February | 2012 | Arizona MUNdi

Dynamics of Protest in Russia

February 25, 2012 in The World Today

Image Credit: FunnyorDie

By Beatrice Nielsen

“We won’t allow anybody to interfere with our internal affairs and we won’t allow anybody to impose his will on us because we have a will of our own! The battle of Russia is continuing! Victory will be ours!”

This is a quote from Russia’s erstwhile Vladimir Putin, at a rare presidential campaign speech held in Moscow last week. In the year of his 60^th birthday, Prime Minister Putin will run for President of the Russian Federation for a third term. He is currently sitting at about 50 percent support rate—his victory is expected on the March 4 elections (a strong contender against Putin is not present in the race, although several politicians are trying). Since he was handpicked as the inheritor of Boris Yeltsin’s presidency, Vladimir Putin has been Mr. Russia; a longtime figurehead for the post-Soviet era Russian government, and his political backing in Moscow is strong.

But there are Russians who do not support Mr. Putin. Large numbers of these people have turned out to protest the reelection of Mr. Putin in recent months, largely in protest of the parliamentary elections held earlier this year. These parliamentary elections—which Putin’s party swept—were, and have continued to be, surrounded by accusations of fraud. In December, crowds of over 50,000 people gathered to protest and condemn purported ballot stuffing in the parliamentary elections. Protesters requested a re-count and possibly a rerun; it was the largest protest in Moscow since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The protests have continued throughout the months since the parliamentary elections—thousands of Russians have expressed excitement and desire for a new political schema in Russia. People are challenging the status quo in Russia; they are challenging Putin’s ironclad will and expressing dissent. The thousands who have turned out to voice their opinions have witnessed a shift in not only political energy, but also in how protest is combated by the government. Rather than the former tactic of harsh crackdowns on protests, the government granted authorization to the movement—maybe an appeasing strategy due to the contaminated elections.

Many protesters are now calling for the words of Mikhail Khordovsky to be followed. Khordovsky is the former richest man in Russia, and the country’s most famous political prisoner. His refusal to comply with the Kremlin in the early 2000s landed him in prison, and his oil assets to be dismantled. His comments on the upcoming presidential elections have been influential in the past weeks—he urges Russians to vote in order to get the elections to a second round of voting. This is in the hopes that Vladimir Putin and the government will take heed of the requests made by the people—if the election is not an easy win, it will perhaps spark discourse on the root of popular dissatisfaction (there is a litany of reasons as to why the Russian population is dissatisfied, the most significant of which include poverty and political opacity/oppression).

In my opinion, Putin will win the first round of elections and gain a third term—whether this will be accomplished legally or within a moral gray scale is hard to say. However, the protesters have made a significant gain. The simple fact that they are able to stand in the streets of Moscow and the steps of the Kremlin to voice their opinions is a major shift from the past.

(All of this being said, I dare you to Google Vladimir Putin and not find a ridiculous number of awesome photos—the tiger cub is just one of many—for more, click here http://www.funnyordie.com/slideshows/7df05c1f10/pictures-of-vladimir-putin-looking-like-a-complete-badass#slide1 )

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

5 Comments »

Guest Contributor: Morgan Maxwell – “Cold Snap”

February 24, 2012 in Europe, The World Today

By Morgan Maxwell

Credit: fotojournalismus.tumblr.com

A European cold front, attributed to global climate change, has made headlines after claiming between 300-600 lives. Some reports even suggest that the death toll exceeds these numbers. Most of the deaths and injuries were sustained by Europe’s homeless population and were the result of hypothermia and exposure. In some cases the cold aggravated preexisting health issues which resulted in death. By February 6^th over a week of uncommonly low temperatures across the continent demanded global attention. Reports of radical casualties and instances of hospitalization came from over a half dozen European countries, and Bulgaria suffered particular devastation when a dam broke in the village of Biser. This small rural area was submerged in 8 feet of water and at least four people were drowned.

With temperatures reported as low as -40 degrees governments are focusing their efforts on protecting the homeless. The Ukrainian government has established over 1,735 shelters, with aspirations to develop more, to provide much needed food and shelter. Similar efforts are being made across the continent but countries combat a gas shortage along with the frigid weather. Russia is one of the nations most affected but the shortage but Poland, Slovenia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Greece and Italy are all suffering. This is reflected in the average gas price which is the highest the EU has seen in three years.

Credit: kuwaittimes

As this cold snap persists we see not only the wide scale destruction abnormal weather patterns can cause, but also some underlying problems with homelessness and international relations. Countries are working toward aid and relief efforts for those affected by the cold but it doesn’t address the greater issue of basic human needs going unmet. Of the 600, or more, loss of lives the majority were people without access to shelter. This, of course, is not true for every death. Some instances are reported as the result of alcohol fueled accidents. Still, this accounts for a very small percentage. Temporary shelters are a much needed quick fix but preventative measures need to be considered. While the right to shelter is not specifically addressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the case of extreme weather conditions it is directly tied to the right to life, liberty, and the security of person. It would be absurd to suggest that the government is responsible for providing housing to all of its citizens but it is perfectly reasonable to advocate more attention paid to the homeless population.

Additionally, it is important to consider how issues regarding weather and global warming are inherently international. Like air traffic and the post system this is one of the greatest arguments for organizations like the United Nations. In the case of this cold snap, and its effect on access to fuel, the Gazprom corporation claims Ukraine must be responsible for taking excess fuel from Russia. Regardless of whether this claim is true it emphasizes the importance of organizations that encourage international cooperation. The same can be said for non-internal relief and aid efforts. In the case of emergency response it is crucial to have international bodies in place.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

No Comments »

Guest Contributor: Drowned Out By Gunfire

February 23, 2012 in The World Today

Dieter Lehmann, 20, is in his second year studying Political Science at the University of Arizona. He is from Mexico City and enjoys following the politics and news of his country while living in the U.S. This is his first year in Model United Nations.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Last week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon was in the troubled city of Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico to unveil a billboard near the international bridge that links Mexico to the United States.

The billboard is so large that it can be seen from the American side as it faces north towards the United States. This latest cry for help from the Mexican government reads in large black letters, “No More Weapons!” These letters were constructed from confiscated weapons used by the drug cartels in English, so that Americans could understand that the only way to potentially end drug violence in Mexico is to strengthen gun laws within the United States.

Before the event, President Calderon oversaw the destruction of 7,500 weapons at a military base in the city. At the event, he also stated that over 140,000 weapons had been seized since cracking down against drug cartels in December 2006.

It is commonly perceived that Americans love guns. America’s love affair with its weapons has its roots in the Constitution, which grants every American the right to bear arms. However, this fundamental right has been interpreted to mean that guns should be as easy to obtain as buying a pack of cigarettes. With the exception of states like California, New York, and New Jersey, a vast majority of states have very weak gun laws. This allows drug cartels to easily buy guns from Border States like Arizona and Texas.

By strengthening gun laws in the United States, it will become dramatically harder for drug cartels in Mexico to obtain weapons, which will also make it more difficult for them to fight the Mexican government. Without a consistent flow of weapons crossing the border, the Mexican government will be able to fight back the cartels and possibly weaken them to the point of extinction.

What does the United States have to lose by doing strengthening gun laws? Nothing. Stronger gun laws would slow the traffic of drugs from Mexico (and other areas of Latin America that use Mexico as a transit route) into the United States. Also, stricter gun laws would protect Americans from gun crimes and simultaneously bring down crime rates all over the nation. And what American official does not want a safe, secure, and stable neighbor south of the border?

It is my opinion that conservatives in this country fueled by recent debate on the unchecked growth of the federal government and the consequent rise of the Tea Party, would be even more opposed to allowing state and local governments to strengthen gun laws. They fear too much that the government wants to remove their Second Amendment rights, cease their guns, and keep them at the mercy of those in Washington. What are a few deaths here and there in a place like Mexico as long as they get to keep their shotguns, right?

Until Americans realize that their actions have consequences not only at home, but also abroad, we cannot realistically expect the Mexican cries for help to be heard or acted on.

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions, not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.

Sources

The Huffington Post

The Gaurdian

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

3 Comments »

Tweets About Muhammad Land Reporter in Hot Water

February 22, 2012 in The World Today

By Connor Shirley

“On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you”

“On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more”

“On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.”

Hamza Kashgari, a Saudi journalist, tweeted these on February 4^th, the date widely recognized to be the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. They were meant to represent what Hamza would have said if he had met the Prophet in a whimsical hypothetical situation; the backlash to the tweets has been anything but hypothetical. A prominent and prolific Islamic scholar, Abd Al-Aziz Fawzan Al-Fawzan, has stated “Whoever insults God or his messenger is to be killed without being asked for repentance for this is his sentence that must be carried out on him.”

Within a week Kashgari was fired from his job as a daily reporter for a newspaper located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He then attempted to flee to New Zealand to escape the quite literal hunt for his head. Unfortunately for Kashgari, he was detained in the Muslim-majority country of Malaysia. It is still not clear as to how he was captured; Interpol has been implicated and has denied it, and besmirching the Prophet is not a capital offense in Malaysia, so his arrest must have been purely political.

What I think is very interesting about this situation is not the reaction from the world at large, but the reaction from the Saudi people themselves. In some recent media posts, the impression has been given that it is only the regime in Saudi Arabia that is extreme. This incident proves that quite a fair portion of the populace is as extreme as the leaders of the country. To see what I’m talking about, check out this Facebook page literally calling for the death of Hamza Kashgari. It has 30,000 likes. Citing a Facebook page might seem ridiculous, but I can think of no better way to get an accurate view on the feelings of the Saudi populace right now, as most foreign companies are not allowed to poll inside the country.

Saudi Arabia has been very active in the U.N. throughout the years, being elected to a women’s right agency somewhat ironically, and making various promises to reform their own cultural views on sexism. I think the link here between the little reform achieved to the unifying effect social media has had on Saudi thought; much like some of the Wahhabis movements of the past, the ability of civilians to band together to try and return to a more puritanical and conservative society has been very influential in the current domestic policy of Saudi Arabia. It seems that some aspects of social media have allowed mainstream Islamists to become more unified, and more extreme.

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions, not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

2 Comments »

No Post Today

February 21, 2012 in Articles

Andrew Melton, the Latin American Correspondent, is on leave today because of his travels in Europe. Arizona MUNdi will continue covering the world tomorrow.

AzMUN Editorial Board

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

1 Comment »

The Shocking Origin of a Sweet Treat

February 20, 2012 in Africa, The World Today

By Chelsea Sweeney

Cocoa Beans. Courtesy of Nestle http://bit.ly/yXZF0z

Chocolate is a delicious addition to many holidays. It is used to show love and affection on Valentine’s Day, but also dreaded by parents with hyperactive children on Halloween. Like many goods in America, little thought is placed upon where this product originated, before it stocks the shelves of the local supermarket. Over 70% of the world’s cocoa, the main ingredient in chocolate, is grown in West Africa. Take a closer look at the conditions on these farms, and that sweet chocolate bar will leave a bitter taste in your mouth. Modern day slavery, or human trafficking, is a huge problem in this industry. Children make up the majority of the labor force, pushed into shocking conditions so the rest of the world can have a cheap sugar rush.

Thousands of children are trapped in cocoa production. In the race to grow cocoa in the cheapest way possible, many farmers look to child slave labor. Poverty-stricken families with no options sometimes end up selling their children to farm owners, often unaware of the horrible conditions their child will face. They are exposed to dangerous pesticides, and must work with tools such as machetes to harvest the cocoa beans. Children are often injured in harvesting and processing the cocoa, yet they are unable to leave and attend school.

The majority of this occurs in Cote d’Ivoire, where 40% of the world’s cocoa is grown. Some children are smuggled from neighboring countries such as Burkina Faso and Mali into this major cocoa producing area, which also includes Ghana, Cameroon, and Nigeria. The average age of these child workers is 12-16, but some children as young as 7 or 8 have been found harvesting cocoa beans, without ever enjoying a bite of chocolate themselves.

While the situation of these children needs greater attention, I am not calling upon the world to give up all chocolate. Giving into your sweet tooth does not always mean you are supporting child labor trafficking. There are many farmers making an honest living growing cocoa, and an absolute chocolate boycott would actually hurt their possibilities of economic development. But when large companies claim that all of their sources are farmers following fair labor standards, they are choosing to overlook the suppliers who are using child labor.

Pressure on these companies has achieved some positive results, as Hershey’s recently pledged $10 billion to address labor issues within their products. They have taken steps in the past to respond to criticisms, so time will tell if this recent move is a genuine attempt to solve this problem, or another way to generate headlines to improve their image.

It is also important to tackle this issue through wider development initiatives in the area. Yes, buying chocolate with a Fair Trade label is guaranteed to have no child labor, with all workers are paid a fair wage. But if a family is desperate enough to sell their child into slavery on a cocoa farm, they would probably find a similar avenue to take if that cocoa farm supporting child labor is shut down. The larger issue of child trafficking can be fought through the what the State Department has called the three P’s: Prevention, Prosecution, and Protection. Economic development and education will go a long way in preventing children from being targeted, and prosecution of traffickers will directly impact their trafficking business. The category of protection contains many objectives, such as helping children heal from their experiences, and providing them an education to help them grow in the future, so they would not fall back into the desperate poverty that forced them to work in the first place. If these strategies are taken more seriously, then we can be assured that the next box of chocolates we open up will be a truly sweet treat, not tainted with the bitter taste of slavery.

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions and not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

3 Comments »

Obamacare: the Religion Issue

February 18, 2012 in The World Today, United States

Image Credit: Politico

The recent compromise plan proposed by President Obama would require insurance companies to offer free coverage for contraceptives to women has sparked debate within the United States; the debate centers on the aspect of the mandate that requires employers to cover birth control. These employers could include religious hospitals, schools, and other religious institutions.

Ensuing political arguments concerning this new mandate have been, not surprisingly, delineated by party lines. The Republicans see it as fodder for election campaign propaganda, as a point against President Obama. Republicans and religious institutions alike are pointing fingers at President Obama—in my opinion, this blame is displaced, and not founded upon entirely solid arguments. Yes, a company would be required to provide birth control to its female employees. This does not mean that employees would have to be using contraceptives, and doesn’t mean that a religious institution would be paying directly for these contraceptives. President Obama has stated that insurance companies, rather than the religious employers, would be paying for birth control.

There are many hard facts that accompany this argument. Firstly, most women who are sexually active have used some form of contraceptive (about 99 percent!); the use of contraceptives prevents unwanted pregnancies, thus fewer abortions. There are many reasons as to why providing birth control methods are positive—women’s health is the most important reason for doing so. Secondly, over half of the states in the US already require that birth control be provided for in health insurance. Compulsory birth control provision in 29 states—this is already a policy widely accepted throughout the country.

So, why the debate? I think that Americans are quite sensitive about perceived infringement of constitutional rights, especially the freedom of religion aspect of the Constitution (and especially in an election year). I was surprised to discover that many Catholic institutions across the nation have actually expressed (reserved) support for the clause.

Oddly enough, the aspect of this argument over access to birth control that is most frustrating to me is President Obama’s softening of the requirements of the mandate, saying last week that the requirements for free contraception would include religiously affiliated schools and hospitals, but not actual churches.

My personal opinion is that women have fundamental rights to their own bodies. This doesn’t mean that I believe in abuse of abortions, but rather a woman’s right to privacy and personal decisions; the government and healthcare companies should encourage responsible treatment and make preventive measures affordable for women. The required provision of contraceptives for women is not designed to target freedom of religion; it is to promote reproductive health and access to preventive services. This issue is about women’s health, not hampering religious freedom; no woman would be required to use birth control—it is requiring the health insurance company carried by a company or institution to offer contraception coverage. The availability of birth control hugely affects, whether critics care to agree or not, women’s health and the health of families.

This post reflects the author’s personal opinions, not the opinions of Arizona Model United Nations.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

10 Comments »

Rebellious Romania

February 17, 2012 in Europe, The World Today

By: Zach Wojtowicz

Image source: blog-en.mitula.com

The IMF released this report just as Romanian Prime Minister Emil Boc resigned over irrepressible riots:

Feb. 6, 2012 – “Staff teams from the Wold Bank (WB), European Commission (EC) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) visited Bucharest from January 24 until February 6 for the regular review of Romania’s economic program… The teams’ assessment is that the program remains on track. All IMF quantitative performance criteria for end-December were met.”

These protests, which were sparked by government pay cuts and tax increases, quickly grew into a full scale uproar. Marchers threw bricks and stones at police, actions that led to the use of suppressive tear gas and other measures. Several protesters were injured, but, for their efforts, they achieved a collapse of the government.

But consider the a fundamental disconnect between the IMF’s report, which was issued by a special committee in a well-paneled board room, and the sentiments of the Romanian people, which were issued by way of projectile in the streets of Bucharest. Yes, the financial report addresses the “current account deficit”, “average capital adequacy ratio”, “cash deficit”, and other economic indicators. These are all fine and well, they represent important tools of assessment, but “quantitative performance criteria for end-December” cannot possibly hope to fully reflect the country’s prospects.

For one, they are trailing indicators, which inherently means they reflect past performance. An effective forecast requires consideration of all available information, even present political events. No one thought this recent but severe popular reaction to IMF austerity measures would catch fire so quickly, and the collapse of the sitting government was even more surprising. These political developments are as critical to macroeconomic performance as past macroeconomic performance. Think about it: will the economy move forward if workers are in the streets instead of at their jobs? The IMF should taken into account the political repercussions of their actions as they evaluate their success, even if politics cannot always be measured with a ruler.

When asked about this discontentment and political volatility, Romanian IMF liaison Jeffery Franks commented that he “is confident that economic reforms the fund demanded in exchange for the loan would continue, even if the current government steps down.” In this assertion, he is correct. Emil Boc’s successor, former intelligence services head Mihai-Razvan Ungureanu, has promised to “continue the unpopular economic reforms”. However, Franks fails to comment on the beneficence of the policy in a comprehensive manner.

His statements reflect a general tendency to ignore the blatant fact that social affairs such as protests are indicators of severe pain in the populace. By failing to consider both sides of the tradeoff between current pain and the prospect of future GDP growth, international loan agencies such as the IMF often take myopic stances which earn them little trust from the people. If the IMF hopes to gain the cooperation of the working people in countries where it operates, the Fund should recognize their effect on politics. A good start would be to include out-roar from the people in their analysis of the success of their programs. While contemplating all of this they might recall, if just for one moment, the crisp statement of Edward Abby: “growth for the sake of growth is the mantra of a cancer cell.”

Sources:
BBC
Newsday
Reuters
Setimes
Reuters
Boston
IMF
Reuters

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

3 Comments »

Security Council

February 16, 2012 in AzMUN High School Conference, Security Council

15.01

The missing delegation from the United States was finally replaced, and a delegate from the United States advocated the promotion of international peace. The delegates entered a moderated caucus. The delegate from Germany notified the committee of its support for the Indiandelegation, feeling that the previous resolution regarding the Pakistani crisis. The delegate from Gabon shifted his public alliance towards that of the United States, which is with India, and also highlighted the fact that the resolution was breached by China. A delegate from Russia highlighted the fact that the IAEA has no holding grounds for nuclear materials and that China was non aggressive while India exhibited belligerence.

The delegate from Brazil proposed a body of the IAEA to hold onto confiscated nuclear material. The delegate from the United States supported the proposition and expressed dedication to halt by “all necessary means” all agression and noncompliance exhibited by China. The delegate from China expressed the fact the India interfered with international cooperation by declaring war on China. The delegate from the United States feels the Indian declaration of war, along with the Chinese confiscation of the nuclear material, was rash. The US suggested that India declare a ceasefire and withdraw all troops from Chinese territory and, once all transport lines were at a peaceful state, the Chinese transfer the nuclear weaponry to international and impartial hands. The Russian delegation protested that the Pakistani government were still the rightful owners of the warhead, and that it should be returned under the rightful condition. The delegate from China reiterated the Chinese desire for peace, demonstrated by the transport of the nuclear weapon from an unstable to stable territory.

The committee moved into an unmoderated caucus.

Brazil agreed to house the nuclear warhead on behalf of the international community. India would agree to a ceasefire if the Chinese removed the warhead to a neutral territory until further notice. The delegate from China protested.

A resolution was brought to the floor that mandated a ceasefire, harsh consequences if the Chinese attempt to block the transfer of the warhead to a neutral nation until Pakistan was able to securely reposes it. Voting procedures commences, and the resolution passed unanimously. The delegate from China voted for the resolution with reservations.

Nuclear war was avoided.

The meeting of the UN Security Council was adjourned.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

14.33

The agenda was changed to the situation in China, under Presidential emergency powers, with the new agenda order standing as 6, 2, 3, 4, 5.

China and India are now in conflict, being addressed by the SC. It is noted that the dispute was of great concern due to the fact that both powers were nuclear countries. The SC entered a moderated caucus. The delegate from China blamed India for the development of the war; however, the delegate from India countered, protesting the Chinese seizure of nuclear weapons from Pakistan. The delegate from Germany supported China, believing the Chinese were peaceful, as did the delegate from Gabon and Bosnia.The delegate from France protested the removal, claiming it violated Pakistan’s sovereignty. The delegate from Russia felt that China was acting in the best interest of the world by moving the weapons, and India’s attack was uncalled for. The delegate from Bosnia questioned the delegate from India’s sanity. The delegat from Germany questioned why China did not discuss the movement of the weapons, they admitted perhaps, as the leading nation in the extraction of the Taliban from the Pakistani facility, they were correct in seizing them. The delegate from the United Kingdom disagreed, and said the Chinese should have discussed the move with the UN or the SC before the transport of the materials. The delegate from Russia commended the Chinese for taking control of the warheads, citing the lack of IAEA or UN presence to take control of the nuclear material.

A guest speaker from North Korea was called, the delegate was against the Indian military’s actions and supported that China has the international community’s best interests at hand. The delegate from India questioned the competency of the DPRK’s government, which the delegate from North Korea claimed to be a conspiracy, and that the DPRK’s government was fairly and freely elected. The delegate from Germany questioned the DPRK’s involvement in the crisis. The delegate from DPRK subsequently threatened/declared war on France, the United Kingdom and India. The delegate from Russia commended the delegate from North Korea.

The committee entered into an unmoderated caucus.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

13.54

Motion to add the topic of the “PIGS” economic crisis to the agenda failed.

Motion to reorder the agenda to 1, 3, 2, 4, 5 passed, with current topic being the situation in Syria. The session moved into a ten minute suspension of the meeting.

Amendments were submitted to conference services, so voting on special rapporteur commenced, to allow for time for the processing of the new amendments. The delegation from Russia was voted the special rapporteur.

The session moved into topic area two, the situation in Iran. The SC moved into a ten minute moderated caucus.

The delegate from Russia highlighted what it felt was rumors of Iranian weapons grade enrichment in a scheme to upset the anti-Western regime. The delegates from Germany and Gabon pointed out that enrichment of 20% has been achieved, and that it is now weapons grade material. The German delegate also called for the IAEA inspectors to have full access to the Iranian facilities. The delegate from the United Kingdom and South Africa supported Iran in peaceful nuclear development. The delegate from Gabon highlighted attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists by Israeli forces, and called upon the sate of Iran to fully comply with the IAEA inspectors.It was clarified that 30% enrichment and above is weapons grade. The delegate from Germany quoted their chancellor, ” the world must act know” in relation to Iran. The delegate from Russia highlighted the fact that Iran submitted to IAEA inspectors, except for one facility in a military zone. The delegate from Russia protested against the supposed possession of over 100 nuclear weapons by Israel and its non support of the non proliferation treaty.

Motion to reorder the agenda to 5, 2, 3, 4, 1 passed, topic area five is now being discussed, the situation in Pakistan, since the resolution for action was not formally passed, even though action was taken. The resolution was officially passed and debate was closed on the topic.

Motion to reorder agenda to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 passed, with the current topic being the situation of Syria. Draft resolution 3 with the previous amendments was brought to the floor.

The committee broke for lunch.

The SC entered a moderated caucus. The debate was closed on the Syrian resolution, and voting procedures failed to pass the resolution, with a Chinese veto. The Russian Federation gave a vote of yes.

Topic area 2, the situation in Iran, was entered. The committee entered a ten minute suspension of the meeting. Delegates proposed invading Iran to confiscate nuclear materials.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

18.16

Crisis broke within the Security Council, as a Taliban group has gained control of a nuclear facility near Islamabad, with Pakistani forces distributed at a taliban offensive a significant distance away.

Emergency motion by the Chair to reorder the agenda that topic five, the situation in Pakistan, be given priority over current and future topics. It was made clear that the topic of Syria could be reopened if closed by a three thirds vote of the Security Council.

Agenda was reordered to 5, 1, 3, 2, 4.

Delegates expressed great concern over the situation and that it required greater watch over the situation. A live stream came in from the nuclear facility to demand the removal of all Western/NATO troops from Pakistan and the surrounding areas, including Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Delegates are now debating on whether to assault the nuclear base, withdraw all troops or remain within the status quo. The terrorists are now negotiating with the delegation.

Negotiations include extending crisis talks to tomorrow, if all German troops be removed from the area. The deleegate from Germany agreed and the crises has been delayed until tomorrow, with ninety minutes beginning at the start of the next committee session.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

16.26

Motion to add worker protests in Spain to the agenda failed.

Discussion on topic area one, the situation in Syria, resumed.

Draft resolution two was presented to the floor by the delegate from Russia, which would allow for humanitarian aid for Syrian civilians with or without Syrian governmental consent. Debate will be opened up at a later time in the Security Council on using more extreme and intrusive measures if the situation did not resolve itself or worsened in a reasonable amount of time. The responsibility of defending and ensuring the successful deliverance of the humanitarian supplies would be the responsibility to the “regional powers” referenced, including the Arab League. However, the Syrian government would be given two months to accept any aid, and, failing to do so, would be subjected to a military force accompanying the humanitarian aid. An amendment was proposed to authorize the use of force to protect against the seizing of humanitarian goods by the Syrian government.

The agenda topics were rearranged to follow the order of 1, 3, 2, 5, 4.

Motion to add worker protests in Spain to the agenda failed for the third time.

Debate on amendments to the resolutions has begun.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

15.46

The approved agenda for the Security Council stands as the situation in Syria, situation in Iran, situation in Pakistan, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and education.

The limits on debate are three minutes including five points of inquiry.

On the topic of the situation in Syria:

The delegate from Gabon advocate immediate UN intervention, including humanitarian aid, medical aid, cooperation of NGOs, and replacement of the Assad regime. He also admitted the militaristic intervention may be an option. The delegate from Russia highlighted the ineffectiveness of the air strikes by NATO in Libya; the delegate from Gabon disagreed. The delegate from India expressed support for humanitarian and medical aid, but protested UN funding for the overthrow of the Assad regime, highlighting the failure if implementing new regimes in previous internationally-engineered coups.

The delegate from Germany highlighted Germany’s desire for peace in Syria and expressed militaristic force as an option. The delegate from Russia questioned the German offer of aid, expressing concern for the sovereignty of the Syrian government.The delegate from the United Kingdom advocated for the democratic response from the Syrian people rather than international militaristic imposition of a regime. The delegate from Germany highlighted the need of the Syrian people for the international community to militaristically create such an environment for freedom of governmental choice.

The delegate from Russia expressed outrage at the previous proposals, and feels that UN intervention is unnecessary and that actions by individual nations and other international organizations, such as the Arab League, against Syria, have been sufficient. The delegate from Russia expressed confidence in the protesters’ ability to overthrow the Assad regime. Russia also supports humanitarian and medical aid if such aid did not affect or impede Syrian governmental proceedings.

A clear majority voted for a twenty five minute suspension of the meeting.

The delegate from Brazil suggested UN peacekeeping operations as a possible remedy; however limitations of the operations were highlighted.

The meeting was suspended for thirty minutes.

Thanks for installing the Bottom of every post plugin by Corey Salzano. Contact me if you need custom WordPress plugins or website design.

No Comments »