dimanche 10 janvier 2016

Summary of the concflict in Syria

I. Location of Syria:

- Capital city: Damascus                         

-  Area: 185,180 km2

-  Population: 17,064,854 of inhabitants

- National language: Arabic

- Religions in Syria: Mainly Islam (74% Sunni and 13% Alawie, a Shiite derivative and Assad’s clan religion), 10% Christian, 4% Kurd.

- The government: Syria is a unitary and semi-presidential Republic. Due to the ongoing civil war, alternative governments were formed such as the Syrian Interim Government and the Democratic Union Party.

- Hafez al-Assad is the previous president of the Syrian Arab Republic. When he died on June 10th 2000, his son, Bashar al-Assad, was elected President following a referendum. Bashar al-Assad is head of Syrian Regional Branch and his prime minister, Wael Nader al-Halqi, is head of government.

- Economic status: Syria is 70% open to foreign trade. It mainly exports agriculture sectors’ products (contributes to about 20% of Syria’s GDP), raw cotton, chemical products, refined products, industry equipment, heavy machinery, oil (about 40% of Syria’s earnings), iron and steel. However Syria’s economy decreased of 60% and its pound has lost 80% of its value. In May 2015, ISIS captured phosphate mines and exploded a vital gas pipeline for Damascus’ heating and electric system.


II. Syria’s conflict:


  • Syria’s civil war is a revolt and popular insurrection which aimed to overthrow Bachar al-Assad’s power in order to establish democracy.

  • The conflict’s roots come from the pacific and anti-regime demonstrations of the Arab spring in 2011. These uprisings turned violent. Teenagers painted revolutionary slogans on a school wall. They were arrested and tortured which resulted in Pro-Democracy protests in March 2011 in the south of the city of Deraa. Security forces then opened fire on the demonstrators and violently repressed them. However, on July 2011, hundreds of thousands of Syrian all over the country were protesting in the streets against the regime. On the 29th June 2011, a group of defected officers and soldiers from the Syrian Armed Forces and civilians founded the “Free Syrian Army” and started fighting against the Syrian Armed Forces.

  • The scale of violence dramatically increased and turned into a civil war between the rebels, mostly present in the south and center of rural areas of Syria, in the north of the country and in the suburbs of Damascus, and the loyalist, who are on the coast and in the biggest cities of the country. Fighting reached Damascus and the second city of  Aleppo in 2012. According to the UN, over 250 000 people had been killed in the conflict by August 2015.

  • Hundreds of people were killed in August 2013 after rockets were fired at several agricultural districts around Damascus. Western powers, the regime and its ally Russia, blame each other.
In total, about more than 6,000 civilians have been killed by bombs dropped by government aircraft on rebel-held areas. The UN believes that civilian gatherings have been deliberately targeted, constituting massacres.
Thus, A mission led by the UN and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and the prospect of a US military intervention, made President al-Assad agree to the complete removal or destruction of Syria's chemical weapons arsenal. The destruction was made a year later however the OPCW reported the use of toxic chemicals, such as chlorine and ammonia, by the government in attacks on rebel-held northern villages between April and July 2014 which resulted in the deaths of about 13 people.
Islamic State has also been accused of using homemade chemical weapons against Kurdish forces and civilians in northern Syria.

  • A UN commission of inquiry, investigating alleged human rights violations since March 2011, has evidence that those on both sides of the conflict have committed war crimes - including murder, torture, rape and enforced disappearances. Government and rebel forces have also been accused by investigators of using civilian suffering - such as blocking access to food, water and health services - as a method of war.
Islamic State has also been accused by the UN of waging a campaign of terror in northern and eastern Syria. It has inflicted severe punishments on those who transgress or refuse to accept its rule, including hundreds of public executions and amputations. Its fighters have also carried out mass killings of rival armed groups, members of the security forces and religious minorities, and beheaded hostages, including several Westerners.

  • The conflict became more than a simple battle between rebels and President al-Assad’s loyalists. It also has a Religious dimension. Indeed, Iran, Iraq and the Lebanese political party of Hezbollah backed President al-Assad’s regime, all of the three are Shiites. On the other hand, Qatar, South Arabia and the terrorist groups of Al Quaeda, Islamic State and al-Nusra Front backed the rebels (who are Sunnis). The armed rebellion has significantly evolved however the rising amount of Islamists and Jihadists, with their brutal tactics, have caused widespread concern and triggered rebel infighting

  • What began as another Arab Spring uprising against an autocratic ruler has mushroomed into a brutal proxy war that has drawn in regional and world powers. Iran provides full support to President al-Assad by sending him military advisers, weapons and spending millions of dollar a year. The Syrian government also benefits of Hezbollah’s militia’s fighters that have provided important battlefield support since 2013 and the Iraqi’s militia (it was at first placed at the Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque but is now spread everywhere especially in the city of Aleb). Moreover, President Assad can rely on the support of China and Russia. These two members of the United Nations blocked several times decisions which were not in favour of President al-Assad’s regime. Russia has economical, military and geopolitical motivations to help Syria. Indeed, Syria is an old client of theirs, then the port of Tartous is their last military base on the Mediterranean Sea and finally, President Poutine did not appreciate the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s intervention in Libya in 2011 which was supposed to protect the civilians, not to overthrow Kadhafi.                                    In September 2015, Russia launched an air campaign against Mr Assad's opponents. It was said to target terrorists but many of the strikes hit Western-backed rebels and civilians.

  • The Occident is hostile to President al-Assad’s regime. Thus, they created the “National Coalition for Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces” in December 2012 during the fourth Arab League gathering. It is composed of about one hundred countries. However, it is poorly finance, barely send weapons and has a little influence in Syria. It only provides a diplomatic support.

  • As for the Gulf’s Monarchies, especially South Arabia, they see the conflict in Syria as an opportunity to weakened Iran, their biggest opponent. Therefore, they send weapons to the rebels threw Jordan and Turkey. Kuwait’s Salafists also provide private donations and funds. 

  • This conflict has resulted into more than four million people escaping Syria, most of them being women and children. It is one of the largest refugee exoduses in recent history. Neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey are struggling to accommodate the flood of new arrivals.
According to the UN, about 12.2 million are in need of humanitarian assistance inside Syria, including 5.6 million children. They also have estimated in March 2015 a total economic loss of  $202bn and 30% of Syrians being in abject poverty. Syria's education, health and social welfare systems are also collapsing.

    
  • Thus, it has been concluded that the best solution to end the conflict would be a political solution. However, a number of attempts by the Arab League and the UN to broker ceasefires and start dialogue have failed.
In January 2014, the US, Russia and UN convened a conference in Switzerland to implement the 2012 Geneva Communique, an internationally backed agreement that called for the establishment of a transitional governing body in Syria formed on the basis of mutual consent.
The talks, which became known as Geneva II, broke down in February after only two rounds. The UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi blamed the Syrian government's refusal to discuss opposition demands and its insistence on a focus on fighting "terrorists" - a term Damascus uses to describe rebel groups.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says the organisation's long-term strategic objective remains a political solution based on the Geneva Communique. The UN special envoy Staffan de Mistura has also proposed establishing a series of "freeze zones", where local ceasefires would be negotiated to allow aid deliveries in besieged areas. But his attempt to broker a truce in Aleppo in March 2015 was rejected by rebels in the city, who feared the government would use it to redeploy its forces elsewhere and that IS militants would simply ignore it.


Shannon Kerlann and Maëlle Panza

Timeline:  - http://timelines.latimes.com/syria/ from Los Angeles Times

samedi 9 janvier 2016

Theme 2 : the conflict in Syria


Saturday, January 9th


Iran : Estelle Cocchi, Louise Bigot, Emma Migault

Israel : Lou Régé Turo, Laura Rinker


Russia : Louis Cochin, Axelle Vanneaud


United States: Nina Chambaud, Gaetan Tixeront, Lucas Nicoletti
United Kingdom: Camille Gho, Charlotte Touvet, Julien Alexandre

China : Manon Vuaillat, Clémentine Mariani, Pierre Coquelle

France : Ziryab Idir, Roxane de Beaucorps

Germany : Théophile Jourdain de Muizon, Inès Bermaki

Saudi Arabia : Arthur Roux de Bézieux, Ema Vavre

Egypt : Solène Kendem, Pauline Verger

Lebanon : Théo Roux de Bézieux, Rida Lebbos

Jordan : Marie Veinière, Guillaume Chamaly

Turkey : Raphaël Amzallag, Emmanuel Sassi

Iraq : Clémence Rameau, Florian Marian

Syria : Théo Moy, Emma Weingand







dimanche 1 novembre 2015

Commentaires suite à la 1ère séance, Madame Marnotte

- De bons arguments dans l'ensemble, qui montrent que le débat a été préparé et que les groupes ont pris soin d'anticiper les arguments des "opponents". Certains arguments étaient cependant beaucoup trop subjectifs parfois ("You can't sign a deal with an uneducated country": ce n'est pas un argument constructif, mais une attaque directe). Bien penser à étayer les arguments d'exemples concrets (chiffres, statistiques, événements datés, etc).
- Maëlle a bien dirigé la séance, avec fermeté, mais certains groupes ont eu tendance à monopoliser la parole => attention à la distribution de la parole (exemple: l'Allemagne avait une question pour l'Iran, mais la Russie s'est immiscée dans le débat sans y prêter attention)
- Le débat a eu parfois tendance à tourner en rond, avec des arguments qui sont revenus plusieurs fois (type 'Iran can't be trusted'); dans ces cas-là, la personne qui dirige la séance peut relancer le débat, en posant une question pour donner une orientation nouvelle au débat, par exemple.
- En termes de langue, deux ou trois remarques:
> "avoir / prendre la parole" (dans un contexte type débat, assemblée): to have / to take the floor.
> "Exposer son opinion / point de vue": on n'emploiera pas le verbe "to expose" (qui signifie dénoncer) mais on dira plutôt "to explain one's position", "to present one's point of view", etc.
> La légitimité ne se traduit pas par "legitimity" mais "legitimacy".

dimanche 4 octobre 2015

List for the theme : Iran's nuclear deal


Wednesday, October 14th

Iran : Lucas Nicoletti, Charlotte Touvet, Clémence Rameau, Florian Mariani

Israel : Solène Kendem, Pierre Coquelle, Raphaël Amzallag, Gaetan Tixeront

Russia : Théophile Jourdain de Muizon, Théo Moy, Arthur Roux de Bézieux, Guillaume Chamaly

United States : Emmanuel Sassi, Jules Moutou, Ziryab Idir

United Kingdom :Théo Roux de Bézieux, Julien Alexandre, Manon Vuaillat, Emma

China : Estelle Cocchi, Laura Rinker, Rida Lebbos, Louis Cochin

France : Nina Chambaud, Inès Bermaki, Clémentine Mariani, Ema Vavre

Germany : Roxane de Beaucorps, Axelle Vanneaud, Pauline Verger, Camille Gho

European Union : Louise Bigot, Emma Migault, Lou Régé Turo, Mademoiselle Vénière (désolé, je n'ai pas réussi à lire ton prénom, toutes mes excuses).


Iran's nuclear deal on July, 14th 2015



I. Location of Iran

- Capital city: Tehran

-  Area: 1 648 195 km²

-  Population: 78.9 million of inhabitants

- National language: Persian 

- National religion: Islam (90% Shiites). Iran groups 40% of the Shiites of the world.

- The government: the Shiites are (over-) dominant. Ali Khamenei is the most powerful religious and political man in Iran (called the "ayatollah", both political and religious supreme leader).

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the ancient president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a very conservative politician, who refused diplomatic relations with the West for years; Hassan Rohani is the current president since 2013 (the latter is considered as being far more flexible and moderate).

- Economic status: Iran stands among the biggest petrol and gas producers. It still undergoes American and European Union (since 1st July 2012) embargos. Consequently, imports are significantly reduced, and the global economy weakened.


 II. Diplomatic situation

  Iran participated in numerous conflicts. In 1946, Russia invaded the North of Iran ; in 1953, the CIA overthrown Mossadegh government ("Ajax Operation", in response to the nationalisation of the iranian oil) ; in 1979, during the Islamic Revolution, the Pasdarans, the Revolutionnary Guards, took the US's ambassy in Tehran's staff (152 people) in hostage for 444 days. 
The war against the Sunni Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein which lasted from 1984 to 1987 made one million victims. As a result, Iran claimed that it wants to acquire nuclear bomb in order to defend itself ; but the genuine reasons are numerus (indeed, in order to make its voice heard in the changing world order, being a nuclear power is hepful).

  Secondly, there are also deep religious tensions in this Arabic area. 
On the one hand, Iran is (geographically) close to Sunni countries, Saudi Arabia (the Sunni leader) for instance, and the Gulf countries, who are strongly oppose to the Shiite faith.
On the other hand, Iran is heading the Shiite (or Shia) Crescent ("croissant chiite"), formed by Iran, Iraq (the iraqi population is half Sunni half Shiite), Syria (the Al Assad's Alawite clan is a Shiite one) and the lebanese Hezbollah of Hassan Nasrallah (a terrorist organisation fighting along with syrian troops and pledging to destroy Israel).
Israel has a special status as it is the emissary of the Western countries, namely the US (at least it used to be so, up until this very deal). Israel is deeply concerned about a nuclear Iran, as the previous Iran president (Ahmadinejad) and the current ayatollah were fiercely against the idea of a jewish State in the region, developing a loudly antisemite rhetoric, which is why Israel is strongly opposed to the deal (and waged a war in the American congress through Aipac to avoid it, unsuccesfully).
Israel unofficialy has the nuclear bomb (Israel never recognized it but it is clear they do) - along with Pakistan, India, and China - which is why Iran does not see why they could not have it too ; obviously, Iran looks for being equal with its neighbours.





  In the same way, on the one hand, since 1979, Iran didn’t keep any contact with America. On the other hand, America has military bases in many surrounding countries like Iraq, Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, originally settled to fight against terrorism - maybe in order to keep an eye on this oil-rich region an especially Iran.
Now it is clear that the US needs Iran support to fight the Islamic State, a Sunni organisation (although the Arab Sunni State, such as Saudi Arabia are also fighting it - this is an other problem).


American bases in the middle East



The Iran official nuclear position was clearly admitted. Iran is a member of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) since 1959, and signed in 1968 the NPT (Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty)
In conclusion, Iran was allowed to use nuclear power plants for civil use only. However, suspicions rose in the 2000s. In fact,  Natanz, Arak, Fordow, Buchehr nuclear power plants are suspected to produce enough enriched uranium to build nuclear weapons.


Nuclear suspicious facilites in Iran


 III. Chronological evolution of the Iranian nuclear debate

- 1979: Islamic revolution, the ayatollah Khomeiny decided to continue the program of nuclear research in order to face Israel and its nuclear weapon.


- 2002: Satellite pictures showed the suspicious activities of Arak and Natanz nuclear power plants to the American. They reacted and claimed that Iran was preparing weapons of mass destruction; Tehran agrees (was forced) to receive IAEA's investigators.


- 2003: France, Germany and United Kingdom (EU-3) offered the first negotiations.


- 2006: The President Ahmadinejad ensured that Iran belongs to “nuclear countries”. In reaction, United Nations has been worn of Iranian nuclear activities potentially dangerous. Then, America agreed to participate to negotiations with Europeans about Iran, provided Iran reduces their production of enriched uranium.


-  2007: United Nations voted economic sanctions for Iran which didn’t respect the contract.


- 2009: Iran revealed the existence of a nuclear power plant which produces enriched uranium in Fordo. On 1st October, a meeting with the 5+1 is organised. They concluded that Iran is able to develop the nuclear bomb at any time.


- 2012: The election of an ultra conservative party, closer to Khamenei favoured a new try of negotiations on the occasion of a new meeting with the 5+1.


- 2013: Hassan Rohani elected, Iran is decided to stop the tensions and made sure that Iran should not be seen as a threat to the US and Europe. Obama and Rohani talked for the first time for fourteen years, and the President met the President Hollande.


- 2015: on July 14,th China, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Russia, United States, European Union and Iran in Vienna have concluded the Iranian nuclear deal.


IV. The issue we will vote: The Iranian nuclear deal

- Increase the time it would take Iran to acquire enough material for 1 bomb (from 2-3 months to at least 1 year)
- Reduce Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium
- Reduce the number of Iran’s installed centrifuges by two-thirds
- Prevent Iran from producing weapons-grade plutonium
- Track Iran’s nuclear activities with robust transparency and inspections

Shannon Kerlann and Maëlle Panza



Other Data :
Timelines :
Iran nuclear talks: timeline, The Guardian
Iran profile - timeline, BBC
Map :


mardi 2 décembre 2014

List n°3 :

Please keep in mind that this session will surely be turn into a much less conventional one, in order to move on to a debate if we face too many blockade ; so prepare your country with a large perspective.


European Union : Léo Perez, Antoine Monjotin, Brieuc Jan, Thibault Murris

USA : Mathis Guerreiro, Clara Charrin, Carla Marlerba

Russia : Jeanne Nuzillat, Margo Fernandes

Saudi Arabia : Maëlle Panza, Shannon Kerlann, Faustine Fontanille

Jordan : Balthasar Bau, Quitterie Foulquier D'Herrouel,  Romy Dematons

Iran : Antoine Feuillas, Domitille de Fournoux, Aurore Thomas

Arab league : Guillaume Barre, Paul Leclerc, Oscar Chassagnon

Israel : Flobert Besson, Nicolas Lagarde, Thomas Belaich

dimanche 30 novembre 2014

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict ; if thinking peace became far to steep, what are the preliminary terms to a basic, a minimal relation and maybe the cornerstone to further negotiation ? With Mr. Perrin


In fact, after the "protective edge" operation launched by Israel against Hamas in the Gaza Band this summer, which was especially bloody, the already jammed peace-negotiations totally ceased, and the blockade is gaining momentum. This made the Palestinian issue, which has far better rattings than the Israeli government, high on the world's agenda : several European Parliaments already symbolically  recognized a Palestiniaa State, and the Arab League filed a demand of recognition for a Palestinian State to the Security Council of the UN.

As this question is really harsh to discuss, and as we will quickly be stuck because of the very same reasons the UN are at present, we will hold a quiet particular session. After a presentation, we will do as usual, but at the midway point of our assigned time (or further if discussions are not barren), we will proceed to a much more flexible debate, less formal, and express our own ideas on what are the conditions for further minimal joint efforts between Israelian and Palestinian.

We will have the luck to be supervise by Mr. Perrin, who teach in preparatory class.