PRUDENCIA

DISEC STUDY GUIDE

AGENDA
Tackling of rise of state sponsored proxy
conflicts and armed non-state actors in
global conflict zones
 Table of Contents

SR. No CONTENTS
1 LETTER OF EB

2 LIST OF KEY TERMS

3 INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE

4 INTRODUCTION TO THE AGENDA

5 HISTORY AND TIMELINE

6 BLOC POSITION

7 CASE STUDIES

8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9 PAST ACTION TAKEN BY THE UNITED NATIONS

PAST RESOLUTIONS PASSED BY THE UNITED

10 NATIONS

11 IMPORTANT RESOURCES

12 QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST ANSWER

13 PAPERWORK FORMATS
LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE BOARD

Esteemed Delegates,

The executive board of the Disarmament and International

Security Committee (DISEC) welcomes each one of you to
Prudencia MUN 2025.

For many, it may be the first-ever MUN conference in your

educational experience, and we strongly encourage you to go
through the study guide that has been prepared for you as a part
of the conference to get an in-depth understanding of the issues
that will be discussed in committee.

However, there is a plethora of content and information

available beyond the study guide. Delegates are urged to run
external research in order to be holistically well versed with not
just the agenda at hand, but also parallel geopolitical issues and
individual country histories and knowledge of provided portfolios.
You are expected to research, collate, list down possible points of
discussion, questions, and plausible responses and be prepared
to enjoy the intellectual energy in the room. At the same- time it is
not only about speaking and presenting but also the ability to
listen, understand viewpoints and learn from each one's
perspective.

DISEC is a technical committee that requires resilience

accompanied by a fierce mind-set and the ability to address
aspects of a larger situation with utmost empathy. The agenda at
hand demands a balance of all traits to ensure the best results.
Remember that you can be a powerful delegate and still be
diplomatic and respectful of member nations. The executive
board strongly encourages all delegates to actively participate in
the committee regardless of their prior experience, and engage
in debate.
The guide includes an extensive list of key terms, delegates are
requested to familiarise themselves with all the terms listed. The
document also contains formats on both resolution and crisis
paperwork, for the purpose of easy access.

We, the executive board, ensure a thrilling experience and wish

all our enthusiastic delegates the very best!

Regards,
The Executive Board of DISEC,

Gia Fernandes - (Chairperson)

Priyansh Sata - (Vice-Chairperson)
Samyukta Menon- (Moderator)
LIST OF KEY TERMS

State-Sponsored Conflict: A conflict where a nation-state supports one

or more parties involved, typically by funding, arming, or training them.

Proxy War: A war where two opposing countries or powers support

combatants that serve their interests instead of waging war directly.

Non-State Actors (NSAs): Entities that participate in international

relations without being allied to a specific nation-state, such as NGOs or
multinational corporations.

Armed Non-State Actors (ANSAs): Groups that use force to achieve

political or ideological goals without being part of a formal state
military, like rebel groups or insurgents.

Asymmetric Warfare: A conflict between parties of unequal strength,

where the weaker side uses unconventional tactics to exploit the
stronger side’s vulnerabilities.

Hybrid Warfare: A blend of conventional warfare, irregular tactics, and

cyber tools used to achieve military or political objectives.

Irregular Combatants: Fighters who are not part of a state’s regular

armed forces and do not follow standard war protocols under
international law.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL): A set of laws regulating armed

conflict and protecting civilians and combatants who are no longer
fighting.

Insurgency: An active revolt or uprising against an established

government or authority, often led by ANSAs.
Guerrilla Warfare: A form of irregular warfare using small, mobile
groups of combatants who use hit-and-run tactics.

Intelligence Proxy Operations: Covert actions where intelligence

agencies support third parties to carry out missions in other regions.

Paramilitary Groups: Organized groups that resemble military forces

but are not part of a state’s official armed services.

Militias: Armed groups composed of civilians who take on military roles,

often for local or ideological protection.

Cyber Proxies: Hacker groups or digital actors supported by states to

disrupt, spy, or wage cyber warfare without direct attribution.

Arms Embargo: A ban on the trade of weapons and military

technology with a particular country or group.

Weaponization of Aid: Using humanitarian or financial aid as a tool of

war or influence.

Mercenaries: Soldiers hired to fight for personal gain rather than

national duty, often used by states to avoid direct involvement.

Geneva Conventions: A series of treaties on the treatment of civilians,

prisoners, and soldiers during war.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P): A global principle that states must

protect populations from mass atrocity crimes.

State Denial: When a state denies involvement or knowledge of proxy

actions it sponsors.
Fifth Column: A group within a country at war who are sympathetic to
or working for its enemies.

Espionage: The act of spying or using spies to obtain political or military

information.

Arms Proliferation: The rapid spread of weapons and military

technologies, especially in volatile regions.

Sanctions: Penalties imposed by countries or the UN to force changes

in behavior, often economic or military in nature.

Safe Havens: Areas where armed groups can operate without being
challenged, often due to weak governance.

Failed States: Nations where the government is unable to perform

basic functions, often leading to power vacuums filled by ANSAs.

Cold War Proxy Conflicts: Historical examples of proxy wars, such as

those in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, driven by US and Soviet
support.

Multilateral Diplomacy: Cooperation among multiple countries to

address issues like proxy wars through dialogue and treaties.

Peacekeeping Operations: UN missions designed to help maintain

peace and security in post-conflict regions.

Arms Control Treaties: Agreements like the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that
regulate the flow of weapons.

Demobilization: The process of disarming and reintegrating

combatants into civilian life.
Post-Conflict Reconstruction: Efforts to rebuild political, legal, and
physical infrastructure after conflict.

Human Rights Violations: Acts that abuse the basic rights and
freedoms to which all humans are entitled.

Radicalization: The process by which individuals come to adopt

extremist beliefs and support violence.

Attribution Challenges: Difficulty in proving which state is responsible

for supporting proxy actors.
Track II Diplomacy: Informal and non-governmental efforts to resolve
conflict or open communication channels.
 INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE
The Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC) is the
First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. It deals with
disarmament, global challenges, and peace threats that impact the
international community, while also attempting to find solutions to the
challenges that the international security regime faces. The mandate of
DISEC is highlighted as.

"to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace

and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human
and economic resources".

The First Committee works in close cooperation with the United Nations
Disarmament Commission and the Geneva-based Conference on
Disarmament. It is the only Main Committee of the General Assembly
entitled to verbatim records coverage. It takes into account the general
principles of cooperation in maintaining international peace and
security as well as principles governing disarmament and the regulation
of armaments; promotion of cooperation with agreements and action
for cooperation, including international security, under the Charter, or in
relation to the powers and functions of any other UN organ.

Keep in mind that all resolutions passed by this committee are non-
binding resolutions and must be formatted as recommendations to the
193 nations in the committee.

Furthermore, given its direct association with the United Nations General
Assembly (being a subsidiary organ as authorized under Article 22), it
retains the powers and responsibilities of the General Assembly as
outlined in Chapter IV of the Charter of the United Nations, including:
Article 10
"The General Assembly may discuss any questions or any matters within
the scope of the present Charter or relating to the powers and
functions of any organs provided for in the present Charter, and, except
as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations to the Members
of the United Nations or to the Security Council or to both on any such
questions or matters."

Article 11 [2]
The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the
maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by
any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or by a
state which is not a Member of the United Nations in accordance with
Article 35, paragraph 2, and, except as provided in Article 12, may
make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the state
or states concerned or to the Security Council or to both. Any such
question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security
Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion.

Article 11 [3]
The General Assembly may call the attention of the Security Council to
situations which are likely to endanger international peace and
security.
 INTRODUCTION TO THE AGENDA
In the post–Cold War era, international conflict has become
increasingly decentralized, marked by a shift from inter-state warfare
to complex hybrid engagements where state-sponsored proxyn
conflicts and armed non-state actors (ANSAs) dominate the
operational theatre. These range from ideologically driven
insurgencies and terrorist organizations to paramilitary proxies and
transnational militias and now constitute one of the most formidable
threats to international peace.

States, both regional and global powers, now routinely leverage

proxies as instruments of asymmetric warfare, enabling them to
externalize risk, maintain plausible deniability, and circumvent
international norms governing the use of force. These proxy
relationships often blur the lines between state and non-state
accountability, creating legal grey zones that obstruct attribution,
undermine the UN collective security system, and entrench prolonged
cycles of violence.

This is particularly evident in Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, and the Sahel,

where competing geo- political agendas have transformed localized
grievances into sustained proxy battlegrounds. The Syrian civil war is a
prime example, where foreign governments turned local grievances
into a proxy battlefield, empowering armed groups such as Hezbollah,
the Free Syrian Army, and ISIS, leading to devastating consequences.
Similarly, the ongoing conflicts in Yemen, Libya, and parts of the Sahel
region reflect how rival powers back opposing forces to assert
dominance. These interventions often result in prolonged wars,
humanitarian catastrophes, mass displacement, and
severe violations of international humanitarian law.
The proliferation of armed non-state actors (ANSAs)—including
insurgent militias, paramilitary forces, transnational terrorist
organizations, and ideologically motivated extremist groups—has
further complicated the challenge. Many of these actors now possess
quasi-military capabilities, operate transnationally, and exercise de
facto control over territories and populations, thereby
undermining national sovereignty and threatening the normative
order established under the UN Charter.

These groups increasingly employ non-conventional tactics—including

targeted assassinations, cyberwarfare, infrastructure sabotage, and
the strategic manipulation of humanitarian corridors. Furthermore,
proxy warfare often serves as a vector for broader strategic
competition—be it sectarian, ideological, or resource-driven—and
has contributed to the erosion of sovereignty in fragile and transitional
states. The resulting power vacuums metastasize into
transgenerational conflicts that resist conventional peacebuilding
frameworks.

Therefore, there is a need to deliberate not only on methods to curb

state involvement in proxy conflicts, but also to develop effective
international frameworks to demobilize, disarm, and
reintegrate armed non-state actors, hold sponsoring states
accountable, and prevent the escalation of local conflicts into
regional or global crises.
 HISTORY AND TIMELINE:
Arab Revolt (1916-1918): Amid the backdrop of World War I, Britain
and France backed Arab forces in their attempt to dethrone the
Ottoman Empire. Economic activity and resource extraction in
Ottoman territories were disrupted by the conflict, which also gave
the radical Arab forces control of the extremely lucrative oil
exploration.

Spanish Civil War (1936-1939): As Nazism and Fascism gained ground

in Germany and Italy, a proxy war broke out between Republican
forces backed by Mexico and the Soviet Union and Franco's
Nationalist forces backed by Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and
Portugal. The war caused economic destruction as a result of
regional actors' involvement, including a decline in agricultural
production, industrial growth, and wider effects on European trade.

Cold War Era (1947–1991)

1. Iran Crisis (1946): Early Cold War tensions over oil-rich areas led to
the Iran Crisis, wherein the Soviet Union backed the Republic of
Mahabad and the Azerbaijan People's Republic in their bid to gain
the world energy market from the State of Iran in a struggle
for geopolitical dominance against the United States.

2. The Korean War (1950–1953): A significant military conflict

between North Korea, backed by China and the Soviet Union, and
South Korea, backed by the United States and the United Nations. It
is widely considered the first significant Cold War proxy conflict. The
conflict came to an end with a ceasefire following years of military
combat.
3. Vietnam War (1955–1975): The war had commenced with an
anti-colonial war against the French and later got embroiled in the
Cold War, pitting forces for communism against those for
capitalism and democracy. The two-decade-long aberration dealt
with the USA trying to uphold the illegitimate governing body of
South Vietnam against the Communist North Vietnam, supported
by the Soviet Union and the radically militarised Viet Cong forces.

4. Angolan Civil War (1975–2002): The war followed the power

struggle that emerged after Angola's independence from Portugal
in 1975. The power struggle unfolded between the UNITA rebels,
supported by the United States and South Africa, and the MPLA
government, supported by the Soviet Union and Cuba. While their
respective allies aided the MPLA and UNITA, both sides used
Angola's rich oil and diamond resources to promote the war,
thereby weakening the economic infrastructure of the nation
which further contributed to long-term economic turmoil in Angola.

5. Soviet-Afghan War (1979–1989): Following a period of Detente

during the Cold War era, the Soviet invasion to prop up the
Afghan communist government against the Afghan mujahideen
resistance led to a military conflict. In renewed aggressive combat
in the name of anti-communism, the United States, with its allies,
backed the Afghan Mujahideen fighters against the Soviet
invasion.
First Congo War (1996–1997): The war had its genesis in the invasion
of eastern Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) by the
Rwandan government to go after Hutu rebel groups that had fled
there following the 1994 Rwandan genocide. During the war,
Rwanda and Uganda supported unlawful groups of rebels in an
overthrow of Zaire's government, while other nations threw their
weight behind different factions.

Somalian Conflicts (1991-Present): Various clan-based militias and

Islamist groups, some of them with Hoor (Horn of Africa) in the
background, have been creating instability in Somalia
and its neighbouring countries since 1991, with piracy being a
dimension that greatly hampers global shipping lanes, thereby hiking
security-related costs, insurance voting, and rerouting of vessels
mainly through the Gulf of Aden.

Second Congo War (1998–2003): The war began when Congolese

president Laurent-Désiré Kabila fell out with his former allies, Rwanda
and Uganda, who had helped him come to power. It involved
several countries that supported various rebel groups, spreading
across the continent and causing humanitarian crises; the states in
the conflict were:
Pro-Kabila: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Angola,
Namibia, Zimbabwe, Chad, and Sudan (alleged).
Anti-Kabila: Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi.
Militia Groups: Multiple rebel groups backed by Rwanda,
Uganda, and Burundi.

Israel-Hezbollah War (2006): After the withdrawal of the Israeli troops

from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah sought the release of
Lebanese citizens held in Israeli prisons. Iran, however, extended
support to Hezbollah in waging a month-long war against Israel in a
bigger hybrid warfare effort. This instance of non-state actor
collaboration has spiralled into the present-day
Israel-Palestine conflict.
Syrian Civil War (2011-Present): Since 2011, Syria has been in a civil
war with Assad supported by Russia and Iran pitted against the USA,
Turkey and Gulf-backed rebels who seek the overthrow of the
present government. This external interference destroyed the
economy of Syria, spawning inflation, refugees and instability across
the bordering region, thereby affecting global energy.

Yemeni Civil War (2014-Present): Initially beginning as a proxy

conflict between the Houthis (allegedly backed by Iran) and Yemen
Government (backed by Saudi Arabia) since 2014, the Yemeni civil
war has since turned into a full-blown war effort leading to
humanitarian crises, famines, displacement of civilians, and
economic collapse.

Russo-Ukraine Conflict (2014–Present): The conflict began in 2014

after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, triggering global
condemnation and sanctions. Tensions escalated dramatically in
February 2022 when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine,
citing NATO expansion and security concerns. The war has led to
thousands of civilian and military casualties, widespread
displacement, and severe damage to Ukraine’s infrastructure. It has
also sparked a global energy and food crisis, as both nations are
major exporters of grain and oil.

Houthi Attacks in the Red Sea (2024): Houthi forces, having attacked
international shipping innumerable times in the Red Sea and the
Gulf of Aden, have had military retaliation by the USA and the UK,
respectively. Declaredly in solidarity with the Palestinians, these
attacks have seriously disrupted global maritime trade to the extent
of having to reroute vessels and hike shipping costs.
Pahalgam Attack – Indo-Pak Conflict (2025): In May 2025, terrorists
opened fire on a tourist bus in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, killing
several civilians and injuring many others. The victims were mostly
Indian tourists, and the attack was widely condemned as a brutal
assault on civilians aimed at disrupting peace and tourism in the
region. Indian authorities blamed Pakistan-based terror groups for
the strike, while Pakistan denied involvement. The attack intensified
Indo-Pak tensions, with increased military vigilance and public
outrage across India.
 BLOC POSITIONS:
India

India takes a hardline view against proxy state-sponsored warfare

and the proliferation of non-state armed groups, regarding them as
major risks to national security, international order, and peace, as well
as economic development. Given the extensive cross-border terrorism
India has faced, particularly in Kashmir, which is often attributed to
state-sponsored non-state actors like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-
Mohammed, India has a strong policy against sponsoring proxies for
the destabilisation of vulnerable nations. The 2008 Mumbai attacks,
along with border tensions retaliated through Operation Sindoor,
underscored the need for robust counterterrorism policies. India has
been keen to support international efforts to combat the financing of
terrorism, including its active role within the Financial Action Task Force
(FATF). India has taken military action, including precision strikes on
non-state actor proxies, with the surgical strikes in 2016 and Balakot
Airstrike in 2019 serving as benchmarks for changing proxy deterrent
strategies. On the diplomatic side, India supports a rule-based world
order and has lobbied for a single comprehensive convention on
international terrorism under the UN. It helps achieve the balance of
strong national defence and collaboration against non-state armed
forces to non-state actors. On the multilateral and regional level, India
activates militarised counter-radicalisation under the Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the G20 to promote economic
and counter-regional destabilisation alongside stability.

Pakistan

Pakistan, despite officially opposing state-sponsored proxy wars and

the use of non-state militarised agents on international platforms,
continues to be influenced by complex affinities in the region.
For many years, this country has been roundly criticised for allegedly
nurturing proxy organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-
Mohammed in the theatre of Kashmir and Afghanistan to gain
strategic leverage on India and shape the geopolitical landscape.
This brought global censure and heightened scrutiny from the
International community, including the Financial Action Task Force
(FATF). In recent years, these attitudes have softened after Pakistan
endeavored to project a better image by passing laws against
financing terrorism, adding restrictions on the activity of proscribed
organizations, and complying with FATF regulations to escape
blacklisting. Pakistan is furthering its position by advocating for
economic stability and peace in the region as well as sponsoring an
‘inclusive’ Afghan governance model after the United States withdrew
from Afghanistan. Pakistan is exercising its diplomatic clout through
the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation (SCO) while promoting the resolution of
protracted conflicts, especially with India. Augmented through the
jogger’s terror attack in Pahalgam on April 22nd, which further
deepens the concern about Pakistan's abrasive strategy, the official
standpoint of the country is focused on counter-terrorism, building
economic strength, and multi-national cooperation.

Middle East

The Middle East is a central hotspot for state-sponsored proxy conflicts

and armed non-state actors, deeply impacting regional stability and
global markets. Key players like Iran and Saudi Arabia use proxies such
as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and various militias to extend their influence
across countries, including Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon. These
proxy wars often fuel sectarian divisions and power struggles,
undermining state authority and disrupting vital oil supplies and trade
routes. External powers, including the U.S. and Russia, are also heavily
involved, backing opposing sides to secure strategic interests.
The ongoing conflicts have prompted international efforts to curb the
influence of armed groups through diplomacy and sanctions, though
a durable peace remains elusive. Regional organisations and global
powers emphasise a mix of military deterrence, political dialogue,
and economic incentives to reduce proxy violence, protect energy
markets, and promote long-term stability in this volatile region.

China

China opposes state-sponsored proxy conflicts and armed non-state

actors by maintaining a foreign policy of stability, sovereignty, and
non-interference. While the nation isn’t deeply involved in proxy wars,
it is concerned about threats to its Belt and Road Initiative investments
in unstable regions, such as the Middle East and Africa. Domestically,
China links armed threats to separatism, especially in Xinjiang. At the
same time, on the international front, China believes in multilateral
counterterrorism efforts through the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation and the UN, favouring political dialogue and
development over military intervention. While its stance promotes
respect for sovereignty and long-term stability to protect global trade
routes and expand its influence peacefully, China has been globally
criticised for allying with nations like Pakistan and Turkey, which are
suspected to support non-state groups.

Russia

Russia actively uses state-sponsored proxy conflicts and supports

armed non-state actors as key tools of its foreign policy to advance
strategic interests and challenge Western influence. Russia has
repeatedly backed groups in Ukraine, Syria, and parts of the
Caucasus, often providing military, financial, and political support to
separatists and militias, which has been condemned by the UN on
multiple occasions. However, Russia views proxy warfare as a way to
maintain regional influence and counter NATO expansion without
direct military [Link] also advocates for multipolarity
and respects state sovereignty, but uses asymmetric tactics to
project power. Its foreign policy emphasises strong military support
for allies and proxies, diplomatic resistance to sanctions, and
leveraging energy exports to influence global markets, aiming to
reshape international norms to support Russia’s self-interest while
limiting Western dominance

Afghanistan

Afghanistan has been the epicentre of proxy conflicts for a long

time and has witnessed immense non-state violence due to foreign
interference and civil wars. With the onset of the Cold War,
Afghanistan transformed into a full-blown theatre for the proxy war
between the US and USSR, as the US provided aid to the
Mujahideen fighters. Following the Soviet withdrawal, the mid-civil
war saw the rise of the Taliban with the backing of the Pakistani ISI.
Post the events of 911, Afghanistan continued to be a geo-strategic
marvel for the US’s war on terror, infested with regional powers such
as Pakistan, Iran, Russia and India providing support to different
factions to further their own agenda. Non-state actors such as the
Taliban and ISIS-K took control of the state and plunged it into
chaos. Ever since the Taliban regained power in 2021, Afghanistan
has gone from being a governmental democracy to a de facto
caliphate, greatly limiting international engagement, albeit still
being labelled as a sponsor of terrorism. Afghanistan has multiple
competing regional influences for proxy wars, which makes it ever
more potent for terrorism. Without cohesive action sought to end
the proxy warfare along with optimised governance and
fundamental development, achieving sustainable peace will be
next to impossible.
Middle East

The Middle East is a central hotspot for state-sponsored proxy

conflicts and armed non-state actors, deeply impacting regional
stability and global markets. Key players like Iran and Saudi Arabia
use proxies such as Hezbollah, the Houthis, and various militias to
extend their influence across countries, including Syria, Yemen, Iraq,
and Lebanon. These proxy wars often fuel sectarian divisions and
power struggles, undermining state authority and disrupting vital oil
supplies and trade routes. External powers, including the U.S. and
Russia, are also heavily involved, backing opposing sides to secure
strategic interests. The ongoing conflicts have prompted
international efforts to curb the influence of armed groups through
diplomacy and sanctions, though a durable peace remains elusive.
Regional organisations and global powers emphasise a mix of
military deterrence, political dialogue, and economic incentives to
reduce proxy violence, protect energy markets, and promote long-
term stability in this volatile region.
 CASE STUDIES

1. Operation Sindhoor - India's Response to the Pahalgam Attack

On April 22, 2025, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir,
resulted in the deaths of 26 civilians. The attackers, allegedly affiliated
with The Resistance Front (TRF), targeted Hindu pilgrims, marking a
significant escalation in the region’s sectarian violence

In response, India launched Operation Sindoor, a calibrated military

operation aimed at dismantling terrorist infrastructure across the Line of
Control (LoC). The operation utilized precision airstrikes, drone warfare,
and missile attacks to target identified terror camps, while consciously
avoiding civilian areas . India’s indigenous defense systems, notably the
Akashteer air defense system, played a pivotal role in intercepting
retaliatory strikes, showcasing the country’s advancements in defense
technology.

Operation Sindoor marked a strategic shift in India’s defense posture,

demonstrating a willingness to engage in proactive and precise military
responses to cross-border terrorism. The operation also highlighted
India’s commitment to leveraging indigenous defense capabilities,
reducing reliance on foreign military technology

2. U.S. Support to Ukraine

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine transformed Washington’s
relationship with Kyiv from cautious engagement to full-spectrum
support. While not deploying combat troops, the U.S. has become
Ukraine’s largest backer, supplying financial aid, lethal weapons, and
real-time intelligence. This involvement positions Ukraine as a de facto
U.S. proxy in the fight against Russian expansionism.
As of 2025, the U.S. has provided over $100 billion in assistance,
including Javelin and Stinger missiles, HIMARS rocket systems, Patriot air
defense batteries, and Abrams tanks. American satellites and
surveillance systems have enabled Ukraine to carry out high-value
strikes, including on Russian logistics hubs and naval facilities in Crimea.

Critics, including Russia, argue that this support turns Ukraine into a
“proxy battleground” for U.S. interests, aimed at weakening Russia
without direct NATO involvement. Moscow uses this narrative
domestically to justify its war and abroad to rally support among non-
aligned nations.

Strategically, the U.S. seeks to uphold international norms, deter further

Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, and reaffirm NATO’s credibility.
However, the longer the war continues, the more it resembles a Cold
War-era proxy conflict, although under contemporary digital and
hybrid warfare conditions. The outcome will likely shape future proxy
wars and U.S. approaches to indirect engagement.

3. North Korea’s Military Assistance to Russia

In a notable escalation, North Korea has extended direct military

assistance to Russia amidst the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Under a
mutual defense treaty signed in June 2024, North Korea deployed
approximately 12,000 troops to support Russian operations, marking an
unprecedented level of involvement in an international conflict.

North Korean forces have been engaged in combat operations,

particularly in the Kursk region, where they have faced significant
casualties. Despite initial setbacks due to limited experience with
modern warfare technologies, North Korean troops have adapted,
contributing to Russia’s defensive efforts.
In exchange for its support, North Korea is believed to be receiving
technological assistance from Russia, including advancements in
missile and submarine capabilities . This collaboration not only
strengthens North Korea’s military prowess but also deepens the
strategic partnership between Pyongyang and Moscow, challenging
existing international security frameworks.

4. China’s Use of Pakistan as a Regional Proxy

China and Pakistan share a deep-rooted strategic partnership often

characterized as “higher than the mountains, deeper than the
oceans.” This alliance, forged during the Cold War and deepened
after the 1962 Sino-Indian War, has evolved into a comprehensive
framework of economic, military, and strategic cooperation. China
increasingly views Pakistan as a counterbalance to India in South
Asia, using the bilateral relationship to advance its geopolitical
interests without direct confrontation.

The most visible aspect of this proxy relationship is the China–Pakistan

Economic Corridor (CPEC), a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project
under China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While officially focused
on economic development, CPEC provides China strategic access to
the Arabian Sea via Pakistan’s Gwadar port. This port is of significant
interest to China’s Navy for potential dual-use (civilian and military)
purposes, giving Beijing an indirect presence in the Indian Ocean.

Moreover, China’s military aid and joint exercises with Pakistan have
included technology transfers for fighter jets (like the JF-17), missile
systems, and naval cooperation. These efforts enable Pakistan to
confront India militarily without necessitating Chinese boots on the
ground. China’s shielding of Pakistan from international censure at
the UN regarding terror-linked groups (such as blocking resolutions
against Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Masood Azhar) further reveals
Beijing’s role in indirectly enabling Pakistan’s use of armed non-state
actors to destabilize the Kashmir region.
5. U.S. Support to South Korea ( Containment Strategy Against DPRK)

Since the Korean War armistice in 1953, the U.S. has maintained a
robust military presence in South Korea, viewing it as a bulwark
against the authoritarian and nuclear-armed regime of the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). This support has
expanded beyond troop deployment into missile defense systems,
joint military drills, and extended nuclear deterrence.

The U.S. currently stations about 28,500 troops on the Korean

Peninsula. Key military assets include the THAAD (Terminal High
Altitude Area Defense) system and participation in large-scale joint
exercises such as Foal Eagle and Ulchi Freedom Shield. These efforts
are aimed at deterring North Korean aggression and reassuring
Seoul of Washington’s security commitments.

The DPRK, under Kim Jong-un, perceives this alliance as an

existential threat. Pyongyang frequently characterizes joint U.S.–ROK
drills as rehearsals for invasion, using them to justify its weapons
programs. Notably, every time the U.S. and South Korea enhance
military cooperation, North Korea responds with escalations,
including ballistic missile launches and nuclear tests.

Washington’s support for Seoul is not merely about deterrence—it is

also about containing China’s influence in East Asia. The trilateral
U.S.–Japan–ROK security axis increasingly aligns with broader U.S.
Indo-Pacific strategy, illustrating how support for South Korea serves
both direct (DPRK deterrence) and indirect (regional balancing
against China) objectives.
6. China’s Support to Russia in the Ukraine Conflict
Since the onset of the Ukraine conflict in 2022, China has
maintained a complex stance, officially advocating for peace
while simultaneously providing substantial support to Russia.
This support includes increased imports of Russian energy resources
and the supply of dual-use technologies, such as semiconductors
and microelectronics, which are critical for military applications .

China’s economic engagement has been instrumental in

mitigating the impact of Western sanctions on Russia, allowing
Moscow to sustain its military operations in Ukraine. Moreover,
China’s diplomatic rhetoric often mirrors Russia’s narratives,
criticizing NATO expansion and Western interference, thereby
aligning itself politically with Russia’s strategic objectives .

While China positions itself as a neutral party, its actions suggest a

strategic partnership with Russia, aimed at counterbalancing
Western influence and promoting a multipolar world order.
This alignment has significant implications for global geopolitics,
potentially reshaping alliances and power dynamics in the
international arena.

7. Pakistan’s Internal Proxy Strategy (State Support to Non-State Actors)

Pakistan has long been accused of supporting non-state actors as

tools of foreign and domestic policy, particularly in the regions of
Jammu and Kashmir, Afghanistan, and within its own borders. This
strategy dates back to the 1980s, when Pakistan’s Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI), with U.S. and Saudi support, facilitated the
Mujahideen resistance against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

After the Soviet withdrawal, Pakistan reoriented these networks to

exert influence in Kashmir. Groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT),
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen emerged
with tacit or direct support from the Pakistani state. These groups
have conducted numerous cross-border attacks, most notably the
2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, and the
2019 Pulwama suicide bombing.

Domestically, Pakistan’s support of NSAs has backfired. Groups like

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), once patronized for strategic depth,
turned hostile, launching attacks on military and civilian targets,
including the 2014 Peshawar school massacre. Although the
Pakistani state has since launched counterterrorism operations
(e.g., Zarb-e-Azb, Radd-ul-Fasaad), accusations persist that certain
“strategic assets” continue receiving covert backing as tools of
regional power projection.

This duality underscores Pakistan’s complex and often contradictory

use of non-state actors—both as proxies and as internal threats.
 PAST ACTION TAKEN BY THE
UNITED NATIONS
Proxy conflicts and the rise of armed non-state actors (ANSAs) are not
new challenges, but in the 21st century, they have become more
global, more devastating, and more complex than ever before. As
states increasingly turn to non-state actors to pursue political or military
goals indirectly, and as armed groups grow in influence across conflict
zones, the United Nations has found itself at the heart of efforts to
mitigate, manage, and ultimately resolve these crises.

Peacekeeping and troop deployment have remained central to UN

interventions in proxy conflict zones. The UN has launched over 70
peacekeeping missions, many of which were deployed in regions
destabilized by proxy warfare or non-state militancy. These missions
often include mandates to protect civilians, monitor ceasefires, and
assist with disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of
combatants.

UN peacekeepers have been deployed to some of the world’s most

volatile regions—where wars were no longer being fought just between
national armies, but between governments and armed groups, or
between armed groups backed by different state sponsors. Whether in
Central Africa, the Middle East, or Southeast Asia, UN troops have been
tasked not only with monitoring ceasefires, but also with protecting
civilians from attacks by militias, supporting disarmament and
reintegration of fighters, and building conditions for lasting peace.

These missions often operate in incredibly difficult conditions—

navigating minefields, both literal and diplomatic, to try to restore
order where formal state control has collapsed.
But military presence alone isn’t enough. The UN has also played a
quiet but crucial role behind the scenes—brokering ceasefires,
facilitating negotiations, and opening humanitarian corridors. In
conflicts fueled by foreign interference and proxy dynamics, neutrality
and trust are hard to come by. Yet again and again, the UN has
stepped into that space, working through its Special Envoys,
peacebuilding offices, and regional partnerships to bring hostile actors
to the negotiating table. Many of these ceasefires have saved lives,
even if they were only temporary.

Legal tools have also been central to the UN’s approach. One of the
clearest examples is Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted after
the 9/11 attacks, which calls on all countries to prevent support—
financial, logistical, or otherwise—to terrorist organizations. While its
language doesn't use the term "proxy conflicts," it lays a powerful
foundation for global cooperation in restricting support to armed non-
state groups.

Similarly, Resolution 1540 targets an even darker possibility: the risk that
non-state actors could acquire weapons of mass destruction. The UN
made it clear—these actors, and the states that support them, must be
held to account.

In areas where armed groups have fueled violence through easy

access to weapons, the UN has imposed arms embargoes and
targeted sanctions—not just against non-state actors themselves,
but also against the state sponsors who enable them. These measures
aim to cut off the lifelines that sustain proxy warfare. Sanctions regimes
are supported by expert panels that track arms flows, flag violations,
and report to the Security Council.

Beyond enforcement, the UN has tried to tackle the root causes of why
armed non-state groupsemerge in the first place—inequality, state
failure, political exclusion, and external meddling.
The UN’s Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, adopted by consensus in
2006, reflects this wider vision. It calls on member states to refrain from
supporting terrorist organizations, to strengthen border security, and
to enhance coordination in intelligence-sharing and law enforcement
—all of which are critical tools in preventing the use of ANSAs as
proxies. It doesn’t just condemn terrorism and non-state violence—it
encourages member states to strengthen governance, uphold
human rights, and invest in long-term stability.

While UN responses are often shaped by political constraints within the

Security Council, especially when permanent members are involved
in proxy dynamics, the organization’s institutional framework remains
steadfast in addressing the issue through diplomacy, legal norms, and
peace enforcement. In conclusion, the United Nations’ actions—
though often constrained by geopolitical divides—demonstrate a
clear and sustained commitment to addressing the growing threat of
state-sponsored proxy conflicts and ANSAs through enforcement,
peacebuilding, and international legal standards.
Past Resolutions passed by the United
Nations
RESOLUTION
DATE UN BODY FOCUS RELEVANCE
NUMBER

Urged all states to Foundation for

prevent and stopping state
UNSC Res. UN Security
28 September 2001 suppress the support to
1373 Council
financing of terrorist and non-
terrorism state actors

Prevents non- Addresses

state actors from threats from
UNSC Res. UN Security
28 April 2004 acquiring WMDs; armed NSAs with
1540 Council
mandates state possible state
controls backing

Broad
Urged states not
condemnation of
UNGA Res. UN Security to support
16 September 2005 indirect and
60/1 Council terrorism in any
direct state
form
sponsorship

Called for Directly

ceasefire addressed a
UNSC Res. UN Security between state-sponsored
11 August 2006
1701 Council Hezbollah and proxy (Hezbollah
Israel; urged backed by
disarmament Iran/Syria)

Condemned ISIS
Tackled rise of
and Al-Nusrah;
UNSC Res. UN Security proxy actors in
15 August 2014 urged states to
2170 Council Syria/Iraq with
stop recruitment
state links
and support

Banned trade in Targeted state-

UNSC Res. UN Security oil and artifacts funded economic
12 February 2015
2199 Council with terrorist channels
groups like ISIS supporting NSAs

Called for all

Legitimated
necessary
UNSC Res. UN Security global action
28 November 2015 measures against
2249 Council against violent
ISIL and Al-
non-state proxies
Qaeda affiliates
 Strengthened Penalized states
sanctions against enabling NSAs
ISIL supporters financially/logistically.
UNSC Res. UN Security and affiliates
17 December 2015
2253 Council

Addressed Tackled illicit

human trafficking networks used by
by terrorist NSAs, often tied to
UNSC Res. UN Security groups proxy conflicts
28 September 2016
2331 Council

UNGA Res. Called for Highlighted complex

ES - 10/22 ceasefire in proxy dynamics
Israel-Hamas involving Hamas,
War, Iran and other
UN General humanitarian regional players
27 October 2003
Assembly access, and
respect for
international law
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In recent years, the international community has witnessed a significant
rise in state-sponsored proxy conflicts and the proliferation of armed
non-state actors (ANSAs) in regions already destabilized by political
unrest or humanitarian crises. These developments have deepened
existing conflicts, challenged traditional notions of sovereignty, and
complicated efforts toward sustainable peace and disarmament.

Proxy conflicts occur when powerful states support third-party actors—

often militarily or financially—to pursue strategic objectives in foreign
territories without direct engagement. These third-party actors can
include insurgent groups, militias, or paramilitary organizations, many of
which lack accountability mechanisms and are often involved in grave
violations of international humanitarian law. The Syrian Civil War, the
conflict in Yemen, and instability in Libya serve as prominent examples
where state-backed actors have contributed to prolonged
violence and civilian suffering.

The rise of armed non-state actors is particularly concerning because

many operate beyond the scope of international law and are not
bound by formal treaties such as the Geneva Conventions. Their
presence frequently undermines peacekeeping efforts, facilitates the
spread of arms, and obstructs humanitarian access. Moreover, their
affiliations with organized crime, terrorism, or ideological extremism
further complicate disarmament and negotiation efforts.

The United Nations has repeatedly acknowledged the complexity of

modern conflict environments. Through the work of the Disarmament
and International Security Committee (DISEC), the UN promotes
multilateral dialogue, regulation of arms transfers, and the
strengthening of international legal frameworks. Resolutions such as
UNSCR 2370 (2017) on preventing terrorists from acquiring weapons and
the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) are examples of global efforts to address
these challenges. However, enforcement remains uneven, and
geopolitical interests often delay or dilute collective action.

Tackling the issue requires a multipronged approach: increased

transparency in state-to-state and state-to-non-state relationships;
stronger arms control and export regulations; regional conflict
resolution mechanisms; and more robust engagement with civil
society and peacebuilding organizations. Ultimately, reinforcing the
international norm against state complicity in proxy warfare is essential
to restoring stability and upholding the UN Charter’s core principles of
sovereignty and non-intervention.

This agenda item reflects a critical and timely challenge that DISEC
must address with urgency, coherence, and a firm commitment to
international peace and security.
 QUESTIONS A RESOLUTION MUST
ANSWER (QARMA)
For first time MUNNERS, these questions essentially serve as fundamental
pointers regarding the points your resolution could address, in order to
make it comprehensive and relevant.
Delegates may however, come up with other angles and viewpoints to
construct solutions with.

What diplomatic and economic consequences should be

imposed on nations proven to sponsor armed non-state actors
in conflict zones?

How can the UN effectively monitor and limit the funding and
arming of militant groups by external state actors?

Should non-state actors who control territory or civilian

populations, such as Hezbollah or the Houthis, be granted any
form of international diplomatic recognition?

Can the establishment of a global verification framework deter

nations from using proxy groups to bypass international
accountability?

Would reforming the classification and engagement rules with

armed non-state actors lead to better conflict resolution
outcomes?

IMPORTANT LINKS

DISEC Mandate
[Link]

UN charter
[Link]
RELIABLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Al Jazeera
UN Articles
Amnesty International
Britannica
Times of India
Official Country Websites (and) Statements or Speeches made by
Heads of State.
 RESOLUTION GUIDELINES
Resolutions:
• Use 12 point Times New Roman and 1.0 spacing throughout
• Do not exceed four pages in length, for committee convenience
• The heading at the top of the resolution, must include three main
components, in the following order: COMMITTEE; QUESTION OF; MAIN
AUTHOR + 2 CO AUTHORS
• After the title of the resolution, a single line spacing is places, followed
by the full name of the committee written in capital letters with a
comma at the end
• Acronyms and a abbreviations are spelled out the first time they are
mentioned, in the following manner: United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
• Use formal, 3rd person, diplomatic language at all times

Perambulatory Clauses:
• The introductory word/phrase of each perambulatory clause is
italicized
• Only a selected set of phrases can be used as introductory
words/phrases
• The first letter of the introductory word/phrase is capitalized
• No introductory word/phrase can be repeated in a resolution
• Commas separate the preambulatory clauses from each other
 Preambulatory Phrases:

Acknowledging Expressing its appreciation Noting with appreciation

Affirming Expressing its satisfaction Noting with approval
Alarmed by Fulfilling Noting with deep concern
Approving Aware of Fully alarmed Noting with regret
Believing Fully aware Noting with satisfaction
Bearing in mind Fully believing Observing
Confident Further deploring Pointing out
Congratulating Further recalling Reaffirming
Contemplating Guided by Realizing
Convinced Having adopted Recalling
Declaring Having considered Recognizing
Deeply concerned Having considered further Referring
Deeply conscious Having devoted attention Reminding
Deeply convinced Having examined Seeking
Deeply disturbed Having heard Taking into account
Deeply regretting Having received Taking into consideration
Deploring Desiring Having studied Taking note
Emphasizing Keeping in mind Viewing with appreciation
Expecting Noting further Welcoming
Operative Clauses:

• Each operative clause is numbered: 1, 2, 3, 4, ......

• All operative clause and sub clauses are indented
• The introductory word/phrase of each operative clause is underlined
• The first letter of the introductory word/phrase is capitalized
• Only a selected set of phrases can be used as introductory
words/phrases
• The following starters are only applicable to UNSC; 'condemns',
'demands'
• This is because DISEC is a suggestive body and cannot take action
• No introductory word/phase can be repeated in a resolution (but
may be re-used with the addition of "strongly" or "further" as in: "Further
requests...")
• Semicolons separate operative clauses from each other
• Sub clauses are lettered: a, b, c, d, ......
• Sub sub clauses are numbered with Roman numerals: i, il, ill, iv, ..
• Sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses are indented by using tabs, NOT by
using individual spaces (sub-clauses are tabbed once and sub-sub-
clauses are tabbed twice)
• First letters of sub-clauses and sub-sub-clauses are not capitalized
• A period is used at the end of the final word of the operative clause

Operative Clauses:

Accepts Encourages Recommends

Affirms Endorses Regrets
Approves Expresses its Requests
Asks appreciation Resolves
Authorizes Expresses its hope Seeks
Calls for Further invites Strongly affirms
Calls upon Further proclaims Strongly
Condemns Further recommends condemns
Congratulates Further requests Strongly urges
Confirms Further resolves Suggests
Deplores Hopes Trusts
Designates Proclaims Transmits
Proposes Urges
For grammar aficionados:

• The resolution is one very long sentence. It begins with the

committee (the subject of thesentence), e.g. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY

• After the subject, come the perambulatory clauses. These are

participle (or adjectival phrases modifying the subject (modifying by
describing the committee's intent, motivation, and frame of
mind in writing the resolution).

• The operative clauses make the predicate of the sentence (i.e.

describe the action of the resolution); thus operative clause starters
should be present tense verbs in the third person singular.

• The last operative clause should be completed with a period to

mark the end of the very long sentence.

General Points to note:

• A GSL speech lasts 90 seconds, it may address any aspect of the
agenda
• The delegate may even use their GSL as an extended way to
respond to comments made prior in committee
• Delegates are to speak in 3rd person by addressing their country as
the core voice; eg: The delegate of the United States of America
believes xyz.........
• One does not use personal pronouns in committee for the simple
reason that you are not a representative of your own views and
personal biases, but the views of the government that represents your
country
• Foul language is not permitted in committee and will lead to
suspension (baring)
• It is important to enjoy the conference.
• The EB will always be at your disposal for any assistance you may
require.