· PDF fileUCMUN 2017 United Nations Human Rights Council Committee History: The United Nations

UCMUN 2017 United Nations Human Rights Council

Hello delegates, and welcome to the 2017 UCONN Model United Nations Conference! My name is Michelle Voong, and I will be your director. I am excited to work with all of you! The United Nations Human Rights Council is an intergovernmental body within the United Nations made up of 47 states and its main purpose is to protect and promote human rights around the globe. The Human Rights Council was created by the United Nations General Assembly on March 15, 2006. The two topics we will cover during the conference this year are Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar and Mass Surveillance. Both topics are representative of the human rights issues present in the world today. While conducting your research, be sure to look beyond what is present here in the background guide, its purpose is to serve only as a framework for the committee and these topics. Research your particular country’s stance and go beyond by investigating the history of the topics and possible solutions. The more prepared the delegates are the more productive the committee will be and the better the conference will go.

I am currently a senior majoring in Computer Science and Engineering and minoring in Math. This is my fourth year participating in UCMUN. I started as an admin for UNICEF, then as an assistant director for the Human Rights Council and last year was the director of the Commission on the Status of Women. Model UN is an excellent way to gain a global perspective of various international issues. When I am not at work or the in the library, I enjoy reading, riding my bike, napping and watching The West Wing, Silicon Valley, or Seinfeld.

Above all, I hope by the end of the conference, all of you will have had an enjoyable time in committee creating resolutions, working with your peers and becoming better members of the global community. If you have any questions, concerns, or comments regarding the background guide, our committee, or anything feel free to email me at anytime. I will do my best to respond as soon as possible. I look forward to meeting you all! Michelle Voong UCMUN 2017 UNHRC Director [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Committee History:

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an intergovernmental body

within the United Nations. The UNHRC is responsible for “promoting universal respect for the

protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind

and in a fair and equal manner” (Resolution 60/251). The Human Rights Council consists of 47

United Nations Member States, which are elected by the UN General Assembly and can serve up

to two consecutive three-year terms. The 47 Member States are designed to ensure that the

dynamic global community is represented equally; 13 members are elected from the African

Bloc, 13 from the Asian Bloc, six from the Eastern European Bloc, eight from the Latin

American and Caribbean Bloc, and seven from the Western European and Other States Bloc

("Questions and Answers on the Human Rights Council").

The UNHRC was created on March 15, 2006 by the General Assembly by Resolution

60/251 and replaced the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The main purpose of the

UNHRC is to evaluate situations of human rights in all 192 UN Member States. This is done

through the Universal Periodic Review, in which an Advisory Committee provides expertise,

advice on human rights issues and the Compliant Procedure. The Compliant Procedure allows

individuals and organizations to bring human rights violations to the attention of the UNHRC.

The Human Rights Council has discussed a multitude of issues: discrimination based on sexual

orientation and gender identity, discrimination against women in law and in practice, modern day

slavery and human rights of persons with disabilities ("UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS

COUNCIL").


Works Cited

"Questions and Answers on the Human Rights Council." United Nations. United Nations, n.d.

Web. 01 Feb. 2017.

United Nations, General Assembly, Resolution 60/251. Human Rights Council. Official

Record/Readex, 15 March 2006, 60th session

"UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL." Welcome to the Human Rights Council.

N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2017.


Committee Simulation:

The Role of the Delegates

A successful conference cannot take place without active and participatory delegates.

Participation in committee is essential and takes the form of engaged, persuasive debate with

other delegates through informed speech and writing. Delegates are expected to have thoroughly

and accurately researched the position of their respective country ahead of time; knowledge of

current refugee policy is most important but must be accompanied by an understanding of bloc

positions, history, and cultural ideologies. As such, any resolution that is passed by the

committee must be representative of the positions of the countries sponsoring it.

Background research is clearly not only crucial for a realistic debate but for a successful

committee. Delegates should keep in mind, however, that drafting a resolution is not a simple

process, requiring extensive negotiation and structured arguments. Of course, other complicating

factors such as political alliances, social and cultural viewpoints, and funding make the writing

of resolutions even more challenging. Like any form of negotiation, an impressive debate must

draw on compromise and a wide range of knowledge, skills that any accomplished delegate

needs.

That being said, there are rules within this committee and the conference as a whole that

must be followed. While proper parliamentary procedure and decorum must be maintained

throughout all committee sessions, it is even more important that delegates have respect for

themselves, those around them, the staff, and the international issues at hand. Following these

rules will make UCMUN more enjoyable for everyone, especially as a learning conference. This


conference is supposed to be fun, and it will be as long as delegates act appropriately and

respectfully.

The Role of the Dias

The Director and the Assistant Directors will form the Dias. They are obligated to

maintain a structured, appropriate debate; they will accomplish this by establishing and keeping

committee rules as well as ensuring delegate participation. More specifically, the Dais is

responsible for setting debate, ending debate, and voting procedure. All members of the Dais are

also available as a resource that delegates may approach with any questions regarding

parliamentary procedure, the topics being discussed, or the conference in general.


Topic A: Rohingya and Myanmar

Introduction:

The Rohingya are an ethnic Muslim group considered to be the world’s most persecuted

minority. The Rohingya live in Myanmar, a predominantly Buddhist country, making up roughly

one million of the nation's 50 million people. Though they are concentrated in Myanmar, they

have smaller communities in Bangladesh, Thailand and Malaysia. Almost all Rohingya live in

the poorest area of Myanmar Rakhine State, with a population of three million. Roughly 78

percent of people living in the state live in poverty, according to the World Bank.

Approximately 140,000 Rohingya live in ghetto-like camps and are unable to leave without

government permission, due to the fact that they are not regarded as citizens of Myanmar.

Figure 1: Map distinguishing the locations of different ethnic groups in Myanmar


(“Myanmar: Major Ethnic Groups and Where They Live”).

The Rohingya people have been subjected to many human rights violations. They have

been stripped of basic human rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The

Universal Declaration of Human Rights serves as a common standard and outlines the

fundamental human rights to be universally protected. For example, Article 15 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has a right to a nationality. No one shall be

arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality” (“THE

INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS”). The Rohingya are not considered one of the

135 official ethnic groups in Myanmar, as the nation's 1982 Citizenship Law denies them the

right to nationality, effectively rendering them stateless. In order to get citizenship, the Rohingya

need to prove that they have lived in Myanmar for at least 60 years. However, it is difficult for

them to produce this paperwork because it is often unavailable or denied to them by the

government. Without this paperwork, their rights to study, work, travel, marry, practice their

religion and access to health services are deprived. According to Article 13 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence

within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own,

and to return to his country” (“THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS”).

Even if they obtain citizenship, they must identify themselves as “naturalized” as

opposed to Rohingya, and there are limitations to what professions they can hold. For example,

once they are naturalized, Rohingya are unable to enter the fields of medicine and law as well as

being prevented from running for public office (Safdar). The Human Rights Council strives to

protect human rights for all people and therefore it is necessary to address the persecution and


violence done to the Rohingya.

History and Description of the Issue:

Rohingya are considered to be descendants of the first Muslims who migrated to northern

Arakan (modern day Rakhine state) during the 8th century. Most of the Rohingya living in

Myanmar today are descended from Bengali Muslim workers brought to Rakhine after the

British annexation in 1826, even though Muslims have lived in Myanmar since the 11th century.

In 1784, the Burman King Bodawpaya conquered Arakan and hundreds of thousands of refugees

fled to Bengal. In a series of three wars beginning in 1824, Britain captured Burma (In 1989 the

army officially changed the name of Burma to Myanmar) and made it a province of

British-India.

In 1942, the Japanese invaded Burma and effectively pushed out the British. During this

time, Burmese nationalists attacked Muslim communities that they thought had benefited from

British rule. In Arakan, Rakhine Buddhist and Rohingya Muslim villagers attacked one another,

causing a displacement of Buddhist villagers to the south and Muslim villagers to the north. It is

believed that roughly 22,000 Rohingya crossed the border to Bengal during this time. The

Japanese remained in control of this area until 1945 when the British drove them out

(“BACKGROUND”). After Myanmar gained independence in 1948, the tensions between the

government and Rohingya increased because many wanted Arakan to join Muslim-majority East

Pakistan (Bangladesh). The government retaliated by ostracizing the Rohingya (Kelly).

In 1962, the military took control of the country and enacted various measures intended

to encourage the Rohingya to leave Myanmar, such as denying recognizing their citizenship and


restricting personal freedoms. During the Bangladeshi war of independence in 1971, hundreds of

thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims fled their country, and the Rohingya were combined with

those fleeing conflict. As a result, much of the Buddhist community (roughly 80 percent of the

population) and the authorities viewed Rohingya as illegal immigrants. In 1977 the junta

(military dictatorship) began Operation Nagamin (Dragon King), which they claimed to be a

census operation aimed at screening the population for foreigners. This led to abusive attacks on

Rohingya by the government and the Buddhists in Rakhine and caused more than 200,000

Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh. A year later, Bangladesh struck a U.N.- brokered deal with

Burma for the repatriation of refugees, under which most Rohingya returned. Violent attacks

against Rohingya were common during military junta rule in Myanmar, fueled by

authoritarianism and Buddhist nationalism.

Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law redefined people who migrated during British rule as

illegal immigrants and the government applied this to all Rohingya. The Citizenship Law was

implemented after the return of Rohingya who had fled earlier unrest. The law distinguishes

between three types of citizenship: citizenship, associate citizenship, and naturalized citizenship.

In turn, each person is issued a color-coded Citizenship Scrutiny card. Pink cards are issued to

those considered citizens, meaning the individual belongs to one of the national races (Kachin,

Kayah (Karenni), Karen, Chin, Burman, Mon, Rakhine, Shan, Kaman, or Zerbadee) or the

individual’s ancestors settled in the country before 1823 (the beginning of British occupation of

Arakan State). Blue cards are issued to those considered to have associate citizenship, meaning

that if an individual cannot provide evidence that their ancestors settled in Myanmar before

1823, they can be considered associate citizens if one grandparent, or pre-1823 ancestor was a


citizen of another county. Green cards are issued to naturalized citizens. To become naturalized

citizens, an individual must provide conclusive evidence that their parents entered and resided in

Myanmar prior to 1948. To acquire citizenship, some other requirements are that the person in

question must be eighteen years old, be able to speak one of the national languages well (the

Rohingya dialect is not considered one of the national languages), and be good of character and

sound of mind. The law essentially denies the Rohingya a possibility of acquiring citizenship.

Myanmar does not recognize the Rohingya as one of its official ethnic groups. Many Rohingya

moved and settled in Rakhine during the British colonial period, which immediately denies them

from citizenship. As such, it is difficult for the groups of Rohingya who moved and settled after

the British colonial period to provide proof or conclusive evidence of their history of residence

and lineage. All these factors make it nearly impossible for Rohingya to obtain citizenship.

Therefore, their formal legal status is resident foreigner, which puts restrictions on their freedom

of movement, from holding public office, access to higher education, and other basic human

rights (“DISCRIMINATION IN ARAKAN”).

In 1991, more than 250,000 Rohingya refugees fled what they said was forced labor, rape

and religious persecution at the hands of the Myanmar army. The forced labor included

completing various tasks for the military such as building new army barracks, new roads and

bridges, digging fish and prawn ponds, and cutting bamboo. The army said it was trying to bring

order to Rakhine. From 1992-1997, approximately 230,000 Rohingya returned to Arakan, now

known as Rakhine, under another repatriation agreement (Al-Mahmood). General Then Shew’s

government stopped issuing Rohingya children with birth certificates in 1994 (Kelly). The ethnic

origins of the Rohingya have been a source of contention for Myanmar’s Buddhist majority. It is


important to understand the history of Rohingya and Myanmar before discussing the intricacies

and dynamics of the relationship between the two.

Current Status:

The tension between Rohingya Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists has only escalated

beginning with the Rakhine state riots in 2012. Tension has always existed between Rohingya

Muslims and Rakhine Buddhists. The first riot occurring in June 2012, when widespread rioting

and clashes between the two groups lead to the displacement of thousands of people and the

death of 200. This initial riot began after the raping and murder of a young Buddhist woman. The

next riot took place in March 2013, which consisted of a dispute in a gold shop in central

Myanmar and led to violence between the Buddhists and Muslims; this incident left 40 people

dead and entire neighborhoods destroyed. The next incident took place the same year in August,

when rioters burnt Muslim-owned homes and stores after a Muslim man was accused of raping a

Buddhist woman. The United Nations stated that more than 40 Rohingya men, women, and

children were killed in a violent incident that flared up in January 2014 after accusations had

been made that Rohingyas killed a Rakhine policeman. Six months after, in June, a rumor had

been spread on social media saying that a Buddhist woman had been raped by one or more

Muslim men, which led to another riot. (“Why Is There Communal Violence in Myanmar?”).

Buddhist nationalists in Myanmar strongly oppose any plan to grant Rohingya Muslims

citizenship, claiming that they are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh even though they have

deep rooted history in the country.

Due to the fact that the Government of Myanmar has repeatedly denied the UN Human


Rights Office unrestricted access to the worst affected areas of northern Rakhine State, the High

Commissioner has deployed a team of human rights officers to the Bangladeshi border with

Myanmar to investigate. The Bangladeshi border with Myanmar is said to house an estimated

66,000 Rohingya who have fled Myanmar since October 9, 2016.

Figure 2: Rubble of Rohingya village (Cumming-bruce).

Interviews by the team of human rights officers have solidified the fact that “…the army

deliberately set fire to houses with families inside, and in other cases pushed Rohingyas into

already burning houses” (“Devastating Cruelty against Rohingya Children, Women and Men

Detailed in UN Human Rights Report”). Atop the military-backed mistreatment of Rohingya

Muslims there has also been, “Mass gang-rape, killings –including of babies and young children,

brutal beatings, disappearances and other serious human rights violations by Myanmar’s security

forces in a sealed-off area north of Maungdaw in northern Rakhine State”(“Devastating Cruelty


against Rohingya Children, Women and Men Detailed in UN Human Rights Report”). The

conflicts between the Rohingya Muslims and the Buddhists have caused the forcible

displacement of more than 125,000 Rohingya and other Muslims in Myanmar. Officials of

Myanmar, community leaders, and Buddhist monks have organized and encouraged state

security forces to conduct coordinated attacks on Muslim neighborhoods and villages in October

2012 to terrorize and forcibly relocate the population.

“In recent months, government soldiers have been accused of widespread killing and rape

of Rohingya in Rakhine State. A United Nations report concluded in February that the

army and police had slaughtered hundreds of men, women and children; gang-raped

women and girls; and forced as many as 90,000 people from their homes” (Paddock).

As previously stated, the country’s former military rulers stripped the Rohingya of their

citizenship and confined them to villages and internment camps without the right to travel, work

or marry freely in the country they were born in. Many believed that after half a century of

military rule and then the election of Aung San Suu Kyi, conditions would change for the

Rohingya. However, Aung San Suu Kyi has refused to restore citizenship to the Rohingya and

has refused to recognize them as an ethnic group. In 2014, the former government introduced

new ID cards, which forced Rohingya to identify them as “Bengali,” a label that they are against.

After Suu Kyi was elected in 2015, she tried to catalyze the effort and tried to avoid the issue of

ethnicity by removing race and religion from the documents (Bengali). Many note her inaction

towards the Rohingya as a sign of the army’s lasting influence and the deep hostility among

many Myanmar Buddhists, including leaders of her own party, feel toward Muslims. Aung San

Suu Kyi is the First State Counselor (akin to Prime Minister or a head of government position)


and Leader of the National League for Democracy and her party won a landslide victory in the

2015 elections. Aung San Suu Kyi is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and once considered a

champion of democracy, however her tepid response to the government’s brutal mistreatment of

the Rohingya has stained her title.

Figure 3: A picture of Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar’s de facto leader (Paddock).

Although she does not have direct control over the military, which has ruled the country for more

than half a century, she still holds a considerable amount of power and many believe she has

played down the reports of atrocities and stood by the military and in an interview with BBC has

been quoted saying, “I don’t think there is ethnic cleansing going on, I think ethnic cleansing is

too strong an expression to use for what is happening” (Paddock). However, she did appoint a

commission led by former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan to examine the

conditions in Rakhine, but the mandate did not include examining the military’s conduct.


Bloc Positions:

Currently, the Government of Myanmar has not recognized the crimes and abuse inflicted

on Rohingya Muslims even though there has been significant evidence that the military is

carrying out these crimes. Myanmar is 90% Buddhist and has had a long-time feud with the

Rohingya Muslims, most view them as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. Due to the violence

against Rohingya Muslims, many of them have fled to neighboring countries, such as

Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia in search for a better life and better treatment. However,

even if they make it to their destination, life there is often not much better and they still face the

restrictions, mistreatment, and human rights violations experienced in Myanmar.

Figure 4: Protesters (Hossain).

Malaysian response to the influx of Rohingya refugees has send the message that they are

not welcome. Currently, Malaysia is host to more than 150,000 refugees seeking asylum with a


majority of the refugees from Myanmar. According to the UN refugee agency, more than 45,000

of the refugees are Rohingya (“Burma: End ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ of Rohingya”). The Thai

government has a similar response to the increase in Rohingya refugees. The Prime Minister of

Thailand, Prayuth Chan-ocha has stated that Thailand does not have the resources to host

refugees, “If we take them all in, then anyone who wants to come will come freely…No one

wants them. Everyone wants a transit country like us to take responsibility” (Langkawi).

Many Rohingya Muslims also flee to Bangladesh. Currently, the Bangladesh government

is moving forward with a plan to relocate Rohingya refugees to a remote island that is

underwater for a majority of the year. Rohingya refugees are presently staying in camps near the

country’s largest tourist resort towns, for example the Kutupalong refugee camp in Cox’s Bazar.

Although Bangladesh has a plan to relocate existing refugees, the cabinet has directed officials to

take steps to prevent this group from integrating in with local populations and to stop further the

illegal entry of Myanmar nationals. Officials in Bangladesh have also been ordered to keep all

illegal immigrants from Myanmar in designated areas. If individuals try to leave, officials are

ordered to push them back into the designated areas or to arrest them (Sattar).

The United Nations refugee agency is looking to negotiate with the United States,

Canada, and some European nations to resettle Rohingya Muslims currently living in

Bangladesh. In the past, the United States, Canada, and Australia were top providers of asylum

to Rohingya Muslims who came to Bangladesh from Myanmar. However, that particular

program was stopped in 2012. Bangladesh ended the program because it feared that people

would encourage more people to travel Bangladesh and use it as a transit country to seek asylum

in Western countries (Das).


Committee Mission:

The main purpose of the United Nations Human Rights Council is to protect and promote

human rights around the globe. The United Nations has recognized the situation the Rohingya

Muslims have faced in Myanmar and surrounding countries where they have fled. Although

Rohingya Muslims have lived in Myanmar for centuries, the recent military regime has stripped

them of their citizenship and they are now effectively rendered stateless. This minority group has

had their basic fundamental human rights taken away from them and many neighboring countries

also view them in the same way. It is the duty of this committee to discuss the mistreatment of

the Rohingya Muslims and possible solutions and initiatives that need to be taken to ensure that

these individuals are no longer considered stateless or illegal.

Questions to Consider:

1. Where does your nation stand regarding the issues between the Rohingya Muslims and

Buddhists in Myanmar?

2. Rohingya Muslims are considered stateless in most circumstances and thus are unable to

travel, marry, study, etc. freely; what can be done to fix this? What factors guarantee a

person citizenship?

3. Should neighboring countries accept displaced Rohingya Muslims? If so, to what extent?

4. Is it right for countries to deny citizenship to individuals who have lived within their

borders for centuries?

5. How would your nation classify the treatment of Rohingya Muslims by the government

of Myanmar?


6. What is statehood or citizenship and what rights does a person have if they have

citizenship to a particular country?

7. Would this particular situation in Myanmar be considered ethnic cleansing or genocide?

Are the two terms synonymous? If they are not, what is the difference and at what point

does ethnic cleansing become genocide or vice versa?


Works Cited:

Al-Mahmood, Syed Zain. "Timeline: A Short History of Myanmar's Rohingya Minority." The Wall

Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 23 Dec. 2016. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

The Wall Street Journal is a news publication. This article is a short timeline of the history of

the

Rohingya in Myanmar.

"BACKGROUND." Malaysia/Burma: Living In Limbo - Background. Human Rights Watch, n.d. Web.

13 Mar. 2017.

The Human Rights Watch is a non-governmental organization that conducts research and

advocacy on

human rights. This is an article discussing in detail the history of the Rohingya in Myanmar.

Bengali, Shashank. "Myanmar's Long-suffering Rohingya Muslims Hoped That Aung San Suu Kyi

Would Make Them Full Citizens. They Were Wrong." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 9

Apr. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

The Los Angeles Times is a news publication and this article discussed the assignment of

identification cards for Rohingya Muslims.

"Burma: End 'Ethnic Cleansing' of Rohingya Muslims." Human Rights Watch. N.p., 17 Apr. 2015.

Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

This article is from the Human Rights Watch and examines the various human rights violations


and crimes against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.

Cumming-bruce, Nick. "U.N. Rights Council to Investigate Reports of Atrocities in Myanmar." The

New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Mar. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

The New York Times is a news publication and this article examines the human rights

violations and crimes against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar.

Das, Krishna N. "U.N. Wants to Negotiate with U.S., Canada to Resettle Rohingya Refugees." Reuters.

N.p., 16 Feb. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

Reuters is an international news agency. This article discussed possible cooperation from

western countries to accept individuals fleeing from persecution, terror, war, and those seeking

asylum.

"Devastating Cruelty against Rohingya Children, Women and Men Detailed in UN Human Rights

Report." United Nations Human Rights Office of The High Commissioner. N.p., 3 Feb. 2017.

Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

This article is an United Nations Human Rights Office of The High Commissioner report on the

crimes that Rohingya Muslims have faced.

"III. DISCRIMINATION IN ARAKAN." Burma/Bangladesh: Burmese Refugees In Bangladesh -

Discrimination in Arakan. Human Rights Watch, n.d. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

This is an article from the Human Rights Watch discussing Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law

and the effect of it on Rohingya Muslims.


Hossain, Rimon, John Rider, Christian Fong, Jaya Blanchard, Lily Greenberg-Call, and Jacob

Hands. "Rohingya with No Rescue." Berkeley Political Review. N.p., 03 Apr. 2017. Web.

12 Apr. 2017.

This article is from the Berkeley Political Review and was used for a photograph.

THE INTERNATIONAL Bill of Human Rights. New York: United Nations, 1978. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

The International Bill of Human Rights is a document detailing the fundamental human rights

guaranteed to every single person. The document contains the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights which consists of thirty articles outlining basic rights and fundamental freedoms to

which all human beings are entitled.

Kelly, Liam. "Myanmar's Rohingya Continue to Be Persecuted-who Are They and Why Do

They Suffer?" Newsweek. N.p., 17 Jan. 2017. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

This article is from Newsweek and discusses who Rohingya Muslims are and gives a summary

of the situation in Myanmar.

Langkawi, Associated Press in. "Malaysia and Thailand Turn Away Hundreds on Migrant Boats." The

Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 14 May 2015. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

The Guardian is a British daily newspaper and this article discusses the response of countries

neighboring Myanmar, specifically Malaysia and Thailand to the influx of Rohingya refugees.


"Myanmar: Major Ethnic Groups and Where They Live." Myanmar | Al Jazeera. N.p., 12 Mar. 2017.

Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

Al Jazeera is a major global news organization. This article discusses who the Rohingya are

and includes a map distinguishing the different ethnic groups and their locations in Myanmar.

Paddock, Richard C. "After Aung San Suu Kyi’s First Year in Power, Dismay Swirls in Myanmar."

The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Apr. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

This is a New York Times Article about Aung San Suu Kyi (Myanmar’s State Counselor) first

year in office.

Safdar, Anealla. "Who Are the Rohingya?" Al Jazeera English. N.p., 28 Oct. 2015. Web. 13 Mar.

2017.

This article from Al Jazeera discusses who the Rohingya are, where they are from, and

their current status in Myanmar and what the government is doing.

Sattar, Maher. "Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh to Be Relocated to Remote Island." The New York

Times. The New York Times, 31 Jan. 2017. Web. 12 Apr. 2017.

This article from The New York Times discusses Bangladesh’s new relocation plan for

Rohingya Muslim refugees in the country.

"Why Is There Communal Violence in Myanmar?" BBC News. BBC, 03 July 2014. Web. 12 Apr.

2017.


BBC News is an operational business division of the British Broadcasting Corporation and is

responsible for gathering and broadcasting news and current affairs. This article outlines the

recent events regarding the conflict in Myanmar, such as the Rakhine state riots.


Topic B: Mass Surveillance

Introduction:

“Mass surveillance is the subjection of a population or significant component of a group

to indiscriminate monitoring” (“Mass Surveillance”). It consists of a systematic interference with

individuals’ right to privacy. It is any type of system that collects data on individuals without

trying to limit the sample to well-defined targeted individuals. With modern technology and

current methods of mass surveillance, governments can virtually capture all elements of an

individual’s life. However, rapid technological changes have resulted in a rise of mass

surveillance of populations it is not only a recent phenomenon. Mass surveillance has been used

all throughout history.

Rapid advancements in technology have led to a growth in mass surveillance in the form

of wearable cameras, such as Google Glass or Snapchat Spectacles, personal drones, computers,

and ubiquity of smartphones with high quality cameras. All of these technologies have left

people without any privacy in public. However, others believe that a society with cameras

everywhere will make the world a safer place because it ensures that criminals are held

accountable for their actions.

“Data collection and video surveillance are only going to continue to grow as technology

seeps into more areas of our culture, either strapped to our bodies as wearable computers

or hovering over cities as inexpensive drones that monitor people from the sky” (Bilton).


Figure 1: In all of the 13 countries examined, people did not want their own

government to survey their phone and Internet use. On average, 59% of many people were

against surveillance by their government and an average of 26% approved. People in

Germany (69% opposed), Spain (67% opposed) and Brazil (65% opposed) were most

opposed to mass surveillance by their own government. It was reported that the NSA

tapped 60 million Spanish phone calls and the public was outraged (“Global Opposition to

USA Big Brother Mass Surveillance”).

Mass surveillance is aimed at acquiring information in order to protect a nation’s citizens

from future threats by detecting possible problems early on and preventing them from taking


place. However, the means of obtaining information from mass surveillance often violates

individuals’ right to privacy, as they are usually unaware of the fact that they are currently being

monitored. Article 12 of The International Bill of Human Rights states,

“No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or

correspondence, or to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the

protection of the law against such interference or attacks” (The International Bill of

Human Rights)

History and Description of Issue:

Rapid technological advancements make it seem like mass surveillance is only a recent

phenomenon. However, that is not the case. Mass surveillance has been used all throughout

history. One of the oldest forms of mass surveillance are national databases, which include

census registering, ID documenting individuals and numbering and categorizing humans. With

the deployment of closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras mass surveillance in public became

more common. Before CCTV mass surveillance in public places consisted of vague images of

certain locations. These images limited the capabilities of linking the captured images to personal

details. With CCTV it is now possible to track a person’s movements and store it for future

analysis. Both databases and CCTV still exist and are in use but recent mass surveillance focuses

on monitoring of communications, mainly phones and computers (“Mass Surveillance”).

In 1946 the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand

developed a collection of bilateral agreements (UKUSA agreement) that established the Five

Eyes alliance. The Five Eyes alliance is a global surveillance arrangement consisting of the

United States National Security Agency (NSA), the United Kingdom’s Government


Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Canada’s Communications Security Establishment

Canada (CSEC), the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), and New Zealand’s Government

Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). The Five Eyes Alliance “has been building a global

surveillance infrastructure to “master the internet” and spy on the world’s communications”

(“The Five Eyes”). Even though the alliance has been in existence for about 70 years, very little

is known about the alliance and the agreements that bind them. Under the UKUSA agreement,

“…interception, collection, acquisition, analysis, and decryption is conducted by each of

the State parties in their respective parts of the globe, and all intelligence information is

shared by default. The agreement is wide in scope and establishes jointly-run operations

centers where operatives from multiple intelligence agencies of the Five Eyes States work

alongside one another” (“The Five Eyes”).

There is no ban on intelligence gathering by Five Eyes States on the citizens or residents of other

Five Eyes States despite rumors of a “no-spy pact”.

In addition to the Five Eyes Alliance there exists a number of other surveillance

partnerships, including: 9 Eyes, which consists of the Five Eyes, in addition to Denmark, France,

the Netherlands and Norway, 14 Eyes, which consists of the 9 Eyes with the addition of

Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden, 41 Eyes, which includes the previous alliances

mentioned and the allied coalition in Afghanistan. Other partnerships include: Tier B countries,

which consists of the Five Eyes working with Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark,

Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland,

Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey, with a focus on computer

network exploitation, Club of Berne, consisting of 17 members, primarily European States (not


including the United States), The Counterterrorist Group, and NATO Special Committee (“The

Five Eyes”).

Compared to the to other surveillance partnerships, more information gets shared among

the members of the Five Eyes. This is due to the fact that members of the alliance have

experienced decades of trust, share a common language and have similar security standards and

classification systems (Hanna).

With advancements in technology, increase capabilities of intrusiveness in an

individual’s personal life and increase in mass surveillance, violates right to privacy. Mass

surveillance by governments and data collection can gain access to an individual’s web searches,

friends, chats, messages, secrets, religious beliefs, political beliefs, location, the data is endless.

With this information, governments can use it as a form of blackmail, or in more oppressive

societies use this to monitor journalists and activists and silence critics through intimidation and

defeating the idea of free press.

In July 2014 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights warning the

global community that “mass surveillance [is] emerging as a dangerous habit rather than an

exceptional measure” and reiterated the fact that surveillance should only be used if it is

necessary and proportionate to a legitimate goal ("United Nations: Rein in Mass Surveillance").

The report released by the High Commissioner for Human Rights also criticized the several of

the common practices and justifications for mass surveillance offered by the United States and

United Kingdom and other governments in support of it. The report reaffirmed the idea that

surveillance “must respect the right to privacy” ("United Nations: Rein in Mass Surveillance" ).

The main points detailed in the report are: surveillance must be necessary and proportionate,


countries have extraterritorial duties, metadata merits stronger protections, mere collection

impacts privacy, transparency and accountability and responsibilities of technology and

companies.

Current Status:

In 2013, Edward Snowden a former contractor for the CIA leaked to the media details of

extensive Internet and phone surveillance by American Intelligence (“Edward Snowden: Leaks

That Exposed US Spy Program”). On June 5, 2013, The Guardian, a British newspaper printed

the first report regarding indiscriminate mass surveillance by the US National Security Agency

(NSA) and the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). It was reported that the

NSA was collecting phone records of tens of millions of Americans. Verizon, a

telecommunications company was directed to supply all of its telephone data to the NSA on an

ongoing daily basis. It was also revealed that the NSA monitored servers of nine internet firms,

including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo in order to track online communication in a

surveillance program known as Prism. GCHQ was accused of gathering information from the

same nine companies via Prism. The UK spy agency was also tapping fiber-optic cables that

carry global communications. The information gathered from tapping the fiber-optic cables was

also shared with the NSA. GCHQ was able to tap into 200 fiber-optic cables, essentially

monitoring up to 600 million communications everyday. The information gathered from the

Internet and phone use was kept for up to 30 days to be analyzed. It was also revealed that

through Upstream (NSA) and TEMPORA (GCHQ) programs, the NSA and GCHQ are able to

directly intercept transatlantic undersea Internet cables. Both of these programs are able to

intercept large amounts of Internet traffic. This data is then scanned and filtered. Undersea cable


tapping provides the US and UK intelligence agencies with unprecedented surveillance powers.

The GCHQ under its OPTIC NERVE program, in a six-month period, intercepted approximately

1.8 million Yahoo! video chats. This interception allowed the intelligence agency to capture

images and it was reported between 3 and 11 percent of these images contained “undesirable

nudity” and then process the images through facial recognition technology. The Communications

Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) intercepts cables and records up to 15 million downloads

daily from file sharing websites like Rapidshare or Megaupload. CSEC also monitors millions of

emails, storing them for varying lengths of time (days to months) as the agency applies analysis

technology on the data (Emmerson). In the US, Snowden has been charged with “theft of

government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful

communication of classified communications intelligence” (“Edward Snowden: Leaks That

Exposed US Spy Program”). Snowden has been granted temporary asylum in Russia.


Figure 2: Many people are against mass surveillance and there is no concrete evidence that

bulk surveillance has an impact on the prevention of terrorism (Tufnell).

In response to these revelations, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a

resolution on “The right to privacy in the digital age” in December of 2013. The resolution notes

the importance of protecting the right to privacy and recognizes the rapid advancements in

technology, information, and communications and the global and open nature of the Internet. It

also affirms that people have the same rights people have offline must also be protected online,

specifically mentioning the right to privacy. The resolution calls upon states to respect and

protect the right to privacy. In the context of digital communication, the resolution requests states

to work towards putting an end to violations of human rights and to prevent such violations,

through reviewing procedures, practices and legislation regarding communications surveillance

and mass surveillance, specifically examining the interception and collection of personal data

and upholding the right to privacy by “ensuring the full and effective implementation of all their

obligations under international human rights law” (“Resolution Adopted by the General

Assembly”).

The resolution also asks states, “To establish or maintain existing independent, effective

domestic oversight mechanisms capable of ensuring transparency, as appropriate, and

accountability for State surveillance of communications, their interception and the collection of

personal data” (“Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly”).

Developments of new smart technology, such as televisions, smartphones, and even

anti-virus software have made individuals more vulnerable to CIA hacking. These devices allow

the hackers to record sounds, images, and the private text messages of users, even when users


resort to encrypted apps such as Telegram and WhatsApp. For specifically attacking Samsung

Smart TVs, a tool called “Weeping Angel” can be used. Weeping Angel puts the target TV in a

‘Fake-Off’ mode so that the owner falsely believes that the TV is off when in reality it is not. In

this mode the TV acts as a bug and records conversations in the room and sends them to a CIA

server. It does not end at hacking smartphones and smart TVs, smart vehicles can also be

attacked and used to conduct undetectable assassinations (Timberg).

Figure 3. The above image shows the percent of people worldwide who believe their

respective government should not intercept, store and analyze Internet use and mobile

communications of all citizens in their country. (“#UnfollowMe: 5 Reasons We Should All

Be Concerned About Government Surveillance.”)


In China, the government has installed more than 20 million cameras across the country.

Cameras are everywhere, from highways, to public parks, balconies, elevators, taxis, etc.

Officials in China justify the abundance of cameras by noting that they help combat crime and

maintain a “social stability”. The government uses the cameras to monitor and intimidate critics

and dissidents. Human rights activists are concerned that an increase in surveillance will

diminish the freedom of everyday people and undermine what little ability they have to question

authority. Nicholas Bequelin, a Hong Kong-based researcher for Human Rights Watch has said

that the ultimate goal of the Communist Party is to have a highly accurate facial recognition

technology that would allow the government to monitor a critic in real time. The birth of this

kind of technology would prevent the emergence of any challenge to the party. However, facial

recognition is less effective on the street because of variations in lighting and the government is

still working towards stitching together the country’s disparate surveillance networks into one

all-seeing eye. Many ordinary Chinese citizens are unfazed by the density of cameras and have

noted that the cameras actually make them feel safer because it deters thieves and shoplifters.

Cameras have also made their way into classrooms. Beijing’s China University of Politics and

Law installed cameras in classrooms to prevent cheating, however many professors believe

otherwise. Some believe the cameras are used to monitor and target teachers who might be critics

of the system in China in front of students, “cameras will intimidate instructors from speaking

their minds and undermine learning…professors will just teach from textbooks to protect

themselves” (Langfitt). It is estimated that there are approximately 30 million cameras installed

and operating in China (about one for every 43 citizens) and camera sales are expected to grow

20 percent annually over the next five years.


Figure 4. Security cameras installed by Tiananmen Square in Beijing used to combat crime

and maintain a social stability.

In North Korea, the government has absolute control of all forms of telecommunications

in the country. The government actively spies and monitors on its citizens through mass

surveillance programs and controls the information that North Korean citizens have about their

country. Information, online media and sites from the outside world that do not comply with the

government’s propaganda is curated and filtered out. A majority of North Koreans do not have

access to the internet known to most, instead they have access to a domestic intranet, known as

kwangmyong, which only allows access to government approved websites and email systems.

Bureau 27 in North Korea’s State Security Department is responsible for monitoring phone calls

and Internet activity. Repercussions for citizens found to be making attempts at contacting


anyone beyond its borders are harsh (sent to prison camps, etc). The government also has harsh

restrictions surrounding the types of appliances citizens may own in their home (radio or TV sets

may pick up signals from surrounding countries, South Korea, China and Russia) (“North Korea,

the Surveillance State”). Absolute control of communications aids the North Korean government

in concealing details regarding the dire human rights situation in the country. In a U.S.

government-funded report called “Compromising Connectivity”, it revealed that North Korea

has allowed the growing use of mobile phone and domestic Internet. The new technologies

allows the North Korean government to automatically censor unauthorized content and observe

everything citizens are doing on their devices remotely. To combat outside information, such as

South Korean television shows and Hollywood films distributed by discrete USB sticks and

swapping files via Bluetooth, the government has rolled out mandatory software updates to

mobile devices on its network. The software updates are used to actively seek and delete illegal

foreign media films. Individuals residing near China’s border secretly use cheap mobile phones

on Chinese networks to bypass state control and speak to foreign contacts or access outside

information. North Korea’s official mobile phone network is known as Koryolink and has about

3 million subscribers in a country of 24 million. Subscribers to the mobile phone network also

receive propaganda via text messages (Pearson).

In 2016, Russian president Vladimir Putin signed a new anti-terrorism law nicknamed

Yarovaya law, after the lawmaker who championed it. New measures and provisions in the law

require Russian telecommunications providers to retain customers’ phone records for 12 months

and store the contents of the calls and messages for six months. Then, the collected data will

most likely be filtered into SORM, which is a nationwide interception system that gives the


Russian FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) and other police authorities

real-time, warrantless access to data transiting the country. Not only does the law require

Russian telecommunications providers to store data, it also requires them to assist Russian law

enforcement in decrypting customers’ encrypted communications. The law penalizes the

telecommunications providers if they refuse to do so (Kopstein).

Bloc Positions:

Surveillance is legal when it is necessary, targeted, based on sufficient evidence of

wrongdoing, and authorized by a strictly independent authority. When surveillance is used

indiscriminately and without satisfying the criteria previously mentioned it becomes a violation

of privacy. There is an assumption that everyone is potentially guilty until proven innocent if

privacy is taken away without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Oppressive governments

can use private data to target journalists, activists and critics as a way to crack down on them in

strict violation of free speech.

In the digital age, most countries are increasingly spying on their citizens. The UN

Special Rapporteur released a report titled “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion

and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression”, it was found that Western

nations typically engage in low level types of spying similar to the spying done by the NSA

(collecting the phone records, meaning the NSA can only known who an individual called, for

how long and possibly where the cell phone was at the time of the call, metadata). In more

oppressive countries, they are listening in on their own citizens and remotely hacking into their

computers and turning on Web cameras, or logging in and intercepting Skype calls (Khazan). In

some countries, such as Bahrain and Russia, activists are targeted through phishing emails (the


fraudulent practice of sending emails claiming to be from reputable companies in order to lure

individuals to reveal personal information). Regimes send phishing emails, which contains

software that allows access to an individual’s emails, online chats and any documents saved on

the computer when the email attachment is opened.

Committee Mission:

The main purpose of the United Nations Human Rights Council is to protect and promote

human rights around the globe. Governments can have legitimate claims for using mass

surveillance to combat crime or protect national security, however, surveillance infringes with

rights to privacy and freedom of expression. For surveillance to be done, it must follow strict

criteria: “surveillance must be targeted, based on reasonable suspicion, undertaken in accordance

with the law, necessary to meet a legitimate aim and be conducted in a manner that is

proportionate to that aim, and non-discriminatory” (Emmerson). Therefore, mass surveillance

that indiscriminately collects communications of large numbers of people cannot be justified.

Mass surveillance is not only a violation of privacy but it also restricts free speech because

people may be less willing to communicate freely if they know they are being monitored.

“Privacy and freedom of expression are interlinked and mutually dependent; an infringement

upon one can be both the cause and consequence of an infringement upon the other” In this

committee we will discuss the effects of mass surveillance in the digital age, the human rights

violations (restriction of free speech, violation of privacy) and how to protect them.


Questions to Consider:

1. Where does your nation stand regarding mass surveillance?

2. Is it more important to live in a surveillance society that might be able to ensure justice

for all, yet privacy for none?

3. Is it ethical to violate the privacy of many so that authorities can track a few people who

have committed crimes?

4. At what point is surveillance no longer a tactic of National Security but an infringement

on human rights?

5. What role do tech companies have in this issue?

6. Does your nation believe mass surveillance necessary in combatting terrorism and

protecting national security?

7. What kind of regulations should be put on mass surveillance as the world evolves into a

more digital community with better technologies?


Works Cited

Beaumont, Ben. "Easy Guide to Mass Surveillance." Amnesty International. N.p., 18 Mar. 2015. Web.

12 June 2017.

Amnesty International is a non-governmental organization focused on human rights. This

article summarizes what mass surveillance is and different government agencies involved.

Bilton, Nick. "The Pros and Cons of a Surveillance Society." The New York Times. The New York

Times, 16 July 2013. Web. 26 May 2017.

The New York Times is a news publication and this article examines the pros and cons of mass

surveillance on a society.

"Edward Snowden: Leaks That Exposed US Spy Programme." BBC News. BBC, 17 Jan. 2014. Web.

10 June 2017.

BBC News is an operational business division of the British Broadcasting Corporation and is

responsible for gathering and broadcasting news and current affairs. This article

discusses who Edward Snowden is and what he did.

Emmerson, Ben. "Two Years after Snowden: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Mass

Surveillance." (n.d.): n. pag. Amnesty USA. Web. 10 June 2017.

Amnesty USA is one of the country sections that make up Amnesty International. This article

details how Edward Snowden’s actions affected human rights in the digital age and age

of mass surveillance.


"The Five Eyes." Privacy International. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 May 2017.

Privacy International is a UK-based organization that defends and promotes the right to

privacy around the world. This article gives a summary of what The Five Eyes refers to and

what the organization does.

"Global Opposition to USA Big Brother Mass Surveillance." Amnesty International. N.p., 18 Mar.

2015. Web. 26 May 2017.

This article from Amnesty International examines the global response to United States Mass

Surveillance. This article also provided polls and graphs illustrating global response.

Hanna, Jason. "What Is the Five Eyes Intelligence Pact?" CNN. Cable News Network, 26 May 2017.

Web. 26 May 2017.

CNN (Cable News Network) is an American news channel. This article summarizes what the

Five Eyes Intelligence Pact consists of.

Khazan, Olga. “Actually, Most Countries Are Increasingly Spying on Their Citizens, the UN Says.”

The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 06 June 2013. Web. 12 June 2017.

The Atlantic is an American magazine. This article examines other countries using mass

surveillance to spy on their citizens.

Kopstein, Joshua. “New ‘Anti-Terrorism’ Law Will Feed Russia’s Mass-Surveillance Machine.”

Motherboard. N.p., 9 July 2016. Web. 12 June 2017.


VICE is a magazine focused on arts, culture, and news topics. Motherboard is an online

magazine and video channel concentrated on technology, science, and humans. This article

focuses on a new law that promotes mass surveillance in Russia.

Langfitt, Frank. "In China, Beware: A Camera May Be Watching You." NPR. NPR, 29 Jan. 2013.

Web. 11 June 2017.

National Public Radio (NPR) is a media organization in the United States. This articles

examines mass surveillance in China.

"Mass Surveillance." Privacy International. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 May 2017.

This article from Privacy International provides a definition for mass surveillance, a brief

history of mass surveillance, the legal framework of mass surveillance, and the problems

surrounding mass surveillance.

"North Korea, the Surveillance State." Amnesty International. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2017.

This article from Amnesty International reviews surveillance in North Korea, how the

government controls all information, consequences for citizens who communicate with the

outside world, and how North Koreans break through the censors.

Pearson, James. "North Korea Uses Sophisticated Tools to Spy on Citizens Digitally." Reuters.

Thomson Reuters, 01 Mar. 2017. Web. 11 June 2017.


Reuters is an international news agency. This article describes how North Korea spies on their

Citizens through mobile phones using their official phone network or tablets.

“Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of

Opinion and Expression, Frank La Rue*.” United Nations General Assembly 10.3(1956):

421-22. 17 Apr. 2013. Web 12 June 2017.

This report was released by the UN Special Rapporteur and examines how different nations spy

on their citizens.

"Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2013 68/167. The Right to Privacy in

the Digital Age." United Nations. United Nations, n.d. Web. 10 June 2017.

This source is an United Nations General Assembly Resolution on the Right to Privacy in the

Digital Age outlines steps that need to be taken by states to ensure the right to privacy.

Timberg, Craig, Elizabeth Dwoskin, and Ellen Nakashima. "WikiLeaks: The CIA Is Using Popular

TVs, Smartphones and Cars to Spy on Their Owners." The Washington Post. WP Company, 07

Mar. 2017. Web. 10 June 2017.

The Washington Post is an American newspaper. This article discusses how the CIA is using

everyday technologies to spy on their owners. The article also examines responses from a

variety of tech companies and initiatives to prevent NSA data collection.


Tufnell, Nicholas. “NSA Bulk Surveillance Has ‘no Discernible Impact’ on the Prevention of

Terrorism.” WIRED UK. WIRED UK, 22 May 2016. Web 13 June 2017.

WIRED is a magazine that focuses on how new technologies affect culture, the economy, and

politics. This article was used for an image.

“UnfollowMe: 5 Reasons We Should All Be Concerned About Government Surveillance.” Human

Rights Now. Amnesty USA, 18 Mar. 2015. Web. 12 June 2017

This article from Amnesty USA describes why individuals should be concerned about

government surveillance and measures that can be taken to protect yourself online. The article

also goes into detail regarding Amnesty USA’s UnfollowMe campaign and provides a

graphic describing global responses and attitudes to mass surveillance.

"United Nations: Rein in Mass Surveillance." Human Rights Watch. N.p., 17 Apr. 2015. Web. 30 May

2017.

The Human Rights Watch is a non-governmental organization that conducts research and

advocacy on human rights. This article discusses a report released by the United Nations High

Commissioner for Human Rights detailing the specific circumstances in which mass

surveillance can be justified.

Documents

· PDF fileUCMUN 2017 United Nations Human Rights Council Committee History: The United Nations