Molotov

Ladies and gentlemen, today peace is at hand in the hard fought and desperately brutal Nigerian Civil War. Today this war has lasted almost a year, and claimed a great many lives in the process. The suffering and hardship that can be found in southeastern Nigeria, and across the lush Niger Delta, is of the most grave and serious kind. And yet today, peace is at hand.

In a lengthy series of negotiations, a joint Anglo-American mission to end the fighting has come upon a crucial first step - the cessation of fighting. With an end to the bloodshed, and the future of peaceful and prosperous development in the region at hand, the calm silence of armistice now spreads. And in that quietude, there is yet the hope that the guns shall never take up their violent cacophony again, and the death and destruction sown will end. We in the international community must do our utmost to preserve this hope. We owe it to the people of Nigeria - whatever creed or faith they may be - and to the people of the world.

It is to this end that the United States proposes the following resolution, with the aim of imposing a mandatory arms embargo on the conflict zone until peace has been secured. This will ensure that the exacerbation and escalation of the fighting is at its end, and that this ceasefire will not be a brief respite for both sides to restock their armouries, but a genuine end to the fighting.

We call upon the Security Council to approve this resolution.

The Security Council,

Recognising the dangers inherent in the continued military build up occurring in the Nigerian Civil War,

Further recognising the need for measures to be taken in order to bring about a cessation of the fighting,

Strongly encouraging a peaceful resolution to the fighting with respect for minimising human suffering and loss of life,

Considering the ceasefire presently negotiated as a vital step in this process that should not be disturbed,

Convinced of a need for a mandatory arms embargo on nations involved in this conflict for the duration of the fighting until peaceful resolution is attained,


1. Determines that acquisition of further arms by either side is a threat to the fragile peace process as it has begun.

2. Decides all states shall cease forthwith any provision to either side of arms and related materiel of all kinds, including the sale or transfer of weapons, ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary police equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and shall cease as well the provision of all types of equipment and supplies and grants of licensing arrangements for the manufacture or maintenance of the aforementioned.

3. Calls upon all states to review, having regard to objectives of this resolution, all existing contractual arrangements and licences granted for the manufacture and maintenance of arms, ammunition of all types and military equipment and vehicles, with a view to terminating them.

4. Further decides all states shall refrain from any attempts to derail the peace process, and that should said process break down or a separate armed conflict arise involving Nigeria, then this embargo shall be voided.

5. Calls upon all states, including non-members of the United Nations, to act strictly in accordance with these provisions.

Before the Soviet Union can make a stance on this issue, we believe that the government of Nigeria should speak to the international community. This war is an effort by corporate interests to steal Nigeria's oil. The government of Nigeria is protecting its sovereignty in its war-fighting efforts. By imposing an arms embargo we might be limiting the freedom of governance of Nigeria and weakening the government in the face of other threats.

Mr. Malik will kindly note the fourth paragraph of the propose resolution, detailing that should the peace process break down, the mandatory arms embargo would promptly cease. However if it would further ease his mind, the fourth paragraph can be amended to read as follows:

4. Further decides all states shall refrain from any attempts to derail the peace process, and that should said process break down or a separate armed conflict arise involving Nigeria, then this embargo shall be voided.

However we disagree with the supposition that by preventing further arming of the parties in this conflict - which, we would remind Mr. Malik, is presently under the influence of a US-UK brokered ceasefire - harms in any way the political independence of Nigeria. We have been extensively involved in these negotiations, and considering the situation at present on the ground, we believe that a firm statement from the international community that we will have no further part in the bloodshed presently occurring as a result of this conflict will be the vital final push to bring both sides together and end the fighting once and for all.

A curious mind might inquire as to why the Soviet Union is so adamant on forestalling the Nigerian peace process, particularly as regards a weapons embargo. A more impolitic sort could then, perhaps, note that while several powers are working in collaboration with both the separatists in Biafra and the Nigerian government proper on providing the political groundwork for peace and economic development alike, Mr. Brezhnev's government has developed a sudden interest in the maintenance of the Nigerian Armed Forces.

Furthermore, and while I personally am largely unfamiliar with the rhetoric of Communists, an even more suspicious mind might then note that accusations of ah, Soviet "imperialism", i.e. the intervention of the ostensibly anti-colonial government in the developing world, bear an interesting parallel to our current situation. Her Majesty's Government, naturally, would not stoop quite to that level, but I am obligated to ask on behalf of the Foreign Office that, if the Soviet Union is so inclined to end "an effort by corporate interests to steal Nigeria's oil", would the done thing not be collaborating with the rest of the world and the Nigerian government itself on an equitable, just peace?

That being said, I second my American colleague's calls for an arms embargo in Nigeria, and, as a member of the government which initiated cooperation with our partners in the Commonwealth of Nations, would welcome them to answer for themselves on the matter, instead of relying on Mr. Malik's testimony as to the nature of the Biafran conflict.

Esteemed delegates,

The legitimate government of the Nigerian nation welcomes the opportunity to discuss this matter, and wishes to once again thank the US and the UK for their role in bringing about peace negotiations, but, more importantly, we thank the USSR for providing the material support necessary to better protect the territorial integrity of our country.

It is our government's position that the civil war plaguing our great nation is the result of the personal greed and power-hunger of a criminal faction led by traitors from within our own armed forces, most notably the shameles "Emeka" Ojukwu, self-proclaimed leader of the "Biafra Republic." It was this clique which broke Nigerian unity and began to illegaly collect "taxes" on foreign oil companies operating in the rebel-controlled region, forcing the Federal Government to impose a blockade.

The war, then, was brought about by personal pettiness and ambition, which has been aided by outside parties that are, quite truly, seeking to take advantage of this dishonorauble situation for their own gain (namely the vile French, along with rogue illegitimate regimes from throughout the African continent). Corporations that have agreed to pay the rebels' illegitimate "taxes" have been punished with the blockade, and so Ojukwu's mad adventure has been decisively crippled. Now all that remains is for "Biafra" to lay down its arms and return to national unity and the rule of law.

Over the course of this war, the legitimate government of Nigeria has made many deals with many parties and will continue to do so, as is beffitting of Nigeria's pivotal role in the world stage and the practical necessities of winning the war. Never has this come in the way of preserving our great country's sovereignty. One of those deals was the acceptance of Soviet military aid, which has steadied our position and given us the upper hand in peace talks with the rebels, talks which are themselves another such deal that we have deftly negotiated with the British and the Americans.

Now that we have made ourgovernment's position about the war clear (namely: that the war is more the result of personal ambition than corporate greed, and that it's the Federal Government's mastery of diplomacy that has allowed it to gain the upper hand), we must express our utmost dismay at the American proposal for an arms embargo on the entire country, which would also affect the legitimate government of the Nigerian nation. While we understand the general peace-loving spirit of the resolution, it is quite simply unreasonable to deny a state the means to govern its territory, especially in such dangerous times and in such a volatile region as ours. At present, peace talks have stalled over the rebels' unreasonable demands, but the Federal Government remains committed to peace. However, what if a new threat to the Nigerian people were to arise before the peace process ended? Would the legitimate government and its armed forces be obligated to wait until the UN decides to lift the embargo in order to properly defend its citizens? What gives the UN the right to decide whether or not the people of Nigeria can afford that luxury?

The Federal Government is especially mortified at the lack of any specific article in the resolution providing for an automatic end to the embargo once peace talks are finished, which only serves to amplify the aforementioned problems and increase the chances of our nation being forgotten among UN bureaucracy in a moment of crisis.

We graciously receive the comments of the Nigerian representative to the UN, and wish to offer assurances that these positions have not been ignored or given less than their due consideration. We must first address an initial, mistaken assertion - that this resolution in any way pertains to aid arriving in Nigeria from Russian origins. The Security Council is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security, and we firmly believe that in adopting this measure, we are moving speedily towards just such a outcome.

It is also worth noting the vital involvement of my esteemed colleagues in the Diplomatic Services of both the United Kingdom and the United States in procuring the present ceasefire. No nation here present in the Security Council has provided diplomatic recognition to the "Republic of Biafra". However we further endorse the need for further conditions being imposed on this conflict to secure its peaceful resolution. We would therefore kindly remind the Nigerian representative that such an embargo on the sale of arms would affect equally both sides of this conflict, and hasten the peace process. Neither side shall be able to further gird themselves for war, sparing countless lives in the process. If peace is truly the intention of both sides, then there is little to oppose here.

Moreover it is not the intention of this Council, nor the American delegation, to leave the Nigerian state defenceless. To that end, we had already amended the resolution to the form presently above - the outbreak of a separate armed conflict would void the embargo. Further, the pre-ambulatory clauses of a resolution have effect also, so imposing an embargo "until peaceful resolution is attained".

We hope the explanation of these issues will ease Nigerian fears and concerns.

While a new review of international law and the current resolution does indeed reveal that a successful peace process would end the embargo, the Nigerian government has another, more serious, objection to the whole affair: that the legitimate Federal Government and its armed forces are being put on the same level as the rebels. The US is right in saying that no Security Council state has recognized so-called "Biafra", and yet it insists on forbidding the legitimate government from acquiring weapons on the basis that it is a "side" in the Nigerian Civil War. No, esteemed representatives, the government is not a "side", but rather the lawful authority trying to restore order to a breakaway region dominated by a treasonous clique. Were the situation different, the government might be more permissive of this sort of proposal, but recent developments have buttressed our standing and so we have no need to sit idly by while the institutions of our nation are subjected to the same standing as the rebels who rose against it.

The Federal Government of Nigeria is completely willing to work towards peace, as the Ceasefire agreement has shown, but it's entirely unreasonable to place the lawful and legitimate government under the same consideration as the subversion it has faced, even as it opens itself to negotiations it should still be respected. Please, do not mistake our love of peace for a lack of pride.

Therefore, the only arms embargo that the Nigerian government is prepared to consent to is one that expressly targets the so-called "Republic of Biafra" and any associated rebel groups, since they are the ones responsible for the suffering we now see, and not the legitimate authority. It's unreasonable to believe that the Federal Government, as the legitimate authority of Nigeria, should be subject to the same treatment than the rebels.

Thank you, that is all.

It should be noted by the Nigerian representative that even the OAU, while denying aid and assistance to the "Republic of Biafra", has identified them as an internal secessionist movement. That they are an unrecognised group within the legitimate state of Nigeria is not in question; nor is the fact that, respectfully, they are a "side", a faction, in the struggle and bloodshed plaguing Nigeria. The legitimacy of the parties involved is not an issue of debate here - merely the fact that this conflict requires corresponding partners.

Any arms restriction imposed on the conflict must apply to all parties involved in said conflict - else it shall have no strength or capability for enforcement. This Council cannot allow either party to continue to arm itself unilaterally and to prepare for further bloodshed if a peace settlement is to be serious considered. Any measure must apply equally. We therefore strongly urge the Nigerian government to consider the position it is adopting - if you would stand firm against parties seeking to arm the "Republic of Biafra", do not stand in the way of this measure, but embrace it wholeheartedly and commit your country to peace and continued unity. Any restriction imposed solely upon Biafran forces or groups would doubtless by flouted by the very same parties you wish to exclude.

Restricting the sale of arms in this conflict is the only certain way to prevent this ceasefire becoming an arms race. The Chinese government encourages the parties to utilise this period instead to come to a negotiated settlement, one which will end the fighting once and for all. We vote in favor

Our concerns about sovereignty and precedent have been state both by us and by our Nigeria friends. We should not penalize nations that seek ceasefires by cutting off support, nor should we interfere in a governments efforts to deal with a secessionist group.

However, since this is the effort to support peace adopted by the United Nations, the Soviet Union abstains.

The Fifth French Republic agrees with the positions put forward by the American and British delegates on the subject of the Nigerian Civil War.

During attempts to put forward a settlement for peace we should ensure that both sides do not use the ceasefire as time to be used for building up their supply of arms or readying for a continuation of conflict. We wholeheartedly support the resolution put forward by The Americans.