Loyal? Or Royal?

By: Mashable 

May 1584. Late Thursday evening, The Queen and Sir Francis Drake were seen canoodling in the Her Royal Majesty’s highly controversial chambers, allowing for an uproar about whether the monarch may finally have a successor. With Queen Elizabeth found in her private chambers joined by yet another servant of the realm ravaging her crown jewels, the public continues to question the Queen’s ability to uphold her role and truly commit to her royal duties. Upon closer inspection, Her Majesty’s chambers showed to hold a type of large device with what appeared to be a wooden contraption, along with both handcuffs and chains, featuring a whip on the sides.

The Queen’s tastes have always been very particular, but her hunger for more riveting methods of pleasure grows as she ages. Having relations with her half sister, Lady Catherine Carey, the Queen’s scandalous past has shown more than enough motive to commit such heinous, sadistic acts. When confronted by this Mashable reporter as to whom she was “actually having an affair with,” the Queen dodged the previous scandals around her:

“Well, you know, officially Sir Francis Drake, but I’m entertaining Robert Dudley. He’s the side chick. I’ve made him Lord of Ireland.”

The incestual lesbian affair caused an uproar in 1578 and led to the demise of Her Majesty, spurring her unholy reputation. Sources say the affair with Sir Francis Drake has been going on for quite some time now. Through her manipulation of the royals with the use of her forbidden gems, the Queen has often been seen in the eye of the public as a feline-like figure, scratching and clawing her way into the hearts -- and loins -- of other monarchs. 

Joint USA and British Unnamed Project to Discuss Possible Creation of the Atomic Bomb

By: The Associated Press

The Board of Directors for an unnamed project led jointly by the United States and Britain met yesterday to discuss various matters that are impeding the development of an atomic bomb that will be used to fight the Axis powers.

In 1931, the worldwide scientific community discovered that physicists in Germany had discovered how to split uranium atoms. This discovery gives Germany the materials and knowledge needed to create an atomic bomb. If an atomic bomb was successfully made and utilized by Germany, it would be catastrophic.

In order to combat this development, a nuclear research committee was implemented to protect allied powers from the Axis powers.

The Board of Directors of this committee have been meeting in order to propose solutions for the current issues surrounding a project to create an atomic bomb, including the location for the construction of the bomb and the procurement of adequate amounts of quality uranium.

 Currently, the possible locations for the construction of the bomb are being heavily disputed.

Many directors, including President Roosevelt and Donald Nelson, are advocating for the bomb to be built in the United States. They are of the opinion that United States can have more control over privacy and therefore can ensure the secrecy of this project. They believe that it will be harder to bring spies into the U.S. unnoticed. The United States is not abundant in quality uranium, but its neighbour, Canada, has large deposits in the Northwest Territories. Having the bomb made on U.S. soil would easily allow for the transport of uranium and would help to maintain full secrecy and classification. It was also suggested by multiple directors that having the project based in the United States would heighten the efficiency of the project.

The United Kingdom was deemed by many to be too close to the Axis powers to be a viable location for the construction of the bomb.

Other locations suggested included Australia, the U.S.S.R, and the Belgium Congo.

I spoke to Enrico Fermi, a director advocating for these construction in these countries, and asked what Australia and Russia have that the United States is lacking. His reponse is as follows:


“So, first of all, the reasons why we were originally looking to Russia and Australia is because of their neutral locations. At the beginning of the committee board meeting, we had some nationalistic tensions on both sides, the United States mainly against Great Britain, Churchill and Roosevelt maybe wanting to pull for their posting of the project. So my reason was, that there had been uranium deposits found in each one of those countries and the fact that they are neutral and it could be agreed upon by both parties.”  

Working Paper 1.2 also supported the proposition of building the bomb in Australia. Sir John Anderson, however, stated that Australia has a geographical disadvantage and lacks uranium   deposits of the appropriate caliber. Fermi rebutted this, stating that although there are not main deposits in Australia, there are some very small deposits that could result in high quality, enriched uranium. Directors including Donald Nelson and Dr. Robert Oppenheimer also suggested that moving the project to Australia would be expensive and would require a great adjustment. Dr. Oppenheimer believed this adjustment would enhance the inefficiency of the project and have a negative effect on the work done.

The U.S.S.R was also suggested as a viable option by many directors. Enrico Fermi stated that the U.S.S.R’s “desolate” location and deposits of uranium would be very helpful to the project. Russia is an allied country and talks of including allied countries had been discussed earlier in the meeting.

President Roosevelt was very opposed to the move to the U.S.S.R as he stated that the project must be kept in countries with Western ideologies. Leo Szilard also opposed, declaring that we do not know Russia’s intentions beyond the war which could pose a threat to us in the future. Edward Teller also reminded directors that it would be costly to transport uranium to Russia as it is geographically distant and suggested that Canada is a better ally as “they are of the same ethnic group and are closer”.

The Congo was also briefly suggested as there are many relatively unknown countries in Africa that have quality uranium deposits that could be utilized. However, Edward Teller again brought up the expenses to transport products and materials needed to Africa.

At the time of this article a consensus has not been reached.

DISEC 2016 in a Nutshell: Russia, America and North Korea mixed up in an unproductive cocktail of LIES, ACCUSATIONS, and ARGUMENTS

By: The Daily Mail

On Saturday, February 6th, the Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC) of the United Nations met at the UN Headquarters in New York City. The committee convened to discuss the topic of nuclear non-proliferation, however the debate was wrought with aggression and accusations from Russia, North Korea, and the United States.

The committee had originally intended to debate about the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zones (NWFZs). Major countries present at the committee included the United Kingdom, the United States, North Korea, Russia, Sudan, and Cuba. The inclusion of North Korea on this committee is troubling, as the nation is known to be unpredictable and dangerous when it comes to the topic of nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction.

The Sudanese delegation started off by stating that they were in complete cooperation with the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia on an agreement in which Russia had pledged to disarm their entire nuclear arsenal. This was supported by the United States, stating that it would decrease tensions between the U.S. and Russia in the Middle East. It seemed highly unlikely that Russia would be open to such an agreement, as the nation is known to be highly aggressive about their nuclear arsenal and access to weapons of mass destruction.

To counter the Sudanese delegation, Russia stated that the Sudanese were unclear about the terms of the agreement. Russia expressed that they would be open to taking more initiative to disarm their nuclear arsenal, but they would definitely not remove all of their weaponry. It wasn’t a surprise that the Russian delegation would make such a statement, as it was hardly believable that they would have agreed to the agreement mentioned previously.

The United States expressed its dissatisfaction with the Russian delegation’s response to Sudan. They believed that Sudan was in the right with their statement, and the U.S. wished to assist other nations in their disarmament.

The delegation from Egypt also expressed that they will not be signing any treaties or resolutions with the intent to disarm their nation. They stated that they wished to receive support from Israel, and would not engage otherwise. This brings up some troubling concerns about the intentions of Egypt and what their relationship with Israel is.

In a response to Egypt, South Korea expressed that every member state should sign the non-proliferation treaty and/or resolution, and specifically mentioned that countries such as Israel and North Korea need to sign the resolution. However, it is highly doubtful that North Korea and Israel will be able to reach an accord with the rest of the committee in which they reach peaceful terms regarding their respective nuclear arsenals.

North Korea, in a response to South Korea’s urges, was working on a resolution to “decrease powers,” and also stated that they feared prosecution from the United States. The North Korean delegation also stated that they distrust any promises made by Western powers, which is extremely characteristic of the hermit country.

In an interview with the Cuban delegation, they quoted North Korea: “The United States is the biggest terrorist organization in the world,” which is an alarming statement from the North Korean delegation. The topic also shifted to focus on terrorists accessing weapons of mass destruction, to which North Korea responded by attacking the majority of the committee and stating that all other member states were, quote, “foolish and naïve,” and that terrorists would still be able to access weapons of mass destruction even if nations were to disarm.

Russia attacked Iran during the debate, stating that the Middle Eastern nation’s nuclear programme was “useless.” Russia also demanded that they dismantle their program immediately; the delegation suggested that the committee disarm aggressive nations who possess or have access to weapons of mass destruction. In a brutal attack on the delegation of the United States, Russia blamed the United States for “creating ISIS,” and condemned the nation for invading Iraq not one, not two, but three times. Russia also mentioned that the U.S. President George W. Bush “went AWOL” during the Iraq War. Continuing the aggression, the delegation brought up President Bush’s decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol, while also attacking the IAEA.

In a response to the Russian delegation’s brutal attack, the United States was deeply offended. In a quote, they stated that they were “big boys, so we can fill up our pants.” The U.S. delegation also said that the country, Russia, was run by a former KGB spy, which was a reference to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s service in the KGB. The U.S. furthered the debate by fully supporting Poland in their efforts to remove all nuclear weapons from Europe.

It is needless to say that this committee has been wrought with lies, accusations, aggression, and pointless arguments. Although resolutions had been passed at the committee session, they have divided the committee by alienating many benevolent nations and empowering other malevolent countries, such as Russia and North Korea.

Clash of the Colossi

By: The Atlantic

Though I could not possibly imagine what would happen when I entered the Roman Forum, what met me was not old men driveling over bureaucracy. Rather, I entered into a fierce debate on the future of Sardinia. Though this debate was a relatively small one, it highlighted the divisions and alliances between the four families. But these alliances and agreements were as fluid as the Rubicon itself.

The first thing I noticed were the blocs. On one side were the Cornelii and the Claudii, the two largest families, and on the other, the Fulvii and the Aemilii, the two smaller families. Though it was not unheard of for one family of one bloc to agree with another family of the other bloc, when it came down to it, the battle lines were set.

“The Aemilii and Fulvii have formed political ties because we are the two smallest families and must band together to protect our interests. It definitely does represent a schism between the political interests of the different families,” Quintus Fulvius Falccus said.

These lines were put to the test when an assassination attempt on the life of Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus failed, and the blame fell upon the Aemilii. The Cornelii believed this distrust was well-founded, as Senators learned that the Aemilii family had dealing with Sardinia before it became under the fold of Rome. The Fulvii family defended the Aemilii family, as they believed that these accusations were unfounded and held no ground.

Still, the Cornelii persisted in their accusations of the Aemilii. That is, until the investigator called the intention of the Claudii family into question. Though there was no tangible evidence of any sort, the accusation was enough to sow the seed of doubt among the minds of the Cornelii. Tensions between the two families were raised, but there was no outward signs of hostility exchanged between the two families.

“I don’t know what to think [about the supposed Claudii involvement]. I won’t make any assumptions until the investigation is complete, as this is Rome, and anyone can be paid off,” Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus said.

The bond between the Cornelii and the Claudii was bent, yet not broken. The Fulvii and the Aemilii continued their support of each other, though once the accusation was made, the focus of suspicion shifted from the Aemilii to the Claudii. During this time of tension and distrust, two of the Senators formed their own family to create a fifth family of the Senate, the Terentii. These two senators had, up until this point, remained neutral among all accusations and remained quite amiable to all the families, as taking one side or the other might threaten trade and income from their trade routes all over the Republic.

Yet even in this somewhat joyous moment of a creation of a new family, distrust continued to persist between the Claudii and the Cornelii. The members of the Claudii family, specifically Salinator, wished to curb the power the family perceived the Cornelii family were rapidly gaining. To do this, they rallied the other families to formally expel the Cornelii family from the Senate.

“I agreed, though I was incredibly torn. I was debating, and I guess you could say I was pressured into siding with the Claudii. That’s no excuse, though. We [the Fulvii family] made the wrong choice,” Quintus Fulvius Falccus said.

After the Cornelii were expelled from the Senate, they returned with legions to retake the city. This greatly perturbed the other families, as it seemed as though only a tyrannical family would do such a thing. For a time, it seemed that there would be a civil war that would have Romans killing Romans.

This incendiary situation was diffused through swift and precise diplomacy. Though there were concessions to be made to the Cornelii family, as they believed they were the party that was most wronged in this situation, the status of the Senate had returned to a relatively stable state.

The now-fractured alliance between the Claudii and Cornelii was furthered by the accusations made by the head sage that the Claudii and Aemilii families were heretics that worshipped false gods. The now divided alliance created a power vacuum to determine who would be considered the most powerful family.

Thankfully for the Roman Republic, the Senate did not collapse in on itself. Rather, it drafted a resolution to change the rules on how the Senate operated, favoring the Cornelii and the Fulvii, the two families that were declared non-heretical. However, this directive failed to pass the Senate, so the status quo was replaced.

The plebian party at this point was upset with the bureaucracy of the Senate and the Terentii family supplied food and money to the people, thus making them a crowd favorite. This instigated a coup to instate the two members of the family as the temporary consuls, completely circumventing the traditional method of deciding consuls.

This angered the other families of the Senate, as they believed this put the Terentii in the position to claim tyrannical power. That being said, the Terentii did not act on this sudden power and worked in conjunction with the other families to combat the recent incursions of the Carthaginians in the Iberian Peninsula.

To respond to the real and present danger of the Carthaginians, the Senate elected to send Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus to the northern border of the Italian Peninsula with an army of 5 legions, approximately 37,500 soldiers to protect the Republic from the Gallic tribes and possible Carthaginian incursions. This significantly increased the power of the Cornelii family in the north of the peninsula. This was also precautionary as Hannibal had been seen in the south of what is now France with an army close to 100,000 strong.

Seeing the movement of the Carthaginian army, Quintus Fulvius Falccus, commander of the legions of the islands surrounding the Italian Peninsula and recently elected co-admiral of the Imperial navy, was approved to lead an incursion into Hispania in an attempt to cut off Hannibal from his supply lines. With a force of 250 ships as well as a significant number of ground troops, the Senator was on his way to the peninsula, when some seemingly good news arrived at the Senate. The Carthaginian army had been defeated.

The legions of Rome stood against the Carthagians, with help from the nomadic peoples of the Scythian nation, and defeated what seemed like Hannibal’s main invasion army. However, it was later revealed that the defeated army was not the totality of his army and Hannibal himself was not among the dead. With Hannibal’s location unknown, and the rest of his army nowhere to be found, the Roman Senate will have to put away quests for familial power and simple feuds to protect the Roman Republic and her people.

Interview with Germany on the Syrian Refugee Crisis

By: Al Jazeera

Editor's note: This conference is technically taking place in the first week of November 2015 (before Germany’s change of position on the refugee crisis).

What is Germany’s current position on receiving refugees in their country?

Germany is currently welcoming refugees. We believe that freedom and human rights are essential elements of European society and that this should also be valid for the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, making their way to Europe. We have adopted an open door policy; obviously, we do have screening processes but we want to make sure that people who are fleeing war and persecution have a place to seek refuge and be safe.


Is Germany only accepting Syrian refugees?

That is a really good question. Germany has basically adopted a policy where we deny entry to migrants coming from safe third-countries. We are accepting Syrian refugees, Iraqi refugees and Afghani refugees. There are plenty of countries in the Middle East that are currently facing political and economic instability but we believe that we have to focus on accepting those who are fleeing war, persecutions and take care of these people first because at the end of the day, they are the ones who are in need of help the most.


What about the other refugees originating from Northern Africa?

Refugees originating from Northern Africa are deemed migrants from safe third-countries. We do acknowledge that they are facing tough times politically and economically but right now, in this situation, in the context of the Syrian civil war, we cannot accept Northern African refugees, we can only accept refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.


As the delegate of Germany, what do you think would happen if Germany continued to accept this many refugees so generously and at such a fast pace?

There is a whole German population that we have to deal with when making these sort of decisions. Currently, the majority of the population is willing to accept all these refugees. However, things could change really quickly. We do have screening processes but they are not 100% reliable or dependable so if anything does happen, there is a risk that we will be dealing with a population that does not agree with our open door policy. We have to therefore think about the future and about the German population as well because it is undeniable that something could go wrong at any moment.


Can you talk about Germany’s position on the directive that was passed regarding the percentage of GDP per capita that EU countries will be contributing?

We have decided that countries in the EU such as Germany, that are economically stable and rich will be contributing 0.5% to help the Syrian refugees. Of course, there is a sub-category within the 0.5% of where the money will be going. However, if a country’s GDP is lower than 25 000 euros per capita, that country will only be contributing 0.25%.

What does Germany think about Hungary’s statement about contributing a smaller percentage of funding simply because they were “the first” to receive Syrian refugees?

Germany condemns Hungary’s statement about contributing a smaller percentage of funding simply because they were the first to receive refugees. Germany has accepted the most refugees with their open-door policy. We are the ones who are dealing with funding infrastructure, education and housing settlements. We do recognize Hungary’s burden in accepting the refugees but Germany is the one accepting the most refugees so we are technically spending the most money. Hungary’s statement is therefore invalid.


Has the EU council taken any other stands on regulating/operating the refugee flow in Europe?

The EU council will be funding countries such as Greece and Italy (countries by the Mediterranean) to implement better border control and screening processes. Also the EU will be funding Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan to develop more infrastructure to temporarily house these people. We are also going to create application centres so that the refugees can apply before reaching the EU. This will be saving us a lot of time and will be allowing us to better manage this huge influx of refugees.


What does Germany think will happen if worst comes to worst and the EU countries are forced to raise that percentage for both rich and financially-unstable countries?

Currently, keeping in mind the situation both in economically developed countries such as Germany, and in the financially unstable countries in the East, Germany does not see that as an option. As, I said earlier, we [Germany] have implemented an open door policy and we are welcoming refugees; however, this poses strains on our infrastructure and our economy. If worst comes to worst, and we are left in a situation where further funding is urgently needed, we would have to call upon the United States of America to help fund the resettlement of refugees within the EU. It is important to remind ourselves that while the vast majority of migrations are taking place in the EU, this is a humanitarian crisis and as humans, we must all, no matter our geographic location, take part in helping our cohabitants in seeking asylum.


Would Germany be willing to raise that percentage significantly if these financially-unstable countries do not accept to raise their own percentage?

Germany will not be able to raise the percentage, given the huge amount of refugees it has already accepted and the economic strains that come with that. If we find ourselves in that sort of situation, then it would mean that we must rethink our strategies and figure out more ways to fund and manage the resettlement of refugees.




Germany and Brazil: Spearheading a Revolutionary Solution to the Refugee Crisis

By: The Globe and Mail

GERMANY has made a mark on their history as well as the history of the world with their decision to take in a massive influx of Syrian refugees. This was only possible thanks to the efforts of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. With this act, they are sending a message to the world that they are doing everything in their power to aid in this crisis. Brazil has made their mark with the implementation of a specialized visa program to expedite the asylum process, making the means of escape for Syrian refugees easier and safer. In the Human Rights Council currently taking place, Germany and Brazil are the sensitive refugee issue as a team.


The Globe and Mail sat down with the delegate of Germany and the delegate of Brazil for an exclusive interview to discuss what they are pushing for in committee; how this will greatly aid and revolutionize the way that counties take in refugees fleeing their homeland, and what other countries can do to start making a difference in the lives of millions.



The Globe and Mail: Brazil, you have sent a signal to the world that you are more than willing to take on refugees. I’d like to ask you about the security measures put in place for the refugees currently seeking asylum. Right now, 81% of the citizens of Germany feel as if they are unsafe because of the influx to their country. How do we make this safe for citizens of all countries?


Brazil: Brazil entirely understands the security concerns that Germany and other European countries have regarding the incoming refugees but Brazil thinks that it’s important to recognize that this is an immediate problem that needs to be dealt with right now. By delaying things, this will only further exacerbate the problem and increase the overload on the European issues of accepting refugees. Brazil is willing to help lessen this overload by accepting refugees on our own but at the same time it is a little more logistically difficult to get to Brazil being that it’s on a different continent. At the same time, Brazil is willing and able to accept refugees but Brazil believes that the European Union does have a responsibility to take them in themselves.


The Globe and Mail: What do Brazil and Germany believe that Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries can do in terms of pulling their weight in the current refugee crisis?


Germany: What they can do is that, these counties that are wealthy enough for example, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, they’re not taking in any refugees and Germany strongly believes they should. Germany is paying out of their own pocket for the refugees and that’s going to be an increase on taxation for the population of Germany. Saudi Arabia doesn’t have to do that so their citizens will be fine but Germany is willing to do whatever it takes. So. Germany definitely believes that Saudi Arabia and the UAE should take in more refugees because they are more financially stable.


The Globe and Mail: Brazil, can you go over your points made in committee to the delegate of the United States of America about how it is less expensive to travel to Brazil in terms of getting refugees over in a safe and cost effective manner?


Brazil: Alright, so maybe I was perhaps a little unclear when I was talking about the financial side of what Brazil is doing. So, it’s less expensive for refugees to pay out of their own pocket to travel to Brazil to seek asylum rather than to pay to travel to Europe to seek asylum because either way there are costs on the side of the refugees in order to try and flee the country and gain asylum and safety. What I was saying, that was ironic with the United States was that, their willingness to accept only ten thousand refugees didn’t really make sense proportionally when Brazil has already printed special visas to enter Brazil to to over eight thousand Syrians and while Brazil is also a very large economy the United States is the largest economy in the world and they should be doing a greater part to help solve this refugee crisis.


The Globe and Mail: In terms of security how are you processing the refugees? Now as stated before, 81% of Germans say that German Chancellor Angela Merkel, is being too lenient in taking refugees. They’re worried about their safety. What’s Germany doing right now in terms of screening process? 


Germany: Right now, Germany isn’t doing anything. All Germany is doing is taking in all refugees and there are some refugees as well who are being registered. Germany is working to deport those who are not properly registered, but only after we have all resolved this conflict. 


The Globe and Mail: What is Brazil doing in terms of security checks?


Brazil: Well, as mentioned, Brazil believes that it is incredibly important that these refugees reach safety in a timely manner as, them being lodged up in large refugee camps in terrible conditions is not something we want to continue for a long time. We also don’t want them to remain in danger within Syria for a long time. So, what Brazil is doing is, they are printing special visas to applicants who are Syrian refugees to travel to Brazil and then go through the more extensive security and screening processes. So this way, there is an initial screening process before the visa is granted to protect the security of Brazil but further processing will be put in place after they have already reached safety and are in the process of being granted asylum.


The Globe and Mail: So what can Germany and Brazil do together to get other countries in the fight to get refugees safely within their borders?


Brazil: Brazil thinks that it’s important for non-European Union countries to help take in refugees in order to lower this stress on this system on the counties within the European Union. Especially Germany because they’ve been so gracious in accepting so many refugees. But, at the same time the other European countries who are closing their borders need to reconsider what they’re doing and in taking in more refugees because, closing their borders will only build up the stress on this system rather than alleviate it.


Germany: Germany can see the reason why it is starting to close off the border. Because, we have already accepted about thirty six hundred thousand Syrian refugees. Germany thinks that they should keep on supporting the Syrian refugees, even though it is going to increase taxation. There is always a way to find a solution.



With Brazil’s strategic and thoughtfully constructed visa system and Germany’s generosity, it is clear that refugees still fleeing their homeland will be able to seek asylum in a safe manner. These actions come as great aids in terms of safety to the Syrian refugees. The delegates of Brazil and Germany will continue to push their positions at the Human Rights Council in order to get the majority of countries on board with these security and visa systems.



Interviewing Venezuela on the Israeli/Palestine Conflict and Foreign Sponsorship

By: The Guardian 

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has been debating since February 5th on the tenuous Israeli/Palestine conflict which has resulted in 1,195 Israeli deaths and at least 9,128 Palestinian deaths between September and the end of 2014.  The main conflict in this council as that between Venezuela and the US, whose relations are, and continue to be, fragile. The Guardian approached the delegate of Venezuela to question him on the US’s stance on the Israeli/Palestine conflict, questioning Venezuela’s stance on the US’s foreign sponsorship to Israel, which Venezuela claims has only “further escalated the situation”. The Guardian also questioned the humanitarian efforts that are being pushed for by the Security Council, as this delegate was a strong proponent of such efforts.

How has the US taken advantage of this situation to propagate Israel's power?

Delegate of Venezuela: “Well, we’ve seen in the past, with the resolution that they’re putting forward with Germany and surprisingly Russia, that their very resolution actually targets Palestinian terror groups. Now, in the past, we’ve seen Palestinian terror groups actually targeting Palestinian civilians, indoctrinating them, stating that they are the Palestinian people supporting this, when really, they want no part in the endeavour. By doing this, they're subjecting the Palestinian people to an unreasonable condemnation and frankly I don’t support it.”
How can we try to minimize the government intervening in this humanitarian effort if they are directly serving the people in need?

Delegate of Venezuela: “That’s a very good question, but frankly Venezuela takes the stance that monetary and military aid are what’s really causing this issue to propagate. Humanitarian aid is of the utmost importance, as we understand that both Israeli lives and Palestinian lives are being lost because of this; however, we need to acknowledge that humanitarian as opposed to military aid is what is going to save these lives. Stopping military aid is actually what will probably put an end to the conflict as a whole.”
You have mentioned how the US holds a complete bias toward Israel due to their foreign sponsorship, but you have also said you hold a bias toward Palestine, so how do you propose to eliminate these biases and take an impartial stance?

Delegate of Venezuela: “I frankly state that my “bias” toward Palestine has a completely different sort of power in this committee. While I support Palestine wholeheartedly, and the heroic people of Palestine, that makes no difference. I have simply one vote in this committee and that’s all I get. The United States however, routinely, and you’ve seen it, vetoed resolution after resolution that would save both Israeli and Palestinian lives as the resolution may have slightly marginalizes Israel’s power in the region. I believe for true democratic solutions to be put in place, the veto power of the P5 needs to be completely revoked.”
What will it take to restore the relationship between the US and Venezuela after its tumultuous history?

Delegate of Venezuela: “Since we were announced as a national threat to the US earlier last year, we frankly are still on a tumultuous tide, we are still the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, we still support the socialist ideals of Hugo Chavez, and it will require a full re-evaluation of the US’s foreign policy for us to really consider repairing our relationship.”

How effective do you believe the resolutions that were passed to ease the tensions between Palestine and Israel, since as you've mentioned, some of them may be biased towards aiding Israel? Especially working paper 2.1 by Russia, the US, and Germany.

Delegate of Venezuela: “To be honest, an unbiased paper has not been passed. The two papers put forward, the one by myself and Russia as well as the one proposed by Chile, have both actually been vetoed, as previously mentioned. Both, might I add, by the United States of America, please take note. We see in the future that these sorts of heavily biased papers simply can’t fly. We see that with the power of the P5 on either side, any sort of action won’t take place because of the severe foreign interest. It’s the UNSC’s duty to eliminate this foreign interest so that a solution can come to fruition.”

Based on these responses, it is clear that Venezuela and the US have not come to a compromise, and their differences may be too great to overcomSe. One idea they can agree on however, in line with the majority of the member states in the UNSC, is that humanitarian aid needs to be delivered to both Israel and Palestine, going directly through a UN body to restrict government intervention. 

Women's Rights: Is religion the real problem?

By: The New York Times

On Friday, at the United Nations conference held in Toronto, the Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural Committee began a very controversial debate on women’s rights and religion’s impact on it. Women’s equality has been a topic at the forefront of discussion for hundreds of years and has progressed greatly with people like Susan B. Anthony and the Famous Five. Although this progress has given women equality in many ways, such as being considered a human and being given the right to vote, there is still a very large divide between the two genders. As a result, 65 countries have come together to reduce this gap and continue the much needed advancements around the world.

It was quickly seen that all of the countries cared for and wanted to improve women’s rights, but the topic about how religion affected women’s equality, raised 3 main viewpoints. Countries such as Bahrain, Iraq, and the United Kingdom believe that religion itself doesn’t have a negative impact on women; it represents both genders as equal. Instead, they argued that the individuals who follow and promote specific religions should be the main concern, as religion is ‘self-interpreted’ and how people follow it are through ‘individuals’ points of views’. As a result, the problem isn’t with the ideals, it is with the people.

Other countries such as China and Germany represented the point of view that religion does impact women’s equality, negatively. The delegate of China said early on, “Religion is used as a means to justify crimes against women and minority groups.” He went on to add that in areas where one religion is dominant, the views of that faith become the cultural norms. Since the it can be argued that some cultures limit women, religion would be seen as the core cause.

The last stance that was taken by many countries, like the Dominican Republic and the Czech Republic, was that religion does not play as big of a part on women’s equality as culture and politics do. Their stance was that the committee should shift their focus to the real problems, such as extremist groups, rather than focusing on these minor ones. This sparked an idea.

As the discussion carried on, religion became an even greater issue. Extremist religious terrorist groups such as ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Taliban were used as proof that religion was used to justify the degradation of women, as these men would sexually and physically abuse them. With the naming of all these terrorist groups, Chile brought up a question: Is the problem really religious groups or is it the countries these religious groups originate from, like the Islamic states?

Dispute erupted in the conference room and the accusations pointing towards countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, were quickly shot down. Czech Republic and Bahrain came to the rescue, bringing up the many other religious groups that mistreated women and did not originate from the Islamic states, such as the infamous KKK.

It became apparent that a single religion couldn’t be to blame, or any religion for that matter. Extremists are the real problem. The representative of Bahrain, a country where the Sunni court, a religious extremist group, dominates, explained the effects of radicals to the New York Times. “In Bahrain, the government doesn’t want to impose women’s rights at all, because of the Sunni majority. If they tried to aid the women, an uprising would be at hand. Religious extremists are where much of the violence comes from. It’s a result of ignorant people who have taken a religion, warped it into their own misinterpretations, believing it to be the truthful one, and then taking it to the extreme.” Bahrain is not the only place in which atrocities such as these occur. Syria and Sri Lanka echoed the same opinions about how extremist group’s views are dominant in a society and so, as a result, women are continually treated horribly.

With the problem exposed, potential solutions were thought up. The United States commenced the discussion by saying that, “nobody should be going against a religion, but that does not mean that individuals in a country can use religion as an excuse for certain violent acts that are committed towards women. Also, not every human being believes in religion and it is unfair to generalize a whole population of women and say each and every one of them believes in the beliefs provided within the religion. If some women have different beliefs, they shouldn’t be forced to abide to the cultural norm that is present”. By putting a stop to the enforcement of religion and promoting the more positive aspects of it, the Americans believe they could progress women’s rights. The delegate from Turkmenistan suggested that the media could be used in order to change the patriarchal cultural norms in countries, and Haiti believed wholeheartedly that the government should be the ones to fix the problem.

The solution that made it past the speculation stage though, and developed into a rough document, was a more diverse education. Bahrain, one of the leading countries in this discussion, and many other Islamic countries, decided that the most effective way to progress in women’s rights without infringing on the dominant religious groups that control many of their countries, was to implement an education for the younger generation. The older generation already has a set perspective that they are much less willing to change, while the younger individuals are much easier to mould into more tolerable people who grew up learning about how to treat women. In this way, there will not be as much injustice in the future.

The introduction of this resolution began heated debate, in which there was a lot of back and forth between the supporters and opponents. Many countries believed that the resolution was a good idea, but that it shouldn’t be dismissing older people. Even if it is believed that elderlies cannot do anything; they deserve to experience the same education about injustice and women’s rights. Once the topic was seemingly ready, the voting began. With voting, disappointment and relief ensued as the Islamic countries lost by one vote.

The social, humanitarian, and cultural committee are now back at the drawing boards, thinking up new ideas that may pass in the days to come.

Model United Nations Participants Speak of Being Highschool Delegates

By: The Sunday Times

DELEGATES from the Geneva Conference and Accords of 1954 and the Manhattan Project discussed their topics amicably, but not without their respective disagreements. In presenting working papers as well as in regular debate, delegates challenged the points of others and the heated debate ensued. Duringunmoderated caucuses and breaks, the delegates spoke on the personal effects of transitioning from formal delegate poise back to a high school student.

The transition to delegate from student, and back, was generally thought to be rather easy; however, response to how the delegate assumed their roles varied. “You have a certain idea of your point of view and you can insert it in some sort of way into what your delegate thinks”, said Raul Ceron from the Geneva Accords. However, over in the Manhattan Project, Maggie Hou stated: “there's a certain personality change the comes with it [switching to delegate poise], speaking from a personal experience, as my character is described as the most ruthless that has ever lived and I hope I'm not that”.

The diversity that Model United Nations (MUN) achieves can be partially attributed to how a delegate goes about assuming their roles and is obvious with these delegates’ responses. Observing a committee in session, it is also clear that the success of MUN is largely based on the unity of a committee. With this in mind, the Sunday Times asked delegates if they viewed fellow participants as other students gathered at a competition or as delegates striving to solve pressing issues.

“I definitely view them as other delegates, obviously, they are students, but when you're in committee acting as your character you kind of put the student away,” said Katrina Carver from the Geneva Accords on the matter. Other interviews showed the same opinions across delegates of the Geneva Accords and the Manhattan Project, such as Maggie Hou who stated “it's very easy to get into the roll and then once you're there, like most of the people in there I don't know the names of, so I think of them in respect of characters.”

The heated debate was a notable occurrence in both committees as they occurred often and usually between the same characters in each respective committee. In an interview, several of the characters that were seen to initiate passionate and intense debate frequently were asked about their feelings for the delegates they disagreed with in committee and if they harboured any negative feelings towards them when session concluded.

Ziming Gao from the Manhattan Project responded, “once I leave that room, everyone is still friends”. Aaditeya Jhaveri, also delegating in the Manhattan Project, echoed these sentiments, “The committee should be something that brings you together, I don't think it rips you apart even if you're against someone”. 

Finally, when inquiring on how these delegates learned to transition from delegate to student and back so well, Nikisha Thapar said: “Focus on having fun and enjoying the debate as opposed to getting caught up in it and letting your personal feelings get in the way”. Raul Ceron shared equally sound insight stating: “Think of others not so much as other delegates but as people who also deserve to be heard.”

The resolutions and debate occurring in MUN conferences may never be considered or addressed by those outside of the conference. Regardless, MUN has achieved a goal greater than any resolution or debate and that is cultivating ayouth that understands the gravity of world conflicts and can resolve such without personal bias and can have disagreements that do not change their personal views on others. With a youth that has such potential, the future may be much more sound. 

EU Refugee Negotiations: Hope for the Syrian refugees

By: The Guardian 

February 5th marked a momentous day for the future of Syrian refugees in Europe. Not only did all of the member states present in the European Union pass three resolutions, they also ensured that the vast majority of the nations were appeased in the process. These decisions come in the midst of the Syrian refugee crisis which has left 6.6 million Syrians displaced from their homes, the burden of which is falling mostly on neighboring European countries such as Greece and Bulgaria. The resolutions called for intensified screening of refugees, the creation of security stations in common illegal smuggling positions in order to strengthen the security of countries’ borders, the establishment of Schengen zone officers to prevent against refugees’ being smuggled into that region, and the emphasis on refugee integration to lessen social and economic strain. The EU also called upon each participating European nation to donate 0.5% of their GDP for each of these endeavours, and 0.2% for countries who’s GDP per capita is less than €25,000.

One issue that was on many of the delegates’ minds in the EU concerned the ability for countries to uphold their promise to contributing to this effort, especially during times where a terrorist attack can happen anywhere and severely change countries’ views on refugees. When the delegate of the United Kingdom was asked about the loyalty of these nations, her response was:

“I have strong confidence in the countries to abide by these resolutions since we have found a way to accommodate and make amendments to what each nation can support through progressive thinking”.

Another underlying issue in this progressive and humanitarian endeavour is the resistance from those opposed to the settlement of Syrian refugees, especially far right-winged political parties in Europe, such as Germany’s Alternative for Germany party (AfD); however, the hope exhibited by the UK delegate was promising that the 35% of funding towards intensifying screening processes would ease the qualms of the individuals who oppose the acceptance of Syrian refugees. Specifically, she said that this would “ensure the safety of not only the refugees, but also our countries, thus lessening the confrontational nature some individuals have in this sensitive situation”.

In particular, learning of Poland’s change of heart from being unable to “implement a decision on the relocation of refugees”, as their European Affairs minister stated in the wake of the Paris attacks, to being a sponsor on one of these pro-refugee resolutions is inspiring for the future of other countries who do not see the merit in helping these victimized Syrians. Each of these nations were able to rid themselves of the plague that is short-termism, especially following massive terrorist attacks, and rethink their strategy to create a more sustainable solution.

With every EU nation taking a stand to contribute financially to this issue to help the countries at the root of the problem, they have shown compassion for the vulnerability of Syrian refugees’ and their struggle, as well as revealed the united front this union exemplifies. This is the type of cooperation that should be modelled from in other councils seeking to effect real change.

There seems to be hope for the plight of the Syrian refugees after this step forward; however, there is no denying that there are still nations outside of the EU who allow radical terrorist groups to divide them and proliferate stigmas against certain religions, which achieves terrorists’ goals. They also allow these groups to eclipse the value of these Syrian refugees, as those seeking refuge are more than just numbers, they are people. Compromise is not easy, especially when considering conflicting perspectives, but while there may be differences, the EU’s decisions are symbolic of the inherent desire in valiant leaders to be humanitarians and help those who do not have the means and voice they so rightly deserve.




The Fracture of Rome, explained

by: Vox

When I popped into the Hannibalic War committee today I expected to see a bunch of delegates in togas all united in the destruction of Carthage. I was sorely disappointed ‒ not only were there no white bedsheets in sight but the glorious Roman Senate was quite literally divided.

Rome, as of February 5, 2016 is now divided into South Rome, controlled by the Cornelii family, and North Rome, ruled by the four other principal Roman families. But how did it happen? The short answer is that the division was the result of a chaotic power play. The long answer, however, is much more complex.

When it all started, the head of the Cornelii family, Scipio Calvus, held a consulship in the Senate. As one of the consuls, Scipio Calvus had the opportunity to wield absolute power for a short time. He used this newfound power to order the deployment of four legions of Roman soldiers to protect the German refugees there . But there was a catch - Scipio Calvus also decreed that he would remain in control of these legions even after his consulship had ended.

The other families were shocked at his bold power grab, and with good reason too. Although consuls regularly lead military expeditions during their terms, no consul has ever dared to hold on to that military power permanently.

The ambition of the Cornelii family called for an immediate counterattack. A coalition led by the heads of the Claudii, Aemillii, and Fulvii families began plotting against the Cornelii family. They mustered up a personal force of thirteen legions and planned to send the soldiers to seize the property of the Cornelii family and arrest its members.

The Cornelii family quickly got wind of the plot and convinced the Senate to send most of the thirteen legions north to defend Rome against the Gauls. With most of Rome’s military power busy battling barbarians, the city itself lay undefended ‒ and a tempting target for any power-hungry family.

The Cornelii struck quickly. Taking full advantage of the temporary weakness of their rivals in the coalition, the Cornelii family stormed through and seized Rome and Sicily with their personal army of eleven legions. The Cornelii family, looking to vanquish their rivals and consolidate their power, expelled the other families of the Senate from Rome. Now the sole ruling family, the Cornelii declared the cities of Rome and Sicily as a separate state ‒ South Rome. The other families, outraged by the machinations[HT2]  of the Cornelii, have set up a separate Senate in Northern Italy thus creatingthe state of North Rome.

The fragmentation of what was once a united empire is the product of a series of complex political gambles and decisions. It is the result of a conflict between five factions all with their separate motives, hidden ambitions, and personal vendettas. Perhaps when the dust settles and the egos have cooled Rome might again be reunified, but the daring actions of the Cornelii family may have left a permanent fissure in the Roman Senate.



Canadian physicist and chemist infected with radiation poisoning

By: Associated Press  

May 21, 1945

Editor’s  Note:  The  shortest  articles  can  pack  the  greatest  punch. E.  Coady, an embedded journalist  from  the  Associated  Press  present at  the  Manhattan  Project committee,  wrote  the following article which revealed to the world the existence of an American nuclear weapon. This article changed the course of history, presenting a massive crisis for the delegates deliberating on  the  Manhattan  Project.  Coady  avoided  jail  time  and  bribery  proposed by  the  delegates to send this news article out on the AP wire.

Dr.  Louis  Slotin,  a  prize  winning  Canadian  physicist  and  chemist  has  become infected  with radiation poisoning when working onan unknown project for the United States government. Hisparents  have  been  informed of  his  deteriorating  condition  and  have  been  told  thathewill  not live. They have reason to believe that Dr. Slotin was working with the government on a process involving a bomb, and have assumed that their son’s radiation poisoning and the bomb he was working on  are  connected.  Given  the  connection  between  the  radiation  and  the  bomb,  speculation has arisen about the development of an atomic bomb on American soil. The parents are calling for the government to reveal the cause of their son’s radiation poisoning. Slotin  was  a  graduate  from  the  University of  Manitoba  and  had  studied at  King’s  College London. His contributions to the scientific field were invaluable.  We will continue to report as new information is revealed. 

WTO: Austerity Enforcement or Hold

By: The Economist 

Greece has been previously recognized as a country with an exquisite history where individuals all over the world would dream to visit. Although the astounding coasts such as the Mikonos beach and the historic sites of the long lasting Greek empire are as vibrant as ever, public outlook of this country has shifted for the worse. It is now known for the economic quagmire it finds itself in. Deplorable employment levels, horrendous levels of productive growth, and calamitous falls in aggregate household income are just the tip of the iceberg as the inner workings of the economy are in a dreadful state. The lack of confidence in the banks and the deficiency of government monetary strength only make the situation worse.

Historically, the worst economic downfalls were recovered from using expansionary economic policies and in using the Keynesian school of economics. The latest and most recent WTO (World Trade Organization) meeting saw a clash of beliefs in terms of viable solutions to the Greek economy. Countries such as Albania, Slovakia, the UK, and Israel are all proponents of Austerity measures to enforce more taxation and cut Greek government spending.

 The economy is a rather complex and intertwined phenomenon but austerity does not benefit the Greek economy. Instead, it would marginally allow the IMF and other EU creditors to collect their loans. We see the IMF time and time again loaning huge sums of money to countries with a lot of risks and force austerity measures and their corporatist agenda when things do not go as planned. 

Austerity measures are meant to stabilize and moderate the possibility of recessionary periods by implementing increased taxation and decreased government expenditure in the expansionary and inflationary phase of the economy. It decreases consumer purchasing power and cuts public works and stimulus packages.

It is rather evident that Greece is in no way in a state of growth. Consumer monetary strength is at an all-time low and government public works are laying off workers and excruciatingly inefficient. A prudent fiscal policy would suggest that expansionary policies such as decreased taxation and increased government expenditure should be adopted, but Greece has spent and spent, and there is no recovery in sight.

Countries that were proponents of expansionary policies include Argentina, the USA, Indonesia, Guatemala, Mexico, and the Netherlands. Their resolution that passed included clauses which would suspend all austerity measures for five years and expansionary policies with sufficient oversight be implemented. This amendment also encouraged the investment strategies with the highest economic potential. The delegate from Argentina stated, “It’s important that we do not allow global superpowers to exploit the helpless Greek people, and their political sovereignty should not be compromised.”  Despite this, there was opposition from the Albanian delegate, who was adamant austerity was the way to go. “Austerity is important because it ensures our long term success and it’s crucial we do not overspend in Greece”. Regardless of this clash of ideas, the resolution of the austerity was passed with a large majority.  This means that not only assertive policies are adopted but their execution is being monitored to ensure effectiveness. Removal of Greece from the Eurozone is also included in the resolution which will allow for more foreign investment and improve production as a result of cheaper labor, consumer products, and other tangible and intangible goods.

Moreover, the sovereignty of the Greek people should also be taken into account when discussing their economic status as they have the autonomy over the decisions their government makes. A referendum in 2015 revealed that the Greek people do not want their government to be a puppet of the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank, and European economic superpowers. This is why this amendment is perhaps the best solution as it proposes a viable solution without putting the Greek political sovereignty into question.

Ultimately, although Greece is a cataclysm of economic insufficiencies, with expansionary policies executed properly, a devalued currency after amendments to removal of the Eurozone, and oversight of economic arrangements there is in fact a possibility of a resurgence of Greece and a bright future. It will take a very long period of time for this historic country to recover, but this recovery is something that all and every country ought to promote and aid.