR REDDY Secretary-General SURAJ PERI Deputy Secretary-General YASWANT ADIRAJU Under Secretary-General SHRUTI HARI Head of International Press THANMAY KRISHNA Charge d’affairs SHARAT CHANDAR Charge d’affairs PRANAV KONDALA Head of Designing

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: Sreekar Reddy Secretary-General CBIT Model UN 2012 sreekar.reddy@cbitmun.com

GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

Page 3 of 18

AGENDA 1: SITUATION IN KASHMIR

Kashmir is a region of beauty and equally disputed territorial land. It’s been an intractable issue between India and Pakistan. It’s been a centre of warfare rather than a centre for cultural and religion diversity. Kashmir has always remained a bone of contention between India and Pakistan. In fact, there are three legitimate parties involved in this conflict—India, Pakistan, and the people of Kashmir. Each party has taken its own position on the question of Kashmir. After the eruption of violence in the early 1990s, the conflict assumed alarming proportions. It worsened Indo-‐Pak relations and brought the two countries to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe. Precisely for this reason, the international community included Kashmir among the major trouble spots of the world and advised both India and Pakistan to exercise utmost restraint and start negotiations towards its resolution.

Page 4 of 18

CBIT Model UN 2012

THE HISTORY

SREEKAR REDDY Secretary-General

The princely state Jammu and Kashmir ,essentially comprised of the predominant Muslim valley of Kashmir , the Hindu state of Jammu and Buddhist state of Ladakh has seen many rulers. Kashmir was first ceded by the ‘Treaty of Lahore’ to the East India Company. This was during the First Anglo Sikh war between 1845 and 1846. of Amritsar’ which clearly cited that the region including Kashmir valley, part of Sikh territories, Ladakh will be under the rule of Gulab Singh. Hence thereafter he was given the title of Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir. From then till October 1947, Kashmir was ruled by British installed Hindu ruler though it must be noted that the region was Muslim populated except for regions of Ladakh and Jammu. During the British rule in India Jammu and Kashmir was more than 560 princely states. In 1947, after the world war II, when the British rule in India lapsed with the formation of the two nations those namely being Dominion of India and dominion of Pakistan. Here Dominion of India was to be the land of Hindus and Dominion of Pakistan to be the land of Muslims. The Indian Independence Act 1947 clearly emphasized that ‘the suzerainty of the Majesty over the Indian states lapses and with it all treaties and agreements in force at the date of passing of this act between his majesty and the rulers of Indian states.’ This Act didnotconsider any conditional accession. The princely states were left for their choice to join the newly formed unions, hence on October o26, 1947 the Instrument of Accession was passed. It was signed by the Maharaja acceding the Muslim populated region the Indian dominion. India accepted the Accession, regarding it provisional, until the time as the will of the people ascertained by a plebiscite. The various interpretation of the Maharaja signing the accession was firstly that he was pressurized by the Indian Administration to become a part of the Indian dominion. Secondly, the Maharaja himself wanted to handover the Kashmir affairs and then relinquish. After

SURAJ PERI Deputy Secretary-General YASWANT ADIRAJU Under Secretary-General SHRUTI HARI Head of International Press THANMAY KRISHNA Charge d’affairs SHARAT CHANDAR Charge d’affairs PRANAV KONDALA Head of Designing

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

Page 5 of 18

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

ratification of the Instrument of Accession,Indian troops entered into the region of Pakistan which did not take any responsibility before that it was officially supporting insurgency of tribesmen ,calling the was accession illegal and decided to take action also entering into the region. This led to the commencement of the Indo-‐Pakistani war of 1947.Although the tribesmen fought the war against Indians in general, they were backed up in every aspect by Pakistani army .Fighting continued throughout the year between Indian army and Pakistani irregular troops. Through the end of the war, India controlled nearly two thirds of the region while Pakistan assumed control of one-‐thirds. India went on and invoked the Article 35 of the Charter of the United Nations .The UN passed resolutions for setting up of a unit to monitor the conflict of Kashmir .This was followed with the set up of the United Nations Military Observance Group, on 21 April,1948,the UN Security Council passed resolution 47 .The resolution imposed am immediate cease-‐fire and called on Pakistan to withdraw its troops and all kinds of military presence. For India’s part, the resolution ordered India to reduce its troops in the region to minimum that would be sufficient to maintain the law and order. The resolution mainly emphasized on a “plebiscite administration” to the established, which states that “the final disposition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations”. This resolution was adopted under chapter VI of the United Nation.

The war ended and a ceasefire was arranged by the United Nations which recommended that both India and Pakistan should adhere to their commitment to hold a referendum in the state but was never held. On December 18, 1948 a UN backed cease fire was imposed on the parties which left Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Balisthan to Pakistan’s control and Kashmir valley, Jammu and Ladakh to that of India’s. A cease fire line was established with Karachi agreement of 1949 in which the competence of UNCIP was confirmed on installing observers where UNCIP deemed necessary on and around of the cease fire line. The parties confirmed to finalize on the Truce Agreement in conformity with Page 6 of 18

the UNCIP resolution but failed to reach on an agreement due to differences in interpretations of the resolution. In 1965, a war broke out again with Pakistan’s air raid to Jammu. India reacted as considered Jammu as an Indian territory. Both sides claimed victory over the war. Some sources say that Pakistani government falsified information on the war reports and suffered great losses .They clearly state that it was a decisive victory of India. The war ended with the UNSC resolution 211.This resolution ordered cease-‐fire on September 23, 1965. Upon the cease-‐fire, USSR picked up the mediator role and meet with the parties at Tashkent. After a week of negotiations, the parties came up with a cease-‐fire agreement at Tashkent. After negotiations, the parties came up with the cease-‐fire agreement, Tashkent Agreement, on January 10, 1966 . The 1965 war was superseded by the 1971 war which broke out between East Pakistan and West Pakistan in which Pakistan not suffered heavy losses but also lost East Pakistan (Bangladesh).This led to the signing of the “Shimla Agreement”. On July 2, 1972 Indian Prime minister Indira Gandhi and President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto met at Shimla and the Shimla agreement was signed laying down the objectives that would lead their future relations. The agreement highlighted the need for further steps to be taken on normalization of the relations between the two nations. The two nation s agreed to make settlements through peaceful and bilateral discussions. The accord converted the 1949 cease-‐fire line into the line of control (LOC), between India and Pakistan, however did not affect the status of the disputed territory. The provision of the agreement reads as under: “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretation.”

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

In 1974, the Kashmir government signed an accord with the Indian government an accord in which it endorsed Kashmir to be an integral unit of Indian Territory. Pakistan rejected this proposal since bit considered Kashmir was not India’s right and instead a plebiscite must be held, which the UN has initially promised. Page 7 of 18

In the early 1980’s Islamization rooted up in the Kashmir valley. Not only Islam but many more religious and political groups were formed and caused immense unrest in the state. The militant groups had very different ideologies and method to obtain their goals. Some wanted an independent Kashmir and some wanted to unite with Pakistan. And also the Indian government accused the Pakistan government their involvement in riots and insurgency in the state by funding, training and bolstering the militant groups. The nationalists have now turned into a religious one in which Jihadi’s fighters came up and after fighting the war in Afghanistan to Kashmir to help other Muslim brothers. By the 1990’s the tension in the Kashmir valley has slightly reduced until the Kargil war broke out in the 1999.in 1999 Kashmir proved to be another source of agitation between the duos when war broke out in Kashmir-‐Kargil. Indians claimed that Pakistan’s army was involved in backing forces that crossed the LOC and attacked the Indian administered Kashmir .Pakistan consistently denied accusation and claimed that these were the “freedom fighters” who wanted liberation of Kashmir .The war condensed after pressure from United States was vivid and Pakistani forces were told to withhold. Despite of so many peace agreements, bilateral talks that were started in 2000s, conditions have worsened after and before that. There are so many incidents which worsened namely the Jammu and Kashmir state assembly on 1 October, 2001;Qasim Nagar attack in Kashmir on 13 July , 2003;the Srinagar car bombing on 20 July,2005;the Budshah Chowk attack on 29 July ,2005. Apart from all the above the most intense attack carried out by Pakistani terrorists. India blamed Pakistan for carrying out such attacks, an allegation which Pakistan strongly denied and one that brought both nations to the brink of a nuclear confrontation in 2002.And also the Hijacking of the Indian airlines flight IC 814 en route New Delhi from Kathmandu, Nepal. The plane was hijacked on 24 January, 1999 approximately one hour after take off and was taken to

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

Page 8 of 18

Amritsar airport and then Lahore in Pakistan. After refueling the plane took off for Dubai and then finally landed in Kandahar, Afghanistan .In return to the freedom of the Indian passengers Maulana Masood Azhar was released from the captivity. He later became the leader of the Jaish-‐e-‐Mohammad. What ignited the contentious situation the most were the Mumbai recent attacks of 2008, and violence again prevailed over Jammu and Kashmir. CHINA’S STRATEGIC INTEREST China has traditionally supported Pakistan against India, but now in the post-‐Cold War era the Chinese have distanced themselves somewhat from Pakistan in order to cultivate better relations with India . Nevertheless China has a strategic interest in the survival of Pakistan and it will not want to see it drawn into a war nor will it want to see its government humiliated. China has been taking a different stance than India and views Kashmir as a separate entity and not an integral part of India. Chinese consular department has been issuing visas to Kashmiris living in Indian-‐ held their passport claiming since Kashmir is a disputed region the Kashmiris are not considered Indian citizens and therefore should not be granted a visa on their Indian passport. China states that Aksai Chin is a part of China and does not recognize the addition of Aksai Chin to the Kashmir region. This border dispute is known as Line of Actual control. The fence that has been constructed around this line is rejected by Pakistan and India and embraced by India as it considers this to be a way to avoid the insurgency that prevails. WATER DISPUTE-‐THE INDUS WATER TREATY Kashmir is the origin point for many rivers and tributaries of the Indus river basin. The basin is divided between Pakistan which has about 60 percent of the catchment area, India has about 20 percent, Afghanistan with 5 percent and around 15 percent in Tibet. The river tributaries are Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

Page 9 of 18

primarily flow into Pakistan while other branches – the Ravi, Beas and the Sutlej-‐irrigate northern India. The Indus water treaty was signed by both the countries September 1960, giving rights over three western rivers of the Indus water(Jhelum, Chenab and Indus ) to Pakistan ,and over the three eastern rivers (Sutlej ,Ravi and Beas) to India , as long as it doesn’t reduce supply to Pakistan. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS FOR THE KASHMIR ISSUE AND DEMILARISATION OF THE REGION Kashmir has been an era of immense turmoil and its people have experienced suffering more than anything thing else in this region. There are a number of solutions suggested over the years, but every possible solution may be contentious for a group and may be applauded by another. Kashmir becomes a part of Pakistan-‐In 1947, UN called for a plebiscite in Kashmir to decide the future of the Kashmir citizens. Pakistan supported this initiative. If the majority would have voted for Pakistan the whole area would have been given under Pakistan’s control. However, at this stage the entire Kashmir joining Pakistan seems to be an implausible approach. The option of plebiscite does not consider the views of the Kashmiri’s they have the full right of self-‐determination. Even India has never agreed upon holding a plebiscite in the region because India fears that the Muslim majority area may go out of India’s hands. The state government of Kashmir states that the people have a complete right to practice self determination. Kashmir to be a part of India-‐Another straight forward solution is that Kashmir is made a part of India. This solution may not be able to resolve the problems in the state because this is something Pakistan would never agree upon. Because Kashmir is a region of Muslim majority and has never shown interest in joining India .India has thought that Kashmir’s, multi ethnic and diverse, under their leader Sheikh Abdullah would choose for a secular state like India.

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

An independent Kashmir -‐An independent Kashmir has also been one among solution by many separatists. But the major drawback which remains is whether India and Pakistan are Page 10 of 18

ready to give up their territory. If so then Kashmir solution can be easily resolved. However the difficulty remains. If Kashmir is set free by both the countries this may result in uprisings by other states of India and Pakistan to revolt and demand independence. The Kashmiri’s who advocate for independence claim that the states of independence to Kashmir was formerly a princely state and according to the Act of Independence of 1947 together. There may even a possibility that some small Muslim majority areas of Jammu join the independent, the princely states were free to choose between acceding to either India or Pakistan or else choosing to remain independent. But, however this solution is not supported even by the international community because of regional instability. A small independent Kashmir-‐ If the result of a region plebiscite , which offered the option of independence the majority of the inhabitants of Pakistani administered Jammu and Kashmir excluding the northern area also chose independence , a smaller, independent Kashmir could be created by administratively joining two areas together. There may even a possibility that some small Muslim majority areas of Jammu join the new independent state. Therefore, the northern areas would be under control of Pakistan and Buddhist area of Ladakh, under Indian control. Pakistan has called for a change in the status of Kashmir valley. However, it has to be taken into consideration that Pakistan heavily depends on the water from the Mangla Reservoir in Pakistani-‐administered Jammu and Kashmir can not give this up. An independent Kashmir valley-‐The main area of insurrection has been the Kashmir valley because it has a Muslim majority and is under the Indian union and Indian security forces. The insurrection in the area reached its pinnacle in the 1980s and acts of violence have been witnessed ever since. The Muslim majority has protested and condemned against the alliance with Indian union. An independent Kashmir valley has been a possible solution as it accounts the desires and long seeking aspirations of the Muslim population and militants who have fought for liberation from Indian dominancy. But like any other newly independent state, this region would need international support, economically and strategically for its sustainability. At present the natives want a complete demilitarization of the area and demand for complete right of self determination.

Page 11 of 18

CBIT Model UN 2012 Kashmir to be given a sub-‐sovereign status-‐The new initiative has also generated a heated debate among many circles about the final solution of Kashmir. In this regard, numerous potential solutions are being proposed and discussed. However, in the given circumstances, the only possible solution is one in which every party will find itself in a win-‐win position. This objective can be achieved only after the re-‐unification of the divided state of Jammu and Kashmir and then giving it a sub sovereign status. The areas that are under Pakistan’s control, including Gilgit and Baltistan, should be brought together with the areas under India’s control (leaving Aksai Chin, which China will never return). Both Indian and Pakistani forces could jointly man the international border of the re-‐united Jammu and Kashmir. The currency of both countries could be acceptable in the state. Both would also speak in all international And regional on behalf of Jammu and Kashmir and thus manage its foreign affairs together. In view of its heterogeneous character, the state of Jammu and Kashmir would adopt a democratic polity based on the federal structure. In this way, the new sub-‐sovereign or semi-‐sovereign state of Jammu and Kashmir could act as a virtual bridge between India and Pakistan and would pave the way for peace, progress and prosperity in the entire region of South Asia, which otherwise seems to be a distant dream. Thus, by working in close collaboration with one another, the three parties can become close friends and after a gap of few years can also think on the lines of granting the semi-‐ sovereign state of Jammu and Kashmir complete sovereign status.

SREEKAR REDDY Secretary-General SURAJ PERI Deputy Secretary-General YASWANT ADIRAJU Under Secretary-General SHRUTI HARI Head of International Press THANMAY KRISHNA Charge d’affairs SHARAT CHANDAR Charge d’affairs PRANAV KONDALA Head of Designing

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

Page 12 of 18

CBIT Model UN 2012

SREEKAR REDDY Secretary-General

AGENDA 2: SITUATION IN FALKLANDS

SURAJ PERI Deputy Secretary-General

The sporadic and sparsely populated territory in the south west Atlantic Ocean has been the region of sovereignty dispute since the 1700s. This subject of dispute is between the British and Argentina. The windswept and almost-‐treeless territory is made up of two main islands, East Falkland and West Falkland, as well as hundreds of smaller islands and islets. These islands are said to have been sighted in the 1500s. History of the Falkland Islands An English captain made the first recorded landing in 1690. The first settlement in the Falkland Islands was established in February 1764 by a French nobleman, Antoine Louise de Bougainville, who named the Islands 'Isles Malouines' after St. Malo, the port from which the expedition set out. Bougainville dreamt of founding a new colony for the Acadians who had been expelled from Canada to St. Malo. He chose the Falkland Islands because he believed their remote location would protect the colonists from harassment. In 1765 a British exploratory expedition, consisting of the ships 'Dolphin', 'Tamar' and 'Florida' under the command of Commodore John Byron, reached the Falkland Islands. After a vain search for Pepys Island, Byron concluded that no such place existed at the latitude and longitude. The expedition anchored at what became known as Port Egmont. The Falkland Islands were formally claimed for the Crown of Great Britain. Although Britain withdrew from its settlement in 1774 on economic grounds, it never relinquished its claim to sovereignty.

YASWANT ADIRAJU Under Secretary-General SHRUTI HARI Head of International Press THANMAY KRISHNA Charge d’affairs SHARAT CHANDAR Charge d’affairs PRANAV KONDALA Head of Designing

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

The Spanish did not make any serious attempt to explore the interior of the Islands nor to continue the French colonizing. Spain abandoned its settlement in 1811 when it withdrew its garrison to the South American mainland in order to help quell Page 13 of 18

colonial rebellions, leaving the islands uninhabited apart from occasional visits from British and US fishing vessels. Sovereignty Claim In 1820, newly-‐independent Argentina claimed sovereignty, and later founded a settlement. The first long-‐term occupation of the islands began after the 1833 British invasion, in which the United Kingdom seized control of the Falklands, retained up until today. Concerned with the unlawful activities of the Americans and by the Argentinian claim to sovereignty, the British returned to the island, where they found twenty men of several nationalities living in poor conditions, as well as American, British and French sealing ships taking advantage of the lack of authority in the islands.

CBIT Model UN 2012 SREEKAR REDDY Secretary-General SURAJ PERI Deputy Secretary-General YASWANT ADIRAJU Under Secretary-General SHRUTI HARI Head of International Press

In 1940, the territorial claims upon the Islas Malvinas increased by Argentina. The British government pointed that it would not accept any changes in the status of the territory without the acceptance of islanders. In addition to this, it was further stated in their response that the islanders made clear that they wished the Falklands to be an overseas territory of United Kingdom, even with the ongoing decolonization process undertaken by the United Nations.

THANMAY KRISHNA Charge d’affairs

The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization classified the archipelago as a “Non-‐Self-‐Governing Territory” under British jurisdiction, as ruled out in Chapters XI and XII i.e. article 73 and 74 of the UN Charter. In spite of the title, the island remains partially autonomous – the only responsibilities not undertaken by the local inhabitants are those concerning foreign affairs and defense, currently under the auspices of the British Government.

The Falklands War, 1982 The Argentina invaded the Falklands on 2nd April, 1982, which was a UK colony. This war took lives of nearly 900 people .This war end after a 74 days conflict between the two nations. 2012 will mark the 30th anniversary of the conflict.

SHARAT CHANDAR Charge d’affairs PRANAV KONDALA Head of Designing

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

After organizing diplomatic pressure against Argentina, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ordered Page 14 of 18

the assembly of a naval task force to retake the islands. Commanded by Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, the task force consisted of several groups, the largest of which was centered on the aircraft carriers HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. In mid-‐April, Fieldhouse began moving south, with a large fleet of tankers and cargo ships to supply the fleet while it operated more than 8,000 miles from home. In Argentina, the defeat led to the removal of Pres. Galtieri three days after the fall of Port Stanley. His downfall spelled the end for the military junta that had been ruling the country and paved the way for the restoration of democracy. For Britain, the victory provided a much needed boost to its national confidence, reaffirmed its international position, and assured victory for the Thatcher Government in the 1983 elections. The settlement that ended the conflict called for a return to status quo ante bellum. Despite its defeat, Argentina still claims the Falklands and South Georgia. During the war, Britain suffered 258 killed and 777 wounded. In addition, 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and 2 auxiliary vessels were sunk. For Argentina, the Falklands War cost 649 killed, 1,068 wounded, and 11,313 captured. In addition, the Argentine Navy lost a submarine, a light cruiser, and 75 fixed-‐wing aircraft. United Nations Intervention and resolutions As tensions between Argentina and the UK began to rise, the United Nations General Assembly adopted several resolutions requesting the immediate commencement of negotiations on the dispute concerning sovereignty over the Islands. One among such resolutions is resolution 1514, which states that "the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations." The resolution highlighted the right of all peoples to self-‐determination, but also stated its conviction that all people have "an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory." Argentina claimed that the British administration of the Islands was an affront to their territorial integrity, and in 1964 they raised the future of the Falkland Islands at the United Nations Committee on Decolonization. The Declaration was the first UN resolution indirectly regarding the situation in the Falkland Islands.

Page 15 of 18

In 1965, General assembly resolution 2065 recalled the existence of the conflict over the Falklands and expressed the need for negotiations that contemplate the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, bearing in mind the objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands, as they would be most affected by their results.

CBIT Model UN 2012 CBIT Model UN 2012

The set of resolutions regarding the Falklands territorial dispute make clear the role of the United Nations in the fact of international disputes – calling upon the parties to settle the dispute through negotiation, conciliation or other peaceful means, as stated in Chapter VI of United Nations Charter. Moreover, the United Nations must take into consideration, the differing positions, rights and claims of the involved parts, concerning the need for maintaining peace and security.

YASWANT ADIRAJU YASWANT ADIRAJU Under Secretary-General Under Secretary-General

UN General Assembly passed resolution 3160 declaring the need of improvising negotiations in order to reach to a peaceful solution. The United Nations were bothered with the fact that eight years had elapsed since resolution 2065 was adopted and no substantial progress had yet been made in the question – neither party seemed willing to compromise.

SREEKAR REDDY SREEKAR REDDY Secretary-General Secretary-General SURAJ PERI SURAJ PERI Deputy Secretary-General Deputy Secretary-General

SHRUTI HARI SHRUTI HARI Head of International Press Head of International Press THANMAY KRISHNA THANMAY KRISHNA Charge d’affairs Charge d’affairs SHARAT CHANDAR SHARAT CHANDAR Charge d’affairs Charge d’affairs PRANAV KONDALA PRANAV KONDALA Head of Designing Head of Designing

Possible solutions for the Falklands dispute

United Nation Administration-‐A very common suggested approach to territorial disputes is establishing a neutral and provisional United Nations administration while negotiation takes place. While costly to the UN budget, it may be considered a viable compromise option in case there is no hope for settlement in the short term. Before engaging in a solution of this form, the Security Council must reach consensus regarding the mandate of this mission, including but not limited to its length, responsibilities and the role of local administration in the process. Also, there should be an agreement regarding the steps to be taken once the mandate has expired.

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN GUFRAN ChairpersonPATHAN Chairperson

JAIDEEP SOOD JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY LAKSHITA REDDY Director Director

Condominium Government-‐An attempt at establishing a condominium government might be possible, although there is much tension amongst the parties. Both Argentina and the United Kingdom would divide responsibilities over the Page 16 of 18

CBIT Model UN 2012 administration of the island, within a council composed of representatives of their respective governments and the local administration. The format of government is to be established, but could range from the local population choosing a representative amongst Argentinian and British candidates in a fixed period of time to a parliamentary regime under the same prerogatives or even each country finding their niche in controlling the island. If both the United Kingdom and Argentina are willing to join together in order to look out for the best interest of the local population, that solution is feasible.

EXECUTIVE BOARD OF GA IV SPECPOL: GUFRAN PATHAN Chairperson JAIDEEP SOOD Vice-Chairperson LAKSHITA REDDY Director

Page 17 of 18

REFERENCES • The Kashmir Conflict: A Kashmiri Perspective -‐By Mehraj Hajni • Right To Self-‐determination: A Key To Kashmir Solution www.countercurrents.org/kashmir • India, Pakistan, and the Kashmir Dispute by Robert Wirsing Jammu and Kashmir Dispute www.asiapeace.org • Kashmiri Position www.kashmirlibrary.org

• http://www.falklands.gov.fk/historical-‐dates.php Falkland Islands Information Web Portal • http://www.falklands.info/ Charter of the United Nations • http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html

Page 18 of 18