Youth and AIDS
In an interview with the delegates from the MSF, they expressed concern over the lack of attention being given to young children in the WHO and UNDP. Their concern was primarily about the neglect to young children suffering from AIDS, with too much being focused on older youths.
MSF argues that young children must be protected, primarily because they are going to be adults twenty years down the road, which stands in contrast to youths who will be taking up their yoke of responsibility in society within the next five to ten years. Knowing that they will form the economically productive population base in society within the next generation, their numbers must not be depleted before they can reach their age of coming. They also wish to see children protected for purely compassionate reasons.
Though I agree with the MSF on the need to protect children, I believe that the focus and direction of the UNDP to focus on older youths is correct. They are the ones that will be caring for this decade’s young children when their parents die off (life expectancy in Africa is considerably shorter than in first-world nations), and they will be the ones that will support them financially. By going with the Canadian and Norwegian initiatives to provide training to them in HIV/AIDS education, and by ensuring that they are able to return home with the funds needed to promote AIDS awareness, prevention and treatment programs, they will be able to invoke local change within their own communities, which may prove far more effective than relying on NGOs and their bureaucracies.
Given Africa’s general reluctance to see the West’s intervention in their domestic conflicts (Darfur, Uganda and Somalia are prime examples), it would be reasonable to argue that Africa wishes to have more independence in governing their own matters. While NGOs and other national aid agencies in the West may be able to provide expertise and funding, true change can only be invoked when local people are involved in their own communities. We see this with Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, who were locally involved in their own communities to bring about great change. I believe that the UNDP’s initiative by Norway and Canada, if it pulls through, will help not only the African region but also other AIDS-afflicted regions such as Haiti and India to overcome their AIDS epidemic problem.
As such, I would like to applaud the UNDP’s initiatives on youth education. If any resolution gets passed today, I believe this is the one that will come first.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Saturday, January 13, 2007
News Flash: Terrorist Apprehended
A suspected terrorist involved in one of the recent bombings has been apprehended.
News Flash: Canada and Italy Bombed
Toronto Stock Exchange and the Piazza have been bombed. Anonymous sources have said that this may have been done by young female bombers.
Special Press Request from Lebanese Delegation
The Lebanese delegation has requested Aftenposten to publish their statement on the recent rocket attacks on German vessels. Their statement is as follows:
The Lebanese Republic wishes to address recent reports of attacks on UNIFIL Naval forces in the Mediterranean Sea near our shores. Vague reports have stated these rocket attacks emerged from Lebanese soil. Reports also stated that Dutch and German vessels suffered damage. The Lebanese Republic wishes to extend its condemnation of these acts, and also the act by an unknown terrorist organization; the suicide bombing of the German Parliament building. We wish to reiterate our ongoing support of the UNIFIL forces effort to create and maintain peace and stability in southern Lebanon. Further the Lebanese Republic extends our heartfelt sympathies to the families and victims of these attacks.
Remembering the instances that led to a brutal and ruthless destruction of our country by the Israeli State this past summer, we want to avoid any misunderstandings, which our aggressors might seek to use against us again. We had no knowledge of the horrific acts prior to their occurrence. Nor does the Lebanese Republic endorse such behaviour by non states groups such as Hezbollah.
The Lebanese Republic cannot reemerge as a prosperous, peaceful state if its government is last to know and first to be held accountable for acts by terrorist organizations unjustly claimed to be rooted in our country.
The Lebanese Republic wishes to address recent reports of attacks on UNIFIL Naval forces in the Mediterranean Sea near our shores. Vague reports have stated these rocket attacks emerged from Lebanese soil. Reports also stated that Dutch and German vessels suffered damage. The Lebanese Republic wishes to extend its condemnation of these acts, and also the act by an unknown terrorist organization; the suicide bombing of the German Parliament building. We wish to reiterate our ongoing support of the UNIFIL forces effort to create and maintain peace and stability in southern Lebanon. Further the Lebanese Republic extends our heartfelt sympathies to the families and victims of these attacks.
Remembering the instances that led to a brutal and ruthless destruction of our country by the Israeli State this past summer, we want to avoid any misunderstandings, which our aggressors might seek to use against us again. We had no knowledge of the horrific acts prior to their occurrence. Nor does the Lebanese Republic endorse such behaviour by non states groups such as Hezbollah.
The Lebanese Republic cannot reemerge as a prosperous, peaceful state if its government is last to know and first to be held accountable for acts by terrorist organizations unjustly claimed to be rooted in our country.
News Flash: GA1 Progress
Germany and China are leading a resolution in support of the gradual phasing out of biological weapons. One clauses that has been introduced involve stipulating that a country's sovereignty will not be compromised upon, which garnered support from major players such as Russia and Israel. Additionally, a clause for phasing out biological weapons is being discussed in Germany's proposed resolution.
It seems that a resolution will be finalized soon.
It seems that a resolution will be finalized soon.
Editorial 3: The Holy See’s Crusade, Youth and Aids
The Holy See’s Crusade
In response to the orphanage attack in Uzbekistan, the Holy See has declared a Holy War against Muslim nations. In doing so, he has made a mockery of the Roman Catholic Church by repeating the mistakes of Dark Age Europe. By insisting his belief that “God will take care of everything”, he has relied on his “access to God” to wantonly wage a war that will undoubtedly end up in the suffering of millions across East Europe, Middle-East, Central and Southeast Asia.
Ironically, this announcement comes after the Pope visited Turkey and declared solidarity with Muslims in the belief in the “One True God”. This 180-degree turn in stance raises a number of questions about the conservative Pope’s integrity. Was he being hypocritical when he visited Turkey? Was the visit simply an exercise in public relations? Does the leader of Roman Catholics worldwide harbor hatred towards Muslims in the same way that Osama bin Laden harbors contempt for the West?
Does the killing of innocents by Islamic extremists warrant an extremist response from His Holiness Pope Benedict? I believe not. His delegation’s extreme statements reflect badly upon the Holy See’s stature as a spiritual leader of over 1 billion people around the world, and I would urge his delegates to retract their statements as soon as possible.
The Norwegian Church has been outspoken against having another crusade, criticizing the Pope’s return to the late Dark Ages of Europe in his attitudes. Additionally, the Church has cited the failed wars of modern times in Iraq, Eastern Europe and Rwanda as reasons not to go to war now. Muslims in Norway stand together with the Norwegian Church in opposing the move, and urged dialogue between both sides.
However, fanatical fundamental Christians have started rallying in Oslo, parading down the streets holding banners calling for the Norwegian Church to sponsor trips down to the Vatican to rally around the Pope. Conservative politicians have also lobbied for a “positive response to the Pope’s war cries”.
Will Norway’s government and Church bow down to pressure and sponsor trips to the Vatican? Will fanaticism overtake modern society? Can we prevent another erroneous disaster?
Here in Norway, we urge the world to take caution, and not to subscribe to the ideology of fanaticism. Access to God doesn’t mean true belief.
Youth and Aids
In an interview with the delegates from the MSF, they expressed concern over the lack of attention being given to young children in the WHO and UNDP. Their concern is primarily about the neglect to young children suffering from AIDS, with too much being focused on older youths.
MSF argues that young children must be protected, primarily because they are going to be adults twenty years down the road, which stands in contrast to youths who will be taking up their yoke of responsibility in society within the next five to ten. Knowing that they will form the economically productive population base in society within the next generation, their numbers must not be depleted before they can reach their age of coming. They also wish to see children protected for purely compassionate reasons.
Though I agree with the MSF on the need to protect children, I believe that the focus and direction of the UNDP to focus on older youths is correct. They are the ones that will be caring for this decade’s young children when their parents die off (life expectancy in Africa is considerably shorter than in first-world nations), and they will be the ones that will support them financially. By going with the Canadian and Norwegian initiatives to provide training to them in HIV/AIDS education, and by ensuring that they are able to return home with the funds needed to promote AIDS awareness, prevention and treatment programs, they will be able to invoke local change within their own communities, which may prove far more effective than relying on NGOs and their bureaucracies.
Given Africa’s general reluctance to see the West’s intervention in their domestic conflicts (Darfur, Uganda and Somalia are prime examples), it would be reasonable to argue that Africa wishes to have more independence in governing their own matters. While NGOs and other national aid agencies in the West may be able to provide expertise and funding, true change can only be invoked when local people are involved in their own communities. We see this with Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, who were locally involved in their own communities to bring about great change. I believe that the UNDP’s initiative by Norway and Canada, if it pulls through, will help not only the African region but also other AIDS-afflicted regions such as Haiti and India to overcome their AIDS epidemic problem.
As such, I would like to applaud the UNDP’s initiatives on youth education. If any resolution gets passed today, I believe this is the one that will come first.
In response to the orphanage attack in Uzbekistan, the Holy See has declared a Holy War against Muslim nations. In doing so, he has made a mockery of the Roman Catholic Church by repeating the mistakes of Dark Age Europe. By insisting his belief that “God will take care of everything”, he has relied on his “access to God” to wantonly wage a war that will undoubtedly end up in the suffering of millions across East Europe, Middle-East, Central and Southeast Asia.
Ironically, this announcement comes after the Pope visited Turkey and declared solidarity with Muslims in the belief in the “One True God”. This 180-degree turn in stance raises a number of questions about the conservative Pope’s integrity. Was he being hypocritical when he visited Turkey? Was the visit simply an exercise in public relations? Does the leader of Roman Catholics worldwide harbor hatred towards Muslims in the same way that Osama bin Laden harbors contempt for the West?
Does the killing of innocents by Islamic extremists warrant an extremist response from His Holiness Pope Benedict? I believe not. His delegation’s extreme statements reflect badly upon the Holy See’s stature as a spiritual leader of over 1 billion people around the world, and I would urge his delegates to retract their statements as soon as possible.
The Norwegian Church has been outspoken against having another crusade, criticizing the Pope’s return to the late Dark Ages of Europe in his attitudes. Additionally, the Church has cited the failed wars of modern times in Iraq, Eastern Europe and Rwanda as reasons not to go to war now. Muslims in Norway stand together with the Norwegian Church in opposing the move, and urged dialogue between both sides.
However, fanatical fundamental Christians have started rallying in Oslo, parading down the streets holding banners calling for the Norwegian Church to sponsor trips down to the Vatican to rally around the Pope. Conservative politicians have also lobbied for a “positive response to the Pope’s war cries”.
Will Norway’s government and Church bow down to pressure and sponsor trips to the Vatican? Will fanaticism overtake modern society? Can we prevent another erroneous disaster?
Here in Norway, we urge the world to take caution, and not to subscribe to the ideology of fanaticism. Access to God doesn’t mean true belief.
Youth and Aids
In an interview with the delegates from the MSF, they expressed concern over the lack of attention being given to young children in the WHO and UNDP. Their concern is primarily about the neglect to young children suffering from AIDS, with too much being focused on older youths.
MSF argues that young children must be protected, primarily because they are going to be adults twenty years down the road, which stands in contrast to youths who will be taking up their yoke of responsibility in society within the next five to ten. Knowing that they will form the economically productive population base in society within the next generation, their numbers must not be depleted before they can reach their age of coming. They also wish to see children protected for purely compassionate reasons.
Though I agree with the MSF on the need to protect children, I believe that the focus and direction of the UNDP to focus on older youths is correct. They are the ones that will be caring for this decade’s young children when their parents die off (life expectancy in Africa is considerably shorter than in first-world nations), and they will be the ones that will support them financially. By going with the Canadian and Norwegian initiatives to provide training to them in HIV/AIDS education, and by ensuring that they are able to return home with the funds needed to promote AIDS awareness, prevention and treatment programs, they will be able to invoke local change within their own communities, which may prove far more effective than relying on NGOs and their bureaucracies.
Given Africa’s general reluctance to see the West’s intervention in their domestic conflicts (Darfur, Uganda and Somalia are prime examples), it would be reasonable to argue that Africa wishes to have more independence in governing their own matters. While NGOs and other national aid agencies in the West may be able to provide expertise and funding, true change can only be invoked when local people are involved in their own communities. We see this with Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, who were locally involved in their own communities to bring about great change. I believe that the UNDP’s initiative by Norway and Canada, if it pulls through, will help not only the African region but also other AIDS-afflicted regions such as Haiti and India to overcome their AIDS epidemic problem.
As such, I would like to applaud the UNDP’s initiatives on youth education. If any resolution gets passed today, I believe this is the one that will come first.
Major Update 3: Triple Stalemate
Delegates were unable to reach a resolution after a total of 9½ hours of intense caucusing. In all three fronts, namely AIDS, biological weapons and alternative energy for Africa, negotiations were stalled over debates regarding definitions of terms (alternative energy, biological weapons), clarification on positions and cliques forming within the committees. The major productive action that took place was the drafting of working papers, but with four or five competing papers being circulated at once, delegates were confused over the progress being made within their committees as a whole.
Biological Weapons (GA1)
The US/UK partnership wanted to focus on confidence-building measures, such as specific ways that nations can release information, and pushed for improved transparency in doing so. The UK also stated its favorable stance in support of allowing a country to conduct its own inspections. Additionally, the UK cited a fear for a “leak of intelligence” as one of its major concerns for its resolution’s concentration on confidence-building measures.
On the other side of the table, Croatia and China regarded the Ukraine/US/UK proposal as “complete garbage” in that it “attempt[s] to magnify past mistakes”. They are firmly against any overseeing body; however, it is notable that most Islamic countries were subversive and against monitoring. China and Croatia believe that none-state actors are needed, in order to get to the grassroots of the problems when tackling them; this is done in a bid to avoid governmental bodies in order to improve transparency.
AIDS (UNDP)
Three major working papers are being written at the time of writing, with the working paper led by the Norway, Canada and Russia enjoying the most support.
The United States still refuses to budge on abstinence, but has not come out more specifically on their position. They will provide funding for education and treatment programs, but will not provide funding for prevention programs unless abstinence is promoted.
Canada’s position on the United States’ abstinence clause is that it is a culturally sensitive clause, and would not propose that abstinence be enforced. It would definitely accept the clause, however, provided that it does not get used as a preliminary measure; rather it must be introduced as the “last-ditch” resort provided all other means of contraception is culturally taboo. Norway’s six-point proposal, which was just recently reduced to five, is still in effect.
When interviewed, the MSF agrees with elements of each draft resolution, and would particularly like to see increased anti-retroviral treatment, and agrees with Canada, Norway and Russia on funding, but would like to see more action for young children in addition to older youths. MSF applauded having actual financial aid for older youths to carry out innovative projects in their home countries to stop the spread of AIDS.
Alternative Energy (WB)
The definition of alternative energy was still being debated yesterday, yet even though the issue was put to the table quite a number of times, the majority of motions for unmoderated caucuses were voted down.
It appeared that the EU bloc, led by the UK in their initiative, would like to see privatization of alternative energy, while the African nations preferred to have a public fund pool. The issue has now been resolved, with the EU and AU delegates working together on one working paper, but the details have not been finalized yet.
Additionally, the G8 and the AU had further issues over the distribution of funding. While the African Union would like to see themselves take complete control over the distribution of funding, the G8 and other donor nations would like to have some control over how each project is funded, to ensure accountability. The deadlock over this issue still has not been resolved yet.
OPEC, on the other hand, expressed their desire to expand oil infrastructure, usage and production in Africa, for this gives the most immediate results in rebuilding and developing the African economy. They warned that if the AU voted to the contrary of their wishes, there would be deliberate moves to halt supply of oil.
Other News
Ukraine alleges that the Russian government is backing a terrorist group in Georgia, and that it has been one day since the attacks and would like to see Russia come out with an apology on this. Russia denies all accusations, saying that they have “no involvement in these actions”.
Biological Weapons (GA1)
The US/UK partnership wanted to focus on confidence-building measures, such as specific ways that nations can release information, and pushed for improved transparency in doing so. The UK also stated its favorable stance in support of allowing a country to conduct its own inspections. Additionally, the UK cited a fear for a “leak of intelligence” as one of its major concerns for its resolution’s concentration on confidence-building measures.
On the other side of the table, Croatia and China regarded the Ukraine/US/UK proposal as “complete garbage” in that it “attempt[s] to magnify past mistakes”. They are firmly against any overseeing body; however, it is notable that most Islamic countries were subversive and against monitoring. China and Croatia believe that none-state actors are needed, in order to get to the grassroots of the problems when tackling them; this is done in a bid to avoid governmental bodies in order to improve transparency.
AIDS (UNDP)
Three major working papers are being written at the time of writing, with the working paper led by the Norway, Canada and Russia enjoying the most support.
The United States still refuses to budge on abstinence, but has not come out more specifically on their position. They will provide funding for education and treatment programs, but will not provide funding for prevention programs unless abstinence is promoted.
Canada’s position on the United States’ abstinence clause is that it is a culturally sensitive clause, and would not propose that abstinence be enforced. It would definitely accept the clause, however, provided that it does not get used as a preliminary measure; rather it must be introduced as the “last-ditch” resort provided all other means of contraception is culturally taboo. Norway’s six-point proposal, which was just recently reduced to five, is still in effect.
When interviewed, the MSF agrees with elements of each draft resolution, and would particularly like to see increased anti-retroviral treatment, and agrees with Canada, Norway and Russia on funding, but would like to see more action for young children in addition to older youths. MSF applauded having actual financial aid for older youths to carry out innovative projects in their home countries to stop the spread of AIDS.
Alternative Energy (WB)
The definition of alternative energy was still being debated yesterday, yet even though the issue was put to the table quite a number of times, the majority of motions for unmoderated caucuses were voted down.
It appeared that the EU bloc, led by the UK in their initiative, would like to see privatization of alternative energy, while the African nations preferred to have a public fund pool. The issue has now been resolved, with the EU and AU delegates working together on one working paper, but the details have not been finalized yet.
Additionally, the G8 and the AU had further issues over the distribution of funding. While the African Union would like to see themselves take complete control over the distribution of funding, the G8 and other donor nations would like to have some control over how each project is funded, to ensure accountability. The deadlock over this issue still has not been resolved yet.
OPEC, on the other hand, expressed their desire to expand oil infrastructure, usage and production in Africa, for this gives the most immediate results in rebuilding and developing the African economy. They warned that if the AU voted to the contrary of their wishes, there would be deliberate moves to halt supply of oil.
Other News
Ukraine alleges that the Russian government is backing a terrorist group in Georgia, and that it has been one day since the attacks and would like to see Russia come out with an apology on this. Russia denies all accusations, saying that they have “no involvement in these actions”.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Editorial 2: US Ambivalence on BWs and AIDS; Asian Opposition to Alternative Energy
USA’s Weakened Stance
The United States has been barraged by the press corps about their stance on AIDS and biological weapons (BWs) issues. In siding with Ukraine and the United Kingdom on the issue of BWs, allowing dual standards in the inspections and maintenance of BW stocks, the United States has come under fire for its duality on the issue.
As a longstanding political and military ally with the United States, the United Kingdom has been steadfast in supporting the United States’ stance on this issue. They would like to promote the standards of “trustworthiness” in determining who gets to keep their weapons, and who has to disarm. The major questions are then:
• What are these standards of trustworthiness?
• Do they encompass the fact that some nations are ‘freedom fighters’, as which the UK claims themselves to be?
• In fact, one may further question: are those that set the standards themselves competent to uphold them?
The crux of the debate is simply whether BW development programs should be allowed for each country. For Norway, and for this reporter especially, the issue is quite simple: We do not want to see the proliferation of BWs around the world, for it poses a security threat to everybody around the world. For a country to present a dichotomy – that they can possess weapons while not allowing others to do so – is simply a hypocritical way to deal with the issue.
What we need, really, is a method similar to that of nuclear weapons, a treaty similar to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT) and the IAEA. We need to have all countries to agree to decrease their stockpile of biological weapons and halt further development of biological weapons, rather than allow continual monitoring of the status quo. Disarmament is a major step to achieve the goals of world peace, and must be enforced. Thankfully, the second draft of the resolution printed includes this, and hopefully the resolution will be passed.
Additionally, the United States has been unclear on their stance for an abstinence clause within the final resolutions on AIDS. Within the UNDP, the United States says that an abstinence clause is absolutely necessary, yet within the WHO, the United States expressed absolute insistence on the clause before funding be available from the United States. This is another duality on the US’ part, and reflects their undecided stance on abstinence. Further confusion from the US’ delegation is seen when they refused to comment on the possibility of cultural reasons behind their motivation for proposing the abstinence clause.
Questions raised in my previous editorial addressed the cultural issues. This time round, through the interviews with other countries, other questions one must ask are:
• Even with the weight of funding that the United States can provide, are delegates absolutely sure that they need the United States’ funding in order to implement their programs?
• Will Norway, which opposes the abstinence clause, be able to strike a compromise between them and the United States on this issue, by perhaps allowing the abstinence clause in the final resolution, but by providing more focus on other methods of prevention of AIDS spread?
• Can the issue of migration and population mobility be effectively addressed by the delegations in the WHO and UNDP? Indeed, even though the Nordic countries do not severely face this problem, it is still a pertinent issue on our borders, and we would be willing to assist other nations on this.
We will have to see the final resolution before we can decide finally if the United Nations UNDP and WHO are going to be able to effective in its implementation of their action plans.
Alternative Energy’s Opposition
Saudi Arabia obviously does not have a major interest in seeing Africa develop alternative energy sources. Specifically, when speaking to the Saudi delegates, they mentioned that they would like to focus on their own economy, although they would also like to see the development of alternative energy and the trade of ideas and technology in this field. The Saudi focus on their own economy is telling – being an OPEC member, alternative energy would strip them of potential buyers of their oil. Saudi motivations are pretty obvious and are acting in self-interest rather than in the interest of the African nations.
China, on the other hand, is unclear in their stance too. They disregard the apparent dichotomy with which the West imposes on the issue of energy in Africa (according to them, the West distinguishes between fossil fuels and alternative energy). They believe that Africa must rely on their own sources of energy within their geographical region, much as China has done. By refusing to commit itself to alternative energies, though, China has seen an unwillingness to be constrained by moral obligations imposed by taking up this burden: they themselves would have to cut back on fuels and carbon emissions, which would then hinder their economic progress. Would the World Bank then be able to negotiate a deal with China, a new major player in the world, in getting their participation?
Evidently, there is still much to be seen from this conference.
The United States has been barraged by the press corps about their stance on AIDS and biological weapons (BWs) issues. In siding with Ukraine and the United Kingdom on the issue of BWs, allowing dual standards in the inspections and maintenance of BW stocks, the United States has come under fire for its duality on the issue.
As a longstanding political and military ally with the United States, the United Kingdom has been steadfast in supporting the United States’ stance on this issue. They would like to promote the standards of “trustworthiness” in determining who gets to keep their weapons, and who has to disarm. The major questions are then:
• What are these standards of trustworthiness?
• Do they encompass the fact that some nations are ‘freedom fighters’, as which the UK claims themselves to be?
• In fact, one may further question: are those that set the standards themselves competent to uphold them?
The crux of the debate is simply whether BW development programs should be allowed for each country. For Norway, and for this reporter especially, the issue is quite simple: We do not want to see the proliferation of BWs around the world, for it poses a security threat to everybody around the world. For a country to present a dichotomy – that they can possess weapons while not allowing others to do so – is simply a hypocritical way to deal with the issue.
What we need, really, is a method similar to that of nuclear weapons, a treaty similar to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT) and the IAEA. We need to have all countries to agree to decrease their stockpile of biological weapons and halt further development of biological weapons, rather than allow continual monitoring of the status quo. Disarmament is a major step to achieve the goals of world peace, and must be enforced. Thankfully, the second draft of the resolution printed includes this, and hopefully the resolution will be passed.
Additionally, the United States has been unclear on their stance for an abstinence clause within the final resolutions on AIDS. Within the UNDP, the United States says that an abstinence clause is absolutely necessary, yet within the WHO, the United States expressed absolute insistence on the clause before funding be available from the United States. This is another duality on the US’ part, and reflects their undecided stance on abstinence. Further confusion from the US’ delegation is seen when they refused to comment on the possibility of cultural reasons behind their motivation for proposing the abstinence clause.
Questions raised in my previous editorial addressed the cultural issues. This time round, through the interviews with other countries, other questions one must ask are:
• Even with the weight of funding that the United States can provide, are delegates absolutely sure that they need the United States’ funding in order to implement their programs?
• Will Norway, which opposes the abstinence clause, be able to strike a compromise between them and the United States on this issue, by perhaps allowing the abstinence clause in the final resolution, but by providing more focus on other methods of prevention of AIDS spread?
• Can the issue of migration and population mobility be effectively addressed by the delegations in the WHO and UNDP? Indeed, even though the Nordic countries do not severely face this problem, it is still a pertinent issue on our borders, and we would be willing to assist other nations on this.
We will have to see the final resolution before we can decide finally if the United Nations UNDP and WHO are going to be able to effective in its implementation of their action plans.
Alternative Energy’s Opposition
Saudi Arabia obviously does not have a major interest in seeing Africa develop alternative energy sources. Specifically, when speaking to the Saudi delegates, they mentioned that they would like to focus on their own economy, although they would also like to see the development of alternative energy and the trade of ideas and technology in this field. The Saudi focus on their own economy is telling – being an OPEC member, alternative energy would strip them of potential buyers of their oil. Saudi motivations are pretty obvious and are acting in self-interest rather than in the interest of the African nations.
China, on the other hand, is unclear in their stance too. They disregard the apparent dichotomy with which the West imposes on the issue of energy in Africa (according to them, the West distinguishes between fossil fuels and alternative energy). They believe that Africa must rely on their own sources of energy within their geographical region, much as China has done. By refusing to commit itself to alternative energies, though, China has seen an unwillingness to be constrained by moral obligations imposed by taking up this burden: they themselves would have to cut back on fuels and carbon emissions, which would then hinder their economic progress. Would the World Bank then be able to negotiate a deal with China, a new major player in the world, in getting their participation?
Evidently, there is still much to be seen from this conference.
News Flash: Energy Stalemate
Delegates within the World Bank have reached a stalemate, turning back to the fundamentals as they find out that the definition of alternative energy is still debatable, while there is a disagreement between the EU and the AU over whether the EU-supported privatization and the AU-preferred public fund pool should be implemented.
News Flash: Stalemate in WB, Split Factionalism in GA1
Many resolutions are being drafted within the General Assembly, with no clear view on whether a final agreement can be reached.
On the other hand, within the World Bank, a division betwee EU and Africa, and the rest of the world seems to prevent them from reaching a resolution.
On the other hand, within the World Bank, a division betwee EU and Africa, and the rest of the world seems to prevent them from reaching a resolution.
News Flash: GA1 Draft Resolution 2 Proposed
Proposal includes the establishment of a body similar to the IAEA, while also limiting the proliferation. It also seeks to develop peaceful biotechnology. Most improtantly, they propose the establishment of a treaty, and the creation of an international conference "for the purposes of developing the treaty as described."
Signatories are Turkey, Norway, United States, Belgium, Israel and Canada.
Sponsors are: Ukrain, Serbia, United Kingdom and Italy.
Signatories are Turkey, Norway, United States, Belgium, Israel and Canada.
Sponsors are: Ukrain, Serbia, United Kingdom and Italy.
News Flash: USA may Redeploy Troops
Denmark's press has claimed that the United States is planning a major clandestine operation with its military, by redeploying troops to Iraq.
News Flash: US and UK Socialize with N. Korea
Anonymous sources have spotted the United States and the United Kingdom's delegates holding discussions over the a cup of tea. Interesting news from the Security Council, and expect to hear further developments from other reporters on this.
Major Update 2: AIDS progress, Biological weapons talks stall, and opposition to alternative energy for Africa
AIDS (WHO and GNDP)
On the issue of AIDS, progress has been reached, with Norway in the UNDP leading the delegates in proposing that great progress be made to formulate a “grand resolution” encompassing Norway’s six point plan and Canada’s educational funding plan. All countries agree that AIDS is indeed a major issue pertaining not only to health, but also to security and economy.
Funding was a major issue with the United States in the UNDP ambivalent about their stance over abstinence being a clause within the final resolution in contrast to the United States in the WHO insisting on the addition of the clause as condition for funding to come from the United States. Additionally, Norway proposed consistency in funding, with set targets each year for each country. The percentage contribution suggested by the Russian Federation was 0.1% of each country’s GDP.
Pharmaceutical companies’ involvement was also debated with poorer countries such as Serbia and India suggesting that patents be opened up, or else parallel licensing be used (as has been implemented in South Africa).
Nordic countries felt that Norway’s involvement in the UNDP’s AIDS program is commendable, and that Norway is a political ally in this issue.
Biological Weapons (BW) (GA1)
The United States and the United Kingdom appear to be setting double standards, in line with the Ukraine’s proposed resolution to allow countries with BWs to maintain their stock of BWs, while preventing those that do not have BWs from developing them for defense. When specifically questioned, the United States refused to comment on themselves disallowing rouge nations such as Iran, Syria, Lybia, Sudan and the DPRK from possessing or further developing their BW programs.
The UK admits that it has a BW program that encompasses defense, and maintains that it is not an aggressive policy. The UK would like to see conditions attached to the resolution such as proof of trustworthiness, for which standards have not been decided upon yet at the time of writing.
Russia does not see the DPRK as a threat to Russia, but believes that it must be kept under strict observation.
On the issue as a whole, countries have been willing to negotiate their positions with other nations, and compromise on inspections by drawing up committees to establish firm guidelines. Italy, specifically, believes in the equality of each country, and would like to push for a working paper on the matter. Italy also predicts a final resolution being reached, rather than a stalemate.
Alternative Energy (WB)
Norway will see Saudi Arabia as an adversary to its stance, as Saudi Arabia is opposed to alternative energy, citing reasons of high cost, low cost effectiveness, and a lack of expertise in Africa as major obstacles. They would like to see the development of an oil economy in Africa, for they believe that there is only one route for development for Africa – through a carbon emitting economy based on a fossil-fuel infrastructure.
When questioned about cost, their concern is focused towards where the money will go – building, managing and maintaining the equipment within Africa. Saudi Arabia sees any involvement in Africa more as an investment rather than an act of goodwill, and their major issue with loans to Africa is on the issue of repayment. On the whole, Saudi Arabia would prefer to see Africa fulfill its own wish to stand independently and help itself, rather than rely on external help.
China, which was seemingly opposed to alternative energy development in Africa, stresses that there is in fact no dichotomy between fossil fuels and alternative fuels. China believes that each geographic region must be self-sufficient, harnessing their own sources of energy within their regions. When questioned about whether the West would provide long-term funding and commitment, China’s delegate said that “pigs would be flying” if the US did so, and that Africa must follow China’s example of being 90% self-sufficient for energy.
On the issue of AIDS, progress has been reached, with Norway in the UNDP leading the delegates in proposing that great progress be made to formulate a “grand resolution” encompassing Norway’s six point plan and Canada’s educational funding plan. All countries agree that AIDS is indeed a major issue pertaining not only to health, but also to security and economy.
Funding was a major issue with the United States in the UNDP ambivalent about their stance over abstinence being a clause within the final resolution in contrast to the United States in the WHO insisting on the addition of the clause as condition for funding to come from the United States. Additionally, Norway proposed consistency in funding, with set targets each year for each country. The percentage contribution suggested by the Russian Federation was 0.1% of each country’s GDP.
Pharmaceutical companies’ involvement was also debated with poorer countries such as Serbia and India suggesting that patents be opened up, or else parallel licensing be used (as has been implemented in South Africa).
Nordic countries felt that Norway’s involvement in the UNDP’s AIDS program is commendable, and that Norway is a political ally in this issue.
Biological Weapons (BW) (GA1)
The United States and the United Kingdom appear to be setting double standards, in line with the Ukraine’s proposed resolution to allow countries with BWs to maintain their stock of BWs, while preventing those that do not have BWs from developing them for defense. When specifically questioned, the United States refused to comment on themselves disallowing rouge nations such as Iran, Syria, Lybia, Sudan and the DPRK from possessing or further developing their BW programs.
The UK admits that it has a BW program that encompasses defense, and maintains that it is not an aggressive policy. The UK would like to see conditions attached to the resolution such as proof of trustworthiness, for which standards have not been decided upon yet at the time of writing.
Russia does not see the DPRK as a threat to Russia, but believes that it must be kept under strict observation.
On the issue as a whole, countries have been willing to negotiate their positions with other nations, and compromise on inspections by drawing up committees to establish firm guidelines. Italy, specifically, believes in the equality of each country, and would like to push for a working paper on the matter. Italy also predicts a final resolution being reached, rather than a stalemate.
Alternative Energy (WB)
Norway will see Saudi Arabia as an adversary to its stance, as Saudi Arabia is opposed to alternative energy, citing reasons of high cost, low cost effectiveness, and a lack of expertise in Africa as major obstacles. They would like to see the development of an oil economy in Africa, for they believe that there is only one route for development for Africa – through a carbon emitting economy based on a fossil-fuel infrastructure.
When questioned about cost, their concern is focused towards where the money will go – building, managing and maintaining the equipment within Africa. Saudi Arabia sees any involvement in Africa more as an investment rather than an act of goodwill, and their major issue with loans to Africa is on the issue of repayment. On the whole, Saudi Arabia would prefer to see Africa fulfill its own wish to stand independently and help itself, rather than rely on external help.
China, which was seemingly opposed to alternative energy development in Africa, stresses that there is in fact no dichotomy between fossil fuels and alternative fuels. China believes that each geographic region must be self-sufficient, harnessing their own sources of energy within their regions. When questioned about whether the West would provide long-term funding and commitment, China’s delegate said that “pigs would be flying” if the US did so, and that Africa must follow China’s example of being 90% self-sufficient for energy.
News Flash: UN Soldiers Raping Children and Women
12 UN soldiers have been found to rape children and women while on peacekeeping missions in Sudan. This may cause problems for the UN's involvement in the peackeeping force in Darfur.
News Flash: US Embassy Bombed
The US embassy in Greece has been bombed. Suspects have not been apprehended yet. Stay tuned for more information.
News Flash: Georgian President Assasinated
According to recent rumors, Georgia's President has been assasinated. Stay tuned for more details.
Editorial: Musings on Developments on AIDS and Alternative Energy
In the first of my editorials, I would like to address the issues of AIDS and Alternative Energy, especially their relevance to African nations. World opinions and attitudes towards these are integral to whether our neighbors south of our continent continue to develop, and their development (or lack of it) will affect how the world interacts 50 years down the road (provided we don't mutually annihilate ourselves or heat the world to the extent that we burn up and die).
AIDS
Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest rate of HIV transmission in the world, with the bulk of transmissions due to shared intravenous needles and sexually active individuals. Throughout my interviews with delegates from different countries, there is a consensus reached that AIDS is a problem and that it must be tackled with before it becomes worse than it is now.
Two major threads of thought run throughout the delegations. Namely, they are education and R&D.
(a) Education
For education, while most countries are in favor of education, though many do not make a distinction between which types of education they are in favor of – sex education or general literacy education. For the most part delegates did not make the distinction, though when further pressed, most said literacy education, which is in line with Norway’s stance in promoting literacy education to poorer nations. Norway’s representative in the WHO Ms. Cindy Yang, says that the AIDS endemic is closely related to the gender inequalities present in society as well as a country’s economic standing. By bringing up the literacy level in poorer countries, we will be able to empower women and children to make conscious decisions about their lives, in particular their sex lives as well, and with economic leverage, women can cease to be the abused gender in traditionally patriarchal societies.
It is important to note that general literacy education is not mutually exclusive with sex education; in fact, general literacy is a prerequisite to sex education. Without general literacy, ideas about sex and its relevance to the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) cannot be disseminated to the general public easily. In fact, Norway proposes action on both fronts. Within the WHO, Ms. Yang has suggested the use of general literacy education, while in the UNDP, our representative Ms. Tania Harsono has proposed a six-point proposal (listed in Major Update 1) involving sex education and expansion of funding specifically. Holistically, Norway has provided a total solution that seems feasible in taking a major step towards eliminating AIDS.
However, this total solution cannot come without major funding from donor countries, and the United States has expressed their desire for an “abstinence” clause to be inserted into the final resolution before they provide funding. This “abstinence” clause seeks to heavily promote abstinence as a part of the sex education provided to the poorer nations. Rather than help anything, however, I believe that the abstinence clause simply reflects a duality in the United States’ actions, which must be confronted by the other nations. It also runs contrary to Norway’s ideals and goals proposed by our delegation.
One must ask: What makes the African nations just as receptive to abstinence education as the American people? Are the Americans being culturally sensitive in their solution to the problem? And when AIDS afflicts 1.0 to 1.2 million Americans right now, what makes them so sure that abstinence is the way to go when it hasn’t solve any problems domestically yet? Additionally, will abstinence solve the problem of AIDS being transmitted through shared needles, which constitutes at least 70% of new HIV+ cases? The big question is: are we willing to spend money on a program that will not have a major effect on the development of AIDS? At the very best, the US’s solution does not provide any better alternative to that of Norway’s; at worst, it will stall the development of a resolution, and will provide extra monetary burden to the UN.
(2) RnD
Funding must be channeled through to the appropriate means, and one of them will be research and development. MSF and the UK agree for the need for cheaper drugs, and that would mean pressuring major pharmaceutical companies (mostly with major interests in the United States) to permit the development of generic anti-retroviral drug treatments to allow greater accessibility by NGOs and poorer African nations to these drug treatments.
More funding is required, and Norway and a whole host of rich nations have contributed at around 0.7% of their GNP to the UN budget. The United States, however, only contributes 0.22% of its GNP. Evidently, the USA has a long way to go in terms of matching its full potential for contributions. Norway contributes, on average, about 0.9% of its GNP to the UN budget for aid, one of five nations that actually exceed the 0.7% mark, and I believe that this provides us with a strong grounding to take charge of the proposal for expansion of funding. (The other four are Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Sweden.)
Here, the big question is: will the United States yield to their powerful pharmaceutical lobby, or will President Bush provide the leverage required to help reduce cost of drugs and provide public funding for AIDS research? Additionally, will the United States provide additional funding for such a program?
Finally, one may have noted how the focus is generally placed on Africa, with the rest of the world generally ignored. True enough, though sub-Saharan Africa has the highest HIV transmission rate, China, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America are all experiencing rising numbers of HIV cases. In particular, Haiti has one of the fastest rates of HIV transmission outside of sub-Saharan Africa, and this is closely related to their internal violence. Norway’s UNDP proposal to expand the funding available to HIV/AIDS programs is in line with these countries’ desires to give more attention to their regions as well, and I believe that this would be a good thing, for expansion of the programs globally would ensure that the epidemic does not reach unmanageable proportions before we cure Africa of AIDS.
Alternative Energy
In terms of alternative energy for Africa, it seems that most countries agree on the need for Africa to develop alternative energy, with some notable exceptions as noticed by Norway’s representative to the World Bank, Mr. Charles Zhu.
Africa definitely has a pressing need for alternative energy. Considering the rising costs of oil, if Africa were to develop an oil-based economy, then they would have to compete with industrialized nations for oil barrels, in which case they wouldn’t have the economic leverage to do so. Additionally, an economy that starts on fossil fuels and develops the technology for it typically gets addicted to it; a quick glance at most of the Western world shows this. Rather than empower Africa in the long-term, any proposal to bring oil into Africa (or at least oppose alternative energy in Africa) has the potential to permanently cripple the African economy. If we assume that all nations agree that Africa needs to develop, and that development requires energy, then an oil-guzzling economy would certainly irreparably damage Africa’s economy in the short run, severely hindering its capability to develop further.
Additionally, with the environment and climate change a major world issue, it is to the world’s advantage to ensure that Africa develops cleanly and skips past ‘dirty energy’. Historically, we know that coal and oil cause health problems and climate changes in the locales where they are used, and that these are undesirable side effects. If China and India are of any indication, them being rapidly industrializing nations with huge populations consuming loads of energy has led scientists to earmark them both as the next biggest greenhouse gas emitters. This will certainly shift a balance in the climate. In order to protect the environment of the world, Africa needs to skip past this ‘dirty energy’ stage, and only with the West’s help can this happen.
Considering also that we may have well reached peak production of oil, it would be foolish for any nation to think that we can still expand the production of oil as an energy source for the future of Africa. Saudi Arabia and China have opposed the use of alternative energies, and while their intents have not been made explicitly known, they certainly seem to have interests in the use of fossil-fuel energy in Africa. The United States, surprisingly, has remained mum on the issue of energy sources, considering how President Bush promoted some (half-hearted) initiatives to develop clean energy and fuel-efficient vehicles.
Additionally, with Russia discontinuing their supply of oil to Western Europe, nations like ourselves and Saudi Arabia will have willing buyers for oil, which, with higher price offers and greater economic muscle on Europe’s side, will leave Africa out in the cold. A lack of energy directly translates to poorer economies, which may exacerbate poverty-related problems in Africa.
Norway recognizes all three of these points, and so, contrary to our perceived opposition to clean energy, we are ready to lend our expertise in developing hydroelectric power in southeastern Africa, which is feasible considering the fact that numerous rivers run through Africa. It would work well to encourage our Dutch counterparts to send in their experts on solar and wind energy, as well as other nations to participate in this project with us, for we all have an impetus – our climate – to help them with this.
Projections and Insights on Political Proceedings in MUN
Some of these predictions are unrelated to the editorial, and reflect my interviews with delegates during their free times.
I predict that the United States will start to feel pressure on its abstinence policy, and that the corps will start to exert its collective weight on the United States to produce a stand on its foreign energy policy.
Haiti is a nation that has problems with both AIDS and disarmament of its country. If it is recognized as a potential starting point for solving violence-related problems, it can benefit from donor aid to help solve its AIDS problems too. Haiti would then be instrumental in helping the world find effective solutions to both problems of disarmament and AIDS.
Given that the United Kingdom has its water supplies privatized, it may encounter opposition from countries that believe in the freedom to have water amenities available through public services. If it is willing to strike deals with those countries, it could possibly garner support for its missions in Afghanistan and Darfur.
Ukraine will need to gather support from countries that do not believe that those having stockpiles be allowed to keep them secret, or that do not believe that countries that already have biological weapons can still be allowed to keep them. Both of these clauses are a thorn to progress on biological weapons, and either one must be removed.
Algeria, Canada and Norway can cooperate very closely on the issue of immigration-related HIV transmission. If MSF and the five European top-donor nations negotiate with other rich nations properly, more funds can be made available for the stopping of the spread of AIDS.
AIDS
Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest rate of HIV transmission in the world, with the bulk of transmissions due to shared intravenous needles and sexually active individuals. Throughout my interviews with delegates from different countries, there is a consensus reached that AIDS is a problem and that it must be tackled with before it becomes worse than it is now.
Two major threads of thought run throughout the delegations. Namely, they are education and R&D.
(a) Education
For education, while most countries are in favor of education, though many do not make a distinction between which types of education they are in favor of – sex education or general literacy education. For the most part delegates did not make the distinction, though when further pressed, most said literacy education, which is in line with Norway’s stance in promoting literacy education to poorer nations. Norway’s representative in the WHO Ms. Cindy Yang, says that the AIDS endemic is closely related to the gender inequalities present in society as well as a country’s economic standing. By bringing up the literacy level in poorer countries, we will be able to empower women and children to make conscious decisions about their lives, in particular their sex lives as well, and with economic leverage, women can cease to be the abused gender in traditionally patriarchal societies.
It is important to note that general literacy education is not mutually exclusive with sex education; in fact, general literacy is a prerequisite to sex education. Without general literacy, ideas about sex and its relevance to the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) cannot be disseminated to the general public easily. In fact, Norway proposes action on both fronts. Within the WHO, Ms. Yang has suggested the use of general literacy education, while in the UNDP, our representative Ms. Tania Harsono has proposed a six-point proposal (listed in Major Update 1) involving sex education and expansion of funding specifically. Holistically, Norway has provided a total solution that seems feasible in taking a major step towards eliminating AIDS.
However, this total solution cannot come without major funding from donor countries, and the United States has expressed their desire for an “abstinence” clause to be inserted into the final resolution before they provide funding. This “abstinence” clause seeks to heavily promote abstinence as a part of the sex education provided to the poorer nations. Rather than help anything, however, I believe that the abstinence clause simply reflects a duality in the United States’ actions, which must be confronted by the other nations. It also runs contrary to Norway’s ideals and goals proposed by our delegation.
One must ask: What makes the African nations just as receptive to abstinence education as the American people? Are the Americans being culturally sensitive in their solution to the problem? And when AIDS afflicts 1.0 to 1.2 million Americans right now, what makes them so sure that abstinence is the way to go when it hasn’t solve any problems domestically yet? Additionally, will abstinence solve the problem of AIDS being transmitted through shared needles, which constitutes at least 70% of new HIV+ cases? The big question is: are we willing to spend money on a program that will not have a major effect on the development of AIDS? At the very best, the US’s solution does not provide any better alternative to that of Norway’s; at worst, it will stall the development of a resolution, and will provide extra monetary burden to the UN.
(2) RnD
Funding must be channeled through to the appropriate means, and one of them will be research and development. MSF and the UK agree for the need for cheaper drugs, and that would mean pressuring major pharmaceutical companies (mostly with major interests in the United States) to permit the development of generic anti-retroviral drug treatments to allow greater accessibility by NGOs and poorer African nations to these drug treatments.
More funding is required, and Norway and a whole host of rich nations have contributed at around 0.7% of their GNP to the UN budget. The United States, however, only contributes 0.22% of its GNP. Evidently, the USA has a long way to go in terms of matching its full potential for contributions. Norway contributes, on average, about 0.9% of its GNP to the UN budget for aid, one of five nations that actually exceed the 0.7% mark, and I believe that this provides us with a strong grounding to take charge of the proposal for expansion of funding. (The other four are Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Sweden.)
Here, the big question is: will the United States yield to their powerful pharmaceutical lobby, or will President Bush provide the leverage required to help reduce cost of drugs and provide public funding for AIDS research? Additionally, will the United States provide additional funding for such a program?
Finally, one may have noted how the focus is generally placed on Africa, with the rest of the world generally ignored. True enough, though sub-Saharan Africa has the highest HIV transmission rate, China, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America are all experiencing rising numbers of HIV cases. In particular, Haiti has one of the fastest rates of HIV transmission outside of sub-Saharan Africa, and this is closely related to their internal violence. Norway’s UNDP proposal to expand the funding available to HIV/AIDS programs is in line with these countries’ desires to give more attention to their regions as well, and I believe that this would be a good thing, for expansion of the programs globally would ensure that the epidemic does not reach unmanageable proportions before we cure Africa of AIDS.
Alternative Energy
In terms of alternative energy for Africa, it seems that most countries agree on the need for Africa to develop alternative energy, with some notable exceptions as noticed by Norway’s representative to the World Bank, Mr. Charles Zhu.
Africa definitely has a pressing need for alternative energy. Considering the rising costs of oil, if Africa were to develop an oil-based economy, then they would have to compete with industrialized nations for oil barrels, in which case they wouldn’t have the economic leverage to do so. Additionally, an economy that starts on fossil fuels and develops the technology for it typically gets addicted to it; a quick glance at most of the Western world shows this. Rather than empower Africa in the long-term, any proposal to bring oil into Africa (or at least oppose alternative energy in Africa) has the potential to permanently cripple the African economy. If we assume that all nations agree that Africa needs to develop, and that development requires energy, then an oil-guzzling economy would certainly irreparably damage Africa’s economy in the short run, severely hindering its capability to develop further.
Additionally, with the environment and climate change a major world issue, it is to the world’s advantage to ensure that Africa develops cleanly and skips past ‘dirty energy’. Historically, we know that coal and oil cause health problems and climate changes in the locales where they are used, and that these are undesirable side effects. If China and India are of any indication, them being rapidly industrializing nations with huge populations consuming loads of energy has led scientists to earmark them both as the next biggest greenhouse gas emitters. This will certainly shift a balance in the climate. In order to protect the environment of the world, Africa needs to skip past this ‘dirty energy’ stage, and only with the West’s help can this happen.
Considering also that we may have well reached peak production of oil, it would be foolish for any nation to think that we can still expand the production of oil as an energy source for the future of Africa. Saudi Arabia and China have opposed the use of alternative energies, and while their intents have not been made explicitly known, they certainly seem to have interests in the use of fossil-fuel energy in Africa. The United States, surprisingly, has remained mum on the issue of energy sources, considering how President Bush promoted some (half-hearted) initiatives to develop clean energy and fuel-efficient vehicles.
Additionally, with Russia discontinuing their supply of oil to Western Europe, nations like ourselves and Saudi Arabia will have willing buyers for oil, which, with higher price offers and greater economic muscle on Europe’s side, will leave Africa out in the cold. A lack of energy directly translates to poorer economies, which may exacerbate poverty-related problems in Africa.
Norway recognizes all three of these points, and so, contrary to our perceived opposition to clean energy, we are ready to lend our expertise in developing hydroelectric power in southeastern Africa, which is feasible considering the fact that numerous rivers run through Africa. It would work well to encourage our Dutch counterparts to send in their experts on solar and wind energy, as well as other nations to participate in this project with us, for we all have an impetus – our climate – to help them with this.
Projections and Insights on Political Proceedings in MUN
Some of these predictions are unrelated to the editorial, and reflect my interviews with delegates during their free times.
I predict that the United States will start to feel pressure on its abstinence policy, and that the corps will start to exert its collective weight on the United States to produce a stand on its foreign energy policy.
Haiti is a nation that has problems with both AIDS and disarmament of its country. If it is recognized as a potential starting point for solving violence-related problems, it can benefit from donor aid to help solve its AIDS problems too. Haiti would then be instrumental in helping the world find effective solutions to both problems of disarmament and AIDS.
Given that the United Kingdom has its water supplies privatized, it may encounter opposition from countries that believe in the freedom to have water amenities available through public services. If it is willing to strike deals with those countries, it could possibly garner support for its missions in Afghanistan and Darfur.
Ukraine will need to gather support from countries that do not believe that those having stockpiles be allowed to keep them secret, or that do not believe that countries that already have biological weapons can still be allowed to keep them. Both of these clauses are a thorn to progress on biological weapons, and either one must be removed.
Algeria, Canada and Norway can cooperate very closely on the issue of immigration-related HIV transmission. If MSF and the five European top-donor nations negotiate with other rich nations properly, more funds can be made available for the stopping of the spread of AIDS.
Major Update 1: Consensus on Major Issues
Major Update 1: Consensus on Major Issues
During the UN's different committees' rounds of discussion, three major issues were discussed, namely the AIDS epidemic, biological weapons, and alternative energy in Africa. Countries generally reached a consensus on the major issues, with no big players opposing the general consensus.
AIDS (WHO and UNDP)
Delegates from countries as diverse as Algeria, Turkey, India, Ukraine and North Korea (DPRK) have consensus on the issue of the AIDS epidemic worldwide, with most nations agreeing to halt the spread of AIDS. Norway's representative in the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Tania Harsono proposed six points of action to be proposed in the final resolution, namely
1. Peer-support groups for infected youths
2. Easier access to information, testing and counseling
3. Global access to condoms
4. Highly active anti-retroviral treatment programs
5. Enlargement of global funds
6. Volunteer force for all of the above
These goals, while considered to be in line with the UN's Millennium Goals, were well-received by delegates in the UNDP, with Canada joining Norway action plan by proposing scholarships for students participating in AIDS-related events and fields of study.
On another front, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and the United Kingdom (UK) agree to the need for cheaper drugs and the need for general education in the public. The UK went further to suggest that both the private and public sectors must participate in the process for developing drugs to combat AIDS, but that focus and money must be directed towards developing cheaper drugs.
Algeria shares Norway's concerns over immigrants bringing in AIDS to their own country, due to refugees. In Algeria, though they have a low rate of AIDS transmission, with only 9000 out of 2 million people having contracted AIDS, the majority of those infected are immigrants from neighboring countries. They propose that Norway be an ally for Algeria on this issue.
Within the WHO, prevention methods were top priority, with education and research the informal consensus on methodology. In particular, Italy has provided money for education programs, and has conducted workshops in Africa to support these programs. Jordan and Syria, likewise, support initiatives for education and prevention, but are primarily concerned with sex trade and the influence of other countries' populations on their own transmission rates.
Bolivia and Haiti stand together on issues, even though their circumstances are vastly different. In Bolivia, neighboring countries with rates of transmission much higher than those of their own have prompted them to support the motion to defeat AIDS, while also recognizing (separately from the UK and MSF) the importance of producing cheap drugs to vaccinate and combat AIDS. Haiti, on the other hand, has one of the highest transmission rates of HIV outside of sub-Saharan Africa, and appeals to the international community for a strategic plan for help to solve its AIDS problem in conjunction with their domestic violence problem for small arms control.
DPRK, however, preferred to focus on only sex education, and claim that their 99% literacy rate does not warrant any more general education. Additionally, their delegates stated a preference for internal action, with foreign aid towards AIDS programs welcome.
Biological Weapons (BW) (GA1)
Turkey is leading a movement to create a new international agency, with supporters such as Ukraine and Canada backing them to create an IAEA-like agency to monitor stockpiles of biological weapons. Ukraine and Canada want to allow countries that already have BWs to keep their current stock of weapons, but to allow those weapons to be inspected and accounted for, while prohibiting other countries from developing them. In a separate interview, Ukraine also wished to see a clause that allowed countries to maintain secrecy over their stockpiles too. They are likely backed by the United States.
Palestine delegates have stated their agreement with the disarmament of BWs in order to "make the world a better place to live.. [and]... bring peace". Other middle-eastern countries such as Afghanistan back the opposition to the US possessing BWs "for defense purposes", for the US delegate's stance against North Korea and Iran holding BWs for the same purposes was cause for concern.
Germany and Algeria are both opposed to countries possessing BWs, for they believe that this threatens peace and security. In particular, Germany opposes BWs on historical and ethical reasons, stating their knowledge of their country's past history with chemical and biological weapons and the fact that it is purely "unethical" to possess weapons of mass destruction as reasons to oppose the proliferation of BWs.
Alternative Energy (WB)
By noting Africa's disproportionate energy resources relative to its production and consumption, France led the discussion by suggesting that immediate action be taken on getting solar and natural gas energy used. Germany identified the major threats to industrialization if power was cut from Africa, and urged industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse emissions while helping Africa produce green power. Australia took a similar stance by urging industrial powers to help Africa skip past the dirty power stage through technological input. It also offered to lead the Pacific Rim bloc on providing contributions to the final resolution.
Syria and Jordan both support alternative energy, for the reason of preventing Africa becoming oil dependent on oil-producing countries. Syria, in particular, proposes that they allow fossil fuels to be exported out of Africa, though, noting that the income would be integral to the development of their society.
During the UN's different committees' rounds of discussion, three major issues were discussed, namely the AIDS epidemic, biological weapons, and alternative energy in Africa. Countries generally reached a consensus on the major issues, with no big players opposing the general consensus.
AIDS (WHO and UNDP)
Delegates from countries as diverse as Algeria, Turkey, India, Ukraine and North Korea (DPRK) have consensus on the issue of the AIDS epidemic worldwide, with most nations agreeing to halt the spread of AIDS. Norway's representative in the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Tania Harsono proposed six points of action to be proposed in the final resolution, namely
1. Peer-support groups for infected youths
2. Easier access to information, testing and counseling
3. Global access to condoms
4. Highly active anti-retroviral treatment programs
5. Enlargement of global funds
6. Volunteer force for all of the above
These goals, while considered to be in line with the UN's Millennium Goals, were well-received by delegates in the UNDP, with Canada joining Norway action plan by proposing scholarships for students participating in AIDS-related events and fields of study.
On another front, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and the United Kingdom (UK) agree to the need for cheaper drugs and the need for general education in the public. The UK went further to suggest that both the private and public sectors must participate in the process for developing drugs to combat AIDS, but that focus and money must be directed towards developing cheaper drugs.
Algeria shares Norway's concerns over immigrants bringing in AIDS to their own country, due to refugees. In Algeria, though they have a low rate of AIDS transmission, with only 9000 out of 2 million people having contracted AIDS, the majority of those infected are immigrants from neighboring countries. They propose that Norway be an ally for Algeria on this issue.
Within the WHO, prevention methods were top priority, with education and research the informal consensus on methodology. In particular, Italy has provided money for education programs, and has conducted workshops in Africa to support these programs. Jordan and Syria, likewise, support initiatives for education and prevention, but are primarily concerned with sex trade and the influence of other countries' populations on their own transmission rates.
Bolivia and Haiti stand together on issues, even though their circumstances are vastly different. In Bolivia, neighboring countries with rates of transmission much higher than those of their own have prompted them to support the motion to defeat AIDS, while also recognizing (separately from the UK and MSF) the importance of producing cheap drugs to vaccinate and combat AIDS. Haiti, on the other hand, has one of the highest transmission rates of HIV outside of sub-Saharan Africa, and appeals to the international community for a strategic plan for help to solve its AIDS problem in conjunction with their domestic violence problem for small arms control.
DPRK, however, preferred to focus on only sex education, and claim that their 99% literacy rate does not warrant any more general education. Additionally, their delegates stated a preference for internal action, with foreign aid towards AIDS programs welcome.
Biological Weapons (BW) (GA1)
Turkey is leading a movement to create a new international agency, with supporters such as Ukraine and Canada backing them to create an IAEA-like agency to monitor stockpiles of biological weapons. Ukraine and Canada want to allow countries that already have BWs to keep their current stock of weapons, but to allow those weapons to be inspected and accounted for, while prohibiting other countries from developing them. In a separate interview, Ukraine also wished to see a clause that allowed countries to maintain secrecy over their stockpiles too. They are likely backed by the United States.
Palestine delegates have stated their agreement with the disarmament of BWs in order to "make the world a better place to live.. [and]... bring peace". Other middle-eastern countries such as Afghanistan back the opposition to the US possessing BWs "for defense purposes", for the US delegate's stance against North Korea and Iran holding BWs for the same purposes was cause for concern.
Germany and Algeria are both opposed to countries possessing BWs, for they believe that this threatens peace and security. In particular, Germany opposes BWs on historical and ethical reasons, stating their knowledge of their country's past history with chemical and biological weapons and the fact that it is purely "unethical" to possess weapons of mass destruction as reasons to oppose the proliferation of BWs.
Alternative Energy (WB)
By noting Africa's disproportionate energy resources relative to its production and consumption, France led the discussion by suggesting that immediate action be taken on getting solar and natural gas energy used. Germany identified the major threats to industrialization if power was cut from Africa, and urged industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse emissions while helping Africa produce green power. Australia took a similar stance by urging industrial powers to help Africa skip past the dirty power stage through technological input. It also offered to lead the Pacific Rim bloc on providing contributions to the final resolution.
Syria and Jordan both support alternative energy, for the reason of preventing Africa becoming oil dependent on oil-producing countries. Syria, in particular, proposes that they allow fossil fuels to be exported out of Africa, though, noting that the income would be integral to the development of their society.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Aftenposten Model UN's 2007 Blog is launched!
Greetings fellow Norwegians.
My name is Erik and I am your correspondent reporting from Coast Plaza Hotel and Suites, located in downtown Vancouver, BC, Canada for the 2007 UBC Model UN Conference. I will be providing live updates on the developments of major MUN issues, such as poverty, AIDS, regime change, and worldwide politics. Stay tuned for further updates.
My name is Erik and I am your correspondent reporting from Coast Plaza Hotel and Suites, located in downtown Vancouver, BC, Canada for the 2007 UBC Model UN Conference. I will be providing live updates on the developments of major MUN issues, such as poverty, AIDS, regime change, and worldwide politics. Stay tuned for further updates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)