Table of Contents

1. Letter from Board Members

2. Introduction to The Committee

2.1. Composition
[Link] and Decision Making
[Link] and Functions

3. Agenda Item: Addressing Global Security Threats Amid the Escalating Cold War
Tensions
3.1. Transformation of Global Security Threats
3.2. Managing Security Risks Amid the Escalating Tensions
3.3. Role of Major Powers in Shaping Global Security Threats

4. Questions to be Adressed

5. Bibliography
Letter From Under Secretary General…
Dear Participants !
My name is Emir , and it is a big pleasure to serve as your Under Secretary General over
upcoming conference days. I hope that this conference will be both constructive and
productive. I assure that you will have a memorible conference. Our first response is to
provide you a suitable debate environment with a well organized conference. The chairboard
will always be active on assist you. So do not hesitate to ask any kind of questions. Our
guidence will always be upon you. In the Security Council you will be having convenings on
the most critical global issues of our time. As it is written in our Study Guide, Different from
the past, our issues on todays war tension grows bigger day by day. It goes to be divided into
many spesific parts. In these times when the world is becoming increasingly complex,
countries are constantly competing for supremacy. This superiority is achieved not through
direct weapons, but through deterrent threats can be named as nuclear, cyber or economic.
Considering and discussing how inadequate traditional Cold War logic is in the face of today's
extraordinary security threats( such as nuclear weapons) one of the most important issues we
will focus on. We expect you to focus mostly on detecting and analyzing these security threats
and assessing their contribution to rising Cold War tensions. The world may be bringing about
its own end. Therefore, in our council of 15 esteemed members, you will be assessing how
such enormous threats can be resolved or mitigated. Your valuable opinions and your efforts
will act mostly in this conference. We may not be able to create a new world for ourselves
within the current system, but we can certainly restore it. That is all I have to say for now. See
you on the conference day.

Kind Regards
Emir Taha Gündüz
Under Secretary General of UNSC
Letter From President Chair…
Greetings to you!
Distinguished participants of honoured Security Council members, dear reprasantatives of
influential actors of the world. Before presenting my gratidude, I desire to introduce myself to
you all. I am Yakup Gümüşoluk, I will take part as the president chair of our committee,
United Nations Security Council throughout the conferance. Security Council basically
contains 15 solid members that possesses main militaristic power in the world. Which means
that decisions that made in this assembly precisely effects human destiny at all. The political
condition of the world we are in, imposes a responsibility upon us. From the past to present, it
is the first time of humanity to reach exegarrative amount of power that able to destroy all
civilization on earth just in minutes. Persistance and hatred is not sustainable, and a tiny
movement can bounce back in a destructive way. The mission upon us is to figure out the
direction of crisis on the way. The lead of tensions between sides comprehenses several
dimensions simultaneously. As well as the power balance seeking around world, the conflict
also includes an ideological background upon the argument of integrating world system into
an unique governancy model. It evolves this conflict from an accostumed power structure to a
clash of ideas itself. This ideologic perspectives causes this matter to be cultural war which
induces sociological polirization as well as the political stance of the states. A war with
weapons does nothing more than eradication, however the war of ideas gives rebirth to more
logical ones. And it is not the discussions we try to thwart, it is the destruction we try to
prevent. I believe that every single delegate of our committee will present their great efforts,
and share their initiatives dauntlessly in any condition. With a combination of great delegates
and great MUN, I believe we will reach absolute perfection. Wishing to see you on 13-14-15
February!

Warm Regards
Yakup Gümüşoluk
The President Chair of UNSC
Letter From Vice Chair…
Distinguished Delegates of the United Nations Security Council

I’m Damla Kartal, and it’s my utmost pleasure to welcome you all as a Co-chair of this
esteemed committee. This guide serves as a starting point for your research, but true
preparation goes beyond these pages. We encourage you to delve deeper into the topics at
hand by carrying out comprehensive research and applying your knowledge throughout the
sessions.
Active participation is key to making this an insightful and engaging experience for everyone.
Throughout the committee, you will engage in diplomatic negotiations and discussions to add
depth to deliberations.
I hope you approach this committee with enthusiasm and a collaborative spirit.
I'm looking forward to seeing all of you on February 13-14-15.

Warm Regards,
Damla Kartal
2. Introduction to The Committee UNSC (United Nations Security Council)
2.1. Composition:
The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations. The Republic of
China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the
Security Council. The General Assembly shall elect ten other Members of the United Nations
to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, due regard being specially paid, in the
first instance to the contribution of Members of the United Nations to the maintenance of
international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to
equitable geographical distribution.
The non-permanent members of the Security Council shall be elected for a term of two years.
In the first election of the non-permanent members after the increase of the membership of the
Security Council from eleven to fifteen, two of the four additional members shall be chosen
for a term of one year. A retiring member shall not be eligible for immediate re-election.
Each member of the Security Council shall have one representative.

2.2. Voting and Decision Making:

Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote
of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of
nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in
decisions under a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
The Security Council shall be so organized as to be able to function continuously. Each
member of the Security Council shall for this purpose be represented at all times at the seat of
the Organization.
The Security Council shall hold periodic meetings at which each of its members may, if it so
desires, be represented by a member of the government or by some other specially designated
representative.
The Security Council may hold meetings at such places other than the seat of the Organization
as in its judgment will best facilitate its work.
The Security Council may establish such subsidiary organs as it deems necessary for the
performance of its functions.
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may
participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security
Council whenever the latter considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected.
Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council or any
state which is not a Member of the United Nations, if it is a party to a dispute under
consideration by the Security Council, shall be invited to participate, without vote, in the
discussion relating to the dispute. The Security Council shall lay down such conditions as it
deems just for the participation of a state which is not a Member of the United Nations.

2.3. Mandate and Funcitons:

In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on
the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council
acts on their behalf.
The Security Council shall submit annual and, when necessary, special reports to the General
Assembly for its consideration.
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the
peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall
be taken in accordance to maintain or restore international peace and security.
In order to prevent an aggravation of the situation, the Security Council may, before making
the recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided for the parties concerned to
comply with such provisional measures as it deems necessary or desirable. Such provisional
measures shall be without prejudice to the rights, claims, or position of the parties concerned.
The Security Council shall duly take account of failure to comply with such provisional
measures.
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to
be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United
Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of
economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of
communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for would be inadequate or have
proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be
necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include
demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the
United Nations.
All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international
peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in
accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities,
including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and
security.
Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of
readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the
Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or
between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by
the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall hold
immediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement
action. The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined
action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements
referred to the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.

3. Agenda Item, Addressing Global Security Threats Amid the Escalating

Cold War Tensions:
3.1. Transformation of Global Security Threats
Cold War
Cold War, the open yet restricted rivalry that developed after World War II between the United
States and the Soviet Union and their respective allies. The Cold War was waged on political,
economic, and propaganda fronts and had only limited recourse to weapons.
The term was first used by the English writer George Orwell in an article published in 1945 to
refer to what he predicted would be a nuclear stalemate between “two or three monstrous
super-states, each possessed of a weapon by which millions of people can be wiped out in a
few seconds.” It was first used in the United States by the American financier and presidential
adviser Bernard Baruch in a speech at the State House in Columbia, South Carolina, in 1947.
Following the surrender of Nazi Germany in May 1945 near the close of World War II, the
uneasy wartime alliance between the United States and Great Britain on the one hand and the
Soviet Union on the other began to unravel.
By 1948 the Soviets had installed left-wing governments in the countries of eastern Europe
that had been liberated by the Red Army. The Americans and the British feared the permanent
Soviet domination of eastern Europe and the threat of Soviet-influenced communist parties
coming to power in the democracies of western Europe.
The Soviets, on the other hand, were determined to maintain control of eastern Europe in
order to safeguard against any possible renewed threat from Germany, and they were intent on
spreading communism worldwide, largely for ideological reasons. The Cold War had
solidified by 1947–48, when U.S. aid provided under the Marshall Plan to western Europe had
brought those countries under American influence and the Soviets had installed openly
communist regimes in eastern Europe.
One conclusion that can be drawn from the text above is that in the past, security threats have
been one-sided and lacked diversity. Therefore, we will address the changes and
diversification in today's threats.

Military and Nuclear

The balance of power between states and the idea of nuclear deterrence served as the primary
bases of military security during the Cold War. Two superpowers dominated the international
system, and nuclear weapons were viewed more as tools to avert direct conflict than as useful
tools. Security risks were therefore primarily state-centered, well-defined, and reasonably
predictable.
This structure has undergone substantial change in the modern international system. Nuclear
weapons are still a major concern in international security, but they are no longer the sole
deciding factor. Conventional forces, small-scale regional conflicts, and strategic military
actions that avoid full-scale war are becoming more prevalent military threats. This makes it
possible for states to challenge one another without starting a direct conflict.
The perception of military threats has also changed as a result of this change. Modern military
risks are typically more ambiguous and gradual than those of the Cold War, which was
marked by more distinct lines of confrontation and boundaries. As a result, upholding global
peace and security is now more difficult and unpredictable than it was in the past.

Political and Ideological

During the Cold War, political security was defined by distinct differences between the two
blocs. The international system and its workings were most influenced by capitalism and
communism. Security threats were often perceived through an ideological lens; political
influence was established not through direct conflict, but through alliances and diplomatic
pressure. In today's international landscape, competition has become more complex.
Ideological blocs no longer completely dominate global politics, but they continue to shape
political and security situations. Instead of direct conflict, states compete through strategic
partnerships, political rhetoric, and their presence in international institutions.
This situation has also changed the nature of political and ideological threats. Instead of a
power struggle between just two countries, today fragmented alliances, differing interests, and
different governance models are prominent. Therefore, political and ideological security risks
are less likely to emerge and less predictable.

Cyber and Technological

The emergence of cyber and technological security threats is increasing parabolically today
compared to the past, and the emergence of new technologies is influencing the shaping of
even more technologies. In the contemporary landscape of international relations, cyberspace
has emerged as a critical arena where geopolitical tensions and conflicts are increasingly
exposed.
The evolution of cyberspace as a critical element of international security can be traced back
to the emergence of the internet and the subsequent spread of digital technologies. Initially
designed as a tool for communication and information sharing, the internet has transformed
into a complex infrastructure that forms the basis of economic, political, and social systems
worldwide. This transformation has occurred in parallel with the increasing digitalization of
national infrastructures, making them vulnerable to cyber threats.
Cyber threats have transcended traditional concepts of conflict and war, becoming a central
element in contemporary geopolitical tensions. States and non-state actors use cyberspace for
espionage, influence operations, disrupting critical infrastructure, and waging information
warfare, thus blurring the lines between peace and conflict. The cyberattacks on Estonia in
2007 and Operation Stuxnet against Iran's nuclear program are important examples of how
cyber capabilities are strategically used to achieve geopolitical goals.
Consequently, the emergence of cyber threats has necessitated a reassessment of traditional
security paradigms and the creation of strategic defense policies specifically designed for
cyberspace.

3.2. Managing Security Risks Amid Escalating Tensions:

Diplomacy
Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent disputes from arising between parties, to prevent
existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they
occur. Since the end of the Cold War the international community through international
institutions has been focusing on preventive diplomacy. As the United Nations and regional
organizations as well as global and regional powers discovered the high costs of managing
conflict, there is a strong common perception of benevolence of preventive diplomacy.
Preventive diplomacy actions can be implemented by the UN, regional
organizations, NGO networks and individual states. One of the examples of preventive
diplomacy is the UN peacekeeping mission in Macedonia in 1995–1999. It was the first UN
preventive action.
In early July 2011, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey hosted an
informal retreat for members of the United Nations Security Council in Istanbul. The retreat
gathered ambassadorial-level representatives of the Security Council together with several
member states that were not members of the council at the time, senior officials of the United
Nations Secretariat, and independent experts to discuss ways to strengthen preventive
diplomacy and mediation.
In an informal setting and under the Chatham House rule of nonattribution, the discussion
sought to build on and enrich the ongoing debate on how best to realize the full potential of
preventive diplomacy and mediation as cost-effective options for dealing with crises. The
exchange of views benefited from insights gained at the first Istanbul Retreat for members of
the Security Council in June 2010.
It drew, as well, on lessons learned from recent and ongoing crises and conflicts that have
taxed the council’s capacities for maintaining international peace and security. Nowadays,
focusing on such diplomatic solutions is becoming increasingly important, which is why
diplomacy is among the subheadings of section 3.2.

Confidence-Building
Confidence-building measure, in international relations, an action that reflects goodwill
toward or a willingness to exchange information with an adversary. The purpose of such
measures is to decrease misunderstanding, tension, fear, anxiety, and conflict between two or
more parties by emphasizing trust and limiting conflict escalation as a form of
preventive diplomacy.
Confidence-building measures have traditionally been discussed in connection with wars,
national security, and peacekeeping and are now relevant within political and diplomatic
spheres.
Experts outlined four main types of confidence-building measures: communication,
constraint, transparency, and verification. Communication prevents crisis through averting
tension. The methods involved in communication measures are hotlines—either presidential
or military-based, regional communication centres, and consultations.

Constraint measures control levels and types of power; this has been achieved in military
spheres through decreasing deployment in certain areas—specifically borders—and
prenotification of military activities.
Transparency measures generate openness between parties by establishing requirements for
prenotification and information exchange. Verification reduces vulnerability and mistrust of
goodwill in the military sphere through aerial and ground-based sensors. In areas of
diplomacy, verification is attained through written agreements, independent observations,
inspections, and treaties.
Confidence-building measures originated during the Cold War, with hotlines established
between various statesmen and military personnel in the United States and the Soviet Union.
A central example of the use of a confidence-building measure can be given in reference
to South Asia and the 1971 conflict between India and Pakistan. Following this conflict, the
two countries established the following measures: communication hotlines, an agreement on
prior notification of military exercises, and consensus on not attacking nuclear facilities.
Confidence-building measures were implemented in the 1975 Helsinki Conference on
Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Arms Control
Arms control, any international control or limitation of the development, testing, production,
deployment, or use of weapons based on the premise that the continued existence of certain
national military establishments is inevitable. The concept implies some form of collaboration
between generally competitive or antagonistic states in areas of military policy to diminish the
likelihood of war or, should war occur, to limit its destructiveness.
In a broad sense, arms control grows out of historical state practice in disarmament, which has
had, since the 20th century, a long record of successes and failures. A narrower definition of
each term, however, reveals key differences between disarmament and arms control.
Complete or general disarmament may involve the elimination of a country’s entire military
capacity.
Partial disarmament may consist of the elimination of certain types or classes of weapons or a
general reduction (but not elimination) of all classes of weapons. Whereas disarmament
agreements usually directly prohibit the possession or production of weapons, arms-control
agreements often proceed by setting limitations on the testing, deployment, or use of certain
types of weapons. Arms-control advocates generally take a more or less realistic approach
to international relations in a world they view as anarchic and as lacking any central authority
for settling conflicts.
Furthermore, whereas the objective of disarmament agreements is the reduction or elimination
of weapons, arms-control agreements aim to encourage countries to manage their weapons in
limited cooperation with each other. Disarmament conferences with a large number of
participants have often degenerated into public spectacles with shouting matches between the
delegations of countries that have resulted in increased tensions.
Nevertheless, arms-control efforts, particularly those between the United States and the
Soviet Union during the Cold War, proved useful in limiting the nuclear arms race, and, by the
end of the 20th century, the term arms control was often used to denote any disarmament or
arms-limitation agreement.

Resource & Strategic Territory Disputes

-Senkaku Islands:
The Senkaku Islands dispute, or Diaoyu Islands dispute, is a territorial dispute over a
group of uninhabited islands known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan, the Diaoyu Islands
in China, and Tiaoyutai Islands in Taiwan. Japan controlled the islands from 1895 until the
end of World War II in 1945, after which the United States controlled the islands, which
it administered as part of the Ryukyu Islands. In 1972, the United States transferred the
islands to Japan. The islands are administered as part of the Okinawa Prefecture.
The islands are positioned close to key shipping lanes and rich fishing grounds, and there may
be oil reserves in the area. Japan argues that it surveyed the islands in the late 19th century
and found them to be a land belonging to no one subsequently, China acquiesced to Japanese
sovereignty until the 1970s. According to Experts, China started taking up the question of
sovereignty over the islands in the latter half of 1970 when evidence relating to the existence
of oil reserves surfaced.
Taiwan also claims the islands. Some units argue that documentary evidence prior to the First
Sino-Japanese War indicates Chinese possession and that the territory is accordingly a
Japanese seizure that should be returned as the rest of Imperial Japan's conquests were
returned in 1945.
This dispute demonstrates how far competition over strategic areas can go and underscores
the importance of confidence-building measures.

3.3. Role of Major Powers in Shaping Global Security Threats

Historical Influence of Superpowers

NSC-68:
United States Objectives and Programs for National Security, better known as NSC 68, was a
66-page top secret U.S. National Security Council (NSC) policy paper drafted by
the Department of State and Department of Defense and presented to President Harry S.
Truman on 7 April 1950. It was one of the most important American policy statements of
the Cold War. In the words of scholar Ernest R. May, NSC 68 "provided the blueprint for the
militarization of the Cold War from 1950 to the collapse of the Soviet Union at the beginning
of the 1990s." NSC 68 and its subsequent amplifications advocated a large expansion in
the military budget of the United States, the development of a hydrogen bomb, and
increased military aid to allies of the United States. It made the rollback of global Communist
expansion a high priority and rejected the alternative policies of détente and containment of
the Soviet Union.
By 1950, U.S. national security policies required reexamination due to a series of events:
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was operational, military assistance for
European allies had begun, the Soviet Union had detonated an atomic bomb and the
communists had solidified their control of China. In addition, a British sterling-dollar crisis in
the summer of 1949 had brought home to U.S. officials that the Marshall Plan would not
suffice to cure Western European economic ills by 1952, the Plan's scheduled end year, with
the prospect that Western Europe would have no choice but to pursue autarky (economically
independent country), as it had in the 1930s, with all the attendant difficulties that would
pose for the world economy generally and the U.S. economy particularly. Similar problems
were also plaguing Japan. With these threats to the U.S. and its allies expanding, on 31
January 1950 President Truman directed the Department of State and Department of
Defense "to undertake a reexamination of our objectives in peace and war and of the effect of
these objectives on our strategic plans." A State-Defense Policy Review Group was set up
under the chairmanship of Paul Nitze of the State Department.
Nitze, an advocate of the Policy of repelling communist expansion, ensured that only the most
severe claims about the Soviet Union were cited in the document. The analysis of top Kremlin
experts were categorically omitted. The Kennan–Thompson–Bohlen group maintained that
Stalin's principal goal was to secure tight control of the USSR and its satellites, but that he
had no plan to seek global domination (an assessment shared by most historians today ). Nitze
however, contended that the Soviets were determined to conquer the whole of Europe and
most of Asia and Africa. Dean Acheson, another adviser to Truman, wrote that the purpose of
NSC 68 was to "bludgeon the mind of top government that not only could the president make
a decision, but that the decision could be carried out."
The texts above illustrate how superpowers shaped international security threats during the
Cold War through military, economic, and ideological strategies. How might the NSC-68
policies have increased tensions with the Soviet Union, and what alternative strategies could
have been implemented to protect global security without escalating the risk of conflict?

Strategic Alliances and Proxy Conflicts

Warsaw Pact:
Warsaw Pact, treaty establishing a mutual-defense organization (Warsaw Treaty
Organization) composed originally of the Soviet
Union and Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.
(Albania withdrew in 1968, and East Germany did so in 1990.) The treaty (which was
renewed on April 26, 1985) provided for a unified military command and for the maintenance
of Soviet military units on the territories of the other participating states.
The immediate occasion for the Warsaw Pact was the Paris agreement among the Western
powers admitting West Germany to the NATO. The Warsaw Pact was, however, the first step
in a more systematic plan to strengthen the Soviet hold over its satellites, a program
undertaken by the Soviet leaders after their assumption of power early in 1955. The treaty
also served as a lever to enhance the bargaining position of the Soviet Union in international
diplomacy, an inference that may be drawn by the concluding article of the treaty,
which stipulated that the Warsaw agreement would lapse when a general East-West collective-
security pact should come into force.
The Warsaw Pact, particularly its provision for the garrisoning of Soviet troops in satellite
territory, became a target of nationalist hostility in Poland and Hungary during the uprisings in
those two countries in 1956. The Soviet Union invoked the treaty when it decided to
move Warsaw Pact troops into Czechoslovakia in August 1968 to bring the Czechoslovak
regime back into the fold after it had begun lifting restraints on freedom of expression and had
sought closer relations with the West.
After the democratic revolutions of 1989 in eastern Europe, the Warsaw Pact
became moribund and was formally declared “nonexistent” on July 1, 1991, at a final summit
meeting of Warsaw Pact leaders in Prague, Czechoslovakia. Deployed Soviet troops were
gradually withdrawn from the former satellites, now politically independent countries. The
decades-long confrontation between eastern and western Europe was formally rejected by
members of the Warsaw Pact, all of which, with the exception of the Soviet successor state
of Russia, subsequently joined NATO.
The Warsaw Pact demonstrates how superpowers influence regional security through alliances
and troop deployments. Today, with the concept of new strategic alliances and proxy conflicts,
how can states balance their influence and cooperation without escalating tensions?
Role of Emerging Powers
IBSA Dialogue Forum:
The IBSA Dialogue Forum (India, Brazil, South Africa) is an international tripartite
grouping for promoting international cooperation among these countries. It represents three
important poles for galvanizing South–South cooperation and greater understanding between
three important continents of the developing world namely, Africa, Asia, and South America.
The forum provides the three countries with a platform to engage in discussions for
cooperation in the field of agriculture, trade, culture, and defence among others.
The IBSA Dialogue Forum plays an increasingly important role in the foreign policies
of India, Brazil, and South Africa. It has become instrumental for promoting ever closer
coordination on global issues between three large multicultural and multiracial democracies of
Asia, South America and Africa, and contributed to enhancing trilateral India-Brazil-South
Africa cooperation in sectoral areas.
After the co-operation between India (South Asia), Brazil (South America), and South Africa
(Africa). The Declaration at the trilateral meeting in Brazil, called for removing protectionist
policies and trade distorting practices by improving the multilateral trade system.
On 6 June 2003, Yashwant Sinha (External affairs minister of India), Celso Amorim (Foreign
minister of Brazil) and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma (Foreign minister of South Africa) met in
Brasilia, where the IBSA Dialogue forum was formalized through the adoption of the
"Brasilia Declaration". The IBSA Dialogue forum facilitates regular consultations at senior
officials level, government (summit) levels as well as amongst academics, intellectuals and
other members of the civil society. By some experts, it is also seen as an endeavor to
challenge the international system by Pivotal Middle Powers through peaceful convincing,
instead of other means.
Brasilia Declaration:
On 6 June 2003, the Brasilia Declaration was signed by the foreign ministers of India, Brazil
and South Africa. They agreed on the urgent need for reforms in the United Nations,
especially the Security Council. The declaration was of the view that the United Nations
Security Council should reflect the current world scenario. It also touched upon the subjects
of international terrorism, trans-national crime and illegal arms dealing, stating that such
threats to international peace must effectively tackled with respect for the sovereignty of
States and for International Law.
The Ministers highlighted their priorities on promotion of social equity and inclusive growth
by reiterating the need for tackling hunger and poverty by means of effective implementation
of government schemes. The declaration also highlights the need for promoting family-run
farms, food security, health, education, human rights and environmental protection. They
recalled that social empowerment makes better use of human potential, contributing to
economic development in a significant manner. The ministers also stressed the importance of
elimination of racial discrimination and gender bias while framing.
While welcoming the benefits that have been achieved through globalization and free market
trade in the developing countries, the ministers expressed their concerns that a large part of
the world has not benefited from it. In this context, they reiterated their commitment to pursue
and implement policies which are inclusive, integrative and equitable. Toward this end, they
reaffirmed their stand to carry out negotiations, through which the developed countries might
eliminate some of their protectionist and trade-distorting practices, thereby providing a level
playing field for the developing countries in the field of international trade.
The Ministers recommended to their respective Chiefs of State the convening of a summit-
level meeting of the three countries. They also decided to further intensify dialogue at all
levels, when needed, to organize meetings of top officials and experts responsible for issues of
mutual interest. They agreed to hold regular meetings and dialogues on issues of common
interest. They further agreed to establish a Trilateral Joint Commission. The Foreign
Ministries will be the pivots of the Trilateral Joint Commission and the meetings will be co-
chaired by the three Foreign Ministers. The secretariat facilities shall be coordinated by the
Secretary in charge of this area in the Foreign Ministry of the host country.
The IBSA Forum and the Brasília Declaration demonstrate the efforts of rising powers to
assume a greater role in international security. How can the Security Council assess the
perspectives of these countries and prevent differing interests from escalating tensions and
creating problems?
4. Questions to be Adressed
How can the Security Council prevent a new Cold War–style polarization?

Does nuclear deterrence still contribute to global stability?

When do proxy conflicts become threats to international peace?

Should cyberattacks on critical infrastructure be treated as acts of aggression?

How can accountability be ensured in cyber operations?

How can preventive diplomacy be strengthened within the Security Council?

Are confidence-building measures still effective in modern security crises?

Can arms control function without mutual trust between major powers?

How should the UNSC manage strategic territorial disputes peacefully?

How do major powers shape global security dynamics today?

How can strategic alliances avoid escalating global tensions?

How should emerging powers be integrated into global security governance?

Can multilateral institutions remain neutral amid great power rivalry?

How can the UNSC respond to hybrid and non-traditional threats?

How can cooperation be sustained in a divided international system?

5. Bibliography

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]

[Link]