Image Credit: The Guardian

By Beatrice Nielsen

Democratic pundit Hilary Rosen made a word choice mistake last week. Ann Romney, wife of Mitt, has been called by his campaign the “Ambassador to Women.” Mr. Romney has said “My wife has the occasion, as you know, to campaign on her own and also with me, and she reports to me regularly that the issue women care about most is the economy.” During an interview on Anderson Cooper 360, Ms. Rosen discussed the fact that Ann Romney has very little in common with the average woman—and in an unfortunately-worded statement, said that Ann Romney has “never worked a day in her life” because she’s been a stay-at-home mom.

This comment opened the floodgates—women across the country have expressed their anger or dissatisfaction on one side or another. Ms. Rosen has since apologized for her remark, but has not retracted her opinion that Ann Romney’s economic status prevents her from being a true ambassador to women. She’s had the privilege to stay home. It’s not that I disrespect or don’t value moms who stay at home–it must be very hard work! But in this day and age, most American women do not have the economic security required to be a stay-at-home mom. The luxury of choosing between staying home and working is not often on the table.

In his typical fashion, Mitt Romney has managed to make this issue into a mess. At an event in Palm Beach, Mr. Romney spoke about mothers who receive unemployment benefits. “I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, well, that’s heartless. And I said, no, no, I’m willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It will cost the state more providing that day care, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.”

What?! So, Ann Romney, because she is financially well off, has the choice between working and staying home, but poor mothers need the “dignity of work”? Not only is that argument bogus, but it also reflects Mitt Romney’s complete lack of understanding about 21st century American women (and social structure!). The debate surrounding Hilary Rosen and Ann Romney is less about the choices women make, but more about the presidential candidate’s out-of-date notions of society. By bringing up issues that have been, quite honestly, addressed in the last decade (stay at home moms vs. working moms, the existence of Planned Parenthood and its benefits), Mr. Romney, millionaire and owner of several houses, has further alienated himself from the average American—exactly the opposite of what his campaign professes to represent.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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.

By Beatrice Nielsen

The situation in Syria is growing dire—not only are the Syrian people experiencing an intensely violent uprising, they experiencing a reordering of their lives. Commuting, food,  electricity, and other daily necessities are growing more and more difficult to come by.

And as this article goes to print, the death toll is rising in Homs, a major city located in the center of the nation. A massive military offensive has killed hundreds of citizens; the city has been a central stronghold for the uprisings (which have been occurring since last spring).

The violence has escalated in recent weeks, prompting the UN Security Council to deliberate over the next step to take. The resolution that is currently in the works (you can find a draft of the resolution here) endorses an Arab League-approved, democratic shift. While this does not overtly force President Bashar al-Assad to step down, it “meets the objective of supporting the demands of the Syrian people and the Arab League… providing a peaceful Syrian-led political path forward,” said a US State Department official. The Arab League issued a demand on January 22 that al-Assad step down and hand over power to a deputy and a democratically elected government.

This proposed resolution seems like a sure way to influence the bloody series of events in Syria. However, a potential Russian veto looms ahead. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, stated earlier in the resolution writing process that the text, as it was written, would not be supported by Russia; whether or not this would mean a veto or abstain vote is ambiguous.

So, why would Russia veto? A possible reason could be that the UN’s recent adaptation of a “responsibility to protect” attitude is not necessarily palatable to nations such as Russia (and China as well, for that matter). The concept of responsibility to protect is basically an acknowledgement that a country’s sovereignty is determined by its ability to protect and care for its people; this responsibility for a population, if not maintained by the nation, becomes the responsibility of the international community. It has been argued that nations such as the United States use this alleged “duty to the world” as a sort of liberal interventionism. In my opinion, the intervention in Libya on the part of the international community brought about a positive end; with so many people suffering in Syria under the iron fist of a corrupt regime, I feel that the increased support from the international community is a positive thing, not being used to further Western ideals but rather to improve a dire situation.

A US State Department official has said that they are “cautiously optimistic” that Russia will support the draft resolution at the vote; hopefully, this cautious optimism and the rapidly growing death toll in Syria will prompt some answer to the violence.

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.