Nadav Neuman for Aljazeera

Interesting solutions for refugee settlement in Middle East

by Nadav Neuman for Al Jazeera

The civil war in Syria between the Syrian rebels and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad has created a large problem in terms of refugees for surrounding nations. Nations such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey have had floods of refugees enter their respective countries. According to the United Nations, there are over 2 million Syrian refugees and there are about 4 million Syrians who are internally displaced and even more who need help.

This is where the Office of the High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR) comes in. The main issue they have been discussing is the Syrian Refugee Crisis. Nations such as the United States, United Kingdom, France and Canada have come together to form a resolution to provide a short and long term solution to the crisis by providing shelter for refugees in need. In addition, they will reeducate the refugees so that they can learn how to self-sustain themselves. The United States was the leading power in this resolution. Israel was another leading power in a different attempt to resolve the issue, along with Liberia. Israel said: “we need to establish more camps to sufficiently enable the refugees to have places to go when in need. After that, we need to establish better education systems in the camps for the refugees and also better sanitation so that the refugees can improve their lives in the camps.” Israel and Liberia also wanted to begin talks between the Syrian rebels and al-Assad to resolve the issue. Denmark was also part of a different resolution that was on the basis of a “safe initiative” in order to resolve the issue.

One interesting thing to note is that the Syrian rebels were present in this committee representing themselves as a group. They were actively involved in the talks and were extremely interested in what was going to occur regarding the Syrian Refugee Crisis, which directly influences them.

The short and long term goals of how to get refugees to camps safely and efficiently, and then educate them on how to continue to survive is what the UNHCR is trying to accomplish. There are many plausible resolutions that can be passed and they will definitely look to benefit both the refugees and the countries providing the refugees with the settlements.

Esha Bhandari and Yasmeen H.A. for BBC

The Republic of Italy on the Paris Peace Conference (1946)

by Esha Bhandari and Yasmeen H.A.—BBC World News

BBC recently sat in on the Paris Peace conference immediate following World War II. After listening in on heated debates, particular interest and controversy was sparked with the working paper signatory, the Republic of Italy. Jonah, the representative, had a few words to say of the issue. When asked about what events lead up to this specific conference, Jonah explained that the goal of the committee was to establish democratic freedom in states that were originally Axis powers during World War II. He went on to say that these countries were formerly belligerent states and needed help to gain international recognition and sovereignty.  The main issue stood as what precisely is the definition of democratic freedoms?  How can we ensure that they are sustained?

Jonah went on to clarify that the Republic of Italy is not one of these malevolent states as of 1945, when a treaty was signed that resigned the nation from the Axis powers and instead to fight against the Nazis.

Unfortunately, he says that there are several countries who refuse to see the Republic of Italy as a positive world power but he is firm in saying that a hands-off governmental approach that allows the individual country to decide its democratic republic and how it should be run is key.  “If you choose to have a democratic republic, here’s what Italy can do for you,” he began.  “We can provide you with economic aid.  We can help restructure your government.  We can provide you with national sovereignty.  And, we can provide you with international recognition in the UN. 

 However, if you don’t do this, we can’t help you, and you will not be sovereign,” Jonah concluded.

There was some concern with the lack of troops maintaining peace in various countries, however Jonah continues to affirm that rather than force a nation to be a democratic republic by keeping troops, they should create a peaceful situation where they themselves can decide on how to restructure their governments and how they wish to enforce democratic freedoms based on what each country believes it to be.  Jonah also recognizes the risk of Civil War that it can lead to, but states it is well worth the risk and is more troublesome to have foreign troops patrolling countries in which they do not belong.  His working paper suggests a 10 year maximum in establishing a fair government and sound economy—a time frame he regards as more than enough. 

Although it appears a resolution is well on its way, Jonah stresses the fact that a good and compromised solution can only come about when all countries, even fascist dictatorships, can agree on the definition of democratic freedoms.

Jongwoo Lee for BBC

Voting prosedure at Historical Security Council at the third session

BBC-Jongwoo Lee

On the third session of the second day, delegates at Historical Security Council were voting for their resolution papers.

After failing several times of passing resolution papers, the delegates went in five minute unmoderated caucus and seven minute moderated caucus before the voting procedure. "Send peacekeeping troops to Nepal to watch over the conflict and tension in China" was one of the ideas that delegates passionately discussed on, and Brazil, Nepal, and Canada were sponsors that supported this idea. U.S, on the other hand, mentioned that it does not support China, but to maintain peace, the U.S should not intervene in China’s reform. And Columbia mentioned that embargoes are justified, so it will continue working with China for peace.

About the government killing many of protesters during the reform, delegates had different opinions. While USSR said that China being condemned is excessive, Brazil showed that China being condemned is indeed not excessive. China has not recognized its people who showed their opinions; rather they massacred them. China said that the intervention of U.K couldn't be accepted that China did not attack in order to massacre people; it had to do that in order to proceed in its social reform. Therefore, international organizations should not intervene in China’s regulation.

After the moderated caucus was over, there were updates from BBC those on protests of Chinese citizens on May 25^th Tiananmen Square.

On the picture shown in the article provided by BBC, delegates debated whether it is necessary to have embargo and world intervention in China’s reform. Yugoslavia mentioned that BBC is a British government broadcasting, it is not reliable to get information about China, while the British embargoed China. China reputed by saying that people in the Tiananmen Square does not necessarily represent the rest of people in China.

After Columbia mentioned that students are the leaders of the future. Their views become the majority of people’s views in the future. U.S supported Columbia that it said students are the future, however, China stated that protesters do not represent China and those people are very valuable in representing. China, however, disagreed with Columbia and the U.S that China’s government is going to do what seems right. They tried to reach out. Also, the Chinese government holds a referendum on whether or not the current regime is legitimate--whether or not the protesters are justified.

Delegates did not come to a consensus during the third session at Historical Security Council, but they supported their ideas based on the situations each country was.

Esha Bhandari and Yasmeen H.A. for BBC

The first day of UNIDO—Clean Energy vs. Continued Usage of Fossil Fuels

Esha Bhandari and Yasmeen H.A.

During the numerous moderated caucuses in the UN Industrial Development Organization, delegates from various countries engaged in heated debate regarding the issue of utilizing cleaner energy worldwide. Some countries like Finland and Guatemala strongly approve of the promotion of green energy, while others such as Venezuela stand on the complete opposite side of the issue. The compelling caucuses revealed each and every country’s unique ideas about a resolution to the issue, but despite the early stages of the conference, some are skeptical if a solution will ever be reached, considering the varying opinions of each nation.

Finland stands out as a generous nation in the sense that, as a developed country, it is willing to aid developing countries in jumpstarting their usage of clean energy. They have suggested a “big brother” or free market approach, consisting of a laissez-faire system that keeps the government as uninvolved as possible. Finland defends its ideas by claiming that this specific approach has significantly helped Greece, although went on to clarify that there would be restrictions put in place in this free market to avoid corruption and avert disaster. Several countries seemed interested in Finland’s claims, including developing countries such as aforementioned Guatemala. Naturally, there were also several other countries, developed and developing alike, that strongly disagreed with almost all of Finland’s suggestions. Venezuela, for example, was among the loudest dissenters.

While most countries believe that developing and developed countries must cooperatively come up with a plan to implement clean energy, Venezuela is one of the few countries that feels that this is unnecessary. This developing country is utterly opposed to monetary support from developed countries and feels that they can “survive on [their] own.” Venezuela has stated that the need for a switch to clean energy is due to climate change, and has blamed developed countries for being the source of a majority of the global pollution today. To Venezuela, most developing countries can survive by their own means through relying on their abundance of natural resources. Nations in agreement with Venezuela include Germany and Indonesia, who both recognize the need for clean energy, yet feel that developed countries should extricate themselves from the issues of developing countries. Despite its outspoken views, Venezuela has yet to propose a solution to the matter.

Emma Leeds Armstrong for People's Daily

China Takes a Strong Stance in the WTO

By Emma Leeds Armstrong in Baltimore (People’s Daily)

Since 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has regulated trade between nations, focusing most often on the liberalization of world trade, the negotiation of trade agreements, and the settlement of trade disputes. WTO concentrates specifically on aiding developing nations in issues of trade.

The debate of WTO’s committee first topic, “special and differential treatment of developing nations”, applies significantly to recent Chinese actions. In December of 2013, China, under the leadership of Trade Minister Hucheng Gao, contributed US$400,000 to facilitate WTO accession of least-developed countries (LDC). Whether China will continue this involvement will be apparent during the debates in the next three days.

Special and differential treatment (SDT) refers to provisions that allow LDC special rights favorable treatment by developed nations. The ultimate goal of SDT is to incorporate the economies of LDC into international trade and to kindle their economic development.

The WTO committee is currently debating how to define a “developing” nation. The delegate representing China, Jordan Yaffe, emphasized the need of the committee to focus on aiding LDC rather than defining them. On behalf of China, he is arguing “tiers [on the scale of development] need to be simple so that aiding nations will be followed and rulings on SDT will be complied with.” Yaffe is proposing lenient deadlines and regulations during trade to aid LDC. He intends to form a panel to monitor the actions of developed nations in dealings with LDC so as to insure the former will not take advantage of the latter.

Catalina Chernavvsky Sequeira for People's Daily

The Ultimate Question: Keep or Scratch the European Union?

By Catalina Chernavvsky Sequeira in Baltimore (People’s Daily)

The Organization for Security and Co-operation (OSCE) in Europe consists of 57 members from Europe, Central Asia, and North America. It was created during the Cold War as a forum for discussion between the East and the West. It is the world’s largest security-oriented intergovernmental organization, and its main focus includes arms control and human rights, among others.

Currently the OSCE is discussing whether or not the European Union—a political union made up of European countries—should be maintained and/or enhanced. The main question that delegates must seek to answer is this: In what ways can Europe benefit from a structured union, or how can forming one overarching alliance across the continent be detrimental?

Those who are pro-EU primarily argue that with an alliance comes free trade. Nations can work together to help one another and simultaneously gain something in return. A union can provide a United Nations-like organization that brings together people from many different cultures and allows them to voice their opinions and solutions for the continent as a whole, not just for their individual country. In short, the EU would be a regulator and facilitator for nations that need help economically, politically, or socially.

Then there are those who are anti-EU. They stress that forming a union will create economic and communication issues. With so many countries included, it is inevitable that strong nations will overpower the rest. Conversely, small countries might benefit from the powerful nations without offering anything in return. Also, with so many different cultures and languages, there could be a communication barrier that might prevent countries from coming to a consensus on issues.

Brenda Ruiz and Mathavi Sankar for People's Daily

Quadrumvirate: Family Drama; Year 1150 CE

By Brenda Ruiz and Mathavi Sankar in Baltimore (People’s Daily)

The Quadrumvirate is about a power struggle between clans, Sohei, Fujiawara, Minimoto, Taira, yet each clan has their own internal struggles.

The Sohei seemed to be the most disjointed of the clans thus far. In a recent gathering of the Sohei clan, it was revealed that they were so desperate that they were willing to look to Korea for assistance in attacking China. One less desperate member of the clan declared, “End [the discussion] now, ask [for help from] Minimotto.” Mongaku agreed: “It is dangerous to bring in Korea as an ally,” and the clan resolved to use Korea as a last resort. 

One of the more politically powerful clans in Japan, Fujiwara aims to send representatives to Sohei to “engage in negotiations about military and political cooperations between [the] two groups”. They hope the friendly tactics will join the two clans without risking their reputation of a power hungry clan.

The Taira clan, sworn enemy of the Minimoto, has wields plenty of political power in Japan. They are close-knit and work fiercely to protect that power.

While the Minimoto are as equally devoted to their rivalry with the Taira clan, they  have their own internal struggles. They are currently dealing with hunger and famine through their clan, bringing violent rebellions. Thus far, the Minimoto are working to create a standing army to quell the public's anger as they deal with every other clan.

However, inter-clan conflicts are not the only problem. Like all families, the clans also have their own drama: rebellions, jealousy, and back-stabbing. People’s Daily was lucky enough to witness some of this drama. The Taira sought military support from the Sohei clan and in response, the Sohei sent a note asking for incentives. However, 10 minutes later, another note was sent from a Sohei individual revealing the secret actions of the Sohei. The Sohei sent the same note requesting incentives to the Minomoto clan (who are the enemy of the Taira). What will the Taira do now that they know they are being played by the Sohei, who were one of their own allies?

Brenda Ruiz and Mathavi Sankar for People's Daily

Do You Know Your Country?

By Brenda Ruiz and Mathavi Sankar in Baltimore (People's Daily)

We, the People's Daily, work hard to expose all you fraud MUNers. Here are some to show:

Name: Canada

Capital: Ottawa

Location: North, duh

Type of Government: Democratic Representative, I think?

Leader: No idea!

Name: Romania

Capital: IDK

Location: *non committal shrug

Type of Government: I'm just gonna say IDK for everything

Leader:

Name: Congo

Capital: You're embarrassing me now

Location: I don't know

Type of Government: Democratic

Leader: Assad?

Name: Panama

Capital: Panama City

Location: Africa, right?

Type of Government: Democracy

Leader: Don't know!

Nick Smyth for The Onion

Chasing The Dragon

NICK SMYTH

In a recent survey conducted in China by American statisticians, they found that most of the population of China was either so high on opiates that all they wanted to do all day was sit around eating bamboo, or were just too busy yelling at each other in some incomprehensible language for the math nerds to muster up the courage to approach any of them. It is because of this poll that The Onion has decided to begin an "advice" column geared towards informing everyone in China about exactly what "the man" was trying to do to their good friend, black tar heroin. During the recent government conference called to determine the best course of action regarding the disintegration of western businesses in China, the prospect of developing opiates into a new cash crop was brought up by Li Hang Zang, who stated, "there isn't enough for me." Li Hang Zang argued that if the Chinese government had total control over the opium supply they could dope the whole country into servitude – as if the lack of democracy wasn’t already enough. He then went on to argue that if high tariffs were placed on opium, the peasant class would have no other choice but to pay them because of their constant need to "Feed the Beast." The advice this author offers the Chinese people is that they should be fighting back against any laws passed in favor of opium because of two reasons. Firstly, if the government has a monopoly on opium supply, who is to say they will not start “poisoning the low quality stuff to kill off the poor boxer rebellion?" (as proposed by Prince Duan in an effort to gain public support). Secondly, Li Hong Zhang's only reason for wanting to control the opium supply is so that he can hog it all for himself.

Matthew Chakov for The Onion

Everybody Should Have the Bomb

MATTHEW CHAKOV

While many members of the IAEA committee were debating nuclear power plant regulation or frequency of inspections in order to curtail nuclear terrorism, Yemen believes that the solution to the problem is for everybody to possess nuclear bombs. This might seem crazy to the average reader, but Yemen’s government believes that having all countries owning the bomb is the only way to solve the problem of nuclear terrorism. When asked for a comment, Yemen’s foreign minister Jasswinder Aroussia Samira al-Queda Nessiba Fatima said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb.” The Yemini government believes that owning the bomb levels the playing field with countries such as the United States, Russia, and China who they believe have committed far worse atrocities than those committed by the Yemeni government. Upon hearing of Yemen’s solution to the problem of nuclear terrorism, both the Republic of Georgia and Colombia came out of the woodwork and voiced their own opinions. Colombia believes that countries with more bombs are more responsible than countries with less and that is why they propose that all countries own a multitude of bombs. Georgia believes that the “use of bombs promotes world peace”. However, while both Georgia and Colombia agreed with Yemen’s policy of allowing countries to own nuclear weapons, neither believed that Yemen should be able to possess nukes. Colombia cited sexism as the reason for not allowing Yemen to own the bomb. They said, “The name of their country, Yemen, contains the word ‘men’, the placement of which is, as we all know, not coincidental.” Georgia was very concise and slightly ambiguous in their reason when they said, “Yemen is not even good.”

Matthew Chakov for The Onion

Everybody Should Have the Bomb

MATTHEW CHAKOV

While many members of the IAEA committee were debating nuclear power plant regulation or frequency of inspections in order to curtail nuclear terrorism, Yemen believes that the solution to the problem is for everybody to possess nuclear bombs. This might seem crazy to the average reader, but Yemen’s government believes that having all countries owning the bomb is the only way to solve the problem of nuclear terrorism. When asked for a comment, Yemen’s foreign minister Jasswinder Aroussia Samira al-Queda Nessiba Fatima said, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a bomb is a good guy with a bomb.” The Yemini government believes that owning the bomb levels the playing field with countries such as the United States, Russia, and China who they believe have committed far worse atrocities than those committed by the Yemeni government. Upon hearing of Yemen’s solution to the problem of nuclear terrorism, both the Republic of Georgia and Colombia came out of the woodwork and voiced their own opinions. Colombia believes that countries with more bombs are more responsible than countries with less and that is why they propose that all countries own a multitude of bombs. Georgia believes that the “use of bombs promotes world peace”. However, while both Georgia and Colombia agreed with Yemen’s policy of allowing countries to own nuclear weapons, neither believed that Yemen should be able to possess nukes. Colombia cited sexism as the reason for not allowing Yemen to own the bomb. They said, “The name of their country, Yemen, contains the word ‘men’, the placement of which is, as we all know, not coincidental.” Georgia was very concise and slightly ambiguous in their reason when they said, “Yemen is not even good.”

Jessica Li for The Onion

FIFA Congress United by Human Rights Violations and Comic Sans

JESSICA LI

As the workers in Brazil continue to devotedly work on construction for this year’s World Cup, the FIFA Congress at JHUMUNC continues to ardently disagree about what issues should be addressed. The session seemed to start off well, with a unified vote to not discuss glaring human rights violations in Brazil. However, after this initial moment of agreement, debate turned scattered and incoherent as delegates proceeded to argue about which problems were most important and which were most avoidable. Many potential topics were brought up and shot down with dizzying speed, and progress halted to a stop. All hope is not lost, though. By far the most productive action taken during this first session was the near-unanimous vote to change the Speaker’s List font from the traditional Times New Roman to the hip and swaggy Comic Sans. This may be heralded as a sign that the members of FIFA Congress are finally ready to embrace change and cooperation. Not all delegates are so keen on moving forward, though. The delegate from Mexico expressed that discussion still appeared to be going in circles, while the delegate from South Africa encouraged his peers to “focus on what Brazil already has.” Indeed, Brazil does have many valuable resources that other countries do not, which could be used to their advantage in preparing for the games. One promising idea was to enlist the powerful Brazilian drug cartels to assist in transporting and directing tourists. This would certainly be more feasible than the ridiculous proposal to develop an entire new fleet of buses for the same purpose, and this type of resourceful thinking is exactly what FIFA needs in order to succeed. If discussion continues in this direction, we may actually see the FIFA Congress accomplish something.

Arundhati Paul for The Onion

Ideas to Stop the Imperialistic West

ARUNDHATI PAUL

The Boxer Rebellion committee convened to discuss the rising threats of the imperial West and how to possibly resist it. Throughout the meeting, the brilliant minds came up with clever ideas that the West surely would never see coming. Consort Zhen, a mild modernist, stated, “We want the imperialists out of China to show imperialistic countries that we are an army of spirit soldiers and that we fly.” Consort Zhen’s fellow members were excited by this idea. Who doesn’t want to be a spirit soldier with wings?

Perhaps the best idea of the evening came from Prince Duan, one of the leaders of the Boxer Rebellion. After many fruitless plans, the Prince pulled out a map of Manchuria and exclaimed, “Prince Duan has a plan. There is great stress among the imperialist nations, specifically Russia and Japan, and they both have allies. If we started an international incident, this could lead to war, and the international community would forget about China for the moment.” When asked what Manchuria had to do with his phenomenal plan, the Prince shrugged his shoulders and merely waved his map to seem impressive. The committee buzzed with excitement with the plan of possibly initiating World War I, because that would surely fix the problem at hand.

Later in the evening, while taking a break from the ideas being put on the table, the chair urged delegates to speak more because he himself had become a great public speaker through practice and therapy. This advice seemed to comfort the delegates who had previously resorted to staring at their laps throughout committee.

To conclude the events of the evening, Li Hongzhang, a diplomat and military figure, created a diversion using his great experience of military strategy, spilling water all over the table. Proud of his accomplishment, he happily posed for pictures and asked the most pressing question of the night, “Is there any way to fix the water to ice ratio in the pitchers?"

Jamie Glueck for The New York Times

The Cessation of Child Labor

Education a possible solution for child labor

By JAMIE GLUECK

Child labor is a prominent tribulation in many countries. In Pakistan there has been a 32% increase of children under 18 working in the last year. Over 150 million children have to work laborious and menial jobs instead of attending school. Many representing countries in the International Labor Organization believe that the only way to end the child labor epidemic is by keeping kids in school. Korea, Montenegro, Turkey, Venezuela, the United States and many more all agreed that the only way to end child labor is through education.

 There are other countries, however, who think differently. Japan stated that the best way to reduce child labor is by a stricter enforcement of laws. Uzbekistan and Croatia are among the few that actually oppose using education to reduce child labor. Croatia argued that “education is a luxury that only developed countries can afford.” Croatia believes that education will not stop child labor as a whole or at all, although they did not provide any data to back up their argument. Uzbekistan arguably had the most controversial statement, saying, “In many countries, many people do not want to work.” Uzbekistan believes that having people who are uneducated is critical because that way there are more people to perform domestic jobs. Uzbekistan believes that schooling above 8th grade

should be optional. Denmark, Macedonia

and Turkey reiterated this requirement of elementary schooling.

It is evident that the majority of countries agree that education is a vital first step for the termination of child labor, but it was also generally agreed that education is costly. Australia   suggested   that   funds from  the United Nations should be put towards education. Many countries agreed. The debate of using education to end child labor is still up in the air, but the majority of the delegates seemed to agree on the importance of education. If a country has enough money and resources to provide education, the consensus was that it should be a high priority as an attempt to reduce child labor. 

Caroline Orth for The New York Times

Human Rights in the Paris Peace Conference

By CAROLINE ORTH

Yesterday evening, the Paris Peace Conference motioned to begin its first session in order to create a lasting tradition of peace among both Allied and Axis nations following the end of World War II last spring. At the 1964 session of the Johns Hopkins University Model United Nations Conference, the Paris Peace Conference chose to focus on the topics of renewing democratic freedoms in belligerent states and European territorial adjustments. In the Conference’s first hour of debate, a moderated caucus was motioned on its first topic, specifically concerning the definition of human rights. 

After the oppressive Nuremberg Laws were passed in Germany in 1935, Italy echoed its racist ideals as an ally of the Third Reich. Other nations followed suit with similar restrictions on their Jewish populations, including Hungary and Romania. Six years ago, in February of  1940, the first deportation of German Jews into occupied Poland occurred. Approximately six million Jews lost their lives in concentration camps. It came as no surprise that the Conference chose to discuss human rights to begin its session, considering the atrocities Germany committed against its own citizens.

During the first moderated caucus of the committee session, various participating countries from all corners of Europe shared their viewpoints. A delegate representing the country of Turkey outlined  four  freedoms  that   the  country

believes should become a standard for human rights across the Allied and Axis nations: the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom of want, and the freedom from fear. In his speech, the delegate commented that, “They are concrete enough to where we can all adapt and work within those definitions, and they don’t restrict anyone, and they allow us to all come together and work in an international community.” Greece then stood to argue for more solidified freedoms, pointing out that vague freedoms may result in vague interpretations, and he also urged for an emphasis on the human rights of minorities – especially the Jewish population – in response to the atrocities committed by Germany’s Nazi regime.

With the topic of renewing democratic freedoms being the most prevalent thus far in the Paris Peace Conference, JHUMUNC can expect a resolution addressing human rights to come out of its 1946 session. 

Austin Watson for The New York Times

Anastasiya Stolyarova for The New York Times

Eurozone Crisis

By ANASTASIYA STOLYAROVA

The New York Times

The lessening of the value of the Euro has caused an economic crisis within the European Union (EU). Major factors of the Eurozone crisis include: government debt, banking crisis, unemployment, and the subsidizing of countries with weaker economies. The crisis has also introduced contemplation of EU dissolution.

Overall, member states of the EU agree that dissolution would be counterproductive. Isaac Mensah-Yeeoah, delegate of France, gave his position on dissolution: “I think the only way we can solve issues is if all EU countries are actively taking part in finding a solution.”

The EU provides unique trading opportunities for countries involved. Many member states have reinstated that the Eurozone crisis is a small dent in the success of the EU. However, Portugal disagrees. As a country greatly affected by the Eurozone crisis, Portugal sees their 18.5% unemployment rate as more than a small dent, and wishes to dissolve the EU. Delegate Kyle Schaefer of Portugal was asked about the personal bias associated with having a failing economy; “Bias could be a factor, but I believe the EU was just an experiment. It was created 20 years ago and left unchecked for 20 years. The EU did not have the correct knowledge or resources and it ultimately failed.”

Most member states conclude that changes to the Euro would disrupt the economy. Although Great Britain has survived off a different form of currency, it would be impractical for countries to introduce a new domestic currency in a time of economic crisis. Also, member states, such as Norway, strive to strengthen the value of the euro.

Investing in the labor force was an idea shared my many member states. The EU believes that solving the high unemployment rate in struggling countries would create a strong base for economic progress. Members did however discern that unemployment was just one factor of the Eurozone crisis.

Lastly, the prospect of including other nations in EU affairs brought mixed feelings between member states. For example, Italy and Bulgaria argued that the EU’s energy should be focused on internal affairs. While Austria and Finland wanted to introduce new nations, as long as they were economically stable, and brought improved economic conditions.

Nadav Neuman for Aljazeera

Progress at a standstill in SPECPOL

by Nadav Neuman for Al Jazeera

In the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL), there is much talk and many good points are being made, but not much action is being taken. Various nations keep making arguments regarding the impact of illicit arms trading. Other nations, argue that the impact, while important is not what the committee needs to be talking about. What needs to be talked about is the solution to the issue of illicit arms trading.

Illicit arms trading is forbidden by law. It is the trading of small arms and light weapons (SALW). SALW are infantry weapons that an individual can carry on their person.

The United States’ continued support of Israel and Egypt in war and their assistance in terms of providing them with weapons leads to illicit arms trading. So-called terrorist organizations acquire these weapons through the abandoned weapon sites of Israel and Egypt. In addition, during the Arab Spring, in nations such as Syria, Lybia and Egypt, rebel fighters gained weapons in the same ways as some terrorist groups do. The political and militaristic conflicts between the West and the Middle East initiate the acquiring of weapons by groups who are not authorized to have these weapons.

The delegation of Tunisia had an interesting stance on this issue. The delegate stated: “with the help of able-bodied countries, they can help less able countries to create a stable government which can then help to create a better education for the people so that they can maintain a stable government and control the trading of arms.” This goes along with the old proverb that “if you give a man a fish you feed him for a day but if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime.” While, Tunisia departed slightly from the main topic at hand, they provided an interesting solution for non-stable countries to control the importing of arms into their country. Going along with this, is border patrol. Border patrol is a prevalent issue in this topic. Making it more difficult to transport arms across borders will limit the amount of illicit arms trading that will happen.

SPECPOL will look to increase the effectiveness of their talks as they go into the second day of their dialogue. 

Madelyn Gee for Aljazeera

United Nations Security Council: A Question Of Intervention

by Madelyn Gee

The United Nations Security Council, as stated within the United Nations Charter, is tasked with protecting and promoting the establishment of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources. The UNSC Committee  is in the beginnings of elucidating what constitutes an 'intervention’ (defined as taking action in order to protect the safety and well-being of nations around the globe), should a need for such a response arise. Delegates of this particular committee are divided upon the issue. Some argue that any country in dire need of some sort of aid, be it economic, diplomatic, militaristic, or humanitarian, requires an immediate and justifiable response. Others support the belief that it could potentially be an infringement of pre-existing national liberties to take immediate and potentially rash action. Countries that are proponents of the need to define specifics of what constitutes intervention may not consider an intervention to be a necessity, and may consider a response from the United Nations to be unwarranted.

When interviewed, delegations took various stances on what constitutes an intervention. The delegation of Korea stated that an intervention was offering support and resources to any country that requires assistance. France asserted that acts of intervention must include the need for the Security Council to institute a series of sanctions regarding peace keeping, adequate military response, and aid to nations that express a requisite for help. On the other hand, the delegation of Luxembourg promoted the concept of a lack of definition for interventions, citing that the defining of the word meant that it would limit the amount of response the Security Council could offer to countries. The delegate from the United States insisted that the Council maintain what was outlined in the Charter of the United Nations itself in order to ensure that the UN does not infringe upon the national sovereignty of a country when considering an intervention. Finally, the United Kingdom delegation offered that an intervention is simply comprised of any sort of action to help people within a nation who cannot access the resources to help themselves. All of the delegations, however, agreed that it is necessary to develop a proper means of response to assist countries who require the resources of the United Nations. 

Lisa Dammeyer for Aljazeera

CCPCJ 2002 Starts Discussing Terrorism

 

by Lisa Dammeyer (Al Jazeera)

The Committee on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) is an ECOSOC committee focusing on the oversight of international crime. This year at JHUMUNC, the CCPCJ is set in the year 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States of America. The topics that the CCPCJ are focusing on this year are 1) Gender Equality in the Criminal Justice System and 2) Developing an International Model to Combat Terrorism.

In the very first Committee Session of JHUMUNC, the CCPCJ began their time by deciding on which topic to tackle first. After a brief debate, they decided to first debate the topic of “Developing an International Model to Combat Terrorism”. In the Speaker’s List and the following moderated caucuses, delegates debated the definition of terrorism as well as which facet of terrorism should be approached first. The debate was full of varied opinions. While the United States and Japan called for a clear definition as to what terrorism is, some countries such as Egypt argued that just one definition could be too specific. While some countries, including Ethiopia, stated that the focus should be more on the roots of terrorism, France responded by saying that there is no traceable root of terrorism.

After a few moderated caucuses and some heated debate, the committee went into an unmoderated caucus to discuss working papers. With such varied opinions amongst the committee as to how to approach the topic of terrorism, several distinct groups began to form to build working papers.

Afterwards, in a moderated caucus, two working papers were briefly discussed. One was presented by Morocco and was also supported by the United Kingdom and the United States. It defines terrorism, calls for more action to be taken against terrorists, and encourages improvements in national defence as a way to counter terrorism. Another paper, presented by Italy, India, and Germany, puts more emphasis on the prevention of terrorism.

With one productive committee session under its belt, it will be interesting to see the CCPCJ’s progression of the debate about terrorism. In addition, the debate of Gender Equality in the Criminal Justice System is still to come, and with this group of passionate delegates, it is sure to be a thought-provoking debate.