An Emerging Country

By: Amita Gowda

The next step of the Mexican governing body is to create a Constitution. Throughout multiple moderated caucuses, the body discussed various topics that they want to be implemented in the formal document. Many directives were also passed to the chair, but many were sent back because the chairs thought they could be passed in the Constitution (there was no need in passing a piece twice). Most of the directives had similar topics and opinions, but some had different perspectives.

Mexico initially wanted independence because they no longer wanted to be bossed around by Spain. It is no wonder almost one-quarter of the committee stood up during a moderated caucus to say that the first order should be to make sure every citizen gets equal rights and equal say in the government. For some politicians, this means abolishing the caste system in which rich citizens get more benefits than the poor citizens. One of the many suggestions was to heavily tax the rich. Similar comments were made in regard to wealth redistribution in favor of the poor. However, one delegate argued against this by saying that heavily taxing the rich would discourage them from making money, consequently harming the already unstable economy.

The style of government was discussed a few times during a moderated caucus as well. The two main types of government debated were a centralized government and a federal government. A centralized government is one in which all of the power goes to one single authority or one group of people. An insurgent leader said this method would create immediate trust among the small board and overall, work more efficiently. A federal government is a system that divides up power between one strong national government and multiple local governments. Another delegate argued that a federal government would make sure that an imperial system — in which a country extends its power and influence through diplomacy and military force — would not eventually develop. 

Once the discussion of the topics in the progressing Constitution reached a certain point, the chair encouraged everyone to get started on debating those topics. The IPC wishes them the best of luck in writing a Constitution that would be fit for both the government and its citizens.

WHOse resolution?

By:  Amita Gowda

Multiple working papers are being distributed all around the WHO committee room. With such a large assembly, it is no surprise that from the 10+ papers, only  one carries a name that every Gen-Zer should recognize: Renegade. Working paper Renegade focuses on a database with records of every communicable disease to predict and prevent outbreaks before they happen. Renegade shares this  database establishment with another working paper (Currently sponsored by Iran). With the world being at the peak of its Digital Era, it’s no surprise that many papers are focusing on technological developments that could help in eradicating communicable diseases.

Another working paper, written by Latvia and a few other sponsors, was less hesitant to mention they had almost 75 signatories from their committee of almost 100. The paper was not shy and “covered pretty much everything,” as a sponsor Latvia said. It covered water filtration, education in schools, herd immunization, and airport security to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Debatably the most popular working paper is one sponsored by the delegation of Australia, which criminalizes intercourse with the sole intent of stopping natural reproduction. As a result of this prohibition, genetically modified humans will take over, with the idea that the new generation will be immune to every disease, and all communicable diseases would be eradicated.

There are many complaints about many of the resolutions. A group of delegates, already done with their resolution, voiced their complaints about the Renegade resolution. In shortened form, it is apparently “vague” and not at all a solid resolution. At the same time, one of Renegade’s sponsors was complaining that all of the other resolutions were the exact same resolution in different words. Overall, the IPC hopes the WHO committee finds a resolution that works for everybody.

AD-HOC? More like War Talk

By: Amita Gowda

The ADHOC crisis committee started off their first session with a heated debate on if and how Muhammad Ali should speak at the university as an anti-war protestor. The main issue among the board was violence regarding whether or not the police should get involved. One delegate argued that there should be police to make sure no violence occurs. Another advisor rebutted, stating that the presence of the police force might provoke a violent response anyways.

Nevertheless, this morning, it was revealed that there were still protests among the actual event and on concerns about  not having a valid permit to hold the event. The next big issue was whether the protesting students should be arrested or not. In the middle, a few delegates backtracked leading to the start of a  new directive. Directive “Permit 1.0” stated all pro- and anti-war protests should automatically be permitted to happen. After speaking to Adam Ross (the sponsor for this directive) he revealed by sponsoring this directive, his intention was to encourage more pro-war protestors to speak out. Despite his intentions, most delegates were focused more on the long term consequences over the benefits leading the directive  to eventually be rejected with a vote of 5-10.

The next unmoderated caucus brought forth the previous issue of debating if they should mass arrest the protestors. After a few extensions and a crisis, the focus of the committee shifted to a heated debate of the inaccuracy of Hayden’s article (an editor for the Michigan Daily). Fortunately, debate continued, this time over how unrealistic the process of getting a permit is.