An Aisle to Success

By: Sönke Pietsch

An aisle can be a lot of things. It can act as corridor connecting one end of a room to another. It can be a catwalk for a fashion show. Some even consider it to be a pathway to prosperity. Yet in the United States Senate, the aisle has acted as the barrier between the two opposing councils: the Democrats and the Republicans. 

As committee moves into its fourth session and representatives gear up to introduce their creative solutions to the issues addressed, delegates are increasingly finding that they have to cross the aisle separating the fractured, bipartisan room. While few tethers have yet to be thrown across the aisle towards the other party, some delegates have stepped out of line and amended their working papers to be friendly towards the opposing party. In doing so, delegates are increasingly walking the fine line that is the aisle between representing the beliefs of their constituents, and ensuring that their working papers have a chance of survival.

Making his way down the aisle in his committee room that separates the section of seats into two to give a speech at the front of the room, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama (Republican) presented his working paper addressing the upgrade and reorganizing the American powergrid to better fend off the possibility of foreign meddling. While Senator Shelby could technically pass his paper without the aid of other senators, as his party currently reaps the benefits of being in the majority, he nonetheless included clauses that were friendly to opposing counsel, the Democrats. 

Other delegates, especially those from the Democratic camp, have not enjoyed these same benefits. For instance, Senator Smith (Democrat) from Minnosota has had to amend her working paper to make sure to secure the votes of the Republican camp. By making sure that industry is still allowed to use non-renewable sources in the short term, Smith hopes to garner the support of Republicans for her proposal that primarily focuses and using 100% green energy moving forward. 

Yet, the fact that Smith, along with a handful of other Senators from both political parties, was willing to reach across party lines and listen to opposing opinions, goes to show that the aisle, with so many different meanings and purposes, is in fact only an illusion.

A Bipartisan Solution in a Partisan Parliament

By: Quinn Riordan

The 1945 British House of Commons is bitterly divided between the Laborists and the Conservatives, but came together to form a National Healthcare Bill. The Parliament spent the entirety of the morning in conflict - debating and questioning each other's positions. The Laborists focuses more on naturalization, advocating worker’s rights while the Conservationists believe in less government intervention. 

The Parliament is convening after World War II, and a weary Britain is faced with a multitude of problems: a drained economy, fearful population, unemployment, and a damaged empire. These issues impact the nation as a whole and its population, however the diversity leads to conflict due to the differing opinions and solutions to the problems. 

The National Healthcare Bill was drafted by the Labor Party, but throughout its multiple readings has gained support from both the Liberal and Conservative parties.

 “The bill focuses on outlining a universal national healthcare system. That will be done with the increase of infastructure by building hospitals and clinics, reducing discrimination and malpractice, and aiding those hurt during and after the war. The bill at its whole addresses the overview of the healthcare system within the United Kingdom overhauling it to better serve the citizens,” the President of the Board of Trade Stafford Cripps said. 

The main question brought up by the Conservative Party surrounded the idea of funding, and where the funds would come from. The Labor Party therefore introduced a funding bill, outlining the acquisition and distribution of the funding for the healthcare plan. 

“The Labor Party hopes to pass those two bills together to provide an in-depth approach and cover all the possible faults to provide the best solution,” Laborist Barbara Castle said. 

As the British House of Commons neared the end of its committee session, the bill gained support of the majority of the body after hours of debate. The unity within the Parliament lead to the production of a healthcare bill that hopes to aid and protect the health and lives of the citizens, and bring the United Kingdom back to its pre-war state. 

Maybe She’s Born With It, Maybe It’s Terrorism

By: Charlotte Howald

In the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) committee, delegates scrambled to create the most inclusive Working Paper addressing the freedoms of journalists. One paper works to educate journalists on a country’s culture, their rights as journalists, and what safety measures should be taken within the country in order to prevent prosecution for wrongful publication. Across the room, a different paper promotes communication between journalists and the government but allows the government to regulate the journalists’ speech. Many argue it is within a country’s national sovereignty to punish journalists who libel countries through the public media.

A delegate attacked journalists across the world. Poland, a country with the right to freedom of the press granted to its citizens, claims journalists “are threats to stable governments by creating unrest.” When interviewed, the delegate criticized Western countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom for being “too power-controlling and turning to espionage when things go wrong on [the country’s] end.” Other nations, such as Greece and Luxemburg, look disdainfully upon his comparison of journalists to terrorists.

UNESCO is built on the belief that the freedom of information is a fundamental freedom, and advocates for the protection of journalists. According to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, 38 journalists were attacked in 2019 alone, the lowest number in 16 years. The most famous death of the year was a Saudi journalist in Istanbul: Jamal Khashoggi. It is speculated the order came from the Crowned Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman. 

In the midst of the moderated caucuses, a CNN news article was released announcing Victor Orban’s, Prime Minister of Hungary, planned raid through media outlets, with alleged gunshots heard within. Latvia and Algeria spoke first in a moderated caucus to agree with the actions done by Orban, justifying it was “completely within Hungary’s sovereign rights.” New Zealand closes the moderated caucus in a distressing speech: “[The attack] shows how urgent this matter is,” New Zealand emphasizes, “it’s censorship and a violation of human rights.” 

The committee recognized that it would be hard to find an all-encompassing solution that will meet all expectations of the attending countries. As Sri Lanka states, “each country is different, a universal system wouldn’t work.” A merger has already transpired between the papers of Ecuador and Paraguay in hopes of creating a comprehensive resolution. On behalf of journalists across the globe, the International Press Corps hopes UNESCO adopts a resolution assimilating the beliefs of the Committee

High Energy During Energy Reform Talks in the US Senate

By: Shriya Beesabathuni

During a recent United States Senate meeting, 43 US senators were present during a debate discussing energy reform. 47% of the senators have affiliated with the democratic party and 53% of the senators were republican. Senators discussed the pressing issue of energy reform. Senators were passionate and diligent while listening to others. 

Many contrasting ideas were present during this meeting including the contrast on the opinions regarding nuclear energy. Johnny Isakson, a Republican senator stated, “I believe nuclear is the best option” as it produces more energy. Opposingly, Senator Tim Kaine, who represents the democratic party does not agree with Isakson’s statement. Kaine believes that nuclear energy, despite high efficiency, creates toxic waste that harms citizens. His state, Virginia, has been affected by a nuclear reactor as it polluted the air causing citizens to receive health issues, this nuclear reactor was the only one present in the state. Kaine continued to state that other forms of energy, such as wind, solar and hydro, will be more effective and safe for citizens. The senator concluded by expressing a slow transition from nuclear energy to other, safer forms, the production of energy will be less harmful and more effective. During the discussion on nuclear energy, there was a trend across the senate, with most Republican senators supporting the use of nuclear energy and most democratic senators doing the opposite.

As time passed by, the energy continued to increase while the discussion shifted to a brief discussion led by Democratic Senator Brian Schatz. This discussion consisted of talks regarding coal and oil. Schatz started off by stating that the development of a new energy source is in need, as coal and oil will soon run out. Coal and oil are both fundamental, as they provide an immense amount of energy.  If these substances run out, Schatz says, that there will be large losses in the economy, as jobs will be lost and monetary loss will also occur. Overall, Schatz believes that a foundation for a new energy source should be placed. 

In essence, the United States Senate is working hard to find a solution to the pressing issue concerning energy reform. As stated by Republican Senator, Richard Shelby, the United States senate represents all 50 states that this great nation leads forward. The discussions regarding energy reform have maintained a high level of energy as many clashing ideas are present. Despite this, senators are attempting to stay bipartisan for the development and improvement of the United States. 

I spy… TEA

By: Shriya Beesabathuni

There are currently hectic tensions growing between the two JCC committees: Kyiv and Separatists. Suspense in both sessions is high, and crisis drops are increasing by the minute. The crisis drop that shook the world was the discovery of SPIES in each room. These spies have proved themselves to be very impressive in their tactics and they have not cracked under pressure. Delegates believe that these spies are not working for themselves however, it is important that they are all aware of what is going on. 

As stated before, there are two Spies. The crises are also concerned with the actions of the other rooms. There are multiple suspicions afoot, these have led others to get nervous and the behavior of the room has drastically differed. 

During the meeting, the Separatists had a round table discussion regarding their innocence. During this discussion, many delegates claimed their innocence by using the notes taken in the committee. On the contrary, delegates mentioned that many notes have been recycled, this suspicion caused confusion. Much of the committee is confused actually, many delegates are not informed on who or what has happened during unmoderated caucuses. For example, some delegates were not even aware that there were two moles. 

They ask who the moles are but they should be asking, how can a press manager be silent? Is there nobody to question? Why are they sending so much back to the other room? Why does a wealthy businessman have so much personal interest in the topic? 

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.

Traitors and Haters

By: Jane Swartz

Fighting for independence from a once-world superpower is always a tricky game to play. In 1810, Mexican insurgent leaders are battling against the Spanish at Calderon Bridge, attempting to free themselves from the oppressive rule. Two distinct plans quickly emerged, headed by Nicolas Bravo and Melchor Muzquiz. The first, being Bravo’s, detailed a fake retreat to lure the Spanish into an ambush, effectively wiping out their forces. Its name: Viva la Mexico. Muzquiz’s “Boy’s Club” called for moving cannons to blow up Calderon Bridge, as well as deploying cavalry and riflemen to take out the remaining Spanish troops. After several moderated caucuses debating these, Viva la Mexico passed. 

Moments later, the Spanish General sent a messenger to address the body. He offered a meeting to try to come up with a peaceful resolution to the war, but not without blaming Mexico for all deaths on the battlefield. The offer also came with a threat: if no representative came, multiple came, or if they came armed, the Mexican army would be met with increased hostility. 

The room filled with discussions of who to send, and once again, the division in the room was clear. The first to speak was Mariana Rodriguez del Toro, the wife of a Mexican insurgent. Throughout the two days of debate, she had been exposed as a traitor multiple times, had an assassination attempt, and was generally hated by the entire room. Naturally, she elected herself. The plan was for her to assassinate the General, almost guaranteeing her own death, and this seemed to be the favorite choice amongst those present. Next was Guadalupe Victoria, a versatile politician. Ever the hero, Victoria nominated himself because of his political background. Shortly following, Jose Mariano de Abasolo suggested not sending military and Muzquiz nominated himself for the position, making a total of five different ideas floating around the room.

Abasolo’s position had many supporters. Those who were more involved in the war were against deploying citizens, fearing it would be a trap. As they had already passed Viva la Mexico and had 70,000 remaining soldiers compared to Spain’s 8,000, going through with the battle plan seemed to be the best option for these people. Multiple directives were quickly submitted to the chair: No Surrender, Sweet Victory, Rest In Peace, and Send Valera, with such codes translating to no meeting, sending Victoria and taking a non-negotiation approach, sending Muzquiz, and sending Valera, respectively. However, after voting, all ideas were shot down. 

A surviving directive emerged. del Toro’s plan to assassinate the General herself was finally brought to the floor, having not been submitted to the chair fast enough to get in with the other four. The committee, with no obvious other plans of action to take, almost unanimously agreed to send del Toro. A meeting took place with the general shortly after, results unknown.

Bipartisan Restlessness

By: Brady Noble

The wheels of American democracy began flowing this morning with bipartisan legislation regarding the use of federal money in disaster prevention, and post-disaster support for victims. There were several possible solutions discussed, including one spearheaded by GOP congressman Sam Graves (MO-06). Graves noted that forests should be cleared out to prevent the spread of wildfires. This was met with some pushback from the Democrats, who believed that this would lead to the destruction of several ecosystems and overall do more harm than good. Nevertheless, solutions were being proposed, and Representatives were working reaching across the aisle to come to a compromise. With newly found bipartisanship, Republican representative Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01) noted that “it is inspiring to see Republicans and Democrats working together, too bad it's not the same in the real world”. This optimism was short lived, and it was not long before partisan bickering came to the forefront. Rep. Frank Lucas (OK-3) made a statement, “I hope that the democrats are quick ensuring flood insurance and pre-disaster mitigation. The Republicans have done their job, it is time for the Democrats to step up.

After a few party caucuses, another solution came to fruition. Rep. John Louis (GA-5) challenged Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-7) for her seat as Speaker of the House. When asked why he would make a better speaker than Pressley, he cited his work in creating support for bipartisan legislation. “Some of my legislation almost passed both chambers,'' he noted. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes (NY-14) soon followed in challenging Pressley’s seat. Ocasio-Cortes stunned the chamber when she stated that she regretted her previous work with Pressley. Finally, Steny Hoyer (MD-5) jumped on, challenging Pressley. The voting began and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes was subsequently named Speaker of The House. 

Continuing with the theme, Republican Thomas Massie (KY-4) challenged incumbent House Minority Leader, Kelly Armstrong (R-ND At-large). Massie believed that he would better because, Armstrong “succumbed to the wishes of the Democrats”. He continued to state that he will consider more perspectives from both sides of the aisle.

Release The Students

By: Allison Gerth

The AD-HOC committee could be considered a slower-moving room in terms of its debate, which could be attributed to the fact that the delegates were not allowed to research their committee nor their characters. Currently, the US is at war with Communist North Vietnam. All of the protestors were arrested after their peaceful strike which happened to be in a contested area, even though they held land permits. These staff members and students are debating whether to modify the current land permit system for protesting and whether they should release the protestors or not. 

While dealing with the war between the United States and Communist North Vietnam, the people in the AD-HOC committee were voting on directives. Some directives failed and others passed, but no matter how it ended, there was always debate, including the voices of all three parties — pro-war, anti-war, and unbiased members.

After some debate, a directive sponsored by Robert Briggs was introduced. Briggs claimed that the proposed directive “would allow equality in our decisions involving students.” While some of the members were in support of  Briggs’ directive, it failed in the end. Some members were in favor of finding a compromise, but other members were too headstrong to change their viewpoints. The International Press Corps wishes AD-HOC the best in resolving the issues throughout the rest of their committee sessions.

Multi-Millionaire Murderers: Escalated Tension in the Weimar Republic

By: Bella Kephart

The political climate in the Weimar Republic only continues to escalate as tensions grow between the Social Democratic Party and its dissenting parties, including the Industrialist Party and the Centre. Earlier today, President Friedrich Ebert was brutally assassinated when his house was detonated. After an investigation, the assassin was revealed to be multi-millionaire Hugo Stinnes, a member of a dissenting party. “...[The President] was consolidating power in a manner that was not conducive to a democratic government,” Stinnes replied when asked about his motives behind the assassination. 

While Stinnes’ sentence was being decided by the committee, the assassination of Eduard Bernstein was reported, another member of the Social Democratic Party. The assassin of Bernstein was quickly revealed to be Gustav Stressman, a dissenter. His reasons were almost identical to Stinnes’: “I saw the SDP becoming more corrupt, so I decided to slowly chip away at it until everyone was dead.” The sentences of both Stinnes and Stressman are still being determined. Stressman denied having any involvement with Ebert’s murder, insisting that he had worked alone. 

The assassinations of Ebert and Bernstein followed an assassination attempt on another party member, Rosa Luxemburg, who survived. The reasons for Luxemburg’s assassination are unclear, rather than an apparent dislike for her party affiliation and values. The violent acts arose out of a directive that was passed earlier in the day granting more power to the chancellor, and the SDP by default. Peace does not seem to be on the horizon for the Weimar Republic, who remains in the midst of electing a new president and dealing with hunger strikes from the German citizens. 

The violence in the Weimar Republic is ironic considering the pacifistic nature of the Marxist Social Democratic Party, who split from a pro-war counterpart during World War I. The SPD generally prefers addressing issues using union empowerment and incremental change rather than resort to violent revolution. The dissenting parties, on the other hand, disagree with a peaceful approach to government; this stark contrast between the parties has given rise to endless strife which has impeded political productivity severely. The International Press Corps wishes them the best in their political endeavors.

Spinning into the 1992 Olympics

By: Sönke Pietsch

Picture the British House of Commons. Speakers stand in the middle of the four sections of opposing benches. Choosing one group to address is unrelentingly difficult and a challenge to master successfully. This is the exact situation some delegates in the International Olympic Committee face when addressing the room as a whole. Not wanting to turn their backs on over a fourth of the council at one time, some delegates have seemingly chosen to put on a show: spinning 360° in one place while balancing the act of giving their speech. 

Debates are making 360 circles more than the delegates seem to be able to. From discussing the benefits and downsides of possibly co-hosting the competition between two nations to addressing the issues of neutrality in the possible host nations for the 1992 Olympics, every representative seems to constantly bring new ideas, points and considerations to the table. To put this into perspective, delegates have already discussed the possibility of hosting the 1992 games in Tokyo, Athens, Sweden and Finland (co-hosting), USSR, Australia and Mecca to name a few, although a plethora of other cities and countries have been flung into the conversation and have yet to be addressed. In the meantime, delegates continue their substantive debates.The Jamaican representative’s would like  to “finally know where the funding for all of this will come from”. As one, delegates from all parts of the world seem to be able to choose from an endless (just like a circle) list of facets when addressing the question of where the 1992 Olympics will be. 

While the room deliberates on where the Olympics should be held, two delegates seem to have already decided for each other where the games will not be held. In a flurry of spinning rights of replies, the representatives of the USSR and Australia have launched fact-filled jabs at each other in an effort to dissuade the committee from choosing their opposition as the optimal location for the 1992 games. In one particularly inflammatory right of reply, the delegate of the USSR shot back at Australia’s comments of irrelevance by “finding the comments deeply respectful” and “laughing hysterically at the prospect of ‘hopping on the Australian wave’”. As is evident, these delegates still have much to debate

While the delegates continue their debates, the committee seems to have come full circle in the agreement that finding consensus in answering the topic question is impossible. To put it into the words of the chair of the IOC, the topic, different perspectives and working papers have reached “17 levels of absolute not” while the internal dynamics continue to shift. To close, the delegates from IPC wish the entire committee the best of luck in any of the endless future endeavors and does not spin out of control. 

UN Convention on the Law of the Sea Proposes New Plastic Removal Technology

By: Quinn Riordan

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) furthered the discussion on the reduction of plastic, and eventually the eradication of plastic materials in the oceans and seas. According to the delegate of Malaysia, a new technology was proposed that would “completely eliminate” microplastics and plastic in the oceans using algae. 

In the past decade, microplastics and plastic have outnumbered fish in the ocean,  indefinitely altering Earth’s ecosystem. According to a study led by biological oceanographer Jennifer Brandon of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, “the abundance of microplastics is closer to 8.3 million pieces per cubic meter.” 

The new technology proposed by the delegate of Malaysia claims that algae can breakdown and absorb plastic, transforming it into biofuel that can then be sold for profit. This technology is a spring-shaped nitrogen-coated carbon nanotube that functions to crumple microplastics and allows magnets to be used to attract and then eliminate plastics in the oceans. 

“Being able to turn the plastic into a profit can be beneficial to nations around the world and provide an incentive to fund the reduction of plastic,” the delegate of Malaysia said. 

This new technology is proposed in a Working Paper article, Plastic to Profit, but has raised questions over the ability to apply the technology worldwide, as well as the effects of it on the preexisting ecosystem, the delegate of Ecuador said. 

These questions have lead to different approaches, with hopes to provide a comprehensive and multi-faceted perspective in eliminating plastic in the seas. The delegates have proposed solutions ranging from research, new technology, plastic bans, private sector certifications, social media campaigns, and national holidays, the delegate of Kenya said. 

“Providing a comprehensive solution is key through private sector certification, campaigns, research, and new technology. If we can cover all the areas of society, we can reduce and end plastic in the ocean, creating a better world for the marine life and humans,” the delegate of Ecuador said. 

Mitch McConnell Gets Sacked!

By: Brady Noble

The United States Senate is clearly divided over the issue of climate change. There is a wide spectrum of perspectives, from anti-climate change sentiments  to others who see it as a top priority. As the substantive debate occurred , it became clear that Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been involved in misconduct. Eventually, both sides came to a consensus that , that he should be removed as Senate Majority Leader. Senators Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Mike Lee (R-UT) spoke in favor of the removal. On the opposing side, Senator McConnell represented himself on the Senate floor. In addition, he was supported by Senator Shelley Capito (R-WV), who spoke on his behalf. Eventually, the former prevailed, and Mitch McConnell was removed as Senate Majority Leader. 

With McConnell’s removal established, it was then time to consider nominations for a new Senate Majority Leader. Republican Senators were asked to nominate who they wanted to be McConnell’s successor. Eventually, 4 nominations were made: Mike Lee, Richard Shelby (R-AL), Johnny Isakson and Pat Roberts (R-KS). Three out of the four senators gained the 1/5th vote needed to continue into voting. Richard Shelby did not attain this quota, and thus was dropped from consideration. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders (D-VT) was elected Senate Minority Leader, and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was named to be the Senate Minority Whip.

After the voting ended, debate continued on the issue of climate change, where the partisanship was more evident than ever.

Bipartisan Bills or Climate Change

By: Allison Gerth

The US House of Representatives committee has been working on climate disaster relief for citizens of the United States throughout the past two committee sessions. While electing representatives to lead the different political parties throughout the weekend, multiple campaign slogans were created. One popular slogan was “ding dong, Dingell for Democrats!”, although she is not representing the democratic party she made it through the first round of elections before losing the race. 

The definition of bipartisan means “of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other's policies”. Throughout the committee, a common theme between both parties was talk of bipartisanship, even if it was discussed more than necessary. Arguments between the two parties would happen when bills “leaned toward” one party over another, leading to people of different parties being upset with each other. Lois Frankel, a Democrat representing Florida, stated, “We are currently struggling to figure out a way to adhere to bipartisan principles while also helping our constituents”. During the Democratic party caucus Frankel tried multiple times to have some Representatives focus more on the preparations, responses and short and long term solutions in the same bill for natural disasters. This would be instead of focusing on funding and bipartisanship. While the Democrats were trying to think of short and long term goals for the climate disasters, Republicans were busy working on merging their numerous bills. 

Throughout the party caucus’ happening during the committee, several Republicans wrote bills to try and send to the Senate. Having over ten bills, the Republican Representatives had to work on merging the bills. The Representatives were working to merge a majority of the current bills into one that would be composed of the best qualities of each bill. Overall, the House of Representatives has been especially stuck on the topic of bipartisanship, but many representatives want to further the discussion.

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.

19(007)9

By: Jane Swartz

Taking a step back into history, the 1979 UN Security Council is currently tackling the Iranian Revolution. Several directives have come into play already, including one sponsored by France. The directive calls for Khomeini, a religious exile who has recently returned to take control of the instability in Iran, to abide by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the implementation of an unarmed observing force to gather intelligence on the state of human rights in the currently rioting country. 

This brings up several issues with other P-5 nations, specifically among China. The delegate constantly reminded the council of the almost guaranteed possibility of a violent reaction if the United Nations became too present in Iran. Current struggles in Iran are due to a power struggle after the Shah fled the country and abandoned the government. A main issue Iranian citizens had with the Shah’s government was his involvement with the Western world, to which Khomeini is extremely opposed and has recently rejected United Nations meddling in the country. China, among with other members, feels as though the presence of this observant force in Iran could provoke further riots and violent actions against the United Nations, and that this directive is very Western-centric. 

France has remained stable with their directive, even in the face of a possible veto. As they put it, it is “testing the waters” to see how involved the United Nations can be in the country and how involved they need to be, especially with no government for them to ask if they are welcome. A fail-safe is included in the directive, which calls for a reevaluation of human rights in Iran every thirty days or in the event of an attack of the force’s housing or the murder of a member of the force. 

Several other ideas have been bouncing around the room, although France’s directive took up most of the debate floor. On Friday, both Japan and Norway attempted to draw attention to the economic issues also present in Iran. The nation has a significant role in the production of oil and a founding member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, along with Kuwait, also in the room. Political instability caused a stall of oil exportation, taking peak daily production from 6.5 million barrels per day to just 250,000 shortly before the Security Council began their session, causing oil prices in the global market to skyrocket.These possibilities have not been explored to the fullest extent yet, but are expected to later in the weekend. 

The United Kingdom addressed France’s directive, with a suggestion that many seemed to agree with. This observant force which France wants to bring in would be public, allowing for public reaction and hostility. Discussions of sending in a spy came up in an unmoderated caucus with the U.K. and U.S.A., both in favor of one Bond. James Bond.

Running out of Sick Days: The Problem of Mitigating and Eradicating Communicable Diseases

By: Bella Kephart

For centuries, disease has wreaked havoc worldwide. Despite the revolutionary technology that has insured the elimination of some deadly diseases such as smallpox and polio, countless lives are lost each day to disease. At the root of the issue of disease is widespread by poverty, a lack of proper hygiene, and a dearth of well-trained medical professionals, specifically in developing nations. HIV, AIDS, and malaria are just a few examples of deadly diseases that claim lives each day, while many victims and their families remain unaware of their symptoms and how to prevent them.

The World Health Organization Committee is currently convening to propose a solution. Over the last 24 hours, WHO has worked tirelessly to find a cost-effective, long-term plan to appropriate resources to target global health. Many nations argue that the United Nations should allocate funds to maximize the potential of practical, short-term solutions such as sending immunizations and water purification systems. Other nations such as Tanzania, Bosnia, and India disagree, saying the problem needs to be addressed at its source: the lack of education regarding disease awareness. They agree that implementing programs to educate about the causes and preventative measures of disease, especially for the younger generations, is a plausible solution. “If more people are educated about the causes of the problem, it would prevent them from the start and less people would be affected by the diseases,” explained Erum Al-Zawawi of Tanzania. 

As always, the problem of funding remains. Potential solutions have been introduced, such as the utilization of NGOs, the World Bank, or the United Nations Fifth Assembly. The most popular solution, however, lies in re-directing financial aid from the World Health Organization budget itself. “WHO has a lot of funding, but it needs to be directed… it’s too focused on specific diseases rather than [general health] infrastructure,” said Jacquie Molloseau of the Republic of Korea. The problem of streamlining communication between countries regarding funding also remains. Katie McCarthy of Bulgaria argues that “We need to take out the middle-man and establish closer relationships between countries in order to improve the efficiency of funding.” 

The WHO Committee still has much to discuss, and has yet to bring forward any drafted resolutions. Amidst the flurry of placards and the bustle of determined delegates, there is no clear answer as to what the most direct and effective solution is, or how to pay for it. However, there is no doubt that the committee is well on its way to expunging this global epidemic. 

Republican Vs. Democrat: Tensions High

By: Jasmine Jacobs

Yesterday the U.S House of Representatives got busy and elected leaders for their represented party, with over 10 candidates the voting process was long and brutal but at last they came to the final vote with time to spare. The top leaders for their respective  parties are Bustos, Pressely and Lamb for Democrats and Armstrong, Roy and Lucas for Republican. Ducan Hunter, a Republican, stated that he was pleased with how the election went, he believes that the representatives are very organized and charismatic people. Ben Roy Lujan a Democratic also stated that the election went well and hopes that the leaders will be able to take action with the problems at hand.

With the leaders now acquainted with their new positions debate is finally kicking off. The Republicans and Democrats must get along if they want to get anything passed but with both sides having different opinions on what they should do getting along will be hard. The U.S Representatives are debating climate disaster relief and non-biodegradable materials but with countries in peril and future disasters just moments away, will short or long term solutions be better?  Puerto Rico, North Carolina and many other places have been hit hard by natural disasters, each disaster is unique so creating a solution to help the broad scope of natural disasters will be challenging, but the bright, young and energetic delegates are the right people for the job. 

Some delegates have quoted a well known scientist to help convey that this a global crisis and must be solved one delegate quoted Bill Nye saying, “I didn’t mind explaining photosynthesis to you when you were 12, but you’re adults now and this is an actual crisis” . Delegates are working hard to create an effective and cost efficient resolution. Some ideas from both sides include planting trees, increasing funds for FEMA, decreasing funds for FEMA, education on global climate change and carbon tax. Regardless of the pressure the parties are throwing at each other, working papers are in the works, but will they do enough to help the countries already affected and future countries in need or will the papers cause more damage?The delegates must not only focus on providing aid but they also have to tackle ecological mitigation, which presents its own unique challenges. The only thing that the Republicans and Democrats agree on is that something should and needs to be done.

BHOC Yells For Health Care

By: Sönke Pietsch

When thinking of a politician, an image of finely dressed and high-heeled debaters usually comes to mind. Setting policy for an entire government, nation or even the world, the highest degree of professionalism is required, or at least expected from these individuals; the power these individuals hold from their high ranks in public office perceive an image of responsibility. While assurance that these individuals keep the best interest of their constituents in mind at all times, is generally present.  

This can not be said for the British House of Commons in 1945. Through a flurry of “I”s and “No”’s, these delegates try their absolute best to represent and differentiate the interest of their voters through a cloud of screeches, shouts, and screams from their surrounding 53 counterparts. In the British House of Commons, delegates represent their opinion in voting procedure by joining a loud mass of delegates who are either in favor or oppose a resolution, motion or idea. The power and value of the individual vote is lost.

Discussing health care, the representatives in the British House of Commons are faced with the challenging dilemma of whether to nationalize or privatize this industry after the crushing challenges triggered by reconstruction of World War 2. While the spokeswomen and spokesmen of this committee are open to working with opposing councils, the paths that the two major parties of the committee vary drastically. One representative, Sir Richard Crossman, believes that “nationalization is essential as it provides businesses with the benefit of government spending”. Later in session, when a motion to hold a moderated caucus about ministry spending was proposed, the delegate hurled a resounding “I” into the committee. 

After the Chair joined the screams of House with an interjection of “Order”, the House returned to substantive debate. Addressing the previous issue of spending, liberal representative James Henderson-Stewart soon chimed in believing that “we can not solely address one aspect of reforming health care, such as funding. Instead, we must focus the interconnectivity of it all”, believing housing, jobs, healthcare and the economy are all connected. When the motion of a moderated caucus about health care was proposed, this delegates, in opposition, joined the minority by yelling “no”. 

While the individual vote might get lost in the mass of sound that is the voting procedure in the British House of Commons, the committee still provides extensive opportunity for expressing the views of constituents through moderated caucuses. Nonetheless, this form of debate is still riddled with chaos as representatives may choose to interject in the middle of a delegate’s speech at any moment. When conservative Peter Thorneycroft held a speech about the importance of considering Britain’s massive empire in the reconstruction of the country, the delegate seemingly drowned in interjections from delegates, quick to point out that this topic was reserved for the alternative topic. Limited by time, the representative made the best of his opportunity to explain his view while dodging any further interjections shot at him.

While the committee might be chaotic at certain moments, it is abundantly clear that the committee is well on it’s way to drafting working papers that will shape health care, as well as a wealth of yet to-be discussed topics, for the millions of citizens of Great Britain. These changes might even apply to the persons of the British Empire, provided that representatives are able to dodge further interjections, when the committee once again decides that it is time yet again to yell for health care. 

Anyone Want a Sugar Cuba?

By: Charlotte Howald

1950’s Cuba is in a state of economic and social reform. Fidel Castro has been elected prime minister after their previous leader, President Fulgencio Batista, was ousted from office during the Cuban Revolution. Castro, with his promises to “reshape Cuba as a communist state” and “purge Cuba of the capitalist and imperialist ideals,” quickly gained the favor of those receiving the short end of the revolution: the poor and working-class. 

Sugar, Cuba’s primary industry, leads the Ministers to debate whether to diversify their economy or continue their monoproduction. Many ministers are in support of continuing to harvest sugar, “the people’s product,” while others argue that sugar was the way of the past used by imperialists to take advantage of Cuba. Castro’s Crisis Committee wrangles to find potential nations interested in importing Cuba’s surplus of sugar. Trade with the U.S. has recently been troublesome, causing the Council to seek new potential investors, such as Latin America and the USSR. Although the USSR has agreed to buy sugar from Cuba, Castro, as well as Latin Americans, advises Cuba to expand its industry to other products. Elena Mederos, Minister of Social Welfare suggests diversifying the economy into a more lucrative industry, such as beauty and skincare. Others discuss the potential of liquor or luxury.

An unexpected twist occurs when the USSR storms in with a Crisis Drop. In return for buying sugar, the USSR requests a favor from the Council: store the USSR’s “personal items of an armed nature” in Cuba. The USSR expects the information to remain “relatively top secret,” but the ministers’ had varying responses to the crisis drop. 

“Seems trustworthy,” Minister of Labor, Augusto Martinez Sanchez notes, “I don’t see this backfiring.” 

Rufo López Fresquet, Minister of the Treasury, advises the Council to “not engage in this quid pro quo.” Hopefully, the Council will be able to find solutions that will pacify all investors and most importantly, their citizens.