We have received news that this committee has finally driven out of their circular debate about funding sources and allocation. Since delegates have put the funding issue on the backburner, delegates have begun branching out to other issues such as education and preventative measures in order to reduce the spread of communicable disease within refugee camps.
Naturally, in the wake of this, differing ideas have flourished and blocs have formed. From what has been seen, there are two major blocs: the first consisting of Indonesia, Argentina, another unnamed country. The second is made up of Russia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and the United States of America (USA). One would assume that both blocs would have differing ideas and produce fruitful debate to come to a solution that is best for the international community as a whole. However, according to a delegate who wishes to remain anonymous, “debate has been going in circles,”. According to this delegate, both blocs are essentially the same; both sides have similar ideas regarding education, vaccination, medical screenings within refugee camps, and funding allocation. As well, it seems that both sides have just been busy “...roasting each other…” in the words of our anonymous source. It has been questioned as to why these two blocs do not just merge, but our anonymous source has said that “...they are too busy roasting each other to actually try to merge,”. This delegate has expressed hope that they are able to get back on topic, continue productive debate, and hopefully merge. In other news, it seems that the delegate from Russia has attempted to look past its foreign policy and has offered to donate money to refugee camps. Other delegates have pointed out these contradictory actions and have “called out” the Russian representative. Also, we have received news that Lebanon has advocated forced vaccinations within refugee camps as a “...quick and easy...” solution to the issue of disease within said camps. Delegates in the Indigenous Peoples Reconciliation Committee (IPRC) have been making great strides to tackle the issue of missing Indigenous women. This topic is a sensitive one, with tensions already beginning to bubble within delegates.
A lot of tension has built up between the First Nations Chiefs in the committee and the RCMP. These strained relations stem from the fact that, in the past, the RCMP enforced residential schools upon the Indigenous people, separating families for years and often causing cycles of abuse which continue to haunt the victims. In the present day, it has been noted that the RCMP has not been properly reporting and following through on cases of missing and metered indigenous women. Many see this as harrowing. This is especially disturbing as Aboriginal women are “over-represented among Canada’s missing and murdered women,”. For example, in 2006, indigenous women made up only about 3.5% of Canada’s population but 11% of missing or murdered cases. Due to the Canadian government’s lack of appropriate action, many Indigenous leaders are disappointed to say the least; many of these leaders are expressing their dissatisfaction with the RCMP. These Aboriginal leaders mistrust the RCMP greatly. Despite this distrust, the committee has been able to make some progress towards a solution. In order to spread awareness and reach a larger audience, the hashtag #herefirst was created to spread awareness over social media. This would ensure that a younger audience would be able to share this message. As well, the creation of various social programs was suggested by the delegates. Mentorship, something that is still in the works, has been talked about. Counselling and safe houses for women were discussed in detail while helplines to report violence were strongly advocated. TREE has also been suggested by the Regional Chief of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. From what has been gathered, it is an acronym that stands for trust, relationships, empowerment and, possibly, empathy. Again, this is an idea that is still in its infancy, will be discussed further and is subject to change. In the end, though there may be disagreements among these delegates, they are clearly passionate to find a solution to this pressing issue. Delegates in the International Monetary Fund have started talking about the creation of new cryptocurrencies in response to the various issues surrounding current cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum.
Main concerns towards these cryptos are the possible use for criminal purposes, due to their decentralized nature, and the almost dangerous lack of regulation, which can cause immense volatility within these electronic currencies. One solution that these delegates have presented are the taxation of cryptocurrencies. Some delegates have misgivings about this, though, such as how these taxes would be implemented or if people would even pay them. Japan has been noted to say that “Cryptocurrencies are like Greece, there are lots of people but nobody pays taxes,”. Another solution that seems to be on the mind of every IMF delegate is the creation of a new cryptocurrency. Though several ideas and iteration exist at the moment, many have similar values. This crypto would be created and/or backed by the IMF and would possibly be a universal currency. These ideas were possibly prompted by the “Bitcoin Boom” that occurred earlier in 2017 where multiple bitcoins appeared after the value of Bitcoin skyrocketed. The delegate from Canada has suggested the creation of POUTINE, a new crypto that, she plans, will have international support. As well, she hopes that this would prompt a slow and gradual decrease in the value of other cryptos. The United Kingdom, in the same vein, suggests a plan called PRIDE. It aims to fulfill the following points.
Today, the World Health Organization (WHO) has convened to talk about the spread of communicable disease within refugee camps. Though the delegates are passionate to find a solution to this pressing issue, progress has been slow. Members have been continually debating about funding and not much else.
In order to further shed some light on this topic, this BBC correspondent has organized an interview with the delegate from the Philippines. She has been kind enough to spend time to enlighten us about the riveting debate within the committee. Q: Thank you for taking the time for this interview. A: Thank you for taking the time to explore this pressing issue. Q: To start, how does this issue affect your country? A: The Philippines has been hit with many natural disasters in the past which has resulted in thousands of displaced citizens. In an attempt to combat the situation, the Philippines has set up evacuation camps. The conditions, purposes, and problems of these camps are very similar to those of refugee camps. Illness is very contagious within congested refugee camps. Many Filipinos suffer from the effects of these illnesses and the Philippines is focused on finding a way to improve the issue. Q: When I was last there, there seemed to be some tension between certain delegates about the issue of funding sources (for example, between the US and Singapore) and fund usage (as raised by the DPRK, Columbia, and Hungary to name a few). Do you believe that there is tension between the delegates? A: The Philippines does recognize that passionate disagreements are occuring as all nations regard this as critical situation and want to find the best ways to improve communicable disease within refugee camps. Sadly, the constructive debating has created slight tension. Q: What do you believe is the best way to deal with the issue of fund collection and usage? A: Resources and funds are greatly limited. Developed nations, especially those with large economies, should give at least a small percentage of its GDP to this situation. These funds should go towards the amelioration of the accessibility of vaccinations and eventually screenings. So developed nations know what is happening with their financial contributions, a report of its use should be sent bi-annually. Q: How about the issue of communicable diseases as a whole? A: The issue of communicable diseases is dire. An efficient solution to this problem must be found as soon as possible. The global community must aid these vulnerable, displaced people. In order to combat this problem, both a short and long term solution is required. Q: Well that’s it. Thank you, again, for taking the time for this interview. A: No problem, BBC. Through this interview with the Philippine delegate, we can see that these delegates are clearly passionate about what they are talking about. However, they are using their energy in all the wrong places. Delegates in the World Health Organization (WHO) spent much of their time arguing amongst each other about how to best use funds within refugee camps to better deal with the spread of communicable diseases.
Many countries suggest that money be used to fund vaccine programs and better sanitation within these camps. Hungary argues that money should be used to fund better infrastructure. “No matter how many vaccines we distribute, new diseases will always appear,” says the Hungarian delegate, “Better housing and access to clean water will help reduce disease within these camps” Other delegations state that this money is better used elsewhere. The United Kingdom insists that refugee camps are not built to be long term solutions to the refugee crisis. Iceland agrees. “These camps are not their homes,” claims the delegate “This money would be better spent accepting refugees and integrating them into [our] communities.” Nevertheless, use of funds is important to ensure that no money is wasted. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) claims that their country is a perfect example of this. Claiming to have spent about $75,000 on HIV prevention, the delegation alleges that “ [Our country] has had little, nay, no cases of HIV. Africa on the other hand…” As stated time and time again by various delegates, refugee camps are optimal breeding grounds for disease; refugee camps are often overcrowded with a lack of proper sanitation, leading to the spread of communicable disease within said camps. Along with the usage of funds, there was intense debate as to where these funds should be collected. The United States went on record to say that they “...are rich...and...are willing to donate all money to any country in need.” Singapore’s delegation rebutted with “Rich? You’re [country] is $20 trillion in debt!” Some delegates were desperate to ask the international community for more funding. Uganda, for example, demanded money or they would “...help [the DPRK] build missiles.” |
AuthorSean Cuevas ArchivesCategories |