Resolution 2013/2: Regarding the increasing tensions in the Korean peninsula

First Security Council Motion:

The Swiss Confederation and the Republic of India agree to the motion. However, we question how number 3 would work in practice as the PRC is somewhat of a faltering ally for the DPRK? Who would we specifically mark as a potential nation provided economic/military assistance to the DPRK?

Libya agrees with the motion, although we feel point 3 should be revised.

We don't feel the people of the DPRK should suffer due to the stupidity of its leaders.

In that case - as I'd interpreted economic aid as food etc - Libya backs these measures.

However, with regards to point 2, we're keen to avoid a situation where it's seen as acceptable to invade the DPRK under the guise of protecting the Republic of Korea.

We wholeheartedly disagree with points 2 and 3, and believe that point 1 will escalate the conflict due to the number of American troops being increased in the region.

For that reason Iran would like to indicate her opposition to this motion.

We do not disagree with the notion of self defence in principle, but would only agree to point 3 if the resolution was objective and not one sided. The bill is presumptuous of an attack by North Korea, ignoring the fact that nations such as America and South Korea have been discussing a preemptive attack. Surely, if we ever hope to achieve peace in the region we should agree, with both sides, that they will only attack if attacked first.

Only then would Iran agree to support point 3. However, our other objections would also require negotiation.

The Republic of the Maldives supports the motion but has concerns regarding the volatility of the country and the possibility of 'cornering an animal'.