United Nations Simulation

Guidelines

UC Política Internacional
Licenciatura em Ciência Política
Universidade do Minho
2022-2023

Professora Doutora Sandra Dias Fernandes (CICP-UMinho)

1
OUTLINE

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPE AND AIMS OF THE SIMULATION 3

2. CALENDAR 6

3. READINGS FOR ALL THE PARTIES 7

4. STATE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES 8

2
 1. Description of the scope and aims of the simulation

The simulation will consist of a meeting at the UN (in a broad understanding of

this context) to address issues related to the Arctic region. The meeting is meant to address
the Chinese “Near Arctic” State declaration of 2018.

Following China’s growing willingness to be involved in Arctic affairs, a meeting

at the UN is organized to debate a possible opening of the Arctic to non-Arctic States.
This meeting revolves mainly around the Chinese claim that the Arctic does not fall under
the sovereignty of any particular nation and that China should have a say in its affairs,
considering that it represents one fifth (1/5) of the world’s population. This claim,
together with its affirmation of being the closest non-Arctic State to the Arctic, is the main
argument to debate over the opening of the Arctic to interests of non-Arctic States.

Every intervening State should mainly focus on the geopolitical and self-interests
of its nation as well as of those nations that are aligned with them or who they “oppose”
in the international sphere. Climate issues to be discussed should be reserved to States
that lack direct interests in the Arctic, otherwise the interventions will be somewhat
redundant. Allegations for and against the proposed criteria of population and
neighbourhood to the Arctic should be made in accordance with each country interests
and positions. Thus, each State should weigh the advantages or disadvantages of giving
their support or expressing their rejection of these parameters for Arctic “openness” in
various dimensions. Any State can bring up arguments when it comes to any other State’s
behavior, as for instance in terms of environmental protection and human rights issues,
to strengthen their positions or their allies. Alternatively, these arguments can be brought
up to counteract their competitors claims. This means that every country should be aware
of the main foreign policy goals of the other participants and at least read integrally the
present document to have a gist of what they might encounter.

What will be debated is the possibility of extending Arctic exploration

rights/privileges based on the size of population and proximity to this region. What each
group needs to do is come up with a position as to if it supports this line of thinking or if
it rejects it. Each group should also try to get better outcomes for their positions while
reducing the advantages that their competitors might get. To do this, creative thinking is
encouraged, but all arguments have to be based on the reality each State faces. Finally,

3
there are States that do not have direct interests in the Arctic, but that may be affected by
the policies practiced there, or that may be able to enter this region with this Chinese
proposal. All avenues should be explored, if possible, but you intervention time is limited
so make considerate choices that portray a solid position with a clear goal in mind. The
internal order on which you should speak is entirely up to the group to decide.

How you arrange and structure your speech is also of your exclusive responsibility
but some guidelines in terms of the overall content is provided, below, for each country.
Although you are completely free to choose how to structure your interventions, the talks
should evidence three different points: identifying the issue, by rejecting, objecting and
challenging your perceived rivals in the UN Meeting; an alliance building moment, where
you extend praise or recognition for potential or long standing international allies that are
present on the UN Meeting; finally, outline possible points of connection where your
State stands ready to negotiate, as well as red lines which are not to be crossed if your
country is to remain at the negotiating table. Outside of this general structure, you can
also add mentions to fellow States that are not present in the UN Meeting and that should
be represented according to your interests or agendas (there is no need to justify internal
agendas, just why they should have been included and what would be gained or was lost
by not including them).

Below, there are two lists of reading materials for your preparatory research for
the simulation. The first list shows you the essential materials that all groups should read
in order to understand why the (simulated) UN meeting is taking place. The second list
contains more State specific reading materials to quickly contextualize State’s view of
the Arctic and/or foreign policy directions. It is adamant that you understand that the
materials proposed in this document are only a starting point of your research, and that
you are expected to do further readings in order to prepare you presentation on the
simulation days. Having said that, there is space for creativity in your presentations as
long as that creativity goes in line with what your chosen State has pursued in its Foreign
Policy in real terms. Thus, all of your interventions and proposals must be based on reality
and can only deviate slightly from it, they must never be based on fantasy, however good
it might be.

Possible outcomes are the adoption of one, or both, of the two new requirements
for direct involvement on Arctic Affairs, or the refusal of one or both of them. The main
objective is to see each group make a carefully constructed statement that is mindful of

4
the issues being discussed and of the intricacies that surround them. There is also the
intention to see if, during the negotiations, certain alliances can be formed and if the initial
positions can be changed or adapted to achieve some central goals. In the final day, it is
expected that each State addresses the major statements directed to itself and presents the
conclusions it was able to achieve or, even better, to present consensus among a group of
States.

5
2. Calendar

The event will be structured as follows:

• On the first day of the simulation exercise (November 21) only 2 out of
the 3 members of each group makes a speech.
o Each group will have a maximum of 8 minutes for their overall
intervention. This means that each member will speak for a
maximum of 4 minutes.
• On the second day (November 23) there will be time for negotiations
(which may be carried out during the following days outside the classroom
until the final presentation) between the different groups in order to flesh
out the final positions.
• On the third and last day of the exercise (November 28), the third member
of each group, the one that hasn’t spoken up to that moment, will present
the final position that his/her country has achieved through the negotiation
process.
o During this final intervention, each group has a maximum of 5
minutes to make its statement.
• The order of interventions is as follows:
o 1st day (November 21):
§ People’s Republic of China;
§ United States of America;
§ Russian Federation;
§ Canada;
§ Finland;
§ Norway;
§ Sweden;
§ Kingdom of Denmark;
§ Iceland;
§ Japan;
§ Republic of India;
§ Brazil.

6
 o 2nd day (November 23): the negotiations are conducted in a virtual
setting with not rigid structure.
o 3rd day (November 28): The interventions follow the same order as
the one of the first day.

3. Readings for all the parties

The following general Reading materials should be read by all participating

groups:

-White Paper 2018:

[Link]
htm

-UNCLOS:
[Link]

-Spitsbergen Treaty: [Link]

information/history/[Link]

-Official 2010 Chinese declaration: [Link]

arctic-play/

-Outlook on Arctic Policies:

[Link]

-Militarization of the Arctic: [Link]

content/uploads/2013/10/The-Militarization-of-the-Arctic-Political-Economic-and-
[Link]

7
 4. State Specific Guidelines

United States of America (USA)

The USA is an Arctic State with an EEZ and a Continental Shelf in the Artic
region. The position of this State includes its overall competition with the PRC and the
comparative advantages that the Arctic resources would provide this country with. The
intervention needs to take into consideration at the current international legislation as well
as the overall strategy of the PRC and thus showcase why a negative stance towards the
inclusion of non-arctic States in Arctic affairs would be expected. The group needs to
look at the US foreign policy and formulate a stance that is coherent and well structured.
The South China Sea may come into play if the group deems it worthy to mention. The
Belt and Road Initiative can also be brought up during the intervention if it suits the
allegations to be made.

Indicative readings:

-UNCLOS timeline US nonadherence: [Link]

convention/

-US arctic policy review: [Link]

stagnation-toward-arctic-region

-US-Russia arctic questions: [Link]

-US national Strategy for the arctic region:

[Link]

Russian Federation

The Russian Federation is an Arctic State with an EEZ and a Continental Shelf.
This State has planted a flag deep in the ocean and symbolically claimed the Arctic
seabed. The country has a direct confrontation with the US in this area and has been
incrementally investing in militarizing this geographical space. The position of this State
takes into account the Chinese Polar Silk Road interest, its icebreaker capacity and the
opening of the Northern Sea Route for commercial shipping. Russia is also dependence
on the energy export market and the Arctic promises of energy resources. This last

8
consideration may come into play as to if the Russian Federation might support or oppose
the Chinese participation in Arctic affairs. The question of the US’s interests in acquiring
Iceland may be brought to discussion as a form of undue appropriation of the Arctic.

Indicative readings:

-Russian strategic document for the Arctic:

[Link]
me%20Studies%20Institute/ArcticPolicyFoundations2035_English_FINAL_21July202
[Link]?sr=b&si=DNNFileManagerPolicy&sig=DSkBpDNhHsgjOAvPILTRoxIfV%2FO
02gR81NJSokwx2EM%3D

-Overview of the Arctic strategic document: [Link]

[Link]/10.18449/2020C57/

-Overview of Russian Arctic policy:

[Link]
84181

-Russia plants flag on Arctic Seabed: [Link]

28784420070802

-Russian navy Arctic presence: [Link]

readies-for-future-conflicts-in-arctic/

-Russian stance on Chinese involvement on the Arctic:

[Link]

-Russian Arctic military buildup:

[Link]
cmd/[Link]

-BRICS interests in the Arctic:

[Link]

Canada

Canada is an Arctic State with an EEZ and a Continental Shelf in this area. This
State has vested interests in this geographical area as it is home to some of its indigenous

9
peoples like the Inuit. The role that Canada has played as an advocate of multilateral
solutions in the international stage must be considered, along its posture to address global
problems with global solutions. Even though this country has a specific international
image as a promoter of “human security” and peace, its interests must not be discarded
as well as its past interactions with China in the Arctic. Thus, the position of this country
must be a well-balanced exercise between the promotion of its self-interest and the
maintenance and furthering of its international image and prestige as a staunch defender
of multilateral and inclusive solutions. In this line of thought, self-determination
questions, along with human rights defense may be brought up against China. More
research must be done outside of the suggested readings to ascertain if a holistic inclusive
stakeholder approach could be pursued.

Indicative readings:

-Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy 2010:

[Link]

-Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework 2016: [Link]

[Link]/eng/1560523306861/1560523330587#s1

-Overview of the Arctic Policies: [Link]

policy-framework/

-Launch of the Framework 2019: [Link]

relations-northern-affairs/news/2019/09/the-government-of-canada-launches-co-
[Link]

-Canada’s role in Renewing multilateralism:

[Link]
renewing-multilateralism-for-a-changing-world/

People’s Republic of China (PRC)

China claims to be a Near-Arctic State and it effectively does not have an EEZ
and a Continental Shelf in this area. This State has been steadily growing in terms of its
international power projection and international integration in the liberal order. This fact
has created deep interdependencies. Currently China is the manufacturing hub of the

10
globe with a significant industrial capacity and a strong civil navy. This is one of the
central aspects behind the Arctic pursuit motivated by the Ice caps melting process that
unlocks the Northern Shipping Route. This route is faster and thus more efficient for
maritime shipping. Another motivating factor behind the Chinese interests in the Arctic
is tied to consumption of natural resources to fuel its economic growth. Due to this
combination of factors, and the perceived notion that Great Powers will flex their muscles
in the Arctic, China has been steadily asserting itself into this geographical region. The
intervention should consider previous assertions by Chinese officials such as the one that
tied Chinese population size with the exploration of the parts of the Arctic that are not a
sovereign territory of any particular nation. This in line with China’s promotion of its
presence in the Arctic due to its participation in global affairs that take part or pass through
the Arctic cements a view of belonging and inclusiveness in this region. The Chinese
position should be carefully articulated as to advance its national interests while looking
at the interests of its competitors/eventual allies in the region.

Indicative readings:

-White Paper 2018:

[Link]
htm

-Spitsbergen Treaty: [Link]

information/history/[Link]

-Official 2010 Chinese declaration: [Link]

arctic-play/

-Chinese securitization of the Arctic:

[Link]

-Overview of China’s Arctic options:

[Link]
power-why-china-became-a-near-arctic-state/

-BRICS interests in the Arctic:

[Link]

11
 Finland

Finland is an Arctic State with an EEZ and a Continental Shelf in this area. This
State has vested interests in this geographical area as it is home to indigenous peoples like
the Sámi. This State has been reorienting its Arctic Policy away from a resource
exploration direction towards a more climate oriented one. This coupled with Finnish
limited international status is a core aspect to keep in mind during the preparation of the
interventions. This country is a European Union Member State along with other actors
participating in the UN Meeting, meaning that they may converge in stance more easily
forming an ad hoc European bloc for greater negotiating capacity. Seeing that Finland is
also focused on environmental protection of the Arctic, issues with Chinese
environmental conduct (and other States attending the meeting) may be brought up. Due
to Finland’s position in terms of the protection of indigenous peoples, the issue with the
Uyghur population may enter the intervention with careful planning and handling of the
situation. Finland’s historic winter war with Russia must be kept in mind, especially due
to Russian militarization efforts of the Arctic.

Indicative readings:

-Ministry of Foreign Affairs Arctic Cooperation: [Link]

-Overview of the Arctic Policy evolution: [Link]

finlands-arctic-strategy-change/

-EU’s northern dimension highlighted by Finland:

[Link]
/asset_publisher/omOkBRW9O3yT/content/arctic-flag-day-event-at-the-permanent-
representation-of-finland-to-the-eu/384951

-Arctic Finland: [Link]

-Arctic Strategic Document 2013:

[Link]
40ec-4c17-b286-5b5910fbecf4/Arktinen+strategia+2013+[Link]

-Arctic Strategic Document 2021:

[Link]
uence=1&isAllowed=y

12
 -NORDEFCO: [Link]

-Nordic Co-operation: [Link]

Iceland

Iceland is an Arctic State with an EEZ and a Continental Shelf in this area. This
State argues that it is the most dependent and interested in this geographical region as it
is uniquely dependent on its resources and environment. This urges the country to gain
an equal footing to other costal Arctic States in order to preserve its rights to explore the
Arctic resources. The environmental protection question is also central in their reasoning,
as environmental deterioration will have major impacts on this island State. Thus, the
country has both self-interest and environmental issues in mind when it comes to the
Arctic. It also takes notice of the various disputes surrounding the Arctic implicating a
rise in tensions in this area and has vested interests in their peaceful resolution. The
intervention should be based on ample research of the Arctic issues, Iceland’s
international actions and the protection of the region itself without discarding the self-
interests particular to Iceland. It is possible to creatively mention Chinese interests and
Arctic investments in regard to the possible stabilization or destabilization of the Arctic.
Iceland is also chairing the Arctic Council in 2021.

Indicative readings:

-Parliamentary resolution on the Arctic:

[Link]
media/media/nordurlandaskrifstofa/A-Parliamentary-Resolution-on-ICE-Arctic-Policy-
[Link]

-Icelandic Arctic Cooperation Network: [Link]

-Overview of Iceland: [Link]

-Icelandic Arctic Affairs: [Link]

affairs/arctic-region/arctic-affairs/

-NORDEFCO: [Link]

-Nordic Co-operation: [Link]

13
 Norway

Norway is an Arctic State with an EEZ and a Continental Shelf in this area. This
State has vested interests in this geographical area as it is home to indigenous peoples like
the Sámi. Svalbard is also located in Norway, and its Treaty has allowed for Arctic
resource exploration and research by its signatories. Norway has also implemented a High
North strategy and through such strategy tries to gain international leverage by having
close connections with other Arctic States (like the USA and the Russian Federation).
The resource potential of the Arctic is not disregarded by the country, as well as the
necessary environmental protection of this region. Issues with Chinese mistreatment of
its minorities may be brough up, but the intervention will need to be very consistent and
careful since the Svalbard treaty binds Norway to an inclusive position in this region.
Norwegian officials are somewhat reluctant towards Russia’s militarization of the Arctic
since Norway has most of its coast in this region.

Indicative readings:

-High North 1: [Link]

school/research-centres/highnorthcenter/nyheter/Pages/norways-arctic-policy-still-high-
[Link]

-High North 2: [Link]

policy/

-Overview of Arctic Policy: [Link]

2-issue-1-september-2013/arctic-council-norway-and-the-arctic-the-importance-of-
knowledge-for-sustainable-development/

-Norway Arctic Strategy 2021:

[Link]

-Norway Arctic Strategy 2017:

[Link]

-The Arctic important for Norway, important for the World:

[Link]

-NORDEFCO: [Link]

14
 -Nordic Co-operation: [Link]

Sweden

Sweden is an Arctic State with an EEZ and a Continental Shelf in this area. This
State welcomes international cooperation by Arctic and non-Arctic players in the region’s
development. There is also a focus on making such development a sustainable one as
global climate change is considered a serious threat. But the country also wants to
preserve the unique role that the Arctic nations play in this region by reinforcing the status
of the Arctic Council. It welcomes the permanent observer status of the EU in this
international organization. The intervention will have to consider Sweden’s overall
international image and foreign policy orientation. The notion that it became an EU
country not only to benefit from the economic aspects, but also to increase its international
reach through political integration, must not be dismissed. Its cooperative stance must not
be forgotten, along its affirmation as an Arctic country. This will require further research
to articulate a careful intervention.

Indicative readings:

-Arctic Strategy:
[Link]
/[Link]

-Arctic Strategy Overview: [Link]

strategy-overview/

-Regional Development in the Arctic:

[Link]
development-arctic/

-Small and non-aligned 1: [Link]

sweden-strategic-posture-arctic-part-i/

-Small and non-aligned 2: [Link]

sweden-strategic-posture-arctic-part-ii/

-Sweden and the EU in the Arctic: [Link]

healthy-dose-distance-swedens-attitude-eu-arctic-player/

15
 -NORDEFCO: [Link]

-Nordic Co-operation: [Link]

Kingdom of Denmark

The Kingdom of Denmark is an Arctic State with an EEZ and a Continental Shelf
in this area. Denmark’s footing in the Arctic is directly associated with Greenland’s
(Autonomous territory) geographical position. This creates an especially intricate
situation for Denmark. This Autonomous territory is inching ever closer to independence
and there have been past offers from the USA, under the Trump Administration more
recently, to buy Greenland from Danish authority as was made with the Alaskan territory
in the past (from Russian authorities). This fact should be kept in mind throughout the
intervention, as territorial integrity is a central issue to every State. Another important
factor to be kept in mind is a 2016 statement made by a Danish official on Denmark status
as an Arctic Great Power. All of these factors must shape a careful intervention that
addresses the aspirations of Denmark while keeping in mind its limitations imposed by
the Great Power rivalry between the USA, Russia and China. The fact that the Strategic
document for the Arctic has run past its date allows for some creativity during the
intervention, but also implies some caution as not to delve into fantasy instead of reality-
based comments.

Indicative readings:

-NORDEFCO: [Link]

-Nordic Co-operation: [Link]

-Greenland’s prominent role in the Arctic Council: [Link]

the-arctic/2021/06/18/greenlands-more-prominent-role-on-arctic-council-important-
signal-to-intl-community-says-foreign-minister/

-Troubled Arctic: [Link]

of-denmark-and-the-great-powers/

-Arctic Great Power:

[Link]

16
 -Arctic Strategy 2011-2020: [Link]

Republic of India

The Republic of India is a State that does not have an EEZ and a Continental Shelf
in the Arctic. This State is however a permanent observer in the Arctic Council. However,
the country does not have an Arctic Strategic document, having only recently developed
a Draft document with this aim. India is also one of the largest countries in the world,
with the second largest population in the world, only behind China. This State is also in
direct competition with China in the Asian continent, with border disputes to be resolved.
These facts of direct competition and of similar population size are a rather important
information to keep in mind when making the intervention. China’s claim to the Arctic
based on its share of the global population is bound to be explored by India. This,
however, must be done in a careful way, as the regional competitive environment must
be present at all times. For this, further research should be done on the relation between
India and China and what balancing actions has India taken. There are important
considerations between the relations of India with the other participating States, as that
may be a bargaining chip to further the narrative of an open Arctic, but not fully open to
its direct competitor. For this, the issue of Chinese administration of Tibet may be brought
up. Careful considerations must be made when it comes to India’s environmental
protection history, as this might be one weak argument.

Indicative readings:

-Ministry of Foreign Affairs India: [Link]

[Link]?21812/India+and+the+Arctic

-Evolving engagements in the Arctic:

[Link]

-Overview of India’s Arctic Policy:

[Link]

-India’s Draft Policy on the Arctic: [Link]

updates/daily-news-analysis/india-s-draft-arctic-policy

17
 -India’s role in the Arctic: [Link]
reviving-momentum-through-policy/

-Contours of India’s Arctic Policy: [Link]

indias-arctic-policy/

-BRICS interests in the Arctic:

[Link]

Republic of South Africa

The Republic of South Africa is a State that does not have an EEZ and a
Continental Shelf in the Arctic. This country is not a permanent observer of the Arctic
Council. It is however deeply involved in the Antarctic region and has an icebreaker
making it capable of traveling the polar (north or south) maritime routes. With no direct
connections to the Arctic, this State’s intervention must be made with tangential lines of
its Antarctic policy and its overall international stance. Being part of the BRICS, South
Africa may have some incentives to stand by China to keep up their political alignment,
as well as to further possible access to the Arctic region given this country’s record of
research in the south pole. Some research should be done on South African stance on
human rights as it may prove valuable during negotiations. The South African position
then must explore the fact that parts of the Arctic are not under the direct sovereignty of
any State. This can be associated with the Chinese claim based on population and open
the way for claims on rights to explore this region in a creative manner, but reality bound,
to justify the exploration of the Arctic by South Africa. The country may devote some of
its intervention to the environmental aspects at play in the Arctic given its involvement
in the Antarctic region and its limited scope of interests in this region.

Indicative readings:

-20 years vision for polar research:

[Link]
23532017000300007

-Overview of the Antarctic:

[Link]
.pdf

18
 -South African National Antarctic Programme: [Link]

-African countries support for China in terms of human rights:

[Link]

-South Africa Gateway to Antarctica: [Link]

room/latest-news/1941-south-africa-gateway-to-antarctica

-The Arctic Clarion Call for Africa: [Link]

clarion-call-africa/

-BRICS interests in the Arctic:

[Link]

Brazil

Brazil is a State that does not have an EEZ and a Continental Shelf in the Arctic.
This State is not a permanent observer of the Arctic Council. The country is however
deeply involved in the Antarctic region and has been increasing its capabilities when it
comes to Antarctic research. Brazil has been considering a possible accession to the
Arctic Council as an observer. This is a State that must be careful when considering the
environmental protection of the Arctic, considering its Sovereignty based approach on
Amazonia’s protection, under President Jair Bolsonaro. Thus, Brazil should explore more
of the BRICS forum, as well as the world population quota approach, already advanced
by Chinese officials. Brazil’s approach and intervention must be a careful one, since under
the current administration there are tensions between Brazil and China. This fact should
be present during the speech. Brazil should creatively explore the window China has
opened, but should also keep its strategy based on reality and promote its self-interests as
well as direct engagement with its most relevant competitors present in the meeting.

Indicative readings:

-Brazil Antarctic Action Plan:

[Link]

-Brazil Antarctic Future: [Link]

antarctic-future-23528

19
 -Brazil with eyes on the Arctic: [Link]

-Brazil considering the Svalbard Treaty:

[Link]
hemisphere-enter-arctic

-BRICS interests in the Arctic:

[Link]

Japan

Japan is a State that does not have an EEZ and a Continental Shelf in the Arctic.
The country is a permanent observer of the Arctic Council. Japan has direct interest in the
Arctic, conducting research in the area, and could directly benefit from the Northern Sea
Route for maritime trading and shipping. This State has a direct dispute with China when
it comes to its sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands, as well as an historic competition
and tense relationship. This tense relationship can be explored in this issue by bringing
up China’s treatment of its Uyghur populations (Japan considers the protection of
Indigenous peoples of the Arctic as a priority), as well as China’s aspirations in the South
China Sea that topple over the UNCLOS Treaty to secure its regional interests. Thus,
Japan should mindfully prepare its intervention so that it can promote its interests in the
Arctic while countering those of its direct competitors in the regions. For that purpose,
the historic relationship with the USA should be kept in mind. It should also be noted that
Japan and Russia have a dispute when it comes to the Kuril Islands, especially to be taken
into consideration when it comes to the aspiration of navigating the Northern Sea Route.

Indicative readings:

-Japan’s Arctic Policy:

[Link]

-Overview of Japan’s Arctic Policy:

[Link]
[Link]

-Interview with the Arctic Council observer Japan: [Link]

[Link]/news/interview-with-arctic-council-observer-japan/

20
 -UK-Japan Responses to the Arctic:
[Link]

-The process of formulating Japan’s Arctic Policy:

[Link]

-Japan in the Arctic:

[Link]

-Japan tours the Nordic Countries: [Link]

tour-and-japans-arctic-ambitions/

21