Committee: Commission on Human Rights
Topic(s): The Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Country: The Kingdom of Sweden
Delegation: Ryan R. Miller, Juniata College.

  I.      General Statement 

The Kingdom of Sweden believes very strongly in human rights and protecting and respecting those of indigenous peoples, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to them as well. Sweden is home to approximately 20,000 Sami, natives of the area since the time of the Roman Empire.

            The rights of indigenous peoples have never been truly respected. First, it is appalling that the genocide of such peoples has been allowed to occur, even in this progressive century.  Furthermore, governments must abolish the practice of proclaiming genetic cleansing operations to be merely the sad effects of war.  Such crimes must be investigated, and perpetrators punished according to international law.  The Kingdom of Sweden strongly believes that the genocide of indigenous peoples be the primary target of any human rights resolution produced by this committee.  Second, Sweden is strongly concerned with worldwide health statistics of indigenous peoples, and supports the granting of basic living conditions to native populations. As a Christian country, Sweden condemns acts of genocide or the denying of basic living conditions to indigenous populations within the Kingdom’s borders as inhuman and against our values of national integrity.

            On the question of land-rights and self-determination, Sweden believes it is a matter of degree.  Sweden supports granting freedom from religious or cultural intolerance, ethnic discrimination, and of being driven of one’s land are supported, for example.  However, Sweden recognizes the necessity that, in the name of helping the most people as possible, governments are often required to make difficult sacrifices.  Sweden would never allow the Sami to separate from the kingdom, except under extreme circumstances.  Moreover, Sweden has found it necessary to regulate natural resources (hunting and fishing) in their northern territories at the national level for the benefit of the populace as a whole, and has decided not to cede autonomy to the Sami on this matter.  Therefore, the Kingdom of Sweden will support resolutions that grant indigenous peoples their rights while allowing governments to retain certain territorial powers.

 II.      Particulars 

At home, Sweden has, like the other Scandinavian countries, created a Sami Parliament as an advisory, 31-member, legislative body that has voting rights in the Swedish Parliament. Such an action followed a trend of increased Sami involvement in politics.  In earlier times, the Sami lived under excessive land rights restrictions, which is one of the reasons for the Parliament: to insure against discrimination.  Sweden believes such a model would work well in other countries, allowing them to meet better the needs of their indigenous populations. 

Furthermore, the Kingdom of Sweden believes that the creation of a permanent UN forum for indigenous peoples, containing both government and indigenous representatives, is the appropriate solution to deal with the problem.  This will increase communication between natives and the UN, bringing the voices of indigenous peoples to the forefront of any relevant issues concerning indigenous populations.  The forum should coordinate with this committee when the debate involves an indigenous group. 

Committee: United Nations Environment Programme
Topic(s): Environmental Standards
Country: The People's Republic of China
Delegation: Joe Schmoe, Juniata College.

   China’s representatives and scientists have attended all of the major conferences and UN meetings on environmental issues and agree that protection of the global ecology and environment is of universal concern.  On March 30, 1989, the Sixth Environmental Ministers’ Conferences convened in Basel, Switzerland, at which time demands for environmental protection measures were linked to development efforts.  The ministers opposed any country using environmental protection as grounds for interference in another country’s internal affairs.

   On November, sixty-seven countries environmental ministers met in Holland at a conference on preventing global warming and climate change.  They stated that climate change is a problem for the concern of all humanity.  In Helsinki a treaty to protect the ozone layer was agreed upon to halt the production or CFC’s (chlorofluorocarbon) and other ozone depleting agents.

   The  “Montreal Protocol”, concerning protection of the ozone layer and substances that deplete the ozone layer clearly did not favor the developing countries.  Only ten of the one hundred and twenty four developing countries signed the protocol.  In April 1990 the Fourteenth World Law Conference met in China and adopted the “Beijing Declaration”.  The conference appealed to the international gathering to coordinate their actions and to expand their participation for the protection of the global environment.

     Some developed country’s leaders have started to use environmental protection issues to interfere in other country’s internal affairs;  also some countries try to use this opportunity to improve their own international image and politicize the environmental situation. If a country subscribes to the environmental protection treaty, it undertakes legal rights and duties; if a country does not subscribe to a treaty, it is certain to receive political and diplomatic pressure from international society.

    After the Second World War most developing countries achieved independence, but were left with the wreckage left behind by the Western countries.  The urgent issue to the developing countries was to develop an economic base to support their people.  As the economies grew attention was given to environmental issues. The developing countries agreed that developed countries must assist developing countries on environmental problems, cease ocean dumping of hazardous materials, and cease drift net fishing.

   Developed countries, over several centuries time, used a large amount of fossil fuels emitting great quantities of carbon dioxide.  In the last half century they emitted chemical pollutants and now while implementing domestic high consumption policies, shift their pollution abroad and advocate environmentalism.  Developed countries must adopt a positive attitude towards international cooperation and provide financial assistance to developing countries, including transfer of technology from developed countries to lesser developed countries.

   In 1972, the United Nations Conference on Human Environment. convened in Stockholm, Sweden’s Capital, to adopt the 21^st principle.  It clearly states that each country has a right to exploit its own natural resources according to its own environmental policies, while at the same time has an obligation  to protect and control those activities within its jurisdiction so as not to  pollute the environments of other countries outside its own borders or jurisdiction.  The 29^th session of the United Nations General Assembly  adopted an agreement on each county’s economic rights and responsibilities.  Section 2.1 states: Every country and subdivision retains its long-standing right to its own natural resources and economic activities, and may reserve this right to use its natural resources  within its own interior freely. No country should interfere in another counties’ internal affairs for reasons of protecting the environment.  Each country must rely principally on itself to solve its environmental problems.  A few developed countries frequently use the issue of environment protection as a pretext for interfering in the internal affairs of developing countries. This is not permissible.

   Developing countries all face the dual challenge of economic development and environmental protection.  As far as developing countries are concerned, poverty is the source of environmental problems the fundamental solution to environmental problems then is developing the economy and overcoming poverty. 

Committee: General Assembly, 1st Committee
Topic(s): Curtailing the International Arms Trade
Country: India
Delegation: John Doe, Juniata College.

The Republic of India agrees that a solution for the uncontrolled international arms trade has to be found. Uncontrolled proliferation of conventional weapons has caused more human suffering than the deployment and use of unconventional weapon systems.

            This is especially true after the end of the Cold War. The bipolar situation of world politics ensured at least some degree of stability. Today the system of international politics is multilateral. Not nuclear annihilation but new regional threats are the main concerns for the stability and welfare of a nation. Terrorism and international arms trade support conditions under which the internal security of sovereign nations is endangered.

            India is interested to support a workable system of controlling international arms trade.[i] To achieve this, the country focuses on close cooperation with countries like the United States of America and Russia.

            In times in which the widespread availability of nuclear and biological weapons makes their actual use unlikely, it will be necessary to refocus on the issue of curtailing the international arms trade. The high importance of the topic is acknowledged by India and the country will cooperate to achieve a workable solution for the problem.

            In the opinion of the Republic of India it is crucial to find regional solutions for the problem. Situations created by unstable nations like Pakistan and Afghanistan, in which through uncontrolled weapons proliferation and open support for terrorism the regional stability is severely impaired, cannot be tolerated.[ii]

            It is our belief that regional solutions are the key to solve the problem.[iii] India as a stable democratic country would be a stabilizing factor in its region. With international cooperation and under the auspices of India a system of arms trade control could be implemented in the region.

            India will also support similar solutions in other world regions as long as they are based on the consent of the International Community. Key countries that would be able to direct the regional effort to solve the issue have to be identified and empowered to guarantee a successful approach in this urgent matter.

            For the region of South Asia the Republic of India would be the principle power that would be able to guarantee regional stability.[iv] The close ties our nation enjoys with countries like the United States and Russia would be of great benefit to not only the regional but also the global effort to control the problem of uncontrolled arms proliferation.

            Ways will have to be found to work out a system of checks and balances to avoid misuse of the system. An integral part of the problem solving process would the creation of a monitoring agency to in close cooperation with the regional powers is able to identify no cooperating countries and assist in determining ways to enforce regulations.

            The goal to find a permanent solution would require binding agreement on the international level that would allow intervention if necessary. Important in this instance are the thorough evaluation of the regional situation and the selection of steps according to regional necessities. Here it again will be instrumental to cooperate with local powers on a close level as the insight and support those nations could provide on a regional level would be invaluable.