Jared Samilow YUNMUN 2013 Position Paper for Topic #1, CTC In the

Jared Samilow YUNMUN 2013
Position Paper for Topic #1, CTC
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks and the United States’ ensuing “War on Terror,” the operation of
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), colloquially known as drones, has emerged as a prevailing bone of contention; it is
under the CTC’s auspices to address this matter by fostering and directing negotiations between the member nations
among whom this dispute has arisen.
That the widespread and extremely aggressive use of drones is only eleven years or so in progress has not
provided UN officials ample time to fully address the issue; indeed, there is a great paucity of official reports or
transcripts detailing proposed resolutions of or actions the UN has taken to remedy the present situation. In April 2005,
the UN Commission on Human Rights ordered the establishment of a special rapporteur position, upon whom is the task
of advancing the “promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism”; in
October 2012, this position’s incumbent—Ben Emmerson, Q.C. of the United Kingdom—announced that he would be
investigating the legality of the United States’ expansive drone program in early 2013. This committee is charged with
kindling international discussion (of which more is desperately needed) and determining a solution that is beneficial and
equitable for all parties who have stake in the "drone debate."
The country of Guatemala has, quite fortunately, not been forced to directly confront the issue of drones, for
which there is a simple and practical explanation: we are not directly threatened by intercontinental terrorism, as our
powerful northern ally has been. However, we are in no way apathetic toward the situation; rather, domestic challenges
confronting Guatemala make us that much more cognizant of the need to combat terrorism. Social unrest rooted in the
mid to late twentieth century left Guatemala vulnerable and somewhat unstable for decades; the legacy of these problems
has unfortunately not eroded. Rampant drug trafficking, human trafficking, and domestic terrorism are chronic problems
that we are facing as the twenty-first century unfolds. Being victims of terrorism ourselves, we are wholeheartedly
sympathetic to the strong anti-terrorist sentiment of the United States and other western nations. A report dated October 7,
2009 reports that Guatemalan “efforts to fight terrorism were all concretely set down in national legislation, in line with
international instruments. As of this year, Guatemala had joined 12 of the 16 international instruments related to
terrorism. “
At the forefront of the “drone debate” lie several daunting questions, all of which both merit and demand timely
answers. Is the use of drone warfare of any variety moral, and should the CTC move to permit the use of drones at all
What action should the CTC take to address the issue of “lone drones,” the effects of which often manifest as international
disputes and as fodder for the propaganda machines of terrorist and ultranationalist groups Does the world require whole
scale drone reform, or should the matter be addressed on by an individualized, precise, “country-by-country” approach
At present, Guatemala does not advocate the illegalization of drone usage in its entirety; drones help militaries minimize
risk to its personnel, preserve always precious funding, and in many cases prove more accurate during terrorist strikes
then when carried out by human pilots. The United States is our greatest trading partner—as such, a course of action that
is in America’s interests will most likely prove beneficial to our humble nation as well. Guatemala does not condone
employing drones recklessly or carrying out unnecessary strikes which yield naught but civilian casualties. In that same
October 7, 2009 report, the UN noted the sentiment of the Guatemalan delegate at that assembly: “work on the
comprehensive convention against terrorism should be finalized; the time was more than ripe for action.”
The issue of “lone drones” and how Guatemala believes drone use should be regulated go hand in hand. We do
not pretend to embrace the idealism that drones will, without fail, arrive at their directed locations. As such, Guatemala
proposes that, until a wide consensus can be reached about the place of drones within twenty-first century international
affairs, the use of drones be suspended except in regard to matters of well-documented terrorism. Such action would also
render the “lone drone” issue moot—no country should shoot down drones since they are being used only to combat
terrorists, which allies of the West should not object to. To be fair, Guatemala also would demand that the United States,
et al., devise procedures to minimize civilian casualties, and postpone or cancel attacks that are unlikely to result in
anything but unnecessary loss of life. This equitable agreement discussed previously, while by no means foolproof, should
strike a balance between the two conflicting interests at hand here: combating terrorism while keeping civilians out of
harm’s way. As 2012 draws to a close, many nations remain steadfast in their conviction that the Obama Administration’s
wanton and reckless use of drones constitutes grave human rights violations. Guatemala remains loyal to its valuable ally
while seeking to advance the best interests of all parties.
Guatemala eagerly and earnestly anticipates working closely with other nations that share its position—namely
those directly unaffected by the conflict, yet tethered to it by similar domestic challenges and by connections to large
superpowers—in drafting a resolution to this matter.
1

Works Cited
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gal3363.doc.htm
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Terrorism/Pages/SRTerrorismIndex.aspx
http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/
2