Nuclear Negotiations: How Do These Blocs Differ?

Working papers are underway in the International Atomic Energy Agency as three distinct blocs are currently deliberating the topic of Iran Nuclear Negotiations, 2013-2015. As I spoke with the delegation of Ghana, I came to a better understanding of the subtle differences between the three working papers.

One bloc includes the Ghana, UK, France, and Belgium, and this group in particular is mostly concentrated upon humanitarian and agricultural sanctions rather than economic ones. Ghana in particular believes that Iran should fund the production of nuclear energy and in turn decrease its reliance upon oil. The bloc requests full transparency from Iran regarding its nuclear facilities along with the implication of regulated inspections, both planned and spontaneous.

This bloc also addressed the concern of the disposal of nuclear waste, and according to Ghana plans to coordinate a “multi-lateral international organization” to regulate waste within a single facility.

The second bloc includes the  USA and the Democratic Republic of the Congo and claims that military intervention may be the best method to force Iran to comply with international agreements.

The third and final bloc is driven forward by Germany and Argentina. Their working paper has been criticized for proposing too many international organizations to regulate nuclear negotiations in Iran’s region, resulting in a lack of funding for each. The bloc persistently argues that a number of organizations working together will provide a “safety net” in the case of a potential crisis.

All in all the various delegations of the committee are working to comprise their differing ideas into coherent, negotiable ones in order to benefit the majority. “To ensure global peace, the Iran nuclear negotiations must loosen sanctions based on sectors,” says the delegation of Ghana, “and use an international task force to dispose of nuclear waste, as well as develop thorough forms of supervision.” This task force could present a new gathering of international powers which just might bring an agreement to the committee and their differing perspectives.

 

Advertisements

Caution: Potential Hazard

The International Atomic Energy Agency was struck with a crisis when the nuclear reactor between the borders of Germany and France had a meltdown. This threatens the populations of both nations and possibly more if not contained soon. With the risk of a potential hazard and Iran’s nuclear threat, will the committee be able to come to a consensus and prevent future peril?

This is the Problem with U.N.

Editorial

By Komsomolskaya Pravda Editorial Board

This is a Pravda Opinion Piece.

These pages have long argued that the U.N. has, over time, become a bureaucratic and pedantic organization serving no one but the elites. This year’s Economic and Social Council sessions have proven that to be true.

Take the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for example. They jumped straight into the discussion of the Iran Nuclear Deal, with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and several Security Council resolutions as foundation, to pave the road for the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Iran. Think that’s what they did? Psych! They turned on the committee’s full-on attack mode. “Bomb Iran” Agency would have been a more accurate name. The delegates themselves are also a mess, to the point that the presiding officer had to vocally ban profanity and personal attacks in notes. To make the situation even worse — Iran isn’t even allowed to participate in the committee, not even as an observer! As of the time of publication, no Iranian government representative has spoken or written to IAEA. How can the committee allow this! How can the delegates tolerate this! President Trump of the United States, a vocal opponent of the U.N. establishment, was able to somehow make a cameo appearance, while Iran has been denigrated to a position inferior to that of a criminal — at least a criminal has the right of due process and representation.

The western capitalist giants are so arrogant and superfluous that they don’t even realize their own mistakes. In the Committee on Narcotic Drugs, it is left to the delegate from Botswana to point out the deficiency in the documents such as the unreliability of some so-called non-governmental organizations, the issue of funding, and the lack of specificity. Believe it or not, the Economic and Social Council even has a permanent body called the Office of Outer Space Affairs. Having immense power and political support, the committee is exclusively designed to debate about “out of the world” issues while ignoring problems in the real world. In addition, the Office of Outer Space Affairs overrides countries’ sovereign right and authority over their own space program, and will lead to nothing but a massive global tax to fund their wildest dreams.

At its inception, the Economic and Social Council is designed to create friendly discussions and benefit ordinary citizens. It is now straying further away from its purposes. Enshrined in the U.N. charter is the expectation to “practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours;” this cannot be achieved without a systematic reform of the U.N. institution and a thorough refreshment of the delegates’ mentality.

IAEA- Iran’s Ambiguous Enrichment Activities

I walked into the IAEA, surprised at the rather un-explosive atmosphere. Working papers being read out and moderated caucuses to discuss them seemed to be the general flow of committee. Occasional comments were made at regular intervals, by the chair, in order to ensure everybody got a chance to speak.

Working paper 2 was introduced. A 20 minute moderated caucus to discuss it clause by clause, or as it appeared, flaws by flaws, followed. Emphatic speeches were made by France, Botswana and Sweden. Everyone in committee seemed to be discussing  two primary premises- the sanction specifics and uranium enrichment levels. Honduras felt that 8000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment were ridiculous and more than sufficient for nuclear weapon development. France felt that a 20% enrichment allowance, as mentioned in Working Paper 2, was too high and uranium enriched to 4% was sufficient for energy generation. Botswana felt that the sanctions proposed by Working paper 2 were highly generalized into three categories- short, middle and long termed- and needed detailed time constraints to be comprehensive.

Finally, the Portuguese delegation seemed to have captured the essence of the committee in their plan: DMD. “DMD stands for Defense Maintenance and Deterrence. It essentially follows the principles centered around sanction relief, confidence building measures and uranium enrichment levels.” explained Portugal.

I left in a rush, a little apprehensive about how committee would advance in the days to come. I hope that the IAEA comes up with a comprehensive solution to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiations.

 

 

Welcome to HMUN 2017!

The Press Corps Staff welcomes you to HMUN 2017.