Issue 2

Seoulite 2016 SEOMUN XIX NOVEMBER 25

24 PAGE S

COL D WE AT H E R , WARM F RI E N DS H I P S A D E E P E R LO O K IN TO RE F UG E E L I FE

IN TIMES OF CRISIS

Seou lite Novemb er 2016 I ssu e #2

2

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

Editors-in-Chief:

Advisor:

Sarah Kim, William Son

David Coleman

Managing Editor :

Reporters:

Alice Kang

Alice Lee

Fiona Cho, Kirsten Huh, Sarah Jung, Kate Lee, Sia Cho, Samuel Oh, Eric Hwang, Dawn Kim, Yejune Park, Helaine Lee, Justin Chang, Katie Kim, Kristin Kim, Yoo Bin Shin

Copy Editor :

Layout Artists:

Marie Park

Jiwon Chung, Christine Lee, Seoyun Yoo, Young Jin Park, Catherine Cho, Jaywon Yi, Eugene Song, Andrew Kim, Alex Lee

Assistant Editor :

Layout Editor: Joonhee Han Photo Editors: Brian Kim, Esther Hwang

Photographers: Andrew Lee, Angela Ahn, Allyson Kim, Katie Ahn, Eileen Kwon, Anna Ganus, Brian Chun, Soo Yeon Kim, Lily Wang

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

LETTER FROM THE EDITORS Hello delegates, We are the editors-in-chief of Seoulite, the annual press publication of SEOMUN. We are honored to serve delegates, chairs, advisers, administrative staff members, directors and other participants throughout the SEOMUN conference.

It is our utmost hope that all delegates have access to fruitful debates on different worldly topics and that they learn something new from this conference that they had previously not known.

Over the next three days, our team of reporters, layout artists, and photographers will be creating a total of four issues of Seoulite and not only document the heated debates and potential remedies to global crises, but also capture the new friendships that were formed throughout this conference.

We would like to ask the delegates and chairs for three things: First, please pick up our carefully made issues every day and read through the pages – we promise to fill our issues with interesting content ranging from migrant crises to nuclear proliferation along with a couple of pages of pure, simple entertainment.

Second. When a press member approaches you for an interview, please cooperate – feel free to offer staff members your uncensored and personal opinions.

Third, make sure to check out our Dropbox link, which will be shared to you by your Secretary General, as well as the SEOMUN website for dazzling color copies of all our issues! We will also be sharing all the images taken over the course of the conference, so look out for candid shots of yourself in intense debates.

We wish all delegates the best of luck – happy SEOMUN!

Editors in Chief Sarah Kim, William Son

3

4

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

GA 1 SUCCESSFULLY PASSES RESOLUTIONS REGARDING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN PREVENTING REGIONAL CONFLICTS By: Samuel Oh According to CNN, regional conflicts have greatly increased over the last few decades, a trend that promises to continue. On Nov. 25, delegates of GA I committee discussed how the resolutions presented by the delegate of Australia could be enhanced.

Hannah Kim, delegate of Australia, advocated for a system in which every step of any form of intervention would be checked by other nations. She argued that this type of enforcement mechanism would serve as the most effective deterrence factor for violation.

“This resolution would ensure the maximum protection of human rights of all people,” said Hannah Kim, delegate of Australia. “It will also powerfully reaffirm values of international laws regarding interventions that nations have to abide by regardless of their size or realm of influence.”

Jin Young Kim, delegate of Switzerland, had different views on the issue, one suggesting that humanitarian intervention would be more crucial to address regional conflicts.

The delegate believed that the the help of NGOs and organizations would increase the life quality of civilians within the regional struggles.

“Intervention could be made in a more peaceful way if NGOs such as Amnesty International contribute in tackling the issue,” said Jin Young Kim. “Recruiting NGOs to be a part of the issue is a more effective way to

protect innocent civilians from being involved, since it’s free of diplomatic matters.

Emma Lee, delegate of the Czech Republic, maintained the viewpoint that it would be necessary to keep track of what countries were doing, and also to ensure that military soldiers weren’t imposing any harm on nations. The delegate also emphasized that the time period of intervention was too long and therefore ineffective.

“There is a lack of measures to monitor the countries that are intervening into conflicting regions,” said Emma Lee. “The prolonged stay of military soldiers should be blocked. Committees should keep track of foreign interventions so that it’s not prolonged and so that the military does not abuse its power.”

Delegates of Switzerland and the Czech Republic proposed amendments to the resolution that would potentially fix the issues they had with it.

However, both amendments were not accepted, as a majority of the remaining delegates voted against both of them.

Before the voting procedure to determine whether the resolutions as a whole would pass, the delegate of Australia stepped up to speak again, mentioning that without cooperation, nations would be destroyed and that military nations wouldn’t be able to work together because of barriers such as language. The resolutions were passed with 33 votes and 17 against.

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

5

PEACEKEEPING TROOPS FOR PEACE

by Helaine Lee

Disarmament resolutions were deemed effective as delegates pointed out the benefits of the amendments that would secure civilian protection and national security. This resolution, passed by Indonesia, calls upon the United Nations to increase funding, training, and deployment of specialized Peacekeeping Forces (PKF), who will efficiently eliminate threats, such as terrorist militias armed with weapons of mass destruction.

Tim Covet, delegate of Indonesia, strongly argued for a need of PKFs in enhancing the essence of disarmament and national protection. He made intelligible that his resolutions passing military troops would not only protect civilians from terrorism attacks, but also fight terrorism itself.

“Currently, the peacekeeping reaction time is too slow to be effective,” said Tim. “It would be impossible with the current standards and regulations with the military retaliation with threats such as terrorist attacks. This task force is designed specific command structures to by pass that bureaucracy and allow a quick reaction time to diffuse these nuclear threats.”

At first, the delegates felt that the resolution had a lack of specificity in regards to the ways it will be operated effectively to counter terrorism.

“Such quick rotation would mean that more people would know about the logistics behind this PKF,” said Chris Lee, delegate of Brazil, “As the PKF’s effectiveness lies in making sure terrorists do not know how counter-terrorism efforts are being carried out, it could be kept mostly confidential and limit to a small number of troops.”

Some delegates disagreed with Chris, mentioning that there had been cases of rape

and human rights violations by peacekeeping troops that were deployed in the Middle East.

“Thank you for your well written resolution,” said Sky Park, the delegate of Iraq, “However, I am concerned of the fact that there was human rights violations because of these peacekeeping troops. How will the powers be put upon these organizations?”

In response, Tim successfully rebutted their questions by giving a further insight into his clause. He made clear of the current situation regarding peacekeeping troops and how the governments can utilize these troops to their respected advantages.

“There are already rules and regulations in place,” said Tim, “Not only within the specific peacekeeping force’s command structure to prohibit soldiers from threatening civilians, but as well as international humanitarian law. So I believe that any form of amendments regarding the violations of the rights of civilians is unnecessary. “ With that statement, the resolution was deemed acceptable, as it effectively addressed the issues of the committee. With 27 votes out of 29, the resolution passed.

6

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

ECOSOC II DISCUSSES CRISIS ON CLOSED TURKISH BORDERS

by Marie Park

how the United Nations will support the nations with a sudden influx of refugees.”

The refugee’s dramatic performance was followed by a heated debate on what actions that needed to be taken in response to Turkey’s closed borders. Some delegates, such as the delegate of France, believed that the crisis could not be remedied simply by equally distributing the toll of the refugees.

Sources of entertainment for some and causes of extreme stress for others, a series of crises occurred across the span of two hours in Human Rights Council (HRC) II, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) II, Historical Security Council (HSC), Six Party Talks (SPT), and ECOSOC I.

“In the morning, before the crisis, we discussed a resolution that contained clauses proposing more lenient immigration policies,” said Mayowa Oke, delegate of France. “The delegate of France, along with a couple of other delegates, were very passionately against the resolution, and the crisis now adds another dimension to the entire debate. Is it the responsibility of each individual nation to change its immigration policy for the betterment of the world, or should each nation have their own rights and abilities to set immigration policies that fit with what they believe is right for their citizens?”

Other delegates, such as the delegate of Lebanon, believed that other countries should help alleviate the grave situation of the refugee crisis.

The delegates of ECOSOC II were interrupted in midst of their debate by a hysterically crying Syrian refugee lamenting the recently closed borders of Turkey.

Sobbing, the woman stood in the middle of the room, recounting her tales of being taken by guards and being separated from her family. She even hugged Assistant President Alyssa Choi in her grief, before she was escorted outside.

“I was looking to expedite the process of reducing the amount of people that feel lost in such a tragic incident,” said Nishchay Acharya, delegate of Lebanon.

“The debate in the morning was more about collaboration; however, now, in midst of a crisis, we must act in a more expedited manner. Now, the main question is, do we focus on the safety of our own people, or the safety of the Syrian refugees? We have to strike a balance between the two things.”

The crisis presented to ECOSOC II entailed heavy consequences: Turkey’s closing of borders could set a precedent for other countries, such as Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Some of the refugees displaced inside Syria are finding dangerous alternative lifestyles to find stability, such as joining ISIL.

Other committees also experienced crises: a Democratic People’s Republic of Korea spokesperson barged into the Historical Security Council, demanding 10 billion US dollars, and other committees were shown videos of breaking news that would throw a curve ball into their debates.

“The crisis reflects the issue that many of these [Syrian] refugees are putting serious strain on the social services of many nations,” said Nicholas Kim, President of ECOSOC I. “Delegates now have to discuss

Despite numerous delays and readjustments, the crises sparked debate and called for delegates to adjust their clauses and stances to reach a final, substantive resolution in the true spirit of MUN.

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

STUFF

DELEGATES SAY

by Justin Chang

Disclaimer: This article is all in good fun and is in no way meant to be serious. Please don’t take offense.

“Good job on the fruitful debate!”

Why is everything at SEOMUN a fruitful debate? You lobby for 5 hours and it’s a fruitful debate. You saw a delegate submit a not-so-great resolution and it’s a fruitful debate. You screwed up big time and it’s a fruitful debate. But is the debate really always that fruitful?

It’s almost impossible to have a good resolution and good rebuttals in every debate so please, stop calling every single utterance a fruitful debate. Some just aren’t.

“Who’s the main-submitter?”

There are two possible intentions behind this question. One, you really don’t know who the main-submitter is, and two, you deep down want to be the main-submitter but this other delegate (who you now despise) wants to main-submit as well, and is pushing for his/her resolution. So you ask, ‘who’s the main-submitter?’ to subtlety prevent him/her from actually becoming the main-submitter. But why be subtle? Just fight for your own resolution to be submitted.

“Dear honorable chairs and fellow delegates, this clause is useless and entirely unnecessary.”

Finally we have someone that speaks his or her feelings. Hey, if a resolution is unnecessary, then say it’s unnecessary. Don’t try to hide your feelings, let them out. It’s still a shame, though, since you still have to be “respectful” and everything. Its just isn’t possible to be emotional in an MUN style debate.

“Thank you delegate for your speech.”

Doesn’t it feel nice to be forced to show gratitude to that one delegate that had just spent the duration of his/her speech criticizing your speech? But hey, it’s MUN protocol, right? You just have to accept their points and try your best to save what dignity you have left. Just remember, don’t resort to ad hominem unless you want the chairs to call you out for it.

“Good job.”

Well, at the end of the day, SEOMUN XIX was still a great experience, right? So yea, there may have been some new adversaries you made, but you also made new friends—that is, unless you’re a socially awkward loner. So forget the fights and treasure the memories.

7

8

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

HRC I TACKLES ISSUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

BY UN OFFICERS

by Dawn Kim

Recently, accounts of human rights violations on the part of UN experts and officials have emerged during peacekeeping missions. The violations included but were not limited to sexual abuse, murder, child molestation, and discrimination of minorities mainly in countries such as Congo, Kosovo, Haiti, and Somalia. Taking this into account, Ji Min Oh, delegate of Togo, submitted a resolution outlining points such as ensuring anonymity to supervision of peacekeepers as well as removal of unnecessary stationing of UN troops in such countries.

entertained, with 2 eventually accepted to modify the resolution.

“As a representation of peace and unity, the United Nations has the responsibility of demonstrating virtuous qualities regarding human rights,” Ji Min said. “Since the investigation of these UN officials are heavily controlled by the governments of member nations, it is important to improve the communication and cooperation between the governments and the UN to solve the issue at hand. By reforming as well as implementing existing policies such as the ‘zero tolerance rule,’ delegates and nations can all come together under this issue to contribute in providing a better society for each and every individual.”

After a long session of amendments and points of information, the resolution was narrowly rejected, gathering 15 votes for, 17 votes against, and four abstentions. Yet, some delegates who believed that the resolution had improved as a result of the debate, were particularly disgruntled about the outcome.

Delegates picked apart the resolution, pinpointing clauses to improve, include, or omit altogether.

According to Faisal Halabeya, delegate of the Republic of Korea, the operative clauses lacked specificity. A total of 5 amendments were

“The resolution is flawed as the policy simply implemented the same ways hoping officials would respond differently,” said Seyeon Ahn, delegate of Mexico. “This is the exact problem because the existing policies are not implemented into real situations. This delegate believes that there should be an international resolution which prevents egregious human right abuses.”

“I think the house should’ve been divided, because then we would’ve had a tie, or the resolution could have even passed.” Said Faisal Halabeya, delegate of the Republic of Korea. “The original was not as comprehensive and lacked some elements that made it as applicable to the issue. By amending it we made it more readable, accessible, doable. For example, we passed an amendment encouraging the ICC to create international standard to uphold Zero Tolerance policy. This made it more specific and doable. It was a good collaborative effort.”

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

9

ICJ debates on Senegal’s Obligation to try Hissène Habré

by Kate Kim The judges of the International Committee of Justice (ICJ) opened the debate with a case presented by the Kingdom of Belgium, questioning the obligation of the Republic of Senegal to prosecute or extradite the infamous dictator, Hissène Habré.

Habré, having committed over 400,000 politically motivated acts of abuse and violence, was brought to trial by Senegal in order to bring justice back to the victims of his crimes. In addition, Belgium cited the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) to prove that Senegal has the

“Senegal is not responsible for trying Habre” - Samuel Oh obligation of establishing universal jurisdiction for crimes of torture. To object to this claim, Senegal defended itself by stating that the ICJ has no right to try them, for they have no conflicts with Belgium in the interpretation of the CAT. The Kingdom of Belgium started off by addressing their opinions on the case presented, proving that Senegal has the responsibility of handling the trial of Hissène Habré with the CAT, which states that Senegal has the obligation of combating crimes against genocide and human rights. Furthermore, many other judges supported the proof, bringing up the effectiveness and credibility of the evidence.

“The CAT is a very important piece of evidence as in this court case,” Judge Shyla Bector said. “It has been ratified by both member states Senegal and Belgium, and proves that Senegal has the jurisdiction and responsibility to prosecute the political refugee.”

Afterward, Judge Leanne Kim, representative of Senegal, gave an opening speech that addressed several important points supporting the reasons why Senegal has no reason to intervene. Most importantly, she emphasized how important it is to remember that the CAT was a document accessioned in 2007, and therefore cannot be used for cases previous to the execution.

“The Republic of Senegal does not have the re-

sponsibility to handle this issue,” Judge Leanne Kim said. “First of all, the African Union, which was the international court in the year of 2005, ruled that Senegal did not have the ability of taking the case. Secondly, the CAT was ratified in 1986, but was accessioned in 2007, while Habre’s actions were committed in 1990. Therefore, the CAT cannot be applied to cases prior to its implementation.”

More delegates sided with Senegal, describing the effectiveness of the CAT document in proving that Senegal has no jurisdiction of trying Habré. Supporting delegates gave positive feedback on how Senegal was capable of making use of a very useful document in order to convince the judges that they have no obligation in establishing universal jurisdiction for crimes of torture.

“The CAT is clearly an example of expost facto,” Judge Michael Leung said. “In other words, it is from a long time ago, and can deemed to be important in the past but not in the current case where we are dealing with a dictator who is a current issue.

The Republic of Senegal did a great job in pointing this out.”

10

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

Despite significant movement toward equality over the past century, women have been continually displayed as the “weaker” gender that always needs the support of men in various societies all over the world. Victimized, raped, and forced into unjust labor and sex slavery, women have been discriminated both physically and mentally in areas ranging from small villages in the middle of Africa to big metropolitan cities in Wall Street.

Ever since the beginning of human civilization, women have often been portrayed as “guilty” of most wrongdoings. For instance, according to the Bible, it was Eve, the woman, who seduced Adam, the man, to bite into the poisonous apple initially, causing both of them to face the harsh repercussions. Likewise, in 1692-1693, 20 women were accused of performing “witchcraft” in Salem, Massachusetts, and were persecuted and hanged without any tangible evidence to support the claim that such women were deliberately imposing misfortunes upon the whole town.

Approximately 2516 years have passed since the Old Testament was finalized and 323 years have passed since the end of the Salem Witch Trials.

But has anything changed regarding the status of women over the past years?

In some aspects, yes, women have many more rights now than they used to have in the past, thanks to a series of women’s rights movements that reached its peak in the mid-1800s. But has women’s rights improved “enough” compared to the effort that was invested to bring upon gender equality?

Unfortunately, no, such efforts appear to be comparatively inefficient, since there is still along way to go to confidently claim that women and men are of the same status and have access to the same type of rights. In fact, in countries like El Salvador, adolescent girls are kidnapped and sold as sexual slaves. Specifically, according to the Guardian, two thirds of the women interviewed by the UN refugee agency in 2015 described direct threats and attacks by members of criminal groups as the major reason for their flight.

Besides the situation in El Salvador, a radical Islamist group, Boko Haram, kidnapped nearly 300 girls from a school in northeastern Nigeria in April 2014. Although some girls managed to escape from the hands of Boko Haram, most of the girls are now scattered and their whereabouts remain unknown even to their families.

So what can we do to alleviate the dire situation for women?

According to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, in order to alleviate the current situation for such women, especially in underdeveloped countries, people should strive to end all forms of discrimination against all girls everywhere, eliminate forms of violence against women, and ensure women’s full and effective participation along with equal opportunities for leadership at all decision making in political, economic, and public life. While such goals may seem impossible to accomplish in the next few years, communities can always try their best to take one step closer to establishing complete gender equality.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: BREAKING THE GLASS CEILING

By: Alice Lee

“

When God created man and woman, he was thinking, ‘Who shall I give the power to, to give birth to the next human being?’ And God chose woman. And this is the big evidence that women are powerful.

-Malala Yousafzai

“

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

11

HUNDREDS OF SEOMUN PARTICIPANTS CONTRACT HYPOTHERMIA

by Marie Park

On Nov. 25, the second day of SEOMUN, hundreds of MUN participants attending the conference appeared to have contracted hypothermia. According to Constantly Negative News (CNN), the cause of the massspread illness has been conjectured to be the unusual subzero temperatures and the drafty wind blowing in the outer KINTEX halls.

According to WebMD, cold exposure, which causes the “balance between the body’s heat production and heat loss [to tip] toward heat loss for a prolonged period,” can cause hypothermia. The most common hypothermia symptoms include shivering, slow and shallow breathing, confusion and memory loss, drowsiness or exhaustion, slurred or mumbled speech, and loss of coordination. These symptoms could prove difficult for delegates when they make their speeches or debate complex international issues.

“I was in the middle of presenting the resolution that I main-submitted when I started feeling the symptoms,” said Cole De Leggett, delegate of Austria. “I started forgetting which clause the committee was debating about, and I kept being told to speak up and articulate. The same thing happened to the delegates making POIs—they sounded like they were going to fall asleep any second.”

When delegates recounted their day, most came to the conclusion that they experienced

cold exposure during lunchtime or while commuting to and from the conference.

“In order to reach the restaurants on the lower levels, one must exit the main KINTEX building and go into the outer halls, which are kept completely open to the outside, subjecting one to the same subzero temperatures out of the building,” said Jack Frost, delegate of Dreamland. “I noticed that the situation’s getting worse over time. Today, both press members and advisors could be seen returning to the conference after lunch with red noses and frozen hands.”

In addition to the freezing hallways, participants who rode the subway to commute to and from the conference were buffeted with cold winds, making them vulnerable to the hypothermia that they contracted. Subway riders could have been in the cold for 2030 minutes, depending on their stride and walking speed, as the nearest subway station, Daehwa, is approximately 1.5 kilometers from the KINTEX building.

“By the time I got to the subway station, I could not feel any of my appendages,” said Fri Xing, delegate of Antarctica. “I tripped down about half of the stairs and almost broke my ankle. Not only that, I could not keep my balance, and I fell over every time the subway moved or stopped. Someone almost called the ambulance on me.”

12

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

IN THE LENSES OF AN ECONOMIST: MY LIFE ABOUT STRUGGLE By: Dawn Kim Civil war, persecution, poverty and a lack of social welfare. From everyday citizens fleeing war-torn Syria and Afghanistan to racially discriminated Romas from Serbia and Macedonia seeking more lucrative jobs, reports from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNFHCR) show that these are the reasons why 65.3 million refugees were forced to leave their homes in 2015. Apart from the safety concerns of well-known “escape routes” and talks of overflowing refugee camps in Germany, what are the implications that these newcomers could have on a country willing to take in these displaced people?

At first glance, it seems that more workers, especially young ones, would not get impacted by the inflow of refugees. Specifically, according to the Economist, the influx of migrants arriving in Demark from 1991 to 2008 yielded positive economic effects, relocating natives to jobs with less menial tasks and higher salaries. In addition, the introduction of immigrants had a very small effect on wages, depressing pay only by two percent.

“Though the influx of refugees may look like an economic downfall at first glance, if assisting nations are able to employ the refugees and have them pay taxes, then they can become an economic benefit,” said Curtis Lee, delegate of Ethiopia. “It is the nations’ responsibility to improve their own capacity so can use their refugees as a benefit, not as a downfall. It is a cycle: more refugees come in, more job spaces are created for them, and more refugees can be accepted.”

However, the refugee crisis entails some setbacks as well. Germany’s main complaint against the displaced were that many immigrants were pensioners, unable to work or pay taxes. In 2016, Italy announced that 90 percent of children were unaccompanied by adults, signifying that many individuals chose to send along minors who were unable to work or pay taxes in their stead.

“I believe that immigrants pose a very negative effect on their host countries,” said Josh Mun, delegate of Germany. “Normally, when immigrants come to other countries, their unemployment rate rises. The citizens of those countries already face heavy unemployment rates and low wages. An influx of immigrants will not help the economic growth, and will only cause a cultural devaluation. Due to cultural tension between natives and the immigrants, the different cultures may overlap and result in conflict and racial bias.”

In essence, despite the fact that the refugee crisis of Europe has only been worsening over time with inadequate hospitality and absence of education, public concern has been diminishing. When putting economic concerns and unfortunate stories aside, perhaps, there could be fewer arguments about extremes and more views of immigrants as humans, not resources.

“Families make up the majority of immigrants due to the war and other forms of conflict,” said Harriet Ho, delegate of Russia. “Families are always broken apart because of limited economic resources, causing big psychological impacts. A breaking apart of families create a cycle of poverty, where the children of that family think they have to leave, and find work outside of their country as well.”

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

“They have to go,” answered Donald Trump, the United States president-elect when questioned what the undocumented immigrants would do if they had nowhere to return to. With the seemingly unprecedented results of the Nov. 8 US elections, the issue of illegal immigrants has once again reached its pinnacle, garnering more global attention than ever before and threatening many lives at stake.

When retracing the history of the United States’ treatment of illegal immigrants, it can easily be discerned that President Obama has held a rather ambivalent ideology of immigration.

Although the Obama Administration was predicted to impose most rigorous laws against illegal immigrations, in actuality, it initiated efforts to protect about 1.7 million illegal immigrants from deportation by establishing relatively accepting executive policies including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).

Yet, according to Forbes, it has been noted that once Trump assumes office, he will most likely call off President Obama’s executive actions shielding the rights of immigrants. In fact, during his campaign, Trump has announced numerous plans against the illegal immigrants: to build a wall along the southern border to halt immigrants from illegally crossing the border, to triple the number of immigration agents to ensure security, and to nullify citizenship on employers hiring foreign workers. In essence, his words have traumatized many likely to be forced of deport. Juna Jang, assistant president of Human Rights Council 1 shared the uncertain implications of Trump’s victory.

13

“I am actually hesitant to answer this question because the question has so much controversy let alone the recent U.S. elections itself,” Juna said. “As someone who values all opinions regardless of whoever it originates from, I am hoping that there probably is some validity in President Trump's opinion. The one concern I have as of now is how he will define what makes an immigrant ‘illegal’. Based on the opinions President Trump enunciates to the general public, he seems to prefer less perhaps ‘racial diversity’ possible. America's diverse culture and people are what make the nation appealing to me, and if it changes according to what the president currently wants, I'm unsure in regards to how certain human rights would be maintained.”

However, spoken by several HRC1 delegates, Trump’s victory may not bring about many of the changes he so passionately spoke about on the campaign trail. In addition, some believe that many of Trump’s policies are impractical due to sheer logistics as well as inherent social characteristics of the US. “Trump seems to have a lot of promises that he will not actually keep,” said Harriet Ho, delegate of Russia. “His promise demonstrates an extreme form of xenophobia and racial discrimination, obviously. The immediate result on America’s cultural diversity would diminish as a large percentage of the population is made up of nonwhites or non-Americans such as Hispanics, Mexicans, and Latinos. Especially, his promise was to build a wall or in fact a fence to stop the immigrants from crossing the border to enter America. Is that practical? Is that going to happen? We do not know.”

Yet, according to The Independent, whether Trump actually carry out his previous promises and the public’s anticipated implication occur in reality or not, we do not know. In other words, it is too hard of a decision to make quite yet. However to cope with such fragile immigration issue regarding humanity, the U.S. government’s one-time action will not put forward a truly earnest resolution. Rather, a possibly practical and responsible approach must be taken.

STRANGEHOLD OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

By: Yoo Bin Shin

14

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

SPC PROMOTES DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CYBER SECURITY

by Eric Hwang

The first resolution of the day marked a significant turning point. Although the resolution was initially not in favor in the view of delegates, the majority of delegates slowly started to support the proposal’s range of issues including the promotion of development in the fields of information and telecommunications regarding transnational security.

As the main submitter of the team, Amy Kim, delegate of Vietnam, presented the resolution as well as its potential to create changes on a national scale and cooperate internationally in order to improve international cyber security.

“I think our resolution is effective in solving the problem at hand,” said Amy. “It tackles the concerns of the use of Information Communications Technologies (ICTs) of terrorist or criminal groups to carry out acts of terrorism or recruit new members and bilateral cyber attacks, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s recent attacks against the Republic of Korea.”

On the other hand, some delegates objected, claiming that the resolution’s vagueness was the main obstacle that should be confronted. Specifically, such delegates found the resolution to have a few missing potential amendments that could be created to furthermore strengthen the resolution. Following the main submission, delegates took the floor and began to question whether another clause was needed within the resolution.

“The resolution is plausible and feasible in many ways,” said Han Win Maw, delegate of Somalia.

“However, one fault within the resolution is business.

There was no mentioning of anything about local, private, or public telecommunications businesses.

Additionally, the resolution concerns on the government level, but not on the business level.”

Moreover, the majority of delegates started to question the details of the resolution, requesting further specifications. They also believed that by merely defining each term was not sufficient in providing adequate detail for each operative clause.

“The operative clause 5b talks about how necessary actions will be taken to reduce the damage regarding victims of cybercrimes,” said Madhav Chadha, delegate of Panama. “However, the term “necessary actions” is slightly vague and needs more elaboration.”

Although the resolution had some faults throughout the debate the delegates eventually came to understand the range of issues the resolution covered, including ICT terrorism and lack of awareness.

Furthermore, delegates concluded the debate by praising the wide variety of issues that the proposed clauses tackled.

“This resolution is like an ever changing plant,” said Aki Nagano, delegate of Argentina. “It is open to change and therefore it is highly adaptive to change.

You just need to shine light and focus on it and it blooms and continuously grows, improving the earth and our society.”

Due to a late, but outcome-changing realization, with 13 votes for, three votes against, and six abstentions, the first resolution of the day ended on a high note.

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

15

AMENDMENT TO STRIKE CLAUSE 10 CREATES INTENSE DEBATE IN ECOSOC I

by Sarah Jung

Yoon Lim, delegate of Guatemala, stepped onto the floor to address the first issue on youth unemployment in response to graying demographics in ECOSOC I. Proposed by the delegate of Guatemala were clauses focusing on education and job opportunities such as establishing locational schools for youth career development, opening markets, and division of labor that were enthusiastically opened to any and all amendments.

A majority of the delegates strived to provide amendments to the resolution to make it more plausible. They questioned the validity of individual rights under the fact that communism gave everyone equal rights, and the demand for specific solutions as delegates claimed the clause and the resolution overall to be vague. Specifically, delegates agreed with the point that Clause 10 was discordant and contrasting with its own goals.

Other delegates in the committee criticized Clause 10, questioning the purpose of division of labor and provided varying perspectives on the consequences of the inclusion of the clause. Specifically, the delegate of Argentina proposed an amendment to exclude the clause on division of labor providing equal job opportunity as it would foster and lead to communism in society because of its socialist structure.

“I think the clause is problematic in that it seems to imply a solution that it may not necessary be trying to implement.” said Kayley Suk, Delegate of Ghana. “There’s no clarification on scales and the phrasing is far too jarring.

More importantly, it’s too broad a solution. It may work if the clause specialized countries on industry.”

“The Delegate of Argentina’s amendment has very positive intentions such as balancing the workload,” said Yoon. “But deeming this as a catalyst for a communist belief sounds unreasonable. Rather than striking I would rather amend some specific phrases.”

The amendment to get rid of the clause on division of labor originated from the clause’s primary goal of providing a motivation for youth employment to open more job spaces, but more significantly because everyone would have an equal chance for employment.

Other delegates agreed with the delegate of Guatemala on how the clause was extreme in its intentions and therefore should be reworded instead of being excluded completely from the resolution.

“I will be looking to the submitters of this resolution to submit an amendment that better outlines Clause 10’s goals,” said In Hwa Mo, Delegate of Lebanon. “I agreed mostly to what the Delegate of Argentina said minus the suggestion of striking Clause 10. However, I’m glad someone saw and started a debate on what I believe is a fundamentally flawed clause.”

Although delegates of various nations made successful attempts to pinpoint the flaws of Clause 10, the amendment to strike Clause 10 entirely failed to pass with 4 votes for and 27 votes against.

16

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

ADVISORS OF MUN: THE HARDWORKING INDIVIDUALS BEHIND THE SCENES Ramona Boyle Webber Academy What is one piece of advice that you always give to your students, that frequently goes unanswered?

One advice I always tell my students is to speak as soon as you can in the conference, and have confidence that you have something to contribute to.

Chris Peek International School of Qingdao What is the most common mistake you see in resolutions?

The most common mistakes I see in resolutions is resuggesting solutions that are already being implemented. In other words, students just want to propose the creation of new conferences and new committees without realizing that they are already taking place in the world.

Susan Kim Taejon Christina International School What has been your main role/contribution throughout the conference?

We have a lot of new beginning students this year. It’s our first time as a school attending the conference, so students were pretty overwhelmed by the quantity of the building and the people. Therefore, I think the morale support is my main role here, making sure that they felt okay, they could speak on the first day, and so on.

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

SPT TACKLES TERRITORIAL DISPUTES IN EAST CHINA

Tackling the issue of territorial disputes in the East China Sea, Six Party Talks (SPT) discussed clauses written by Min Gi Cho, delegate of China. Min Gi highlighted the ever-growing issue of overfishing, which is causing territorial disputes among various nations. The delegate emphasized the need for maritime sanctuaries and collaboration among nations to alleviate such tensions.

Throughout the course of the debate, many delegates actively participated to strengthen the clause and raise questions about vague portions of the resolution.

“The reason for having maritime sanctuaries is that no single country will be able to get a strong hold of any of the fishing territories,” Min Gi said. “If there are no efforts made to create these sanctuaries, over-fishing will cause further territorial disputes, possibly bringing along unforeseen consequences. Joint occupation of the East China Sea could be another solution to the growing clashes between nations.”

A few delegates supported this clause, pointing out that the clause was logical and insightful. They proposed that it was a clever plan to relieve militarization arising from territorial conflicts.

17

by Dawn Kim

“Joint possession of the East China Sea will surely bring stability and peace to several nations,” said Jessie Lee, delegate of the Russian Federation. “They won’t have to fear getting attacked and threatened from other nations.

However, despite the support the clause received, many other delegates protested the passing of this clause.

They raised their voices on problems ranging from the resolution’s lack of practicality to the facilitation of potential exploitation among nations. Many delegates agreed that the clause needed to be refined to fill these holes.

“This delegate believes that making a simple sanctuary to tackle this prominent issue is impractical,” said Juha Lee, delegate of the Republic of Korea. “In regards to how the clause can be improved, the delegate would recommend annual conventions among nations regarding proportional ownership or shared resources. The reason for this recommendation is to prevent corrupt actions among associated nations.”

Amongst the fiery debate of conflicting voices, in the end, the clause failed to pass with two delegates for, three against, and one abstention.

18

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

QUOTE BOX: PREDICITING POIS “When answering a POI, you have to take into account whether or not your speech had any holes. Delegates are desperate to poke holes in resolutions and if your defense of a resolution already has a tear, then delegates will do their best to rip it open. It’s brutal and intense, but iwt comes from a spirit of ambition and cooperation towards a stronger resolution and more foolproof outcome that we all can be proud of, which is a spirit and passion unique to MUN that all delegates understand.”

Colette White, GA I Delegate of New Zealand

“What I normally do to predict the POIs is doing the debate simulation with myself before the debate actually takes place.

I even have my brother as the opposing delegate and ask questions and when I have to deal with the new resolutions on the spot, then I observe the flow of the debate and get my nation’s perspective in and see what are the points that the speakers make that I can tackle as the delegate of my nation! “ Jin Young Kim, GA I Delegate of Switzerland

“I listen, pay attention, and keep in mind of what transpires. I use the information and try different scenarios of what they might say. Everything is a pattern and most of this comes from experience. So yes, pay attention. It might be confusing at first, but you will realize a pattern quickly. Pretend it is a conversation.

Actually, treat it as a normal conversation.

Don’t sweat it. Keep calm and talk normally as you would do but follow the standards the chairs expect. “ Han Min Maw, GA I Delegate of Somalia

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

19

DELEGATES RECOUNT THEIR FIRST EXPERIENCE OF SEOMUN It is not hard to see that the participants of SEOMUN are representing this year’s theme of embracing diversity well; people of different nationalities, religions, and genders pile into the conference rooms of KINTEX each morning. Among them are delegates of varying experiences: a handful is approaching the end of their fourth time here, while others are wideeyed first-timers. Yet, even the most experienced delegates went through numerous difficulties during their first time at SEOMUN. According to returning delegates, the first day was the most nerve-racking. Finding their committee’s room in maze-like hallways proved to be a challenge to many. Some people in large committees struggled with preparing and delivering speeches, and others had a hard time making new friends, especially if nobody from their school was in their committee.

“Last year, I had my first experience at SEOMUN and I was in the General Assembly,” said Ashley Krairojananan, delegate of Belgium. “It was intimidating at first because there were a lot of delegates, so it was hard to voice my opinion.

But by the second day, I got closer to many of the other delegates, and the conference became more interesting because there were more topics to debate on.”

Although all participants of SEOMUN come from different backgrounds and various walks of life, everybody leaves with lasting connections.

Many people befriend the delegates, chairs, and

?

?

?T DAY S R I F ? ?? ?

?

?

?

?

admin staffs of their committee. Even after the conference is over, they stay in touch with people from different countries or schools via social media. Some people even meet the friends they made from previous years of SEOMUN in other conferences or even during the following SEOMUN conferences.

“After the conference ended, the people in our committee added each other on Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms so we could stay in touch,” said Nathan Cho, advocate for ICJ. “The first friend I met from MUN was the delegate of China that sat next to me last year. It is weird how far we have come. This year, I am an advocate for ICJ and he is the technology director of SEOMUN.” When asked what advice they had for other SEOMUN first-timers, many people emphasized the significance of actively participating in the debates or lobbying sessions. “Shy” delegates like Rex Jeon, delegate of Austria, recalled receiving notes from the chairs encouraging them to speak more, which only worsened their anxiety.

“Last year, I was really nervous because it was my first time at any MUN conference,” Rex said.

“SEOMUN might seem scary because it is such a large conference, but try to talk a lot. Do not be scared to propose amendments or address POIs because you learn a lot from mistakes. Get the most you can out of the conference!”

20

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

HSC DELEGATES VETO OPERATIVE CLAUSES

by Sia Cho

On Nov. 25, the Historical Security Council (HSC) gathered once again, this time to debate on the issue of the situation in the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent set in the year 1971. The discussion mainly dealt with topics surrounding the Indo-Pakistani War, which had begun by an armed Bangladeshi revolution in support of self-determination and the 1971 Bangladesh genocide that followed the rebellion. To resolve the social, political, and economical issues that arose from the aftermaths of the conflicts, the delegates of the HSC developed solutions from different perspectives. As a main submitter, Robin Yoon, the delegate of Pakistan, proposed his resolution with three major clauses that attempted to promote justice and unification.

“Through the three main points outlined in this resolution, all nations involved within this conflict will settle on the terms of peaceful negotiation,” said Robin Yoon, delegate of Pakistan. “First of all, Pakistan calls for all member nations to recognize the Bangladesh government as an insurgency that has taken illegitimate control over the Pakistani provincial state of East Pakistan.”

A few other delegates agreed with the argument that Bangladesh’s independence was unjustified because of the fact that the country had not been adhering to the international law. However, others took to asserting that the sub-clauses proposed solutions that were morally unjust and inadequate in relieving the tensions between the two countries.

“The clause only calls for the further oppression of the Bangladeshi people,” said Rosa Beek, delegate of Italy. “Not only will halting trade economically destroy Bangladesh, but both sub-clauses a and b strive to use aggression and force to starve Bangladesh into joining the government with pacts that lead to an unbalance in power.”

Following the unsuccessful proposal clause 1, as well as clause 2, which introduced measures to establish clear borders between Pakistan and India, clause 3 also failed to garner support from delegates of the United Kingdom (UK) and the Soviet Union (USSR), which resulted in a vote for vetoes. Despite the fact that a majority of delegates supported the three clauses, the HSC was left devoid of any passed operative clauses because they were all vetoed.

“Although the second clause attempts to solve the situation by militarizing the border, in reality, the delegates wanted to demilitarize the situation,” said James Somerville, delegate of USSR. “Additionally, the third clause is mainly based upon the goodwill of the Pakistani, which cannot be trusted by the member nations, and was also vetoed on the premise that it encouraged eventual reunification.”

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

21

SECURITY COUNCIL DEBATES TO REVISIT THE PAST

by Yoo Bin Shin With the abundance of natural resources that the region offers, the South China Sea is at the center of an ongoing territorial claim of nations including China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines. To halt such growing international tension and militarization of the disputed waters, on Nov. 25 the Security Council (SC) began their debates on resolving the situation in the South China Sea. In an attempt to prove that the islands in the South China Sea are not exclusive to China, Alexis Lee, delegate of Japan, submitted a clause which called upon the council to revisit the San Francisco Treaty—specifically Article 2 that elucidates the ownership of the Japanese Territory—as a legal basis for the resolution of the South China Sea. “The delegate of Japan believes that we must revisit historical documents that contain legal justification for this issue,” Alexis said. “The San Francisco Peace gives self-sovereignty to nations that were once dominated by Japan during the WWII. Now, these lands have been renounced as common commodity. Therefore, it can be justified that China does not have ownership over those islands.”

Despite her efforts to set forth the grounds regarding the legal ownership of the lands of the South China Sea by taking note of a past accord, other delegates pointed out the treaty’s ineffectiveness as well as its antagonistic intentions. Reckoned unaccountable at resolving the issue of maritime dispute at hand, the clause was open to criticism.

“The treaty is merely a composition of continued attempts of the United States to gain dominance in Asia,” Ali Siddiqi, delegate of Venezuela, said. “We cannot be promoting a biased treaty blatantly towards a single country’s border interest. We are not here to promote imperialistic values. We are here to remediate talks so

countries can fairly gain access to the islands of the South China Sea. We are here to demilitarize the island as a whole.”

Recognizing the clause’s inconsistency with the objective of the SC along with the mutual goal of the United Nations, Jay Jang, delegate of New Zealand, took the podium to disapprove of the fundamental essence of the clause.

“The delegate is not going to voice his opinion on whether the treaty is imperialist or biased,” Jay said. “He will focus on the nature of this clause. This clause is asking for the SC to consider San Francisco Treaty as the legal basis. He believes that such is not the duty of the SC, rather it is the duty of the international court. The SC can ask the court to consider a certain case, but it cannot ask the court to give more weight to certain evidences.”

Although attempting to unravel an aspect of ownership of the South China Sea islands, the clause was deemed inadequate, failing to garner support. With 2 votes for, 5 against, and 8 abstentions, the clause was not passed.

22

S e o ul i t e 2 0 1 6

ADVISORY PANEL DEFENDS SAFETY OF FIELD WORKERS

by Fiona Cho

The first clause presented on the second day of debates called upon the help of a data collection program that would report information about the Syrian conflict to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Security Council.

Specifically, the clause aimed to collect information dealing with the efficacy of aid, analyze current humanitarian efforts, and search for alternative routes that vehicles carrying supplies would go through.

“The data collection program has been used in the past, and it can have many different focuses and perspectives,” said Andrew Ham, advisor of USA. “What mine prioritized was something that was not present in prior resolutions— searching for alternate routes that vehicles with supplies can travel across and analyzing already existing humanitarian aid efforts, just to name a few.”

The United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) has been active in various fields for quite a while, providing statistics about war and trade. However, the advisors agreed that Andrew’s clause was still necessary in order for the UN to full participate in administering humanitarian aid in Syria. In particular, advisors emphasized the importance of sub clause c, securing transportation routes across Syria so that vehicles and field workers could travel safely across.

“I do think that it was a fairly good clause for the resolution,” said Paya Hosseini, advisor of Lebanon.

“It may have been a little bit too specific, but in the end, I would

have still voted for the clause because it addressed a really important issue. The safety of the people working there need to be guaranteed, and the clause made a good attempt to do that.

On the other hand, the advisor of Russia proposed an amendment regarding sub clause c, insisting for more details to be added about the safety of field workers.

He expressed concern regarding the field workers’ safety, explaining that the original clause lacked enough detail about this subject.

“The advisor of Russia believes that the original clause does not firmly ensure the safety of field workers and officials collecting data in Syria,” said Sora Kanosue, advisor of Russian Federation. “There should be more precautions taken before

simply sending the workers off to these routes. It is unlikely that they will not face harm and thus, it is our duty to try our best to observe these areas before they travel to Syria.”

The amendment was passed without much opposition, receiving eight votes for and three against. Upon hearing Sora’s speech, the advisors realized that the original sub clause lacked the details it needed in order to provide for the safety of field workers, who would have to travel in dangerous routes near the heart of the conflict.

“Sub clause c and d were well-written, but they lacked some important details,” said Irene Kim, advisor of Italy. “I think the advisor of Russia meant to clarify the details that the advisor of USA missed, and I feel like it was a good addition to the clause overall. If Russia had not brought those details to attention, the safety of the workers would not have been protected effectively.”

Ultimately, the clause also passed, taking in a total of six votes for, two against, and three abstentions.

The results confirmed the advisors’ concerns about the safety of foreign field workers in Syria.

Se ouli t e 2 0 1 6

23

RESOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PASSSED WITH MAJORITY VOTE

by Yejune Park

Debating upon a resolution, Environmental Commission focused on wastewater treatment and the ways to ensure that the treatment would be beneficial to biodiversity such as creating innovative alternatives to fossil fuel plastics and preventing pollution from large vessels. Delegates published reports on factors such as the washing of synthetic textiles and reuse of plastic. Some alternatives that were proposed were to have bio plastics and improve sewage treatment.

Many delegates voted for this resolution because they deemed it efficient in solving the issue of desertification and land degradation in Asia, with detailed clauses that covered a wide range of aspects such as government transparency, education systems, and the enforcement of ratified treaties.

Not only did the resolution create new policies, but it also strengthened existing international laws through incentives and engagement with member states.

“I believe that this resolution can be a future improvement to the oceans and marine diversity,” said Jiyeon Kim, delegate of Iraq. “While making sure it pertains to all the individual characteristics of all member states, the resolution can also help the oceans by introducing new regulations and

technologies such as bio plastics in the future.”

Despite the support that the resolution received, some delegates objected to this resolution. While they believed the resolution was comprehensive and had the correct approach, they claimed that some details that were not feasible. For example, the plan on using food crops for bio plastic research would have large economic impacts on the national governments according to Peter Lee, delegate of Netherlands. Moreover, according to these delegates, the fact that most countries did not have the technology to use bio plastics made this resolution ineffective.

“Although I am in favor of most of the clauses in this resolution, the resolution lacks clauses that supports less economically developed countries (LEDCs) in contributing to the action of reducing plastic debris in the ocean,” said Hyerin Yun, delegate of Brazil. “Once there is a clause that deals with non governmental organizations, resolution will be much more helpful and practical. In essence, I will then be in full support of the resolution.”

In the end, despite the controversy that it garnered, the resolution passed with nine votes for, five against, and four abstentions.

S e ou lite Novemb er 2016 Iss ue #2

You can access the colored copies of our issues electronically at: https://issuu.com/seoulite2016-2017/docs/seoulite_2016_issue__1