<![CDATA[MUN@UWCSEA - Press Corps]]>

<![CDATA[MUN@UWCSEA - Press Corps]]>Sun, 10 May 2026 02:18:33 +0800Weebly<![CDATA[SPECPOL: Social Media to Educate Public on Nuclear Waste?]]>Sun, 27 Oct 2019 18:02:42 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/specpol-social-media-to-educate-public-on-nuclear-wasteWritten by Libby Ye of Inkling for UWCSEA MUN.

As of 2019, 71% of teens use more than one social media site. Everywhere we go, people are either dm’ing on Instagram, snapping on Snapchat, or watching videos on YouTube. Thus, social media is arguably one of the most significant and transformative forms of invention within the past two decades. With more than 2.89 billion active users in the world, social media wields more influence now than ever.

So why are some people so hesitant on exploiting this platform to educate the public on important issues like promoting long term storage of nuclear waste?

In the Special Political Political and Decolonization Committee at MUN@UWCSEA 2019, the delegate of the United States of America recommends all member nations to “educate the public on the positive impact of long term nuclear waste storage through the creation of social media platforms.”

However, contrary to their beliefs, the delegate of DPRK, North Korea, advocates to strike the clause, claiming social media platforms are “often exploited by hackers and criminals to spread propaganda and fake news.” The delegate argues that online seminars and the production of posters are much more effective and reliable.

By attempting to educate the public on a sensitive topic like nuclear waste, the malleable social media may backfire, instilling fear and panic amongst them should the facts be manipulated. In addition, the delegate of North Korea claims that poor countries that are impacted the most by unsustainable disposal of nuclear waste often have no access to the internet, let alone social media.

However, other countries soon rebutted that unlike other platforms, social media is able to reach the younger demographic of people, who constitute a great proportion of our society. As technological advances plague our world, less and less people are willing to attend seminars and read newspapers. Instead, most are opting for social media and online websites for exposure to global issues.

The delegate of the United States recognises the potential issue regarding “fake news,” but explains that “as technology is advancing, the presence of ‘fake news’ is slowly decreasing as more organizations are dedicated to catching hackers and online criminals.”

As our society progresses, we must adapt to this new world that relies heavily on technology. Social media has proven to be a prominent and effective platform to advocate important world issues, as demonstrated by the CNN Instagram account, @NowThisNews on Snapchat, and the TED-Ed Youtube channel.

Whilst this debate to educate the public through social media is applied to nuclear waste, it foreshadows the potential for social media to be the new constant for education.

]]><![CDATA[HICC: Churchill a War Hero or Capita]]>Sun, 27 Oct 2019 13:29:01 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/hicc-churchill-a-war-hero-or-capitaWritten by Libby Ye of Inkling for UWCSEA MUN.

Reminisced as a victorious wartime leader who played a significant role in defending Europe’s liberal democracy from the spread of fascicim in the UK and Western world, Winston Churchill is considered one of the 20th century’s most significant figures.

So to what extent is this depiction accurate?

Whilst he is praised as a social reformer and writer, his imperialist views, comments on race, and sanctioning of human right abuses in the suppression of anti-imperialist movements seeking independence from the British Empire have evoked considerable controversy.

So should he be remembered fondly as a savior or is he a genocidal maniac masquerading as a war hero and esteemed politician?

]]><![CDATA[Legal: The Legal Committee and Intellectual Property Theft]]>Sun, 13 Oct 2019 04:08:01 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/legal-the-legal-committee-and-intellectual-property-theftWritten by Swasthi Rajesh Shankar of Inkling for UWCSEA MUN.

The Legal committee headed by Head chair Gautum Balasubramaniam and deputy chairs Meghna Abrol and Isha Sinha had begun the debate this morning. The committee focused on intellectual property theft between countries. It is understood that this is a very pressing matter that is quite popular in today’s world. The United States was the main submitter of this resolution.

The delegation of the United States felt that as a country, it faced a lot of intellectual property theft, particularly from China.“China is stealing our (USA’s) intellectual property.” said the American delegate. The resolution was focused very much on China and its economy. The American delegate claimed that a large part of the Chinese economy comes from ‘counterfeit goods’ and argued that this needed to be stopped because “China is an influence to all other countries who produce counterfeit goods.” Other delegations such as the United Kingdom, Djibouti and Germany also spoke up on this matter and stressed on the fact that China was illegally profiting from these immoral deeds.

However, the Chinese delegation felt that it was being targeted in this debate while other countries were also accountable for the same actions. “This resolution specifically targets China,” said the Chinese delegate, Emillie. She also believed that the American delegate was hypocritical and that since the US has no proof that China produces counterfeit copies of goods, the accusations are pointless.

The Chinese delegate also pointed out that “China is a partner to many countries… Many of your countries depend on China”. She believes that they needed to work together to stop this instead of targeting the country. The DPRK delegate supported this argument and said that “China has been working tirelessly to counter this IP theft”. She believes that this kind of theft is being reduced because of the Chinese government's efforts to control production of illegal counterfeit goods.

The United States’ delegation moved to strike China’s economy in their very first clause. This caused quite a bit of controversy and a lot of debate between the delegations United States, China and their allies. The delegations of the DPRK, India, New Zealand, Netherlands and Sweden were quite actively engaged in the point of interest speeches as well as in debate. Many countries believe that striking China’s economy would cause problems for everyone involved in trade with the country and therefore made several moves amend the clauses. The Singaporean delegate claimed that the delegation ‘intends to help support developing nations as they are vital for world trade and balancing economy.’. To do this the delegation moved to amend a clause that urged countries to work with developing nations. This amendment was passed with an overwhelming majority.

The delegation of China and it’s allies strongly believed that this resolution would ruin China’s economy and cause harm to several innocents. If this resolution is passed ''We would go into an economic Crisis”, claimed the delegation of China. The delegates continued to come up with excellent points, engaged in a heated discussion and debate to win against their rivals. “I’ve been saying things I personally didn’t agree with… because of my alliance,” said Ashley, the delegate of Singapore. Most delegates feel the same way and are forced to keep their personal bias out of the debate. However, after an extensive amount of debating, the resolution was passed, much to China’s discontent.

]]><![CDATA[HICC: Importance of Questioning Perceived "Heroes"]]>Sun, 13 Oct 2019 03:24:51 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/hicc-importance-of-questioning-perceived-heroesWritten by Libby YE of Inkling for UWCSEA MUN.

The HICC is a MUN event simulating the International Criminal Court, an intergovernmental organization with the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for the international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression.

The Hypothetical International Criminal Court at MUN@UWCSEA 2019’s first accused individual is Winston Churchill, the internationally perceived war hero who led Britain to success in World War II.

So why are we dedicating a whole committee to trial a single individual? To spend 10 hours of the most advanced delegates to either prosecute or defend him? Turns out, probing into the “criminal side” of these perceived heroes might be just as important as coming up with consensus resolutions on global issues.

President of HICC, Philippe Demptos, explains that “heroism and crimes can go hand in hand in the sense that you can be a hero for some things, but a criminal for others.” He urges us to look past the hero narrative, and also “get the criminal narrative, which is what we are trying to achieve in this coming three days.”

So how are political leaders from more than half a century ago still relevant to our world today?

“We have Donald Trump, we have Robert Mugabe. We are confronted with so many unconventional world leaders with disputable means and contestable motives, yet can be overridden by noble intentions and good outcomes.” Judge Sahai elaborates, “In a sense, Winston Churchill is just a reflection of these people, one of the significant figures in this constant repetition of history and society.” He is merely an example, an illustration that humans don’t necessarily fit cleanly into the moulds of good and bad, criminal and victim, hero and villain. Rather, the “goods and bads” of our actions should be judged and cross-examined by an entangled and overlapping web of grey scales, to be considered with regards to their intentions and constants of their predicaments.

So why should teens question our perceived “heroes?”

Judge Latifi shows his perspective by saying how it is especially important for teens now, in a time of rapid technological advancement when unreliable sources from social media is ever more pervasive in our daily lives, to investigate both the positive and negative sides of famous people, to “learn how to analyse what’s true and what’s false,” and to not “blindly believe in everything popular media says.”

Vice President Aashna Singh further elaborates that we need to remember how “no one is infallible, and that anyone can be tried for any crimes they commit, regardless of their status or importance, thus giving teens an equalising sense.”

History was written by the winners, the individuals accused in HICC. Our society is being shaped in such a way, that we only see their so called positive sides, the sides in which the society have saviored, glorified, and preserved. As Judge Sahai elaborates, “the detriment they have caused the minority of societies are often hidden. The only way we can truly investigate and determine the reality of our society and history is by probing into these deep questions, trying to figure out who’s responsible for what and create a system of accountability where we can determine the truth.”

We, as teenagers, are now the basis of society, and it is important for the foundations in itself, to be aware of the truth of history and society.

]]><![CDATA[IMF: Argentina's Debt Crisis]]>Sun, 13 Oct 2019 02:58:35 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/october-13th-2019Written by Samiha Singh of Inkling for UWCSEA MUN.

The world's 21st largest economy, Argentina, has been struggling with a monetary crisis. The deprecation of the peso coupled with the sustained increase in the Argentine inflation rate (recorded at 57.3% in May 2019) has proliferated the value of its external debt. Ultimately, in June 2018, Argentina came forward to the IMF for a $50 billion USD loan (which later rose to $57.1 billion USD in September 2018). As of 2018, Argentina's government debt is approximately equal to 86.2% of its GDP.

Inflation has led to a myriad of undesirable outcomes. While unemployment has soared between 7-10%, the real value of the peso has depreciated. Additionally, Argentina's current account deficit has further exacerbated due to the reduced purchasing power of those with fixed incomes such as pensions and reduced exports.

Furthermore, Mauricio Macri, the Argentine President, used expansionary fiscal policy to stimulate the economy through increased government spending. However, this spending needed to be financed through borrowing, inflating the government debt. As a result, the Argentine Central Bank had to intervene - printing more money to raise the money supply. This led to an increased aggregate demand and exacerbated the inflation; This prompted the Central Bank to raise interest rates by 60% in order to limit expenditure and attract foreign investors to restore the value of the peso. To add to Argentina's misery, due to a drought in 2018, its agricultural sector, which accounts for 36% of all Argentina exports, suffered. This furthered the devaluation of the pseo and increased the real value of Argentinas public debt.

So how might Argentina deal with its debt crisis?

This was the first motion being discussed in the IMF committee and the primary solutions being suggested revolved around "counteracting austerity measures and raising awareness" as stated by Aarushi Rath, the Head Chair of the IMF. The resolution on the question of resolving the Argentine debt crisis was submitted by Leonardo Villar, the delegate of Columbia. The austerity measures suggested by the committee were: the implementation of progressive taxes, reduction of corporate taxes, increased spending on long-term investment projects that will improve the quality and/or quantity of the nation's resources, and the provision of support to the unemployed and disenfranchised.

The directors present at the IMF committee agreed that the resolution of Argentina's proliferating public debt would be beneficial for all Member States as they have provided Argentina with multiple loans. Thus, by assisting Argentina, the States can also recover their loans.

The resolution, submitted by Leonardo Villar of Columbia, received approval from the majority of the directors, with most of the amendments made being friendly and improving details that may be overlooked. The delegate of Columbia emphasised the use of serious austerity measures that contradict the use of current expansionary fiscal and monetary policies by both Macri's government and the Central Bank. Director Villar's policies were further expanded on and amended by Director Mojarrad of Afghanistan to include - higher income taxes for higher income brackets and reduced taxes for those in the lower income brackets, support for the unemployed and disenfranchised, higher severance pay, and increased public infrastructure. These amendments also targeted an increase in aggregate demand and a reduced public debt by increasing purchasing power and disposable incomes (for the unemployed, disenfranchised, and those with lower incomes), government revenue (to reduce the debt), and employment in the public sector (through the implementation of new infrastructure projects).

Director Zhongxia of China suggested that Macri's government consider methods for potential coalition governments and encourage all current parties to focus both on the long term as well as the short run impacts of economic policies. This would ensure that the debt and current economic conditions are not exacerbated by political instability or changing parties, especially since demand-side policies tend to have a large impact on political support because they directly affect the consumers (who vote).

Ultimately, the resolution passed with amendments mainly focusing on stimulating aggregate demand. The majority of the Directors in the IMF understood the significance of the Argentine debt crisis and its impact on the other nations. The directors also included the implementation of a large-scale campaign by UNESCO to raise awareness and inform the Argentine public of the actual economic conditions, assisting them in financial planning and reducing the misconceptions that currently exist.

]]><![CDATA[WHO: Antibiotic Resistance]]>Sun, 13 Oct 2019 02:05:55 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/who-antibiotic-resistance.Written by Germaine Zhi En NG of Inkling for UWCSEA MUN.

The second day of the conference began with committees presenting and debating resolutions. In the World Health Organization committee (WHO), the first resolution proposed aimed to mitigate the threat of antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotics first became a common medicine to combat infectious diseases in the 1940s. Due to its great success and power, scientists did not acknowledge the possible detrimental effects of overuse. However, it has gradually become a widespread crisis that threatens even ordinary bacterial diseases to be immune to antibiotics. As a result, the time taken curing bacterial diseases, the cost for medical treatment, and the mortality rates all increased.

The situation has been internationally recognized by the WHO as a pressing matter that must be eliminated at all costs. The resolution, which was main-submitted by the delegate of Peru, attempts to alleviate this situation. The delegate first expressed the urgency of the issue. “Antibiotic resistance is jeopardizing past achievements which effectively controlled the spread of life-threatening diseases... These inhabitants will not respect natural order, eventually affecting every single one of us”. They then continued to give a brief summary of their intention. “Our resolution primarily aims at educating the population on what it means to reduce the rate of antibiotic resistance. Additionally, it aims to help LEDC who do not have many global resources to avoid antibiotic resistance.”

The representative then began to explain that the misuse and overuse of antibacterials is the main reason behind the issue. People who live in countries with loose treatment guidelines are often inappropriately prescribed antibiotics by pharmacists and healthcare workers. Overprescription can rapidly increase the number of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, prescribing antibiotics for the wrong situation, such as for a viral infection, will lead to a higher chance of catching an infectious disease. Some countries even allow the public to buy them without any prescription at all, worsening the situation.

During the debates, amendments to the resolution by other delegates were discussed. For instance, encouraging countries to share research and information about antibiotic resistance was a controversial subject. The delegate of India did not believe this to be feasible. “Confidential antibiotic breakthrough that is still in development should not have to be shared with the public until the research is finished and ready for implementation within the worldwide countries.” The representative also believed that prohibiting the selling of antibiotics in unlicenced places is impossible. However, the delegate of Zimbabwe, a co-submitters of the resolution, argued against these claims. The delegate stressed the importance of banning illegal medical shops. “It would incentivize many of the licensed shops to turn in their illegal and oftentimes faulty antibiotics that could cause more harm than good”.

Other questions and concerns were highly debated as well. The delegates of Germany and Nigeria questioned how LEDC’s and rural areas can provide educational programs for antibiotics if they lack the resources to do so, while the representative of the South African Republic brought up the fact that the resolution lacks specificity and does not have a detailed plan of action that can be taken if the resolution is passed.

At the end of the debate, the resolution did not go through. Although all countries recognized the urgency of the problem, an overwhelming majority found the solutions to not align with their country's needs or beliefs. This situation especially highlights the complexity of the UN and political affairs in general. It shows how there is never an absolutely right or wrong answer, and thus it is vital that issues are discussed with every nation to find the most viable solution.

]]><![CDATA[Legal: The Improvement of the Enforcement of Foreign Rulings]]>Sun, 13 Oct 2019 02:01:07 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/legal-the-improvement-of-the-enforcement-of-foreign-rulingsWritten by Rachel Jung of of Inkling for UWCSEA MUN.

When in Rome, do as Romans do, or so the old saying goes. In a way, the modern world has not moved much from that kind of thinking. Foreign judgements and the enforcement of such rulings are still a current problem that must be discussed for the development and maintenance of a more sustainable and peaceful world.

The delegate of Colombia was the main proponent who submitted a resolution addressing this issue as a member of the Legal Committee. The resolution proposed methods of how the jurisdiction of a foreign ruling is decided, how to sustain foreign rulings, how to make them legally binding, how to uphold accountability of a country, as well as alternative courses of action should a country refuse to uphold the foreign judgement.

The resolution attempts to focus on just and legal rulings of countries in nations that are not their own, aligning with other countries’ aims to create a fair, inclusive resolution recognised by the UN that would still allow for political and economical sustainability and stability. The resolution is also specific and viable to support the claim that strengthening the enforcement of foreign rulings will bring more communication between nations.

“The resolution that we’re debating is high quality; I feel like there’s not that many loopholes the delegates can find,” says Meghna, Deputy Chair of the Legal Committee. “[The delegates] need to take into account what this means for the future of their country, how this relates to the past of their country. So in the past, has their been any contentious issues regarding these legal enforcements? And what this resolution will change about that.”

However, there were some opposition to the resolution. North Korea expressed dissatisfaction with the resolution despite her thoughts that it was very well-written and presented many feasible plans of action, stating fear that the resolution does not offer enough protection to nations such as North Korea from other “ignorant, apathetic” countries.

“Clause 6, sub-clause b is not nearly descriptive enough to prevent certain states from taking advantage of such laws,” the delegate of North Korea says. “There’s no clause in place to prevent lack of impartiality, meant that countries such as North Korea may be taken advantage of by less honourable states.”

She names the United States of America as an example of one such “dishonourable states”, using her experience with the delegate of the United States from the debate about the previous resolution to make her judgement.

Briana, the delegate of Iceland, shows similar concerns, although is a bit more optimistic. “The things the delegate needs to keep in mind going throughout this [debate] is how much power and say as sometimes more say is given to bigger countries such as the US or China,” she says.

She continues, “[The delegate needs] to watch out for their country’s interests and whether there are things that other countries might take advantage of, as DPRK said earlier, that might oppose this country’s views. Though this delegate would like to find a more peaceful solution and this delegate’s country deeply believes in international relationships and diplomacy.”

Another opposition point was how the enforcement of foreign judgement disrespected the sovereignty of the nation the ruling was being applied to. The delegate of Finland argued that people should be tried according to the judiciary system of their country of origin. He clarified that countries’ rights to govern their own people were not being taken away but rather slighted, and he further clarified that he was concerned about the differences in laws and its sanctions as well as cultural values between countries that would make foreign rulings unfair.

Ultimately, the resolution passed. The majority of the members of the Legal Committee decided that the resolution was just and unbiased, and thus suitable to address the issue of enforcing foreign judgements in an equitable manner. The acceptance and authorization of the resolution could lead to further cooperation between nations and prevent international conflicts. It could also work to improve communication and strengthen respect between nations.

]]><![CDATA[ICJ: Equatorial Guinea vs France about Diplomatic Immunity]]>Sat, 12 Oct 2019 12:24:21 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/october-12th-20191858271Written by Rachel Jung of Inkling for UWCSEA MUN.

Diplomatic legislature is important to the development and maintenance of world peace. A fundamental core of global democracy is allowing dialogue between all international voices, and the laws of diplomacy help make sure communication goes smoothly when in foreign countries and gives a stage to all, even to countries with weaker influence. However, what happens when diplomacy starts to clash with another country’s sense of justice?

This is the case for Equatorial Guinea and France.

Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue is Equatorial Guinea’s former Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and current Vice President, as well as the son of the current President of the country. While in France on a diplomatic mission, several complaints pushed Transparency International France to investigate the accusations of Mangue misappropriating public funds of Equatorial Guinea to France to purchase private goods. French officials detained Mangue and seized property on 42 Avenue Foch, as well as the assets within.

Equatorial Guinea is furious at what they call unlawful prosecution, arrest, and slander of Mangue. They state that Mangue is a man dedicated to his people; he fought for justice and worked tirelessly to improve his country, and he would not have embezzled his people’s money for personal pleasure. More importantly, Equatorial Guinea accuses France violating countless diplomatic rights written in the 1961 Vienna Convention. Most prominently, Article 31 which states that diplomats have immunity from a foreign country’s criminal jurisdiction while completing their diplomatic mission. As the house on 42 Avenue Foch belonged to Mangue, it is under the same immunity as him, so France’s acquisition of the estate is also illegal. Equatorial Guinea sees this event as France using their vast power to bully a smaller nation, so they take the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) seeking a fair hearing and ruling.

France, however, declares themselves innocent and not in violation of any of the articles of the Vienna Convention. France claims that Equatorial Guinea is abusing diplomatic rights in order to gain advantage over France and hide Mangue’s corruption and embezzlement. The luxury mansion on 42 Avenue Foch is not a diplomatic mission. It does not comply to the definition of a diplomatic mission and the assets within did not seem to be related to any kind of diplomatic mission as they were mainly luxury items. Furthermore, an investigation in 2008 showed that public funds were invested into the house. The house was also not registered as the diplomatic residence; Equatorial Guinea attempted to register it as one later on, a request that France rejected as the investigation was already underway at that point. In addition, Equatorial Guinea promoted him from Minister to Vice President while Mangue was undergoing two judiciary examination, both of which he failed to attend.

“From any perspective, it would look suspicious as to why, all of a sudden, [Mangue] would go from a low ranking position to such a high ranking position within a crucial amount of time,” the investigating judge of the case, and France’s witness, says.

France takes the coinciding actions to support their belief that Equatorial Guinea is abusing diplomatic rights to cover up a national scandal. They also state that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over this case as Equatorial Guinea only use specific articles of the Vienna Convention and the Convention of Transnational Organised Crime in order to extend the case to the ICJ’s reach; any general international law is not directly under the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

How the ICJ decide to act will determine crucial social and political aspects of the world. If the ICJ favour Equatorial Guinea, then a message could be spread globally that even less influential countries can receive justice when standing up to a major power and that the ICJ can remain impartial to national influence.

“[This case] will make people more aware of the fact that even small countries can stand to big countries—bully countries, if I could say—such as France,” the delegate of Equatorial Guinea says. She continues, “And that the fact that the International Court of Justice believes in justice… So if small countries like Equatorial Guinea can fight and file cases, it’s a place for all.”

Should the ICJ favour France, France would be able to apply justice to a man they believe to be guilty of misappropriation of funds and also make a statement about the ICJ’s role in the world.

Judge Moro expands on this, “[France] will be able to justify how the International Court of Justice can’t just be used as a playground tool by smaller countries to gain more international clout.”

In either case, it is undeniable that the verdict of the case will set a precedent for any future cases similar to the one faced by Equatorial Guinea and France today.

]]><![CDATA[DISEC: Organized Crime]]>Sat, 12 Oct 2019 12:22:46 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/october-12th-20193648983Written by Rachel Jung of Inkling for UWCSEA MUN.

Organized crime runs rampantly in most parts of Latin America, causing innumerable deaths and acts of violence. So much so that Honduras is named “the murder capital of the world” and where 90 people out of 100,000 are killed annually. The activities of organized crime gangs are not limited to just murder and assault; they also participate in numerous forms of trafficking, with their goods ranging from drugs to people. Coupled with these gangs taking advantage of the high corruption of police forces, organized crime remains a very formidable presence in Latin America.

Youth also find themselves turning to gangs in order to obtain a source of income. Fueled by a lack of access to education, youth believe that there is no alternative occupation for them;thus, beginning a life of crime and providing gangs with fresh recruits for their battles.

Some Latin American countries, such as Mexico, are already fighting hard to decrease the presence of organized crime in their country, but to no avail. Others, such as Brazil and Guatemala, have too much corruption within their government to effectively address and solve the problem.

The Disarmament and International Security committee gathered here today in an attempt to form a resolution that addresses the serious issue in Latin America. The clauses in their resolution covered topics from how legalization of marijuana would affect the profiteering of gangs to how providing higher wages to workers in public sectors would affect the level of corruption prevalent in the police and the government and more. They also debated on the details present in the resolution.

The United States of America, for example, wanted to amend Clause 4 and make it so that the provision of funds and installation of infrastructure did not rest solely on the more economically stable countries; it would instead be shouldered by all countries, proportionately relative to economic and financial stability. Thereby, turning the reformation and disassembling of organized crime gangs into a global effort rather than a task designated to a select portion of the world.

“The United States definitely does not want to fund any of these projects by itself,” Jack, the delegate of Nicaragua, says. “So it keeps adding amendments… that change wording from ‘developed countries’ or ‘MEDCs’ to organizations that involve multiple different nations of varying financial power.”

There were many points that seemed controversial among the attending companies, such as who would fund the projects the resolution proposed and whether LEDCs were able to even contribute. However, most of the participating countries’ aims were to continue the security of the nation and to bring overall stability and peace to Latin America. So, through amendments and other proposed alternatives, agreements were reached, and eventually the resolution was passed.

“I’m quite happy with the final version of the resolution. There were a couple little bumps along the way… But in the end… we were able to reach an agreement,” Ryan, the delegate of Germany, says.

He continues, “A lot of countries and their representatives will have very different views on all of these laws. And a difficult part about making a pass for resolution is that you need to have a sense of what everyone wants in order to pass anything that you want.”

]]><![CDATA[Human Rights & Arbitrary Detention]]>Sat, 12 Oct 2019 09:05:53 GMThttps://www.uwcmun.org/press-corps/october-12th-2019Written by Swasthi Shankar of Inkling, for UWCSEA MUN.

All amendments are finally being presented today, the second day of the MUN. After all the planning, the committees and delegates are now in session. Today, the Human Rights Committee (HRC), chaired by Head chair Digvijay Singh and Deputy Chairs Mika Sacdalan and Aditya Raj, focuses on human rights across the world debated amendments based on arbitrary detentions of people by governments. The delegates presented several points contemplating on the clauses and their uses.

This amendment was submitted by Bangladesh and co-submitted by several other countries. The amendment focused on how to avoid misuse of arbitrary detention as well on the legitimacy of entities who practice arbitrary detention. Bangladesh suggested that arbitrary detention should be very controlled and monitored to avoid any wrongdoings on the governments’ parts. A few delegates questioned Bangladesh’s motives and suggestions because of Bangladesh’s own history of misusing and manipulating arbitrary detention. The delegate of Bangladesh however responded by explaining that this resolution will help avoid such situations. Devanshi Loomba, the Indian delegate showed their extensive support for this resolution by stressing that “Following this resolution is better to ensure the safety of the country as a whole” but also claimed that for the safety of the citizens, “Detaining should be kept away from civillians.”

The delegate of Israel, a co-submitter of the resolution, suggested that the UN should be directly involved in all cases of arbitrary detention and that the UN should have the right to decide consequences for any government bodies who misuse this ability. The delegation elaborated to explain that this would be a “Safety measure and not an ability to exploit”. Howeveral many other delegations dismissed the notion as they believed this would be far too an intrusive action by the UN. The delegate of Saudi Arabia, Rita Malhotra, explained that the states should have the right to use arbitrary detention without ‘interference from the UN’ because it concerns matters of ‘national security’. The Chair explained that “The resolutions made here are not legally binding which means its more of a suggestion to the countries” when asked to clarify.

Several delegations critisised delegates of Nations such as Pakistan and Israel for misusing the ability of arbitrary detention in the past. Many such countries are known for misusing this ability to extract information through physical and psychological torture. The delegation of the United States claimed that to avoid this, medical reports should be presented to the UN to prove that no inhumane methods have been used to harm any detained people. However the notion was quickly dismissed by other delegations as it was impractical and easy to fake.

Friendly amendments that focused on details of clauses were passed with an overwhelming majority. However for those amendments such as the Australian delegation’s move to strike an entire clause and Malaysia’s move to not track suspicious citizens and members were rejected by an overwhelming majority as they were impractical and restricting. Most of the amendments passed were focused on methods to avoid unnecesary harm towards civillians and more specific and detailed clauses to avoid confusion. The delegates faced ‘heated’ discussion and brought up very useful points that helped make the resolution specific and helpful for several delegations.

]]>