Monday 03 May 2010 - MILMUN

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MILMUN CHRONICLE 4 “We will mark our presence by our absence”, states one of the main slogan of “Journeé sans Immigré”. This association, which promoted a full day off from work for immigrants, was created in order to raise the attention on the condition of migrants in France. However, since the topic is one of the hot issues in the political agenda in numerous European states, the 1 st of March was marked by the absence of immigrants also in Italy, Greece and Spain. France’s problems with regards to immigrants are widely known: the policeman: a unprecedented situation since 1985. Also the 1 st of May, which should be devoted to celebrate the workers, is expected to hold space for disagreement: Greece has already announced demonstrations and protests which could be followed by strikes on various degrees. To complete our compass, let’s focus west. Guess what we will find? We will find the same old mood. Portugal started to protest against the cut decided by the government on the 27 th of April, exactly a day after the double downgrading of the national debt. Starting from local transportation to railways and ferries, a number of demonstrations and strikes have invaded the country, with a high rate of adhesion (between the 40% - 80% of personnel). The agitations are deemed to continue, with the participation also of postal services and infrastructural programs. Is this the idea of peace and democracy that European countries strive to convey? Is it the way in which they respect their people’s will? Sometimes citizens seem not to be able to choose what’s best for them, sometimes governments fail in carrying out their duty properly: then where is the balance European countries think should be entitled to teach? last chapter being the proposal of banishing the burqua from public venues which has been put forward by the President Sarkozy himself. The law is causing troubles also because politicians differ a lot in their position: conservatives would have liked a more accommodating law, the Council of State warned about the possibility for this ban to be unconstitutional while public opinion is divided among the ones that perceive the wearing of a full veil as a violation of religious freedom and the ones who think it does not really bother citizens’ sensibility. Another country, the same problem: on the 3 rd of April the Time titled “ Belgium moves closer to the first Burqua Ban”. Belgian politicians are, in fact, debating on a law that will make illegal, and also subject to fines and imprisonment, the covering of all or part of the face. Moving east, don’t expect a different situation: Greece is heated up from continuous protests which have gone on since December. Tensions arising from the difficulty due to the financial crisis and against the measurements undertaken by the government led to moments of great nervousness. It’s enough to remember the death of a 15-year old demonstrator who was killed by a
5 MILMUN CHRONICLE The world is perched on a dangerous ledge, the end of the Cold War marked a thawing in relations and the coming of a “Nuclear Spring”, the unstable world that emerged is characterized by events like the attacks on the United States on 9/11, uncertainty of North Korea’s intentions and Iranian scamper for nuclear capabilities. Though the context has changed dramatically, the words of John F. Kennedy in his speech to the United Nations in 1961, have never been more pertinent, "Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads. . . The weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us”. The world watches with an eye on the past and with great expectations for the future as the United Nations Security Council deliberations commence. The past months have been punctuated with accords on nuclear disarmament and proliferation, bringing to the attention of the world the very serious connotations of an issue long overlooked as a diverting incident of international security. The delegates must seize upon this impetus in approaching the forthcoming Security Council, and seek to deliver a unified and progressive strategy. President Obama hosted a Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. this month, attended by 37 heads of state and an additional 10 delegates. Amidst renewed partisan squabbles and limited expectations from the American public, the president secured individual commitments to stop nuclear proliferation and support disarmament. Governments agreed to bolster international security efforts and protect nuclear materials used for military as well as civilian purposes. Of particular importance were the promises made by countries such as Mexico, Chile and Ukraine who declared that they would eliminate their stockpiles of enriched uranium. The summit is a promising start, but binding commitments and further reductions are required, in combination with the discontinuation of the development of fissile materials for military purposes. In complement (or perhaps in contrast) to Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad hosted his own summit in Tehran, a mere four days later, inviting 60 international delegations to participate. The meeting comes during a time of renewed efforts to secure a fourth round of United Nations sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. Mr. Ahmadinejad responded critically to the U.S. hosted summit, labeling it as “humiliating to humanity”. In response to President Obama’s announcement that states not in compliance with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty would not be spared a U.S. nuclear response, The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N., Mohammad Khazaee, formally complained to the Security Council that these statements were “tantamount to nuclear blackmail against a non‐nuclear weapon state”. Neither the United States nor the Islamic Republic of Iran extended reciprocal invitations to their summits. Perhaps the most important development in the international nuclear security agenda over the past months was the signing of the socalled New START treaty between the United States and Russia. The treaty promises to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles and bring about new procedures for verifying which weapons each country possesses. David Miliband, the British Foreign Secretary praised the treaty as a “break of a culture of cynicism”. The nuclear status quo is not desirable yet, to some extent, may be necessary as a means of deterrence and in order not to disturb the balance of powers. The momentum gained during the past months must now be seized by the delegates of the forthcoming United Nations Security Council session in their discussions on nuclear disarmament and proliferation. Of utmost importance is the review of the Treaty on the Non‐proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). First, export controls must be strengthened, primarily through further integration of international agencies and reinforcement of international coordination. Second, conditions of supply must be assured as demands for fuel increase, as an incentive to nonproliferation. Third, Article IV, discussing the right of states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful means, must be reviewed as it has served in the past as a loophole in the process to develop nuclear weapons. Also Article X must be considered, the article establishing terms for withdrawal from the NPT. Any amendments to the treaty are however subject to a complex process, with success ultimately relying on consensus among the members. There are great expectations for the United States. The U.S., as a permanent member of the Security Council and a nuclear weapon state, has an inherent interest in the regime and must recognize the needs for reform and strategically manage them. It is necessary to negotiate solutions with Iran and North Korea in an effort to take a step back from the ledge that we are precariously perched upon. Essentially connected to the process is the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful utilization of nuclear energy, it reports directly to the U.N General Assembly and Security Council. On the Security Council agenda no doubt, will be discussions of the increased purview of the organization and hopefully provisions for greater funding. The coming United Nations Security Council session is critical for addressing nonproliferation and disarmament concerns. At a time of uncertainty between Western nuclear powers and states such as Iran and North Korea, the eyes of the world are pinned to the delegates in the hope that they will emerge with a strong foot forward in the next step of the process of disarmament. It is a time when transparent diplomatic conversation is of utmost importance and must be supported, in order for the people of the world to look forward to a new age without the threat of weapons of mass destruction. At a time when emerging countries are at a critical point and development needs to be encouraged, spending on weapons must be curtailed. The emergence of new nuclear countries paradoxically mars the decrease in current nuclear states’ stockpiles. The question of nuclear disarmament is a question of morality. As the United Nations Secretary‐General, Ban‐Ki Moon said in his address to the East‐ West institute in October, 2008, “A world free of nuclear weapons would be a public good of the highest order”. Going into this conference, the question remains: will the nuclear club allow for real change, or will the naysayers be proved correct? NEXT PAGE: FOLLOW UP ON SC ‐ RIGHT OF SELF‐DETERMINATION
Page 1 and 2: MONDAY, MAY 3rd 2010 The rain falli
Page 3: 3 MILMUN CHRONICLE Fighting, death
Page 7 and 8: MILMUN CHRONICLE 7 In light of the
Page 9: MILMUN CHRONICLE 9 Perhaps a suitab

Monday 03 May 2010 - MILMUN

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?