|
In recent years, global warming has been worsening and negatively affecting nature as well as people. Even with the actions of environmentalists like Greta Thunberg, the need to protect and restore our planet increases every day. In 2020, the European Environment Agency assessed that the state of nature in the European Union (EU) is in severe decline. Notably, only 15% of EU habitats are in good condition, and 50% of areas with pollinator-dependent crops do not provide suitable conditions for pollinators. Due to the worsening of the situation, in December 2019, just after becoming the new president of the EU, Ursula von der Leyen made a speech where she introduced the European Green New Deal (GND): a package of policy initiatives to bring the European Union and its 27 countries on a green path, reaching climate neutrality by 2050. Leyen explained, “Our goal is to reconcile the economy with our planet, to reconcile the way we produce and the way we consume with our planet and to make it work for our people.” Without being a simple, general, and hopeful statement, the GND has specific areas it aims to improve, including energy, climate, the environment, industry, transport, agriculture, and sustainable finance, each with its specific goals to obtain the final objective together with a holistic approach. One of the packages included in the Green New Deal is Fit for 55. Fit for 55 aims to reduce EU emissions by at least 55% by 2030. Through a set of proposals to revise and update EU legislation, this package will guarantee an equitable and socially fair shift, enhance the innovation and competitiveness of the European Union's industry, and reinforce the European Union's role as a leader in the worldwide effort to combat climate change. Included in Fit for 55 are reforms for the EU emissions trading system, one of the world's largest carbon markets, more ambitious, and a fund, the Social Climate Fund, to support the most affected businesses and citizens. Another key action of the GND is Farm to Fork, a strategy intended to shift the current EU food system towards a sustainable model. The decision for agriculture to be one of the focuses of the New Deal is due to the sector’s substantial impact on the environment. According to Monica Crippa, a scientist at the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research, a third of the world's greenhouse gas emissions comes from food systems. This strategy includes the Organic Action Plan, which has the goal of increasing and advancing organic production to reach 25% of the EU's agricultural land use by 2030. Furthermore, Farm to Fork also includes a Food Security Plan, a contingency plan to ensure food security in Europe during crises. The Green New Deal also takes into account the fact that reaching climate neutrality by 2050 will pose greater challenges for certain member states, such as regions with a carbon intensive industry or reliant on fossil fuels, compared to others. To acknowledge this, the EU has introduced a Just Transition Mechanism to provide regions most impacted by the shift towards a low-carbon economy with financial and technical support. Over the period 2021-2027, the Just Transition Mechanism has the ambition to mobilize €100 billion to enhance job prospects and skill development, advance energy-efficient housing, address energy poverty, as well as many other initiatives. However, not every country agrees with the New Deal. In her speech, Leyen said, “This transition will either be working for all and be just, or it will not work at all,” yet Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban described the Green New Deal as a “utopian fantasy.” There is still a distrust of EU policies and narratives of change and progress in the Eastern European region, partially due to negative experiences with transition periods. Orban even blamed green measures for pushing up energy costs in Europe. The various differences and divisions in the EU aren’t the only thing posing a challenge for the GND, the extremely high costs to put the New Deal in action also obstacle the deal. According to researchers, transitioning from coal, nuclear, and natural gas to 100% renewable energy sources would require over $5 trillion. The Green New Deal would also significantly empower the federal government’s influence over various aspects of energy production, consumption, agriculture, housing construction, transportation, and manufacturing. It would also result in negative impacts on the environment rather than positive ones: to create more renewable technologies, companies still have to mine the materials, manufacture the product and deal with the waste streams. Even though the Green New Deal faces several obstacles, it provides a clear structure and action plan to tackle the climate crisis in the various areas it affects. It recognizes that fossil fuel-reliant regions will encounter more struggles than Western member states and that to fight the environmental emergency it is necessary to also confront economic and social inequality. The GND also offers hope to many people, especially with the increase in worry towards global warming. The underlying question surrounding this entire package of policy initiatives is, Will it work? Throughout time many goals and objectives have been presented, and not many achieved due to inadequate enforcement of environmental regulations, characterized by insufficient coordination among government departments, limited institutional capability, restricted access to information, and other reasons. It is important to support the GND in creating a fair and rigorous society that it aims to be, our planet is suffering and we must save it. Bibliography
Apaydin, Daniela. “Why for Some Parts of the EU, the Green Deal Is a No Deal.” Fair Observer, October 24, 2023. https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/daniela-apaydin-eu-green-new-deal-climate-policy-divisions-17600/. Crippa, M., E. Solazzo, D. Guizzardi, F. Monforti-Ferrario, F. N. Tubiello, and A. Leip. “Food Systems Are Responsible for a Third of Global Anthropogenic GHG Emissions.” Nature Food 2, no. 3 (March 8, 2021): 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9. European Council. “European Green Deal.” Accessed October 30, 2023. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/. Loris, Nicolas. “It’s Not Just About Cost. The Green New Deal Is Bad Environmental Policy, Too.” The Heritage Foundation. Accessed October 30, 2023. https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/its-not-just-about-cost-the-green-new-deal-bad-environmental-policy-too. European Commission - European Commission. “Press Corner.” Accessed October 30, 2023. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/speech_19_6749. Programme, United Nations Environment. “Dramatic Growth in Laws to Protect Environment, but Widespread Failure to Enforce, Finds Report.” UN Environment. Accessed October 30, 2023. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/dramatic-growth-laws-protect-environment-widespread-failure-enforce.
0 Comments
The weaponization of pathogens is a concerning issue that has the potential to disrupt international peace and the stability of the world. Some would even say that is a threat to humanity itself seeing the devastation that some epidemics/pandemics have caused in the past. Pathogens include viruses, bacteria, and other microorganisms capable of causing disease. They have been a part of history throughout humanity's existence with a notable example being the black plague during medieval times. While they are natural entities and often viewed as adversaries of human health, they can be transformed into tools of warfare or terror that differ themselves from the use of conventional warfare weapons. The origins of pathogen weaponization date to the early 20th century, with the development of biological weapons during World War I. Since then humanity has witnessed further developments in biological warfare with a major notable example being anthrax. The first real use of biological weapons was during World War 1. In this case the biological weapons were not used against humans but rather against animals in an attempt to sabotage allied forces by infecting their horses which at the time were still used in war. Then during World War 2 Japan was by far the biggest user of biological weapons out of all nations in the war. The infamous Japanese Unit 731 infected prisoners of wars with horrible diseases to analyze the effects, lethality, and effectiveness of harmful pathogens. It also dropped plague infested “flea-bombs” on Chinese cities even though the consequences were not catastrophic as the plague was already endemic to the region. These were some of the first mass scale use of biological weapons. After World War 2 mainly two nations were investing in the research and development of biological weapons. These were the USA and the Soviet Union. Both nations attempted to enlarge their biological warfare capabilities. The most controversial aspect of the USA’s program was when they purposefully deployed relatively harmless pathogens in US cities to test its effects and how such pathogens would spread. Additionally, the military throughout these programs unintentionally infected 11 civilians out of which one died. In 1969 the US had weaponized anthrax, one of the most common biological weapons thanks to how easy it is to produce and its effectiveness, that is still present to this day. However, in 1975 the US disbanded such programs after signing the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and should in theory to this day no longer possess any form of biological weapon. Similarly, the Soviets also manufactured large amounts of anthrax. In fact an accidental release of it caused 66 deaths. In 1989 they were able to weaponize a virus known as Marburg which causes hemorrhagic fever similar to the one caused by ebola. In 1992 Russia ended all of its biological weapon programs but the fate of the stockpile is still not clear. Nowadays because most nations have given up on bio-weapon programs the real threat does not come from a war between nations but rather from bio-terrorism. It has always been a major fear of a number of nations including the US that terrorist organizations could attempt to weaponize pathogens in order to cause large scale bio attacks against a target which could potentially kill hundreds of thousands if not millions of civilians. Some analysts disagree on the fact that terrorists are capable of conducting large scale bio-weapon attacks. For example one of the most recent examples was an anthrax attack on the US in 2001 that only ended up killing 5 people. On the other hand, other experts disagree and believe that bio-terrorism could be one of the greatest threats to humanity. One of the major causes of concern is the various methods through which a bio-weapon such as anthrax could be deployed with relative ease as well. Anthrax in particular could be a great option for extremist organizations looking to weaponize pathogens as it requires little expertise to grow and eventually weaponize. There are also a variety of ways that such terrorists could deploy these weapons making the deployment process an easy one as well. The first option would be to contaminate food and water supplies. The second one would be to use bombs and shells that contain the weaponized pathogen and shoot them in the area of interest. Another option would be to simply deploy them through the use of aircraft carrying aerosolized agents containing the pathogen. Other two more direct methods would be through direct injection of the pathogen into individuals or the possible use of “suicide infectees”. This last option would essentially involve sending infected individuals in the area of interest to spread the pathogen to the rest of the population. For example if a crop duster plane full of anthrax flew over a major city it could potentially cause millions of casualties. Still bio-terrorism remains more of a psychological weapon rather than an actual physical one. It is still difficult to plan and carry out a bioterrorist attack and its effects remain mostly psychological. For example, in 2001 when an anthrax attack took place in the US only five people died but nevertheless, it caused mass disruptions in the postal service and led to massive new expenses in an attempt to ensure that the issue was contained. This response many would believe is an overreaction so something that only caused five deaths showing how bio-terrorism can have a strong psychological impact. Measures for the prevention of large scale bio attacks are for the most part too expensive and inefficient to be able to be implemented on a large scale. This leaves a vulnerability to such an attack and experts to this day still debate whether a terrorist organization would actually be able to organize an attack of a scale such that it could kill thousands if not millions. Throughout history multiple nations and organizations have attempted to weaponize pathogens. While such bio-weapons were rarely deployed in mass, when used, they spread terror throughout the population and even government. Most countries have mostly given up all of their bio-weapon programs after signing various treaties, agreements, and conventions such as the BWC. There are still some countries that are believed to be actively involved in the research and development of bio-weapons while others are believed to still have stockpiles of such weapons. Nevertheless, the weaponization of pathogens is no longer a threat that will derive from nations but rather from extremist organizations looking to spread terror. Analysts are still unsure whether such organizations would be capable of planning and following through with a large-scale biological attack as past attempts from terrorist and extremist cells have for the most part failed in causing mass casualties. Still, the weaponization of pathogens is something that all nations should keep an eye on as it has the potential to cause devastation to humanity thanks to its unpredictable nature and to the unavailability of efficient prevention measures. Bibliography Clark, D. P., & Pazdernik, N. J. (2016). Biological warfare: Infectious disease and bioterrorism. Biotechnology, 687–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385015-7.00022-3. Biological warfare in a historical perspective. (n.d.). Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 8(8), 450–454. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0691.2002.00501.x. The first country to execute drilling for resource extraction in the Arctic was Russia in 1915. Ever since, the Arctic region has become a hotspot for governments and companies to seek access to acquire the resources this area has to offer. These raw materials are not only limited to oil, but also include gas and minerals such as phosphate, used for the production of fertilizers, and other rare-earth minerals near Greenland’s melting icecaps, essential for the functioning of wind turbines and electric vehicles. The Arctic is estimated to hold around 22% of the world’s natural oil and gas, with a possible value of 28 trillion dollars worth of oil. Why is this a problem? The Arctic has always contained all of these precious resources, but in previous decades, it was harder to take possession of them due to three main reasons. Firstly, the presence of ice made it difficult to access resource deposits. Secondly, drilling was restricted to only three months per year - summer season - because it was simpler to drill thinner ice thanks to the warmer weather. Thirdly, the two routes available to reach the Arctic, the Northwest and Northeast passage, were restricted. Nonetheless, as commonly known, ice in the Arctic has been starting to melt and is doing so at concerning rates. Therefore, resources in the Arctic are now more easily accessible, given that warmer weather has increased the work season by a month and improved shipping access, and routes to reach the Arctic have become accessible all year round; a new route, the Transpolar Sea Route, is also being planned by mining companies. These factors increase the competition there is between surrounding countries for possession of territory and resource extraction. The eight countries that have territory in the Arctic are the United States (through Alaska), Denmark (through Greenland), Canada, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Russia, and Sweden. They make up the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental organization founded in 1996 that promotes cooperation among Arctic states and Arctic Indigenous People, as well as other Arctic inhabitants; it treats issues of sustainable development and environmental action in the region. The Arctic Council also includes a group of observer states that are not considered “Arctic” but have the ability to engage with Working Groups that offer knowledge to make decisions on topics such as climate change, mental health, and many others. Two countries that have proven to be extremely interested in the Arctic region are China and Russia. Initially, China is one of the observer states of the Council, and, despite its 3,000 kilometer distance from Arctic territories, it claims to be a “near-arctic state”. It has also expressed its desire to establish a “polar silk road” economic plan. Next, Russia is another country very active in the battle for the Arctic region. The Russian economy is highly resource dependent, therefore their demand for oil and gas is high, making their interest in the area worthy of attention. So much so that in 2007, Russia sent two submarines to the Arctic ocean floor to plant a titanium Russian flag and claim almost half of the floor. None of the other Arctic states recognized this move as one holding any legal significance, but Russia was successful in demonstrating its desire for this resource-rich region. The European Union’s Arctic policy supports similar goals to those of the Arctic Council, as it focuses on the topics of peaceful cooperation, slowing down climate change, and sustainable development, including interactions with Indegenous Peoples living in the region. In conclusion, both the EU and the Arctic Council aim to maintain peace amidst the race for natural resources that the Arctic has to offer. Bibliography A, DW Planet. “The Race for the Arctic Is Ramping up. Here’s Why.” Video. YouTube, November 25, 2022. https://youtu.be/hvRzWzQW2go?si=kbTqdZ_zpYByDf4E. Arctic Council. “About the Arctic Council.” Accessed November 1, 2023. https://arctic-council.org/about/. Global, TLDR News. “Arctic War: The Growing Tensions over Arctic Resources - TLDR News.” Video. YouTube, December 28, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGxXb-WQcjg. Neil, Cindy. “Cindy Neil.” ACE, July 13, 2023. https://ace-usa.org/blog/research/research-environmental-policy/understanding-critical-resource-extraction-in-the-arctic/. The Economist. “Who Controls the Arctic?” The Economist, June 14, 2021. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2021/06/14/who-controls-the-arctic. EEAS. “The EU in the Arctic.” Accessed November 1, 2023. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-arctic_en. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) is the UN body of independent professionals that oversee the execution and fulfilment of the International Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Due to the everpresent racial discrimination in modern society and politics, CERD aims to fight against this injustice. This UN body believes that racially based discrimination is “a barrier to the full realisation of human rights” and poses dangers to society; such as conflicts, genocides, suffering, and loss of life. Thus, CERD strives to monitor member nations in their implementation of racial equality and ensure total elimination of discrimination. On the 8th of August 2008, the Russian Federation launched a military attack in Georgia to “protect their peacekeeping officials from violence and persecution” in Georgia’s breakaway republics of Abkhazia and Ossetia. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, many states broke away from Russian control and established their own nation. One of these was the Republic of Georgia, whose territory covered both breakaway states and was a frequent host of turmoil and aggression. These two republics unhappily coexisted with Georgia, and both entities enjoyed de facto independence with large support from officials in Moscow. Violence was frighteningly present within both sides, much of it aimed at ethnic Georgians who were subjected to forceful expulsion or vandalism and destruction of property. Tensions skyrocketed once Russian “peacekeepers” were deployed in the regions to maintain neutrality, and many have questioned the true extent of their so-called neutral presence within the conflict. Tensions and hostility continued to rise as more states emerged from the ashes of the Soviet Union. Kosovo declared sovereignty and was quickly recognised as a state by the US and other nations. Georgia announced its intentions to join NATO shortly after in April of 2008, which was not widely accepted by Russia. The aim was to create a system where Abkhazia and South Ossetia were dependent on Russia in every sense; politically, economically, socially. Russia strived to create a buffer zone between it and other states politically inclined to the US due to the eastward expansion of NATO. August 12th, 2008, marked an important date in history as the Republic of Georgia initiated proceeding before CERD regarding the Russian Federation and “its actions on and around the territory of Georgia in breach of CERD [the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination]”. Georgia’s claims were as follows: “the Russian Federation, through its State organs, State agents, and other persons and entities exercising governmental authority, and through the South Ossetian and Abkhaz separatist forces and other agents acting on the instructions of, and under the direction and control of the Russian Federation, is responsible for serious violations of its fundamental obligations under CERD…”. Georgia relied on Article 22 of the court which states that in situations where state parties to the conventions are not able to resolve disputes through negotiations or established procedures, within the convention, then they may request the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to deliver a verdict unless the parties involved come to an alternative resolution method. After deliberation, the Court declared an order that stated all states involved are implored to withdraw from enacting in violence that is racially motivated against people, groups, and/or institutions. However, Russia motioned for objections to the Court’s order arguing that the requirements for the filing of Article 22 on Georgia’s part had not been fulfilled, and that there was no concrete evidence of racial discrimination against Georgians by Russia or secondary states. Due to this the Court motioned for further deliberation in order to reevaluate all pieces of evidence and motions filed. Finally, the Court ruled that “the case could not proceed to the merits phase” and therefore all measures ordered by the Court to condemn and end the violence against Georgians ceased to be effective. Bibliography “Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia.” Accessed October 23, 2023. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/140. OHCHR. “Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.” Accessed October 23, 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cerd. OHCHR. “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.” Accessed October 23, 2023. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-convention-elimination-all-forms-racial. Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people. “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination - Manual for Human Rights Education with Young People - Www.Coe.Int.” Accessed October 23, 2023. https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/convention-on-the-elimination-of-racism-and-discrimination. Okawa, Phoebe , Dr. “The Georgia v. Russia Case: A Commentary.” The Hague Justice Journal. Accessed October 23, 2023. https://www.haguejusticeportal.net/Docs/HJJ-JJH/Vol_3(3)/Journal%20-%20Okowa%20-%203.3%20-%20EN.pdf. Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country on the Balkan Peninsula in southeastern Europe is often regarded as a relatively unknown territory and country, especially considering its non central role in current global affairs. However Bosnia and Herzegovina has an important and broad history, that includes many bitter moments, like any country, with war. Following WW1, in 1918, Bosnia entered the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and later the Social Republic of Yugoslavia in 1945. It will remain part of it for over 70 years,It wouldn't be until march 1992 that Bosniaks and Muslim Croats vote for independence in a referendum, which is however boycotted by Serbs. Months later, in May, Bosnia became officially recognised as a Federal Republic by the European Union. However in between these times Bosnia faced a hard time in its territory and to its people, known as the Bosnian War. Said conflict lasted from the Spring of 1992 until the end of 1995. The break from Yugoslavia wasn’t an easy one, neither for Bosnia nor for all the other ex member countries. One of the reasons this conflict happened was due to the different and diverse religions and ethnicities within the territory. Indeed Bosnia is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse countries in Europe. When Bosnia attempted and publicly declared their intention of becoming an independent state, Serbia decided to use this as an excuse to “free” all the ethnically Serbian Orthodox christians living in Bosnia, and hence invading. Indeed inside Bosnia, composed of a multiethnic population, there was a difference between the Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims), the Serbs (Orthodox Christians) and Croats (Orthodoxs/Muslims). The religious and ethical tensions grew after the fall of the republic and communism, even after these groups had lived together for 40 years under one same government, the one of Yugoslavia. The war therefore continued, started by Serbia. Not only was it decided that the Serbians living in Bosnia would be freed, but that starting from April 1992, Bosnia would be “ethnically cleansed” of all Bosniaks, done in a systematic way. These cleansing became very organized and powerful, and Serbia didn’t act alone, but with the help and support of ethnic Bosnian Serbs and the former Yugoslavian military equipment. These forces and systematic cleansing caused a genocide in Bosnia. Due to the surrounding of Sarajevo (at the time and current capital city) many Bosniaks were taken into concentration camps, where women and girls were systematically gang-raped (as one of the strategies to ethnically cleanse) and other civilians were tortured, starved and murdered. According to “the Holocoaust Memorial Day Trust” It is estimated that between 20-50,000 women were raped during the war. Therefore, the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the consecutive war between 1992 and 1995 had a huge impact on the people of Bosnia, resulting in 100,000 people dead and the displacement of over two million people. For this reason, this is a conflict which should not be forgotten, but remembered together with all those who have lost their lives due to it. Bibliography https://www.britannica.com/event/Bosnian-War https://www.irmct.org/specials/war-bosnia/ https://hmh.org/library/research/genocide-in-bosnia-guide/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-warcrimes-karadzic-bosnia-idUSL2164446420080721 https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/bosnia/the-bosnian-war Love continues to seek you out… even at an MUN conference. In order to satisfy your curiosity, the Press Team has done a thorough investigation in order to assemble this list of potential new interests for you all. We have conducted interviews with the most sought after individuals at this year's 2022 ASMMUN conference, diving deeply into the personal aspect of an MUN Conference.
From comments about the delegates to the chairs, we are here to give you the inside scoop! We present you with the most eligible bachelors and bachelorettes at this year’s ASMMUN conference and here’s all you need to know about your potential love interests ! What is your name? Men:
What is your age? JG: 17 AW: 17 MH: 17 JK: 15 RE: 16 T: 16 CVDV: 15 MS: 17 AZ: 17 What are your hobbies?
Are you single?
Has anyone caught your eye at this conference? JG: Yes, alexander woods AW: Not really MH: Yes, someone has caught my eye…already from the first day. JK: Yes, a person in the COPOUS committee. Unfortunately she doesn't go to ASM, therefore I'm quite upset that we can't spend more time together. RE: Yes, But they are from spain. T: Yes, one or 2 people maybe, one is in SC2 and the other I haven't talked to so I don't know yet. CVDV: Yes, he's in the COPOUS committee. MS: No not at all AZ: No, there are some cute guys but I don't know their names at all. Do you have any Social media? JG: I won't give out my instagram, but i'll give out my cat's instagram: Pampa_de_grazia. AW: (N|A) MH: Marleyhslp JK: long_long_jason RE: Roy.Elia_ Thea: BB_dora_4 CVDV: vdv_carmen_ MS: mariianavasconcelos AYZ: arianna_zh Message to your fans? JG: I guess just try, if something is scary just try. AW: Best of luck in your future romantic endeavors and you all deserve to find someone who treats you well. MH: You miss every shot you don't take, so aim for the hoop and make your score. JK: Thank you for this, I'm really grateful. RE: Thank you for your sentiments. T: Follow your heart CVDV: Don't take life too seriously, just go for it. MS: Do what makes you happy! AYZ: Text me, I want followers :) -Esther, Rosandy, Yator Yemen Humanitarian Crisis
The Human Rights committee have debated possible solutions for what is being referred to as the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. India’s Clause India’s Clause suggested essential aid, such as food, clothes and civilian safety. The delegation of India wants to regain peace for Yemen in the most non-conflictual way. However, during the points of information, the clause was critiqued for it's vague nature and India’s reliability when it comes to sizing armement in such a violent conflict was questioned. During the debate, the delegates of Turkey and Estonia showed support towards India’s clause proposal, encouraging other delegates to vote in its favor, because of its’ goal to maintain a peaceful environment by donating valid essentials to Yemen. Before the clause was considered, the delegation of Ukraine, China and Iran requested to submit amendments. Ukraine submitted an amendment suggesting to organize a diplomatic summit between belligerents in the Yemen conflicts, to reach common consensus in hopes of eradicating unilateral ceasefire.
China’s submitted amendment was to strike a sub-clause against the essentials to provide for the Yemeni population.
Iran suggested an amendment striking against the sub-clause c), stating that it contained misleading and disrespectful opinions, mentioning a preference for sub-clause b) instead.
Resolution: The overall Clause sent by India, ended up passing. The ASMMUN officially started and after the inspiring opening ceremony, during lobbying time our delegates got the opportunity to enter their committees and meet the chairs as well as the delegates and the respective countries that are going to debate with.
The press took the opportunity to ask our delegates some questions, interested to know how they felt about the beginning of the awaited event. I interviewed delegate Jessica Ejike, the representative for India in the Human Rights Committee, who showed immense excitement to, after so many years, be participating in a live, held in-person conference. Jessica’s face enlightened with joy as the Press Corps interviewed her by asking if was their first time traveling to participate in an MUN conference. She explained that it was the first time she had traveled to attend such an event and reported, “I am definitely very impressed by this school. it is really big and very different from mine. As we are a school in Europe, we focus on Erasmus, but it is not like this, it is not an international school. The city itself is obviously beautiful when we arrived around the main square yesterday, and just walked around, and the first thing I noticed was that the architecture is beautiful, the weather is of course nice it’s obviously better than in Germany in this time around.” She was also asked how she felt about being part of the Human Rights Committee, and her opinion on the topics that are going to be debated throughout the conference, to which she answered: “I was also in the Human Rights Committee last time, and it was very relaxed, you can talk about topics in a multitude of ways. I do not have experience in other committees, but I feel like in the Human Rights Committee the discussion is way broader because it is not specifically about disarmament or environment, and we can include all these things into the debate, so I just find this committee to be very welcoming and open to conversation. I also think that its a committee that everyone should have the ability to engage in at least once because it is truly amazing. The topics are interesting. I think the Yemen crisis is a complex but insightful topic as it is very long, and you need to include the partnering of countries that are at play here, like the USA backing specific countries that are involved. The indigenous people’s rights are also really interesting because there are countries who do not have legislation on that, and most European countries do not really have the division between indigenous and normal people. But countries like India and many countries in Asia and Africa have issues like that, so it will be very interesting to see different perspectives. She also added that “the additional topic of Human Trafficking is just a global issue that should be discussed on, and although I do not want the other debates to be rushed through to reach that topic, it would be a topic that I would like to discuss on.” As the conference continues, we hope to find out more about the delegates' experience and expectations and we ultimately wish the delegates good luck for the upcoming debates! While many could claim that an MUN conference serves as an experience to engage in debates, it is actually primarily considered by many of its members as a cultural dive in other people’s lives. The World Health Organization functions as a committee that ensures to promote health, safety, and help those in need. It was one of the first to be interviewed at this year’s annual ASMMUN conference. They took the peculiar and creative approach of conducting their lobbying in the tennis court outside. We took this opportunity to interview a group of students from different countries and varying backgrounds, asking them questions as to why they decided to attend this conference as well as their key objective throughout the three days. Is MUN’s main goal to establish friendships and connect individuals worldwide? According to these next few interviews, indeed does this aim reveal to be true.
Hence, while MUN’s prime duty is to let students from schools worldwide participate in debates, it is also widely acclaimed as an opportunity to engage in conversations and establish international relations.  In our fast-paced, modern world, it's no surprise that people are feeling more stressed than ever, but teenagers are the ones bearing the larger burden when it comes to being exposed to stress.  Factors such as getting good grades, fitting in socially, and wanting to look attractive, further contribute to the inner turmoil teenagers are already facing during puberty, which result in an excess of stress-inducing factors in their lives. The American Psychological Association (APA) periodically carries out surveys regarding stress in Americans, and found that “since 2013, teens have reported higher levels of stress than adults.” This is a worrying statistic considering that adults need to worry about their time-consuming jobs, taxes, their children and so on, but it goes to show just how much stress teens are under. In 2018, the APA survey reported that “teens have worse mental health and higher levels of anxiety and depression than all other age groups.” An analysis condunced by Jean Twenge in 2019, showed that “between 2005 and 2017, teens and young andults experienced a signifiant rise in serious psychological distress, major depression, and suicide.” This is a very daunting statistic as it paints a very bleak potential future, if the numbers keep rising. The significant increase in suicide hints at the numerous things that are wrong with modern society, where people are driven to take their own lives. Another APA survey, specifically on teen stress, showed that “one third to one half of teen respondents reported that social media made them feel judged or bad about themselves.” Problems such as this are created from the misleading and false information shared on social media, as well as the prolonged exposure that comes from spending multiple hours each day on devices. Additional concerns that teens were found having: “75% of them were stressed about gun violence, mass shootings and school shootings.” These are all a result of the political climate in the United States - the APA is an American organisation - but teens face similar concerns all over the world; an increase in stabbings and muggings in Europe are an added stress factor. The UK reported an 80% increase in stabbing offences from 2014 to 2019. How can you reduce stress? The obvious answers: mediation, sports and sleep. Though they sound very mainstream and like default answers in ‘how to reduce stress’ powerpoints, they are indeed true. Taking part in a sport regularly helps relax your body, and take your mind off the stress of your everyday life. Studies have shown that physical exertion is both healthy and important in relieving the stresses of a long day. Additionally, being committed to doing a sport, whether weekly, biweekly or more frequently, teaches self-discipline, organisation and perseverance, which are all applicable in numerous areas of life. Sleep has also been proven to be vital in both development and stress reduction. While you are sleeping, your brain continues to work on problems or difficulties you have encountered during the day and will try to come up with solutions. Additionally, getting enough sleep is important for physical and mental health, and has been linked to higher grades in school and lower likelihood of being afflicted with mental illnesses. Meditation, though quickly dismissed by most, helps focus your attention on your senses, which both distracts and calms your mind, thus making for an excellent stress reliever. Another benefit is that you learn skills to manage both temper and stress, which can be applied even outside of the meditation session. If such ‘conventional’ stress-relief techniques are not for you, simply taking some time out of your day to relax and do something you enjoy is a lot more beneficial than people realise. It is imperative to make time to wind down, whether that be after school or before you go to sleep or in between classes, your brain needs time to process what you have learned and experienced during the day. Conclusion Remember that SOME stress is good. It motivates you to work hard and teaches time management and organisation. Studies have shown that some people work better under stressful conditions, though this is not applicable to all people. This, however, does not mean you should forcibly induce stress to try and improve your motivation. Bear in mind that not everyone works better under stress, and there is a fine line between a little stress and too much stress. |
RSS Feed
