MEDIMUN XV Annual Session 2020 · the International Atomic Energy Agency, that the Soviet government admitted an accident took place at Chernobyl. In direct response to the Chernobyl

MEDIMUN XV Annual Session2020

RESEARCH REPORT Historical Security Council

The Events of 1986

Mediterranean Model United Nations XV 2020

ContentsTopic 1: The Response to Chernobyl’s Nuclear Disaster, 1986...3

Topic 2: The Situation in South Africa, 1986.................................4

Topic 3: The Iran-Iraq War, 1986...................................................4


Topic 1: The Response to the ChernobylNuclear Disaster

Introduction

The Chernobyl Disaster was a nuclear accident which took place onthe 26th of April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, nearthe city of Pripyat, northof The Ukrainian SovietSocialist Republic. It wasthe result of a flawedreactor design (RMBK-1000) that was operatedwith inadequately trainedpersonnel. It is considered the most disastrous nuclear accident ofall time.

General Overview

The accident started during asafety test on an RBMK-typenuclear reactor. The test was asimulation of an electrical poweroutage to aid the developmentof a safety procedure formaintaining cooling watercirculation until the back-upgenerators could provide power.

This operating gap was about one minute and had been identifiedas a potential safety problem that could cause the nuclear reactorcore to overheat.

The test was delayed by 10 hours, so the operating alteration thathad been prepared was not present. The test supervisor then failedto follow procedure, creating unstable operating conditions that,combined with the RBMK reactor design flaws and the intentionaldisabling of several nuclear reactor safety systems, caused anuncontrolled nuclear chain reaction.

Research Report | Page 3 of 44


A large amount of energy was suddenly released, superheatinghence vaporising cooling water, and rupturing the reactor core in ahighly destructive steam explosion. This was immediately followedby an open-air reactor core fire that released considerable airborneradioactive contamination.


Impact

The reactor explosion killed two of the reactor operating staff. Inthe emergency response that followed, 134 firemen and stationstaff were hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome due toabsorbing high doses of ionizing radiation. Of these 134 men, 28died in the days to months afterward.

The accident caused the largest uncontrolled radioactive releaseinto the environment ever recorded for any civilian operation, andlarge quantities of radioactive substances were released into the airfor about 9 days. This caused serious social and economicdisruption for large populations in Belarus, USSR, and Ukraine.

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located next to the PripyatRiver, which feeds into the Dnieper reservoir system, one of thelargest surface water systems in Europe, which at the time suppliedwater to Kiev, and was still in spring flood when the accidentoccurred. The radioactive contamination of aquatic systemstherefore became a major problem in the immediate aftermath ofthe accident. In the most affected areas of Ukraine, levels ofradioactivity in drinking water caused concern in the continuingmonths.

An increased incidence of thyroid cancer was observed for about 4years after the accident and slowed in 2005. The large increase inincidence of thyroid cancer happened amongst individuals whowere adolescents and young children living during the time of theaccident, and residing in the most contaminated areas of Belarus,the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

The economic damage caused by the disaster is estimated at $235billion.

Responses and Aftermath

Pripyat was evacuated on 27 April(45,000 residents). By 14 May,some 116,000 people that had



been living within a 30-kilometre radius had been evacuated andlater relocated, hence The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant ExclusionZone was setup.

To reduce the spread of radioactive contamination from thewreckage and to protect the site from further weathering, theremains of reactor No. 4 The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plantsarcophagus was built and finished by December 1986, and wouldalso provide radiological protection for the crews of theundamaged reactors at the site, with No. 3 continuing to produceelectricity until 2000 and later in 2017 Chernobyl New SafeContainment was built.

Two months after the disaster, the Kiev water supply was switchedfrom the Dnieper to the Desna River. In the meantime, massive silttraps were constructed, along with an enormous 30-metre deepunderground barrier to prevent groundwater from the destroyedreactor entering the Pripyat River.

In the morning of 28 April, radiation levels set off alarms at theForsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, over 1,000 kilometresfrom the Chernobyl Plant. Workers at Forsmark reported the caseto the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority, which determined thatthe radiation had originated elsewhere. That day, the Swedishgovernment contacted the Soviet government to inquire aboutwhether there had been a nuclear accident in the Soviet Union. TheSoviets initially denied it, and it was only after the Swedishgovernment suggested they were about to file an official alert withthe International Atomic Energy Agency, that the Sovietgovernment admitted an accident took place at Chernobyl.

In direct response to the Chernobyl disaster, a conference to createa Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident was calledin 1986 by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The resultingtreaty has bound signatory member states to provide notification ofany nuclear and radiation accidents that occur within its jurisdictionthat could affect other states, along with the Convention onAssistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or RadiologicalEmergency.


The first official explanation of the accident, later acknowledged tobe inaccurate, was published in August 1986. It effectively placedthe blame on the power plant operators. To investigate the causesof the accident the IAEA created a group known as the InternationalNuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG), which in its report of 1986,INSAG-1, on the whole also supported this view, based on the dataprovided by the Soviets and the oral statements of specialists. In1991 a Commission of the USSR State Committee for theSupervision of Safety in Industry and Nuclear Power reassessed thecauses and circumstances of the Chernobyl accident and came tonew insights and conclusions. Based on it, in 1992 the IAEA NuclearSafety Advisory Group (INSAG) published an additional report,INSAG-7.

Multiple Resolutions were passed by the Economic and SocialCouncil in the coming years with the title Strengthening ofinternational cooperation and coordination of efforts to study,mitigate and minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster,and by the General Assembly.

First Inter-Agency Task Force meeting on Chernobyl 24 May 1991,Vienna was set up.

Major Parties and Figures Involved

The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic:one of the constituent republics of theSoviet Union from the Union's initiation in1922 to its breakup in 1991. The republicwas governed by the Communist Party of

Ukraine as a one-party socialist soviet republic. The Ukrainian SSRwas a founding member of the United Nations.

The Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics (USSR): a federalsovereign state in northern Eurasiathat existed from 1922 to 1991; aunion of multiple national Soviet

republics, in practiceits government and



economy were highly centralized. The country was a one-partystate, governed by the Communist Party (Bolshevik Party) withMoscow as its capital in its largest republic, the Russian SovietFederative Socialist Republic

Viktor Brukhanov: Director of the Chernobyl Atomic EnergyStation. Appointed by the Communist Party.

Boris Scherbina: Deputy chairman of the SovietCouncil of Ministers; chairman of the governmentcommission in Chernobyl. Scherbina wasresponsible not only for bringing the catastropheunder control but investigating its consequences.He dismissed calls for immediate evacuation of thecity of Pripyat. It was not until almost 36 hoursafter toxic radionuclides began pouring from thewreckage of the reactor that the city’s residentswere finally allowed to evacuate.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):an international organization that seeks to promotethe peaceful use of nuclear energy, and to inhibit itsuse for any military purpose, including nuclearweapons. The IAEA was established as anautonomous organisation on 29 July 1957.

The KGB (The Committee for State Security): themain security agency for the Soviet Union from 1954until its break-up in 1991. It was suspected to cover upand release altered facts to the international bodiesmainly due to the inaccuracies of the INSAG-1 Report.


Official Policy advice proposed by the UN

“In an effort to facilitate a reorientation in spending onChernobyl, UNDP offers recommendations on policychange to the governments of Belarus, the RussianFederation and Ukraine. These efforts will focus onovercoming the culture of dependency that hasdeveloped among many affected communities, and ontargeting scarce funds to the truly needy as well as toinvestments that promote growth and new jobs. Specificpolicy proposals include an overhaul of zoning definitions andregulations to reflect conditions now recognized to be safe forhabitation and commercial activity; a reorientation of health carespending towards better primary and preventive care; and a radicaloverhaul of Chernobyl benefits and privileges, so that the needy arecovered by an efficient mainstream social welfare programmecovering the entire population.”



Sources

http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/ga_res.shtml

http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/ecosoc_res.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Scientific_Committee_on_the_Effects_of_Atomic_Radiation

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

https://www.iaea.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Early_Notification_of_a_Nuclear_Accident

http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/ga_res.shtml



https://www.iaea.org/

https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/ecosoc_res.shtml


Topic 2: The Situation in South Africa,1986

IntroductionThe year of 1985 signaled thebeginning of the end of apartheidsociety and governance in South Africa.The government reacted to theincreased unrest and organizationthrough banning people andorganizations, through violence andsuppression and eventually througha state of emergency. Following an upsurge of violent and non-violent resistance to the system of apartheid, the government,under PW Botha, declared a partial State of Emergency on 20 July1985. This moment of draconian law enforcement against themajority Black, Coloured and Indian population of South Africaproved a focal moment in the struggle against apartheid, as theinternational condemnation of the apartheid regime and otherinternal factors contributed to the rejuvenation of the resistanceinside and outside the country.

The partial State of Emergency initially applied to 36 magisterialdistricts in the Eastern Cape and the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging area. However, with continued resistance throughoutthe country, the Act was lifted on March 7th, with a new State ofEmergency eventually enforced nationally on 12th June, 1986. Thenew state of Emergency is far stronger than the one lifted on March7, and it offers the authorities sweeping powers, including anindemnity from prosecution and the right to arrest without acharge and to search without a warrant. As in the previous decree,the authorities barred television, radio and photographic coverageof ''any public disturbance, disorder, riot, public violence, strike orboycott.''

This resulted in between 8,000 to 12,000 people being detainedwithout trial, with many being tortured in detention and hundreds


https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/state-emergency-1985


of people being killed either in detention, on the streets by police orbecause of political protests or unrest. The police, who evensometimes provided weapons, are considered in support of thisviolence.

These measures, however, have failed to halt the daily protests andviolence that have claimed far in excess of 1,600 lives sinceSeptember 1984.


Definition of Key Terms

1. Apartheid refers to the racially-exclusive system which saw theminority White population of South Africa exclusively governand control the social, economic and political mechanisms ofeveryday life for 37 years.

2. A state of emergency gives the police and state the ability torestrict certain freedoms in order to protect the public onmatters of national security. During a state of emergency, thestate affords itself special powers and bypasses normal lawsthat protect the human and civil rights.

General Overview

The nationwide state of emergencyand the detainment of hundreds ofactivists on 12th June is said to be apart of the effort to crush dissentbefore Monday, the 10thanniversary of the Soweto

uprisings1.

In the first day of the decree, the Government-controlled televisionsaid, more than 1,000 people were detained. Many of those,including church and labor leaders, were the supporters of theUnited Democratic Front (UDF).

President P. W. Botha told Parliament in Cape Town that he hadordered the emergency because ''I am of the opinion that theordinary laws of the land at present on the statute book are inadequateto enable the Government to Ensure the security of the public and tomaintain public order.''

1 The Soweto uprisings was a series of demonstrations and protests led by black schoolchildren in South Africa that began on the morning of 16 June 1976 in response to the introduction of Afrikaans as the medium of instruction in local schools. It is estimated that 20,000 students took part in the protests. They were met with fierce police brutality.The number of protesters killed by police is usually given as 176, but estimates of up to 700 have been made.



''In fact,'' he said, ''the Government possesses intelligence regardingplans which have been made by radical and revolutionary elements forthe coming days, which pose real danger for all population groups inthe country.'' He offered no details of these plans.

The impression created by the decree, analysts of the UN argue,was of a Government set against conciliation with its black majorityand ready to risk outsiders' opprobrium in pursuit of a forcefulsettlement to its crisis. They argue that the decree was imposedpre-emptively, rather than in response to existing violence, whichsuggested a loss of official faith in current powers of control.

Following the last emergency decreeissued in July 1985, months of protestand violence had left more than 500people dead. The tally of killing roseduring the seven months the emergencydecree was in force. The killing hascontinued unabated since then,reflecting, increasingly, battles in thesegregated black townships betweenGovernment-supported vigilantes andoppressed members of the public whocall themselves radicals.

“It is a sad day forSouth Africa when

the Governmentadmits it cannot

govern the countrywithout the

powers given to itin a state of

emergency.''

The rights that were limited by the National State ofEmergency included:

1. The right to physical integrity2. Freedom of expression and of information3. Freedom of association4. Freedom of political association5. Freedom to gather and demonstrate peacefully6. Rights to personal freedom

Resistance to the State of EmergencyWithin the country, resistance comes from various civic groups,trade unions, church organisations and political organisations.


The African National Congress’s (ANC) internal influence is limitedby the banning of the party, and the subsequent exiling of many ofits leaders across the world.

Moreover, resistance from the UDF increased with Boesak2 callingfor a march to Pollsmoor Prison3 in protest. Sabotage has becomean effective weapon of resistance against the apartheidgovernment. Examples include the attacking of power plants, thebombing of shopping centres and businesses and the bombing ofSouth African national essential services. The National Party hasresponded to the continued insurrection by taking a harder stanceagainst resistance from the ANC, UDF, civic groups and individualsfighting against the state.

Newspaper, radio and televisioncoverage of ‘unrest’ in thesetownships has been banned by thestate. This ban was enforced underthe Newspaper and Imprint Act 63 of1971. In a blow to anti-apartheidresistance, The Rand Daily Mail, aleading anti-apartheid publication, has been controversially shutdown. This loss of a critical voice against the state arguably hasprovided the government with more momentum in enforcingcensorship. A number of anti-apartheid leaders disappeared or aremurdered under mysterious circumstances, with most deathsarguably occurring in detention. Due to the enforced State ofEmergency, the police has gained the absolute power to detainpersons without a warrant and without the prospect of appeal orrepresentation. These powers were enforced under the InternalSecurity Act 74 of 1982. This meant that the apartheid state hasconstitutionally legitimated the use of excessive force in order toapprehend ‘questionable’ and ‘security-threatening’ targets.

The apartheid state continues to respond violently to any perceivedform of “protest” or “gathering” that might threaten state security.2 Allan Aubrey Boesak is a South African Dutch Reformed Church cleric and politician and anti-apartheid activist.3 The prison in which Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners were held



Particular events that mark the government’s particularlyaggressive responses include the 25th anniversary ofthe Sharpeville Massacre4 where 17 people were killed during acommemoration in Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape.

From September 1984 to March 1986, 1 416 people have died dueto political violence, with March and January 1986 having thehighest monthly figures of 171 and 167 people respectively.

The apartheid government’s complete clamp-down of citizens’rights resulted in the numerous house arrests of influential anti-apartheid leaders, and the detaining of 2346 people under theInternal Security Act, in the attempts of ending internal resistanceto the state’s power. Under the State of Emergency, the apartheidgovernment militarised and heavily policed all aspects of SouthAfrican society - which heightened feelings of mutual tension,paranoia and distrust between white South Africans and Black,Coloured and Indian South Africans. Though effective in disruptinga number of anti-apartheid organisations by arresting a number oftheir leaders, the State of Emergency was not effective in ‘governingthe ungovernable’ townships, as violent protest and fierceresistance continued against the state.

By attempting to control and dictate every minute aspect of Black,Coloured and Indian South Africans’ lives, the apartheidgovernment wanted to ensure that White-minority rule in thecountry was not only (willingly or unwillingly) accepted by theseexcluded groups, but was seen as a natural and long-terminstitution in order to maintain White South Africa’s economicprosperity. Under PW Botha, the apartheid regime would go on touse State of Emergencies as a normalised governing tactic as itallowed the state to ‘legitimately’ use not only The South African

4 The 1960 Sharpeville Massacre was the result of a peaceful protest regarding racist South African policies of apartheid. The police response to the protest becamethe primary cause of the massacre. The police assembled and used disproportionate responses to the protest.


Police (SAP)5, but also the South African Defence Force (SADF) 6, toviolently repress any resistance against the state.

Timeline of Events in South Africa, 1986

7March

The State of Emergency imposed on 21 July 1985 is lifted.

March The South African Congress of Trade Unions (SACTU),the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU)and the ANC issue a joint statement in Lusaka,reiterating their commitment to overthrow whitesupremacy in South Africa.

11 June

Security Laws Amendment Act No 13:

Imposed imprisonment for up to ten years for disruptionof any educational institution, unlawful strikes,boycotting of consumer goods, civil disobedience,obstruction of public places, or attending a restrictedfuneral. Commenced: 11 June 1986

12June

Countrywide state of emergency declared in terms ofthe Public Safety Act No 3 of 1953.

20June

World Conference on Sanctions against Racist SouthAfrica, UNESCO House, Paris, organised by the UnitedNations in cooperation with OAU and the Movement ofNon-aligned Countries.

26June

Public Safety Amendment Act No 67: Allowed for anyarea to be declared an ‘unrest area’ by the Minister ofLaw and Order, thus avoiding the negativeconsequences of declaring a national state ofemergency. Denied the Supreme Court the jurisdiction

5 The South African Police (SAP) was the national police force and law enforcementagency in South Africa from 1913 to 1994; it was the de facto police force in the territoryof South West Africa (Namibia) from 1939 to 1981.6 The stated and chief duty of the SADF was to defend and protect South Africanterritory. The SDAF is used to crush rebellions and strikes (e.g. the 1922 Rand Rebellion),during states of emergency (such as after the massacre at an anti-apartheid protest inSharpeville), and during the Soweto Uprising and the township revolts of the 1980s.



to set aside any regulations in terms of the Act.Commenced: 26 June 1986

July The Transkei, Kangwane and KwaNdebele ‘homelands’are plagued by violence and Piet Ntuli, Home AffairsMinister for KwaNdebele, is killed in a bomb explosion.

Major Parties Involved1. P.W. Botha or Pieter Willem Botha, commonly known as Die Groot

Krokodil (Afrikaans for "The Great Crocodile"), was a South Africanpolitician. He served as the last Prime Minister from 1978 to 1984 andthe first executive State President from 1984 to 1989.

2. The National Party (NP) or in full National Party of South Africa is aSouth African political party, founded in 1914, which ruled the countryfrom 1948 to 1994. Its following included most of the Dutch-descendedAfrikaners and many English-speaking whites. The National Party waslong dedicated to policies of apartheid and white supremacy, but bythe early 1990s it had moved toward sharing power with South Africa’sblack majority.

3. The United Democratic Front (UDF) was a very importantorganization during the 1980s. The UDF was a grouping of manydifferent organizations (over 400) all acting together. It had close linkswith the ANC. The UDF consisted of hundreds of women, student,church, trade union, cultural, sporting and other groups. The UnitedDemocratic Front, which says it has a following of two million, is thebiggest nonparliamentaryopposition group in the country.One of the biggest moments ofresistance practiced by the UDFwas the opposition to theestablishment of the TricameralParliament7 in 1984. On 25th May,the government enforced theProhibition of Political Interference Act8, which repealed the

7 The Tricameral Parliament was the structure of the South African government from 1984 to 1994, established by the South African Constitution of 1983. It strengthened the political power of the White section of the population (thus the NP) only gave a limited political voice to the country's Coloured and Indian population groups. The majority Black population group was still excluded.8 The Prohibition of Political Interference Act, 1968 (Act No. 51 of 1968), was a piece of apartheid legislation in South Africa that sought to prevent racial groups from collaborating with each other for a political purpose.


banning of racially-mixed political organisations. This move effectivelydiluted the organisational capacity of anti-apartheid groups as many ofthem advocated for non-racialism.

4. By 1986, the African National Congress (ANC), with headquarters inLusaka, London, and New York, has taken on the key role position ofany future black regime. ANC recruits at military camps wereinfluenced by Russian and East German instructors, and the practice ofsending ANC students to Russia on scholarships was having a visibleeffect on the ideological leanings of the younger leaders.Consequently, in its struggle to achieve its aim, the ANC appeared lessconcerned about ideological arguments, more with change in tactics.Through Radio Freedom it announced a ‘Peoples' War' calling onmembers to incite local violence to make the country ungovernable.But those who joined in promoting violence faced the ascending roleof the South African military.

International Community

''South Africans will not allow themselves to behumiliated in order to prevent sanctions. We are

not a nation of weaklings. We do not desire itand we do not seek it, but if we are forced to go

it alone, then so be it.''

- PW Botha

South Africa has always had very fragile and hostile relationshipwith most members of the international community. South Africanoccupation of Namibia (renamed South-West Africa), as well as theapartheid regime, violates many customary international laws, aswell as international human right laws, which has resulted to thecontinuous use of sanctions against South Africa.

Referring to revolutionary takeovers in countries including Angolaand Vietnam, Mr. Botha said his Government would ''not allow ourheritage of more than 300 years to be placed needlessly on the altar ofchaos and decay.''

Moreover, in May 1986, South Africa raided three black-ruledAfrican countries (Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia), saying it was



striking at strongholds of the outlawed and exiled African NationalCongress.

Political pressures from anti-Communist United States of Americaand Britain – under the conservative leadership of Ronald Reaganand Margaret Thatcher respectively - were exerted on the apartheidstate, with the intention of keeping South Africa a capitalist state.America and Britain chose to controversially follow a ‘constructiveengagement’ stance with apartheid South Africa where it sought toensure free trade with the state.

This is particularly important as the power struggle between thesuperpowers USA and USSR has effectively separated the world intodifferent spheres of influence for the United States and for theSoviet Union; with many African countries becoming involved inproxy wars that were indirectly influenced by the USSR and the USA.The apartheid administration feared a communist attack and wentto great lengths to ensure that Die Rooi Gevaar would not threatenwhite South Africa’s diplomatic, political and economic relationswith America and Britain. The ANC’s socialist leanings and thepresence of its cadres in Russia also acted as a deterrent to theapartheid state, as they feared a creeping coup that would see thewhite-minority rule overthrown. Margaret Thatcher famouslydeclared the ANC a “terrorist organisation” and with Reaganattempted to ensure that apartheid South Africa remained a‘bastion against Marxist forces’.

The apartheid state also attempted to extend its influence intoSouthern Africa, with the intention of supporting the governmentsof any state whose main intentions are to perpetuate white-minority rule. The government militarily interfered in the followingcountries, with varying degrees of success: Rhodesia (nowindependent Zimbabwe), Mozambique, Angola, Botswana andNamibia amongst others. This strategy was termed Total Onslaught.

Relevant Legal Framework1. The nationwide State of Emergency imposed on 12th June

1986


It includes, among other things:

a. The indemnification of the security forces from prosecutionor civil liability for unlawful acts committed in good faith(Regulation 16)

b. The Exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to setaside regulations issued in terms of the Act (Regulation 16(3))

c. Th prohibition of publication or dissemination of “subversive”statements

Numerous challenges to the regulations resulted in furtheramendments. Commissioners of Police were authorised to restricttownship funerals, impose curfews, prohibit school pupils frombeing outside their classrooms during school hours and prohibitindoor gatherings by named organisations. The state of Emergencyis justified in the belief of an imminent external Communist (DieRooi Gevaar9) attack and to ‘maintaining peace and order’10 which isthreatened by the increasingly ‘ungovernable’ nature of the Blacktownships and radical Black nationalists throughout the country.

In the enforcement of a State of Emergency, the South African LawCommission states that the aforementioned rights and freedomsof citizens can only be legally interfered with by the state only ifthere is a threat to “considerations of state security, public order,public interest, the boni mores, public health, the administration ofjustice, conflict with the rights of others and the prevention ofchaos and crime. Such curtailment is, however, permissible only tothat extent and in such a manner as is generally accepted in ademocratic society.” (Article 30) The South African Law Commissionfurther states that a State of Emergency can only be enforced if thefollowing occur beyond reasonable doubt:

a. The extraordinary machinery inherent in state security may onlybe utilised if and when the continued existence of the state as suchis in question.

b. Security legislation itself must be limited: “Order and rule areneeded to maintain freedom, but vigorous restraints are needed to

9 Die Rooi Gevaar (English: Red danger) is an Afrikaans phrase, sometimes translated into English as "Communist danger". 10 Public Safety Act No 3 of 1953



contain rulers within the bounds of a constitutional order whichprotects human rights.

2. International Conventions and Declarations a. Universal Declaration of Human Rights has becomebinding as a new rule of customary international law since 1948.Although South Africa abstained from the declaration, itimposes the “imperious obligation of civilization” on allcontracting states to “ensure respect of the present Convention inall circumstances” - obliging U.N. member states to ensure thatthe South Africa regime complies with the provisions of theDeclaration.

b. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 provide framework forprotection of victims of apartheid.

c. Convention on the Elimination of all forms of RacialDiscrimination

d. International Convention on the Suppression andPunishment of the Crime of Apartheid 1973

3. UN resolutionsA series of United Nations resolutions and declarations firmlyrooted in the seminal Universal Declaration have laid an amplefoundation for legal analysis of the continuous crimes againsthumanity committed by the apartheid regime and the creation oflegal obligations upon other states to support people seeking toexercise their human rights and rights to self-determination.

In 1975, in resolution 3379, the General Assembly stated that “Theracist regime of South Africa is illegitimate and has no right torepresent the people of South Africa”.


South Africa and the United NationsSouth Africa and apartheid was placed on the agenda of the UnitedNations for the first time in 1946 by India regarding the treatmentof people of Indian origin living in South Africa. In 1952 apartheidwas again raised, this time in connection with the wider question ofrace conflict in the country in reaction to the ANC DefianceCampaign. The South West African question was also on theagenda annually as from 1946. Initially the South Africangovernment responded to comments on its policy by saying thatapartheid was part of the internal affairs of the country, and for thisreason fell beyond the scope of the United Nations. Many Westerncountries agreed with this claim, but nonetheless continued to holddiscussions and appealed to South Africa to change its policies yearafter year.

In 1960 the worldwide view changed as a result of the SharpevilleIncident. As from this point many Western countries no longer heldthe view that apartheid fell within internal affairs and they began toopenly criticise South Africa. On 1 April 1960the Security Council also discussed the issue,and recognised that it might be a threat toworld peace and security. They called uponthe government to introduce measures tobring about racial harmony. The South Africangovernment instead reacted with banning theANC and PAC11. From this point on the UNdecided to follow steps to try and ensure the following of the UNCharter within South Africa.

In 1961 United Nations Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjoldvisited South Africa, but reported back that he could not come to anacceptable agreement with the Prime Minister. In the same yearH.F. Verwoerd announced South Africa’s withdrawal from theCommonwealth of Nations as a result of criticism from thisorganisation, and the Foreign Minister was criticized for his speechin the General Assembly. In 1966, the first of many UN seminars on

11 The Pan Africanist Congress of Azania is a South African Pan-Africanist movement, that supports African politicians



apartheid was held in Brazil, and later in the same year the GeneralAssembly proclaimed 21 March to be International Day for theElimination of Racial Discrimination in remembrance of theSharpeville Incident. A 1971 General Assembly resolutioncondemned the establishment of homelands. In 1974 there was aresolution to expel South Africa from the United Nations as a resultof human rights violations, but it was not accepted as France, theUK and the USA did not support it.

In 1959 the UN found that South Africa’s administration wentagainst the principles of the UN Charter, the Declaration of HumanRights and the advisory opinion of the International Court. SouthAfrica’s violent actions in Windhoek after some black peopleprotested against being moved to a new area led to the UNappointing a one-man commission and African states startingactions through the International Court.

The UN called on South Africa to lift all apartheid laws from Namibiaand told the Trusteeship Committee to visit Namibia with or withoutthe permission of South Africa. This proved difficult, and the UNeventually agreed on the formation of a seven-nation committeethat would visit Namibia before 1 May 1962, prepare the country forthe removal of South Africa and free and democratic elections sothat Namibia could become independent. The UN would providetechnical assistance and would ensure freedom for politicalprisoners and an end to discriminatory laws. South Africa assistedthe committee in their visit to Namibia, and they found that SouthAfrica’s administration of the area was not against the mandatesystem or a threat to peace. However, after leaving South Africa thesame committee changed its findings, but action at this stage wasdifficult as the case was before the International Court.

In 1962, the court decided thatit did have jurisdiction to try thecase and it started to look atthe record of South Africa’saction in Namibia, heardreports on the treatment of thepeople there and looked intothe restrictions placed on black


people in the country. During the hearings, which took six years,one judge died and was replaced with a judge with more pro-SouthAfrican ideas. It was eventually found, by a majority of 8 against 7,that the countries that brought the case before the court had nostanding. This bought South Africa more time as otherwise the UNwould have found itself in a position where it needed to startsanctions or other actions against South Africa. The decisionbrought caused an outcry in the General Assembly, which called onthe Security Council to put pressure on South Africa.

The Security Council’s first action on the issue was in January 1968when it demanded that 37 political prisoners be released. In 1969 itrecognised the General Assembly resolution of 1966 ending SouthAfrica’s mandate over Namibia and calling for South Africa to leavethe area. It saw South Africa’s refusal to do so as an aggressiveaction against the authority of the UN. The Security Council askedthe International Court for the opinion on South Africa’s continuedoccupation in 1970. In 1971 the International Court of Justice gavean advisory opinion finding South Africa’s occupation of Namibiaillegal and after this South Africa was defying the United Nations inher continued occupation of Namibia. The UN declared that SouthAfrica’s mandate over Namibia was terminated. South Africanarmed forces continued to occupy Namibia. The UN did not acceptthe proposal by South Africa to hold an all-races referendum inNamibia to test the popularity of the continued mandate.

In 1971 the Security Council called on the Secretary General, KurtWaldheim, to contact all people of Namibia and to prepare for self-determination. Waldheim went to South Africa where he met withand had talks with Vorster. He also visited Namibia and held talkswith different groups in that country. In Namibia a Convention washeld between all the groups that wanted the immediate withdrawalof South Africa, and Waldheim’s representative met this Conventionat the end of the year. Discussions were underway, until a deadlockwas reached in 1973 when the Security Council called for an end toWaldheim’s mediation. The Convention called for the immediatewithdrawal of South Africa, and the Security Council echoed this callin 1974. On 16 December 1974 the General assemblyrecommended that South Africa be excluded from participation ininternational organisations as long as it continued to practice



apartheid and ignore the UN regarding Namibia and Zimbabwe. Adeadline for withdrawal was set for 30 May 1975, and the Councilmet again on this date, but France, the USA and the UK vetoed theidea of sanctions.

In 1975 the Portuguese left Angola and Mozambique, changing thesituation in southern Africa as the western powers began to fearsocialist take over in the independent countries. The South Africangovernment negotiated with an Advisory Council in Namibia, whichexcluded SWAPO12, and the Turnhalle Assembly 13reached adecision regarding a three-tier system of government andindependence in 1978. This agreement however failed after it wasseen that some apartheid laws would still be in place and there waspolitical change inside Namibia, with parties re-forming. InSeptember 1978 the Security Council passed a resolution findingthat UN supervised elections were the only possibility for change.The five western powers on the Security Council visited Vorster in1977 to discuss change. It was felt that South Africa should loosenconstitutional bonds over Namibia and stop Namibianrepresentation in the South African government, but it was agreedthat South Africa could appoint an Administrator-General to thearea. SWAPO accepted that the Administrator-General and a UNCommissioner would together supervise elections once politicalprisoners had been freed and discriminatory laws removed.

The Security Council accepted this plan in July 1978, but after theSouth African government carried out an attack on a SWAPO base,the problem opened up again. The South African government thenheld internal elections in Namibia in December 1978, which wentagainst the UN elections planned for April 1979.

Pik Botha proposed called for a regional conference in 1984, but bythis time the problems had mounted. The situation in southernAfrica had also undergone change after South Africa held talks with

12 During 1962 SWAPO had emerged as the dominant nationalist organisation for theNamibian people. It co-opted other groups such as the South West Africa NationalUnion (SWANU), and later in 1976 the Namibia African People's DemocraticOrganisation. SWAPO used guerrilla tactics to fight the South African Defence Force. Itwas recognized by the UN as the official representative for Namibian people.13 The Turnhalle Constitutional Conference was a conference held in Windhoek between 1975 and 1977, tasked with the development of a constitution for a self-governed Namibia under South African control.


the USSR, a ceasefire was agreed on, and the Nkomati Accord14

was signed. After discussions with SWAPO in Lusaka in 1984 atransitional government was brought into being that was meant toreplace the work of the Administrator General. The transitionalgovernment came into power in June 1985, which was proof of adeadlock at international level.

Sourceshttps://www.sahistory.org.za/article/south-africa-and-united-nations-1946-1990

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/06/13/world/state-of-emergency-imposed-throughout-south-africa-more-than-1000-rounded-up.html


The Road to Democracy in South Africa: Volume 4 [1980-1990]Part 2, SouthAfrican Democracy Education| Gastrow, S., (1995).

Who’s Who in South African Politics, no. 5. Johannesburg, Ravan Press.|South African History Archive (2015).

Commemorating the End Conscription Campaign. Availableat https://www.saha.org.za/ecc25/ecc_under_a_state_of_emergency.htm l

Overcoming Apartheid (2015). State of Emergency in the mid-1980’s.Available at https://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/multimedia.php?id=65-259-16

Potgieter, D.J. (ed)(1970). Standard Encyclopedia of Southern AfricaVol 7, Cape Town: Nasou, pp. 395-404|South African Army:History [Online]. Availableat: encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com [Accessed 16 October 2009

Sass, BB. 1993. An Overview of the Changing South African DefenceForce. South African Defence Review [Online] issue No 13. Availableat: iss.co.za [Accessed 16 October 2009]

14 The Nkomati Accord was a non-aggression pact signed on 16 March 1984 between the People's Republic of Mozambique and the Republic of South Africa.


https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/South%20African%20Army

https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/South%20African%20Army

https://www.iss.co.za/

https://www.iss.co.za/PUBS/ASR/SADR13/Sass.html

https://www.iss.co.za/PUBS/ASR/SADR13/Sass.html

https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/

https://www.saha.org.za/ecc25/ecc_under_a_state_of_emergency.htm

https://www.saha.org.za/ecc25/ecc_under_a_state_of_emergency.htm

https://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/multimedia.php?id=65-259-16

https://overcomingapartheid.msu.edu/multimedia.php?id=65-259-16

https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/south-africa-and-united-nations-1946-1990





Topic 3: The Iran-Iraq War, 1986IntroductionWith a history dating back to ancient and Biblical times, the MiddleEast has a long tradition of conflict. The seeds for the Iran-Iraq Warwere laid years before the first shots were fired.

The protracted war between these neighboring Middle Easterncountries resulted in at least half a million casualties and severalbillion dollars’ worth of damages, but no real gains by other side.Started by Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein in September 1980, thewar was marked by indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks, extensiveuse of chemical weapons and attacks on third-country oil tankers inthe Persian Gulf.

Political Changes leading to the War On the one hand, Iran saw major regime changes prior to the war.For several decades, it had a pro-Western government. Radicalfactions within Iran were angered by this, and in 1979, the IranianRevolution overthrew the government and began the new IslamicRepublic.

Iraq had a similar story before the war. In the late 1960s, a coupd'état, or a seizure of power, occurred when the Ba'ath Party15

took control. By July 1979, General Saddam Hussein, a leadingBa'athist figure, was the Iraqi president. Hussein had largeaspirations as Iraq's leader. He wanted to expand his country'spower, prestige, and influence, hoping to become the leadingnation in the Middle East. One way of accomplishing many of hisgoals was to attack Iran, gaining new oil fields, more land andpower, and dealing a blow to the threatening regime.

Tensions between the two countries built rapidly following theIranian Revolution when the country's new leader, AyatollahRuhollah Khomeini, declared that Iraq needed to stage anothercoup and overthrow the ruling Ba'ath party. This threatenedHussein and the Ba'athists, who saw the new Iranian government

15 The Ba'ath Party was a regional branch in Iraq of a larger political movement sweeping the Middle East that was socialist in nature and had a strong nationalist appeal.


as a threat to Iraq. Numerous border disputes intensified thesedisagreements .Thus, in 1979, both Iraq and Iran saw majorleadership changes that ultimately opened the door for years ofconflict to come between the two countries.

Causes for the WarThe roots of the war lay in a number of territorial and politicaldisputes between Iraq and Iran. Iraq wanted to seize control of therich oil-producing Iranian border region of Khūzestān, a territoryinhabited largely by ethnic Arabs over which Iraq sought to extendsome form of suzerainty. Iraqi president Saddam Hussein wantedto reassert his country’s sovereignty over both banks of the Shaṭṭ al-ʿArab, a river formed by the confluence of the Tigris and Euphratesrivers that was historically the border between the two countries.Saddam was also concerned over attempts by Iran’s Islamicrevolutionary government to incite rebellion among Iraq’s Shīʿitemajority. By attacking when it did, Iraq took advantage of theapparent disorder and isolation of Iran’s new government—then atloggerheads with the United States over the seizure of the U.S.embassy in Tehrān by Iranian militants—and of the demoralizationand dissolution of Iran’s regular armed forces.

In the months leading up to the outbreak of war, Saddam beganstrengthening and mobilizing his massive military forces. Iraq hadnearly 200,000 soldiers, with thousands of tanks and hundreds ofaircraft. Conversely, the Iranian army had just undergone severeofficer purges and executions. But Iran still had a strong air force,meaning that any war against them would not be easy. InSeptember 1980, Iraq launched attacks on Iran and the fightingbegan in earnest.

General Overview

1980:

Iraq launched a full-scale invasion ofIran on 22 September 1980. The IraqiAir Force launched surprise airattacks on ten Iranian airfields in



order to destroy the Iranian Air Force. The attack failed to damagethe Iranian Air Force significantly.

The next day, Iraq launched a ground invasion in threesimultaneous attacks. The invasion's purpose, according toSaddam, was to dull the edge of Khomeini's movement and tofrustrate his attempts to export his Islamic revolution to Iraq andthe Persian Gulf states. Saddam hoped that by capturingKhuzestan, he would cause such a blow to Iran's prestige that itwould lead to the new government's downfall, or at least the end ofIran's calls for his overthrow.

On 24 September, the Iranian Navy attackedBasra, Iraq, destroying two oil terminals nearthe Iraqi port Faw, which reduced Iraq's ability toexport oil. The Iranian ground forces (mainlythe Revolutionary Guard) retreated to the cities,where they set up defences against the invaders.

On September 1980, Iran attacked the Osirak nuclear reactor whichwas the first attack on a nuclear reactor and one of six militaryattacks on nuclear facilities in history. It was also the first instanceof a pre-emptive attack on a nuclear reactor in order to limit thedevelopment of a nuclear weapon, although it did not achieve itsaim, as France repaired the reactor after the attack.

1982:

On 19th of March Iraq launched an order to avert the Iranians asIraq anticipated an attack from the Iranians. Saddam and hisgenerals assumed they had succeeded, in reality the Iranian forcesremained fully intact. The Iranians had concentrated their forces bybringing them directly from the cities and towns throughout Iran.Saddam’s army remained unprepared for the offensives. (OperationUndeniable Victory, Operation Beit ol-Moqaddas, Second Battle ofKhorramshahr)

1983-1984:


Operation Before the Dawn:Operation Fajr al-Nasr waslaunched on 6 February 1983, theIranians shifted focus from thesouthern to the central andnorthern regions. Iran attackedalong a 40 km section near al-Amarah, Iraq, in an attempt to reach the highways connectingnorthern and southern Iraq.

Operation Dawn 1: An Iranian offensive to capture the Baghdad-Basra Highway. The operation was fought mostly by Pasdaranforces and was one of the three costly human wave offensives of1983, the Iranians failed to defeat the Iraqis.

Operation Dawn 2: On July 22, Iranian forces advanced fromPiranshahr and were highly successful against the Iraqis, effectivelyseizing Haj Omran in the process. The Iranians and Kurdishguerrillas launched ambushes on Iraqi positions and convoys. They

seized roughly 390 square kilometresof Iraqi territory. Iraq responded with acounteroffensive, launching anairborne assault and employing theuse of poison gas for the first time inthe entire war. The Iraqis hit Iraniantroops near Haj Omran with mustardgas while their troops properties of

poison gas and the agent descended back down to the Iraqi troops.At the same time, the rugged terrain held up Iraqi tanks. The use ofhelicopter gunships was also in a weak position, since the Iranianand Kurdish fighters had better cover. Hence Iraqis lost the battle.

Operation Dawn 3: an operation during Iran-Iraq war which wasinitiated on 3 August 1983 at 23 o'clock with the operation code of"Ya Allah". Around 180,000 Iranian troops participated in thisoffensive, which targeted the central front in the region of Mehran.Iraqi firepower in support of deeply entrenched troops,overwhelmed the advancing Iranians. Although Iranian troops werehighly motivated, they were poorly trained and equipped for this



battle. For Iran, it was one of the worst losses amongst theOperation Dawns.

Operation Dawn 4: An Iranian operation launched in 1983. SaddamHussein responded with a counterattack, using the Iraqi RepublicanGuard and poison gas. However, they failed to dislodge theIranians, who were reinforced by Kurdish fighters. The Iranians andPeshmerga guerrillas of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan took 650square kilometres of territory. This included a number of Kurdishvillages and exerted a significant amount of pressure on Penjwin.

Operation Dawn 5: An Iranian offensive with the goal to split theIraqi 3rd Army Corps and 4th Army Corps near Basra. The Iranianslacked artillery, air support and armoured protection, while theIraqis were well equipped. The armies inflicted severe casualties oneach other and the Iranians failed to achieve their aim.

Operation Dawn 6: a military operation conducted by the forces ofthe Islamic Republic of Iran against the armed forces of SaddamHussein's Iraq, from 22 to 24 February 1984. It was part of a largerstrategic operation to secure part of the Baghdad–Basra highway,in order to divide two of the most important cities in Iraq andthreatening the network supplying the Iraqi military on the frontline. The operation met an Iraqi defence which stood up to everyattack, and the Iranians called off the attack after two days.


1986:

First Battle of al-Faw (10 February 1986– 10 March 1986): Operation Dawn 8was launched by Iran which was anassault across the Shatt al-Arab (ArvandRud) river against the Iraqi troopsdefending the strategic al-FawPeninsula, which connects Iraq to thePersian Gulf. The Iranians defeated theIraqi defenders, capturing the tip of thepeninsula, including Iraq's main aircontrol and warning centre coveringPersian Gulf, as well as limiting Iraq'saccess to the ocean. The First Battle of

al-Faw was a major success for Iran who now held an importantstrategic position. The battle damaged the prestige of SaddamHussein and the Iraqi government, who began improving defencesfor the threatened major city of Basra.

Battle of Mehran: after the Iranian capture of Al-Faw, Saddamdeclared a new offensive against Iran, Al Defa Al Muthaharrakadesigned to enter deep into Iran. The Iranian border city of Mehran,Ilam Province was selected as the first target. On 15-19 May theIraqi Army supported by helicopter gunships captured the city.Saddam then offered the Iranians to exchange Mehran for Al-Faw.The Iranians rejected the Iraqi offer. Iraq then continued the attackattempting to force deeper into Iran. However, Iraq's attack wasquickly shattered by Iranian helicopters with missiles destroyingIraqi tanks and vehicles.

On June 30, Iran launched Operation Karbala 1, recapturing thearea by July 3. Saddam ordered the Republican Guard to retake thecity on July 4, but their attack was unsuccessful. The Iraqi losseswere so heavy the Iranians managed to capture some territoryinside of Iraq as well. Iraq's defeats at al-Faw and at Mehran was asevere blow to the prestige of Iraq.

From this point onwards, YOU will rewrite History.




Major Parties Involved

USA: USA mainly supported Iraq during the war because theReagan Administration believed that if Iran was able to advance toenter Israel and disrupt balance amongst the Gulf states whichwould lead to an increase in oil prices. The United States supportedIraq through a military aid program known as "Bear Spares",whereby the U.S. military provided countries with spare parts andammunition in order to reduce the dependence of these countrieson the USSR as most weapons were based on Soviet designs. TheUSA also provided tactical battlefield advice with intelligence andgave billions of dollars of credit to Saddam. They also provided Iraqwith some US made weapons such as Mark 84 general purposebombs. The USA also sold “biological research material” to Iraq suchas Pathogenic and Toxigenic Microorganism such as Anthrax, whichwas later discovered that they were being used by the BiologicalWarfare program of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein: He was the president ofIraq during and extending the war period(1979-2003). He was a leading member ofthe revolutionary Arab Socialist Ba'athParty which adopted Ba'athism, a mix ofArab nationalism and socialism, which wasthe main ideology and rule of the government until Saddam’sexecution.

Ruhollah Khomeini: He was the Supreme Leader of Iran until 1989.He was the founder of the Islamic Republic ofIran and the leader Kurdistan DemocraticParty(KDP): the longest standing and well-known political party of the Kurdish people. Itwas created in 1946 under Mulla MustafaBarzani with initial goals based on Kurdishnationalist aspirations and the desire for self-government. It was involved in the Kurdish

Rebellion of 1983, in order to gain sovereignty for Kurdish people,against Saddam Hussein’s government.



Patriotic Union of Kurdistan(PUK): it wasestablished in 1975 under Jalal Talabani. The PUKdraws its supporters from central and southernKurdistan. The PUK has come to represent amore urban, intellectual, and politically forwardgroup of people, versus the traditional rhetoricof the KDP. It was also one of the groups who was involved in theKurdish Rebellion of 1983.

Previous Iniciatives by the UN to resolve the Issue

The conflict between Iran and Iraq, which Secretary-General KurtWaldheim accurately characterized as "not an incident," but "war,"prompted several different peace initiatives by the United Nationswithin a week of the Iraqi air attack of September 22, 1980.

On the day of the attack, the Secretary-General promptly offered hisgood offices to help end the conflict. On September 23, 1980, theSecurity Council, by presidential declaration, 5 3 appealed to Iranand Iraq to "desist from all armed activity ... and to settle theirdispute by peaceful means." As expected by most delegates,however, the declaration and offer of good offices were not strongenough to quell the fighting.

Resolution 479On September 28, 1980, the Security Council adopted Resolution479. Although obviously stronger in form than the declaration, itwas not much stronger in substance. The resolution simplysupported the Secretary-General's offer of his good offices andcalled upon Iran and Iraq "to refrain immediately from any furtheruse of force" and to settle their dispute by peaceful means.Moreover, Resolution 479 did not name Iraq as the aggressor, afailure which would be cited repeatedly by Iran as evidence of theSecurity Council's bias toward Iraq. Not suprisingly, because theresolution effectively called for a cease-fire with Iraq in possessionof Iranian territory, Iraq stated that it would accept the resolution ifIran did. Iran rejected the resolution, however, vowing not to cease


fighting until the last Iraqi soldier had been driven back across theborder. They maintained this position until 1986.

By late October 1980, many Security Council members were of theview that "the war ha[d]n't been too bad .... Two unpleasantregimes [had] both been bloodied, and now there [was] less chancethat either [would] realize its ambition to take over the region." As aresult, the Security Council produced only a presidential declarationurging Iran and Iraq to refrain from the use of force and asking theSecretary-General to send an envoy to the Middle East to try toresolve the conflict.

Islamic conference OrganizationOn January 26, 1981, Secretary-General Waldheim tried anotherapproach to resolve the conflict, urging the forty-two-memberIslamic Conference Organization to mediate the Iran-Iraq war. Theplan, however, or a variation of it, was rejected on more than oneoccasion by both Iran and Iraq.



Resolution 514During the first half of 1982, the United Nations undertook no newpeace initiatives. Iran's repeated success on the battlefield,however, prompted Iraqi President Hussein to declare on June 20,1982, that Iraq would withdraw completely from Iranian territoryduring the next ten days. Significantly, with Iraq facing a possibleIranian invasion, the Security Council was suddenly quick torespond. On July 12, 1982, the Security Council adopted Resolution514, which called for a ceasefire and withdrawal of forces tointernationally recognized boundaries under the supervision of ateam of United Nations observers.

The timing of Resolution 514 was not lost upon Iran. Iran argued,that the Security Council was biased in favor of Iraq. Iran notedthat Resolution 514's call for a withdrawal to internationallyrecognized boundaries was a courtesy not extended to Iran inResolution 479, when the Security Council had called for a cease-firewith Iraq still in possession of Iranian territory. Moreover, Iranpointed out that the Security Council had been silent for twenty-twomonths while the fighting continued on Iranian territory, but actedswiftly to protect Iraq once Iraqi territory was threatened. As aresult, Iran rejected Resolution 514 and invaded Iraq the day afterthe resolution had been adopted.

Resolution 522Less than three months later, on October 4, 1982, the SecurityCouncil adopted Resolution 522, which basically repeated theResolution 514 provisions for a cease-fire, withdrawal and militaryobservers. Iraq accepted Resolution 522 and argued that Iran hadan explicit obligation under article 25 of the Charter to "accept andcarry out" the decision of the Security Council. Iran, however,rejected the resolution for largely the same reasons it had rejectedResolution 514.

Resolution 540In May 1983, in response to an Iranian request, Secretary-GeneralPerez de Cuellar sent a mission to both Iran and Iraq to examinecivilian areas damaged by the war. Diplomats hoped that anobjective report by the mission would demonstrate that the United


Nations was not biased toward Iraq, provide internationalrecognition of Iran's suffering during the war, and give theKhomeini Government an excuse to call upon the United Nations tooversee peace talks. Iran's delegate to the Security Council, SaidRajaie-Khorassani, stated that the possibility of a negotiatedsettlement would depend on the Security Council's reaction.

On October 31, 1983, by a vote of twelve to zero with threeabstentions, the Security Council adopted Resolution 540.Resolution 540 called upon the parties to end all attacks on civiliantargets and all hostilities in the Persian Gulf region and asked theSecretary-General to consult with the parties to develop ways tosustain and verify a "cessation of hostilities."

Iraq, as it had with the three prior Security Council resolutions,accepted Resolution 540. Iraq warned, however, that its acceptancewas conditioned upon the resolution being treated as an"integrated and indivisible" whole. No partial implementation wouldbe accepted. Iran, adamant in its position, rejected the resolution as"yet another exercise by the Council ... in favour of the Iraqiaggressor." Specifically, Iran contended that Iraq should have beenthe party called upon to stop attacks on civilian targets. Further,Iran argued that the conflict should not be described in terms of"hostilities," since for Iran it was a "painful defensive war ofliberation . . . [designed] to reverse the consequences of the [Iraqi]aggression."

Iran indicated that it remained ready to cooperate with theSecretary General, but suggested that mediation efforts "wouldstand a much better chance of positive achievement when theSecurity Council modifie[d] its biased position . . . in favor of Iraq,the aggressor."' Thus, the optimism created by the Iranian reactionto the report on damage to civilian areas quickly dissipated.

Chemical Weapons investigationThe United Nations' next involvement with the Iran-Iraq war cameon March 8, 1984, when Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar decidedto send a team of experts to Iran to investigate charges that Iraqwas using chemical weapons. Iraq had previously denied suchcharges and denounced the United States State Department for



concluding that "available evidence" suggested that Iraq had usedchemical weapons. Nevertheless, although the experts did notname Iraq in their report, they unanimously concluded that"chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used inthe areas inspected in Iran." In response to the report, the SecurityCouncil "strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons" but didso in the weaker form of a presidential declaration and not aresolution.

Resolution 544On June 1, 1984, the Security Council adopted Resolution 552.Although the third world members managed to prevent anymention of Iran, the resolution "condemn[ed] attacks oncommercial ships in the Gulf region and in particular the recentattacks on ships en route to and from ports of Saudi Arabia andKuwait."' Predictably, Iran rejected the resolution, calling it the"one-sided" product of a "partial, callous and indifferent" SecurityCouncil.'

The United Nations undertook few peace initiatives in 1985. TheSecretary-General did send a United Nations mission to Iran andIraq to investigate the conditions of prisoners. The missionreported mistreatment of prisoners by both countries, with physicalmistreatment more widespread in Iraq and psychological abusemore common in Iran. In addition, in April 1985, the Secretary-General made personal visits to both Iran and Iraq. Although heconcluded after his visits that the gap between the combatants was"as wide as ever," the Secretary-General kept the lines ofcommunication open and maintained his position as "the only go-between trusted by both sides.

Resolution 582On February 9, 1986, Iran launched an offensive in which itcaptured the Fao Peninsula and gained control of about 175 squaremiles of Iraqi territory. In response, the Security Councilunanimously adopted Resolution 582, which one Security Councilmember described as a "resolution [that] is a little more objectiveand tries to bring the Council back to the center." In Iran's favor, the


resolution deplored "the initial acts which gave rise to the conflict"and the use of chemical weapons, while in deference to Iraq, itcalled for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal to internationallyrecognized boundaries. Iraq accepted the resolution provided itwas interpreted as indivisible, but Iran rejected the resolution, inlarge part because it failed to specifically condemn Iraq as the initialaggressor.

Third Investigation on Chemical Weapons

From February 26 to March 3, 1986, a United Nations missiondispatched by the Secretary-General visited Iran to conduct a thirdinvestigation into the use of chemical weapons in the war. Themission unanimously concluded that Iraq had used chemicalweapons against Iran and named Iraq as the offender. The SecurityCouncil responded with a presidential declaration that stronglycondemned the use of chemical weapons and, for the first time,named Iraq as the guilty party. Iraq did not reject the declarationbut did criticize it for its lack of balance and for what Iran perceivedas its focus on a "secondary issue[ ]" which detracted from UnitedNations efforts to end the hostilities entirely. Iran welcomed thecondemnation of Iraq but made clear that the Security Councilneeded to do more than pass a resolution identifying andcondemning Iraq as the aggressor responsible for starting the war.

Resolution

Date Vote Concerns

479 28September1980

Unanimous

Noted the beginning ofthe Iran-Iraq War


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_479


514 12 July 1982 Unanimous

Called for an end to the Iran–Iraq War.

522 4 October1982

Unanimous

Called for an end to the Iran–Iraq War.

540 31 October1983

12-0-3 Condemned violations ofinternational law in the Iran–Iraq War.

582 24 February1986

Unanimous

"Deplores" the useof chemical weapons in theIran–Iraq War.

Sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

https://www.britannica.com/event/Iran-Iraq-War

https://peacekeeping.un.org/sites/default/files/past/uniimogbackgr.html

https://undocs.org/S/RES/479(1980)








https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_operations_of_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War


















https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran_(1980)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1983)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_2


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn-4



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_al-Faw


https://study.com/academy/lesson/the-iran-iraq-war-causes-timeline.html





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_al-Faw



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn-4



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dawn_(1983)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran_(1980)


Documents

MEDIMUN XV Annual Session 2020 · the International Atomic Energy Agency, that the Soviet government admitted an accident took place at Chernobyl. In direct response to the Chernobyl