Ice, Ice, Baby: The Role of the Arctic Council in a Warmed-Up World

March 31, 2012 in The World Today, United States

Beatrice Nielsen

When I first read about the Arctic Council, it took some serious Googling to determine that it was in fact a real organization. I was surprised to find that it is indeed not a figment of a science fiction writer’s or Internet prankster’s imagination, but rather a council that will, in the coming years, have a wide scope of influence in determining international trade and travel routes.

The Ottawa Declaration founded the Arctic Council in 1996. It is an intergovernmental forum comprised of the United States, Canada, Norway, Russia, Denmark (technically Greenland, which is a fief of Denmark), Sweden, Finland, and Iceland—all nations that have land on the northern pole of the Earth. This council was designed to promote discourse, cooperation, and coordination between the Arctic nations and indigenous populations inhabiting the regions.

With the onset of global warming and a need to locate more natural resources, the Arctic Council has become increasingly influential on the international political scene—the arguments of the past between nations on the Council have included those of maritime borders, the status of the North Pole, and the treatment of indigent peoples.

The polar ice caps are part of what keeps our planet cool; the reflective nature of ice causes sunlight to be directed away from earth; the dark oceans of the Arctic absorb sunlight, which speeds the warming of the planet. In the last century, Arctic waters have risen in temperature by 3.5 degrees, the most rapid rate of warming on the planet. According to some scientists, the Arctic Ocean will remain perennially ice-free by 2030. This brings tears to the eyes of environmentalists (and, frankly, realists afraid of impending global catastrophe, as well). But these statistics belie the political benefits of the warming of the Arctic. The Arctic regions boast vast stores of unexplored oil and natural gas repositories—making it an incredibly desirable investment. Already, nations around the world are clamoring to gain Arctic Council observer status—with somewhat lukewarm responses from the Arctic nations.

So, what are the direct effects of global warming opening up the Arctic Circle? For now, nations that are members of the Arctic Council stand to gain a lot economically, and with regard to trading partners. But other nations hope to be reaping the economic and social benefits, as well. Potential investors (those clamoring for observer status in the big boy’s club of the Arctic Circle) include the EU, China, Japan will all have economic stakes in maintaining the trade routes that cut through the Arctic. The ship time from Asia to Europe will be halved.

Now, this aspect of the melting down of the polar ice caps is positive. Trade perks, like shorter shipping times, are terrific for economies party to the trade routes. However, as I discussed last week, we need to analyze more closely the negative aspects of this—instead of accepting the melting as a reality, couldn’t we look at more effective ways of stopping it?

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

Trade with Teeth

March 30, 2012 in Articles, Europe, The World Today

By Zach Wojtowicz

Credit: cch.mntzion.com

Credit: cch.mntzion.com

The European common market is at the core of the EU philosophy. Over the last decades, the continent has seen a rapid lessening of trade and labor restrictions. Yet, antithetical to this internal mantra of freedom and economic competition, the European Commission is looking to strengthen its ability to wage economic battle with foreign countries. 

A new proposal, drafted by the trade commissioners from France and Belgium, would grant the European Commission the ability to restrict public procurement markets within member nations. These markets are where governments contract services such as water, energy, transport, and postal services with private enterprises. Currently, some of these contracts are made with firms in the contracting country, some between EU members, and some with non-EU foreigners. Under this new proposal, the European Commission could bar foreign countries from bidding on these contracts if they were not deemed to be sufficiently trade-friendly by the EU.

 According to the two author delegates, the proposal was formed in response to requests by a pervious summit to “promote [European] interests and values more assertively and in the spirit of reciprocity and mutual benefit”. As the Union consolidates power, it is discovering that it might be able to throw its weight around in the international trade arena to its benefit. In fact, this was one of the less publicized and less glorified reasons for creating the European economic union in the first place. Post-war Europe was smart enough to realize that, without unification, it would be along for a long ride of American global domination. This fact, and recent moves by developing countries (such as China) to corner entire markets by monopolizing natural resources only adds to Europe’s drive for strengthened trade negotiations.

While it may be sensible that the EU take aggressive measures to promote free trade around the world, the short-term benefits of such policy to the EU are questionable. Germany, as presented in its formal response to the measure, thinks negatively about the maneuver, claiming that “ =the EU’s leverage in negotiations with third countries can be strengthened by other means” and that “The proposal will seriously damage the creditability of the EU in its fight against protectionist measures established elsewhere”. I personally agree with Germany. Two hundred years of political economy show that protectionism, whether it be on a national or in this case continental scale, generally leads to outcomes where everyone loses. 

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

Pope’s Visit to Mexico: Pastoral or Political?

March 29, 2012 in Articles, México, The World Today

By Michelle Moraila

The Mexican Catholic population greeted Pope Benedict XVI’s with open arms and sombreros this past Friday when he arrived in Guanajuato, the overwhelmingly Catholic state located smack-dab in the middle of the country. Though the head of the Holy See is on a strictly pastoral visit throughout Mexico and Cuba, he was quick to comment on the drug violence and corruption in Mexican politics. This prompted many to question his true motives and wonder if it is the presidential candidates’ strategy to gain political approval and votes.

83% of Mexico is Catholic. Logically it would be in the candidates’ best interest to win over this vote. Calderon, a Catholic himself, personally invited the Pope to Mexico during a visit to the Vatican in 2007. The pontiff’s acceptance will likely bring him and the PAN approval by the Catholic sector because of its conservativeness.

As for the other parties, winning the Catholic vote could also help them out. Enrique Peña Nieto, the leading candidate for the PRI, attended this past Sunday’s Papal Mass, a move that could potentially harm him or help him because of his party’s strong church-state opposition.

But the Catholic vote is not necessarily definitive in the upcoming elections. As a matter of fact, voters have a tendency to push for church-state separation and believe the Church meddling with politics is harmful. However, candidates understand that failure to attend an event as big as the Papal Mass could mean losing presence.

This could be a mere religious pilgrimage; still, many are skeptical and believe this is an attempt from the Mexican government to appear…honest. Pope Benedict XVI’s visit was conveniently timed at the height of presidential campaigning and just three months before elections. Candidates should be careful when dealing with delicate issues as these, for it could mean risking losing the votes of practitioners of other religions.

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

Civil Liberties in Kuwait

March 28, 2012 in Middle East, The World Today

by Morgan Maxwell

The aftermath of the attack on Scope TV's main studio by Awazem tribe members

While arguments regarding the right to birth control dominate media attention in America, the nation of Kuwait is experiencing a similar consideration of civil liberties. A series of suggested amendments to Kuwaiti audiovisual laws are proving to be the source of a great deal of contention. Among the proposed changes are: a one to two year penalty for any person insulting god, an increase of fines for publishing news without a license, and a KD1 million fine for damaging national unity.

The restrictions were suggested after an incident in which the chief of the Awazem tribe was allegedly criticized during a Scope TV live broadcast. Over 150 tribe members responded with an attack on the network building and damaging the network’s property. Reports also suggest that attackers attempted to burn the building down with no success. Al-Qallaf, the man responsible for the alleged statements against the chief, soon issued a formal apology for the misinterpretation of his statement and for compromising national unity. Both parties are facing prosecution and Al-Qallaf’s remarks have resulted in some measure of public outcry defending Al-Qallaf’s patriotism and dedication to Kuwait.

Despite the Scope TV incident many argue the proposed media restrictions threaten to drastically affect the range of Kuwaiti press and broadcasting. One of the most vocal opposing organizations is the Kuwait Journalists Association which has called for a boycott of responsible law makers. They feel as though the audiovisual amendments infringe on personal and press liberties afforded by the Kuwaiti constitution. Whether or not this is the case, is unclear. Article 37 of the Kuwaiti Constitution establishes freedom of the press but only within the limits specified by other law. The phrasing of article 37 allows for a great deal of interpretation and offers no concrete grounds for objections to the proposed restrictions.  Additionally, both the Constitution’s preamble and Article 2 clearly outline the role of the Islamic religion in the legislative process. This would suggest that the proposed restrictions are supported rather than refuted by the Kuwaiti constitution. The issue then becomes more a matter of moral justification than legal justification.

The spirit of national pride and unity is an arguably integral part of a functioning society. Still, its importance isn’t necessarily great enough to defend infringement on civil liberties. The ability of the press to provide a fair and accurate account of current issues is just as central to the effective operation of society. Limiting broadcasts because they may upset individuals or differ from public opinion is contrary to the function of media. The laws regarding the range of media topics in Kuwait already seem to interfere with the presentation of news and increasing their scope, regardless of the justification, is not in the best interests of the nation.

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

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

Is it Time for a Change in Strategy in the Fight Against Drug Violence?

March 27, 2012 in Latin America, The World Today

Guatemalan President Perez Molin

By Andrew Melton

The Americas have a drug problem. The ethics surrounding drug consumption are debatable, however what is not debatable is the atrocious level of violence that accompanies the drug trade.  Tens of thousands have lost their lives as a result of drug trafficking in just the past few years. With the United States’ War on Drugs entering its fifth decade and progress painfully elusive, many are demanding a change in strategy.

The president of Guatemala, Otto Perez Molina, recently proposed the idea of drug decriminalization as a means of curbing drug related violence. This proposed course of action is as old as the War on Drugs itself. Many argue that drug legalization would bring the trade out in the open, reducing the need for violence committed by organized crime groups. The outcome would be similar to that following the repeal of prohibition in the United States.

On the other hand, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega has come out in opposition to such a radical change in strategy. He told journalists, “Depenalization is like saying we’ve lost. It would be legalizing crime, because promoting drug consumption, facilitating drug consumption, is a criminal act.” The El Salvadoran president agreed with President Ortega in his desire to maintain the current policy, however he also feels President Molina’s proposed strategy is healthy for debate.

When Saturday’s drug summit in Guatemala finally arrived, only three heads of state were in attendance. The presidents of Panama and Costa Rica met with President Molina, however Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador all chose to send representatives in order to communicate their disapproval of Molina’s proposed strategy.

Personally, I believe legalizing marijuana and regulating it similarly to the alcohol industry would be helpful in the fight against drug violence in Latin America. If the United States were allowed to increase its domestic supply, it would reduce the demand for marijuana coming from Mexico and Central America. Hopefully, this move would cripple the marijuana trade and the violence surrounding it.

However, I would stop there. No one should truly expect a government to legalize the more addictive and dangerous drugs such as cocaine and heroine. The United States has learned much in regards to identifying and dismantling international criminal networks as a result of its decade long War on Terror. I believe that in the coming decade, as its focus and resources move away from Afghanistan, the United States in partnership with Latin American governments will be better able to apply the knowledge and means required to destroy the organizations trafficking these hard drugs.

It should not be a black or white choice between legalization and use of force. As is almost always the case, the best strategy is a balanced approach. Legalize and regulate marijuana, and the Latin American governments in partnership with the United States will be able to use the addition of available resources to more aggressively pursue the organizations trafficking hard drugs. Though I may not fully agree with President Molina, I do believe it healthy to discuss all possible courses of action.

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

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

Mali’s Military Coup

March 26, 2012 in Africa, The World Today

by Chelsea Sweeney

Tuareg Fighters AP Photo/David Guttenfelder

The government of Mali is the latest to fall as a result of the Arab Spring revolutions.  Last week’s military coup was a surprise to the world, as Mali has been a democratic country for the last twenty years.  The current president, Amadou Toumani Toure, came to power by leading a military coup against a violent dictator in 1991.  He willingly handed over power to a civilian government, and only returned to politics after winning fair elections in 2002.  He was reelected president in 2007, and planned to follow constitutional limits on presidential terms by stepping down after next month’s elections.   There are few grievances against the government and its leader, except within the Malian army.  They are furious at the government’s response to the current Tuareg rebellion in the northern part of the country.

The Tuaregs are a nomadic people who live in the Sahara, predominantly in southern Algeria and Libya, and northern Niger and Mali.  There are estimated to be 2-3 million Tuaregs, with one million concentrated in northern Mali.  The Tuareg have long been unhappy with their treatment from the government, and desire their own state, Azawad, in northern Mali.  Mali’s history has been marked by multiple Tuareg rebellions, but they were never successful.  A 2009 peace agreement appeared to end the fighting, but the death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has unexpectedly tipped the scales.

Gaddafi was a strong supporter of rebellions and military movements throughout Africa, including the Tuareg.  When his rule was challenged, the Tuareg fought on his side against the Libyan revolutionaries.  Although Gaddafi was killed, the Tuareg people did not go home empty handed.  The new weaponry they acquired in Libya was brought back to Mali, and is being used to reinvigorate their battle against the Malian government.  In past rebellions, the Tuaregs were defeated by the better equipped Mali army.  But the Tuaregs are now fighting with more sophisticated weaponry, and will not be forced back into desert hideaways.  The Tuaregs are now organized under the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, or MNLA,  and have been taking control of strategic towns in the north, putting up an impressive fight.

The Malian army has been protesting for months at the lack of suitable weapons and equipment needed to fight this rebellion, and are also frustrated by the lack of good leadership required to combat the strong Tuareg fighters.  The tensions could no longer be contained, and the army essentially staged a rebellion to better fight another rebellion.  But it is currently unclear how the military will use their new power to effectively fight the Tuaregs. Government instability may just give strength to the Tuareg cause, and some western governments have condemned the coup and cut off aid to the country until Toure is reinstated as president.  The army certainly had reason for their anger, but it is unlikely that this coup will give them a better position to fight the Tuareg forces.

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

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

Chinese, Taiwanese or American?

March 25, 2012 in Asia, The World Today

by Hugo Polanco

Chinese, Taiwanese, or American. How exactly do you classify Jeremy Lin. For those that have been living under a rock these past months, or just don’t care about basketball, Jeremy Lin is a new international superstar playing for the New York Knicks. Lin is an interesting man, and far different from the average NBA superstar. For one his rise to fame was rapid and almost completely unexpected. Up until a few months ago, Lin was an unknown third rate player mostly warming the bench for various teams and living off his brother’s couch to save money. This is in stark contrast to other players of equivalent skill, whose careers are traced throughout college, and whose rise to stardom are closely anticipated. Lin may have been ignored until now because of his ethnic origin. It is clear that Black Americans and European or European descended players dominate the league. The only other Asian players are giant men, who look like they were designed in a lab in China to play center and who like Yao Ming were trained by the government since birth to play basketball. Lin at 6’4’’, with a fluid style of play, Harvard Education and American birth is in stark contrast to this norm. His rise to stardom has been dubbed “Linsanity” and while in the United States the furor surrounding his rise has subsided, in Asia Lin is still King. Newspapers in Taiwan and China comment in great length over his strategy, his jerseys are still sold out, and sports bars become flooded with eager fans during ever Knicks game. But seeing his immense popularity in China, Taiwan and the United States only begs the question, what is he?

This question is not easily answered, for one all three terms are not exactly mutually exclusive. His American identity is clear for one, no one but the most ardent bigot would deny that the American born and raised Lin is American. The confusion lies in his Chinese and Taiwanese identity. Again these two terms are not exactly mutually  exclusive but they have spouted a heated debate amongst Taiwanese and Chinese commentators and opened  a whole new array of issues over the broader Taiwanese identity. To start off, Lin’s parent’s are both from Taiwan and later emigrated to the United States making his connection to Taiwan clear. The Chinese claim to Lin lies is based on two arguments. One is that his grandmother is Chinese born and was one of the millions of Chinese that fled to Taiwan following the end of the Chinese Civil War. The other argument is that all Taiwanese are Chinese anyways since Taiwan is a renegade province that should be reunited with the mainland. This second argument if anything infuriates some Taiwanese. After 100 years of near total political separation from the mainland, a new Taiwanese identity has emerged. Because English lacks a neat term to differentiate between ethnic Chinese, which unequivocally includes Lin and most Taiwanese, and political Chinese, which includes only residents of the PRC, using the term Chinese to describe Lin can set off a raw nerve amongst some people.

For his part Lin has managed this perilous walk between all three sides incredibly well. He has acted like the filial son of quarreling divorced parents. He was not overtly taken any sides and has cemented his relationship with both areas by frequently visiting Taiwan and by taking a trip to pay homage to his grandmother’s hometown in China. It certainly helps that this stance has raked in untold profits from Chinese and Taiwanese merchandise sales but Lin represents a bright spot in cross-strait relations. It is certainly shocking that an American born basketball player has joined with Sun Yat-sen to be one of the few individuals subject to adulation on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.   

 

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

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

Keystone XL and Barack Obama

March 24, 2012 in The World Today, United States

Still from the film Petropolis, about the environmental disaster of the Alberta Tar Sands

Beatrice Nielsen

How do we weigh political stability and lower gas prices against environmental degradation?

This is the question that rests heavy on the shoulders of US President Barack Obama. In the last few months, the TransCanada Corporation has pushed for the United States’ approval of the plan to expand the Keystone oil pipeline. Called Keystone XL, the extension would connect Canadian oil resources—specifically the tar sands in Alberta—to the oil refining Gulf Coast region of the United States. President Obama, instead of immediately approving the plan, requested that TransCanada Corp. reroute and resubmit for a permit—an act that was highly criticized by Republicans.

According to some analysts, the massive undertaking of Keystone XL could put a downward push on US gas prices. This prospect is politically appealing to Mr. Obama—rising gas prices are not desirable in an election year. The situation in Iran, with EU and United States sanctions, threats about closing the Straits of Hormuz to tankers, and general tension in the region have pushed gas prices up. President Obama is facing incredible pressure from conservatives to take action against these rising gas prices—action in the form of drilling and/or opening up federal land to exploration. And, with approval of Keystone XL, President Obama’s administration is on track to achieve what his predecessors could not: lowering our dependence on Persian Gulf crude oil reserves.

In the 2008 election, many Americans hoped that the promises of Barack Obama in terms of the environment would come true—that carbon taxes would emerge, and that alternative energy options would be researched further. However, the Keystone XL project reduces, in the minds of many, the need to explore alternative energy. Because, hey! We found more oil! The environmental costs of approving Keystone XL are immense. Tar sand oil is polluting and difficult to refineIt is not only the pipeline itself that will be destructive, but also the message that the approval itself will send to the United States population and the world. The vast amount of oil resources in Alberta essentially prevents a sense of urgency to transition to renewable energy. Most Americans desire immediate relief—lower gas prices—and do not think about the long-term effects.

We need to look past the short-term relief of oil resources from Keystone XL and embrace policy that will actually work to decrease the effects of global warming. I am opposed to the approval of this pipeline—not because I want to remain entrenched in Persian Gulf oil, not because I think that global warming will be stopped if Mr. Obama does not approve Keystone, but because not approving it would force the US to take a step in the direction of conservation and alternative energy. That is change I want to see.

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

 

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

The Pan-European Identity

March 23, 2012 in Articles, Europe, The World Today

By: Zach Wojtowicz

Photo Credit: avrupanaliz.files.wordpress.com

Photo Credit: avrupanaliz.files.wordpress.com

Americans identify themselves as just that: American. It is rare to hear someone speak of themselves as an Organite, a Missippian, or a Rhode Islander. We embody a seemingly paradoxical heritage: E pluribus unum, or ‘from many, one”. This motto summarizes our belief that a brilliant national culture, greater than the sum of its parts, emerges from the composition of many subcultures, each contributing their strongest aspect. In a time when the phrase “United States of Europe” is in vogue, it seems strange that French still identify themselves as French, the Spanish as Spanish, and so on. What makes Europeans subsumed under their Union fundamentally different from American states subsumed under ours? 

History shows us that the basic philosophy of the articles of confederation – that of retained state sovereignty but coordinated trade, travel, and defense – resembles the modern European Union. We also can see that a bloody civil war in America motivated nationalism in the same way that two bloody continental wars spawned European super-nationalism. However, the American Civil War took place a full century before the idea of a European identity was used to promote peace. In that extra 100 years of development, the United States saw state’s rights used as an excuse to propagate racism, resulting in the ultimate legal destruction of state’s rights and, therefore, a shameful stigma associated with state pride. While it is hard to imagine that a similar legal degradation of national sovereignty will take place in Europe over racial matters, it is not difficult to imagine that such contentious lines might be drawn over economic difficulties. With time, the tension over fiscal irresponsibility might temper the loudest nationalists, at least momentarily as their country is being bailed out by the wider Union. 

A second component is cultural homogeneity. At its founding, the United States spoke English and adopted protestant cultural values, a sense of agrarian work ethic, and English common law. While large portions of immigrants joined the United States over time, the entrepreneurial spirit of the US created an economic incentive to conform the the existing basis of English Protestantism. Yes, there are many ills to the American history of political and economic control by a small class, but the aspiration of those seeking to attain that class, the “American Dream”, did contribute greatly to cultural integration. However, the European Union was formed as a conglomeration of cultures, and not the addition of cultures to a predominant base, so there has been no single standard to conform to. This makes the process of cultural assimilation more complicated, but not impossible. Smaller nations that are less influential in trade and politics will eventually adopt the language and practice of larger nations – France, Germany, England, Spain, and Italy – in order to participate. This is already taking place, and with time, the convergence of culture will greatly facilitate the equitable access to opportunity across Europe.

The final factor is a difference in political structure. In the US, each state is completely dependent on the federal government. In Europe, however, each nation maintains a fully functioning government which, if the EU were to disappear, would largely be able to maintain its status quo. This is the common perception of many Europeans, who can remember the days when their government was independent. This notion is strengthened by the fact that European heads of state are still far and away the most visible legislatures in the EU, which gives a feeling that people are not common citizens of Europe, but rather their country is a citizen of Europe, and they are simply a citizen of their country.

I believe that, in time, Europe will begin to develop a super-nationalistic unity similar to that developed in the Americas. That this is an common consequence of modernization, and made even more likely by the legal unification of Europe. The question remains: Will this be a good thing?

 

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

7.8 Earthquake Hits Mexico, No Reported Deaths

March 22, 2012 in México, The World Today

By Michelle Moraila

A powerful 7.8 earthquake shook Mexico this past Tuesday around noon, Mexico City time, disrupting everyday activities throughout the country and bringing damages to buildings and roads but no reported casualties. The quake’s epicenter took place between the borders of the southern states Guerrero and Oaxaca, two medium-sized states located about 200 miles south of Mexico City. Nine injuries were reported in Oaxaca but so far none in Guerrero.

Despite the distance, several other states and the capital felt one of at least 18 aftershocks ranging in magnitudes between 4.6 and 5.3. The earthquake caused a pedestrian bridge to collapse on a small empty bus, injuring its driver and one other person, but no critical injuries occurred. The metro and a couple bus routes were suspended for a couple of minutes but later resumed regular circulation.

In Oaxaca and throughout the country, people feared another earthquake would happen in the middle of the night or in the morning. Buildings were evacuated and the exact number of schools that suspended classes throughout the country is unclear but in the thousands. The National Seismological System hoped the activity would lessen as the hours passed, but many lacked sleep that night and evacuated their homes.

The states located near the epicenter suffered the worst damages. In Guerrero, 60 houses collapsed and about 800 others were damaged. As for Oaxaca, 38 schools were damaged but no buildings collapsed. Officials attribute this to the lack of tall buildings around that area.

Oaxaca and Guerrero are two of the poorest rural states in Mexico and the damages could take years to be repaired. The damages are still fresh and no estimates of how much it will cost to restore everything have been reported.

Earthquakes are common throughout the country. Since 1973, fifteen quakes with magnitudes of seven or more have been recorded near Tuesday’s epicenter. As you learned in a previous MUNdi article, Mexico City is built on a lake, and the soil beneath it magnifies seismic waves. In 1985, an 8.5 earthquake hit Mexico City killing 10,000 people and destroying 400 buildings. Because of that catastrophe stricter building regulations were implemented and buildings are stronger now. The majority of buildings now have large signs depicting evacuation routes and buildings are stronger.

In other news, happy belated birthday to President Benito Juarez! He was born on March 21, 1806 and, ironically, hailed from Oaxaca.

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

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