THE QUESTION OF THE IRANIAN OIL BOURSE

Iran, having the world’s second largest gas reserves and third largest oil reserves, is trying to
play a more active role in oil and petrochemical transactions in international markets. Iran sits
on some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the world. The bourse will offer 40 kinds of oil
products. Iran produces over 25 percent of the total output of petrochemical products in the
Middle East. At least 30 domestic companies and 20 foreign firms are active in the oil and
petrochemical industries on Kish Island

The three current oil markets are all US dollar denominated: North America's West Texas
Intermediate crude (WTI), North Sea Brent Crude, and the UAE Dubai Crude. The two major oil
bourses are the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) in New York City and the
IntercontinentalExchange (ICE) in London & Atlanta. As the Oil Bourse in Kish is developed
through successive stages, the plan is to establish a Petrobourse as a fourth oil market,
denominated by the Iranian Rial, the Euro and other major currencies.

To date, one of the more difficult technical obstacles concerning a euro-based oil transaction
trading system is the lack of a euro-denominated oil pricing standard, or oil ‘marker’ as it is
referred to in the industry. The macroeconomic implications of a successful Iranian Bourse are
noteworthy. Considering that Iran has switched to the euro for its oil payments from E.U. and
ACU customers, it would be logical to assume the proposed Iranian Bourse will usher in a fourth
crude oil marker – denominated in the euro currency. Such a development would remove the
main technical obstacle for a broad-based petroeuro system for international oil trades. From a
purely economic and monetary perspective, a petroeuro system is a logical development given
that the European Union imports more oil from OPEC producers than does the U.S., and the E.U.
accounts for 45% of imports into the Middle East.

Iran no doubt has multiple motives for making this move. For one, it makes sense
economically, especially since the European Union is Iran’s biggest trading partner. But more
importantly, it would strike a blow to Iran’s archenemy America—and, by hoping to make Iran
the main hub for oil deals in the region, help drive the Islamic Republic forward in its quest for
regional supremacy.

If oil-trading in euros were to get going, the already-existent global trend of foreign currency
reserves being shifted from dollars to euros would rapidly accelerate. In turn, “countries
switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the U.S. currency.
Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more …. As countries and businesses converted
their dollar assets into euro assets, the U.S. property and stock market bubbles would,
without doubt, burst.” The snowballing effect of a reserve currency switch would be
catastrophic for the U.S. The U.S. “would simply have to stop importing”

We should ideally discuss that given such a background and concerns that arise of the opening
of the bourse what do nations feel the implications could be? What we as the UN do to assure
that no drastic outcomes arise out of this or do we need to do anything at all? What are the
steps that countries are taking or have taken? It’s a very open ended agenda, the council is free
to move discussion forward in a manner it deems relevant.
STATUS OF DISPLACED PERSONS DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE
A “climate refugee” is a person displaced by climatically induced environmental disasters. Such
disasters result from incremental and rapid ecological change, resulting in increased droughts,
desertification, sea level rise, and the more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events
such as hurricanes, cyclones, fires, mass flooding and tornadoes. All this is causing mass global
migration and border conflicts.

Under the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee was defined as a
person having “a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group or political opinion. Traditionally, refugees have been
seen as people who flee their home country due to war or persecution, while migrants have
been seen as people moving to a different nation in search of a better life.

However, there’s nothing in International Relations/Law known as "climate refugees". It is a

common error and you would find that the UN (more specifically the UNFCC and the UNHCR)
has refrained from terming individuals who have been displaced due to climatic reasons as
"refugees". The reason is abundantly clear from the fact that the 1951 Protocol on the Status of
refugees as well as the Additional Protocol in 1967 doesn’t identify this category in the
definition of 'refugees'. The correct expression is therefore is given as status of displaced
persons due to climate change' (climate change and statelessness).

Therefore the major point of consideration is this; The UNHCR cannot extend its mandate to
such individuals until the definition is changed. So should they be defined as Migrants or
Refugees? What should constitute the definition?

Five “mega-trends” -- population growth, urbanization, climate change, migration and food,
water and energy insecurity –- make contemporary forms of displacement increasingly complex
and Climate change is the biggest factor driving forced displacement underscoring that global
warming is blurring the traditional distinction between refugees and migrants today. Climate
change is making natural disasters more intense and frequent, and is also threatening the future
of countries, not just small island nations, due to rising sea levels. It can also set off violence,
with resources becoming scarcer and resulting in competition, which can lead to conflict and
conflict will lead to displacement.

Several organizations like the IPCC, Red Cross and The Christian Monitor estimate between 150
million and 1 billion climate refugees will be displaced within the next four decades, yet not one
single international law gives asylum, or even a helping hand to environmental refugees.

Discuss also whether they should get the same rights granted to other refugees under the
1951 convention? Or whether there should be an entirely different convention and hence
rights that should cater to them?

Nations need to discuss on how to protect people worldwide not covered under the 1951
Convention and to address questions of statelessness, (like sinking islands) in which the problem
is not only to give a nationality to someone, but to preserve the identity, culture and the history
of a population.
UN PEACEKEEPING: LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE
United Nations peacekeeping is a unique global partnership. It draws together the legal and
political authority of the Security Council, the personnel and financial contributions of Member
States, the support of host countries and the accumulated experience of the Secretariat in
managing operations in the field. It is this partnership that gives UN peacekeeping its legitimacy,
its sustainability and its global reach.

Since 1948, UN peacekeeping has contributed to preventing and managing violent conflict
between and within States and supporting national actors in protecting and building peace after
conflict. The landmark Brahimi report of 2000 charted a renewed vision for UN peacekeeping
that helped make peacekeeping stronger, more effective and comparatively cost-efficient.
These reforms enabled a five-fold growth in operations over the past decade. But United
Nations peacekeeping is now at a crossroads. The scale and complexity of peacekeeping today
are straining its personnel, administrative and support machinery. New political, military and
financial challenges threaten to erode the unity of vision and purpose of the global
peacekeeping partnership. A renewed partnership and a shared agenda are essential to ensuring
that UN peacekeeping can meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.

With world demographics and geo-politics changing along with the nature of conflict that has
moved eons on from the traditional methods, Warfare and Violence have moved away from
conventional battlefields to a more semi urban and urban sphere of society and that in itself
makes peacemaking a more complex and dynamic process.

Though formidable, these challenges are not entirely new. The Brahimi report tackled many of
these dilemmas and the principles it set down remain central to modern peacekeeping. They
have been carried on through the Peace Operations 2010 agenda, the restructuring of DPKO and
the creation of DFS in 2007. Why then, does UN peacekeeping need a new agenda? What is
different about today’s demands?

Simply put, the scale and complexity of peacekeeping today are mismatched with existing
capabilities. The demands of the past decade have exposed the limitations of past reforms and
the basic systems, structures and tools of an organization not designed for the size, tempo and
tasks of today’s missions. Political strains are also showing. Divisions within the international
community impact the ability of some missions to act effectively on the ground, and Member
States’ attention is at times spread thin among competing peace and security priorities. Each
new operation is built voluntarily and from scratch on the assumption that adequate resources
can be found and is run on individual budget, support and administrative lines. Peacekeeping in
its current form requires more predictable, professional and adaptable capacities. It needs a
global system to match the global enterprise it has become. Or put more crudely is there a
problem with the Mandate of the Peacekeeping Forces itself, as enshrined in the Capstone
Doctrine?

Therefore, a shared vision of the purpose of UN peacekeeping is a prerequisite for capable and
effective action on the ground. To strengthen the direction, planning and management of UN
peacekeeping, we need a renewed partnership in purpose based on the unity and cohesion of
all stakeholders.