Cryptocurrency has become a rising trend in the global world, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) of the United Nations has taken notice, starting to discuss the feasibility of bitcoins as a replacement for the US dollar. However, there have been many forms and sides to this debate for implementing bitcoin, and some delegates feel as if the situation is becoming off topic and “idiotic.”
Delegates, when discussing the feasibility of establishing bitcoin wish to cover all bases when it comes to the possibility. Countries such as Egypt wish to make sure that the cryptocurrency would be completely safe and secure, to that nobody will be the victim of having their life savings hacked. Other countries are looking at security. Other countries wish to look at how to establish a framework for governing bodies, ensuring that the government would be able to maintain control of its own economy. Regulations for crypto currencies would involve how to control possible inflation and deflation in the market as cryptocurrencies can be far more unstable. Other delegates have also raised concerns for countries without access to bitcoins (such as those in the third world,) and would wish to find ways to implement different strategies to make bitcoin accessible for all to help develop the global market. Not all think that this line of question is important however, delegates such as Australia think that these delegates are being “idiots,” and “off topic.” These delegates wish to discuss the issue at hand, on how bitcoin would be able to effectively replace money, instead of how to ensure those in third world countries could have access to it. The Australian delegate hoped that the committee would move towards a more productive line of thinking, remembering that they should be debating managing electronic currencies, not getting caught up with every detail. These countries wish to establish how to best find management solutions and discussing the actually feasibility of what the market would look like, not of the logistics until the decision is actually made. They view it as pointless to discuss measures taken for fair play until everyone is on the same page on if to proceed with even transforming the market. The situation is currently developing with an emphasis on security, and it is hard to say how the sentiment of ensuring all will have access to bitcoin will develop. Whether bitcoin is actually going to prove to be feasible globally will remain to be seen however, as it has already seen heavy damages at the hands have corporations taking advantage of it, and if is established domestically, it could damage the entire global economy. The Disarmament and International Security Council (DISEC) is currently discussing how to best deal with the piracy crimes across the globe. Currently the main motions on the floor are discussing the military and economic strategies of dealing with piracy. Piracy has long plagued all the seven seas, and it’s about time DISEC stepped up to combat it.
Countries have decided to debate both the economic and possible military solutions to piracy over the seas. The military solutions proposed could have increased communication and foreign aid, while the economic solutions propose are based around whom to fund to have the most effect solution to these issues. The main division is between funding private agencies for defence, and funding public foreign aid. Countries such as India wish to promote the free market, to increase trade between nations and increasing protection for vessels naturally economically. Secondly, this delegate wishes to fight piracy by funding private security measures in order to help vessels independently defend themselves. These private security measures would also promote a free market allowing for this ‘protection’ to become a monetary issue, deciding that the richest vessels could defend against pirates. Many of the other delegates are debating on publicly funding foreign aid so that the countries have independent communal power to protect themselves with. However, some countries in the DISEC committee have raised concerns with sovereignty if this happened, with foreign agencies coming into the committee possibly upsetting the global community more than pirates ever could. There are many concerns around the precedent that allowing one countries agency to run amok in an issue such as piracy would set, as challenging sovereignty never has good consequences. While it is hard to say exactly what will come next from DISEC and whether we can expect defence to become public or private (even if public defence has more support currently), it is hopeful that a swift solution to pirates will be found. The United Nations has always been criticized for its usage of veto power in the Security Council, and the policies in place which allow for vetoes on account of one powerful country disagreeing with a possible extremely beneficial policy. Currently, the Security Council is debating on how best to solve this issue, whether it be by abolishing veto power, reforming it, or leaving it alone.
One of the main concerns put forth by countries is that when the Security Council an “veto vetoes,” the entire process becomes redundant and will slow down the Security Council to an even more ineffective standard. Some reforms proposed are changing the permanent member seats around. While the Security Council is acknowledging the possible redundancy of the Security Council vetoing its own vetoes, a general consensus that looking at the issue is not a bad idea. Some countries argue that veto power should be specifically reformed in order to help out in situations such as humanitarian crises. The logic behind this is that aiding humanitarian issues should not be delayed or held up in any way, and this would also reduce the redundancy of veto power. Delegates such as France however argue that humanitarian crises can be too broad of a topic, and that situations such as the Syrian war was not deemed as a humanitarian crisis until 2 years in, which would be far too late to deal with the issue. To which it was rebutted that a humanitarian crisis could easily be defined. The delegate of the USA argues that the situation could be resolved if the reform for veto powers happened solely in major issues such as genocide and major disasters to lower the selection of complications in reforming veto power. While it is unclear what will happen if veto power is reformed, or how these reforms will take place, nobody can argue that it is a good thing that the UNSC is taking a look at this heavily criticized issue. Currently the Non Alignment Movement (NAM) is debating on how to deal with Neo Colonialism. There are three main divisions in the committee of how to deal with Neocolonialism. Some wish to simply reform it, as they argue that it is not entirely a bad thing and has benefits. Others wish to abolish Neo Colonialism completely. Finally, there is a third group that wishes to recognize the possible benefits of Neo Colonialism and find a compromise.
Countries such as China and India claim that Neocolonialism has a lot of potential, and wish to change it for the best of all countries. Countries with this position cited that countries have a lot of economic gain from Neocolonialism, and that it benefits them. So if NAM focused on reforming and helping Neocolonialism evolve, the global community would also evolve. At the opposite end of the spectrum is countries such as the Philippines and Chad, who believe that Neocolonialism is just “old colonialism in the modern times,” and wish to abolish it completely, as it was before. The countries on this end cited concerns such as cultural and social downsides that are rampant with Neocolonialism. In doing away with Neocolonialism, they state that NAM will be able to do away with many problems in modern society. The third group however is more centrist in nature, as they see both the upsides and downsides, wishing to find a compromise that everyone can benefit from. Countries such as Guatemala and Honduras recognize the problems seen in Neocolonialism culturally and socially, but also see the benefits economically. In using neocolonialism to benefit all, the global community could be developed well. But how much is too far? And how much is too little when considering the possible benefits of Neocolonialism? When looking at NAM as the situation develops, all of these questions are worth taking into account when whatever actions are decided as a global community. “We don’t want to poke the bear, but we do want to poke the bear”
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is currently discussing the expansion into the Balkans to prevent a possible Russian expansion. Some delegations are worried of any possible repercussions and relationships with Russia, while other delegations are intent on preventing Russian expansion using any means necessary. There are many mixed opinions from different delegates discussing possible solutions and outcomes of expanding into the Balkans. The delegate of France, for one, stated that it is content with the way things are, and further alluded to the fact that the Balkans have a lot of resentment towards NATO in light of civilian bombings. It is the position of many nations that NATO should avoid any possible scenarios involving conflict and possible with Russia. The delegate of the Netherlands, for example, stated that as a victim of war before it would like to avoid it at all costs, and not to challenge Russia in any way. The Netherlands do not serve as the majority in position however. The delegate of Lithuania, for example, refuted this logic, as it said that war would not be a consequence of expanding into the Balkans, as nuclear weapons would be in the air, and that would serve as a deterrent against any armed conflict. This does not make up every country’s position, however. The delegate of the United Kingdom, for example, has stated that it wishes to use the powers of NATO to their full extent. The United Kingdom states that NATO has some of the most powerful countries as part of it, and if it simply gets more funding can easily challenge Russia. The United Kingdom urged the rest of the committee to “not be cowardly,” and that while “we don’t want to poke the bear, we do want to poke the bear.” The United Kingdom’s view of NATO easily challenging Russia also did not make up the majority of countries in the NATO. The most common theme engaged in NATO currently is the principle of “cautionary expansion,” into the Balkans. Many countries such as Belgium recognizes Russian power, as the Belgium delegate stated “Russia is pretty powerful actually.” The delegate of the United States also stated that the best idea would be to prevent Russian expansion by strengthening borders against Russia, defending from any possible attacks or superiority. It is hard to say exactly how the situation will develop. The most likely situation currently from the positions that many countries have put forth, is the global community can expect to see a “cautionary expansion,” into the Balkans so as to not raise tensions with Russia. Though how this cautionary expansion will not be like any regular expansion into foreign states will have to be seen. |
AuthorPiers Young ArchivesCategories |