Author Archives: ipgsydmun2013

SO LONG, PINKOS – FOX FAREWELLS SYDMUN 2013

By James Lawler, for Fox News

It’s been a big three days for FOX News in SydVEGAS. We’ve covered everything from North Korean refugee abuses to international terror-funding financial controls, even though FOX’s financial knowledge is limited to remembering his 4-digit PIN number (and FOX can’t remember both of them).

We’ve seen the Security Council eject Human Rights (literally) and become a geopolitical ashram, the Third General Assembly turn into a Battle of the Longest Speech, and the Sydney Uni New Law building become a mosh-pit for pizza. Somalia’s been colonised, the UN’s been cyberattacked, and Ban Ki-Moon has taken up the Charles Taylor-model of leadership. FOX has tweeted loud, grilled hard and drunk far more than is sobre and sensible.

After Fair and Balanced consideration, FOX can confidently say that crypto-communists out to destroy the greatest land on earth, the good old US of A, and the Christian family values it stands for. But, some of you have revealed yourselves to be true Americans (at least in spirit), and for that FOX is glad.

Thus, as the final night is on us, this correspondent recommends two paths. For the patriots tonight, drink hard. And for the leftists, they say some find God at the bottom of the bottle – so drink hard for Jesus.
God bless, and down with the liberal agenda,FOX NEWS

ILC Passes Report That Is Thorough Yet Lacking in Ambition

By Alex Wilde, for The Washington Post

After a weekend of debate, hard work and (regrettably) late starts, the ILC has just completed drafting its report on humanitarian intervention.

There are many positive elements in this report. Recognising ‘Responsibility to Protect’ as a norm allows the UN to prioritise human rights over the state’s responsibility to maintain sovereignty in carrying out military intervention. This is highly important as reliance on this norm gives the UN the ability (to some degree) to conduct preventive operations that quell the potential for a humanitarian crisis to grow. Delegates adopted this principle in light of the 2011 UN Security Council Resolution on Libya, cited as a rare example of the UNSC conducting preventive measures effectively.

However, there is much more that needs to be done in the future. The codified report barely attempts to challenge the competency of the UNSC in its ability to conduct intervention operations. Success of intervention programs is contingent almost entirely on an effective UNSC. Reforms to P5 veto power, lack of representation and non-transparency of decision-making must be addressed in a future session for the aims of this session to be completely realised.

With that said, all delegates should be commended for their efforts over the past weekend, and hopefully the potential for crisis to occur in the future has been narrowed as a result of their work.

UPDATE: UNHRC is the United Nations Hegemony that is Really Confused

By Rachel Lobo, for the Korean Central News Agency

flag
True and effective diplomacy sometimes needs no words

The third day of the Human Rights Council led into a third resolution being forcibly pushed through by certain inconsistent and non-conciliatory member states. This particularly misguided resolution put forward by the Zionist regime and traitorous ‘South Korea’ posing as genuine nations focuses on supposed refugees and asylum seekers that are merely just delusioned defectors from the Greatest Nation. It should be noted that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has had extremely and unfairly limited scope to present their views to these imperialist and colonialist hypocrites.

It is believed India concocted half of this diatribe and Israel ironically constructed the other half focusing on freedom of expression. It was described as a collaborative effort by these two co-conspirators. The most enlightened representative in the room expressed his disappointment of the other less illuminated delegates for submitting to the Zionist state and western allied scum agenda, as these international power hoarders have refused to work with the DPRK. As a result, the Grand Marshall himself has rejected the Draft Resolution in its entirety and his representative regards every clause referring to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as invalid.

The real revelations came in the form of India admitting it’s own political incapacity and China maintaining that they as a close ally of the most honourable Republic that they will abstain from the vote of this resolution as the language is too biased against their most noble and outstanding ally. China outlined that the DPRK would be a direct contributor to the published report in Clause 2 and will be included in the discussions and negotiations this clause suggests.

Clause 4 of this resolution reeks in similarity to that of the colonialist European Schengen Border ideal framework and clearly reflects the machinations of the Western allied scum.

Russia believes it is taking the middle ground and has made the unsound ‘observation’ that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea may not live up to all international standards of scrutiny but disagrees with the majority of the Human Rights Council that the lax in media censorship should be a free for all.

The Russian representative recommends one of the most Dishonourable Justices of Australia to take a look at Draft Resolution 1, clearly denoting a deflection in the quality of this 3rd Draft resolution to come out of this Council this weekend. The delegate for ‘South Korea’ provides foundation for this in agreeing that this was a rather rushed and not the most comprehensive resolution.

Clause 15 of this resolution arises from the claims of the Zionist state that the DPRK lacks accountability in all areas including the stringent control over media. The Korean Central News Agency is one of the utmost clear representation of the freedom of expression and right to information of our country’s citizens, much alike China’s self-characterisation as a bastion of human rights within the global community. The affirmation of non-governmental organisations having the role of reporting on a sovereign state’s matters is laughable. This is a poignant insertion of the Zionist and ‘South Korean’ agenda into the most Glorious Nation’s governance.What one could conclude from this weekend is this, there is only one line of outstanding virtuous thought and that is of the Grand Marshall Kim Jong-Un and all his representatives in the public and private spheres. This is both within and outside the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s borders. Whether he is going for his daily morning walk or on his dutied tour of our great nation, his outstanding wisdom will always prevail over any wrongdoing or propaganda any traitorous scum can purport.

Press Conference of the Third General Assembly

By Sonia Feng, for the Sydney Morning Herald

The Sydney Morning Herald can scathingly report that within the Third General Assembly, denial is not just exclusive to individuals; it can be the go-to-bastion of states within public discourse.

In caucus today, the topic at hand of the Third General Assembly revolved around the abolition of the death penalty.

Problematic is China’s stance of open transparency and accountability, which lies in direct contradiction to its internal administration of justice. China has failed to disclosed as well as stands accused and confirmed of placing fifty pro-Tibetan activists on death row, purely based on the public denouncement of China’s government. China views this in direct breach of public security. There seems to be a discrepancy between China’s official position and reality.

Notably concerning is the official press agency of the People’s Republic of China, Xinhua, and their response to the situation, praising China “well done”. Back to the subject of denial was observed keenly by the Sydney Morning Herald, who witnessed open denial by the state of Iran when questioned about executions of juvenile offenders still being carried out. This is surprising given that it is in contravention of its international human rights obligations as Iran is a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

UNICEF Response to the Syrian Child Refugee Crisis

By Jay Ng, for The Guardian

passed2

Delegates at UNICEF have reached consensus and passed a resolution in regards to the Syrian child refugee crisis. The committee acknowledged the urgency of this issue and has proposed practical measures.

This resolution mainly focuses on delivering support in key aspects of children’s lives such as health, education and psychosocial assistance.

Syria and its immediate countries will be divided into Zone 1 (Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Lebanese Republic, Arab Republic of Egypt, the Republic of Iraq, the Republic of Turkey) and Zone 2 (Syria) for the efficient targeting of aid. Given Syria’s strong stance on sovereignty, the resolution aims to prioritize child health and welfare within Zone 1.

Vaccines, medical professionals, clean water and food will be the main resources delivered to children. UNICEF delegates also believe in Syrian children’s rights to continue their education despite the ongoing political instability. UNICEF will consult educators from Syria and surrounding regions to create the best possible school curriculum in order to accommodate for all cultural differences.

Delegates from India and Israel proposed an anti-violence against women campaign within the framework of the resolution. Men will be provided with education that discourages the use of violence in the private and public sphere in order to avoid future sexual assaults imposed on women and children.

The resolution also calls for Member States to increase funding support to achieve efficiency and accelerate the development of goals.Delegates would also like to address the need for clarification over the legal status of refugees born in Zone 1 refugee camps. It calls on Member States to reaffirm the maternal origin of citizenship rights of children and their right of return.

Muslim states refuse to compromise

By Katherine Voukidis for the Hindustan Times

Saudi Arabia and Yemen continue to resist global concerns on the humanity of the death sentence in the Third General Assembly, saying, “we can only go as far as Sharia law lets us”.

“We would most certainly not impose this on other states, unless they are Muslims being led by Muslims,” says Yemen.

This reluctance highlights a key concern of the committee – the ability of international law to reflect international attitudes, while recognising the cultural and religious concerns of member states.

“It is mandated by God – it isn’t a matter for individuals to decide on what the penalty may be,” says Yemen.

Does the international community have the authority to impose global concerns on the humanity of capital punishment on sovereign nations who abide by religious customs and traditions?

As noted by the delegate for Saudi Arabia, “your religion comes first.”

DPRK Rejects UNHRC Draft Resolution Entirely

By Yuvin Manadeniya, for Al Jazeera

A recent press conference held with the United Nations Human Rights Council revealed that the proposed draft resolution that had been prepared by the council would be rejected by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in its entirety.

When questioned on the expected effectiveness of the proposals, the delegate for Israel stated that while they are unsure as to whether they will achieve their intended outcomes they feel it is important to place pressure on the DPRK. The delegate also mentioned the importance of “not watering down the provisions” in attempting to reach consensus with DPRK. This highlights the stance which the international community has taken against the human rights violation which the DPRK have been accused of committing.

However, if DPRK is unwilling to consider the proposals whatsoever, and rejects the draft resolution “in its entirety,” it can render the entire process redundant. Past experience has shown the DPRK highly resistant to international pressure, and it is unlikely that this draft resolution will alter this situation. It leaves the UNHRC with the uncomfortable position of either; watering down provisions and attempting to reach consensus on some grounds with DPRK, or creating extensive, unfeasible proposals which will be rejected entirely. The DPRK claimed there was a need for states to reach out and create dialogue with them, and while it was clear that efforts were made, it appears that the UNHRC has moved beyond this and described the representative for DPRK as “hostile and unwilling.” As the draft resolution was rejected entirely by the DPRK, it appears the UNHRC has opted to take a stance, and reaffirm their view on the alleged human rights violations. Whether this draft resolution will place enough pressure on the DPRK to begin amending its violations, or whether it will be outright ignored remains to be seen.