Banning Nuclear Weapons
The world has been waiting for seventy years for a legally binding international agreement on banning nuclear weapons. On the 7th of July 2017, the United Nations passed the first treaty on banning nuclear weapons, in response to the nuclear threats that cause global insecurity and political instability. However, fighting for a nuclear-free world does not end with a simple treaty, especially since the most powerful Member States that have nuclear weapons are either against the resolution or just do not want to join the conversation, enhancing that North Korea poses a constant threat in what concerns a nuclear war.
Further actions must be taken in order to control the power of nuclear weapons, and the discussion on this topic within UN and outside UN still raises controversy by the countries that allow and promote the usage or the possession of nuclear weapons.
Confronted with a world we cannot change, men and women adapt their behaviour to the real world, but the turning points in history have come from efforts of those visionaries who set themselves to change the world instead.
It is time we made the transition from a world in which the role of nuclear weapons is seen as vital for maintaining national and international security, to one where it becomes progressively marginal and eventually unnecessary.
Keep in mind the following questions:
- Why should only a few powerful countries have nuclear weapons? How does this position of superiority influence politics and international security?
- As long as nuclear weapons exist, won’t there be a chance for them to be used one day again by design, accident or miscalculation?
- How can these countries give up on possessing and testing nuclear weapons?
Fighting against racism and preventing political division
Racism has been an international problem since the beginning of the modern society and the ways in which this matter can and should be fought against is a topic of high importance.
While some people believe that countries with a high rate of racist events during history (e.g. the USA with African American population or Germany with Jews) have a moral duty to compensate with measure of support and encouragement, others are convinced that positive discrimination is just as bad and its only effect is to attract more hatred.
Despite the fact that it is a country built and raised by immigrants the, United States have a long history in dealing with racism, especially when we talk about African American people. After decades of slavery, the situation turned contrary. Being extremely advantaged by protection measures and laws, Afro-Americans aroused a feeling of saturation among the population. Fighting for equality turned, in this case, into becoming a privileged class. The recent attacks in Charlottesville only sent a signal about the ways in which “the country of all possibilities” manages egalitarianism between races in a global context which encourages countries to liberty, freedom of movement, integration and globalization.
Not only has racism always posed a threat to national security, respecting the human rights of individuals and social cohesion, but it is also one of the main reasons for fueling terrorist attacks all over the world, leading towards a destructive world, in which national values and the fight for equality is ruined by hatred and lack of morals.
It is high time people understood that the harm is already done and we cannot compensate it by damaging the future. What the political committee will try to do in the debate is to create a balance between equality and the ways of upholding disadvantaged population segments without deepening the gap even more.
Keep in mind the following questions:
- How can Member States prevent the rise of racism, not only in war zones but also in countries that consider themselves the pillars of democracy?
- How can Member States prevent terrorist attacks without fueling racism even more and without this leading to a further social and political division?
- What should be the say of politicians and political organs, both national and international, with regard to racism? Should outside sources intervene in national problems regarding racism?
- How can we draw the line between hateful speech and freedom of speech when the latter is considered to be the most important aspect in the modern society, an aspect most societies are supporting and trying to achieve?