No heart in the campaign

By: Ash K. Srivastava [xe/xyr]

Pandemonium erupted today in the Committee to Protect the Panthers when two influential members, Emory Douglas and Ossie Davis, were imprisoned by Oakland Police for sedition. The two blocs quickly split off to approach the situation in radically different ways. The bloc that Douglas and Davis were part of quickly worked to free them and were successful. The other bloc decided they weren’t going to attempt to free them, with one highly influential member saying, “they can kinda just stay in there.” Another member said that they did not intend to vote for a measure to help release the imprisoned delegates. Meanwhile, the imprisoned delegates were left mostly in the dark, wondering if the other delegates would fight for their release. 

The main session, which debated the best method to ensure the release of the imprisoned delegates, however Richard Aoki did not attend. Aoki, who has been placed under investigation by many delegates, had no comment as to why he was absent. One delegate said that they “wanted to say that they were surprised, but [they weren’t] really.” Another said that their best guess is that “he doesn’t really have his heart in the campaign.”

However  through obtaining legal access to confidential crisis notes, the Working Paper  found that Richard Aoki was personally contacted by J. Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI. However, he declined the offer, so Hoover reached out to another member, who agreed and has been in close contact with Hoover. The other member is a part of the larger bloc that fought for the freeing of the imprisoned delegates and is a trusted member who has been involved with directives. This breaking news will likely upend the committee’s deliberations and cause a renewed witch hunt for the informant. We will keep you updated.

“Terrible Communists”

By: Ash K. Srivastava [xe/xyr]

After passing its fifth directive in just three and a half committee sessions, the Committee to Defend the Panthers determinedly continued to work to solve their plethora of crises. Not only are they currently attempting to agree on the best method to free Huey Newton, they are also trying to find the author of a scathing New York Times article that is hiding among them. On top of those two large crises, they are attempting to understand the death of Bobby Hutton and recovering from the assasination of MLK. Many are worried about being surveilled by the FBI and losing public support.

Atticus Radley powerfully brought up another issue: youth involvement. “What we’re forgetting about is the youth...how are we aiding the youth in our fight for freedom?” This powerful sentiment was left for delegates to ponder during a five-minute break. When they returned, they were faced with yet another issue: Huey Newton’s trial beginning. They quickly moved to introduce a directive drafted earlier in the morning about registering Black Panther members to protect their public image in the case of outside forces attempting to radicalize their events. Shortly after, in a speech about another directive, Stokely Carmichael proposed they set up a fake Black Panther Party meeting to root out whoever is surveilling them. The bloc of delegates currently working on this draft is “confident that it will pass.” Those two directives are a small portion of a myriad of directives actively being drafted. 

In addition, there seem to be ongoing tensions between two main players in the Committee: Dr. J Herman Blake and Stokely Carmichael. One of the two noted that their professional relationship is “not very strong,” while the other expressed a similar sentiment. Most recently, J Edgar Hoover was broadcast to the Committee and declared that “terrible Communists” are attempting to influence them. Delegates seemed skeptical, with one delegate noting that they “would need to see evidence” and another saying that “Hoover is trying to spread fear and make us look the part of forign (sic) terroist (sic) that will take there (sic) freedom.” Obviously, there is a lot going on in the committee and we will keep you updated.

OP-ED: Plagiarizing History

By: Ash K. Srivastava [xe/xyr]

Rewriting history? More like plagiarizing history. The MUNUM UNSC has unified behind two resolutions: 1.0 and 1.1. Unfortunately, these resolutions repeat the same mistakes that the official UNSC made in 1992. Not only do these create “safe zones,” which made Bosniak Muslims “sitting ducks” (Crosby) during the war, they also name Serbians as “ethnic minorities that face threats of ethnic cleansing in the Bosnian conflict” (Resolution 1.0), even though the MUNUM UNSC received a report that Serbians were “rounding up Bosniaks within the Bosnian region...on top of their censorship and looking at [Bosniaks’] passports and roadblocks” from one of the MUNUM UNSC Chairs during Committee Session 2.  It also clearly states that “the framework of [peacekeeping] operations shall not apply to weapons and military equipment” (Resolution 1.1), meaning that no action is being taken regarding Serbian arm stockpiling, which proved fatal to defenseless Bosniaks and UN peacekeeping forces in the 1990s. The resolutions also give UNSC members the power to appoint officials in crucial positions to rebuild the country, including “a committee of nations... [to] facilitate negotiations” (Resolution 1.0) about government structure. This could prove disastrous, as the system that the United States, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, and the European Union helped negotiate through the Dayton Accords in 1995 has left Bosnia and Herzegovina in tatters, stuck between three presidents and with 18.56% of their population (The Borgen Project) living in poverty. Lastly, Resolution 1.0 recommends having citizens report any violence through peacekeepers, which did not work for cases of sexual assault in the 1990s because peacekeepers perpetrated and enabled Serbians to pursue severe sexual abuse of women and children during the Bosnian mission. These resolutions do not ensure the success of the MUNUM UNSC in creating better solutions than the ones implemented by the official UNSC in the 1990s.

It also seems that the MUNUM UNSC has resolved the debate about using the phrase “ethnic cleansing,” with Resolution 1.0 defining ethnic cleansing in the first clause, garnering US support. The situation continues to evolve and we will keep you posted.

Works Cited:

Crosby, Alan. “Explainer: The ‘Very Bad History’ of Safe Zones.” RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, 5 May 2017, www.rferl.org/a/syria-safe-zone-explainer-srebrenica/28468420.html.

The Borgen Project. “Top 10 Facts about Poverty in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” The Borgen Project, 14 Aug. 2018, borgenproject.org/facts-about-poverty-in-bosnia-and-herzegovina/#:~:text=Despite%20its%20small%20size%2C%20however.

Westendorf, Jasmine-Kim, and Louise Searle. “Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Peace Operations: Trends, Policy Responses and Future Directions.” International Affairs, vol. 93, no. 2, 1 Mar. 2017, pp. 365–387, academic.oup.com/ia/article/93/2/365/2982811, 10.1093/ia/iix001.

UNSC Unifies

By: Ash K. Srivastava

The world watches as the 1992 UNSC attempts to rewrite history by preventing both the deaths of tens of thousands of Yugoslavians and the humiliation of the UNSC due to inaction and ineffective solutions, as well as severe peacekeeper misconduct. (BBC News) Luckily, the UNSC is mostly united in their task. In the words of the delegate from New Zealand, “all of us are on the same page.” After New Zealand’s remark, China noted that, as a communist nation, they are opposed to some measures about free and fair elections, however they are going to “try and put those aside.” The biggest disagreement seemed to be over whether the term “ethnic cleansing” should be used instead of “mass genocide,” with the delegate from the United States later privately commenting that “the events referred to by ‘ethnic cleansing’ are no cleansing, but rather inhumane war crimes.” This disagreement was quickly skipped over in favor of delegates stating their countries’ positions on possible “ethnic cleansing,” with all delegates who spoke stating their firm opposition and possible solutions, including a stand-in government run by “democratically stable countries” (New Zealand) and deployment of peacekeepers. However, no matter how united they are, the UNSC is facing a time crunch. The Yugoslavian government has already decided to hold a referendum in two weeks, so it is up to the UNSC to attempt to protect this election and institute other measures beforehand. Unfortunately, no delegate from Russia was present. However, the other four permanent members (France, United States, United Kingdom, and China), along with a majority of other members, are attempting to compromise on a resolution to ensure a quick and efficient response. A resolution is currently being written and members anticipate introducing it by the end of the second committee session today.

Works Cited

BBC News. “Balkans War: A Brief Guide.” BBC News, 18 Mar. 2016, www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17632399.