Security Council

Dear Delegates,

On behalf of the entire Baylor Model United Nations team, we would like to welcome you to our conference. Each year we try to make our conference better than the year before, and this year the Security Council will be the best committee you participate in all year. The topics and study guide were written to engage you, the delegates, in topics that are equally interesting and controversial. The UN Security Council tackles big issues at every meeting and we wanted you to feel as though you are addressing issues just as important. We have prepared study guides to help brief you on the topics, but we hope that will not be the end of your research. The better you prepare yourself, the more comfortable you will feel speaking, and the more likely you will be to win an award.

However, we do not want you to be solely concerned about taking home an award. This is an early conference and a perfect opportunity to learn about the UN and the benefits of the Model UN. To start you in the right direction we will give you a few pointers to help you succeed. First, you are a delegate. Embrace that concept. Stay in character every step of the way and you will learn more and have way more fun. Second, ask lots of question. If you have a question, do not hesitate to call for a point of inquiry. If you would rather catch one of the Baylor MUN team members when you are not in session, feel free to ask. It never hurts to ask. Finally, READ THE STUDY GUIDE! Each one of us has put time and effort in to giving you an excellent overview of the topics. Every year people delegates stop reading at the topics. If you have read the entire study guide, you will have a step on your competition. If you do additional research, you will be all the more ahead. If you take our advice, we guarantee you will have an excellent conference. Good luck!


The Security Council Chairs

History of the Security Council

Background and Functions

The United Nations was established by the Allied forces, including the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China, in June 1945. As the most powerful military states at the time, the Allied forces formed the Security Council, which was originally intended to promote peace among nations. The nature and function of the Security Council was established by Chapter V of the United Nations Charter.[1]

Under the UN Charter, the Security Council is primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Its specific functions and powers include: investigating international disputes; recommending methods to solve disputes; formulating plans to establish a system to regulate armaments; determining threats to international peace or aggressive actions and recommending actions to respond to the problem; calling upon Members to impose economic sanctions and other non-violent measures to end or prevent aggression; taking military action against an aggressor; recommending the admission of new Members; performing the trusteeship functions of the UN; offering recommendations to the General Assembly concerning the appointment of the Secretary-General and, with the General Assembly, electing Judges of the International Court of Justice.[2]

The Security Council currently consists of five permanent members and ten non-permanent members, which are elected by the General Assembly and required to serve two-year terms. The permanent members are: China, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russian Federation. The current non-permanent members are: Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Panama, South Africa and Viet Nam. The Presidency of the Security Council position rotates between members of the Security Council each month and is determined based on the English alphabetical order of names. [3]

Each member of the Security Council is allowed one vote. An affirmative vote of at least nine of the fifteen members is required for decisions on procedural matters and at least nine for decisions on substantive matters. For the latter, the concurring votes of all five permanent members are required as well. This is known as the rule of “great Power unanimity” or, more commonly, “veto” power. Under the UN Charter, members are required to carry out Security Council decisions. The Security Council differs from every other UN organ in this capacity; while other organs only have the ability to offer suggestions, the decisions of the Security Council alone are binding.[4]

Criticism and Reform

The United Nations Security Council has undergone one major change since the time of its creation. In 1965, the Security Council expanded in terms of member-states; the number of member-states increased from eleven to fifteen. With this shift, the weight of the permanent members of the Security Council in terms of voting was altered. Now, nine affirmative votes are necessary to pass a resolution.[5]

The Security Council has been criticized on multiple accounts, particularly concerning its structure. In fact, when the Secretary-General invited states to offer comments on Security Council reform, 80 member-states obliged, prompting the Secretary-General to establish an Open-Ended Working Group that would consider critiques and seek to improve the Security Council. Developing countries in particular have noted the necessity of restructuring. The UN representative for Indonesia, for example, stated the following:

Developing countries continue to be disenfranchised as four out of five permanent members are from the developing nations, an anomaly which can not be perpetuated. It is also pertinent to note that two thirds of the world's population in the developing countries is without representation in the permanent membership; only 8% of the general [UN] membership is now represented in the Council.

Three different groups of countries offered proposals for Security Council reform in 2005. One came from a group of 27 states including Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, another came from the African Union, and the last came from middle-sized states calling itself the Uniting for Consensus group. This was partly led by Italy and Pakistan. The first group wanted to add ten states to the Security Council, six which would be permanent but without veto power and four that would be non-permanent. The proposal from the AU called for the addition of 11 new members, two permanent and non-permanent from Africa and Asia, one permanent and non-permanent from Latin America and the Caribbean, one permanent for Western Europe and one permanent for Eastern Europe. The final proposal called for the inclusion of ten elected non-permanent members to the Security Council. These groups could not reach a consensus and ultimately, during voting, each proposal was blocked.[6] Although there is still much debate over the issue, progress is doubtful given the lack of unity in reform plans.

Topic I: Establishing UN relations with the Kurdish Nation

History of the Kurdish Nation

The Kurdish people occupy a region consisting of Southeastern Turkey, Northwestern Iran, Northern Iraq, and Northeastern Syria. The Kurdish people have lived in this area since at least the 2nd Millennia BCE.[7] The Roman Empire took control of the region in 66 BCE and held it until 384 CE. The Kurdish people experienced independence from 384 CE until they were conquered by the Arabs in 643 CE. Since 643 CE the Kurds have been under the control of a “foreign power” of one sort or another and with varying levels of autonomy.[8]

In World War One the Kurds, supported by the allied powers, fought against the Ottoman Empire in their region. The Kurdish people sent a representative to the Paris Peace Conference following the war in 1918 to lobby for an independent Kurdish State. Such as state was stipulated in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, but was conspicuously missing in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. As the modern Middle East began to take form beginning in the late 1920s and continuing into the 1930s and 1940s a Kurdish State failed to materialize despite the continuing efforts of the Kurdish people towards autonomy.

The Kurdish People in Iraq

The Kurdish people occupy the three northern most regions of Iraq, and make up approximately 17% of the Iraqi population. There are also 300,000 Kurds in Baghdad, and 100,000 Kurds elsewhere in Southern Iraq.[9] In 1960 the Kurdish people began an offensive against the Iraq government. This “war” carried on until 1970 when Iraq announced a plan for Kurdish autonomy. The plan was set to take approximately four years to come to fruition.[10] The Iraqis however, still wanted control of the oil rich areas of the Kurdish region, and as such the Iraqi government began settling Southern Iraqis in these oil rich regions.[11] Tensions built and eventual the conflict revived in 1974, breaking the peace established in 1970.

When war broke out between Iran and Iraq in 1981, the Kurdish conflict escalated. The Iraqi government now under the leadership of the Baath Party and Saddam Hussein participated in mass murder, and the complete destruction of Kurdish villages.[12] The Kurds welcomed and celebrated the United States forces that toppled Hussein's regime in 2003.[13] Under the new government the Kurdish people experience a high level of autonomy; however there have been recent conflicts with Turkey over the “harboring” of the PKK.

The Kurdish People in Iran

Ever since the Kurdish people came into existence, some portions of them have lived under Persian (Iranian) rule. In modern Iran, nearly 7% of the population is Kurdish.[14] There were a series of revolts against the government of Iran throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.[15] The Soviet Union occupied a portion of Iran in 1946, and created an “independent” Kurdish state there until they left later that same year. After the Islamic revolution that shook Iran in 1979, conflict between the new Ayatollah-controlled government and the Kurdish region of Iran renewed. In late 1979 Ayatollah Khomeni declared a holy war on the Kurdish People.[16] This holy war lasted until 1983, and some of the measures taken by the government of Iran against the militants have been met with international disgust.

Since regaining control in 1983, Iran has stayed in control of its Kurdish region. In modern Iran the Kurdish people are allowed various cultural rights, but very few political rights, and no autonomy.[17]


The Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is a militant wing of the Kurdish state movement active for the most part in Turkey and Iraq. The PKK has been deemed a terrorist organization by the United States, NATO, and the European Union. As of 2008 nearly 37,000 people have been killed by the group. The PKK originated as a rebel group in Turkey in the late 1970s, but has most recently been headquartered in post-Saddam Iraq. In 2000 the PKK declared a ceasefire with the Turkish government. However, this ceasefire broke down in 2004 and conflict has revived. Another ceasefire was declared in 2006, but not held to. The recent increase in attacks made by the PKK has been responded to in kind by the Turkish government, including cross-border raiding into Northern Iraq.

The Kurdish People in Turkey

After the failed attempts to create a Kurdish state in the break up of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurdish regions revolted against the Turkish government in 1925 and 1930. In the Turkish Nationalism that followed World War One, the Kurdish language was outlawed, and minority ethnic groups within Turkey were denied technical existence. In the late 1970s the PKK came to power amongst the Kurds, and in 1984 a formal conflict erupted in Southeastern Turkey.[18] During the conflict the region was depopulated. The Turkish government destroyed 3,000 villages and displaced 378,000 people.[19][20]

In 1991 the Turkish government as part of a bid to enter into the EU, began to liberalize and allow more rights to be granted to the Kurdish minority. The Kurdish language was legalized and radio and television programs were allowed to broadcast in Kurdish. However, despite these reforms violence between the PKK and the Turkish government reignited in the early 2000s and has been a staple of Kurdish news ever since.


The central directive before the Security Council is to determine what the position of the Kurdish people is to be in the Middle East. Are they to remain a vaguely autonomous group spread across four states, or is there to be the dreamed of but never realized Kurdistan? Another question is what action should be taken if any at all against the PKK? As the violence in the Middle East continues to rise, this key group of people is pivotal to the peace and stability of the entire Middle Eastern Region.

Topic II: The Effect of Missile Defense on Disarmament

Brief Introduction

In 1968 the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force with three main goals, non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use of nuclear weapons[21]. The NPT does not have any explicit mandate about missile defense systems (MDSs), but the effect that MDSs have on the process of disarmament is within the jurisdiction of the NPT. However, the NPT does not have an enforcement mechanism. So, it must refer matters to the Security Council, this committee, to enforce its provisions and principles. This committee will assume that the matter of MDSs and their effect on disarmament has been recommended to the Security Council for action.

Missile Defense Systems (MDSs) and the ABM Treaty

The definition of missile defense systems is rather self-explanatory. They are systems used to prevent the strike of a missile. MDSs are as old as the aftermath of the first missile strike. As long as there are missiles, there will be a demand for MDSs. However, this also creates a demand to overcome MDSs. This creates, in theory, a cycle of improved weapons and improved MDSs. Making the weapons more deadly and those with sophisticated MDSs less likely to fear counter strikes. This became a particular threat in the nuclear realm, because of the magnitude of the effect of a nuclear weapon.

Recognizing, the potential escalation of technology and decline in fear in repercussions the two largest nuclear powers, the United States and USSR (now Russia), entered into the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 1972 to limit the use of ABM systems[22]. ABM systems are a form of MDSs that are aimed at stopping ballistic missile after their launch. Ballistic missiles are the primary delivery system of nuclear warheads. The idea behind the ABM treaty was to prevent the two nations from feeling secure from a ballistic missile attack, which would, most likely, be used as a response to an initial nuclear attack from one on the other. According to former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, “destruction is the very essence of the whole deterrence concept,” and without the ability to assure retaliatory destruction, deterrence does not work[23]. This is a concept also referred to as Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). ABM systems and MDGs undermine the ability of one nation to assure retaliatory destruction, by being able to prevent a counter strike in part or in whole. The ABM treaty allowed the concept of MAD to ensure security from a nuclear attack, and as seen by the history of the Cold War, it was a concept that worked very well.

The ABM treaty also created an environment that facilitated nuclear cutbacks[24]. The buildup of nuclear arsenals is not necessary if ABM systems are not being developed, essentially because the cycle of improved weapons and MDGs is broken. This environment led to several agreements between the US and the USSR to reduce the number or nuclear weapons held by each state, including the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaties and the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks[25]. However, this environment did not persist when the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in December of 2001[26].

Response to US Withdrawal from ABM Treaty

When it was announced that the US planned to withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2001, there was a large international outcry against the action, led by Russia. The Russian Delegation to the UN called the US action a “serious blow to the global non-proliferation and disarmament regime.”[27] This understandable because GA Resolution 54/54A passed the year before calling for the strengthening and preservation of the ABM treaty which calls the AMB treaty a “cornerstone in maintaining strategic security”[28]. The worry was that the US withdrawal would lead to a new arms race and destabilize global nuclear security. The US was interpreted as losing confidence in the current system of deterrence[29]. This was reinforced when President Bush said that the threat the US was concerned about was not that of the thousands of Ballistic Missiles in Soviet hands, but from the small number of missiles in the hands of . . . states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life.[30]” This confirmed the notion that the current deterrence system would not work, and was to be subverted by MDSs, and resulted in the fear of a new arms race.

Recent Events

It was not until recently that these fears began to materialize. In April 2007 the Group of Non-Aligned Nations presented a working paper expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of disarmament. It called for the total disarmament of the world that the NPT has established as a goal and said that a national missile defense system could lead to a new arms race and even more advanced nuclear missiles, which are both counterproductive to total disarmament.[31]

In October 2007, the US announced its plans to build MDSs in Eastern-Europe, to fill a “gap” in missile defense. They claimed that a strike by North Korea, Iran, or another country could target Europe through this gap Russia responded in two ways. The first was the formal announcement of the testing RS-24, a new nuclear missile designed to “overcome missile defenses”[32]. They also stated at the planned US missile defense in Eastern Europe would “undermine disarmament”[33] This only confirmed the concerns of the Non-Aligned Group.

In January 2008, the General Assembly passed a resolution that called for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. It specifically calls for more effort to be put forth by the US and Russia in the disarmament process[34]. In addition to that resolution the GA passed A/RES/62/19, which underscored the need for non-nuclear states to be safe from nuclear strikes. As stated in the resolution, the only way for any nation to be secure from a nuclear attack is for the complete disarmament of nuclear arsenals[35]. This highlights both the concerns with the results of MDSs and the dangers they seek to protect from.

Your Job

As the Security Council, this committee will seek to resolve the conflict between MDSs and the disarmament process. This committee should think about key question concern the topic. Do MDSs conflict with the disarmament process? How so? What is the effect? Do new security concerns justify the conflict? The committee should also consider the options it has available. Should the Security Council make an official statement or take more punitive action? What type of compromise can be made in the Security Council to prevent damage to global nuclear security? Should MDSs be banned? Should the Security Council press for stronger measures in disarmament? These decisions must be made carefully. Nuclear weapons and their use is not something that should be taken lightly. Easy compromises and general resolutions do not solve problems. This committee's job will be to work through difficult compromises and produce resolutions that will fully address the complexities of the situation.

Topic III: Peacekeeping in South Ossetia

Topic to be Addressed

With a peace agreement signed between the two nations of Georgia and Russia, this lays the ground work for a possible United Nations peacekeeping force to be placed in the region of South Ossetia. The Security Council will be charged with deciding on whether or not the UN will establish a peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.

The committee must first evaluate the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia and decide if a peacekeeping mission is feasible and how to come to an agreement of such an action.

If the committee decides to create a peacekeeping force, the certain aspects will need to be discussed and agreed upon.

First, the committee will have to agree upon the mission of the force. Will it be similar to the United Nation Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) which was created to maintain peace and to function as an interim government[36]? Or will it resemble the United Nations Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) which has focused more on stabilization and humanitarian aid[37]?

Second, the committee will have to decide upon the size of the force. How many are needed? How many would Russia and Georgia agree to?

Third, what will be the composition of the force? Will it be like the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) which was explicitly made up of African troops to alleviate fears of the Sudanese Government of Western interference? Would a force composition of Eastern Europeans be effective in quelling the conflict in South Ossetia or could they actually cause greater unease by Russia?

In addition to those three essential details, the committee should explore other issues that could lead to further conflict. Who will administer the force? How long will they stay? When will the mission begin? What types of actions will the peacekeeping force be allowed to take?

Brief Background

In early August 2008, violence broke out in the region of South Ossetia in Georgia. In the act of, what the Georgian Government stated was, return fire to South Ossetian rebel positions, twelve Russian peacekeepers in the region were killed and more than 150 others reported injuries[38]. The Russian Government stated that an act of retaliation was in order and soon Russian forces asserted their military dominance over the Georgian military and occupied the region. Russian troops were said to have come have come dangerously close to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi[39], and there was a report that Russian bombs had narrowly missed the Georgian oil pipeline that circumvents Russia[40]. Both of these are examples of the confrontation spreading beyond the defined zone of conflict. In addition to the confrontation in South Ossetia, Russian fortified inside of the Georgian autonomous region of Abkhazia, which had been under a United Nations peacekeeping operation dominated by Russian troops. On August 13 a peace agreement was negotiated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, which is composed of 6 points on which peace could be reached and maintained[41]. Russian began to withdraw their troops; however, this was slower than they had stated it would take. Shortly after Russian, then later followed by Nicaragua, declared South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent states[42]

The Peace Agreement

The six points of the peace plan are as follows:

1. No recourse to the use of force.

2. Definitive cessation of hostilities.

3. Free access to humanitarian aid (addition rejected: and to allow the return of refugees).

4. The Armed Forces of Georgia must withdraw to their permanent positions.

5. The Armed Forces of the Russian Federation must withdraw to the line where they were stationed prior to the beginning of hostilities. Prior to the establishment of international mechanisms the Russian peacekeeping forces will take additional security measures.

6. An international debate on the future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and ways to ensure their lasting security will take place[43]

Problems with the exact translation have been raised, with some arguing that Russia can essentially not withdraw its troops and meet all six points. However, the government of France has claimed that Russia may be stalling to withdraw, but will fulfill its obligations under the agreement[44]. Russia has claimed its remaining troops are “peacekeepers” and are allowed to remain under the peace accord. French President Sarkozy, the architect of the peace plan, has stated his intent to form a force of European troops to monitor the agreement; however this appears to be contingent on Russian approval[45].

This issue must be taken seriously by the committee. What Europe and Russia agree to as far as troop withdraw and monitoring troops can have a large impact on the ability and functionality of a UN peacekeeping force in the region.

European-Russian Relations

The economic relationship between Europe and Russian will play a key role in how far Europe and its two veto wielding member states will go to agree upon a peacekeeping operation. Trade between the two countries is almost 250 billion Euros ($360 billion); which account for more than 51% or all of Russia's trade[46]. The majority of European imports from Russia are gas and oil which are vital to the European industry as the account for 25% of their total energy imports[47]. This could prove to be a very economically damaging stand off if an agreement does not materialize. Both have room to threaten the other with trade, but neither stand to benefit from either action. A compromise would be the best solution for either.

Despite the economic tight wire both sides are walking with each other. Both have thrown taunting statements at each other. Russian press has said that “Europe can keep sucking our oil and gas” while the Europeans have all taken a hard line stance against Russia's action in Georgia and threatened trade cut offs[48]. Despite the willingness to talk big this committee must take into account the delicate nature of trade relations between Russian and Europe, and the devastating impact it could have on both sides of the issue.

United States �Russia Relations

It hard to look at the event that have and are taking place in South Ossetia and not be reminded of the Cold War. The conflict in Georgia has highlighted differences and lingering disputes between the US and Russia. The US was the loudest and most outspoken country against Russian's presence in Georgia. Russia was chastised by the President of the US and both major candidates for the upcoming presidential elections for its actions. Russia, on the other hand, accused the US of provoking the war between Russian and Georgia to bolster the candidacy of John McCain[49]. While this may seem to be an outrageous claim, it did come with the gravity of an official statement of the President of Russia. The conflict has also led to the pull out of the US in crucial nuclear agreement with Russia[50]. Some experts have argued that this will have little impact on negotiations with Russia; its overarching meaning might be more significant. A bad resolution to this conflict could send the world back into nuclear insecurity, and the world is no longer polarized the way it was during the Cold War, meaning that the income could be drastically different this time.

Final Note

This topic is fairly recent and alive. Choosing it was done for a reason. Its relevancy to the Security Council and its impact on the future United Nations are unmatched by any other current topic. Because it is a current topic there may be many new facts and actions that emerge between the publishing of the study guide and the conference. It will be up to the delegates to stay informed. It should be noted by anyone wishing to perform further research that the majority of cites in this study guide from news articles. These will be the best sources of information for such a recent topic. While, if at all possible a brief update will be given to delegates upon arrival, the primary responsibility for keeping updated will be with the delegates. However this is a good thing. This will allow you, the delegates, to make this topic your own, and it will truly turn the advantage of the debate to those who are the most informed. It could also make this topic one of the most volatile and exciting to address. Good Luck!

[1] Weiss, Thomas, David Forsythe, and Roger Coate. The United Nations and Changing World Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, 2004.

[2] Charter of the United Nations, 1945

[3] "UN Security Council Background". United Nations. 3 May 2008 .

[4] "UN Security Council Background". United Nations. 3 May 2008 .

[5] Weiss, Thomas, David Forsythe, and Roger Coate. The United Nations and Changing World Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, 2004.

[6] Dunoff, Jeffrey, Steven Ratner, and David Wippman. International Law: Norms, Actors, Process. New York: Aspen Publishers, 2006.

[7] Origins, Encyclopaedia Kurdistanica

[8] George Rawlinson. The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 7. (of 7): The Sass

[9] By Location

[10] G.S. Harris, Ethnic Conflict and the Kurds in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp.118-120, 1977

[11] Introduction. Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds (Human Rights Watch Report, 1993).

[12] Genocide in Iraq: The Anfal Campaign Against the Kurds

[13] - Kurds Rejoice, But Fighting Continues in North - U.S. & World

[14]Iran: Ethnic Groups, Encyclopaedia Britannica.

[15] Are Kurds a pariah minority?

[16] The Security of Southwest Asia by Zalmay Khalilza, page 191, University of Michigan Publishing

[17] Status of minorities

[18] Radu, Michael. (2001). "The Rise and Fall of the PKK", Orbis. 45(1):47-64.

[19] DISPLACED AND DISREGARDED: Turkey's Failing Village Return Program

[20] Report D612, October, 1994, "Forced Displacement of Ethnic Kurds" (A Human Rights Watch Publication).

[21] Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[22] Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty,

[23] "Mutual Deterrence" Speech by Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara. San Francisco, September 18, 1967

[24] GA Resolution 54/54A 0303161a51601c660525681e007c046f?OpenDocument&ExpandSection=5#_Section5

[25] Strategic Arms Limitations Talks.

[26]“ Q&A: US missile defence” BBC News 2007.

[27] “54th Session of the United Nations General Assembly,” NGLS Roundup, No.50. Feb. 2000.

[28] Ibid. 4

[29] “Nuclear Order and Disorder,” William Walker. International Affairs. Vol. 75 No. 4 2000.

[30] “US National missile defence and international security: blessing or blight?” Bhupendra Jasni. Space Policy. Nov. 2001.

[31] NPT/CONF.2010/PC.I/WP.8 April 27, 2007.

[32] Ibid. 4

[33] GA/DIS/3342. October 10, 2007

[34] A/RES/62/37. January 10, 2008

[35] A/RES/62/19. January 10, 2008

[36] UNMIK online.


[38] Russia says it lost 12 servicemen in Ossetia clashes. Aug 9, 2008. Reuters UK

[39] Russian Digs in 20 miles from Georgian Capital. Aug 17, 2008. TimesOnline

[40] Russian Bombs Fall 50m from Oil Pipeline. Aug 30, 2008.

[41] Sarkozy Clinches a 6-point Plan for Peace. Aug 13, 2008.

[42] Russia welcomes Nicaragua's recognition of South Ossetia, Abkhazia. Sept 6, 2008. China View

[43] Peace Plan Offers Russia a Rationale to Advance. Aug 13, 2008. New York Times

[44] Peacemaker Sarkozy in mission to Moscow. September 8, 2008. The Independent.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Russia. European Commission

[47] The Rude Awakening, Sept 6, 2008. Newsweek.

[48] Ibid.

[49] Who Started the War in Georgia. Sept 3, 2008. Time.,8599,1838305,00.html

[50] White House Set to Put Aside U.S.-Russia Nuclear Agreement. Sept 8, 2008. Washington Post.